Castilliano's page

Yes, there can be strange paradoxes, like not blocking a blow 5' away because the ally wasn't adjacent, but blocking a blow X' away because the ally was, where X can literally be any number. So yeah, it can tax verisimilitude, and one must set aside physics and reconsider how the protector tree operates, which must be magically in some way, like there's some kind of symbiosis that lets the tree absorb the damage that it can't reasonably reach. There's some sort of metaphysics at play beyond merely blocking, like the branches run along the ally's flesh to reach the Strike (but not other attacks that look just like a Strike). So yeah, it's a bit nonsensical for a tree that doesn't even impede movement to stretch so far, but it's clear that the tree does operate this way.

I think the difficult part is balancing enemy reactions not just with incremental, manageable mobs, but with the 10 minute recovery times (which the party often needs several of).

ETA: Agree with much said here re: timing, but let's remember how superhuman PCs get with their senses, explicitly Legendary for several classes. This may be one of those instances to gate behind proficiency rather than via static DCs which would likely imbalance the narrative. So a low-level Expert might discern more than a mid-level Trained, while mid-level Master would discern more than a high-level Expert, despite relative numbers.

One group I played with had a system where they'd simply say a key word to launch into door analysis; traps, listen, and formation. Then it wasn't on me to play their PCs as always remembering, and they wouldn't have to spell everything out each time either (especially in larger dungeon crawls). As for rolls, I'd simply save them for relevant doors, tossing in spare rolls so players couldn't determine which doors had mattered. And yes, every so often they'd forget, especially in particularly eager moments which suited RPing IMO.

Yeah, any feat with such a direct impact on gold would become a "must-have" for its impact on power, not only that PC's, but the whole party's who would naturally buy through that PC. So as Finoan noted, there's a way to do it thematically, but mechanically it's just another avenue to normal Downtime earnings (albeit perhaps with a superior skill). Paizo staff is well aware of 3.x/PF1 wealth shenanigans and has focused such options into one standard scale of Earn Income which is hard to exploit, easy to do well at...like most PC building is.

So, like for most of your questions, the answer's no, you cannot bypass PF2's power curves on paper, only through play; mostly teamwork and resource management.

Yeah, that has the poison trait, but it doesn't say it's poison damage to oneself. It's more like decay damage which isn't a thing so it's unavoidable. Plus (now that I've gone to AoN) I see the Instinct already grants Resistance to poison (and that's a bad ability compared to the Raging Resistance of most Instincts). And yeah, you're kinda trading your bonus damage (iffy) for that unavoidable damage (certain). That's a villain's Instinct IMO (especially w/ so many immune monsters).

Ligneous is more reasonable (and might suit my throwing Barbarian build idea well given he doesn't need to move as much). Just consider how to put out Persistent fire damage.

A Strong-Blooded Dwarf can mitigate the poison damage, but I wouldn't recommend poison as one's main martial damage bonus. While not many creatures have Resistance to it, many have immunity, including Undead & Constructs, many Elementals. Those are gaps hefty enough you'd have to build to address them (or travel w/ PCs who do). I've long wanted to build a specific PC who would best be made as a Green Dragon Instinct Barbarian for the poison (or perhaps Decay now), but it's poison's flaws that have deterred me the most (and she ain't no Dwarf, despite that being my PC concepts' most common Ancestry.)

As to the OP, "too vulnerable" is subjective to party dynamics. If in a resilient party, this ongoing damage can be accounted for, and the same with a party that eliminates its enemies quickly. But if playing with skirmishers, low AC casters, and ranged martials where you're the solo frontliner, yeah, you're going to need a personal healer...but so does a Giant Instinct Barbarian in a similar situation, but worse damage spikes from criticals/crit failed Ref saves. Same gamble in many, except having more certainty with how much damage you'll take makes a big difference IMO, especially in the worst battles.

Apologies for the lack of positive spin, other than sure, she's got some bite distinct from her class, and a backstory very intertwined with Lost Omens lore. Yay for that, but she feels more like an NPC antagonist than an out-of-the-box PC hero to pick up and play with.

I would've liked to see more emphasis on her intellect given that's her Key Attribute. Yes, there's a dash of puzzles and strategy, but it feels secondary to her leadership (Cha?), ferocity, and ruthlessness. And it's a ruthlessness so callous of her minions' fate it's hard to care about her. As noted above, her morality feels like an afterthought to the slaughter and hate that's propelled her. I would dislike playing alongside someone playing her authentically. Yuk.
(It feels like she has a +2 Int at 1st, which would've worked with the playtest version, so maybe that's why?)

Also, getting trained by world-class warriors well enough to contribute to their efforts alongside them and even protect a major entity (albeit poorly), followed by more esteem then even more success. Sounds like she's in double-digit levels by now...at the start of her journey?

The story makes it seems she should have actual followers, and has had them awhile now. How's that represented in game? "Oh, I left them at home this time around because I actually care about them after using them like disposable items so long." So odd (and yes, yuk). Of course, that's the trouble with the class's imagery vs. party-level play. Maybe she's between armies right now?

Ultimately her story reads more like that of a tempered Barbarian who's run amok with some success (and Charisma) leading mobs of minions more than a leader that empowers peers (as the class is built) with Intelligence, timing, and insight. Conan in a war leader phase more than a Napoleon or Sun Tzu with actual Int.

As character descriptions for RPing, GMing, or for the author to work from those are fine, but I'm unsure the relevance here. Did you want to begin a new post? Not that I know of a Forum section for PF/Lost Omens fiction, but I hope there's one or something adjacent. Maybe this is the best one...hmm. Maybe Pathfinder Infinite forums?

As a reader it's like you're trying to capture their personalities and relationship in a snapshot which flattens their actual story. Nearly all of that will need to be spliced within an actual narrative to impact us, complete with POV vibes and vocabulary (plus of course all the other story elements). Which is to say this venue might be inadequate for feedback on such specifics, given that such specificity is often secondary or even tertiary to a story which in turn requires more depth and engagement.

But best of luck with your story! Hope you find your audience.

Issues were handled, but who's to say if said mausoleum has attracted new dangers or been disturbed by intruders/beasts who break/awaken/ruin the situation? Well, the GM of course. :-)
Or it could be a fake out as PCs expect danger from that front, maybe they get ambushed by those using the mausoleum as a lure or betrayed by somebody or stumble on others who've found it a useful travel/meeting marker.

Reproduction was kind of brushed over when it's a major component in establishing and spreading a growing culture (which in turn pushes out others). Contrast with the brevity of cultures that encouraged abstinence or anti-natalism; there have been many, yet so few persist. While magical alternatives are plausible, cultures that (want to) flourish would push making babies the old-fashioned way as it maximizes output.

There's also the pressure to spread one's culture other ways, like by marrying outsiders who get integrated, which might encourage inter-Ancestral romance, which might lead to more robust surrogacy & adoption programs than on Earth. There are many positions in such ebbs and flows of development & pressure, so you have many options for your tale.

Of course, lots of Ancestries can breed or could breed for the sake of your story if you want to plaster over such things. It's a heavy theme IMO, so I'd advise either leaning into it or skirting it altogether. A casual treatment might be inappropriate when the issue reflects on the lived experiences of many people on Earth.

It is not an aura, so lacks the Aura trait, BUT it's altering an aura: Kinetic Aura, which does have the Aura trait. So putting that trait on Thermal Nimbus would be redundant (or maybe misleading, as it's not creating an aura of its own). If someone found a workaround to acquire this feat w/o gaining Kinetic Aura, the feat would do nothing despite lacking Kinetic Aura as a prereq.

So yeah, aura damage does occur due to the feat, those should be Area Effects which nearly all swarms have a Weakness to. (I believe there's one exception that instead loses Resistance.)

Rogue because those bonus skills and skill feats feel like having a second class (on a competitive chassis). Rogues with similar class feats can differ dramatically and having Dex-to-damage frees up some stat budget to develop RPing facets. Few if any of my Rogue concepts would describe themselves as rogues, and I enjoy when a theme can outshine one's class.

Trouble with AI on this is it will scrape data from non-PF2 sources, plus "AI confirmation" should never be a thing, rather the inverse, AI speculation followed by confirmation (like you're attempting here, kudos). In previous editions a Druid could change forms while in another form, often at the use of another daily use, and in media (like in the recent movie) the Druid shifts constantly (though w/o spells so she's really not a Druid, but a Shifter of some sort). So the trope is out there, but is it in PF2? Not that I see.

Second thing is that a lack of allowance won't have a citation; reading Untamed Form shows this lack w/o explicitly saying "one and only one". It has "...transforming your body into another form." So singular and that's it. No sign you can keep transforming into other form or re-choose. The rest of the language expands the options for that form. Form Control uses similar language of being in another form (singular) for an extended duration.

And then once you're in a Battle Form you can't cast Untamed Form again (being a spell, not simply an ability) so you'd have to revert back before casting again (w/ a second Focus Point). Exception is Anthropomorphic Form and any others that might pop up that don't transform you into a Battle Form. Another exception is True Shapeshifter (20th!) which does give the ability to change into another form on your list.

So yeah, at 20th...
Ancestries with a non-spell ability to polymorph themselves might be able to finesse their way around "returning to a humanoid shape first" though it'd likely cost the same in terms of actions/Focus Points and require a moment in an inferior shape. So seldom useful, but maybe if disguised or other overly specific situation.

In PF1 I had players who wanted their PCs to get swallowed, especially the Rogues and others who could dish out lots of Sneak Attack damage and not waste time on positioning.

But yeah, sounds like one of the just-barely moments that seem to arise often in PF2. With so many variables, that's astounding (if true that is, since sampling biases toward success stories).

In terms of support, all of that's good given the size of the party. And having to choose between two good options for one's Focus Points would be a benefit, not a drawback. Whether those domains provide good options is a matter of taste (I prefer the booms). And whether it's worth the feat is another question, but with Free Archetype, that's much cheaper, right?

I do question bothering with Angelic Sorcerer, like at all. You can manage the angelic imagery quite well with a singing divine caster angelkin. And it's not because of the Charisma cost (because a Cleric's casting stat is one of the save stats), but because picking up more from the Bard MCD would likely get better value, or from an Archetype that aids defense. You do get to skip over the most problematic levels, so maybe you're fine (esp. if you're alongside a Champion or other PC that protects their neighbors).

I'm glad you recognize the value of a surprise Fireball, as another worry was "pure support" since IMO all PCs in PF2 need an offensive option even if they keep it in their back pocket for choice moments.

And if this drives your GM insane, that's a GM issue. PF2 heavily favors teamwork, it's an intrinsic element of the game. Just make sure your PC isn't so dependent on others it can't operate on its own when pressed.

I am not sure it says anything about this in the rules but If you could inflict a sicken condition on the worm in theory it would either have to keep the penalty or throw up which should eject you back out of its stomach.

Pretty sure creatures don't have to vomit to lose the sickened condition.

Balkoth wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

Double Slice and similar feats let you add the damage of the strikes together before resistances so I'd say they count as one for the Rupture point.

The catch is you need to be dual-wielding weapons -- if I'm holding a polearm in one hand and a short sword in the other, I'm not sure I can stow a polearm while in the stomach of a worm.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

An elite purple worm can eat you, burrow into the ground to escape, and digest you far away from the party leaving you dead very easily if the DM is mean.

Yes, that exact scenario occurred to me.

Again, I'd understand a caster having trouble escaping and getting swallowed basically being a death sentence. But dealing with a physical threat like this seems like it should be the martial's forte...that Athletics score of 32 is just so freaking high. Technically above the Extreme stat (though 30 at level 13 for the non-elite creature is extreme).

Now, if I had invested in having the short sword be Greater Striking and two 1d6 damage runes it'd be dealing 24.5 average at this point...but Greater Striking runes are level 12 items and I already have one on my main weapon and my ranged weapon. Hard to have too many of those at level 12.

If someone gets swallowed, kill the worm as fast as possible before it burrows off with its meal.

This is why every PC needs to be able to contribute to offense, even if only in an emergency like this. This is a boss. Nuke it.

That said, injuring a dumb beast does drive it away... *sigh*

Yes, Gunslinger is niche, IMO too niche for a class, but it had the momentum from PF1 to require one...in a system that doesn't suit its crit-fishing playstyle. It could really be that the class exists so that gun and crossbow concepts can compete. It does fulfill those specific tropes, even if at great cost to maintain adequacy...is what I'd say if it weren't for many Gunslinger players regaling the forums with stories of being dominant contributors to their party's damage output (and yes, alongside respected classes).

So yeah, I'm not so interested in investing just to catch up to where bows begin (being IMO rightfully at the top of the curve re: fantasy ranged weaponry). But others are, and many have enjoyed the class. Instead of bashing on Gunslingers, maybe ask them what's working that you (and I) aren't seeing. Is it a difference in enemy types? Difficulty? Somehow making better use of hands or equipment or stats? I dunno.

Ravingdork wrote:

Don't the tanuki abilities say that they can be used like the real item though?

That leads me to believe that you could use the tea kettle over a fire just fine, since that is it's intended purpose.

Mechanically, I tend to agree.

It's worth noting that the original myth (or at least the version I heard) had the tanuki-teapot very much unable to withstand fire as a teakettle, halfway-reverting and running off whenever it happened.

In practice, I think it's best to go with whatever is funniest.

Apologies, I was defaulting to the general rules and hadn't examined any specific Tanuki ones (which would override of course). Trouble is that Teakettle Form is a can of worms. The many uses of all simple tools and objects would unlock too broad an array of abilities IMO (and at Level 1 at that) if one were to include mechanical benefits like fire resistance. It's so strong that PFS explicitly reiterates one cannot gain mechanical benefits from any of the Tanuki forms.

Polymorph effects only grant the form, as in appearance and shape, but nothing else unless it's listed. So a Tanuki isn't becoming a tea kettle, only itself in the shape of a tea kettle. If used to make tea, say over a fire, the Tanuki will burn like a Tanuki, not resist it like a kettle. But they also wouldn't become vulnerable to effects that target metal or only objects. In previous RPGs, polymorph effects which made you the actual creature/object/etc. allowed for far too many loopholes and exceptional abilities to handle, so for balance PF2 started from nothing so polymorph would only dole out suitable, listed abilities (as well as excellent disguises).

Morhek, your points makes sense on Earth which is my point re: Golarion; homosexuality (et al) has been normalized, even if it only appears as often as on Earth. Or at least normalized enough one needn't use euphemisms to address it. And if it's overt slang, there would likely be one for heterosexuality too (like there are in USA circles where homosexuality's accepted). And I doubt they use such dry, clinical terms, but rather several catchy words that they mix and match. I'm reminded of how many (non-romantic/non-sexual) conventions have nametags with color-coding that indicate one's sexual preferences and level of availability (so everyone's on the same page re: just flirting, etc.). I imagine Golarion likely has such quick indicators, plus inter-Ancestry, draconic, etc.

I ran a PFS1 scenario in Brevoy where PCs had to help a political marriage happen. The PCs are not playing matchmakers as it seems at first blush. The crux of the RPing dilemma was that the woman was a hidden lesbian uninterested in the man, which IMO should have been a known fact (even if she was more busy with her military career than romance). I wish I remembered more about the ramifications pertinent here, but it was mostly a dungeon-crawl (finding X helped solve marriage issues). Which is to concede that in the court/marriage intrigue of Brevoy, they perhaps do speak in euphemisms, likely to the point of having a whole underlying language for subterfuge in the open.

ETA: There'd likely be euphemisms for inter-Ancestry and other non-Earth sexual preferences (or outright criminal ones). And it's in light of those that the ones Earth has might have gained broader acceptance.

At my table there was a max-Charisma asexual diplomat who (along with her player) was completely oblivious that with her endorsement of the beauty of pursuing love she was succeeding at getting the NPC to prioritize romance more, but in a way that made it look like the PC was suggesting herself (something other players caught onto first). The player/PC had to finesse that faux pas, I believe going the "It's a shame I'm so devoted to my goddess" route. Not that the NPC would've responded immaturely, but the PC & player didn't want to break her newly awakened heart either. It was almost as if the scenario had been tailored to that very PC (who'd also emphasized haunt-killing, which allowed her to barely eliminate a particularly brutal one).

I mean, if there's an elemental plane of wood, why not one for bone? Both are just the hard structural bits of living or once-living organisms.

I believe Ravenloft had a Blood Elemental, and maybe Grave too, for macabre versions of water & earth. So Bone Elemental might be the horror-correlation for wood. (Horrorelation?) Of course, Golarion kinda nipped a lot of the quasi-elemental planes out as TSR had perhaps gone too far. Yet I'd imagine in infinite plains there'd be some representation of fringe concepts (at least in how overall metaphysics work in PF).

Yeah, I can think of similar examples, like rating a performance, but can't see one (yet) that would use Charisma as the stat. Stepping back, how would one hold knowledge w/ one's charisma/presence/etc? Doesn't seem feasible. It'd mostly fall back on Int as you note, or perhaps Wis for things similar to Sense Motive, like telling if someone's Demoralized, or other knowledge derived from perceptive cues. So to rate a performance one might reference the norms and history of similar performances (Int) or base it on the auditorium's vibe (Wis)...but Cha? I guess you might compare it to how well you'd have done it?

Then there's the Thaumaturge w/ Esoteric Lore so metaphysically there's some validation for using Cha for knowledge, but that's such a specific case (which led to heavy argument during the playtest) that it doesn't provide enough support to build a case from.

Mind you, having the Cha skills + Cha makes a major impact already, being among the most important party/combat/NPC skills so maybe leave some room for the PCs with other mental stats. :-)

Yeah, I was wondering about this too from the implications of the other thread. Where does the bigotry begin or does it? Bigotry's a useful tool for conflict, yet I doubt grognards want to return to AD&D with its chart of acceptance/tolerance/hatred that can only sow too much conflict, as in plot-wrecking/plot-less discord.
[spoiler=Flashback] I played in a D&D tournament w/ pregens where one guy with a Dwarf used their racial hatred of Elves (which didn't exist to that degree anyway) as an excuse to attack a group that had the drop on us (and was intending to give us a quest, not fight). Those who couldn't use magic to hide died swiftly. Groan. [spoiler/]

It feels like Paizo has intentionally avoided bigotry for decades, even defied it (esp. re: gender & sexuality). I embrace that they do since who wants their escapism marred with real-world issues we might struggle with every day. And so the more mammalian "others" (mostly the green guys), got redemption arcs that humanized them and their struggles to justify better inclusion. Half-Orcs & Half-Elves get proper names for their Ancestries to avoid the hybrid stigma (even as I remain ignorant of them!). Golarion gets grim, but heroes have opportunities to rectify wrongs, and it's hard for a quest to solve social issues like that.

So I'd say the default is there are no cultural reactions to inter-Ancestral romance, no barriers to such RPing inherent in Golarion's design. This is much like how parties can have the most bizarre combinations of PCs yet are more likely to raise eyebrows for their gear. Strangeness is so normal and accepted (outside of isolated spots of course) that I think adding romance would only raise physiological curiosity more than disgust (assuming the Ancestries in question were fully accepted to begin with). Two fully recognized mature agents falling in love? Go for it. The parents might pressure them to adopt though.

As for specific places like Taldor & Cheliax, maybe Brevoy and places in Tian, I'd think the implication on mixing levels of wealth/nobility or wasting a valuable political commodity like marriage/bloodline would carry more weight. "Of course you may date a tree, honey, as long as they're a well-connected, wealthy tree." So in Cheliax, a powerful estate would likely despise their child having relations with a Halfling due to implied poverty, but that might mirror their dislike for a human whose poverty was overt. I also think this is why they dislike fiendish Nephilim, most will lack social gravitas.

This doesn't prevent adding as much such discord as one likes of course. I still expect to see a Diplomacy bonus if playing the same Ancestry as the isolated tribe, or penalty if playing a PC resembling their enemies, which in turn would alter their judgments of romance. Heck, if they see a "liked" Ancestry dating a "disliked" one, that might even help them empathize when trying to negotiate peace.

And I do have a Leshy-Elf hybrid I hope to play one day. :-) One might say she's a Wood Elf. :-P

Starfinder just straight-up says that the party gets their first starship for 'free' at or before the start of the game and can't spend the same currency for upgrading their ship as is used for buying their PC's equipment, goods, and services.

Yeah, if the campaign's centered on airship battles this might be the better way to go, separate wealth-development streams. Otherwise a lot of money might get wasted on ships that get destroyed or the opposite where PCs prioritize taking ships because of the wealth they'll gain. Personally I (if I could get the other players to agree) would neglect my ship and put "ship wealth" into personal flying prowess to hijack enemy ships, and seldom put my best ships at risk.

There's a 3.X Paizo AP in Dungeon Magazine where the party augments one ship all the way until sailing the River Styx, and while it's cool to pilot the same ship through such an arc, it took a lot of effort and plot manipulation to make that viable (esp. in an RPG where it was easier to break objects). Even then, the PCs get kinda bound to the ship because you can't leave that much gold unguarded (or effectively unguarded by NPCs too far below your level). It's kinda like Knight Rider where you want the hero to do their own heroing, but the car's the special concept in the story, but in the case of airships there's little security to protect it...so now KITT's in the hands of who knows who...so why bother investing in KITT when you can buy anti-armor weaponry for yourself.

Depends on how you want to manipulate it and whether you want to manipulate a gold-looking substance or gold itself. Since gold's tied to wealth which is directly tied to PC power, the game doesn't toy around with gold so much. Downtime's primary emphasis is its effect on one's wealth, as measured in gold. As in, you won't be able to manipulate gold in any way that makes your PC wealthier than a PC who doesn't (with all else being equal).

There's Needle Darts where gold works fine as its metal, but most of the spells which create or alter metal exclude precious metals. But if you just want the semblance of gold, I think most GMs would let your metallic spells be golden. I'd go so far as to reflavor most any solid creation as gold-like, but not in any sense that would trick people (which is another common thing w/ created objects in PF2, people can tell they're worthless so PCs can't gain wealth that way).

If I were to build a gold-manipulator I'd go with a Metal Kineticist. It has abilities that let you manipulate and shape gold itself (and other metals of course) and maybe your GM will let your metallic creations look like gold (though again, not in any sense that increases wealth or tricks onlookers).

Where's the euphemism for heterosexuality?
As in, on Golarion there'd be equal use for that, right?
In front of kids or maybe in sacred spaces where celibacy is practiced.
Or are there places where alternate sexuality carries a stigma? I don't think mainstream adults care, at least not until straying into other species perhaps.

And Cayden's carousers makes me think of drunks not bisexuals. Or maybe people who get lustful when drunk. And I'd think he'd be more pansexual, but I'm a step removed from that lore. (Spellcheck doesn't recognize pansexual, so there's that...)

Yeah, everything about the Archetype shouts "free" to me, and even then its drawbacks are significant. I can't imagine building around it; even if I were roleplaying an actual Magic Warrior I'd take a different route to similar powers.
"Ha, ha, I've got your mask!"
"Oh no, not the briar--my mask!"

Music will be ubiquitous certainly. While Shelyn lifts it into being sacred by default, I'd imagine most religions have sacred music. Its impact on one's psychology (especially with choral participation & ritual) coupled with Golarion's reality having magic/spirit/soul/etc., esp. Bardic magic, would make music too powerful of a tool to shelve.

Given the diversity of musical preferences on Earth w/ one sapient species and fewer international religions, I'd think popular & religious Golarion music would be too vast to specify.
Or maybe with the aid of magic, older civilizations, access to deities, and so many traditions learning from each other it's the opposite. Maybe concepts like percussion, melody/harmony, etc. have underlying truths beneath them that lend themselves to a singular language...bringing us back to Bards, True Names, & Occult lore. We're now in the realm of "Math, is it created or discovered? Yes." territory, except with subjective tastes about whatever objective truths there are.

I'd think like on Earth there'd be legends of "perfect songs/voices/instruments" etc., except on Golarion some would be true.

If you catch it in time, you might want to change the title because this is less about Courageous Assault and most about whether characters begin combat with a Reaction available.

IMO your ally did not use/lose their Reaction so they don't need to regain it for you to use your ability. I say opinion because there are GMs who disagree. But aren't there Reactions that occur when rolling initiative or before one's first turn (and make no mention of bypassing any rules)? If so, it'd be clear that combatants begin with a Reaction available. Even if not, how did the creatures not regain their Reaction since their last Encounter? Having a Reaction available isn't like a Stance or Rage that one establishes and then it goes away once combat ends.

That said, perception plays a role, the most regular example being a creature w/ Reactive Strike might not know what's occurring, or even that a fight's starting (until their initiative comes up). That's get into nebulous territory IMO, as while that might make sense in a city w/ many noncombatants triggering RS's in the streets, in a haunted castle one's likely to smack anything shadowy darting past (for better or worse).

A lot of the Skull & Shackles AP pirate rules could be translated to PF2 with minor effort. It might not address such complicated concepts as you're researching though. Most pirate fights are one-ship vs. one-ship which plays out kinda like standard melee of key characters w/ unimportant crew blurred into the background (though the AP has lots of party exploration too for standard play). There's also a secondary mini-game when dealing with fleets, reputation, and collecting booty, ya' know pirate-genre tropes. The rules favor those avenues much more than how many veteran players might handle it w/ PC guerilla tactics taking out fleets single-handedly w/ crew-killing magic & underwater sabotage at practically zero risk. So at least you might find a way there to address meta-tactics which might spoil the spirit of the campaign, though getting players on board for genre-appropriate play would likely work best.

As Finoan said, it's a bit rules-light in PF2, which also means there aren't rules to break so you can tune the effects to suit the danger & drama you want for any particular fight scenes. The airship angle might prove a little rough as pushing might become an insta-kill tactic. PCs might lean into flying so much they trivialize the obstacles NPCs might still be dealing with.

I don't understand #1, is it meant only to mirror "skeleton in one's closet"? Except locked away securely? Subject to purchase/bribery? Or something deeper like how the vault's so tight one might die in there and not be discovered until desiccated? (so something lost rather than hidden) Or maybe even like an immortal guardian of what's valuable, sitting there idle, but with an ultimate purpose?

Funny thing is I've played with several Asmodean lawyers in PFS1, two at one table even (much to the chagrin of them there was little time to indulge in RPing for that one...thank goodness!).

3 feels a bit too risky to actually spout about in public (assuming it's being sarcastic). Heck, maybe it's straightforward for those focusing on his intelligence or with less religious knowledge, buy a cutting barb for others.

Finoan,
-I literally advised to avoid such a situation (and to patch it up soon after if it did occur), so I'm unsure why you'd question whether I'm so malicious as to enact one.

-But a GM doesn't have to be malicious for a player (more than the PC) to create such an unfortunate situation. PCs encounter a lot of devastating events, often feel safe when they shouldn't (like say to take their backpack off), or have negligent players. One player had his character put a Bag of Holding over his head to be funny by pretending it was a Bag of Devouring...which it was. The GM showed us in the module to verify he wasn't intentionally being an ass. And while maybe I'd have avoided playing an adventure with such an item, many of my players have insisted on taking an undue risk even after I double-checked with them. And I'm not going to override their agency/run their PC for them. Often a veteran will reiterate that the GM double-checking is a red flag, but setbacks happen.

-And I wouldn't store my spells in any fancy spellbook I had to hold in my hands to activate some combat effect. Wizards (et al) at least have the luxury of stowing their prized class-possession. Warriors lack that luxury, and I can think of one mid-high level PFS scenario where lava swells into the final boss fight, though it could be any ol' cave collapse, flood, abyss sucking all matter in, etc. Unlike a home game, PFS wouldn't patch up the wealth gap if a warrior had dropped their gear there (and it was a vicious boss who dropped several PCs when I ran it but they had an above level healing Cleric played by a savvy guy who I thanked afterward).

-I had forgotten about the free spells gained upon leveling. Yes, that could make a severe difference in treasure lost, but again I'm against targeting such items.

-I have known players who'd invested over half their gold into one quite-droppable item. Eek. In fact, one regular (PFS1) who'd invested even more than that in his bow had another PC who'd invested far more in his animal's gear than his own...his Huge animal that couldn't fight in the scenario's inn with 5' corridors. I find such extremes negligent in face of the varied fantasy situations one might find oneself in.

-There was at least one "fight in the baths" PFS1 scenario which did strip warriors of their weapons & armor (and I believe casters lost their spell component pouches too). It was easy enough to be boring, but many a Monk (including mine, not knowing about it) stomped it single-handedly (which makes the combat near worthless to set up IMO). Which is to say that published adventures (unless they require pregen PCs) should avoid such potential gross imbalance. Even one of the ancient modules from meaner times that stripped the party (and was made for pregens in a competition) made certain to give the casters a few token spells and have a spy drop in many scrolls...for after PCs created a light source.

-I think a home game could pull this off, and I'd used a prison escape (during a destructive incident too) to begin one campaign, but of course I tailored it for those PCs so they could get (and savor) the resources they needed and they technically didn't lose any gear because they started with none. :-) (Yes, there was a Wizard, and he fared fine.)

Castilliano wrote:

Sounds like we're in the same realm of losing a high-value weapon (at least at levels where the difference matters). The Wizard (et al) would be stuck using whatever Cantrips they'd last prepared, much like a warrior would be stuck with an inferior weapons.

I realize that I am nit-picking here. And I don't disagree with your post overall.

But this comparison is not very valid. It looks approximately accurate at first glance, but there are a lot of things in practical scenarios that aren't being taken into account.

Yes, if you strip a fighter of their runed-up weapons and strip a wizard of their spellbook, both are going to be rather ineffective until they replace those items.

But any scenario that is going to strip a fighter of their weapons and a wizard of their spellbook is also going to strip the wizard of their own runed-up weapons (yes, wizards may have and use weapons), staves, wands and other such things that will all have to be replaced.

So if your are counting the cost of replacing the spellbook as equivalent to the fighter replacing their weapons, what is the equivalent cost to the fighter for replacing the wizard's staff, wands, and weapons? If you don't have a good answer for that, then the GM is effectively double dipping the wizard on the cost penalties of this plot arc of losing equipment.

You've veered into prepared-scenario territory. I wasn't addressing the topic as a planned plot arc, i.e. prisoners escaping, or something similar, where everybody loses everything; rather as losing one's primary investment item in an unfortunate or negligent incident and its effects on the PC's viability. So those staves, wands, etc. would be as available as a warrior's backup weapons (and armor, shield, consumables, etc.). A well-stocked Wizard could probably weather the deprivation quite well, much like a warrior whose secondary weapon were only a notch inferior to their primary. But remember that the main point wasn't the situation being equal mechanically, rather feeling equally un-fun...thus something to be avoided and patched up if it does occur.

If the whole party were stripped and kept from preparations for a scenario, I'm failing to see the double-dipping since I'd think PCs had relatively the same amount of gold invested in their gear. Don't they? Plus at most levels I'd rather have a caster with Cantrips than a Fighter with a rock (though a Rogue w/ a spoon might be best).
And IMO it'd be insane to destroy that much equipment rather than say have it held somewhere for the PCs to reclaim later after a sobering time without which develops a greater appreciation for one's treasures. Most every player I've had has made their PC grow attached to some piece of gear or other aside from its practical/economic value, so that'd be mean to include that too.

Sounds like we're in the same realm of losing a high-value weapon (at least at levels where the difference matters). The Wizard (et al) would be stuck using whatever Cantrips they'd last prepared, much like a warrior would be stuck with an inferior weapons. Except of course that many warriors carry a backup weapon and classes with smaller weapons tend to pack a lot of punch from their class bonuses so the penalty varies.

My point though is that it's so un-fun to lose one's primary weapon (et al) that PF2 removed Sunder, AoE damage to your gear when you're dead, and many of those acid-eats-your-weapon creatures, plus a GM is expected (at least by posters in Paizo forums) to replace such weapons (or other essential gear like armor; perhaps via pure gold) after only a short time of hardship. So yeah, losing a spellbook's so unfun that even when you were expected to have a backup in previous editions, it was still considered poor gamesmanship to target a PC's spellbook (or spell component pouch for that matter) even though it should have been a go-to tactic by long-term villains.

So unless playing a particularly brutal and grim game, there should be no need to copy a spellbook (at least for oneself), and if something did befall one's spellbook, the responsibility to replace it kinda falls on the GM (after whatever short time of hardship).
If copying it for another Wizard (et al) to use, I think that'd fall under normal prices for learning new spells so there's no workaround for those costs (unless said workaround is part of a reward of course).

keftiu wrote:

Andoren troops in Isger feels like quite the escalation to one Andoren citizen's execution - by Hellknights, not even Chelish troops!

Agreed. Andoran should have asked Isger (Cheliax) to hand over those who were guilty of the murder.

Andoran sending troops to "invade," even a nominally sovereign nation, to render justice feels like an invasion and thus, an act of war on Almas' part.

It looks like Andoran is provoking Cheliax on purpose.

"Looks like" plays a key role here. How high up the chain does responsibility go and what were their motivations? Is it personal grudge they're willing to drag their country into or a Cheliax operation giving Cheliax political motivation and faux innocence?

Or better yet, did the Whispering Way shove these pawns into each other so two major military powers (who both have strong political influence to rally others) will spend all their might on each other rather than on the undead invasion? The Whispering Way is controlled by immortal geniuses after all, and I'd hope they would've learned something from watching how the region responded to the Worldwound. Gotta nip those crusades at the source. Also learn something about their enemies' deepest reserves of power.

As sound as that seems coming from an Earth POV, I wonder how viable this strategy is in a "level up to superhuman levels" schema. Sure, the region will lose lots of troops and civilians, maybe even make plenty of juicy graveyards to suck necromantic energy from, but in a world where heroes > armies, how many heroes do you want your enemies to build?
What steps might the WW take to prevent that? Perhaps say, hampering Raise Dead efforts? Even if not the instigators, they should devote resources to trap some higher-powered souls and ensure that both sides feel the attrition rather than grow stronger in this perverse "killing = XP = tangible power" universe. Heck, does entropy even measure up again magic and heroism?

I thought somebody covered cover above: It's relative to the enemy attacking vs. where you (the target) are, so it doesn't matter where you (not the target) are. This goes the opposite way too if they attack the you with cover, then it doesn't matter if they had a clear shot at your other self.

I'd rule similarly that the you acting within the aura gains the benefits, but not the you not within the aura IF the aura's altering an attack/adding defense. I wouldn't let the Paladin respond if the you outside their aura was attacked. Also, if an enemy's aura gave you unluckiness so you had to roll an attack twice/take lower, I wouldn't have it alter attacks from the you outside the aura.

For some effects, like say if the aura granted Fast Healing or inflicted a Condition like Enfeebled, then that's you as a whole taking the effect (rather than targeting what you do), so it's on you no matter which of you is acting, though would end if you dismissed the one in the aura.

Set wrote:

About the only way I could see Cheliax rise right now is as the footstool to Asmodeus, making his grand play to open a new 'Worldwound,' leading this time, to Hell, with Cheliax as his beachhead into this plane (perhaps the closing of the Worldwound left some planar weakness that he could exploit to open a planar rift somewhere else, as stretching out the planar membrane to once more seal off Sarkoris left it weak to piercing somewhere else, say, Cheliax?).

We already know House Thrune doesn't want this. In The Inferno Gate (PF105), the PCs were tasked with shutting down an uncontrolled gate to Hell. It's not good for Thrune's control of Cheliax to have unsanctioned and uncontrolled devil incursions into its territory. Too much chaos (ironically) in that.

I was just about to reply that Hell doesn't want chaos, nor to control chaos. Sure, I think they initiated chaos to begin with so they could dupe Chelaxians into embracing diabolical order. But reverting to that would be a step backward. Trouble is, war is inherently chaotic, "plans never survive contact with the enemy" and such. So with their immortal patience and planning, there should be more to their strategy that hordes doing horde things. That'd also be boring (and conflict with Paizo's recommendations for Dungeon adventure submissions back in the day).

Also, who knows what will be player-facing. The PCs' story will likely focus on pivotal moments with pivotal people rather than mass clashes, even while those occur. I hope we don't have to build up armies and recruit sub-commanders like in some of the organization-building APs. That's a lot of wasted page space IMO which put so many eggs in one basket/mechanic that it's hard to make a balanced struggle: you kinda need to win before the conflict begins...which is pretty Sun Tzu, but not so grand for an RPG.

Since I like sensory narratives, I prefer auras being visible and their effects being tangible, but not necessarily.

Like at my tables a Barbarian that rolls a nat 20 might lead to a player joking that the Stench aura smells bad to their PC, but not bad bad or even smells good, like grandma's stew (made with nasty ingredients, like say these creatures with the Stench ability).

A glowing Champion? Or glowing spell effects? Sound apt, though that won't reveal what that the glows do, but a glowing Marshal, probably not visible since that's more motivational than magical, but maybe everyone's demeanor shifts (to those enemy's alert to such things).

Which is to say, I think auras are too case-by-case to have a singular rule, but a GM should clarify which way they lean on any auras the PCs should be familiar with.

I'd imagine Nethys priests blowing crap up, much like a science demonstration focused on the showy effects & power more than the principles (to study for one's personal edification as everyone's at a different level). Use them spell slots! Followers who've developed higher Rank abilities might demonstrate them sort of as a coming-of-age ritual or the mark of moving up to another order (like with fellowship societies) so they can wear a cooler sash w/ a new color or more badges or something.

I hope Iomedae's sermons aren't so ritualistic and so centered on her deeds & the past instead of her principles & the crowd's calling for the future. Probably depends more on the priest and other context...much like Catholicism. OMG, she does call for crusades, doesn't she? Hmm. Big difference when there are actual demons, not just demonized victims.

I wonder if Abadar followers actually know how to share. :) It could be like the trading floor of the stock market, or a big haggle-fest (or maybe that's their day-to-day life?). Or hmm, maybe like some business guru from the humanism/Good of Simon Sinek empowering the crowd to the duplicitous Evil of MLMs & pyramid schemes manipulating them. I so dislike Abadar's indifference to such variance. Can't trust 'em, but kinda have to rely on them?? Yikes. I can imagine the strife within the church itself.

It doesn't say generated by actions, does it? It applies to all effects, there are no qualifiers there. Yes, there is a rules gap re: when does one choose where to center ongoing effects, but it's obvious that one's auras are effects that are generated by oneself so fall under this rule. You have to choose which one of your selves is the source.

IMO Thaum w/ mirror creating two aura sources makes it too strong for the investment, even if not unbalancing (a difficult bar in PF2's well-balanced world). Compare it with Expand Aura (6th) which is costly until 10th and lacks all the tricks mirrors give you.

That's awesome, I've long wanted to adapt Age of Worms (though can't expect to with my limited time). Yeah, that'll take you all the way to 20th I'd think and Con should serve better vs. the thematic threats (though all of your defenses will be challenged at some point so you'll want an 18-20 in all of your save stats by the end if not 10th/15th). Your warriors should be able to protect you from melee enemies through the earliest adventures and sounds like the Witch can cover you in an emergency (and vice-versa...since I suspect the Witch will be significantly more vulnerable than you, and maybe more than their players suspects.)

There's a cap on how much Dex will help AC, but not on how much Con will help h.p., so it depends on if you'll be playing to the levels where you'll reach that cap (which depends on armor proficiency). (Though do note that having high Reflex saves matters a lot too.)

A hefty amount of which is preferred depends also on what type of campaign you're in. In one where you face a lot of AoEs (dragons & blaster casters), then you'll want more Dex than if facing poisons & diseases in an undead campaign. Are you underground and indoors a lot where it's easy to cut enemies off from reaching you or outdoors where you'll get attacked nearly as much as the warriors?

And are you taking Reach Spell so you can safely stay back? Is there a Champion who can defend you well vs. melee, but not so much vs. ranged? Or are the melee PCs skirmishers leaving you to fend for yourself? Is there another healer?

In a low-level one-shot, I'd go Dex, maybe leave Wis a little low instead of Con. But as Power128 pointed out, if going to higher levels I'd likely favor Con if I had to choose. On casters (light or no armor), I prefer 14 in each, but I am thinking long term and relying on defensive positioning/teamwork.

Everything you say is true and agreed upon by the majority of GMs (I'd think), but the OP didn't ask for general boss advice, rather for favorite duos. A lot could be gained by covering the broadest varieties of dynamic boss fights, but this thread only addresses one subset.

If you want to start another thread regarding all types of bosses, especially unusual combinations within active settings, you'll likely find a lot of the posters here participating there too.

Lot of houserules being proposed for a rules thread.

So they're not considered 12L for a Large character then.

Okay.

Yes, because Bulk rules (beyond typical equipment) quickly devolve into irrational conundrums. Interpreting them rationally requires more intuition and stopgap solutions than logic and rigor, even in the Rules Forum. Sadly, depending.

Hell no. Yes, each item of 1 Bulk converts to one L, but Bulk rules defy algebra (see above). Each unit of Bulk for larger items converting into 1 L Bulk would be ridiculous, and I'm shocked you'd suggest it.

Setting oddness aside, RAW seems clear: Being Large only changes Bulk for items of one Bulk (become L) and items of L Bulk (become negligible). A 2 Bulk item remains 2 Bulk, and gaining extra Bulk capacity addresses that.
So, your companions (none weighing 1 Bulk or less) remain the same Bulk to your Large PC, but your Large PC (despite having mediocre Str) can still carry three of them (Encumbered) or two (not).

In a party, swapping some 1 Bulk gear over to your PC might open up enough carrying weight for someone else to pick up one of the Small creatures for you. Cheesy, but it is what it is.

Oh, there are some good ideas here, but I don’t think you are looking for just boss encounters, correct? I’m trying to think up some encounters that aren’t necessarily end of the chapter or section duo combinations. Instead you can have memorable encounters that embody something more, such as an elaborate kobold trap that leverages a specific type of hazard with a particular creature. Hmm. I’ll have to think about this a bit more.

I think the OP does indicate they want just boss encounters, or at least "two equally strong buddies with synergy". I don't think having one of the buddies be a trap or hazard qualifies (as interesting as that is).

One other consideration for the "humans on different planets (and even in different galaxies)" issue: It's really hard to create entirely new fictional species and societies (to include history and cultural subgroups) in a consistent and believable manner. And then gamers would have to actually study the material to create characters that don't violate the setting expectations; you can even see this in RPGs that are based on real world historical areas.

That's the primary reason that humans are so often the "baseline" for most RPGs. Even if it doesn't "make sense" for settings not on Earth.

Yeah, that's the same reason so many (arguably TOO many) stories start with an Earthling the audience can identify with and who can use Earth slang/references/analogies. Then when thrust into a bizarre situation the narrator has touchstones for audience comprehension, a human mind which can comment on behalf of them.

That's not convergent evolution. Not saying this faux cousin isn't a viable solution, just that I'd recommend a new sparkly name rather than the actual term for a lesser phenomenon. Assuming one doesn't want to go the 60s sci-fi/superhero route of mangling science out of laziness, i.e. Radiation=magical plot device. Hmm. Or modern too I suppose by those tagging "quantum", "aura", or some esoteric biological term on unfounded beliefs.

So one might call it a Primary Evolution Track for the most common forms w/ other tiers based on commonality. Since so many planar creatures have a similar form (and often can mate with humanoids) one could add some divine lingo if preferred, like Exalted Evolution (if that class hadn't existed!), maybe Divine Image Evolution (where evolution "naturally" leads towards these duplicates of planar creatures). Mirrored Evolutionary Pressure causes DNA-Level Hyperevolution (where mirrored and hyper mean little to nothing, but have that zing).

I also find it a stretch to operate as if humanoids are best-case scenarios re: evolutionary outcomes, and some less common Ancestries might argue here. Obviously it's dragons, just ask a Kobold. :-)

Though, Dominate being uncommon is that you can use it on NPCs to absolutely break some narrative models, Right? Because to my knowledge every source of applying Controlled to a creature as part of a spell is uncommon or rare. With feats that apply controlled being very specific.

I know Lust runelords have it, But they themselves are rare. Other than that I cant think of any other character option outside of Animist with Monarch of the Fey Courts

Yes, plus some tables are uncomfortable with effects that strip away agency, especially in the hands of "heroes". It's easier to opt-in and allow them than it'd be to opt-out if they weren't Uncommon/Rare.

One might also argue that mechanically these effects can have disproportionate impact depending on a party's composition (including enemy mobs).

I'm reminded of some brutal creatures in Baldur's Gate that could destroy a small party, but were manageable for large parties and near powerless against solo heroes who had no allies to attack so could wait out the control, attack monster, get controlled, and repeat. AI hadn't factored in that option. Leveled up really fast soloing the game.

There's no canon answer to your question re: multiple planets, so any of the answers above work if you want them to, even simultaneously to explain the different lore/time frames and interbreeding. Ultimately I find it difficult to rectify "evolution of humans on real Earth" with any of it. But PF-verse Earth isn't real Earth anyway so IMO the best (until a narrative requires otherwise) would be First World templates seeded throughout the PF-verse w/o too much deviation/speciation for those from separation, but unlimited extra species that arise via evolution, magic, planar energies, & the hordes of powers prone to tampering.

Much of Golarion comes from staff campaign worlds (especially JJ's), so there's no one source or methodology. A contributor friend of mine was free to create his own names for his scenarios, then got caught trying to sneak in German wordplay (not quite puns, but close). So there is oversight, yet there have also been accidents like duplication or names so similar they must be related (but aren't). I recall a situation where Orc names seemed racist to speakers of one Earth language because their names shared similarities, unintentionally I must add.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the "sounds cool" method, now coupled with a Paizo database & Google to double check.

I love the idea of the fire giant w/ fire wall caster defending a corridor at the start of a dungeon, being basically unapproachable by a lower-level party. But by maneuvering around the dungeon, the players can get behind them and fight them in a more favorable open area.

Yeah, that's one where preparation (or stealth) would make a big difference. Heightened Resist Elements, some cold spells, maybe an effect to get a flanker through or break a wall, all would be strong tactics a party might not have available on first contact. So the party gets rewarded when it returns.