Bootstrap Bob, the Bootseller's page

Mythic Resilience and Mythic Resistance, a pair of monster abilities from War of Immortals, bug me a bit. Mythic Resilience feels too punishing, particularly for casters, while Mythic Resistance is the opposite, and is very easy to bypass, to the point it may as well not exist in a mythic game. Here is my stab at trying to balance these two abilities so they are both noticeable in play without being overly punitive.

Mythic Resilience

The rationale here was to retain the spirit of the ability, but spread its effects out, and not make it as punishing for a character who relies on monsters failing saves to contribute. The Mythic Ambusher archetype, for example, winds up with Mythic Resilience in all three saves, meaning it has no weaknesses to exploit; the sub-game that casters are supposed to be able to exploit.
I still wanted the ability to be achievable, however. Now it just eats up more of a proposed monster's budget, and monsters can't have all their saves be mythic.
*That being said, this might necessitate granting a monster more chances to gain ranks of Mythic Resilience for higher levels, I'm not sure; I'd recommend continuing the pattern of one rank every six levels.

Mythic Resistance

The rationale here was almost the opposite; Mythic Resistance is trivially easy to bypass for most mythic parties, meaning it may as well not exist at all for most intents and purposes. This alteration both allows a monster to demonstrate how mythically durable it is by resisting Strike damage, while also not being able to do so indefinitely and turn an otherwise exciting fight into a slog.
*I'm especially interested in suggestions or feedback around Major Mythic Resistance; does it do enough, or too much? Likewise I considered making Mythic Resistance apply to all damage, not just Strike damage, but that also felt like it might be going a bit too far.

A post in a different thread got me thinking, sometimes it's hard to come up with the purposely wrong answers for Dubious Knowledge on the fly. I thought it might be helpful if we came up with a range of ideas to tweak information that DK gives to hopefully reduce that cognitive load a bit.

While specific scenario suggestions are welcome, I suspect that tweaks to existing information are going to be more helpful in the long run. Ideas such as,

For Creatures
1. If a creature is immune/resistant/weak to a specific damage type, swap that damage type.
2. If a creature deals a specific damage type, claim it uses another one.
3. Claim a creature's strongest save is its weakest, or vice-versa, or move each save value over one space to keep a party guessing.
4. If you know other creatures the party will be facing after the current encounter, claim their current encounter has one of those future abilities. Bonus points if the two encounters have similar abilities that use different damage types or saves.
5. Tell your party the creature has different traits than they assume. This option is mostly useful if your party have options for dealing with a specific creature type.

For NPCs
1. Invert a relationship an NPC has to someone else. Tell the party they love someone they actually hate, or despise someone they adore, etc.
2. Invert the NPC's general disposition. A kindly NPC is only kind-seeming and is actually cruel, or a cruel NPC is just gruff, and actually a sweetheart.
3. Exaggerate or downplay an NPC's sphere of influence. A humble shopkeeper is actually the leader of the local merchant's guild, for example.
4. Erroneously connect an NPC to an organization the party should be interacting with. If the party are looking for a cult, for example, claim that there are rumors that a given NPC is a member of said cult.

TL;DR: I like to lean on inverting relationships, powers, and story roles for NPCs and monsters as a quick way of giving out Dubious Knowledge to try and sell the party on what I say being true.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but that's what I have so far. Has anyone else got any helpful, general tips or specific suggestions?

I'm surprised nobody's been talking about this, at least not where I've seen. As of the release of Prey for Death, and I believe the first volume of the Curtain Call AP, we've now got a much clearer picture of what's going on with Gorum, and why He Who Walks in Blood is involved in his death. Originally, I was going to post the answers to the questions in the thread's title, but I'm not sure how much of that we're meant to be sharing. If we're not supposed to share this information then I'm sorry, and please take down this thread, but the implications of what's going on are interesting and thought-provoking ones, and I thought folks might like to muse on them here.

If it is cool that we discuss these developments on the boards, I do still ask that people try to spoiler their posts as much as possible, just so that any casual browsers who are planning on playing in games where this mystery is important aren't accidentally spoiled.

This is an odd question, but I'm hoping someone has suggestions.

The little bits of flash fiction in the Strength of Thousands's various chapters are good, really good, and I love the way they weave through each volume to give them these fable-like feels.

My question is, for anyone who has GMed this AP before, or has read the books, do you have any recommendations for ways I can present this info to my players, preferably diegetically, that won't totally give the game away for surprises later on in the story? As of now they are in Hurricane's Howl, so I could probably find some ways to retroactively give them the stuff from books one and two, and I have an idea for book five, but three, four, and six are currently stumping me.

Any suggestions are appreciated, thanks muchly.

So, after listening to more SF2E discussion from Paizocon,it's looking like the six SF2E classes are going to be each using a different attribute for their key stat, at least initially.

Strength= Solarian
Dexterity= Operative
Constitution= Soldier
Intelligence= Witchwarper
Wisdom= Mystic
Charisma= Envoy

What do folks think of this design? I personally like it. It sends the message that each attribute is important to someone, which I think will be a big help to new players. Less substantially, the symmetry makes my pattern-seeking side happy, which I also like.
I'm not entirely sure it will survive the playtest, the soldier I could see being swapped to strength or getting a flexible stat come the finish, but I sort of hope it does.

Now that Monster Core is out in both physical print and PDF formats, it seems like the right time to start posting issues we may have found to help with its eventual second printing/next errata wave. Here are a couple of issues I've noticed so far.
(Note that I am using the PDF for my page numbers. It's possible these numbers are different in the physical printing.)

p. 28: the aesra has weakness to evil 10, when it should have weakness to unholy 10.
p. 240: the norn's "Follower of Fate" section lists Web as a spell that devotees can cast even though Web hasn't yet appeared in the Remaster.

Those are all I recall seeing so far because I didn't take notes when I should have. Anyone else have any errata candidates to share? Also, please take any discussions of creature abilities to the Rules Forum if possible so we can keep this thread easily skimmable for the devs.

I've been noticing on the last few PDFs I've purchased that none of them have been tagged or marked to make them more screen reader-friendly. I'm not sure exactly when this started happening, I think the first place I spotted it was in Highhelm, but it could have been going on earlier than that.

Does this mean Paizo isn't tagging their PDFs anymore? They're still plenty readable without it, but it was a helpful feature that could sometimes circumvent odd layout issues that trip up my screen reader, and also meant that scrolling past the abridged table of contents, along with my watermark, on every page was a non-issue.

So, we know that PF2E has scrolls--single-use spells, wands--daily extra slots of a fixed spell, and staves--charge pools to use on a flexible number of extra spell slots.
Those cover a fair amount of ground spell-wise, so I'm wondering how folks think spell gems, spellchips, and to some extent spell amps are going to work? Do you think they'll act the same, just renamed, or do you think there is room for more effects in a futuristic spell delivery system?

One niche I'd like to see something like a spellchip or something fill is application of spellshaping to a spell. We have wands that do this already, but you need to stick a fixed spell into the wand beforehand; there isn't, to my knowledge, a consumable that lets you apply a spellshape to a spell of a given level, for example. (Well, I suppose there are spell catalysts, now I think on it.) I also recognize that, even if we did get something new in this arena it might need to be fairly limited, otherwise it might devalue spellshape feats, which have already got pretty stiff competition sometimes.

I'd also like to see something like the inverse of a spell catalyst. Rather than a consumable that grants an effect, you have a permanent item that applies an effect to, say, any spell gem you slot into it. I think synergizing spell-delivering items with other equipment is one area where SF2E can really differentiate itself from its fantasy cousin, and depending on the flavor it could really hammer home the marriage of magic and technology. Something like a spelldrive, a more technomagical kind of wand that can have a shaping chip installed in it to alter the spell it, and only it, can cast, for example.

What other thoughts have folks got?

Sorry if this has been stated somewhere before, but I have been thinking lately about the fact that each apparition has an avatar form to go along with it, and how these are super cool but are only ever going to get to show up for a tiny amount of play. Would it be possible for the animist to instead gain the ability to embody their apparitions sooner, and have those abilities scale up to a full avatar spell at some point? I am not sure if this would take up more or less page space, but my gut says it may take up less space if the scaling of apparition forms could be a bit more standardized across the templates.
I know that this proposal would step on the toes of the apparition that lets you turn into multiple animals, but that apparition would still have a benefit in that you can change your form from round to round while the others can't. Mostly I am putting this idea out there because I want to see what other folks think of it, and to stick it into the heads of the designers if it turns out that people would like that kind of change. I personally think it's a bummer that you have a section of each apparition that doesn't become important until way, way late in a campaign when it's such a cool idea and would be awesome to play with sooner.

While reading Rage of Elements I found the nimbus breath item. Part of the description on how to craft the item reads,

Nimbus breaths can also be

created by capturing clouds on other planes, such as those
found on the Plane of Air or in the highest peaks of Celestia.

Where is Celestia, exactly? I can't seem to find it on the Pathfinder wiki. Is this the new name for Heaven? The name of an extraplanar or material mountain range? If the former, isn't that the same name the Forgotten Realms uses for their heavenly realms?

The Mummy Archetype from Book of the Dead has a feat called Desiccating Inhalation. The text reads,

You draw in the moisture from nearby creatures, draining them dry to heal your wounds. Creatures in a 30-foot cone take 6d8 negative damage, with a basic Reflex save against your class DC. A creature that critically fails this saving throw is also drained 1. As long as at least one creature was damaged by your Desiccating Inhalation, you regain HP equal to your level.

You force your mental anguish outward, projecting it upon those around you. You gain an aura of despair in a 30-foot emanation lasting 5 rounds. A creature that enters or begins its turn in the aura must succeed at a Will save against the higher of your class DC or spell DC or be frightened 1 (frightened 2 on a critical failure). A creature that succeeds at the save is temporarily immune to Mummy's Despair for 10 minutes.

Emphasis mine. My question is, does this mean that Desiccating Inhalation is useless to spellcasters, since they don't have a class DC? Is there a rule about substituting the spell DC for a class DC somewhere I've missed? Or is this likely to be an error in printing?

I was just re-reading through the Playing Undead section of Book of the Dead again, and I just realized ... there isn't any provision made as to whether the undead still have to breathe. They have new hungers, but that specifically covers food and drink. They no longer sleep as such, but that's a different process.

So my question is, do the undead breathe? I want to say no, because duh, but this is rules language, so it's a question worth asking. It's also relevant because PC undead, unlike monster undead, do not have a blanket immunity to inhaled poisons or other airborne attacks.

Also, if undead do have to breathe, does this mean it's possible to suffocate a skeleton, or garrotte a ghost?

I just finished reading my PDF copy of Galactic Magic, and I realized something.
We get a pretty lengthy article on various centers of magical learning in Starfinder, including all of the casting classes, as well as solarians, but we don't get anything about where vanguards are trained, or any vanguard-centric organizations.

Come to think, I'm not sure vanguards are mentioned once throughout the book outside of the section giving them their alternate class features and new abilities.

Am I right in that vanguards were kind of on the back burner, or are there sections I'm missing? I am loving the book either way; this is just a strange discrepancy I wanted to point out.

I really love these bundles of essays that both Tech Revolution and Galactic Magic are employing. I hope we get more going forward. (We probably already did get them in earlier books that I just haven't read all the way through.)

The feat Two-Weapon Fusillade says that you Strike twice with each weapon you are holding, and that one of them must be a loaded crossbow or firearm.

Only, with a relatively few exceptions, crossbows and firearms both require an Interact action to reload them, save for the air repeater and the repeating hand crossbow.

My question is how does this need for an Interact action, well, interact with the feat Two-Weapon Fusillade? Are you able to simply Strike twice with your weapons because the feat says so, or does reloading come into it and limit the number of options you have for using this feat? And if the former, what is the rule that says so?

Thanks.

I figured other Paizo products have got these threads going on, so why not the Adventure line? A place where errors or misprints we may have noticed in the Adventures line can be collected in one place.

I'll begin by noting something relatively minor from the newest adventure, Night of the Gray Death. One of the creatures in the bestiary, the Conqueror Worm, seems to have an error with its defenses. It is both immune to acid, and then has acid resistance 20. (The placement of the resistance and weakness portions of its statblock also seem to be inverted, but that's eh.)
My guess is that it was meant to have resist cold, or possibly poison, 20, both of which it was immune to in its 1E incarnation.

So I really like the Runelord class archetype for wizards, and have been building some in my spare time. I realized something while doing so, though.

There aren't enough cantrips to go around. The wizard class grants specialists an extra cantrip of their specialized school, and then Runelord grants another cantrip of that same school at second level. For some wizards (looking at you, evokers) this isn't a problem, but a few schools are kind of left out in the cold.

Transmutation is alright, though it forces each runelord into taking the same two cantrips, Gouging Claw and Sigil.
Abjuration technically has enough options to fill the two extra cantrip slots, Shield and Protect Companion, but one of those is useless unless the wizard invests in a minion from somewhere.
Conjuration and Necromancy have it the roughest, however. They've only got one cantrip to their name, Tanglefoot and Chill Touch, respectively. Does this mean their Runelord training doesn't grant them another cantrip?

This is a relatively minor issue, all things considered, and I'm guessing we'll get cantrips to fill in the gaps in future, but it still struck me as odd, and something it'd be better to bring to people's attention sooner rather than later.

What happens to a Ghoran who is the focus of a Clone ritual?

Specifically, what happens with their ghorus seed if, say, the Ghoran is cloned, then dies, and plants their seed? My thinking is that their seed would grow into a new Ghoran, while the cloned Ghoran's body would accept their soul and awaken. If that is true, then theoretically Ghorans have a way to save themselves from the looming threat of extinction, assuming they can acquire the funds and magical know-how, or have access to someone who can provide those things.

Personally I think it could even make a fun adventure for a goodly, plant-friendly party.

So I've been thinking on the fact that summon lists require that the summons be Common creatures, but also that a lot of creatures I like for whatever reason are Uncommon, and sometimes Rare. This led me to the idea that it could be possible to hand out access to an Uncommon or Rare creature for summoning to a player, or to ask the GM if it would be possible to take one or to somehow gain access through the game's story.

My question is, are there any really obvious no-no summons that it would be wise to be on the lookout for? Both for myself if/when I run a game and get asked this question, and for anyone else in the same boat. I think it'd be really neat to curate a summon list through adventures and give a player more investment in their character, but I also have flashbacks to the tangle that PF1E summoning can be.

Also, just for fun, are there any creatures for either thematic or mechanical reasons that you'd like to poach as a summon, if possible? Some of the more thematic undead come to mind for me, like demiliches and kurobozu. Summoning clockworks would also be fun times, as would golems, though I know the books specifically advise against those.

So, in PF1E, the Hellknight Test was a one-on-one fight between prospective Hellknights and a devil of equal CR. If you won you were a Hellknight thereafter, and if you lost you weren't in any position to complain about it.

My question is, and sorry if this has been asked before, does The Test work the same in 2E? Monsters with a level equal to yours are considered somewhat difficult, and that's when you have friends. How would you guys handle it; should the levels be matched, or should the candidate be facing lower-level devils?

So I answered a question that had been niggling at me today, or at least I think I did. Why is horacalcum called horacalcum? I thought it was a corruption of orachalcum/orichalcum, the mythical metal from Atlantis. I was reminded of the word horology today, however, which is the study of time and timekeeping, and realized horacalcum is a portmanteau of orachalcum and horology.

I was wondering if anyone had figured out any of the other etymologies for the other sky metals. Adamantine is a word for incredible hardness and an old reference to diamond, for example.

I'd love to learn the thought processes that went into naming the metals, and which are puns or cool-sounding made up words.

Hey guys,

So I'm considering jumping into GMing some PF2E stuff after my current 1E campaign wraps up, and was wondering what sorts of tables and things it'd be a good idea to keep an eye on. I know the DC by level chart will be my friend, or memorizing the formula, but aside from that I'm not sure if there are any rules it'd be a good idea to keep handy.

I'm asking because I'm blind, so things like GM screens and such are less help to me, and I tend to make a slew of notepad docs with the information copied down and jiggered to fit better with how I read stuff.

Pretty much what it says on the tin. A group I am part of were talking about an all rogue game, and that got me interested in rogue builds and characters.

I know that the sword cane isn't the best weapon out there, but I like the image of a mastermind rogue fighting with one.

I'm wondering what the easiest way to get a sword cane into their hands would be. So far, the best option I've found is the Gladiator archetype and burning two feats on it ... is there a better way?
Makes me wish that sword cane had gotten some text about working for rogues. It feels like a distinctly roguish weapon.

(reaction) FEAT 10

MAGUS
Trigger You discharge a stored spell that deals acid, cold,
electricity, fire, force, negative, positive, or sonic damage.
Magical energy overflows from your Striking Spell, spilling
out to extend beyond the creature you struck. This
overflowing energy creates a ray targeting a creature within
60 feet of the creature you damaged. Make a spell attack
roll against this new target, applying your multiple attack
penalty normally. On a hit, the creature takes the same
damage the spell deals of one of the triggering types (double
damage on a critical hit).
If the spell deals more than one eligible type of damage,
you choose one of these types, and the ray deals only the
amount of damage from that type. Unlike the spell discharged,
your success with the Cascading Ray’s spell attack roll isn’t
improved if your initial Strike was a critical hit. This ray has
the attack trait, the school and tradition traits of the original
spell, and the trait matching the damage type.

My question is, where the feat says "On a hit, the creature takes the same damage the spell deals of one of the triggering types..." that is referring to the numerical amount of damage the spell dealt, not another reference to the damage type? I am assuming yes, since otherwise we wouldn't know how much damage the ray actually deals.

This is probably a stupid question, but I figured this is a playtest document, so asking about this stuff now is better than asking next year after the book is printed.

So I was looking through the Circus Weapons section in the back of The Show Must Go On, and I noticed something.

Fire poi have the Twin weapon trait, but normal poi don't. Furthermore throwing knives do have the Twin weapon trait. Since poi have the fact they are wielded in pairs in their weapon description I was wondering if this was an error.

Hey all,

I just stumbled across the line in the wizard spellcasting section that mentions that specialized wizards get an extra cantrip, as well as an extra spell slot per spell level (A little embarrassing because I've been playing said wizard for a few sessions now and only just discovered this fact) and I was wondering if anyone had heard if this was a possible error in the rules or was intended?

I'm not debating whether or not wizards can do this, because it's spelled out clear as day in the spellcasting section of their class writeup, I'm just curious because that makes specialized wizards the only class to start with six cantrips instead of what seems to be the standard five. Even sorcs only get the usual five, including their bloodline cantrip.

Thanks for helping itch my curiosity.

So, silly question I know, but what happens if you miss with a melee touch spell in PF2? We were in game today and I missed with a Shocking Grasp, and we weren't sure if the spell stuck around, as it did in PF1, or if it was simply expended, and I can't find rules that expressly say either way.

I'm leaning on the idea that if you miss then you're out of luck since that would be casting the spell, but if anyone with more rules fu than me can chime in one way or another that'd be great.

Something I just thought I should say, since I always believe in giving thanks when people go that bit extra to be accessible.
I don't know who started putting descriptions of graphics into Paizo's various blogs so they say what they are displaying, but I super-de-duper appreciate it! As someone who is blind, and who uses a screen reader, this kind of thing is really awesome to see from a gaming company, where accessibility usually takes a backseat.

Just wanted to say publicly that I noticed, and I love ya for it.

I am considering a character who is basically the battle butler archetype. Capable of serving drinks with one hand while punching a bad guy's teeth out of their anus with the other.

This got me thinking that none of the styles in the book quite fit this character concept, at least the particular one I had in mind, nor do ki spells really feel like they'd fit, either, so I'll probably be going monastic weaponry with this particular character.

And that got me thinking, what sorts of fun stuff can you do if you go a style-less monk? Are there any fun combos you can think of, or is their bonus in the fact that they don't have to worry about pursuing later style feats, giving them more freedom to do things like run up walls, or over water, or walls of water?

Pretty much what the title says. What's it for? Here is the text, all eleven words of it.

Adamantine armor has a shiny, black appearance and is
amazingly durable.

And that's all. Adamantine weapons still chop through most other materials like hot knives through other, softer knives, but adamantine armor no longer grants any kind of resistance. As far as I can tell it's just really, really hard. Useful if you are, say being attacked with one of the aforementioned adamantine weapons, and totally useless for anything other than looking stylish otherwise.