I just realize: A Wizard can only use their own spellbook, they can't grab someone else's. So it has to be part of the character or you're just screwed. I agree with your premise about starting equipment, but I'll point out the following action: Borrow an Arcane Spell (Player Core pg. 234 2.0)
One option is Dragon Roar (Level 6 Monk, follow-on to Dragon Style Level 1): Not technically a Demoralize action, but effectively does the same thing as an area. All enemies within a 15' emanation make a Will save vs YOUR Intimidation DC or suffer being frightened (also does not have the language requirement!). Since it's not a Demoralize action, there's no 10 minute immunity, but there is a 1 minute immunity and a 1d4 round cool-off period between uses. On the other hand, if you have abilities that trigger off Demoralize (e.g. Terrified Retreat), they won't work wiht Dragon Roar. There may be other non-Demoralize abilities you can get, though I can't think of them off the top of my head.
We had a high level Rogue in our game too, and the issue is that the Rogue player keeps thinking that all those nifty abilities allow him to act normally but be undetectable. In other words, he simply ignores the hide and sneak rules, and takes 3 actions each round saying he can't be detected - he doesn't take any hide or sneak actions (or tries to until the GM insists he follows the sneak and hide rules). The other very humorous issue is that if the enemy cannot figure out where the Rogue is, his allies cannot either. Our Rogue keep insisting that he was undetectable at the start of combat (actually he insisted he was undetectable during Exploration mode too, or put another way... literally AT ALL TIMES), so when we start an encounter and my Bard starts buffing the party with Haste, etc., he never got buffed since I couldn't target what I can't see. When he gets damaged and wants to be healed, cleric can't target him because he's taken his figure off the board and insists he's "hidden". And so on. At times, he'd get into trouble, but the other PCs simply avoid metagaming and roleplay that they don't know he's in trouble because they don't know where he is or what he's doing!
Where in SoM specifically? I wouldn't mind giving that bit-o-lore a looksie. Page 21 Conjuration encompasses several related concepts. The magic of creation gathers raw material essence, the matter of the universe, and temporarily confines it in a concrete physical form, which dissipates when the spell ends. Summoning magic is similar but creates a simulacrum of a creature from matter, willpower, and sometimes raw spiritual quintessence.
ELDRITCH ARCHER ARCHETYPE The Eldritch Archer archetype as originally printed in the APG was unclear as to what happens if you were already a spellcaster when you take the eldritch archer archetype. Paizo eventually released errata which corrected and clarified the issue: Remove the paragraph from the first printing that begins, “If you already cast spells from spell slots, you gain one additional cantrip from that tradition.” If you’re already a spellcaster, you use your normal allotment of spells for eldritch archer abilities and don’t gain more spells. Thus, pursuant to the errata, it appears that you gain a repertoire with one cantrip and become a spontaneous caster from the dedication feat, and can later take the basic, expert and master spellcasting feats, but only if you do not already cast spells from spell slots when you take the eldritch archer archetype. If you already cast spells from spell slots when you take the eldritch archer archetype, since you “use your normal allotment of spells for eldritch archer abilities and don’t gain more spells”, it appears you do not gain the repertoire with one cantrip and cannot take the basic, expert and master spellcasting feats (though, admittedly, this latter is inferred from the “don’t gain more spells” language). Player Core 2 repeats the basic mistake from the APG. It states what to do if you do not already cast spells from spell slots (i.e. you get a repertoire with a cantrip), BUT does not say what to do if you already cast spells from spell slots. For now, I am basically applying the APG errata to the Remaster Eldritch Archer, but it would be nice if Paizo included the appropriate Player Core 2 errata for this archetype. EDIT - It is possible that Paizo is thinking that since it only says you gain the repertoire, cantrip and Cast a Spell activity if you don't already cast spells from spell slots, that since it doesn't say you get anything if you already can cast spells from spell slots that you would infer that you don't get any additional spellcasting in the latter case. Definitely not a clear way to write, but it's possible that's what they were thinking. Also, if the intent would then be that you cannot get the basic, expert and master spellcasting feats since you are already a spellcaster, then Basic Eldritch Archer Spellcasting needs errata as the only prerequisite is that you have the dedication feat - also, you might not have a repertoire (e.g. a Wizard Eldritch Archer) and you don't choose a tradition if you didn't get a repertoire from the dedication.
Just want to point out that there are PF2E options/elements that will never be reprinted in ORC because they are OGL specific, BUT that these are still part of PF2E. If you want to use those options/elements of PF2E, you'll need to either refer to AON or buy the pre-remaster books. ALSO, there are pre-remaster options/elements that remain legal for Pathfinder Society play, BUT if you want to use them in Pathfinder Society, you need to have the book (PDF or hardcopy) to use them.
Is there a background that gives a bite attack or something? Sort of. Magical Experiment Background While it does not list a bite attack as one of the stated options, it does say: Work with the GM to select an appropriate ability from the following list or to come up with another special ability.
I almost mentioned Agents of Edgewatch, but my understanding of the problem there was that much of the wealth as written was basically robbing the people you arrested which is gross. Our PCs in Edgewatch never robbed anyone we arrested. We instead got our loot through Civil Forfeiture.
Each ancestry gives a set of boosts and flaws. You can simply REPLACE the set of boosts and flaws specified for the ancestry with the Alternate Ancestry Boosts, basically getting two boosts to two attributes of your choice. The Alternate Ancestry Boosts are basically the same as the Human ancestry boosts/flaws - two boosts to two attributes of your choice. So a Human can give up his or her two boosts and replace them with two boosts (i.e. the human standard boosts versus the Alternate Ancestry Boosts are identical). Under no circumstances do you get both. All ancestries, including Human, can take a Flaw, BUT unlike earlier versions of the game, you get nothing back for the Flaw other than the satisfaction of having gimped your character for roleplaying purposes. In earlier versions of the game, you could take flaws to get an additional boost, but that is no longer the rule under Pathfinder 2E Remaster.
I can't find it in the new Player Core or GM Core. Now that I think about it, the devs are likely trying to remove some big problems this hazard presents. Just because something isn't in the Core Remaster doesn't mean it was removed from the game. Yes, if your GM decides to limit you to the Remaster books, then I guess you can't use it, same as before when some GMs limited players to only using Core or Core+APG. But unless they removed the spell, it's still part of Pathfinder 2E. To quote the Paizo BLOG: It’s November 15th, and that means that Player Core and GM Core are now officially out! These remastered products bring a lot of exciting changes to Pathfinder Second Edition, but that doesn’t mean you have to ditch your older books or stop using the classes that don’t appear in Player Core. To help you use classes and other options that are affected by the Remaster changes, we’re presenting a handful of compatibility errata for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Advanced Player’s Guide, Secrets of Magic, and Dark Archive on the Pathfinder FAQ! So check the FAQ and Errata page to see if they've removed the spell from the game, or made changes to it. If your GM allows all official Paizo material, then you're good to go.
I honestly doubt that PFS and even many tables will keep allowing the old content from CRB/APG so long once that these books will no longe be reprinted and will becoming sold out over time and more and more tables will abandon the usage of this old content that for many will be only found in some legacy part of AoN/SRD site. According to the Remaster plan on the AON Homepage, old content is NOT going to be relegated to some "legacy part" of AON. AON: "Mechanics which were only present in one version or the other will be visible on both views. However, mechanics from an edition you are not presently focused on will have a warning banner at the top to indicate they are from the other version and the rules may not function exactly as they did." Only hybrid mechanics - "those with a legacy version and a remaster version (regardless of if it's a simple name change or a more complex difference)" - will require you to toggle back and forth between the old and remaster versions. So, Eldritch Trickster racket should still show up on AON regardless of whether you've toggled Pre-Remaster or Remaster, but if you are toggled to Remaster, a warning banner will display that basically says it was not re-done in Remaster. On the other hand, Ruffian racket (a hybrid mechanic) would display the Remaster version if you toggled Remaster and the old version if you toggled Pre-Remaster. Although I buy all the books as PDFs, I RARELY look at them. I almost exclusively look at AON, so when building a character I will see ALL the options. Building a Rogue? Eldritch Trickster will still show up with a banner (actually more visible due to the banner!). And as for reprints of the books, who cares? That's NOT going to affect availability. It's been 4 years since 2nd Edition came out and Paizo still sells PF1 PDFs even though the physical books ran out years ago. Also, I'm guessing most people these days prefer the PDFs over physical books due to not having to find shelf-space or having to lug a heavy bag around. And if you want to use the old material in PFS, you need an official copy, so the old PDFs will still sell.
This doesn't appear to be a compatibility problem --- The Remaster does not remove Produce Flame. Produce Flame is still a valid Pathfinder 2E spell and you can learn and use it. Just keep using Produce Flame until they publish a Remaster version of the Psychic class. If it truly offends your sensibilities, then houserule it.
I second the motion for @Paizo to provide a comprehensive errata released as a single PDF. As mentioned before, all you have to do is go to the FAQ/Errata page, open all the sub-headers, then print to PDF. That's what I did and I have all the errata, clarifications, etc., in a 61 page searchable PDF.
Any chance in the short time while we wait on the main PDF's to be updated. That we can have all the errata made into a single pdf or even txt file that we can download? That would be a lot more handy that having to check the web page.Errata in the PDFs are not being released at this time. We need more time to collect, process and copyfit, which is generally driven by the reprinting physical books. Just do what I do... Print to PDF.
The language in the PET feat is what you are looking for. Not sure if you noticed that Familiars ARE pets. The Familiar rules say: "You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities." So I would guess you use the rules in the PET feat to gain a new pet/familiar. If they errata this, I would ask that they make it simple as "retrain" carries GM dependent baggage (cost, instructor, etc.). I'd suggest: "If your pet dies or you want to replace your pet with a new pet, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost."
They get DEX to damage to finesse unarmed attacks now, so for example Wolf Jaw from Wolf Stance, which are d8 agile, backstabber, finesse attacks, which are much stronger than any other attack a Thief had prior access to. Especially since Ruffians new martial/advanced weapon access is limited to d6 attacks, those weapons are a joke compared to Thief's access to those unarmed attacks.What did Thief get? What were the designer's thinking! Before I was FORCED to go Ruffian Racket, STR 18 and Spend 2 class feats so I could take Stumbling Stance at 4th level to do 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage... It is inconceivable that the designers now allow you to go Thief Racket, DEX 18 and Spend 2 class feas so you can take Stumbling Stance at 4th level to do 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage! And you can even choose NOT to wear armor (so take a 1 point AC hit - AC19 instead of Rogue Max of AC20 at level 4 if wearing armor) to take a martial arts stance (like Wolf Stance) that requires you to be unarmored so that you can do (drum roll...) 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage. Seriously - Keeping in mind that many GM's interpreted the Thief Racket's "finesse melee weapon" as including finesse unarmed attacks, and among those in the other campt that felt that RAW meant ONLY actual physical weapons (not unarmed attacks), many in the second "RAW" camp nevertheless still allowed Thief Racket with finesse unarmed attacks as either RAI or because it was cool. I don't have actual numbers, but I suspect a majority (or at least a very signigicant minority) of GMs allowed Thief Racket to get DEX to damage with finesse unarmed attacks. Personally, I'm not convinced this is an actual change, but might simply be the designers clarifying that they always meant it to be usable with unarmed attacks, and that they saw all the backbiting that was going on since PF2E hit the shelves and decided to be clearer this time around.
I'd say yes, it can work through walls as other imprecise senses do as well, like hearing. I find it interesting that the creature ability Lifesense allows for determining if the "target" is living or undead (i.e. you can differentiate), but that the feat only allows you to sense the "target", but you cannot tell if its living or undead, just that it's there - "you can't distinguish between the two." So someone with lifesense from the feat cannot use it as an undead detector. Is the guy you're talking to alive or a vampire? Can't tell.
Any spontaneous spellcaster: Sorcerer, Bard, Oracle.
On switching targets, RAW I don't have an opinion. As a GM I'd be fine with most minor effects, like switching from cooking one piece of meat to another, or lifting up several pieces of a broken vase (as opposed to ruling that you need to target each piece separately). I am not even going to bother arguing with you. I shall simply make a note to never try to help you again. Have a nice day.
On switching targets, RAW I don't have an opinion. As a GM I'd be fine with most minor effects, like switching from cooking one piece of meat to another, or lifting up several pieces of a broken vase (as opposed to ruling that you need to target each piece separately). As for permanent effects... if you move a glass across the table, it doesn't pop back where it started when the spell ends, if you cook a piece of meat, it stays cooked, and if you clean gunk off your coat it remains clean once the spell ends (subject to you getting new gunk on your coat!). On the other hand, if you create a temporary object, well, it's temporary and disappears when the spell ends.
This whole discussion reminds me of the "Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit" skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus. One of the soldiers keeps insisting that the training sergeant should teach the soldiers how to defend themselves against anyone who attacks with a pointed stick, and the sergeant replies: "Ooh, ooh, ooh; we want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well, let me tell you something, my lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!"
Personally, I don't think they would pick up the weapon and use it in the middle of a battle. Most PCs I know generally wouldn't do so. It's an obviously magic weapon. Magic, especially magic you know nothing about, should be approached with a degree of caution. Especially if you're some noob bandit who knows little to nothing of magic. Frankly, unless there was some story element that pushed my PC to grab an opponent's magic weapon to complete the battle, I'd leave it for after the battle. Let the magic types examine it, check for curses, does it have some sort of alignment restriction (like good characters holding it are enfeebled), etc. Also, warriors typically use the weapons they are used to. Picking up a strange weapon and getting the feel for it in the middle of a life and death situation isn't optimal. I know the mechanics of PF2 don't account for handling an unfamiliar weapon, but not every longsword is balanced or feels the same. Now, if the bandit lost his weapon and the only weapon to hand was the strange magicky-one, then maybe the bandit would pick it up and use it. This harkens back to the old idea that if a PC drops a magic weapon, or uses a magic thrown weapon, or anything along those lines, an NPC should just scoop it up and run off. After all, that magic weapon is worth a lot of money. Your average bandit would probably consider it a win to simply grab the loot, run off (leaving the other bandits to their fate) and survive the battle with magic loot he can sell (or use). Comments about kicking the weapon away or doing something similar is common in real life and fine in battle. Comments about enemies picking up the weapons of fallen opponents is correct AFTER THE BATTLE. It's not too common for opponents in battle to be policing up weapons in the middle of a fight. Will no enemy EVER pick up the weapon... no, NPCs vary and the GM has to decide what happens. There may very well be an NPC who would pick up your magic weapon in the middle of battle, but I really doubt it would be the default expectation.
I feel real bad, so I'll just make one more post on skills, then sit back and let others have a say. You list Medicine at "A" for a Bard, and Medicine is generally a good skill, BUT as you state in the guide, the Bard is starved for skill increases. While Bard has the standard 3 skills it can improve to Legendary, one is pretty much locked to Performance. While not obligatory, many Bards will advance Occultism, especially if they're going Bardic Lore, want to be good at Rituals or simply consider it their class's special knowledge skill (like the Cleric who maxes Religion). And what's a Bard without a social skill? Deception, Diplomacy and/or Intimidation, depending on what kind of Bard you are going for, social skills are your shtick. When PF2 first came out, I kind of grooved on Versatile Performance, but I've since cooled on the feat. It doesn't give you diplomacy... it just lets you "Make an Impression" using Performance. So you can't use it to Gather Information or Request. So, I can improve the target's attitude towards me (Make an Impression), but I can't close the deal (Request)! It doesn't give you Intimidation... it just lets you "Demoralize" using Performance. You can't Coerce or use it with Scare to Death. It doesn't give you Deception... it just lets you "Impersonate" using Performance. You can't use it to "Create A Diversion" or "Lie". Versatile Performance is ok, but it really isn't a substitute for actually having social skills. Maybe if they come out with additional Versatile Performance feats that expand on its use, it might be more useful. But the point is that Versatile Performance really doesn't substitute for actually having a social skill (except possibly Intimidation if you just want to Demoralize). So where am I going with this? Bards don't really have an unused skill advancement for Medicine. You can make a "Medic" Bard, but it'll cost you. I would leave the Medicine skill (at least anything more than Trained) to other characters. I do find your guide interesting as I like to gather ideas about a class from different people/guides. It's always good to get a perspective from others... you may learn something new or realize you could do something better. Keep writing the guides and don't let the opinion of others (like me) discourage you because if everyone agreed on everything, the game would be boring!
As you yourself quoted from the rules: Core Rulebook pg. 214 2.0 wrote:
So if your animal companion has the mount special ability it IGNORES the rule that it can only use its land speed when you are riding it... i.e. it can fly while you ride it. Champion sez: Steed Ally: You gain a young animal companion as a mount. Ordinarily, your animal companion is one that has the mount special ability, such as a horse. You can select a different animal companion (GM's discretion), but this ability doesn't grant it the mount special ability. So, if you want to ride a flying Steed Ally, just select an animal companion with the mount special ability.
Just some random thoughts... Maybe let him find a crossbow and some bolts in the dungeon, that way he has something to do now. I'm kind of assuming he took DEX 16? Or maybe someone else in the group has a crossbow they're not using. If you want to be nice, you can have him discover a few assorted bombs as loot in the dungeon. Give him bombs that are unusual or that he wouldn't normally take, then see what he does with them? Long-term, if he multi-classes or takes an archetype that reduces the feats he has available for Alchemist Class Feats, so it may or may not create a problem, depending on his build -- in other words, can he afford the feats to multi-class or take an archetype?
I assume they have to do some kind of penance, although what it would entail would depend a lot on the deity. Iomedae would probably have them save a kid from a burning building or something else really heroic, while Urgathoa would probably say something like "kill ten enemies of my religion and make them undead." Per the cleric class rules: "If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual."
I am a paranoid son of a b_____ and I live in a world that wants to kill me. Many years ago, I was playing Shadowrun. I was a Troll Adept. I don't remember why, but me and the other PC (there were only two PCs) went to someplace late at night (an abandoned school I think it was). This cute little girl (under 10 years) comes running up to me acting all friendly like. Perfectly normal looking kid. Nothing to suggest anything nefarious. I IMMEDIATELY DROP KICKED HER INTO THE NEXT COUNTY as soon as she reaches me - The GM is VERY SURPRISED... I don't think the word "incredulous" would be inappropriate. I definitely took her out, can't remember if I actually killed her, but I think I did. Her brother, another cute little kid comes running out, TAKES OUT THE OTHER PC IN ONE ROUND, then I spend several rounds being beaten up by him. I only defeat him because I start dropping grenades at my own feet to catch him in the blast radius (I can't hit him, but the grenade's area of effect can). I survive (barely), but the grenades eventually take him down. The GM admits after the fact that the little girl was really, really powerful and would likely have taken us down. Certainly, her brother was very extraordinary and by himself nearly took us down. To be honest, if it had turned out that she really was a cute little girl, my Troll would have felt very, very bad about drop kicking her. You call that "metagaming". I call it: "I'm a paranoid son of a b_____ who lives in a world that wants to kill me."
I have just realized that I've been grossly incorrect regarding Tumble Through. It does nothing for a Tiny creature like a Sprite. First, a Tiny creature may under the Tiny Creature Special Rules enter another creature's space. Second, and here's the misconception I had, Tumble Through DOES NOT negate reactions or AOOs. Read the action carefully. Nothing in the action says anything about negating reactions or AOOs. It's a "Move" action, so it triggers Move-based reactions. I believe this was a carry-over of my preconceptions from FIRST EDITION where you "tumble" to avoid AOOs. In SECOND EDITION, all the Tumble Through action allows you to do is enter an enemy's space, which is something you normally cannot do under the movement rules. I now understand that we've been playing Tumble Through wrong in my group, and I suspect many others have as well. We played 1st Edition for many years, and are still playing at this time (finishing up our last 1st Edition AP). This is a classic example of 1st Edition Players carrying forward their 1st Edition preconceptions to the 2nd Edition rules... and I admit to being guilty. So, I have in a round-about-manner basically answered by original question and the answer is that the Tumble Through action is largely irrelevant to a tiny creature. Tiny creatures can move into spaces occupied by enemies and Tumble Through does nothing to change the fact that the tiny creature triggers an AOO when they do so. For a tiny creature, it's effectively no different than striding into an enemy's space.
I think people are getting hung up on the name of the action and introducing your own prejudices to the mechanic of the action. Nothing in the action says you have to exit the enemy's square in any particular direction. The mechanics are simple. You stride, attempt to enter a space occupied by an enemy by making an Acrobatics check, then you either fail or you succeed. If you fail, you stop where you tried to enter from and trigger reactions. If you succeed, you move into the enemy's space and each square is counted as difficult terrain. If you don't have sufficient movement to exit the enemy's space, then you effectively never entered, go back to the entry point, and trigger reactions as if you had moved. For most practical uses (by non-Swashbucklers), you will probably exit from another direction as you are using the action to get from where you are to where you want to go and there is an enemy you can't get around. For a Swashbuckler, you can do this simply to gain Panache. A Swashbuckler might very well use this action to move into an enemy's space and then reverse direction and literally return to the square they started from, and will gain Panache. This is no different than counting coup, a traditional way of showing bravery in the face of an enemy... which is really what Panache is about. So yes, a Swashbuckler might show great bravado by tumbling into an enemy's space to show he can, then tumbling back out to where he started. In the Swashbuckler's case, he's not looking to move anywhere... he looking to show derring-do! And I don't see any reason why Vexing Tumble should be mentioned. It's a class feat and VERY different from Tumble Through. Vexing Tumble allows you to move WIHTOUT TRIGGERING REACTIONS. This is what makes Vexing Tumble very nice. Tumble Through STILL TRIGGERS REACTIONS - everyone seems to be thinking FIRST EDITION where you tumble to avoid AOOs. Read Tumble Through carefully... no where does it say that it negates reactions or AOOs. Tumble Through is a "MOVE" action which triggers AOOs. Personally, I didn't realize this until your discussion forced me to read the action very, very carefully and think about it. All the Tumble Through action allows you to do is enter an enemy's space, which is something you normally cannot do under the movement rules. This also means my idea of using it so a Sprite can enter an enemy's square without triggering an AOO won't work - in fact Sprites don't need to Tumble Through as the "Special Rules" for Tiny creatures allows them to move into an enemy's space. Your discussions have been an eye-opener for ME as I now understand that we've been playing Tumble Through wrong in my group, and I suspect many others have as well. We played 1st Edition for many years, and are still playing at this time (finishing up our last 1st Edition AP). This is a classic example of 1st Edition Players carrying forward their 1st Edition preconceptions to the 2nd Edition rules... and I admit to being guilty.
Just ask your GM. My GM lets my Sylph Sprite do 1d4 Bludgeoning (Air) with Sprite's Spark. Really, it's not going to break the game.
I disagree: Core 477 Special Circumstances "Your GM might allow you to overcome your target’s cover in some situations. If you’re right next to an arrow slit, you can shoot without penalty, but you have greater cover against someone shooting back at you from far away. Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center."
If you think your player would be interested, I have a couple sprites I built for Age Of Ashes that I won't be using: Sprite/Slyph Monk - Wild Winds Initiate build (Punching from range using gusts of wind!) Very fast on the ground and eventually gets Slyph Wings. (I also have an earlier version of this which covers level 1-7 by taking Monastic Archery and yet another version that is a Monk/Alchemist) Born and raised in Absalom, Max and his family are "City" sprites, known for helping struggling craftmen, particularly cobblers. As sprites go, Max is a bit mixed up, having grown up in a major human city (Adopted Ancestry - Human Feat) and his ancestors somehow having gotten a Slyph in the family tree (Slyph Versatile Heritage). But like his grandfather always said "A good craftsman is always welcome", so Max has decided to travel Golarion to see the world and the many shoes inhabiting it. Recently, Max has arrived in the town of Breachill, and has heard rumours of an abandoned castle full of shoes. Sprite/Oread Wizard multiclass Witch/Arcane & Alchemist with Corgi Mount
Originally hailing from the Wildwood, Glossaryck is a Luminous Sprite with Oread blood, something that both puzzled his family (as no one could figure out where that came from) and caused Glossaryck to feel like a bit of an outsider among the other sprites of the Wildwood. In time, Glossaryck left the Wildwood to pursue an interest in arcane magic, travelling to Nex, where he trained as a Wizard. Glossaryck spent decades in Nex and saw the war between Nex and Geb first hand. He remembers the day the Archwizard Nex fled to the Refuge, witnessed peace between Nex and Geb, and lived through the time of rebuilding. Glossaryck recently decided to set off, leaving Nex, to return to the Wildwood. In travelling back to the Wildwood, Glossaryck reached the town of Breachill, heard about the Call Of Hearoes, and decided he really wasn't all that interested in visiting his relatives... I can post more detail if you want. Edit: These do not use the Free Archetype variant, but that should be easy to add. Also, both are CHA 10 - not big on social skills.
Plants for example, don't have blood. I agree about the Elemental, but cytoplasm? "Cytoplasm, the semifluid substance of a cell that is external to the nuclear membrane and internal to the cellular membrane, sometimes described as the nonnuclear content of protoplasm." "In cell biology, the cytoplasm is all of the material within a cell, enclosed by the cell membrane, except for the cell nucleus." It sounds like cytoplasm is the stuff inside a blood cell - it's not itself blood. But my high school biology is 40+ years out of date, so I could be wrong. And yes, "sap" is probably not the correct technical term for whatever plants use, but I think it gets the point across.
I couldn't find anything restricting you from casting a spell on a scroll of a higher level than you can cast. The following snippets of rules seem to govern: "The spell on the scroll is cast at a particular spell level, as determined by the scroll." AND "To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list. Because you’re the one Casting the Spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell also gains the appropriate trait for your tradition (arcane, divine, occult, or primal)." I checked the definition of spell list and it doesn't seem to impose a limitation in terms of level: "Spellcasters cast spells from one of four different spell lists, each representing a different magical tradition: arcane, divine, occult, and primal. Your class determines which tradition of magic your spells use. In some cases, such as when a cleric gains spells from their deity or when a sorcerer gets spells from their bloodline, you might be able to cast spells from a different spell list. In these cases, the spell uses your magic tradition, not the list the spell normally comes from. When you cast a spell, add your tradition’s trait to the spell." So unless someone finds something, I think you just need to have the spell on your spell list and you're good to go! This makes a dip into a magic using class nice. You only get 2 cantrips, BUT you gain the ability to use scrolls of spells on that magic using class's spell list.
Hi! Are you using a variant, like double the class feats? I'm just trying to understand the build... You're right. I did check to weed out the skill feats, but I missed one, Thorough Reports, which gives you just enough class feats to get everything by Level 10. Thanks
Hi! Are you using a variant, like double the class feats? I'm just trying to understand the build... Level 1: Not usable to take any of the feats mentioned (even using retraining) as the other feats are all Level 2 or higher feats Level 2: Loremaster Dedication Level 4: Loremaster's Etude (and I'm going to assume you take Orthographic Mastery as a skill feat as your 2nd feat to meet the requirement to take 2 Loremaster feats in order to take another dedication) Level 6: Pathfinder Agent Dedication Level 8: Thorough Reports (EDIT - Here's the mistake- Thorough Reports is a skill feet... missed that) Level 10: Scrollmaster Dedication (which you can take as a continuation of the Pathfinder Agent dedication) ??? Bestiary Scholar Cognitive Crossover is a skill feat, so that doesn't eat a class feat. So you're out of class feats after Scrollmaster if you're only building to Level 10. You mention liberal use of retraining, but I don't see how that fixes any of this. I'm trying to work up a Witch based knowledge character and I was trying to understand your build to help me with my build, but I seem to be missing something. Thanks
My opinion is that you are over-thinking it. Every day a Fruit Leshy has one special healing fruit that ripens and does special stuff. If you want the character have other fruit that is ripe or ripe-enough for the goodberry spell, then let 'em. It's not like they're claiming they produce enough ripe fruit to feed 6 people daily and thus the group does not need rations! Or if you don't want their personal fruit to be an unlimited resource, just say they produce 1d6 additional (non-special) fruit per day that can be used with Goodberry. Whatever seems reasonable and don't overthink.
I'd say this is an "Ask your GM" issue. My take is that you, while having a Versatile Heritage, still derive from one of the Sprite heritages. In other words, I tend to think of the PC/Character as a "Draxie Aasimar", or a "Melixie Fetchling". Same goes for Humans - I don't think of the PC/Character as a Human Aasimar, but rather a Human (Varisian) Aasimar or Human (Kelish) Beastkin. If I were your GM and you took a Versatile Heritage, I'd let you pick an associated Sprite Heritage and you get the spark that goes with that heritage, and I would expect your physical appearance, outlook, etc., would be in line with the Sprite Heritage. So a Nyktera/Aasimar would probably be bat-like with aasimar physical traits. As you don't actually have the Sprite Heritage, I'd have to think over whether you could take Sprite Ancestry feats that have that heritage as a prerequisite... not answering that here.
Yea it does seem pretty odd. If balance is a concern just stipulate the martial weapons need to be a d6 or smaller. Maybe it's a thematic thing on the designers part, I'm not sure I'd make it proficiency with all simple weapons (regardless of finnese or agile traits) and with all martial weapons that have the finesse or agile trait, and keep in the shortbow. Also, note that this may include some weapons that are Uncommon. The rogue might be able to use them, but doesn't necessarily have access to them unless the GM allows them to obtain the Uncommon weapon.
Been away from my computer on which I check the boards for a few days, so just saw this. I just want to express support for Ravingdork... I generally have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to offer a legal service and someone else is willing to pay them for that service. To be honest, my answer may be different if someone were offering what I considered to be a reprehensible service (and that does make this subjective as different people will consider different services reprehensible), but GM'ing an RPG game is not reprehensible. To be clear, by reprehensible service, I mean the service itself is reprehensible, not the fact that someone is paid to do it. I would also like to point out that the pay to play model has been around for decades. In the 1970's and 1980's there were individuals and companies that ran play by mail strategy games. I played several games of Hyborian Age by mail where I paid a fee for each turn of the game. Even today, games have moved on-line with many games, like Warcraft, requiring a monthly subscription to play. I just don't see why a GM couldn't charge for his game as well. If he's too expensive, or people don't like the service, he won't get business. If he meets a need and people are okay with the price and service, he will get business. You don't want to pay, then go the free route - hopefully you have a GM available or are willing to GM yourself - not all of us do. I for one would love to play in a game run by Ravingdork (and no, I've never met the guy). My problem would largely be an inability to play in his time slot and, given the demands of my job and the separate, but equally (if not more) compelling, demands of my wife, an inability to commit to his game.
|
