Draven Torakhan's page

I'm preparing to run Curse in 2e, and I know some of my group are interested in the Marines. Is there an Archetype for this, or something close enough?

Sooo... whatever happened with this? Syrinscape sadly doesn't have soundpacks for SoG, and I saw the post talking about partnering with Michael Ghelfi Studios, but aside from the teaser track, it seems that it, too, is a ghost...

Not to necromance a thread, but I thought I had made my own asking about this, apparently not - on the subject of the river haunt specifically, the haunt has an initiative, so the grasp tries to pull PCs down every round, yes?

I've run this once before, and my players caught hell even trying to roll above single digits, but every time they managed to get free, the haunt would just pull them back down again. Everyone had a blast, thankfully; but I can see how that might be frustrating.

I am so disheartened to hear this. The promised theme and gist had me drooling for WoW, but the more I read on the forums, the more disappointed I am. The whole "the match isn't as important as stopping the wildfire" is a huge fallacy. It's what kicks off, well, everything. Calming down the fallout is important, yes; but finding who's responsible is equally important.

To put it on a smaller scale (and this might not be the best of analogies, I grant), look at it this way. You and your family/friends save money ALL YEAR to go on vacation. Someone steals all that money. You work hard to regain funds and go... but are you really going to say "oh well, we still don't know who took it, but whatever, it all worked out"?

Way late to this party, but my group has currently had the druid fall halfway through the basement (during the fight with the fungus leshy), with the others all fairly banged up.

I'll be gently reminding that they're more than welcome to return to base camp and heal up there, but I was -not- expecting this module to go so hard. (To be fair, my group tends to have the most horrible luck with dice rolls when it's not a 'boss fight'...)

Apologies if this doesn't belong here, not sure what category it would go into; and it's older content...

I'm running Little Trouble in Big Absalom to fill some time; have the PDF, etc. Dear gods, that map is not easy to re-draw on my mat though. I'm willing to buy the physical copy of the adventure as well, *IF* it comes with full-sized maps I can use. Otherwise, there's really no reason, as I already own the PDF.

That's it, that's my question.

((Also, yes, I am well aware I could feasibly print out the map in the PDF. The problem therein is I am simple brain, and can never figure out how to print the things off to proper scale.))

I'm actually glad she's not in Seven Dooms, if only because she.. well. She's not around in my campaign anymore.

I'm running Burnt Offerings to give my group of new players backstory. They just went to the Glassworks, with Shalelu in tow; and thanks to bad rolls in an admittedly epic fight, Tsuto struck her down.

I was concerned about how her death would impact Sandpoint, but if she's nowhere in Seven Dooms...

I think the need for that rule has been superseded by the fact any ancestry can choose to get 2 free boosts with no flaw now. So if you want an elf with no con flaw, you can just have any two boosts you want.

Very good point! And I -did- read that, simply didn't think of it. Good catch, thank you!

Quick question; I'm still feeling out the Remaster to see what's changed and what hasn't. Reading over character generation, the Attribute Bonuses is simple in and of itself, but I find myself wondering this:

If I'm building an Elf, for example, I get a bonus to Dexterity, Intelligence, and a Free option. I also take a -1 to Constitution. Previously, one could spend that Free attribute boost on the Flaw to cancel it out (in this case, keeping Constitution at a +0).

Is this still valid in Remaster? Odds are I've simply overlooked where it states this in the book, but some clarification would be most appreciated.

Looking over the Player Core, I've come across a bit of a contradiction. Calistria has been a deity of Vengeance for a while, and remains as so - one of her edicts is "take revenge".

However, listed in her anathema is "become too consumed by a need for revenge". Granted, there's an argument of 'seek vengeance but don't go overboard', but in previous content it mentions elves who follow Calistria playing the long game and seeking revenge through a lifetime; and such is described as well within Calistria's lines ((don't ask me which book this is in, I don't recall ><)).

So then, how does that balance out? Is there a point in seeking revenge where a follower is expected to just let it go?

Looking to begin a new campaign and a player had a good question. Regarding the Kineticist's Elemental Blast - one of the elemental types is Vitality for Wood. Vitality descriptor says it can heal living creatures, and damage undead.

So with that being said, could my player use a Vitality elemental blast to heal an ally?

Rule question - Twin Takedown says 'You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand' as a requirement.

If I'm an Ancestry that has claws, one set on each hand, could I use claw attacks with Twin Takedown? Common sense would say yes, but I can see some arguing that you're not 'wielding a melee weapon in a hand'...

NGL, these new names are gonna take some time to get used to. Especially the convoluted ones like the audiereren. Appropriately 'elf-y', yes. But still.

That being said, I'm still hyped for the new stuff~

Still a bit out of sorts that we won't get the book with the new Tian races until AFTER this AP is out, seems like an odd choice...

BUT I'm still looking forward to grabbing this~

I'm still getting the hang of PF2, and I'm not sure whether this is an option RAW; or which class would have it.

I understand the various Champion abilities that let you take a retributive strike against an enemy that attacks your ally - but is there any ability/spell that lets you -take- the hit for your ally?

Thanks, appreciate y'all!

Okay, so I've tried to navigate through the PFS "guide"/site, to very limited effect (I don't know if I'm just stupid or what, but I can't stand it. Anyway...).

All I need is a concise rule-backed answer of if I can run a PFS-legal game with less than four players; and if so, what do I need to do?

Huh. TIL, thanks for the input, everyone~

Cantrips are already first level. You can see it on Divine Lance's statblock: Cantrip 1.

So are cantrips not all considered 0 level, then? Could be this is a change from 1e that I've overlooked...

So, we ran into a disagreement with rules in my session last night, hoping for some clarification.

One of my players was running a 4th level Cleric (with 2nd level spells). She has Divine Lance as a cantrip:

"You unleash a beam of divine energy. Choose an alignment your deity has (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful). You can't cast this spell if you don't have a deity or if your deity is true neutral. Make a ranged spell attack roll against the target's AC. On a hit, the target takes damage of the chosen alignment type equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier (double damage on a critical hit). The spell gains the trait of the alignment you chose.

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 1d4."

As I understand it, cantrips automatically get heightened to the highest level a character can cast, in this case 2. Meaning that her Divine Lance should do 3d4 + ability mod.

Another player argues that it should only get one "boost", to 2d4 - as if you have cantrips, you generally have 1st level spells at least, and so instead of even saying
"1d4 + your spellcasting ability" in the spell description it would instead say 2d4.

How does this math out?

Poi being a simple weapon makes absolutely no freakin' sense.

Draven Torakhan wrote:

but when I only have 12 rounds of Rage,

That sounds like edition confusion.

PF2 Rage lasts for 1 minute (10 rounds). Most battles last about 4 to 6 rounds.

And Rage renews automatically after 1 minute after the Rage ends.

There is no limit to the number of times per day that you can use Rage.

At least not a practical limit that you are actually going to reach. There is technically a theoretical limit based on the number of minutes in a day, but...

...

I rage immediately usually

Granted, it depends largely on playstyle, GM, etc, but when I only have 12 rounds of Rage, I find I want to hold back to make sure I have them available for the "main course", as it were. ((Especially considering this specific character is in PFS, who usually has a 'BBEG' for each session.))

I did have a Hungerseed (Oni-spawn tiefling) barbarian bodyguard in a homebrew game for a while, in 1e. Big ol' brute complete with massive tetsubo. I have fond memories of him, to the point where I recently had a custom mini of him made - perhaps he'll resurface in 2e now.

I've gotten my answers, looked at my math, etc, and it's all good now - but I have another question stemming from this thread - a lot of answers saying "you seem to love the axe"... makes me wonder what do -you- do with a 1st level Animal Barbarian? It's not about wanting to keep the axe, the axe is to, y'know, have a weapon when I'm not raging. IF I went with Orc, I'd be more than happy to be a pugilist and not use manufactured weapons at all; but as an Ulfen human, having an axe until I go all furry and feral just seemed like the most sensible thing. :P

Bit disappointing we'll be getting the Adventure Path set in Shenmen before the Guides work; meaning we won't have these iconic ancestries as options in the land they're from.

Still hyped, though; already planning on saving up Achievement Points for PFS to eventually buy my tanuki option there.

Draven Torakhan wrote:

Thanks all for the input. I doubt I'll ever see level 7 with this guy, considering it's PFS, but I'm sticking with him anyway. I love the feel and thematics, I was mostly curious if I was seeing things right with that issue. It does strike me as a touch odd; two hands free does mean things like shield - but I can't speak for everyone, but when I envision a big pissed-off werewolf, at no point do I envision said werewolf carrying around a shield. XD

I don't imagine a big pissed off werewolf carrying a weapon.

Sounds like you should if just made a beastkin fighter though

Did you just take sudden charge?

I did take Sudden Charge, yes. I've got another thread discussing Beastkin, actually; rogue or ranger would be a good class fit as well. But Beastkin only get d4 for their natural attack, and while fluff is important, if I'm going to be a front liner, I gotta earn my keep XD

Thanks all for the input. I doubt I'll ever see level 7 with this guy, considering it's PFS, but I'm sticking with him anyway. I love the feel and thematics, I was mostly curious if I was seeing things right with that issue. It does strike me as a touch odd; two hands free does mean things like shield - but I can't speak for everyone, but when I envision a big pissed-off werewolf, at no point do I envision said werewolf carrying around a shield. XD

Tian Xia is getting TWO books in 2023 and 2024, and Samsarans, Wayangs and Tanukis will be added as ancestries.

*Earperk* Did you say Tanuki? I'm sold.

So, let me preface this by saying that A, yes, some people make choices based on fluff/story/roleplaying - I tend to do so as well. Doesn't stop me from sitting back and scratching my head over how some mechanics work out; and that's what I'm questioning here.

So, new character, Animal Instinct Barb, 1st level. PFS, if it matters any. Played in my first scenario with this character yesterday, and didn't rage until the boss battle because there was no need. Str +4, using greataxe. Cat instinct (Ulfen werelynx, etc).

So I rage, lose my d12+4 greataxe, in favor of a d10+6 and a d6+6 attack option, lose AC, etc. Two extra points of guaranteed damage on a hit is nice, but I was really left feeling that raging didn't benefit me in the long run - I felt like I was overall doing more damage with the greataxe than I was with my bite, plus the AC drop when I raged helped see my poor Ulfen drop like a brick early on.

For the sake of damage, does Animal Instinct get better/"worth it" at higher levels?

Mm. So no real way to bump that d4 natural attack up, kinda disappointing. It occurs to me that the advice people offer for Beastkin/Animal Instinct Barbarians of taking Monk or Martial Artist archetypes wouldn't work either, several of those specifically say "fist attack."

Centaurs.

I've dug into this a little, but I haven't gotten any 'legal' answer; and considering I'm looking at this build for Society, a clear ruling would be very helpful.

Powerful Fist reads:
You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist increases to 1d6 instead of 1d4. Most people take a –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with nonlethal unarmed attacks, because they find it hard to use their fists with deadly force. You don’t take this penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.

So, we know that the ability removes the -2 penalty for any unarmed attack. But it also says the damage die for your -fist- increases. If I'm playing a Beastkin, for example, with a 1d4 unarmed/natural attack, would that get bumped up to 1d6 when I get Powerful Fist?

I'm currently running a gnoll barbarian, with the Giant instinct. The issue is, it really shines if you have a Large weapon. You start with one, but if all of the magic weapons you find are regular size, you lose a good half of the point of that Instinct.

I'm not looking for spoilers of anything, but are there any Large weapons I can obtain through Chronicles, or should I retrain?

EDIT: I forgot you can transfer runes. D'oh. I'm still curious as to whether large weapons ever pop up, though.

After all this time, my group is looking at getting back into CotCT; and we still haven't found the answer, so - has there been any clear answer as to what the prerequisite for Shingle Runner is?

Is it the Acrobatic feat, or is it ranks in Acrobatics? And if the latter, then how many ranks?

So I need to hunt down a full chart, gotcha. It was a Scenario, I read somewhere on the Guide site that Scenarios give 2 downtime days, I presume I'm mistaken?

EDIT: I derped, 2 downtime days per XP point.

So, I'm struggling with the new (to me, at least) format of the Guide, but that's not my big issue right now. I finished a Scenario, so I gained 2 Downtime Days (+1, because I chose Field-Commissioned Agent, I believe).

The chart on the Guide site says 'EARN INCOME (FOR 8 DAYS)'. Do I need to wait until I get a total of 8 Downtime days before I can roll on the chart?

Thanks to gnolls being a playable ancestry now, and other changes from older editions, I can more easily make my "savage" gnoll warrior who focuses on claws and teeth. I've run into a quandry, however:

Gnolls get a 1d6 Bite attack. The Crunch ancestry feat turns that 1d6 to a 1d8, and gains the Grapple quality. So far, so good.

Enter the Animal Instinct Barbarian. Looking at taking Wolf, as it's close enough to a hyena to make sense. When raging, a Wolf Instinct barbarian gains a 1d10 bite attack with the Trip quality.

Silliness about "grow a second set of jaws, etc" aside, it seems pretty simple on the outset - while raging, my jaws would do the 1d10. But would they still have the Grapple quality?

It gets a bit more convoluted as we go up in level, as well. The Specialization Ability states " Increase the damage die size for the unarmed attacks
granted by your chosen animal by one step". Normally, this would only apply while raging, as humans/elves/etc don't generally have a Bite. But a Gnoll does... would the Specialization ability bump my non-Raging bite damage up as well?

I'll also state that why I'm firmly in the camp of "ask your GM", this character build is for use in PFS, so a 'house call' doesn't really work in this situation.

Draven Torakhan wrote:

Jhaeman wrote:

Can you explain a bit more what the challenge you're having with it is? Is it the size of the area, drawing the terrain, etc.?

Basically, I've got this map. https://i.imgur.com/74hkJEl.jpeg I just need to know what size to ask for when I take it up to Staples to get printed out; because it's too difficult for me to redraw on my grid-mat.

Nice to see my stuff getting Used :D

That map have 40x40 Grid, I Recomend 1x1 Inch Squares so I would Print it 40x40 Inch (Or 100x100 cm) Most of my Maps are 40x40 or 20x20 (its an early map on my new Stuff the Grid size is noted)

Cheers

Beautiful job on it, I'm glad I found it; thanks for putting content out there~

Can you explain a bit more what the challenge you're having with it is? Is it the size of the area, drawing the terrain, etc.?

Basically, I've got this map. https://i.imgur.com/74hkJEl.jpeg I just need to know what size to ask for when I take it up to Staples to get printed out; because it's too difficult for me to redraw on my grid-mat.

Alright, gang. I am at my wit's end and need help. My party is about to go to Thistletop; drawing up maps of the fortress itself is easy enough, but I'm catching hell trying to draw up the "bramble patch" area.

I'm at the point of wanting to just go to Staples and have them print out a file for me, but I'm in dire need of a good Thistletop brambles map (with grid), as well as what exactly to ask the good people of Staples to print it out as, to be size-accurate. Help, please?

Awesome, thank you all for your help/input. I appreciate it.

Just a quick question I need clarification on. If a character can feasibly attack 4 times in a round, -can- they, or are they still limited to 3 attacks? If they can, does that fourth attack take a -15? I would presume so, considering +0, -5, -10.

To be more specific, I've built a ranger, with Twin Takedown. For 1 Action, I can make two Strikes, multiple attack penalty applied accordingly. So, if I start my turn next to an enemy, can I use Twin Takedown for 2 strikes, and then use each of my other Actions for an additional strike (4 total)?

Okay, so. Two sessions in now, moving slow because real life and scheduling issues are a bigger pain to fight than a tarrasque.

The party has, at this point, captured Calmont, brought him back to town, returned and recently met up with Alak. Just a few notes from our experience. (Of note, maybe; my group consists of two seasoned RPers, my son who's just getting into playing, and one of the 'veteran's wife, who isn't but so involved in the actual role-playing).

*City Hall fire - whoof. My gang did a good job, two of them helped herd NPCs out, while the other two took care of the mephit. They did well, got everyone out -just- before people would start passing out from the smoke/fire. City Hall is a mostly scorched shell now. I don't see how a group of four, even if specced SPECIFICALLY to put out such a blaze, even with (eventually, gotta get enough people out there first) a bucket brigade, could succeed in that. The flames spread way too quickly.

*To the Citadel. Went in, quickly heard the goblins/Calmont. Dispatched the grauladon. The DC for that rope seemed a bit high; a couple of PCs didn't even bother trying as they'd have to get a nat 20 to succeed. Surprisingly, it was our dwarf who made it up. Calmont was, well, Calmont, and offended the dwarf with his words. Dwarf charged, managed to grapple and tie up the halfling in one round. Dramatic scene ended rather..disappointingly. I played it 'by the book', but I feel that I should have let Helba at least lose an ear due to the dwarf's recklessness.

*Led the goblins out to meet up with Warbal, and brought Calmont back to turn him in to the authorities. Came back, met up with Alak. Amusingly enough, the healer-bard doesn't trust him, for no real reason (bard is the wife, and I think she doesn't understand that Hellknights aren't all evil). Everyone else has gladly taken him in to work together, for now.

*I know it's only book one, level one PCs, and trying to get new players (and GMs) comfortable. But honestly, so far, I've been surprised at how easy combat has been for them. The grauladon came close to dropping one PC because that bite hurts; but even that fight didn't last more than 3 rounds.

*After dropping off Calmont, of course the PCs went to the bookstore to look for Voz. My seasoned players suspect she's involved, but their PCs haven't thought that far into it yet. To help throw pesky heroes off of her back, I had a note left on the locked-up bookstore saying that the store is closed for re-structuring, after her last employees' antics, and the PCs bought it fairly easily.

Wow. I didn't expect this thread to blow up as big as it has. As always, thank you to those who have offered well-reasoned and well-stated replies throughout.

I'm going to wait and see, though my GM is already looking at house-ruling a lot of stuff, so who knows, but some valid points were made. My biggest issue with the druid, though, wasn't so much the duration; as much as the number of times it can be done. Different playstyles, etc - in the games I play it, it's not uncommon at all to not even get 10 minutes of downtime before someone else comes at you. But, we shall see what we shall see.

Good points, thank you both for keeping it civil. Again, I've yet to play said druid, so you're both quite correct, it very well may play out differently than I'm thinking. It just comes across as severely limited in the reading.

Catfolk, some sort of wolven-type would be good [not necessarily rougarou, but that's fine too], ratfolk… I obviously have a penchant for animal-people. Honestly, a beast-type ancestry that has claws that do more than a piddly d4 would make me ecstatic.

And whereas I doubt it'll ever happen because I'm sure I'm in a MAJOR minority here, I'd love to play a tanuki and have it be ''rules-legal.''

So, standard 'here's my two cents about 2e' post, ymmv, etc. I played through the playtest material, and dove-tailed into the finished version. I have the great pleasure [insert some sarcasm there] of playing with people who are somewhat stuck in the old ways, so I've heard a LOT of 'oh, I don't like this' without any substantiation other than it's different. Personally, I've kept an open mind, and where I might not agree with some things, I can at least understand where most of it comes from.

The three-action system is a thing of beauty. Even the naysayers in my group like this feature. It takes a bit for new players to get used to it, but overall it's just awesome on several levels. Ancestries honestly could have still been called races, and been done. It's a pointless change, but no big shakes there - I'm still in agreement with a lot of people that half-orcs and half-elves should be their own distinct ancestries, though. I do like the customization/focus that is inherent; not only in ancestries, but also in class.

Signature skills from the playtest were great; I firmly believe certain classes should be allowed to shine in the things they do over others. Signature skills helped that. Shame they got axed, it was disappointing to see them go. I liked the variable rage duration in the playtest as well [with the increasing-difficulty flat rolls]. Made sense and added a sense of excitement, but I understand it getting axed as it could be seen as a more complicated mechanic that doesn't need to be there.

To date, I've only played a barbarian, and while I liked the playtest rage rules, I'm good with the final rage duration as well. Aside from the Giant build being kind of suck due to how enlarge rules work now, I enjoy it. What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.

I have yet to play one, but I've built one up to 5th level with the intent of switching in the game I'm in when it makes sense timing-and-storywise. Druids have great spells, this is true; they had great spells even in 1e. But if I'm going to play a spellcaster focus, I generally go for arcane - that's just my style. No, I play druids for that wonderful wild shape. And it's there that I've hit a major contention point.

Even with the Wild build choice; the one thing that wild-shaping druids do is extremely limited in terms of how often they can do it. Aside from regular spell-casting, they use Focus Points. Limited to 3 at the max, and not easy to get it up that high. My 5th level druid work-up has exactly ONE Focus Point. So, great, I can wild shape once before 'refocusing', which isn't always easy [more on that snag later]. Wizards have a good range of spells, fighters can swing their swords all day... but my character, whose entire concept is to turn into a bear and maul enemies..can only do it once. Feels bad, man. I will say, I do enjoy how wild shape works in 2e, with the scaling and all... but being so limited in how often I can use it, I don't know if I'll bother.

If anything, some classes need to have more feats like in the playtest, that give you more Focus Points. I know, -some- feats do that now, but we still have the 3 cap, and those feats now are a lot more scarce than the ones in the playtest.

...Okay, so main gripe over. For the most part, gameplay using the new rules has been fun and interesting, in general. There's been a lot of good changes. Just that there's some bad ones as well. Let's talk about Conditions. For a game that, in part, was meant to simplify rules, there's a BOATLOAD of conditions, and it's a bit overwhelming to keep track of them all. Resonance had a bumpy start in playtest, but they hammered it out, and it works well now. If I'm going to talk about magic though, I need to address the wand issue.

Wands are near pointless now, with how they work; and what irritates me the most about them is the reasoning why - as I understand it, one of the devs didn't like his players 'abusing' healing wands, etc. There's an easy fix there, limit access to such things. No, instead, he took this new system as a way to ruin it for everyone. Not cool, at all. I'm not as old-school as some, but I've been around, and I've never had this ''heal-spamming'' issue that supposedly needed to be addressed.

Again, I understand where a lot of the changes come from, and agree with the rationale. Some things -still- need polishing, however, and since the 'final' version is out, I fear they never will get the refinement they so dearly deserve.

The final issue I'll mention is one that pervades the entire core book and indeed, the way 2e functions. It's obvious that Paizo is trying to reach a wider audience, and new players/GMs. Understandable. But in doing so, they homogenized the experience, expecting that everyone should play in one specific way. Remember my refocusing note? Here's the rub. It feels like the developers feel sessions should all play out in a very specific way; some combat, some travel, some downtime. Anyone who's played in campaigns for any length of time should know it rarely plays out so cleanly as that. In the game I'm in; in the area I'm in, decent rest is never a given - which goes back to the point of not enough focus points/wild shape ability. If I can't 'refocus', I'm screwed after only a fight or two.

It's easy to list my complaints here, as it is for anyone... but I stress again that for the most part, I do enjoy this new version. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, however, and the few glaring errors I've seen keep squeaking. I'll be sticking with PF2E, at least for the foreseeable future; but I am -REALLY- hoping we get some fixes somewhere not too far down the line.

Thank you for attending my TED talk.

Whoa, whoa, maybe I missed something.. but lizardfolk? Are we getting them as PCs in the completed PF2?

Good points being made. That being said, a druid who can't use magic fang on themselves is butts. Butts, I say!