Is the mention of Quick Vial in the Munitions Machinist feat a typo?
Probably, makes no sense that you use Quick Vials to be transformed into other bombs and ammo once that even alchemist can't use Quick Vials outside of "versatile vial option from your research field" limits. I'm certain that the correct is Versatile Vial.
Can someone confirm if this is wrong in the PDF too or if it is a Nexus' typo?
The PDF text reads
Quote:
You’re adept at crafting ammunition. You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits (Player Core 2 174) and 4 versatile vials, but can only use Quick Vial to create bombs or alchemical ammunition.
"Quick Vial" presumably refers to the *use* rather than the resource. QAB section:
Quote:
Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can’t be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.
Right, just be clear -- preferably in exploration mode, before combat begins -- what's you're wielding and what you're doing with it.
It's entirely legal to start a combat with your shield raised, for instance -- but doing so is represented by the Defend exploration activity, which means that you were traveling at half speed at best, and that most characters will only have one other hand in which to be wielding things. If, for instance, your character has a one-handed weapon, a shield, *and* a lantern, it's going to be important to be explicit which of those you have ready. With certain items that can be used with one or two hands, one also needs to be clear since it takes an Interact action to go from one to two hands, and sometimes it takes an Interact action to go from two to one (e.g. jezails).
If you really do a lot of juggling as to what you're equipping, you could always use some physical tokens, differently-colored dice, cards or w/e to help you keep track.
Regarding bundles, the last one on HB did include a couple of the remastered books (Player Core and GM Core), so that's starting to happen.
Regarding the Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide books specifically, these are largely superceded by the Player Core books if you're playing using remastered rules.
If you wanted to *start* a campaign, I'd encourage starting with remastered rules first. There's various errata and guidelines around for mixing in legacy content as needed, such as if somebody wants to play a class from "Dark Archives" or "Secrets of Magic".
I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.
As Kalaam said, it's really good. It's a solid spell that uses your casting stat to hit/dam and you can deal Radiant damage too. It's a fine melee cantrip for those that use a staff focus [it's a 1d8 attack] and it gets extra damage as it levels. You'll want Shillelagh though if you get more than 1 attack/round.
Most references to True Strike being weak in D&D 5E are likely referring to the 2014 version, wherein you had to spend an action to cast it in order to get advantage on your first attack roll on your next turn, and that was the only effect it had. Unless one were planning to use an attack with a precious resource, like... say, planning to slap an enemy with Plane Shift, most folks just preferred to attack twice.
The 2024 version is indeed more useful with the properties you mention.
Based on what I read, your character is severely underleveled. Did the GM have you create characters that are behind the rest of the party? Because that is *not* going to work well, given how levels factor directly into proficiencies and DCs.
What you described corresponds to Age of Ashes, Book 3, D1 (a Moderate 9 encounter) and E2 (a Moderate 9 encounter as well). Characters are expected to be level 9, in other words.
Also, the GM is probably running the NPCs incorrectly. Per Pathfinder Bestiary p343 (or Monster Core p359, if migrated to using remastered rules), for instance, Knockdown still requires an action for the monster to use; it's not free (the enemy in question only has regular knockdown, not improved knockdown).
What I think I've settled on, is that I could have him offer to draw up a short-term contract where they agree to consider themselves nominally detained but on assignment for the specified task (contract retrieval), with the contract to terminate upon completion; and to also have Korlok explain that there probably is a loophole in his contract, because it'd be common practice to have a clause anticipating the possibility that the non-devilish party being long-term indisposed for whatever reason.
If the players ask what happens if they fetch the contract and there is in fact no such loophole, I could have him suggest that with one copy of the contract in possession, he thinks could make arrangements that both it and the other copy in the Fallen Fastness would be destroyed (e.g. handwave that periodically a Zebub or similar lesser creature is sent by Urevian to get a status report, and that Urevian might have the ability to make such happen; no need to drop Urevian's name to the players, ofc).
With that in mind... probably the bigger risk would be if the party sees "devil" and immediately attacks, haha. So far, they've generally *not* been murderhobo, but they've only met a single devil so far (the zebub janitor) and that was a combat encounter from the get-go. I'll want to play him Korlok's apparent martial training to encourage caution, should they meet him.
Second the suggestion of running 'em through the "Beginner's Box". The story isn't anything to write home about, but it'll give a decent introduction to basic mechanics. It also takes place in the same general area, i.e. underneath Otari, so narratively it's pretty easy to make 'em work together.
And yeah, re: the "not fighting everything" I'd encourage them to not think that they should immediately go murderhobo, even if they meet something that seems obviously evil. Diplomatic and language skills can be useful. Even for creatures where a fight is likely, retreat is often an option; some creatures are explicitly written to not pursue enemies beyond their specific rooms, many don't have Attack of Opportunity / Reactive Strike, tec.
If they're new to Pathfinder 2E but, say, they're used to D&D 5E, you might want to note that there's more of an expectation that parties will often stop to taken ten minutes or more to Treat Wounds, regain a focus point, etc, whereas short rests in D&D being a full hour will often make it harder to justify taking one.
If Korlok believes that he's under contract to continue to follow the last command issued to him ("wait here and let no one out until I come for you")... wouldn't he believe it to be a breach of his contract to let the adventurers leave in order to find the contract?
Hm. Is there any PFS guidance regarding splash damage, given that GM Core and the Player Cores contradict each other on whether splash damage is applied to adjacent creatures on a missed attack?
Anyone know which printing of the splash trait is correct, Players Core 1 & 2 or the GM Core. PC 1 &2 do not deal splash damage in 5' on a miss the GM Core says it does....
AFAICT, there's nothing official to resolve it.
The current PC1 / GM Core errata do not address it, and there are no published PC2 errata.
I would say "no" to RAW. RAI... this is a weird one.
The "Catfolk Weapon Familiarity" feat for instance specifically names the kukri and kama twice; once in the list of non-catfolk-tagged weapons that it grants 'trained' proficiency in, and once as a list of weapons that it grants access to despite them not having the Catfolk tag.
The "Vanara Weapon Familiarity" feat, "You gain access to, and are trained with...".
From the same book as the Gnoll Weapon Familiarity feat (i.e. Mwangi Expanse), the Conrasu and Grippli equivalents both explicitly grant access, not just proficiency.
Upshot is that for other "weapon familiarity" feats access and proficiency are both explicitly spelled out.
For something similar... if we look at e.g. Dwarven Weapon Familiarity and the Dwarven Scattergun, the PFS Note on the latter indicates that merely having DWF but not otherwise having access to firearms does not grant access to the Dwarven Scattergun; nor does having firearms access in general but not access to dwarven weapons. You need both to have access. The PFS Note, however, says nothing about proficiency; so it seems like e.g. a dwarf with DWF but who doesn't have firearms access from any source would still get to treat the (normally advanced) dwarven scattergun as a martial weapon, should he actually obtain one at some point. That would be a case of "has weapon training, but no obvious way to get the weapon", which may or may not make sense depending on backstory.
For some additional context, WOTC (and, specifically, the MTG and D&D franchises) accounts for the bulk of Hasbro's profits and there seems to be consistent pressure from Hasbro corporate for WOTC to monetize, monetize, monetize. Hence, it's very understandable to worry that tolerating changes to the OGL would lead to more aggressive changes designed to keep growing that revenue stream w/ ever-increasing licensing fees etc.
It's a very minor point and is only weapon-adjacent, but I would have liked to have seen some guidance on the mechanics of throwing a flask of oil. The item description
Quote:
You can use oil to fuel lanterns, but you can also set a pint of oil aflame and throw it. You must first spend an Interact action preparing the oil, then throw it with another action as a ranged attack. If you hit, it splatters on the creature or in a single 5-foot square you target. You must succeed at a DC 10 flat check for the oil to ignite successfully when it hits. If the oil ignites, the target takes 1d6 fire damage.
still neglects to suggest a range increment, and the rules on improvised weapons don't suggest an increment either as far as I can tell. Alchemical bombs have a range increment of 20', but actual bombs are presumably designed to be thrown, while theoretically pints of oil are presumably more likely to be poured into lanterns.
FWIW, something to note if you're playing with remaster rules: with the legacy rules, the "ghost touch" rune only applies to melee weapons, and the same goes for the "ghost oil" consumable. With the remaster rules, the "ghost touch" rune can be etched onto any weapon, not just melee weapons.
"Ghost Oil" has not been errata'd to have the same update ( there appear to be no errata at all for "Lost Omens: Knights of Lastwall" per https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq , let alone "remaster compatibility" errata) but it seems reasonable to give it the same change.
The "Ghostly Weapon" spell does not explicitly have that melee-only limitation even in the legacy CRB version. Haven't the faintest idea why there's that discrepancy. *shrug*
(Edit to add one more applicable item:
Ghostbane Fulu. https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=978 ; but it's a higher-level item, probably due to better action economy for the same duration (i.e. you activate it as a free action in response to a hit, which means that there's zero duration wasted due to using it too early; and if you're suddenly trying to apply ghost oil *during* combat, you probably needed an interact action to draw it first. It also lacks the "melee weapon" restriction.)
...somewhere, there is probably a group where the party is composed entirely of awakened dinosaurs and they're running through the "Extinction Curse" AP.
With shields... it's normally not a case of the Strike targeting the shield, but of the creature targeted by the Strike redirecting some of the damage onto the shield as part of a Shield Block.
AFAICT there does not seem to be a rule allowing to, say, specifically target a wielded shield -- say, in an attempt to intimidate the creature holding it, while hopefully making it clear that you were trying to do only that and not actually trying to kill the creature.
I would tend to think that allowing the targeting of equipped objects would open a massive can of worms, where at some point it might be far easier to destroy enemy weapons outright rather than 'Disarm' them or where people start arguing that AoE damage effectively should also damage all carried equipment.
I did recently have a use case where I needed to think of object destructibility, because the party decided to use a cast-iron bathtub as mobile cover for one character to slowly navigate a trapped hallway, with the idea that the bathtub would soak hits and provide some time for the party's thievery specialist to disable the just-triggered traps before they reset. It was an amusing yet reasonably logical approach (other than that I was probably underestimating the tub's weight, but hey, the character underneath it was a physically strong fighter), so I let them run with it, rolled some dice for the traps going off, and figured that the tub would probably be dented but not breached.
I did take a Pathbuilder PDF and load it into Javelin3. The PDF fields were editable, but there is no autocalc; at least, updating an ability score modifier did not appear to automatically adjust related modifiers.
Minor observation: a high dexterity already, effectively, increases your expected damage with a finesse weapon against most targets because (unlike, say, D&D 5E) it increases the chance of a critical hit.
That's... very consistent with the concept of dexterity and a finesse weapon: a skilled, dexterous user having a better chance of doing more damage via precise aim.
I don't know off-hand if it lets you transfer ownership outright, but it does offer an option to "Share a Copy" of a character build which would allow them to edit their own version.
I'm not aware of current autocalc character sheets as PDFs, but if you're fine with building the character in a tool and /then/ exporting a PDF, perhaps try Pathbuilder2E ?
It might not be a wild stretch to let "Plant Evidence" ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4918&NoRedirect=1 ) apply to it. It doesn't, rules as written, but... maybe it reasonably should.
Whether or not that bit of homebrew makes sense... I don't have a good sense of what the process of affixing a fulu is supposed to actually be. If (when done brazenly) it's a single action that doesn't even require a roll of any kind, it sounds almost like slapping it onto them, rather than anything intricate. It also doesn't have any mention of needing to speak an activation phrase etc that might make it necessarily non-subtle ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=772 ).
I wouldn't assume that NPCs are built using character creation rules with class levels.
That said, there *is* something going on in so far as normally, spell DC = 10 + spell attack modifier. He's got a magic staff ("Drazmorg’s Staff of All-Sight") and his spellbook ("Drazmorg’s Staff of All-Sight") but neither has a relevant modifier, as far as I can tell; and I don't see any mentions of an ongoing effect that might have buffed one or penalized the other.
Given that the DCs of his other abilities (e.g. Drain Life, Raise Bone Wall) are both DC 25, I'd probably just chalk up the discrepancy to a +2 status bonus to spell attack rolls, from the necromatic energy of the Lower Vault of Droskar’s Crucible. So, hrm, if we go this path and assume therefore that he gets a +15 combined spellcasting proficiency/ability modifier with his one level 4 Dispel Magic to disepl some magic spell... well, he'd use +15 for his counteract check.
As for his creature level, bear mind that some his stats are fairly low for a level 8 creature. In particular, his AC is low for a Creature 8, and his HP are on the low side; same for his fortitude save.
I would not rule it as automatic without comparing their original Stealth roll vs. the perception DC of Creature B. If the duration is actually *minutes*, it might be reasonable to call for a fresh roll.
My 2021-vintage Kindle Paperwhite (sig. ed, not that it matters much) seems to handle the Player Core reasonably enough, although it's not snappy.
It suffers, however, on the more art-intensive Monster Core, at least when attempting to zoom into part of a page. If you play other TTRPGs, be warned that some may significantly heavier PDFs (e.g. Chaosium's CoC 7E; the CoC 7E Keeper's Rulebook has roughly the same page count as the PF2e Player Core, but the PDF is almost 4x the size, and Chaosium doesn't offer single-chapter versions).
Feels like motivation would be relevant to what measures would be taken.
In other words: *why* would said wizard have taken steps to preserve items for that long? If, say, it's due to vanity -- maybe he wants to ensure that his self-aggrandizing autobiography will be found for posterity to preserve his fame -- then that's one thing; if it's more like "we managed to avert some catastrophe in our time but the problem will probably reassert itself and here's how to save yourselves, future people" then it'd probably be defended with more drastic measures including perhaps against deliberate attempts to locate and destroy it (e.g. if said catastrophe was related to a cult that may not have been entirely rooted out, that sort of thing).
On the utterly silly side, a zoophonia muse parrot bard with a saloon entertainer background and whose performance speciality is comedy. Think "bar mascot who got awakened after some druids partied really, really hard".
Quid and I are bringing up the PDFs because Paizo is treating the PDF (or rather, having paid the price of the PDF) as a prerequisite of any sort of digital tool which uses the content of the PDF.
This isn't universal anymore. Roll 20 recently ended this arrangement with Paizo. If you buy, say, the "Abomination Vaults" on the Roll 20 Marketplace, it's $49.99 and does *not* include ownership of the PDF, nor does it offer any way to get a discount on the PDF as an add-on or a way to get a discount on the Roll 20 version if you already own the PDF.
That said, if you look at Roll 20, FoundryVTT, and Smiteworks, it might be an either-or arrangement; you can offer either a version that does not include PDF rights and will not be discounted WRT having such; or you can sell it as a bundle where the VTT conversion grants the rights and will be discounted if the purchaser already has such, but you can't offer a non-bundle version.
"When deciding how your hazard is disabled, come up with a narrative description of how it would happen, which will inform which methods and skills disable the hazard. You'll need to decide the proficiency rank necessary to find the hazard as well as disable it with each method. Remember, a hazard without a listed rank next to its Stealth DC is obvious enough that creatures can find it without Searching, and magical hazards without a listed rank are not normally protected against detect magic. Most hazards built by intelligent creatures are concealed and have at least a trained rank. The Minimum Proficiency table indicates the high and moderate proficiency requirements by level; you can use lower proficiency ranks than the ones listed, and if you use the high rank, consider a secondary, perhaps less efficient method to disable the hazard using a lower rank."
If it has a listed Stealth DC (or a Stealth skill, which would result in a Stealth DC of 10+bonus -- the table in "GM Core", page 110, lists 30/27/23 to 21 for extreme/high/low "stealth and disable" DCs)
For what it's worth... how was it exactly stated? Most hazards descriptions I've seen list a Stealth DC (i.e. *is* 21), not a modifier (e.g. a bonus of +21, meaning a DC of 31).
I would imagine that current PDF distributions of the Beginner's Box still contain Flip-Mat.pdf? That has both levels without any markers regarding who or what is where.
I would say that, while that's a *lot*, it's a good sign for the system that it's not a paltry few viable options and build concepts surrounded by oceans of grossly inferior ones.
As for discounts for those who already own the pdf, that probably has more to do with acting as a loss leader/ incentive to try Foundry.
For what it's worth, Paizo has a similar arrangement with Smiteworks (devs. of Fantasy Grounds Unity) and Demiplane; and until quite recently, with Roll 20 -- you linked your accounts, buying the VTT conversion meant getting the PDF on Paizo, while owning the PDF on Paizo granted a discount on the licensed VTT version.
It's more of a Paizo thing than a VTT thing as far as I can tell; at least, I'm not aware yet of any other TTRPG publisher that has similar arrangement with independent VTT developers (i.e. WOTC offers discounted hardcover + DDB bundles, but they /own/ DDB).
Would agree that he can't hold his breath due to being unconscious.
Both the "suffocation" and "swallow whole damage" are end-of-turn effects, so the player can choose which order they happen -- not that it seems likely to matter.
Recovery checks are start-of-turn, and must happen before both the suffocation and swallowing damage.
According to a Reddit thread on this -- in particular, https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1ctcxgy/comment/l4btqfk/?utm _source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1& ;utm_content=share_button --
Quote:
This is, in fact, a single-player, turn-based, CRPG Pathfinder Second Edition video game.
Regarding buying the books multiple times, at least Demiplane does support 'Paizo Connect'; so, if you already own the Paizo PDFs you can get a discount on the Demiplane version, and if you buy the Demiplane version first you'll be granted the PDF on Paizo. And that, in turn, will sync with FoundryVTT and Fantasy Grounds for discounts on their versions, if you use either of those VTTs (but not Roll20 anymore...).
But as for a character builder, Pathbuilder's great. If the players don't own the books but the GM has a specific set of allowed books, the sources list can be configured precisely down to the individual book without the players needing to own themselves and without needing to go check e.g. AoN. They can plan builds for multiple levels if they dare, etc. Free/cheap, well-organized, what's not to like?
And for the VTT users, the ability to export the character data in JSON form is handy; at least, there's importers available for both FoundryVTT and FGU.
...and here I am giggling at the notion of a party where the smartest character is an Awakened Horse Precise Discipline/Silent Whisper psychic who tries his hardest to avoid revealing that he's not quite an ordinary horse when amongst the unaware.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect's area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn't matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren't totally solid. Usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there's no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn't apply to that target. For example, if there's a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that's within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn't need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.
For a cone or burst with the origin in the hallway, that point of origin's line of effect could be blocked by the walls of that hallway.
Have you been introduced to the Irnakurse ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=670 ) yet?
Or the gogitech ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=237 )?
Or thulgant ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=777 )?
There's some pretty horrifying creatures, should you wish to run them. There's some pretty nasty areas, too, like the domain of the Whispering Tyrant (a fairly persisent lich); or the devil-worshipping tyranny of Cheliax.
When it comes to published adventures, I might note as an example that the "Abomination Vaults" comes with the following content warning:
Quote:
While Abomination Vaults contains typical Pathfinder action and adventure, it also presents themes of suicide, ableism, body horror, and human experimentation. Before you begin, understand that player consent (including that of the Game Master) is vital to a safe and fun play experience for everyone. You should talk with your players before beginning and modify descriptions or scenarios as appropriate.
It's definitely not all bright and cheery down there. They're really not kidding when it comes to the body horror and human experimentation, in particular -- if it were a Call of Cthulhu adventure instead of a Pathfinder adventure, there'd be a lot of sanity checks.
Perhaps it'd be thematic for them to be whisked away at terrifying speed to an isolated, mist-shrouded mountaintop in Tian Xia, coincidentally not particularly far from the residence of a wise hermit.. but that sort of travel seems a bit powerful to just be lurking underneath the humble village of Otari. :D
Rolling the concealment check first also avoids fussing with the target's (or, potentially, others') reactions that may apply, like Nimble Dodge, and then needing to unwind those things if the concealment check is failed.
It's just more straightforward to roll the concealment check first, the result of which might itself trigger certain reactions (e.g. a Shae's counterattack has this as a specific trigger).
it's both the final wave at 4 AM (and the players are intended to realize that it's likely to be the last wave, with an explicit hint of dawn approaching); and it's the worst-case wave (i.e. either they did not find a place to hole up and fortify, or at least one entrance remains destroyed despite any attempts to repair it in the time since the previous wave).
There's a "Pacing" box specifying
"As GM, try to ensure that the pace doesn’t overwhelm them, at least not until the final wave of the first night, which should leave them gasping for air and out of resources. The undead should feel relentless, but the situation shouldn’t constantly feel hopeless."
It's meant to be brutally difficult but survivable.
Many of the enemies are mindless undead, and it's not explicit that the players should know that going into the adventure, perhaps leading to frustration from the reduced usefulness of e.g. feinting or demoralizing. Poison, likewise not going to be useful. In the nastier fights featuring shambler troops instead of just individuals, they're gargantuan, so that would rule out e.g. tripping, shoving or grabbing. There's also a rather good chance that the party isn't weirdly specialized into Crafting, so the checks to repair barriers might fail fairly often, resulting in them taking twice as long.
*If* things go very well -- e.g. the party chooses Warland's Yard with its modest number of barriers that are already intact, and its stone walls; and do well with crafting checks and are able to keep everything reinforced -- then the waves will be weaker and the players. But, things could certainly go far, far worse...
A cleric was mentioned, so for what it's worth -- a three-action *Heal* heightened to 2nd level would have not only healed friendlies for 2d8 w/n 30', assuming that none of the characters are e.g. undead; but also would have damaged e.g. zombie shamblers (2d8 positive damage w/ basic save, so 2d8 or 1d8; +5 due to weakness to positive/holy, assuming that they didn't crit-succeed the save). The Shambler Troops would take far less damage than a group of individual Zombie Shamblers, though, running rules as written -- they're treated as a single creature and their weakneses are again max 5.
As far as I can tell, there is exactly one Creature 5 in the adventure
Spoilers:
and it is not accompanied by /any/ other monsters at all. It's the "Weak Sulphur Zombie" in "Burning Dead", and is a Moderate 3.
The bulk encounters... the worst wave in the evening would be two shambler troops (Creature 4) + two husk zombies (Creature 2) for an Extreme 3. All the other 'waves' in the night at most have Creature 2s, mostly Creature -1s.
Krant himself is a Creature 4, accompanied by two Creature 1s.
