Why would you take away Novas for GMs? So now all we get for our hours and hours of volunteered time are more ACP? I have over 1,000 SFS1 ACP and nothing I want to use it on, so that doesn’t mean much to me. The Novas weren’t game altering, but they were a nice acknowledgement of the time people had put in.
Your novas aren't being taken away. You will still have 4 novas for Starfinder 1st edition.
Second Edition rules are vastly different than 1e; they're basically PF2e rules with some modifications. Just like what they did with the split between PF1e and PF2e, there will be a separate tracking of GM experience between the two systems, it's just not going to be the same as before.
Could we get some guidelines for the Remastered Runelord's Anathema? Some of them are rather vague.
E.G. Runelords of wrath are forbiddwn from using magic to create or protect. What constitutes creation? A lot of ex-Evocation spells technically create things very briefly. Does creating a short lived area of destructive magic (E.G. Freezing Rain, Rust Cloud) count? Using the sin spells as guidance doesn't help because those explicitly can do something technically forbidden wothout violating the anathema.
I know a lot of this comes down to asking GMs and players to both operate in good faith, but there's still enough ambiguity in the language for two people to have different opinions on a spell. Some basic guidance would be appreciated.
I agree that the anathema is very vague, and we could use some guidance here. On top of that, there's no guidance on warning players that they are about to break their anathema, so a player could cast a spell they believe to be well within their limits, and end up breaking their anathema due to the GM seeing it otherwise, leading to a very expensive Atone ritual to regain their class features.
Speaking of atoning, I also believe being forced to pay for an Atone just because you cast one spell wrong is a huge penalty, and well outside the norm for similar features, like overwhelming your curse for oracles. For example, a level 2 PC would have to pay 90g to Atone, and sacrifice 30 days of downtime since the PFS rule doesn't specify that those 30 days are only needed for regaining cleric/champion class features.
Spirit Warrior brings up a question of the intent of fist Strikes and needing a free-hand, as well as using the parry and disarm traits added to a fist when both hands are occupied. I won't regurgitate the whole discussion but it would be good to have clarification on the general intent.
I agree, I see far too many people saying that "Fist" strikes can be made with any part of the body, which is 100% not the intent. The rules say you use the stats of a "fist" strike when making strikes with other parts of the body, and I think it needs to be explicitly spelled out how that works.
The two new Magus Hybrid Studies in the TXCG both come with Conflux Spells that include the Manipulate trait, unlike all prior Conflux Spells.
Can we get clarification for why these two in particular are given that trait (opening them up to reactive strikes)?
More specifically, how does the Aloof Firmament's passive benefit - specific move actions not provoking a reaction while in Arcane Cascade stance - interact with their Conflux Spell's Manipulate trait? Does one override the other?
4 Magus Focus spells use somatic actions, which have the manipulate trait. Those 4 are:
Force Fang
Cascade Countermeasure
Runic Impression
Hasted Assault
These two new spells having manipulate instead isn't an issue.
As for Aloof Firmament, if one were to Cast Sky Laughs at Waves while in stance, the manipulate action of the spell would trigger a reaction (with the possibility of being disrupted), but the Fly action afterward would not (so you can't use Stand Still, for example).
If it's your game, just make your ruling clear, then move on. Don't worry about how other people choose to play the game.
Cordell's a Venture Something, so I'll venture a guess that some eagle-eyed player has spotted this, had an argument with a GM, and they had to step in and settle the debate.
Basically this. I play almost exclusively Society play and just don't want this to cone up, especially since they already removed the Visions of Weakness feat in the guidelines. It wouldn't be had to add something like:
"Remastered Oracles can not take the Divine Access class feat."
I would like to request that it be made explicitly clear that the Divine Access Oracle feat is not able to be taken by remastered Oracles.
Divine Access is now a base feature of Oracles at level 11, however a class Feat and a feature aren't the same thing. I'm sure many players will still attempt to take the feat at level 6, since the feat wasn't reprinted as a feat, so it's still technically a valid feat.
I'm not arguing the semantics here, I just want it to be clear that it doesn't work so I don't have to argue with people online that it doesn't work. Or make it explicit that it does work, either way I just don't want there to be arguments about it.
Tiny creatures have it worse. With a +4 Str and lifting belt you would have:
6+4 = 10/2 = 5
11+4 = 15/2 = 7.5 (rounded down to 7)
So you're fine until 5 bulk, then can't move at 7 bulk.
There's a 5 bulk gap between encumbered and over-encumbered. That's doubled for Large and halved for Small, so be glad Large PCs have all that extra leeway.
You can't move through solid objects. To move diagonally, there can't be a wall on either side of the square in the direction you're moving. No there's no rule stating this, but there's also no rule saying you can't move through walls...
The closest case to support you can't is on page 477 in the Cover section. In the given example, it shows that Merisiel and the Ogre have cover from each other due to the hard corner. If you have cover, that means you wouldn't be able to move freely through in that direction.
In the years since I made this post I have changed my stance on hard corners. Moving around them is fine, you cna do it with no penalties. I mainly changed this view because I made a grid IRL with a hard corner and tried moving diagonally. The wall barely made a difference in time it took to move between the centers of the squares.
I do still consider them cover, as you can easily keep to the wall to have cover from people on the other side of the corner. The 5ft space is just an abstraction after all, so you could be anywhere within that space during combat.
Basically, yes the cone would spread into the room. To make it easy, just calculate a cone from the choke point to where the cone normally ends, so with a 30ft cone it would cut it down to a 20ft cone.
What is the expected solution/interaction with the 2 simple hazards here? I came up with something that worked, but I'm really not understanding what's supposed to be going on.
The way I interpreted it is:
1. Use Performance to break the Calcite
2. Someone goes to dam the water, meaning they have to avoid the second hazard with an Acrobatics check.
3. If they fail the Acrobatics, they take damage but still can try to dam the water. If they fail to dam it, they have to try again with another Acrobatics check.
It really shouldn't have been Hazards, since the Calcite one doesn't do any damage, and the needles don't actually have any way to disable them. It should have just been a skill challenge with a risk of taking damage.
We need urgent clarification on how this section of the scenario is supposed to work!
Spoiler:
In the plane of Fire there's supposed to be a chase scene where we run away from the plane trying to kill us. However, the end of the section says "If the party gets at least 3 chase points per PC..." which is not how Chases work. If you want the party to make different skill checks every round, and see how many points they got at the end, use the standard Victory Point system. If you want a chase scene, there needs to be something to chase, or something to run from.
In this case, there should be the "wave of fire" behind the party which advances one obstacle per round. If the fire ever reaches the party they should take damage (with a Basic Reflex of course), and be forced forward one obstacle. This way, if they roll well at the start they can get very far ahead and have extra time if they get stuck. It also limits the time of the encounter by having the party auto advance if the fire hits them, and gives a penalty if they're failing. You can have Farah carry any unconscious PCs so they don't die, that way a series of bad rolls doesn't make it a TPK half way through the scenario.
That's the biggest issue with scenario mechanics. Other issues exist, but they don't break the scenario and confuse GMs like this one.
Using Spell Blending would work with Flexible Casting, but it also reduces your daily spell collection.
So if you want to give up your two 5th rank slots for a 7th rank slot, sure, go ahead. That just means you can't prep any of your known 5th rank Halcyon spells that day, and since you only know two 7th rank Halcyon spells, you have to fill that third slot with a normal spell.
It should be updated on AoN that you only need to be in possession of a chunk/item made of the metal to use it for Needle Darts, no need to be holding the item.
Rage of Elements Character Options wrote:
[UPDATED] Any spells which require metal to function (such as needle darts [page 144]) require the PC to be in possession of at least one chunk of that metal or an item made of that metal.
The levitation is not caused by wind, it's caused by magic (the venom has the primal trait). It's basically the Levitate spell, only you keep going up until you recover, which can be an issue if you have no way to break the fall.
Glider Form wouldn't do anything while levitating, but it can help when you fall (assuming you use the action in the turn prior to recovery).
A Wall of Wind would do nothing as Finoan mentioned, as it has to be vertical not horizontal. The only way to move through this wall while levitating would be by climbing along a solid wall that the wind wall is perpendicular to.
Think of it this way: If you are hiding behind a bush, it's easier for you to hide. It's also harder for people to see you when actively searching for you.
Elf Atavism says: "For example, you couldn’t take the Ancient Elf heritage unless your non-elf ancestry also has a lifespan measured in multiple centuries", so any ancestry that can typically live 200 years or longer should be fine. On top of that, an Ancient Elf should be at least 100 years old.
Out of all the Player Core ancestries:
Dwarves typically live around 350 years, so an Ancient Elf Dwarf would be only 1/3 through their life.
Gnomes can live forever if they can avoid Bleaching, but most make it to 400 years.
Halflings typically live to around 150, so in my opinion not long enough.
Goblins can only really live up to 50 years, assuming they don't blow themselves up, so there's no way they could live 100 years, let alone 200.
While not impossible, it's extremely rare that a Human can live that long, they typically live to their 90s.
Orcs only live to their 60s, 2/3 the lifespan of Humans.
Leshies don't age, but also they are a created creature and technically can't have "elven blood" in them. I know it's not restricted via the rules, but it just doesn't make sense to me. However, RAW they can get the heritage.
Thread Necromancy, engage. Apologies if it's bad form.
We do have Organized Play forums for questions specifically about Organized Play, but it's fine to bring back a thread that's only a few months old if you want to continue the conversation.
Foxfire Inferno wrote:
The GM of my PFS group, as well as his mentor, is absolutely positively convinced that you can 'attack' someone with the Kineticist's Wood Elemental Blast and heal them with it. I know this doesn't work, if for no other reason that it's RIDICULOUSLY stupidly overpowered.
Is the "mentor" the Venture Agent of the lodge? It's not required to have an official volunteer to run PFS, but it's likely. Check with the local Venture Agent, and if they refuse to do anything (or are also making an incorrect ruling) go to their Venture Lieutenant. Table Variation exists, but that's for rules that aren't quite clear, not for things that are 100% incorrect per the rules.
Foxfire Inferno wrote:
I understand 'healing doesn't damage and damage doesn't heal', but I am apparently incapable of explaining that to someone else. Could I pretty please get some specific rule quotes, or something from the devs, that *absolutely* dispels this misconception?
When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt.
Some spells, items, and other effects, as well as simply resting, can heal creatures. When you're healed, you regain Hit Points equal to the amount healed, up to your maximum Hit Points.
The rule makes a clear delineation between taking damage and being healed, and spells like Heal and Harm make it clear that the spell does both damage and healing. If damage healed like it did in 1e, these spells would not have to be written in such a way.
Braggart Swashbucklers can end Demoralize Immunity early starting at level 9, it's a pivotal part of their Style. It will not, however, remove immunity to Dazzling Display.
I would say they are separate timers, and in most cases the enemies would still be immune for 10 minutes. If you can remove or reduce it, as mentioned above, you wouldn't be able to use Dazzling Display on the same enemies for at least 1 minute.
Please note that the guide was updated a couple months ago (Specifically, Feb 28th) to say "permanent curses" aren't removed. This was probably because the Animate Dream's curse was causing too many players to have to pay for curse removal, even thought it would eventually end on its own.
A permanent curse or effect is typically not something that has stages. If there are stages and nothing explicitly says it's permanent, it can go away on its own; it would be something that doesn't have a duration, or explicitly says is permanent. For example, a Curse of Nightmares is a permanent curse.
Here's the curses you mentioned in your original post:
Mariner's Curse spell - Permanent if you Fail or Crit Fail
Curse of the Werecreature - Permanent
Graveknight's Curse - Not permanent
Mummy/Bog Rot - Curse is Permanent, disease isn't
Rotting Curse - Not permanent
Expeditious Evolution - Curse is Permanent, disease isn't
Mummy Rot counts as a permanent curse, as the stage portion of the ability is actually the disease. You would only need curse removal however, as diseases are automatically removed for free, since no disease I know of is permanent without a Curse rider.
Without clarification, it allows you to make as many wands as you have knives during a single daily prep period. The clarification says you can only make one knife a day. The intent of the feat is that you can only have one knife at a time, ever.
It definitely should be added to either the clarification or the feat itself that enchanting another knife ends any existing enchantment, which is better than having it last until your next prep just in case you forget about it for some reason. But it's also clear that the intent of the feat and clarification is that you get only one free wand knife at a time.
To be clear, it was not my intent to try and get around anything. I already have the appropriate boon for the weapon. Since I DO have access to it, I should be able to invent the formula, right? That way, if I lose my weapon, I can more quickly craft a new one, using only one day of downtime rather than two.
Three points:
- With access, you can just buy the weapon. No need to waste downtime.
- Also with access to an uncommon item, you can just buy the formula for it. PFS Formula Rule here.
- How would you even permanently lose your weapon in PFS?
Pre-Remaster, bards were able to replace Verbal Components with playing an instrument. As Perpdepog quoted, post-remaster rules say Bards use music for spellcasting.
There are a lot of creatures who can't speak but are able to cast spells. Speaking isn't necessary for spellcasting, you just need to be able to produce a sound to fulfill the incantation of the spell, whether it be speech, growling, music, or tapping the floor with a staff.
You 100% are able to use music as a replacement for speech when spellcasting.
Why are you saying it's -1 at 17? Thaumaturges get Apex items too you know.
At level 2, when you get Loremaster Dedication, you would have a +8 while Thaumaturges have a +6 for general RK. This is the only time you're ever better than a Thaumaturge.
At levels 3-6, a Loremaster would be equal to a Thaumaturge.
At level 7, the Thaumaturge becomes a Master, making them +15 while a Loremaster is only +13. From here on out, the Thaumaturge is always better than the Loremaster at general RK. They also will likely be increasing their Cha at the same rate as the Loremaster's Int, so ability modifiers are irrelevant.
Yes, the Loremaster gets a couple feats that increase action economy, but remember that Diverse Lore also allows them to use the result of their Exploit check as a RK check, which also saves them on action economy. Not to mention, since they're using RK on a creature, they have +4 over a Loremaster.
Plus, action economy means nothing outside an Encounter. The only Loremaster feat that matters outside an Encounter is Loremaster's Etude, which for a focus point gives you advantage on one check. This can help for very important checks, but can't be done constantly. The Thaumaturge still has a +10% chance over the Loremaster for general purpose checks.
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't have to dump multiple class feats and tons of money into magical items just to be on par with a single class feat from an overtuned class.
Archetype feats are class feats, plus Loremaster still requires investment in a skill that can Decipher Writing, meaning you're spending a class feat and 4 of your skill boosts (including your first Legendary boost) just to be 10% worse than a Thaumaturge who took a single class feat.
I agree with Robot above, the Int based classes need more feats that interact with Recall Knowledge. Currently, Investigators are the only class that gets a bunch of them, even though we also have Alchemist, Inventor, Rogue, Witch and Wizard all having Int as a key stat.
I mean, any Intelligence caster can pick up Loremaster at level 2 and he will be just -2 (or even just -1 in later levels) compared to a Thaum. Plus the ability to reroll knowledge checks as free action, making them as free actions, or even make 5 of them on later levels if needed.
Loremaster Lore reaches Expert at level 15, assuming you become Legendary in Society or something. At the same time, Esoteric Lore becomes Legendary automatically, and from then on you're at -4 when Recalling on a creature, and -2 when recalling anything else. Unless you use Assurance, then you're -4, since Assurance ignores the penalty Diverse Lore gives.
You also need to invest additional feats to get those extra actions you mentioned, while Thaumaturges only have to invest the single feat.
Is there a real purpose not to take the Diverse Lore as a feat?
It's overpowered and makes the game not fun when you can just know everything.
It's also annoying as a GM when a player wants to use Esoteric Lore in place of a different lore skill when I didn't say it was a Recall Knowledge check.
Specifically in this case, anyone can buy shield runes for increasing the stats of a tower shield (shield runes are added in Gamemaster Core). Dwarven Reinforcement is not needed.
Shield Runes have a cap, and this feat allows one to exceed that cap.
Finoan wrote:
So if a player wants their character that happens to have Dwarven Reinforcement to enhance a tower shield, I would probably allow that as a houserule (I don't think the feat actually allows this because it requires either too much adjudication, or introduces power creep - shields that are more powerful than are normally possible). The details of the houserule being that you can only increase the tower shield up to the limits of a fully runed up version of the shield that the character could get for their level.
No house rule is necessary. The stats of a Tower Shield, which is made of wood, puts it solidly in the "normal" category of items, so reinforcing a tower shield is well withing rules as written.
A good example use case would be with the Limestone Shield, which costs 350g and has a hardness of 7, which meets the standard of a non-thin stone object. Adding a level appropriate lesser reinforcing rune to the shield would increase the hardness to 10. This is on par with a Sturdy Shield of the same level, but costs a total of 650g as opposed to a Sturdy Shield's 360g. It is vastly more expensive, but this would allow a player to exceed the guideline put in place that shield hardness should not exceed the hardness of a Sturdy Shield. You're not paying to use a feat, you're paying to bypass a guideline that the developers have put in place.
No, there's no feats available to reflect those options, so the original versatile heritages should stay. Once they start releasing feats that reflect those two options, then yes.
It takes 2 actions to fire the activated ammo, then you need to actually hit, then it had a 50/50 chance on each of your rounds to end. I don't see the need for a save as well.
I see the gestures from spells with the Subtle trait as being, well, subtle. You could probably detect them, but the whole point of the trait is being able to cast without it being obvious. I don't think you would have to wildly flail your arms when trying to Charm someone.
You can swap just fine. It means no more than 2 at one time. So if you go into a narrow cave you can swap out your horse with a wolf, or leave the mount outside and let your familiar move about freely.
You can also think of it as the same pawn, just with different stats.
I initially thought this was about the vehicle "tank", not a tank for liquid.
This is just a flavor item, in case you wanted to carry large amounts of liquid with you and needed an explanation on how you're transporting it. It would have little to no relevance in society play.
If you want to purchase a tank and bring a ton of beer with you on society adventures, go ahead, but I wouldn't expect any mechanical benefits from it.
Make sure the game was actually reported as well, as you are required to "purchase" the boon on the PC that got credit. That particular boon applies to all your characters regardless though.
What happens to characters that have the Runelord boon purchased but no slots reported by Nov 15th?
If you don't have a reported game before then, you would be unable to us the original Wizard chassis, thus the archetype would be unusable. You could either get one game reported before then or request a refund for the boon.
According to Logan Bonner, the intent is that you can only adjust the degree of success by only one step. I don't know why this was never added to the FAQ, so they might have changed their mind.