Caleb Garofalo's page

So.... they're just not doing this anymore?

Alright I did another pass on it, sorry it took so long. Formatting should be more consistent with the way Paizo does (similar to sorcerer bloodlines). I reworked gather power and elemental overflow (it's now a blend of weapon specialization and the OG overflow).

I believe your confusion will be cleared up partially when you understand that what the Minion trait is telling you.

There is one of two possibilities:
1. When it says, "you spend an action to issue it commands," it is describing an action separate from the actions it is describing in the next sentence.
2. When it says, "you spend an action to issue it commands," it then defines for you specifically what action that is in the next sentence.

We can be confident it is the second possibility because actions in 2E always come with traits and it doesn't define any traits for that action. Thus the following text that outlines three different actions (one of which it creates here giving it traits even) is defining what that "spend an action to issue it commands" is. It has to define that action in a follow up sentence because there are three possible ways the creature is a minion (either because it's an animal companion, summoned creature from a spell or magic item effect, or other). If there was only one possible way it would of defined it in that original sentence (for example if you could only get a creature with the minion trait by it being an animal companion it would say, "Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you Command an Animal to issue it commands.")

This conversation is not helped by the fact that the game terms 'Command an Animal' and 'issue a verbal command' are using the same words for the general concept of giving a creature orders; words which we need to use to have this conversation in the first place.

I believe what is causing some confusion is that we need to consider that summoned creatures have both the Summoned and Minion traits.

If the summoned creature only had the minion trait then on the turn the creature is summoned and it gains it's two actions it can only use those two actions to "defend themselves or to escape obvious harm." This is because the Sustain and Verbal command are both actions and you've already spent all three actions summoning it. Since you cannot give it a command as per the Minion trait, "If given no commands, by default minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm."

However the summoned creature has both the Minion and Summoned traits. Because of this on the turn the creature is summoned and it gains it's two actions it will "attack your enemies to the best of it's abilities." This is because the Sustain and Verbal command are both actions and you've already spent all three actions summoning it. Since you cannot give it a command as per the Summoned trait, "It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities."

The next round you spend one action to Sustain a Spell to give it two actions as per the Minion trait, "Your minion acts on your turn in combat... when you spend an action to issue it commands. For a... summoned minion you Sustain a Spell." If you can communicate with it when you Sustain a Spell you get to tell it what to do. To what degree it listens to what you told it to do is up to the GM as per the summoned trait, "if you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands." If you cannot communicate with it when you Sustain a Spell it will continue to "generally attack your enemies to the best of it's abilities," as per the already cited text in the Summoned trait.

TL:DR - The summoned creature spends it's two actions the turn it's summoned to attack your enemies to the best of it's ability. On the summoner's next turn he spends one action to Sustain a Spell wherein which he can give the creature commands as part of the Sustain a Spell action if he can communicate with the summoned creature.

1. Form spells let you use 'your unarmed attack modifier' if it is higher than what the spell gives you. What constitutes your unarmed attack modifier? Is it just bonuses from proficiency and ability score?

While we're on the subject:

2. Do runes on Handwraps of Mighty Blows affect your post-transformation stats (Striking and Energy-Resistance for instance)?

I will be attempting to do two things.
1. Analyze if there are enough meaningful choices one could make to distinguish their character from another when wild shaped.
2. Point out some unclear information regarding using form spells.

First Subject
When looking at a wild shaping druid I wondered if there were meaningful choices I could make to effect my stats when wild shaped. Here is the data I collected to find my answer. This post does not consider pest form.

All form spells state, "If your unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead," and after it gives your athletics modifier they also state, "unless your own modifier is higher." It is unclear exactly what is meant by 'your modifier'. Does it include all possible bonuses you've added to it from all sources? Does it mean just bonuses from proficiency and ability score? Does it mean only bonuses that could be retained while polymorphed (circumstance & status and if from gear only those that are also a constant effect as opposed to activated)? It is unclear that if you have your modifier boosted from a spell if that will count as your modifier pre-transformation.

Let us assume that 'your modifier' only means proficiency and ability score bonuses and the bonus gained from Wild Shape. Here is when it is better to use the power's attack bonus / athletics or acrobatics bonus.

Animal [2/9]: 2-5,7,9 / 2-5,9
Insect [6/9]: 7,9 / 9
Dinosaur [8/13]: 9,13 / 8-11,13,14
Aerial [8/11]: never / 9,11,12
Elemental [10/13]: 11,12 / 11-14
Plant [10/11]: never / 11
Dragon [12/15]: 15,16 / 12
Monstrosity [16/17]: 16-19 / 16-19
Nature [20]: always /always
(in brackets is the level you can first use said spell, and the last level it is heightened at)

Let us assume that 'your modifier' means any bonus but not consider temporary bonuses such as from spells. Here is when it is better to use the power's attack bonus / athletics or acrobatics bonus.

As you can see with the first assumption there is a good spread of times when it's better to use the spell's modifiers, or your modifiers. With the second assumption there is almost no scenarios where it is better to use the spell modifiers (only two for elemental form, and three for animal form). Based on these results I feel that in the first scenario there isn't enough opportunities to make character choices to make your character any different from other characters when wild shaped; and in the second scenario there are more than enough opportunities to make character choices to make your character different from other characters when wild shaped.

Second Subject
I would also like to address some confusion with how form spells work. When using form spells you gain special statistics. Every form spell has the polymorph trait which details that, "If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties...Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can't activate any items."

Handwraps of might blows allow you to use runes and apply them to your unarmed strikes (which the attacks you gain from form spells are considered). Runes are for the most part unclear if they function while you are polymorphed.

Let's start with one that is clear. It is clear that the Weapon Potency rune would not apply to attacks gained from the form spells. This is a constant effect so the gear is allowed to function, but it is a item bonus which is not one of the two types of bonuses allowed to affect your special statics gained from polymorph. However things become more complicated when we look at Striking Runes.

It is not clear whether or not the Striking Rune would apply to attacks gained from the form spells. A Striking Rune increases the number of damage dice (depending on the rune level and how many die the attack has). This is a constant effect so the gear is allowed to function but this effect of increased damage dice is not a typed bonus of any kind so it is not one of the two specified bonus types that can adjust the special statistics given to you by the form spells. If an effect is not a typed bonus of any kind does it still need to go through that bonus type rule? This is a very similar issue with many property runes. Take corrosive for example which add 1d6 acid damage. This is not a typed bonus of any kind, but is it considered adjusting the special statistics?

Consider the energy-resistant rune. This gives you 5 [energy] resistance. This is very similar to the above example, with an added caveat. It is adding a wholly new statistic to your character - resistance. Animal Form (for example) doesn't give you resistance of any kind. Is gaining resistance considered adjusting your special statistics? Is adding considered adjusting?

Moving onto another unclarity. As touched on in the first part of this post, the wording 'your modifier' in the form spells is ambiguous. What exactly does 'your modifier mean? I see three possible interpretations:
1. It includes only bonuses from proficiency and ability scores.
2. It includes only bonuses from proficiency, ability scores, and items.
3. It includes bonuses from all sources including proficiency, ability scores, items, and temporary bonuses such as those from spells.

To help reduce unnecessary discussion I think we can all agree that a bonus from a spell such as Heroism applies to a polymorphed creature's new stats, what is unclear is if you have your pre-transformed modifier boosted from a spell such as heroism if that will count as your modifier pre-transformation.

What do you make of, "Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can't activate any items."

The bonus you get from the runes are constant are they not?

If it is indeed intended, I think it is a poor decision for both helping Druids do more damage when wild shaped, and for any future weapon that's base damage will have two die.

The Striking Rune says, "...increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one." I imagine it was worded this way because all the weapons in the equipment section only deal 1 damage dice.

I used Dinosaur Shape getting 2d8 damage. Rules as written a striking rune would not add a damage dice because the wording does not say add 1 damage dice, it says to bring it from 1 to 2 and it's already 2.

Any weapon that is added in the future that has a base damage of to 2dx will also not be effected.

I propose that the wording be changed to indicate that it's damage dice will be increased by 1.

Can someone explain to me what benefit you get from the level-8 barbarian feat 'Animal Form'.

You transform into your animal. You gain the effects of the 3rd-level animal form spell except you use your own statistics, temporary Hit Points, and unarmed attacks instead of those granted by animal form. You also retain the constant abilities of your gear. If your animal is a frog, your tongue’s reach increases to 15 feet. Dismissing the transformation gains the rage trait.

For every stat the animal form spell gives you it seems that the feat is telling you to use your own stats instead. So what benefit are you actually getting from the spell?

For an instinct that is very simple, I would imagine it would have the greatest rage damage progression, not the worst progression.

Rage Damage Progression (lvl-1/lvl-7/lvl-15)

• Animal: 2/5/12
• Spirit: 3/7/13
• Dragon: 4/8/16
• Giant: 6/10/18
• Fury: 2/6/12

I submit that the Fury instinct should give you the greatest increase in rage damage at every stage due the sacrifice you're making of not having any other additional effects. Getting an extra feat at level-1 (a level-1 ancestry feat btw) is not enough compensation for not increasing my fury damage until level-7 while all other instincts increase fury damage at level-1.

The level-4 Barbarian Feat 'Wounded Rage' says you can enter into a rage as a reaction if you have taken damage. However this has the rage trait which means you can only use it while your raging. This makes it unusable, correct?

The level-4 Barbarian Feat 'Wounded Rage' says you can enter into a rage as a reaction if you have taken damage. However this has the rage trait which means you can only use it while your raging. This makes it unusable, correct?

Catfolk
It includes half-catfolk heritage for humans and half-catfolk feats as well.

Why is this kineticist a spellcaster?

He doesn't cast spells in the traditional sense. He uses Focus Points which is 2E's version of spendable class mechanics also known as powers (such as Ki). The Kineticist in 1st edition had a lot of abilities that mimicked spells or spell-like-abilities, focus points is the equivalent way to do that in 2E.

May I ask why only 3 uses of the basic kinetic blast before needing to take burn?

It takes advantage of the action system. It allows interplay between using your powers, using gather power to reduce the cost of those powers, and using burn to replace the spell points you've spent to use those powers. With three actions a turn what combination of those three things leads to many possibilities and meaningful choices.

Do I spend all three points so I can use a blast with two infusions? Next turn how many burn actions do I use? Two so I can use a blast this turn and have 1 FP to spend the turn after that? Two and a gather power so I can use 3 SP worth of powers next turn? There's a lot of possible combinations depending on what you want to do when.

Kineticist

Here you go for all of you that don't want to wait to play a Kineticist.

Playtest Conversion

My guess is that it's an errant use of the word aspect.

If that was the case it wouldn't answer the question posed in the conclusion.

When you use spells of summoning subschool you always summon an aspect of a creature from Outside, not the creature itself. If your summonend angel is killed, no actual angel is hurt. To actualy bring a creature from another plane, you'd need spells of calling subschool.

I did a lot of research and did not find anything that said that, what is your source?

To answer this question we will reference the Eidolon section of the Summoner (taken from Unchained, note however this section in the original summoner is worded nearly exactly the same):

This specifically says that the Eidolons are, "treated as summoned creatures," except they are not sent back to their home plane when the duration of the spell that summoned them is over (because obviously they haven't been summoned by a spell) but instead are sent back to their home plane when other criteria is met (ie. -con score, banished, etc). So since summoned creatures are the actual creatures ripped from their home plane and forced to serve you for a limited time depending on the spell (ie. summon monster, planar binding, etc.) before returning to their home plane given that they have survived long enough for the spell to expire, Eidolons must be the actual creatures being summoned.

However it also states that, "The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who forever after summons an aspect of the same creature," (Important to note that it then does away with the word aspect and refers to the aspect of the eidolon simply as the eidolon). What does aspect mean? Consider the following:
1. "The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner."
2. The eidolon can experience "death" and can be "slain" (specifically calling out those words and obviously referring to it reaching -con), and yet can return (be summoned) a day later.
3. It doesn't heal naturally unlike all other living creatures in Pathfinder.
4. "The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s desires," ie. the summoner chooses it's evolutions and gets to redecide them every time the summoner levels up.
5. The eidolon grows stronger as the Summoner does.
With these details we have to assume that aspect means that we are not actually summoning the creature.

In conclusion, there is a contradiction in the book where it both says you summon an aspect of the Eidolon (not the Eidolon itself), and that you summon the Eidolon itself and that is what makes the question posed in the title impossible to answer RAW. If it is the actual creature then why does it return to life after being slain and what does the verbiage about aspect mean? If it is an aspect then it does not in fact get, "treated as a summoned creature," and what exactly is being returned to it's "home plane" when dismissed or slain?

We had so much to say about the Playtest that it couldn't all be contained in an open survey.
So here are our thoughts on the playtest.
We also filled out many surveys, and made sure to get this episode up before the surveys close for what that's worth.

After having a lot of experience with the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest we're ready to give our feedback on the playtest system. From playing through and GMing the entire Playtest Adventure Path Doomsday Dawn on the feedback schedule, to GMing our own home games afterword, we spent a lot of time with the system. We discussed the system at it's most current updated state (1.6).

You can find more ways to listen here.

The Pathfinder Academy podcast celebrated 150 episodes with Paizo's Franchise Manager Mark Moreland. This discussion was all about Catfolk, so please feel free to post all your Catfolk thoughts and feedback here!

Listen here:
Podbean
Stitcher
Google Play
Stitcher
iTunes

Question. What rate is the kinetic blast trained at?

Trained. "you’re trained in spell rolls and spell DCs for your cantrips, powers, and infusions."

It's consistent with Paladins who use the same exact wording for their powers.

I think the Burn section granting spell points should go before the Elemental focus section which uses spell points. And the actions and reactions should be part of the powers I think.

When you look at actions that aren't powers (such as Power Attack) they are listed in the class section, not the spells section (where powers are listed).

The example in Empower Metakinesis is wrong.

Thank you. Fixed.

Of course this is assuming a source of an item bonus, without increases in proficiency and item bonuses to hit, the accuracy is way too low to be viable.

Doesn't the way I wrote it have it scale the same as a spell caster's attack rolls (at least for the blasts that hit touch). The DCs for powers shouldn't be effected by items, and their accuracy should be fine right (aside from potent ones)?

Thanks for the insight.

...when it comes to formatting, adding the powers back to the class (or doing hyperlinks) might make it easier to read.

Yeah, it's a problem with he playtest book I have as well. All the monk ki powers, you have to flip to spell chapters to see what they do.

So maybe that’s something to have in mind to create some feats and update elemental overflow.

Yeah, that's probably the feature I had the most problems with converting. I got the formatting for the ability bonus from other potent items.

As for Caleb, if this is a list for the purposes of a Planar Ally (or equivalent), is it really possible to 'ask' for a native outsider to be sent to you? Because if so I could totally see cheesing a way of teleporting long lost allies of that type back to you, if not only to ask where they will return to at the end of the spell.

The spell doesn't mention it at all. However maybe I'll update the list with a column listing native or non-native. I imagine the vast majority of the list is non-native.

Check out the Monster DB as linked by d20pfsrd. This is a complete spreadsheet of the monster stat blocks. While the HD column shows the full #d#+#, you can parse this to get HD. It also indicates type, such as outsider, etc.

Thank you for that link, I never found that. However not only does it not list by HD exactly, you can't filter outsiders and HD only, only either or. The list I created allows you to see only Outsiders, and to filter by HD without any sort of extra work. Not to mention it doesn't list the monsters from as many sourcebooks as list in the OP does (Planar Adventures, Horror Adventures, Monster Codex, Mythic Adventures to name a few).

To have a benefit you need to include something more. Some notes on which outsiders are preferred by which deities perhaps?

If only the list had the alignment of each outsider so that you could see what matches your deity... How about the benefit of being able to quickly see every outsider, it's HD, and it's alignment? Is that benefit not good enough?

But I appreciate everyone's attempts at tearing me down for making something for you guys to use for free. I don't know why I even post on this site anymore when all the responses are so negative. That'll teach me for making something for you to guys to use for free that you can't find anywhere else. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! DO EVEN MORE WORK! Give a mouse a cookie I suppose.

I made the Kineticist for 2nd Edition Playtest (1.6). Took like 50 hours, but I'm proud of it.

I created rules for a Catfolk Ancestry.

Link me to that list that shows the same info as in my list. I do not believe one exists. Especially one that lists by HD which is what the spell calls for.

List of creatures you can summon via Planar Ally

To my knowledge there is no other list of all the creatures you can summon via the Planar Ally spell so I decided to create one.

The list contains monsters that have higher HD than the spell lets you summon, but I figured why not just complete the list of outsiders.

The list uses all Core Rulebooks as it's sources.

The list does not leave out monsters that might not be good to summon (such as the Ahkhat that will return to it's home one round after being summoned).

They said on the stream on Friday that they aren't going to do that because monsters aren't built the same way players are.

I talked about that in the OP, and quoted him more completely in which he gave a counter to his own statement to boot.

A CR20 having 6 natural attacks all doing 3d6+ damage isn't a problem. A 5th level character with Monstrous Physique or Fey Form IS a major problem.

Wouldn't calling out the specific Bestiary entries as presented in the OP completely negate this problem?

Catfolk

I think it would be an improvement if the Form spells (Pest Form, Animal Form, Insect Form, Dinosaur Form, Aerial Form, Elemental Form, Dragon Form) each referred to Bestiary entries.

This has some pretty cool pros:
• This would also make these spells cooler than gaining just a few generic abilities instead getting some cool monster-specific abilities that you'll find in their Bestiary entry.
• The formatting of Bestiary entries are very clear-cut making them much easier to reference while playing than the Form spell entries.
• The spells give you new stats (instead of modifying your own) which is what the Bestiary does already, so the design philosophy is the same in that respect.
• I think this also allows expansions to the spell in the future by simply having an entry in each bestiary that says 'add the following monsters to the following form spells' if expanding the list of creatures you can turn into is something that we would want.

I know there are some challenges to this change, but I think they're worth overcoming:
• We have to have a Bestiary entry for each creature.
• What exactly would heightening the spells do? (Maybe use the dire versions of the creatures or higher age category for the dragons.)
• This means that people who want to use these spells have to own the Bestiary. (Don't summoning spells make you do that already? Besides if there is a PRD-like reasource for 2nd edition this won't be a problem.)
• Stephen Radney-MacFarland was kind enough to speak to this subject and said that one of the potential challenges would be that players would be burdened with having to 'pick the best one' as they were 'shopping' through the Bestiaries. Having the spell list which monsters you can transform into (much like it already does) would solve that I think.
• He also said that the Bestiary monsters weren't designed with players being able to turn into them in mind. But he added that if they were to get feedback that this was the direction to go they would reflect that in the final Bestiary publishing.

Ever since first 1st edition I've always wanted to be able to just use the Bestiary stats, I think that's a lot of people's fantasy to just become the monster and be handed the Bestiary.

In the very least it would be an improvement to the readability and usability of the spell if the stats in the Form spells were formatted like Bestiary entries where they can so it's easier and more efficient to reference in game.

I'm confused. I thought the resonance system was supposed to replace slots.

As I understand that magic item slots have been removed, so can we wear multiple belts say, or multiple hats, that sort of thing? I would like a page reference not opinions if possible. Thank you.

So what is Utopia a genric name for since we know it's not Axis?

For example Kolyarut, Inevitable. If I had to guess creatures such as the 4 horsemen's names are not, or stat blocks for deities are not. What about names that are from other open-source things such as Charon as one of the 4 horsemen, or Baphomet the deity?

As someone who uses Pathfinder for purely homebrew content I find myself wanting to know the world-neutral (or setting-neutral) names for Golarion specific content. It is my understanding that the generic names are part of the OGL and the Golarion specific names are not. I am unable to find a complete and centralized list of the generic names and created this document to serve that purpose.

I need your help to complete this list. Please respond with any first-party world-neutral terms with your source and I will add it to the document.

Thanks so much!

The PFSRD lists Axis and Utopia as separate entires. Given that the PFSRD only lists open game content that means that axis is not Paizo IP, and what exactly Utopia is is still confusing. Does anyone know what Utopia refers to? Is it a open game content name for another plane?

Never mind I found my answer.
"Use the thin Hardness for shields and thin items and the regular Hardness for sturdier objects such as armor."

Rules for shields are spread across 3 different chapters.

Item hardness is not listed by item, it's listed by material in the "Treasure" section (p.354).
Wooden hardness is 5, iron or steel is 9.

According to a note about Shields under the "armor and shields" section (p.177) there is says, "...you can use the Shield Block reaction to reduce damage you take by the shield's Hardness (3 for wooden shields or 5 for steel).

Do you guys think this is a typo (ie. one thing didn't get updated while the other did) or do you think shields are an exception from the hardness rules?

Blood Kineticist

Any chance we'll get more Catfolk content?

I want to know more about Catfolk.

The three new zero HD races each get a 2 page bestiary entry.

What went into the decision to give them more page space than the Bestiaries normally do, but less than the races in Ultimate Wilderness did?

When I saw the races in Ultimate Wilderness get the featured race treatment of six pages I was excited and hoped it was indicative of how we would get new races in the future (my hope for an Advanced Race Guide 2 has long since died haha). No matter the case I am happy to see new races come out (and some races get fleshed out) with the two newest books and I hope that trend continues.

Kneeling is a thing.

Would if have been okay if it called for killing children instead? I'm hearing people say that all the killing that Pathfinder incentivizes is an okay evil, but incentivizing Child abuse is too far.

Genuine question.

This thread was so 'volatile' earlier, but now it remains silent. I guess all it takes is a few days of silence to make people loose interest?

Paizo is no more complicit in child abuse than "Twelve Years a Slave" is slavery.

They got you to remove things about sexual violence against children -- although would it have been ok if Folca was just torturing them or killing them? That confused me in this argument -- and now they'll move to the other events in these books.

After the recent furor, we know even better not to cross it in the future.

'Furor' here being a single thread with a few people complaining and just as many saying the complaining is unjustified.

Many of you are probably thinking, "what's the problem? I can handle this in my game."... Just because you think you can be responsible with this type of content does not mean that every GM can.

Can't this be said with the entire Book of the Damned?

Much more importantly, the primary concern here is less the GM and more the player who randomly encounters these themes unwittingly, and finds him or herself reliving terrible memories of trauma during what is supposed to be a game people play for fun.

Can't this be said of the content in Horror Adventures? That's why you guys put the consent section in, right?

So are you going to remove all of this kind of content from your other published works? You going to go back and edit the Bogeyman from Bestiary 3? Are you gonna remove Unnatural Lust from Ultimate Magic? If this is where it starts, where does it end?