Castilliano's page

Lol, Rust Monsters.Who know what society might have achieved without them.

I think of them as underground dwellers, but yeah, if there was a long line of food/railway, it'd only take one (or gasp, a breeding couple) to derail the next car. Heck, sentient scavengers of many types might not even recognize a railway's purpose (much like happened in rural Japan w/ telegraphs and Eastern Europe w/ internet wiring!).
Pretty sure they're out of the spotlight, but still exist. I think only the Drow disappeared, but out of the spotlight does kinda mean they won't factor much in determining what's what & what's possible.

With Walls of Stone I wonder how viable stone railways might be, not so much on a regional scale, but local in a city, mine system, or port. Again the Kineticists would do even better here. They're so game-changing.

Overall it feels like most of these data are first impressions from a veteran player more than a guide. Thank you for adding quotes. :-)

Caveats should be the norm for most Tactics. This is the most party-dependent class there is (as you've noted). For Strike Hard, if you think it loses its oomph, then it could have different ratings by PC level because yeah, Demoralizing Charge dominates when it arrives. So I could see several ratings for each Tactic, one for PFS w/ zero party knowledge, one for when there's party synergy (both which you have, so yay!), and others if level/newly competing Tactics arise later. I'd likely add more, like noting which ones work well w/ Plant Banner's risks plus which have synergy with a melee vs. ranged vs. non-combatant Commander (which I prefer).

Also I'd reckon a Commander's Strikes about as valuable as the second/MAP attack of a dedicated martial given the class's opportunity costs (and the movement needed for melee is hardly worth the Tactics lost). If you agree, point that out to prospective players. A Commander focused on Strikes works better as an MCD Commander IMO.

The stats section feels shallow, maybe separate for different builds? Cover Int as primary vs. secondary cost/benefit. Weigh the stats vs. each other more, i.e. Wis has "definitely invest in this", but is ranked Green, decent. What's a reader to make of that, much less a new player?

Plant Banner is a game-changer, even if risky. I go into detail in a post many moons ago (and I seldom start a thread so it's easy to find if interested), but the primary tidbit is it's worth it even if you just Plant & pick up. The temp h.p. remain, even if they don't refresh.

I love the Commander's AC, but 5 stars? Must one really have a very good reason not to choose this? It's a major build commitment, takes a valuable action, and IMO requires some party support to cover a Commander's gaps, i.e. healing it.

With so many blues at 2nd level, there should be some guidance on how to pick from among them. You're just reiterating what they do & clapping.
Note that Tactical Expansion can be taken later to get extra high-level Tactics, like the few 1/day ones you can swap out.

Reactive Strike should only be blue for melee Commanders (which is obvious to us, but you're even saying Wizards should take it which is silly and might mislead a new player reading this).

Fortunate Blow IS game-changing, I agree, which should be mentioned in its prereqs (which alone are mediocre IMO) and in choosing one's overall build-type. I might put Confusing Commands in the same category, bad prereq, but game-changing feat; if playing into high levels it'd be a major reason I wouldn't ignore Int...if the prereq didn't interfere.

---
Thanks for the effort, typing out so much is substantial labor.
I'd consider looking at how different Commander types change the rating of most Tactics & feats. The lack of guidance for players when they first approach this class surprises me; I think managing expectations matters a lot here as it's hard to balance all the things a Commander can do well w/ stats & action costs. Ex. if one carries a shield to become more durable in melee (yay) then they have less reason to be in melee (w/ no damage boosts they kinda need a bigger weapon).

I'd think a new player needs to review this with a purpose in mind. If they just went with the "best-rated" feats it'd be a mess. So an opening about the different builds would help.

Pure speculation...
It could also be that instead of writing two sets of stats authors can focus on one more precise set, and then use more PC adjustments. For example, for a 7-8 level scenario, 7th & 8th level PCs can play it straight as written whereas before the change it might be 6th-9th with two sets of enemy & obstacle stats. One set is easier to write, edit, GM prep, etc.
Then (with a big IF) 6th level PCs & 9th level PCs could play with an adjustment, so ultimately the adventure covers the same level ranges, but with emphasis on the middle levels. Unlike a 6th-9th level scenario, these would be awkward for an all 6th or all 9th, which might already be a problem Paizo thinks they're fixing.

So instead of the scenario's trying to fit in a range of PCs (and perhaps losing some precision for some of that range/one of those tracks), it's the PCs that are adjusted to fit in the scenarios. Which yes, is done already with mismatched parties so it's not a foreign concept.

I'm reminded of the earliest PFS1 scenarios with extreme level ranges, and it made all the difference in the world whether Lord so&so was at fireball levels or not, making for quite different table experiences and NPC tactics. "Don't play adventure X at high level" was an occasional warning. With level differences mattering more in PF2, maybe this further tightening is necessary for finer tuning and more effective writing & balance.

As mentioned, just spitballing.

A Master in Survival w/ Forager can feed 16 people per Subsist. In a forest or jungle with an easy DC, one could take the -5 to do it in 8 hours (and maybe hire extra help too, noting that these people would likely be needed as handlers & bodyguards anyway). And as Mathmuse mentioned, even paying for its food would pay for itself if crossing mountains as well as other treacherous terrain. It'll bypass earthbound monsters and deter most airborne ones who'd likely prefer to attack that team of oxen over there stuck in the swamp. :-)

The harder part IMO is getting a Roc, though in other campaign worlds they have been for sale, at least as eggs or fledglings. Don't know their lifespan. Probably quite long based on size (and longer w/ magical healing and curing).

Looked up Create Food and boy does that change the math! It implies a Gargantuan creature eats 1000x as much food, so one might settle for a Huge creature at 100x as much. But standard feed x1000 is only 10 g.p./week which is affordable (and that's the cost of 20 pigs or 5 horses/week so it's not a loophole IMO).

A Druid might offer these services, keeping that many more people from disturbing nature.

--
I'm reminded of one troublesome AP re: trade routes, Jade Regent, where I've heard the amount of gold earned was in no way commensurate with the costs. That raises questions, as do many economic issues if examined with too much rigor. We don't want trade to be lucrative enough to impact PC wealth curves, but then again we often want PC-level people/threats/allies involved in trade scenarios. Hmm.

Did I miss the point that flying would be expensive and involve smaller items when I explicitly wrote that flying would be expensive and involve only key items plus mentioned their major difference would be in rougher terrain? Hmm.

---
Maybe Golarion has such large stretches of wilderness even after thousands of years of civilization because it's so difficult to establish trade routes. Magical cataclysms don't help.

Reminds me of a PFS1 scenario with beetles that could destroy any local merchant and challenge the strongest village factions. But the beetles were incidental, just normal fauna (though an excuse for PCs to rescue an info source, with a good chance of failure). Saving villages is a common enough PF/RPG theme, which would suggest a reason trade routes struggle; they're even harder to defend than a village (plus intrude in areas other creatures might call their own).

---
What's the infrastructure like for undersea empires? Mainly, what interactions with surface dwellers would naturally occur? Absalom interacts somewhat, but I'd think with seas being so important to trade that there'd be much more commerce, i.e. fish & underwater crops for forged items. And given that swim speeds are typically high (fittingly), I wonder how large the niche might be for aquatic couriers who'd be faster than horses and harder for land enemies to track and ambush, even if stuck to water routes.

That seems a setup for a scenario, PCs meeting/intercepting aquatic couriers.

I don’t think dragons would willingly perform mundane shipping tasks. Too proud.

Appeal to greed for stereotypical ones. But there are lots of dragon options other than the hoard-sitting proud ones. Just a few dragons would make an impact so look for exceptions.

Maybe appeal to their unique talents, how non-mundane their labor (truthfully) is. Maybe they're the ones who own the business, or it's for allies/higher goals, or maybe they're dumb/animalistic/controlled. Community-minded ones might see it as a way to contribute that's rather easy for them, yet bestows great benefit. Golarion has shied away from domesticated dragons, but it's feasible; and because you can reason with many it's maybe more so than the Rocs, mammoths, and dinosaurs which are available.

And dragons are just a handy example among the many large flying creatures out there. Not saying they'd be a given in any city, rather where they did show up they'd function much like helicopters.

In terms of cost-effectiveness to transport pretty much anything, the following methods haven't changed much in millennia (most cost-effective to least): ships (ocean or sea), boats (river or canal), roads (actual roads, not beaten down paths that are essentially wider trails), trails. Rail (if developed) is in between boats and roads, as it can carry heavier loads of cargo than roads can handle. Air transport is less cost effective than roads and some trails (although it's faster). Magical transport would be even faster than air, but likely more expensive (IMO, reserved for small, low bulk goods where speed and security are the most important considerations).

Of course, canals and roads are very expensive to build and maintain (as are rail systems).

On Earth.

-Golarion seas have aggressive megafauna and sapient inhabitants, so I'd move them a notch down. They're terrifying enough on Earth where we only imagined nearly all such creatures.
-Rivers and canals can be lined with Walls of Stone (at least at key junctures) and managed (along with locks) with water spells/Kineticists so maybe a notch above Earth depending on local fey & Druid opinions.
-Earth Kineticists make roadwork & repair simple, but even without them low-level casters can clear out obstructions and install drainage in quick bursts for tougher spots. And Disintegrate works better than dynamite on granite. These advantages over Earthlings would be amplified dealing with slopes and cliffs.
-Tunnels would be much more prevalent given how Burrow speeds work plus Dwarf and Kobold know-how. And there's Adamantine, though expensive it doesn't wear down (that I know of).
-I think Golarion lacks rail, but it has mechanical air transport on the wealthier end. Even a Strix or civilized Gargoyle makes a huge difference in rougher terrain for key items like medicine, components, messages, etc., but there are also dragons, tamed Rocs, and other critters that can carry heaps of goods for who knows what cost to feed and appease. Think Dinotopia.
-Bridges would be much more common IMO, if there aren't antagonists.

Kineticists skip so much engineering development, their population is a significant statistic re: infrastructure (see Korra, though I hadn't been thinking of that). And then there are genies, elementals, fey, and a list of other sapient creatures that can work magic all day, including Cantrip casters. Telekinetic Projectile light debris away. :-) Maybe magic schools lend out their students who can practice.

We don't want Golarion mapmakers to have mastered precision yet, mid-level adventurers need adventuresome tasks...some might even say paths to find.

I suspect the friction will go beyond the bad laws because it sounds like your party will be operating in enemy territory (and if inspired by an older version of Irrisen, definitely so). Champions of Justice don't do subterfuge & espionage well as that will often require breaking the good laws, standard ones for civilized societies like breaking and entering or theft. Unless it's just that the dungeons & enemies happen to be there rather than an adventure dealing with the government.

Tying it back to infrastructure, highest-level heroes (a squad of which pop up every year or so) would also bend infrastructure. Somebody's paying their wages when they Earn Income doing a Legendary task. But somebody has to protect against all those mid-teen level monsters preying on rural victims, neither of which have the treasure to be AP material. I find it odd how many monsters are described in a folksy way as if a village could stand up to them. Nope. So maybe it's the former AP PCs, perhaps downplaying their abiities?

I'm reminded of Marvel Comics where the god Ares (stronger than any construction equipment ever) was working construction or Damage Control swept in repair super-fight damage. Golarion would also have adapted to uber-beings. A high-level caster devoted to developing infrastructure could put in their hour and a half of work (counting morning prep) and have accomplished more than dozens of workers could do all week. And Kineticists, even lower-level ones could do the work of a corporation or major utilities building. I imagine governments (et al) would dedicate a lot to harnessing them somehow. Bidding wars would ensue, and assassination or abduction of rivals too. A lot of gold would be at stake, more if you get extradimensional interests involved.

Oh, my, now I'm imagining an extradimensional Wal-Mart which drives out local competition by undercutting them and dominating market share only to show their true unholy faces after there's no one else who can provide their goods and services. Or maybe drug suppliers or simply unique fads from other worlds. How well would Golarion markets & cultures compete with angelic creations? Hmm.

I imagine there'd be aqueducts and dikes made of Walls of Stone. D&D used to have more terrain-altering magic, and one would think there'd be a lot of high-level spells developed for non-adventurers, an unusual amount geared toward libraries and education. :-)
"This spell sends books."

Unless, like Planescape somewhat addressed, there were guilds and unions that opposed such methods (& centralization/consolidation too). They'd need their own high-level forces to exert any influence though.

The default is that creatures can perform Athletics maneuvers so the burden of proof is on you, Easl, to show where Eidelons can't.

You say "my reading", but what exactly are you reading? Advanced Weaponry implies no such thing as no hands or no maneuvers (no matter how bad Disarm is as an option). And the example shapes of most if not all Eidelons include options with hands or comparable limbs.

Yes, of course a Mist Stalker can perform the Trip action.

Yes, an Anger Phantom (an Eidelon) should be able to do all the maneuvers that any non-Eidelon Phantom can (barring being Incorporeal because that trait does state a rule barring that). And yes, an Anger Phantom can play piano w/ a Perform check, however badly.

Your examples make no sense. It's even worse in light of the fact players choose how many hands their Eidelons have and whether or not their unarmed attacks involve those hands or not.

All of those creatures you listed do have hands mechanically with which they can do maneuvers. Any generic creature form, even one that lacked any attack actions or limbs, could perform all of the maneuvers. But not Eidelons? For Familiars, Paizo had to explicitly state their limitations, but not for Eidelons? Animal & Construct Companions, even snakes or exotic ones w/ no hands, can perform maneuvers. But not Eidelons which are superior?
None of that makes sense.

Yes, there's a mediocre feat that uses perhaps overly inclusive language because there's no corresponding high-level feat yet for Disarm. This doesn't imply an unseen rule which would indicate Paizo devs lack of basic communication skills. It just makes Disarm a poor choice since you only get minimal benefit (but not zero benefit).

I think the whole of PF2 on this topic, other than that single feat, points at the conclusion that Eidelons can perform maneuvers just fine.

Well, an "army" might be five high level killers who can teleport together, such is the imbalance of power.

Sheer numbers and meat-waves matter less on Golarion (even with Troop rules) where a single warrior can routinely face a thousand veterans at once and come out healthy, perhaps unharmed after being topped up w/ a Heal spell or Medicine. As well as Earth's usual determiners of military might, Golarion adds magic, extraordinary creatures (often w/ AoEs), and level-advancement which IMO shift large-scale battles beyond recognition though for narrative purposes authors tend to stick to extra spicy Earth-like combats.

Sending out a nation's champion for single combat makes more sense there. They might represent a good portion of one's power, and you could skip the devastation of war itself. If one nation assassinated another's elite individuals, the end would seem inevitable (excluding outside or extraordinary factors).

Yes, you are being too restrictive. You're deciphering intent to fill a hole that doesn't need filling, and which would need explicit language in order to be a rule exclusive to Eidelons.

Using their unarmed weapons requires weapons traits to perform those maneuvers, yes, but Eidelons have limbs too (usually). They have two free hands* as normal and we would need notation if it were an exception. These limbs are not tertiary attacks that need to be listed much like no other creature in the game has their "limbs for maneuvers" listed. And no, even if one were to count it as listed, "fist" is not tied to performing maneuvers at all (hence fist not listing the maneuvers even though one's free hand can perform all of them). Heck, fist doesn't even require limbs.

So yes, Advanced Weaponry is mediocre, giving only a different magic item for one's bonus and a prereq for higher level feats (in a game which tries to avoid gating feats). I imagine a Remastered version will rectify this imbalance...somehow.

*As a mechanic not tied (much) to their form or actual number.

Even if the unarmed attack isn't a fist they still have two free hands, so yeah, other than using the "weapon" bonus/Handwraps instead of the bonus to Athletics, I don't think there is a reason in isolation. But some later feats do require a specific trait, i.e. Pushing Attack requires the Eidelon's attack has the Shove trait.

My citation is common sense. If a group of people come together to play soccer, and the referee is changing the rules on the fly, or following the rules of American football, then expectations have been subverted. That is very likely to make for a bad time for all, and players would rightfully be calling foul if such changes weren't agreed to by all parties in advance.

It's simple adherance to the basic social contract of gaming.

Nope & nope.

An RPG collaborative story experience is too dissimilar to soccer's competitive experience for that analogy to hold. For example, table variation is a norm in one while field variation (if caused by refs) sparks hostile responses.

The basic social contract of an RPG is the GM promising a worthwhile RPG experience and all participants being civil, etc. There's no required adherence to some imaginary platonic rigor. Whether or not and to what degree a GM should tweak encounters, even mid-encounter, has been an ongoing discussion since the dawn of D&D. So when you say that it's both cheating and subverting the expectations of the game and the players I laugh. It seems you have that expectation, but a citation would be necessary to show where the game does or players as a whole. Does PF2's advice to GMs ever argue such rigidity?

Following campaign threads shows many veteran GMs & their players accept such tweaking without batting an eye. Which is to say it's a given that doesn't need to be announced in fear of cheating, etc. This includes Paizo leadership & devs so I doubt they've integrated rigidity into their own RPG or consider invisible tweaking to be cheating. If anything they're very fluid about GMing styles, that is as long as it's done in the spirit of providing a worthwhile RPG experience that's suitable for those GMs' tables.

Heck, I've seen GMs explicitly tweak stats in response to players metagaming about those stats.

---
As for the OP, I thought it was obvious Will was the default except vs. casters. It's not always true, but seldom will Will be a thug's best. Judging from the Daze Cantrip, I suspect PF2 might even balance for this. The trickier part is facing Aberrations and the weird or extraplanar.

Finoan wrote:

Reminds me of the "'I' before 'e' except after 'c'" rule.

Unless the creature has the Mindless trait or is a Construct. Or is a homebrew creature or the GM has otherwise tweaked the stats of the creature.

Any GM who tweaks existing stats without informing his players that, that is something he might do from time to time during the course of play is not only cheating, but subverting the expectations of both the game and its players.

Citation needed.

Perpdepog wrote:

AceofMoxen wrote:

What happens when someone time-travels from lost omens to before Aroden's death? Do they create a zone of non-prophecy while they're in the past or do they become ruled by prophecy while in the past?

You'd have to ask Shyka or Yog-Sothoth about that.

Do you have their email?

Your keyboard would melt trying to type the symbols, if your mind hadn't already. Maybe tag them in a TikTok instead.

SuperParkourio wrote:

the morrowkin's Swallow Future (doomed 4 without the death trait)

This one doesn't work. Breath of Life doesn't remove Doomed, so while it can heal you and you get back up... you're still Doomed 4 and immediately die again.

But think of how healthy you'll look...under whatever detritus you've accumulated in battle.

It's still a Demoralize, so the target would gain immunity as usual. You'd also get any carrier effects you might have w/ Demoralize too, like gaining Panache if such a Swashbuckler.

Yeah, the same event (gaining the Dying condition from being reduced to 0 HP) that makes you unconscious also makes you die in this case, it's not a an ordered chain of events where one comes before the other. Since the trigger allows you to preempt death, it ought to allow you to preempt unconsciousness as well here, as they happen in the same moment.

I agree. The rules parse it out in a sequence so a player can follow the logic & mechanics, but the event isn't so granular IMO. There is no length of time for which they are unconscious, but not dead in the given scenario.

I suppose one thought experiment is if someone other than the caster were in the same situation; Wounded to where they die when dropped to zero hit points. The target gets struck with a killing blow & revived by Breath of Life; generally I'd picture that as dying from the blow and falling, thus the BoL stops that, the person's standing and still holds their weapon. That would lend itself to the OP working, while if one demands they must fall first before dying, that feels unnecessary.

Funnily enough the spell's quite useful by/on NPCs who normally die when hit to zero hit points. Well worth a higher level slot as you're nearly guaranteed to use it if fighting PCs plus likely have lots of slots you won't be using due to brevity of life/screentime.

I love redacted. It's my favorite plot element. I see it everywhere!

Woohoo, I'd thought it had been to strip the cliche away and give players agency rather than search for the "right outcome".

I've left a published campaign (w/ a scarcity of other tables to play at) that was too inflexible re: player agency (and almost left another, but we wrapped it up soon). Yes, that falls somewhat on the GMs, but in one instance for example, you could back NPC X, NPC Y, or neither, and no matter which one you picked, each plot thread "corrected" for your choices so you'd get the exact same impact on the campaign world: zero. Oy.

This difference might be foundational to why I've loved Paizo for decades.

If it were phrased "the target's Taunted" then range wouldn't matter, but instead it's saying you Taunt the target, which is you getting a free Taunt action which would be subject to normal limitations (and perks too). So you'd benefit from the Long-distance Taunt feat if using a ranged weapon.

And it's 2nd level, which makes it hard to argue it gives you both action compression and a potentially longer version of a 1st level feat.

Unconcious: "You can't act"

He's going from Wounded to Dead, not Wounded to Unconscious to Dead so it's a bit trickier than that. And it's "would die" so there's the vibe of interrupting, at which point the victim/spell target/(in this case caster too) wouldn't have died yet.

I'd assume one's already chosen the best damage & movement type and can only maintain that level unless the battlefield changes. So yeah, it's a horrible cost unless one gets h.p./round, and yes, there doesn't seem to be a consensus (not that I've noticed comments on it in months). For balance I'd allow it, and like with all adjudication it'd be provisional depending on how it plays out in practice.

AceofMoxen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

I've missed RD posts.

I feel like they always generate either interesting discussion or heated debate and I'm here for it.

I was thinking there might be overlap between free-hand and concealable, but there really isn't. Just the wrist launcher, which is not great.

Gauntlets are part of my heavy armor. We might be asked to turn in weapons, even hand wraps, but no one asks the fighter to start taking off his armor. No silly thievery checks needed, and at high levels, I'm etching basic runes on the inside of the gauntlets. Or maybe my wizard buddy is keeping runic weapon ready.

One of my gauntlets is sliver and the other is cold-iron. Someday, I'll remember which is which.

People in Golarion would definitely know that the armor's gauntlets are weapons. Even if the GM forgets.

"Runes on the inside" is a bit of an assumption too, as is thinking screeners wouldn't be using Detect Magic (especially at high levels). The cold iron & silver ask for attention.

It's a bit of an RPG conceit that weapons are allowed in social circumstances if the threat level requires weapons, so I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. Plus screening for weapons opens up a can of worms with encounter balance & party composition/preparedness, at least in published material.

Yeah, subterfuge isn't one of the free-hand weapon niches.

I now desire to make a Tick-like Champion pointing his finger at an undead enemy, "You are the clogged artery slowly choking out the pulse of creation and I'm the exercise of justice!" (or whichever cause they have)

Zoken44 wrote:

Wow, that's an interesting point... you know what else there used to be a huge taboo about?

Wolves. Wolves were a shoot on sight animal for much of human history. But we know a lot more about them now and understand how important they are for their ecosystem.

Very good point that, with more knowledge, things can change. Maybe that is why Starfinder's view of undead significantly differs from the Pathfinder's one.

Poor wolf. At one time they were seen as defenders against undead, likely due to how they'd dig up corpses and be seen "fighting" with them. As often happens over time, that association eventually led to them being linked with undead as allies or incarnations* (which served the agendas of ranchers and others that wanted to be rid of them). Glad that now we recognize they're both normal and valuable.

Just shows how insidious fear can be, which ties back to necroethics; that even if known as a defender, one might become seen as a threat if linked to threatening beings so long.

*Werewolves, at least in Europe, were considered undead long, long ago. Just pitch everything into one pile of "bad juju creatures" I guess.

Golarion features humans and reflects the real world, even specific cultures, so Earth is relevant. Golarion is extrapolated from Earth, so barring a book on Golarion philosophy, we kinda need to extrapolate too.

Appeal to authority's only a fallacy when one's authority is merely a social position or one's scholarly work/authority lies outside the topic, i.e. quoting Einstein outside of physics. Until Nethys and similar deities develop an evidence-based consensus that disagrees with her (or you develop a way us players can investigate Golarion metaphysics), Pharasma IS the authority based on her actually knowing.
Yes, we as players might consider she's mistaken, but in world there's no reason to suspect that. She's as objective as one can get barring James Jacobs giving a definitive answer (unlikely until it serves a narrative purpose in some adventure).

I disagree that there "are a lot of (dangerous) things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism". Undead (and the medical issues around corpses) are ubiquitous threats with emotional gravitas.

It doesn't matter that taboos are tribal or not always good when asking about ethics...which are tribal and not always good. Taboos & ethics are intertwined. There's no platonic form of ethics to unearth.

Most of the final questions should be obvious being as we're beings that operate emotionally and subjectively (even if we try otherwise). I have also pondered the question of sustenance, but I'm not sure that's where the heart of the stigma lies. Heck, on Golarion it might be that Void energy disturbs our natural Vitality energies with such pure ick that humans (et al) can't shake how immoral they feel undeath is. Again, we're talking ethics, where icky (according to scholars) is one of the key components in how we developed our morals (w/ flawed results!).

The Raven Black wrote:

Illusory Disguise

I didn't ask if it was possible, more if dragons would "sink so low as to disguise their true self" so to speak?

Yes. I designed such a dragon years ago. I believe it was a Blue Dragon (known for their cunning) though I've also considered Red/White for the obvious "Aha!" moment, but that ruse felt implausible at the scale of developing a reputation where PCs prep for them.

But yeah, pride could dissuade this tactic, so it'd probably only be the types that enjoy trickery that'd pursue this. I could imagine a desperate dragon attempting it or one trying to piggyback off the reputation of a missing dragon of a different type.

Now that fewer dragons have vast spell arsenals where you kinda need to pick some oddball spells so why not a ruse, I imagine it'd have to suit both their nature and circumstances to pull it off with any oomph (beyond some 1st round reveal).

I wonder if they could feign taking greater damage somehow? Then the "damage" disappears to the party's chagrin.

Just because taboos are usually irrational (and often harmful) doesn't mean they don't drive our ethics. You've been given the objective, taboo-free view (wrong due to cycle of souls). Now others are giving you the subjective one your necromancer is most likely to face: it's wrong due to tampering with ancestors, death, and corpses. Necromancy disturbs the sacred & profane, and dead bodies come with significant health risks (even if seldom reflected in the game's mechanics).

As I mentioned early on, different Golarion cultures will have different attitudes toward necromancy. It's pretty universal among humanity (even cannibals) to have taboos & rituals re: corpses (and ultimately for a good reason even if via poor reasoning). Except there are plenty of nonhuman Ancestries that might think differently. And as for calling upon souls and spirits, most Earth cultures embraced that (and some still do) even as they feared it too. So I'd imagine Golarion has similar ones your necromancer can be from where one calls upon the dead to protect from the other dead. As for Void energy, I doubt it's treated much different than other deadly energies like electricity except by scholars.

So there's a plethora of ethics re: necromancy, with no singular answer unless its Pharasma's that it's ultimately harmful to existence. But even then, if your PC's heroic, the balance might weigh toward pro-existence judging by the enemies you thwart, especially undead ones (& daemons).

Well, I had said veteran, not "average grunts". They wouldn't need encyclopedic knowledge, just the basic gist I covered in a sentence.

And guards killing stray animals (or shooing away if kinder) is already a thing in our world. As was superstition re: familiars and shapechangers in our reality I hope you agree has neither. On Golarion, the uneducated don't need to be exact w/ their knowledge, just wary that such things exist...which they do. If like us Earth humans, they likely are wrong quite often, but paranoid enough to keep alert, even put up wards (of dubious effectiveness). Spellcasters will steal your soul, don'cha know?!

And I don't know if you homebrew or not, but on Golarion most villagers would have met a 1st level Druid, all of whom can cast Pest Form, likely every so often to amuse folk. Given that Earth has tales of shapeshifting tricksters, imagine how many such stories exist on a world where most bands of heroes have several someones who can. This isn't Merlin & a few select others among armies of knights covering a country; you can find casters in nearly every church or decent-sized organization. And one would think illusions play a part in festivals, likely plays & parodies too. I'd think most every citizen would've been exposed to such trickery. Put a clever person in charge of security and they're going to have to consider that too.

While I adore the notion of a Civil Society of Golarion there's a significant hurdle; there's no baseline society. So it'd be societies, which would in turn become an enormous tome on par with a world guide.

Maybe coming at it from the other direction might suffice, exploring the various technologies available. There could be a grid chart showing each country's advancement levels (or ranges thereof what with wealth disparity). The emphasis would be on what's available and some (wondrous) specialty cases.

Or more likely Paizo could interweave more depth re: infrastructure for areas PCs visit in APs, giving us a collection of snapshots one could use, though perhaps they've done this already?

(And I think this thread took off more than the music one because it's more grounded. How does one juggle auditory concepts for music one's never heard? Heck, try describing real world music in just words, now add alien cultures & magical essences. Meanwhile engineering principles have a universal base, even in a world with fantastical extrapolation.)

In a magical setting full of illusions, polymorph abilities, and charm/control effects, one would expect veterans (or those led by veterans) to use passwords & signals. Those would simply be normal precautions about common magical subterfuge tactics. In much the same way guards would likely kill unknown animals poking around simply because Familiars & Pest Form are available at low levels.

So sure, you might get them to say exactly what you want, but not necessarily what they'd need to say to get what you want.

Though published material doesn't do this much, I'd think there'd be more doubles, people disguised as leadership. Or leaders that blend in. Magical sniping would be too prevalent to ignore. Does Battlecry! address cutting off the head of armies? Or mimicking them? And countermeasures?

1. Though bumped into the background, Chromatic & Metallic dragons do exist in Lost Omens. Mengkare for example remains a Gold Dragon and other unique ones may (re-)appear too (according to a dev), albeit dropping references to their heritage even if obvious to veterans. Generic ones though, yeah, not in any Lost Omens material, but they too exist, only unused. (Unlike Drow which were retconned out of existence as fabrications of storytellers.)

2. What would resolve this for you? Who are you asking? You're obviously more informed on this than most everyone, including freelance artists and devs. It seems your research has already provided the answer. Are you wondering if there's a secret canon answer? Ultimately such a canonical answer re: traditional dragons would lie under a different company's umbrella. They've published several dragon books, at least one with detailed drawings of their physiology (back in 3rd ed or earlier). They likely had pre-Paizo contributors to those too. And old Dragon Magazine articles went into depth on most classic monsters so I'd expect each would have had special treatment. (Heck, I remember an early article covering hybrid dragons like orange and purple.)

---
But the color difference is interesting. That kind of shading mirrors how animals camouflage themselves with the difference in shading, so the lower part w/o sun is lighter so it matches better. Or underwater bellies are lighter to look like sky from below, which resembles how dragons stalk from above, though that would be from before they dominated so much. Meanwhile the Metallic ones perhaps have more mystical origins or essence-driven development. Perhaps.

Castilliano wrote:

Even if religious I'd much prefer living among the Rahadoumi assuming my religion didn't require proselytizing, icons, or other overt displays. At least for any religion (or denomination thereof) worth its salt.

My understanding is that ALL practices relating to religion (even private ones) are forbidden in Rahadoum.

Yes. My point was that unless one's religion requires overt practices, one could hide one's religiosity. Just like followers of decent religions in Cheliax also have to hide their religiosity; except they're suffering in Cheliax (or causing suffering). If I have to hide my religiosity (or conform to a feeble religion that supports/allows Chelaxian authoritarianism) I'd prefer living in Rahadoum. Life for the generic civilian seems much better there, especially if interested in science, education, medicine, etc.

Of course one might then ask what it means to follow a religion if it's only in one's mind, but charity, meditation, morality, community, etc. are universal values*, so one could practice their religion's versions w/o standing out.
*Arguably less so in Cheliax, my main point. Being wholesome might draw unwanted attention whereas I doubt it would in Rahadoum.

vyshan wrote:

So now the good clerics and good people of Khari are being oppressed by anti-theists of Rahadoum

Got to suck for them to go from being oppressed by asmodeus to being oppressed by rahadoum.

But I am curious to see it in that ap.

Under Chelish rule, you got to at least worship Abadar and a few other gods. You don't even get that under the Rahadoumi.

Sure...? Abadar's an odd choice given his allowance of evil and the degradation of humanity (et al) into commodities. You can follow a religion...as long as it meshes well with the abusive hierarchy. I doubt Cheliax abides much with the Holy factions/denominations within these few religions it does allow. Religion's of little value if churned through an authoritarian filter.

Not that the Rahadoumi necessarily share their infrastructure & education with those they've conquered, but they might. It's the leadership that's dangerous/corrupt/authoritarian vs. Cheliax where all that (and more) pervades the whole culture, everyone's heel on the neck of anyone below them if they're not locked in a perilous struggle to rectify matters.

Even if religious I'd much prefer living among the Rahadoumi assuming my religion didn't require proselytizing, icons, or other overt displays. At least for any religion (or denomination thereof) worth its salt.

Castilliano wrote:

But it is a combat RPG, right? So we get angels more inclined to battle than peace, to crusades rather than charity.

Or those are just the ones PCs are more likely to meet.

Yeah, I occasionally wonder about the breadth of Golarion society & its fantastical elements outside of PC lanes. But until in print, they don't exist; not that they need stats, a simple nod in their direction would do. Heck, I like reading about odd, non-Earth fruits, trees, sports, songs, and holidays, but how much utility does that provide other gamers? Staff has its schedule full already perhaps, but yeah, I'd enjoy it if they tossed in an extra comment here and there about "hearth angels" or "spoiled bread demons". Magic's already pervasive so I don't think it'd water down the wonder, rather increase it. And there could be monsters designed like many humanoid NPCs are, where they have a different combat level than specialty/profession level.

(Spellcheck doesn't recognize 'gamers', but does recognize 'gamer'??)

Free hand-weapons work better than a fist w/ Doubling Rings and their ilk and make a fine second weapon for Double Slice or Twin Takedown while retaining the utility of consumables, Battle Medicine, and otherwise interacting w/ one's environment. There are other good feats (perhaps mostly Fighter ones?) that require weapons rather than unarmed attacks. I can think of several normal builds (as in supported by feats & Archetypes) that could make good use of them, just not the popular sword & shield or two-hander builds.

Yeah, Ace, I dislike the extra layer of morality and ethics too, as if Good/Holy creatures w/ Wisdom, Intelligence, and knowledge beyond even magically augmented mortal capacity act in shortsighted, even negligent ways. I can understand how a zealousness to destroy the Unholy or enforce Good might undermine one's own goals & morality, but so should they. They are exponentially wiser than the Buddha & Marcus Aurelius, and with a greater understanding of how reality operates on top of that. Yet it's the pro-status quo TN's keeping the universe operating? Heck, Asmodeus is selfish and has enough foresight he should be helping too (or maybe sees no need yet).

Of course it's kind of troublesome how many supra-minds are Unholy, like they have no concept of game theory or a civil morality based on rational self-interest. I guess that's the problem, despite having a stat that represents rationality, most planar beings have irrational natures. But it is a combat RPG, right? So we get angels more inclined to battle than peace, to crusades rather than charity. That might tie into existential threats, and how maybe they'd love to help Pharasma with the eternity problem, but feel they need to focus on the possible armageddons first. What benefit is keeping a universe overrun by evil churning along?

I think I've talked myself in a circle there, and Holy types do fight the undead and TN types do resist fiendish incursions. Hmm.

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Either that, or there are low-threat monsters that eat waste?

In all seriousness, Otyughs. They like to live in sewers, and eat waste. And are neutral (generally).

I would imagine smart cities would work out deals with Otyughs to help with sanitation.

D&D outright states and the premaster version in PF2 alludes to the problem with that:

- as long as they have food, they multiply
- eventually they will outgrow even the "food supply" of a city
- they starve
- they wander to the surface looking for more food
So you need to tightly control the population and regularly, or you risk a "sewer stampede".

I can imagine that working out a deal with Otyughs would include some sort of provision for overpopulation. Otyughs aren't very intelligent, but they are sapient. They should understand if they're populous and start going to the surface that it's going to require action.

Yes, there have been many examples of humanoids taming them, going back decades. Oozes too, though often with the humanoids regretting that.

Question is if they can control their breeding. I believe there's an old example of mates, maybe even a PF1 example w/ the first Sewer Dragons scenario. So they have to choose a chaste life of gluttony or...probably being killed. Where does one even find these guys? How do they migrate to most every sewer everywhere??

Errenor, that's a whole lot of strawmanning. I don't read any "but in reality!" arguments there and for you to extrapolate to allowing invisible enemies to avoid fireballs shows bad faith. Do better.

"What do you even mean by 50% miss chance?"
That there's a 50% chance that the PC's concept of the battlefield they use to place the AoE doesn't match the actual battlefield. It's the seed of an answer where a GM would have to adjudicate further. I see that at the end you suggest such a way to adjudicate. Coo beans.

"Why do you think that it (placing an AoE) would be easy in perfect visibility?"
Because the caster can think "right there would be nice" and they know exactly where there is.

"Why do you think that 'real' spells would have geometrically perfect shapes? Constant area sizes and forms from casting to casting?"
Bad faith & irrelevant tangents. Though I imagine AoEs are only exact to such degree that one stays within its squares, so 5'? 2.5'?, much like the rules say durations aren't exact and can't be used like timers.

"Why would you think that it would be easy to place AoEs in a couple of seconds by the eye to include your enemies but not allies? Everytime, without mistakes? But casters do that in this game all the time. Why don't you throw dice to see if your casters haven't also caught allies in AoE by mistake?"
Who's asserting it'd be easy? And yeah, aiming is a game conceit. If your PC knows where they want the spell, they can put the spell there. Trouble is when blinded, the PC doesn't necessarily know where they want the spell. In some contexts they might know, but also may have no clue.

"See, thinking like this would break the game."
Yes, strawman arguments do tend toward the absurd. Or is it a slippery slope argument? Hmm.

And I agree there should be no wasted slots or actions, and by missing that it should resemble something like you've suggested. I'd allow for an ally to do something akin to the Point Out action (or a high Perception caster to use Seek vs. some static DC). Or if the battlefield's remained stable since the unmoved caster last could see that they do have a good imprint of locations (and can do things like "throw it against the back wall" really easily).

But that's all situational, where the caster would know the direction and distance despite being blind. The OP doesn't state how that caster knows these, but if they did, I'd allow it. It's the knowing part that's a hurdle for the blinded PC. IMO...

The poop monsters (as one of my tables dubbed them) remind me of how we on Earth have realized the value of beavers building dams; let nature do the labor for us. In a fantasy world with hundreds of sapient creatures with various predilections plus frequent magical breeding, there could be a lot of off-screen infrastructure filled in by such creatures. There should be more to this than just lair & vault security.

There are already fey that enjoy housecleaning (as well as Gremlins ruining things, so maybe it balances). I can imagine others that enjoy tinkering on toys, delivering mail for cookies*, quizzing kids, eating soot, spinning fabrics, nurturing animals, etc. Flying creatures would help immensely w/ towers, bridges, hoists, and repairs. Heck, fire-breathing ones would be quite useful too, as well as those with acid, cold or electricity...on demand. While I doubt they'd have pervaded to household level, corporations and tycoons should have such (as well as automatons & the like).

Which is to say, we should avoid using Earth development as a proxy, and there might be startling exceptions even in rural areas.

*Unintentional mirroring of email w/ computer cookies. :-)

The earliest dungeon of proto-D&D was in sewer tunnels. They're a staple in fantasy cities if only to insert convenient creatures. So on that score they're ahead of Earth.

With decent technology and advanced magic, major cities should have superior infrastructure to Earth in other ways too, barring recent wars or visits from a marauding beast. Hospitals, universities, factories, and religious institutions flourish. Golarion scholars know much more about nature and their universe than Earthlings, learned from fey, deities, etc. I'd think sanitation, schooling, publishing, and other services a civil society would want would be present at the hubs at least.

I'd extend this to merchant routes too, so good roads, ferries, tunnels, hostels/way stations, etc. Some wealthy countries have established gates with elemental planes and old gates connect(ed) to other planets. Heck, the Azlanti in Starfinder had developed some way to travel through space before Pathfinder times. So one might find superior examples too.

There's a lot of undeveloped wilderness if one wishes a lack of infrastructure for their campaign. Some adventure sites have featured villages who speak only one language (and not Common/Taldan) or who fear outsiders or creatures of other Ancestries.

But generally I'd say infrastructure's a background issue, pliable to suit one's needs for a story, and seldom in the spotlight to give specifics other than for some oft-featured cities.

It's not like the caster has their bearings; it's only the player's meta-knowledge that provides the data the PC needs. So how are they getting that data? Can't detect the spot, then can't discern it's the spot you want. So 50% miss chance at minimum, say if an ally points out the direction to shoot or you're using a line AoE vs. a noisy enemy (or cone with near certainty). Unless the caster's dropping it on themselves of course.

But yeah, I'd certainly let them cast it. Hard to say they can't. Just beware, it's a literal shot in the dark.

ETA: There's a maxim for battle to seldom trust your eyes and never trust your ears. Such a cacophony A pitched battle would be very loud, with all kinds of actions packed into seconds, made worse if inside like many are.

Evil is unnecessary because Good/Holy could become strong enough to guard a greater portion of the proverbial parapet. But, Pharasma has to work with what she's got; the Maelstrom's relentless, as is the internal corruption of undead forces/Void energy.

There's an RPG precedent for True Neutral working for the greater benefit of reality. In Greyhawk, Mordenkainen and some peers recognized that the mortal, even immortal, conflicts paled in comparison to the ultimate threat of Tharizdun, that all resources would be necessary to fight him (or in practice continue to contain him by manipulating his own power so he traps himself; even combined he's still stronger). This higher awareness led to "heroes"/PCs doing some questionable deeds, arguably self-righteous evil ones! "From a certain point of view" indeed.

Difference seems to be that Holy/Unholy conflicts in Golarion don't seem to weaken the system, only keep it churning, except for those that consume souls like Daemons & undead.

And abilities might later lower or dispel your Resistance, give you a Weakness, or otherwise enhance the effect. So while it may seem meaningless at first there are (contrived) situations where it matters.

But IMO it looks cool. Your enemy's hoping they've inflicted something significant, but you're there burning blissfully. That should increase respect and/or fear (even if there's no mechanic behind it).

Arguably it's a light source too, albeit a poor one.

And if you finish the battle soon enough: marshmallows.

Remember the sacredness of one's body/bodily autonomy. Most cultures, presumably even more on Golarion given the metaphysical ramifications, place high value on the ethical treatment of corpses of one's kin, often including those of one's enemy. The ethics differ drastically in practice, yet few consider a human body a mere resource (even among cannibals).

Plus killing someone in self-defense does not give one rights to their body (well, except in the finders-keepers, possession is 9/10 of the law kind of way). RPGs have kinda made this feel like the norm; looting the body has often included its parts, especially if a magical component. But the bodies of formerly sapient creatures in actual practice? That feels like a fairly universal anathema among pro-social (or just un-antisocial) groups. Whether this is reasonable or not is secondary to the powerful emotional revulsion most will then use reason to justify.