BastionofthePants's page

Recently, all my Paizo PDFs (which I *did* purchase) are password locked and cannot be edited. This makes it impossible to do things like fill out a chronicle sheet or make notes prior to game time.

If I even try to PRINT these pdfs onto physical paper, it scatters the text into what looks like wingdings.

Is this new? Am I supposed to know the password for the pdf? Is there some other method of downloading editable (or at least printable) versions of these scenarios? Can we at least get a printable version of the handouts and chronicles? I'm having to screencap them and then print a *really* fuzzy version right now...

With regards to the "there are no Duskwalker weapons," two things occur to me:

1) The feat makes it pretty clear that the "culture" whose weapons they learn to wield is the Vanths, whom the Duskwalker in question would have lived/trained with in the Boneyard prior to being reborn.

2) The lack of an additional group of weapons will, at most, further nerf the feat. This is probably offset by the fact that it already gives you a pretty good range of weapons (bows, scythes, staves) but doesn't actually address why Duskwalkers (and gnolls, apparently) get an objectively inferior version of heritage weaponry. I guess I'm curious about whether it was deliberate or just two different writers with different opinions about what is "fair." Or maybe even a writer who was referring to an outdated design document from earlier in the development cycle.

I noticed that every ancestry feat that grants weapon familiarity allows them to treat advanced weapons as martial and martial as simple, for the purposes of calculating proficiency. All of them except the Duskwalker's Vanth Weapon Familiarity.

Unlike every other ancestral weapon feat in the game, Vanth Weapon Familiarity only makes you trained in its weapons, and requires a lvl 13 ancestry feat to raise that to Expert.

Was there a reason for nerfing the feat, or was it just a typo? Any chance of an errata?

I have both a specific question and a more general one. Generally speaking, where can I look up the artwork credits for specific pictures. For example, Balenni the Succubus has become a major figure in my campaign, and I'd like to know which artist drew her and look at some of their other work for inspiration.

The book lists art credits, but it doesn't tell me specifically who drew what.

When I had her show back up in the latter portions of the campaign, I built her CR12 statblock using the Lich as a template. I kept its Spell DCs, swapped out its arcane spells for Occult ones, its undead abilities for the succubus abilities, and altered the Aura of Seduction to no longer be reliant on sexual attraction, including anyone not immune to Emotion effects; justifitcation of the latter being that her aura fills the mind with notions of whatever they desire (treasure, fine wine, knowledge, etc) and then causes them to instinctively associate her with that thing. I also gave her all the resonant reflections, as she's been pursuing them as well and has the support of Sarvel's army.

The other thing I did, which probably would have justified calling her a CR 13 or 14 despite the rest of her statblock, is I had her study the PCs. She attended shows, interrogated survivors, and even fought the PCs directly on two prior occasions. Based on this, I assumed she had extensive knowledge of their abilities, and prepared a suite of spells and tactics specifically designed to frustrate them. Spiritual Anamnesis for the Duskwalker, Curse of Lost Ages for Inventor's Construct, Energy Resistance for the lightning-happy druid, and so on.

At this point, after becoming such an important character, I'm committed to never softballing her. I aim for a "very unfair but still winnable" encounter every time, then balance that by having her prioritizing running away whenever she doesn't feel highly confident of her victory.

Name of PC: Fenix-Ia
Class/Level: Lvl 11 Bard (Champion and Barbarian Archetypes)
Adventure: Life's Long Shadows
Catalyst: Balenni the Greater Succubus
Story:

Fenix-Ia worshipped Arshea, the the Spirit of Abandon. Physical passion and freedom are at the center of Arshea's domain; and Balenni the succubus delights in corrupting the former by robbing her victims of the latter, using trickery, lies, and mind-altering magics. Nothing could be more antithetical to Fenix-Ia's worldview. Always a passionate woman, Fenix-Ia was no stranger to anger. But after briefly falling under Balenni's power in book 1, Fenix-Ia came to understand what it meant to hate. That hatred grew so great that, when encountering her for the third time at level 11, Fenix-Ia threw herself down a 200-foot chasm in a bid to strike at her hated enemy. The gambit was successful, as she grappled the succubus in mid-air and bore her to the stone ground below. This very nearly killed Balenni, but she had just enough hp left to get off a Dominate, which Fenix-Ia critically failed. "Take me away from this place, my love" she begged, and Fenix-Ia stood, scooped Balenni up like a newlywed, and began dashing out of the temple, with her minions blocking pursuit long enough to make catching them impossible.

Fenix-Ia still draws breath, but she will likely never know freedom again...

Gonna throw my two cents in here on something:

P. 253, Eidolon Trait: "An item with this trait can be worn by an eidolon." This language is *not* limited to magical items, and that suggests that the intention was to keep the eidolon from having items at all.

To allow our eidolon to wear a bandolier of tools, or even a backpack that they might retrieve tools from, you must choose to completely ignore this text, which steps *firmly* into houserule territory. You could *maybe* try and rules-lawyer your way into saying that your eidolon is simply carrying these tools in their hands at all times, but that argument feels very thin to me, especially since it specifically punishes and rewards flavor decisions like having your eidolon be a giant snake or multi-armed monstrosity.

That said, the very fact that this many of us disagree is probably a good case on its own for Paizo to weigh in with some errata that clarifis the wording of the Eidolon trait.

On page 57, in the Summoner class Description, it states the following with respect to the Eidolon tag:Eidolon: A creature with this trait is an eidolon. An action or spell with this trait can be performed by an eidolon only. An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, AND AN EIDOLON CAN'T USE ITEMS THAT DON'T HAVE THIS TRAIT. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)" Emphasis mine, of course. This text would imply that an eidolon cannot use a potion, thieve's tools, or other mundane items.

What it says on Page 253: "eidolon (trait) A creature with this trait is a summoner’s eidolon. An item with this trait can be worn by an eidolon. An eidolon can have up to two items invested. 58–66." There is no language here barring an eidolon from using tools like a healer's kit. But there is no language specifically saying they CAN use them, either.

As written, the specific from page 57 would overrule the general from page 253. But the inconsistency is odd, and I can't help but wonder if one of these two bits of text has a misprint?

On Page 57, it states (in reference to the Eidolon trait) that "an eidolon can't use items without this trait." However, this language is missing from the Eidolon Trait on p. 253.

Clarification from Paizo in an errata would be nice, but taken strictly as written, it seems that no, your eidolon cannot use tools.

Is there a reason that we can't have an unmarked PDF of maps A, D, and E?

We can at least buy B and C as a flipmat, but for those of us trying to run on Roll20 it's really frustrating to be unable to get a clean copy of the map.

If I cast Elemental Betrayal (https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=797) and choose the Fire trait, the spell can now deal fire damage. Does that cause the spell itself to gain the Fire trait?

For example, after using Elemental Betrayal (fire) could I then use the Conduct Energy ability (https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=704), which requires me to have just cast a spell with an elemental trait to it?

And you're stuck w/ an Alchemist in the party.
Seriously, Alchemists have the ability to nudge the power curve in ways that are difficult or very expensive for other PCs to do. Yet otherwise they're inferior to having a more bread-n'-butter PC on the team. So in a way that balances; that sort of augmentation is the Alchemist's niche (and possibly their ability to improvise).

I think you underestimate the alchemist's ability to be viable in combat. Granted, it takes a bit of work and they usually shake out to be a bit weaker than a martial striker, but alchemists can be quite effective if you build them right.

Ancient Elf with Ranger or Archer archetypes are especially powerful. Xbow Ace + Alchemical Xbow + Gravity Weapon + Perpetual Poisons mean I do 2d10+6+poison with my simple crossbow. Sure, the barbarian and fighter hit more often and harder, but my damage output is still respectable, on top of the force multiplier I get to hand out.

A followup to the previous question, with the open acknowledgment that I'm stepping FIRMLY into "absurd cheese" territory. I'd never allow it as a GM in a home game, and I'd never ask for it in a Society game. I'm just not certain if I'd be within my rights to ban it as a DM in a Society game.

If the poisons *technically* last until exposure, then couldn't an alchemist (of any research field) just prepare a bunch of high level poison, apply it to arrows, and then rest to recover infusions? Is there a RAW safeguard in place that prevents this?

Again, this scenario definitely take us from "does this work?" to "this needs to not work, is there a rule in place to make sure it doesn't."

There definitely wasn't an intention to limit these items to precious material weapons. A wooden or standard metal weapon would effectively have a precious material type of "none."

If it was cold iron, it is now silver instead. If it was regular wood, it is now silver instead of nothing.

When a poison is "used" by applying the poison to a weapon or poisoning food, the item is destroyed. For Quick Alchemy, this would seem to imply that you could Quick Alchemy a poison and apply it to a weapon.

However, for a toxicologist, this would imply that Perpetual Potency permits an alchemist to poison *every* piece of gear the party has in between battles. Now I love being able to do that as a toxicologist, but I have to admit... it feels a little OP. Is there (or should there be) some limitation on using perpetual potency to mass-apply poisons?

Strictly speaking, the poison occurs at the initiative count on which it occurred. Poison is not considered "persistent damage" and therefore does not follow the same set of rules.

The initial save happens upon exposure (during the poisoner's turn) and the damage happens immediately, unless there is an onset time. In virtually all combat-relative poisons, the saves are once per round, which mean it happens again precisely one round later.

Practically speaking, this will usually mean the save and damage occur during the Poisoner's Turn. But if the poisoner's initiative changes, the poison's initiative does not.

As a toxicologist who uses a lot of poisons, I consider it my own responsibility to call out poison saves at the start of my turn, or at the appropriate initiative count as needed.

The Gibbering Mouther's stat block states that its Engulf ability is only 1 action. Every other creature with Engulf needs 2 actions to use it.

Is it possible that this is a typo, and that the writers meant to either list it as a 2-action ability or that they meant for it to be Swallow Whole instead of Engulf?

For reference, Engulf allows a creature to stride twice its speed and attempt to swallow any creatures in their path. It's way too powerful for a single action ability

Alchemical items made with quick alchemy lose their potency at the end of the turn. If, before the end of the turn, you load them into an alchemical crossbow, would they be "used" at that point?

For reference: "As an action, you can load a single lesser alchemical bomb into the bracket; this bomb must be one that deals energy damage (such as an acid flask, alchemist’s fire, bottled lightning, frost vial, or thunderstone). The next three attacks made with the crossbow deal 1d6 damage of the bomb’s damage type in addition to the crossbow’s normal damage. If the second and third attacks are not all made within 1 minute of the first attack, the bomb’s energy is wasted. "

I'm particularly wondering if perpetual potency would allow a bomber to keep the bow loaded, since you *can't* load your higher-level bombs into the crossbow.

"The focused power of your flurry threatens to overwhelm your opponent. When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, you can try to stun the creature. If either Strike hits and deals damage, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 1 (or stunned 3 on a critical failure). This is an incapacitation effect."

Is there a reason that the ability doesn't just have the incapacitate tag?

(For Reference: The Incapacitate Tag means that creatures with a CR above your level (or above twice the spell level) automatically get a save one tier better than what they actually roll. It is meant to prevent you from incapacitating especially challenging enemies with a single save-or-suck effect)

The feat is almost entirely pointless that way. I agree that you're right per RAW but I wish they would errata it.

When a toxicologist's uses their perpetual infusion to craft a poison. Does it...

1) Lost its potency at the end of the turn, unless they managed to poison an enemy with it

or

2) Lose its potency at the end of the turn unless they "activate" it by applying it to a weapon?

If 2, then is there any rule that could stop a toxicologist from poisoning every weapon in the party, and isn't that a little overpowered? And wouldn't it kinda slow the game down with all those fort saves?

If 1, then wouldn't the perpetual infusion ability be nigh-unusable due to the action economy? You'd literally have to start your turn in melee range, risk an AOO applying the poison, and spend all 3 of your actions crafting, applying, and stabbing. You'd be burning all 3 actions and risking AOO just to add a low-level poison that would probably do less damage than simply attacking again.

Quick Alchemy items become "inert" at the end of your turn. However, if they are used before then, their effects will linger. Antidotes continue to provide their buffs, bombs continue to provide their perpetual damage, and mutagens don't suddenly wear off.

So how about poisons? Do they only need to be applied to a weapon or mixed into a drink before the end of the round, or do they lose their potency if you don't actually inflict the poison on an enemy by the end of your turn.

In the latter case, then it would seem that toxicologists effectively get *nothing* at level 7. At best, they could spend all 3 actions to make a single strike that potentially deals an extra 1d6 damage on a failed fort save, and even then they can only do that while using a one-handed melee weapon, nothing in their off-hand, and only if they start the turn in melee range of an enemy. The odds of that being even remotely useful are almost nonexistent.

On the other hand, if alchemists only need to apply the poison by the end of the round, that would seem as if a lvl 7 toxicologist could poison all the weapons a party carries in between fights. That's not *too* overpowered, since the lvl 1 poisons don't do much damage, but it still feels like more power than the toxicologist was supposed to have at level 7.

Yes. It's in the FAQ. That's... why I wrote "as cofirmed by the FAQ."

https://paizo.com/starfinder/faq

Wow, dunno how I missed that.

Yeah, I'd say you're right. That establishes pretty solid precedent.

And thanks everyone. Now I can have a good response if this ever comes up at a table I'm GMing.

No.

If the solar shield, which always changes all damage to the crystals's type always target's KAC, as confirmed by the FAQ, that's more than enough precedent to day that this solar weapon also still targets KAC.

I'm unfamiliar with this ruling. Was there an errata or FAQ that establishes that the shield only targets KAC?

I do not believe an Apocalypse Crystal allows the weapon to target EAC, no.

I don't think there's a loophole to be taken advantage of, so number 2 is also no.

Curious about how # 2 is a no. The rule in # 1 IS an actual rule, and would presumably apply in any instance that didn't establish a specific exception. And it is supported by the fact that so many abilities that change weapon types specifically say "this does not target EAC despite..."

The existence of rule # 1 establishes rule # 2 automatically. # 1 is the general rule, #2 is just the fact that there are some cases where specific overrules general. Which makes the question "do we have a specific to overrule the general in the case of the apocalypse crystal?"

So here's what I can find in the rules:

1) Generally, an attack targets EAC or KAC depending on the damage it does

2) Specifically, most things that would change a weapon's damage type, such as a fusion, don't allow a weapon to target EAC. BUT this is only the case because they are *specific* exceptions to the rule.

3) One such exception is that "Even if a solarian weapon crystal’s EXTRA DAMAGE is a type of energy damage, attacks with the solar weapon still target KAC, not EAC." Emphasis mine.

4) An apocalypse crystal causes ALL damage not just extra damage) from a solarian weapon to be treated as a force effect.

5) " Force weapons deal kinetic damage but still target EAC."

So here are 2 questions:

First, would it be technically correct to say that there is no specific exception that stops the apocalypse crystal from invoking rules 1 and 5 above?

Secondly, even if one answers yes to the first question, is this such an obvious deviation from RAI that even in a Society or Con game a player should still not be allowed to take advantage of the loophole?

When an operative takes the Shuriken Assassin Exploit, the text specifically says "you can trick attack with this weapon." It does not, however, make the weapon into a small arm or operative weapon. So wouldn't you still add full level to damage with Weapon Specialization?

Although the weapon gets treated as having the operative quality for the purpose of "melee attack rolls," I am not seeing how that wording adds the operative quality to melee DAMAGE rolls, or to ranged/thrown rolls of any kind...

At later levels, this would still leave the shuriken as a basically-free-but-slightly-weaker weapon than most available small arms and operative melee options, in addition to its range and fusion limitations. So it feels like the more balanced way of ruling it as well as the proper RAW approach. Am I wrong?

When a weapon gains any type of elemental damage, like fire, the entire attack gains the Fire trait. So let's say a +1 Striking Greatsowrd has the Flaming Rune.

If a creature has "Immunities: Fire" or "Resiste Fire 10," would either of those abilities be affected by the Fire trait of the attack, or would they exclusively apply to the 1d6 of extra fire damage added by the Flaming Rune?

When a weapon gains any type of elemental damage, like fire, the entire attack gains the Fire trait. So let's say a +1 Striking Greatsowrd has the Flaming Rune.

If a creature has "Immunities: Fire" or "Resiste Fire 10," would either of those abilities be affected by the Fire trait of the attack, or would they exclusively apply to the 1d6 of extra fire damage added by the Flaming Rune?

So I only just learned that you're not letting high-tiers go after Datch. Gotta say... I'm truly saddened by this decision.

I feel genuinely trolled. My two main characters went through an entire season of build-up just to learn that neither of them get to take part in the season's big finale. Throughout the entirety of year two we got taunted and mocked by Datch, and I kept excitedly waiting for the big finale when they could finally take her down. And now Datch's final, ultimate troll comes in the form of those characters, who have all that history with her, don't get to be part of the mission to end her grand scheme.

I have been looking forward to having my character take her out all year, but now I learn that I won't get to unless I make a lvl 1 character for Gencon, and it won't be the same character that has all that history with her.

It leaves the kind of sour taste in my mouth that makes the entire storyline kind of... not fun.

I think it's definitely not right to let it give you quickdraw bombs, since that requires an alchemist feat. What would be the point of the feat if 1sp could replicate its ability?

Letting you draw a few small items without digging through a backpack (lowering it from 2 actions to 1) seems appropriate. Quickdrawing equipment otherwise should require more than 1 silver.

If you haven't fired it yet, it should already be loaded.

The unanimous opinion at my Pathfinder lodge is that you cannot have a loaded crossbow stowed or holstered. That definitely won't be an option for me when playing in Society.

It's funny. The opinion at our society is pretty unanimously that you *cannot* have a crossbow loaded while you aren't wielding it, because of how absurd it would be. Because the bolt would fall out, the crossbow would go off, etc.

So the Quickdraw Feat specificaly allows you to draw and fire a weapon with one action. But since you can't fire until after you reload, does that mean you can't quickdraw crossbows at all? Or is there some way to perform the reload before you finish the quickdraw?

So the Quickdraw Feat specificaly allows you to draw and fire a weapon with one action. But since you can't fire until after you reload, does that mean you can't quickdraw crossbows at all? Or is there some way to perform the reload before you finish the quickdraw?

1) the lead required to hide the magical rune/sigil/whatever portion of the trap would be negligible. A few copper, and easily assumed to be part of the cost of the trap. Certainly not expensive enough to impact its CR

2) If a trap requires a perception check to detect, then it is hidden.

3) A trap is not hidden if you do not put the sigil/rune/whatever behind a few coppers worth of lead.

4) If RAW says a trap is hidden, then tjhe trap is hidden from detect magic. No houserule required.

Very rare exceptions could be made for magical traps that somehow occurred naturally and were not placed/made/hidden by a creature with any intelligence or intentions.

I can see that no two PCs can fill the same non-performer role in a circus act, but how many different roles can a single PC fill?

Can a single PC be both a security guard and an extra clown, or can they fill only one role?

My level 2 mystic permadied on this scenario. And took 18 months worth of Dead Suns chronicles to the grave with her.

I don't blame the author or anything, but this may be the scenario that got me to stop playing in Society for a while...

EDIT: I'm also super curious as to what scenario you died in at level 2. I've only encountered one tier 1-4 scenario that was deadly, so I'm curious if it's the one I already knew about or what happened.

Bluerise Breakout. To be fair, I probably would have survived if I had played a little smarter. Or if the GM hadn't rolled a crit when I had only 3 hp left.

I'd have gotten over it by now if I didn't just lose a year's worth of chronicles without ever getting even getting to play a character who had applied them.

OK I guess I should be more clear about the specific situation, so let me try again:

For 18 months, I GM'd Dead Suns. We're about to wrap up book 4. We were playing Campaign mode. All of those chronicles are applied to character # 3.

Now, unaware of that rule on p 12, I brought character # 3 to a Society game, at lvl 2, where she died. Taking all 18-months worth of my Dead Suns chronicles to the grave with her. Because she was only lvl 2, she didn't have access to any of the fame or money on those chronicles, and therefore couldn't get raised.

So basically, I'm desperate for a *legal* way to not just lose all of those chronicles before I even get to apply them. Honestly, it feels needlessly mean-spirited to force a player to apply a chronicle to a dead character. It takes a lot away from the player without really improving the game in any meaningful way.

So here's the question: was it legal for me to bring Character # 3 to a Society event when I was mid-adventure. If not, would an acceptable resolution be to adjust the unapplied chronicles (Chronicles 2-4) and apply them to character # 4.

Does that make sense, or is my brain just stuck in the "Bargaining" phase of the grieving process?

The character with that number is restricted from being in 2 adventures at once, so that you don't end up with a weird situation if they die in adventure A while they're in the middle of adventure B.

So that is literally what happened. I was unaware of this rule, and my Dead Suns character (who wraps up book 4 this weekend) just died at lvl 2. I'm trying to figure out how to resolve it.

(Also oops, I meant to post this in the OP section)

Question about the rules for playing in an Adventure Path. On Page 12 of the the Guild Guide, it states that when playing an Adventure Path or other multi-session event, that:

"Until applicable Chronicle sheets are handed out, these characters may not be used in any other Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild event."

I'm a little confused by the wording. Does this mean that we are required to finish the adventure before using that character # as a PC in a Starfinder Society game?

Other question: At what point are GMs and player required to choose which character the chronicle gets applied to? At the beginning of the adventure or the end when chronicles get handed out?

Any word on when this will get sanctioned for SFS?

So Frozen Trove's illicit activities are, mostly, obscured behind intermediaries, shell corporations, and other legal smokescreens.

As I recall, the identity of the main villain in To Conquer the Dragon was not revealed to the PCs. Even if they were identified, Frozen Trove could still disavow their direct involvement.

We still haven't even met the CEO, but I anticipate they'll be a major villain at some point.

I think there is a typo on the chronicle sheet for this book. The Tier 7 Crypt Warden lists its shields as "Medium 100" but it distributes 110 shields across the 4 arcs...

No.

Is that a RAW no, a RAI no, or just a strong recommendation that "no" is the answer that leads to a better game?

So suppose a large creature successfully repositions an enemy, and can now move it 10 feet.

Could it reposition it 10 feet straight up, forcing it to fall 10 feet, take 1d6 damage, and go prone?

Nothing about the item says you LOSE Darkvision. Only that you don't gain it. From a strictly RAW approach, I can't imagine why you would lose darkvision.

From a RAI approach, I don't recall any cases where you lose the functionalities of a limb when it gets augmented. Vesk don't lose their special unarmed attack when replacing their arms, for example.

From a fluff/narrative approach, you *could* argue that replacing your eyes would also remove any special abilities they had, but I don't think you *need* to.

In the old Forgotten Realms days, Infravision MEANT Darkvision. Dwarves and Elves and Duerghar didn't have "darvision," they had "infravision." Somewhere along the line, the writers decided to retcon it as Darkvision. I think the wording on this implant is just here so that players don't confuse Infrared Vision with Darkvision.