Errenor's page

I don't see any problems in creation of such ritual. Just base it on existing ones and use Creature Creation Rituals table and you'll be fine.
I'm also very surprised it doesn't exist already.

Again, the most straightforward reading (and RAW for that matter w/o getting too lawyer-y) is that when an ability's asking for a Class DC, the PC can use their best Class DC.

Or that you use Class DC from the class you've got an ability from.

steelhead wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I envisioned ways to make casters somewhat playable in Dead-magic regions while keeping to the lore that casters avoid these as the plague. It is a tricky thing to do.

For example, allowing consumables to work but not permanent items...

You keep using the term ‘dead-magic’ but I’ve seen Paizo referring to them as wellspring surges in both Impossible Lands and Secrets of Magic. The whole point is to not shut down spell casters. I would recommend that you look at the above links now before you try reinventing the wheel, as your ideas are very similar to those highlighted in the tables for surges (if casters fail their flat checks).

Eh...dead magic was a thing that appeared in PF1 rules and setting.

It seems like in PF2 they've learned that having large scales swathes of land be dead magic isn't fun (which I mostly agree with) and have instead substituted Wild magic or Wellspring Surges.

Yeah... no. While Mana Wastes are magical chaos area, half of Alkenstar itself plus dwarfish Dongun Hold and some area between are still strictly dead magic areas:

What's funny, in the Alkenstar AP that Smokeside is a dead magic area is mostly ignored or suggested to ignore. Or something like that.

• Healing Methods that Work for Dhampirs:

o Void healing effects: Any effect that specifically provides void healing (such as the Harm spell used to heal undead).[2]
o Oil of Unlife: Functions as a healing potion for creatures with void healing.[3]
o Treat Wounds/Battle Medicine: These use non-magical means and do not rely on vitality energy, so they work on dhampirs as they are living creatures and these actions are not tagged with the vitality trait.[3]
o Soothe spell: Also works, as it does not rely on vitality healing.[3]

Elixir of Life. And probably other Alchemical elixirs and tools. For the same reasons.

Maybe not very useful, but still.
I think that dead magic areas are not suitable at all for games in the pf2-like genre in general and pf2 campaigns. Just delete them completely from everything and forget about the trope. It's completely unfun.
I agree to them only when they have the same occurrence as 'dead weapon' areas where weapons and unarmed attacks don't work at all. And in this game mechanics even physical damage immunity for select creatures is forbidden.

It's mentioned in the writeups of the old spell schools in Secrets of Magic.

Yep, there it is:

Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.

I can muddle this even more: there are at least two elixirs with a Poison trait which I most definitely will still count as elixirs (with a poison trait) because they just give you poisonous qualities. Those are Viperous Elixir and Frogskin Tincture.

The problem about IWR being applied to the shields is already well known by designers. But they choose to keep this in order to keep the damage calculation simplest.

Well, the only problem with that is they don't choose anything. As has been said in this topic several times. The rules are ambiguous and the devs are silent.

Well, I don't know, what do you think:
"There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. If you have different types of bonuses that would apply to the same roll, you'll add them all. But if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—they aren't cumulative."
"Penalties work very much like bonuses. You can have circumstance penalties, status penalties, and sometimes even item penalties. Like bonuses of the same type, you take only the worst all of various penalties of a given type. However, you can apply both a bonus and a penalty of the same type on a single roll."
"Unlike bonuses, penalties can also be untyped, in which case they won't be classified as “circumstance,” “item,” or “status.” Unlike other penalties, you always add all your untyped penalties together rather than simply taking the worst one."
?

Another thing - it's invisible. So NPCs can't know the direction to go around it. They probably can know if it's there or not by touch, but that's all. NPCs knowledgeable and able to fly could probably know that its height is less than width.

omg. Of course it doesn't demand any slots from you. "Your familiar can Cast that Spell once per day using your magical tradition, spell attack modifier, and spell DC." What's written? It can cast it once. Then it can. Nothing more nothing less. No requirements or spending other than written. I can't see how more straightforward it can be.
What would be the point of the ability if it didn't even give you an extra spell?

It seems to me all these extra rolls lead to constant failure. PF2 is built to failure 40 or 50 percent of the time for at level creatures unless you max a skill out. So if you have to roll to avoid notice and getting lucky enough to succeed, then you have to roll to start hidden during initiative with a 40 to 50 percent failure chance, then you are almost guaranteed failure for at least half the group.

Just to check. Have you noticed that this is completely wrong as NorrKnekten for example mentioned? If you fail on Stealth as Initiative you are hidden, not observed! Observed is a critical failure.

Claxon wrote:

So like, the other player was wrong and the GM shouldn't have taken their interpretation.

But also, it probably wouldn't have went well for your character to do what you were planning to do.

But also, the Sleep spell doesn't specifically address what happens if someone harms you but I'd imagine that even with the 4th level version, it's not intended to prevent you from waking up if you're taking damage.

So yeah, your party could have punched you out of a coma.

The 4th level version is decidedly more severe than the 1st level, hence the much shorter duration.

But then you're only out of combat for more than 1 rd on a crit fail.

I could totally see the target not waking up even if damaged while sleeping.

I absolutely don't. Just look at the unconscious condition:

MAP (multiple attack penalty) has nothing to do with actions. And yes, Summoner and Eidolon still has 3 actions to spend between each other in any order and distribution between each other.
But there's a catch: action compression abilities. The base one is Act Together. I won't describe it in details, but using it Summoner and Eidolon act (kind of) at the same time and basically get that 4th action.
Act Together
Another very important one demands spending a feat:
Tandem Movement
There's also this, but it's not very good as Summoners strike badly:
Tandem Strike

I'd say lets wait and see what the Corpsefolk versatile heritage in the upcoming Starfinder Adventure Path does. That might give us an idea what they intend to do with undead player characters in the remaster space.

I have a suspicion that approach to undeath in Starfinder and Pathfinder was already different before, and that planet with undead inhabitants in not like Geb, for example. So this won't help us much for Pathfinder. But I don't know.

I'm going to pretend that the reason he's calling spells by their Starfinder names is that Witchwarpers are prone to metatextual moments and might know some game rules. Being high intelligence and seeing through the veils of reality leaves you with at least a little understanding of the "rules of the universe".

But spells do exist in the game universe, they aren't just game mechanics abstractions and they probably do have Starfinder names in Starfinder (also probably alternatives too, but the game names are probably baseline). So, what's the catch?

Support Benefit A special benefit you gain by Commanding the Animal to use the Support action (see below).

Support [one-action]

Requirements The creature is an animal companion.Your animal companion supports you. You gain the benefits listed in the companion type’s Support Benefit entry. If the animal uses the Support action, the only other actions it can use on this turn are basic move actions to get into position to take advantage of the Support benefits; if it has already used any other action this turn, it can’t Support you.

Support Benefit Your ape threatens your foes with menacing growls. Until the start of your next turn, if you hit and deal damage to a creature in your ape's reach, the creature becomes frightened 1.

Yeah, I will definitely read this as only applicable to Strikes. No mass spells (and any spells to not have to worry about spells with several Spell attacks).

Support Benefit Your bear mauls your enemies when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you hit a creature in the bear's reach with a Strike, the creature takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear. If your bear is nimble or savage, the slashing damage increases to 2d8.

And a lot of others already are written like:

Paizo often misses sensible traits for space or oversight reasons. My personal peeve is all the magical monster abilities that lack the concentrate trait. Disruptive fighter cry.

Let them. If magical monsters don't need to concentrate to use their abilities - that's very sensible. Unless of course it's clearly a spell or very spell-like.

Understood. I don't think that many rules-light games would handwave things like that, it's understandable and not hard to take into account.
But you are right, some could be very much like board games in part, even some PbtAs. So, even more formulaic than rules-heavy games like pf2. Depends on authors I guess.
The most important thing in this case I think is to find the right table, and only then the right game. I hope you'd find a table you like.

Furthermore, game designers frequently use natural language, tone, and narrative description as part of communicating mechanical intent—especially in systems that rely on referee adjudication or narrative play.

With this I can agree. When there's no mechanical rules, there's definitely no 'flavour text', you judge the situation just based on your understanding.

I really don't think languages are an issue here. When it's game mechanics anything you have that affects others - you are doing that, no question. You are the source and the reason, you can't remove yourself from the situation. Language nuances don't matter. Unless something explicitly says otherwise.

I think that table consensus is great for any system and helps improve everyone's experience when everyone is like minded, however when that's required for someone's idea to work then that's a problem for people like me who rely on random online groups.

First part, yes, accord is great. But then, what do you mean by 'required for idea to work'? What's a 'working' idea? Some of that is understandable, of course: GM still can say this can't work like that in this game, other players also could be against it (and they can have voting power not less than GM's). But that's an extreme case. But still?

I haven't played any PBtA, I've only played Overlight and read the rules for several other games that all seemed very theme focused. While few games give much room to be non standard humanoid, it feels like rules heavy games are more likely to give you tools to express that experience without having to rely on someone else.

I've heard about Overlight only now :) A lot of rules-light really are very theme focused, including a lot of PbtA. There are some which were made for wider thematic ranges, like Dungeon World (the aim is to have dnd-like experiences; second edition is being made, closer to Pbta roots and removing unnecessary links to dnd mechanics) and relatively close games like Chasing Adventure, Fantasy World, Homebrew World and others. And dozens of others for different styles and settings.

keftiu wrote:

Daggerheart is a lighter game than D&D 5e, while PF2 is a meatier one. I think more groups are looking for the former than the latter these days.

Lighter than 5e? Gross.

5e doesn't even have sufficient rules to cover it's own common gameplay situations.

No, it's not if done right. PbtA are even more rules-light and these games (at least best of them) are absolutely great. You can find almost any flavour for a campaign you like.

My issue with rules light is that it rarely properly represents certain things, they all have certain assumptions about your character and going outside that box rarely works. It's hard enough in 5e and PF2 to be large and have that be a meaningful part of your character beyond visuals. So long as there's mechanics that fit my strange characters I would be happy with lite or crunchy rules, there just needs to be lots of options.

My understanding is that rules-light games are about table consensus, cooperation and agreement. In rules-existent games rules kind of make a core, together with GM interpretation. In rules-light games all players should agree how this works and develops.

A system that allowed you purchase a low level magical item, and then influence/choose how it grows as your character levels (while somehow justifying it using up your gold [maybe it's rituals to increase its power]) would be amazing.

Ehm. Aren't Relics this? I never got into details, but it seems they very much are.

If Daggerheart aims more towards rules light (which I assume it does, because when I saw it requires cards to play I immediately ignored it tbh)

That's unwarranted. I've played only one session of the playtest version, but I think cards are actually nothing, just a way of visualizing and organizing your char's abilities and properties. You can print your feats and spells on cards in PF2 and get mostly the same thing. It's just in pf there would be a lot more of them.

Closer to the topic, as Nothing To See Here, Master Han Del of the Web, Teridax and probably others say, anything to move DnD from 'the only' ttrpg and being the synonym for it is great. It's extremely tedious.

2) The shadow of the Cloisted Cleric with all those free Heals.

Warpriests too. They aren't penalized in this at all.

Well, bleeding is physical damage RAW. It has 'has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live' rule. Which did cause a lot of discussion what to do when a creature is clearly nonliving, but doesn't have bleed immunity explicitly.
Though as I recollect, new bestiaries and moster cores are much more correct in this respect: they do assign logical immunities much better and consistently.
But when you have this case anyway, well, you could just invent a reason why it works: skeleton bones are gradually turning into ashes from weakness and a strong damage. And go on. If you don't want to change things too much.

It gives an ability that is also named Void Healing, but then it also defines it again. At the very least it needs to be changed to directly reference the Void Healing creature ability instead of providing its own definition (which happens to be identical currently).

Imagine a scenario where the Void Healing creature ability is changed to explicitly state that it qualifies a creature for being targeted and affected as though they are an Undead creature ... but the Basic Undead Benefits are not. Now, in that scenario, what would be your answer to someone who asked if their PC that has the Basic Undead Benefits version of Void Healing is able to be healed by the Harm spell?

As it is now, it's not even remastered, so demands 'translation' anyway to work. So, given their current coincidence I'd rule them identical without any doubt. Even if normal Void Healing would be changed as we are discussing and Basic Undead Benefits would remain as they are now.

Speaking of whom, it's true that we haven't had a new Meet The Iconics for Seltyiel, but the only returning Iconic we did get one for was Yoon (pretty justified I'd say) which to me implies the old 1e ones stand. And we did get an Iconic Encounter for him leading up to the release of Secrets of Magic, which were originally (and to some extent still are) meant to take the place of an entirely new Meet for returning Iconics. Reading through it... Yeah no nothing has changed, Seltyiel is still as much of an edgelord as before.

Oh, yes, thanks. What's even funnier, he's all over Secrets of magic (and I forgot), so he is quite officially still the magus iconic. But as far as I see he hasn't got a pregen.

Agreed.

Well, mostly. There are two places to change instead of only one: The Void Healing rules for both the creature ability and PC's Basic Undead Benefits.

I checked, and Basic Undead Benefits gives Void healing (Negative healing). Because, yes of course they should.

Still plenty of effects that probably should say they target creatures with void healing but... this is where we are now.

I think it's much easier to write that void healing makes effects which target undead and/or living specifically to count you as undead. Or something like that. In one place, not mentioning this in each undead targeting effect.

The people complaining that her backstory is too edgy have never heard of Seltyiel fr

Well, we haven't seen (right?) pf2 take on it. And even if we did, I don't think the problem is edgyness: it would be at least clear. The problem is I don't understand which is the main theme, it's too all over the place and inconsistent. Yes, people can be like that. But no, I don't think that's how iconics' stories should be like.

Thanks.

My own personal take from this is that just as the targeting rules say, you can always target any creature even when an effect states a creature fitting a certain category as its target, But it will only have effect if the creature then matches the specific category.

Hmm. This is true, but I suppose it doesn't fix the issue for us: if you ignore targeting RAW, it's not a problem for Heal/Harm already, but if you don't, yes, you can target invalid targets, but then the spell instantly fails as a whole and no details with void/vitality healing come into effect at all.

"Fatigued

Source Player Core pg. 444 2.0
You're tired and can't summon much energy. You take a –1 status penalty to AC and saving throws. You can't use exploration activities performed while traveling, such as those on pages 438–439.

You recover from fatigue after a full night's rest."

I probably should add that "performed while traveling" is important. There's a lot of exploration activities (which are those with the trait 'exploration'), but fatigue does not forbid all of them, only ones on the move, like scouting, searching, avoiding notice (stealth) or running quickly (Hustle). There's no closed list probably because some classes and feats have additional exploration activities that would fit.

And as others have pointed out, she's definitely experiencing some cognitive dissonance, but that's pretty common. People are complex. It's one of the reasons that I'm glad the overly simplistic alignment system is gone.

I'm not sure that SHE experiences cognitive dissonance. And if she does that's a problem (as you've said, people are complex; and I don't even care really). The problem is WE experience heavy cognitive dissonance. And I'm pretty sure we won't be the exception and new players won't be very attracted to this iconic.

How it's played had two videos adressing this in Rule Reminder #40 and #41, in #40 he does mention that Steven Glicker had used his contacts within Paizo to get an official answer.

And what was the answer btw? I forgot if I even knew that.

Well, I don't really have a lot of points of comparison with other 9th rank effects, but this really does seem very cool :) With no visible drawbacks (apart from speed, but at that level a monk should have plenty of it). I guess that's what 9th rank can give you.

I would really love a BG3 with pathfinder

I'm not sure if you've found and read it (possibly even here), but there's this mod which does exactly this. It's still buggy and not 'full' I suppose, but should be playable and there's A LOT of stuff in it. And the guys continue to improve and evolve it.

It is strange mechanics for the concept or understanding of what they were supposed to be. It had seemed they were more of spirits bound to air and light in the past, so that they weren't really corporeal, nor would they be standing on the ground.

...
I suppose it is supposed to be an Aberrant Air creature... so I suppose we are supposed to consider the Air it has been bade of to be its corporeal body, and that that are becomes solid of sorts.

You continue to repeat that which makes me question whether you've actually read the description of the monster. Have you?

BTW air is corporeal by default in mechanics of PF2. I found only one air elemental that is incorporeal (and it's very weird and cool: someone transformed a physical phenomena into a fantasy creature), all others are 'corporeal' even if made completely from air.
[For example, Air Wisp is an air elemental and it's corporeal]

a Sylph character with the "Swift" feat doesn't gain the benefit of the Fleet general feat

Amusingly enough, Fleet and Swift also absolutely do stack.

Swift
"You move with the wind always at your back. Your Speed increases by 5 feet.

Special The Speed increase from this feat isn't cumulative with any Speed increase from your ancestry feats (such as Nimble Elf)."

Fleet is not an ancestry feat and both speed increases aren't typed bonuses.

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

Even D&D5 is not getting a game like BG3 anymore, if you read the statements from Larian you don't even have to read between the lines to see how Hasbro/WotC really dropped the ball on that one.

I look at Solasta (and Solasta 2) as maybe more approachable levels of refinement.

What do you mean did something happen?

WotC at the very least fired a lot of their people and from those most if not all which Larian interacted with. Probably also was something more about the business, but I don't remember/know.

And yeah, the feat list doesn't help either. Feats that blast everyone around you with psychic angst are super flavorful, but you don't have the HP or AC to wade into the middle of a group of enemies, and your fellow PCs aren't protected from your feats.

I think psychics being not 100% stable, dipping a bit into uncontrolled amounts of power is a cool theme. But it does need to be sufficiently ergonomic to work.

This, so much this. Everything else said here is also very important and needed (and easier to fix), but this just breaks so much of their cool feats.

Also, they are fully corporeal, physical creatures. There's no doubt in this at least.

No reason - other than the general precedent in PF2 that getting the same thing twice doesn't stack. And are you not noticing the similarities between the quick deploy snares and Advanced Alchemy, or are you just ignoring it because it doesn't match the ruling that you want?

I'll agree that there is no rule saying that you don't get both.

But try not to be so hostile to the questions and balance concerns raised about it.

There's also the general precedent that things do stack.

The number of quick deployment snares available is not a bonus type, so there really isn't a general rule to go on here. It would be up to the GM to decide if the character gets both piles of snares or not.

I would say absolutely yes. It never was not additive. No reason to compare to alchemy at all, no mention of them being not additive.

OMG, PCs can get Sanctified for only 80 gp? And with what's essentially a hands-free 1st-level wand? Which costs 60 gp on its own??? Yes, the DC's low, but Sure Strike is common enough among deities as are Fleet Step or Soothe (perhaps for the save bonus).

This feels...off. Like "every Fighter needs this" off, but then again, it does require Investment otherwise yea, I'd be spamming these.

It also requires another investment, in a deity :)

The intent of having the Escape action also allow Unarmed Attack Bonus for its check is so that Athletics doesn't become a must-pick for every character that doesn't want to have grappled, tied up, or swallowed whole be 'character removed from combat' effects with no recourse other than untrained checks.

Wyvern's Savage only mentioning one of the two options feels like an oversight.

Three options.

Yeah, this one I definitely like, the personality, the lore, the story, the art. This is nice.

Not overly a fan of motivation baked into an entire ancestry, tbh. Would prefer a more self-motivated hook.

But I do like the portrayal of the gentle giant and I always liked the Guardian narratively.

I don't think it's the whole ancestry, more like a village or a region at most.

If Lava Leap said "leap 45 feet", then I hope that everyone would agree that you could add +5 feet to that distance with a feat.

Eh. No. Absolutely no. If it said that, it would mean exactly what is written, 45 feet. And I mean exactly: now you can't even Leap for less.

Juddimal, nothing you said matters. "Leap up to your Speed." That's it. This is a specific new rule for this action. Everything else is a general rule, which gives you only 30 ft. That's all there is. Specific rule trumps general one.
You really should stop searching for exploits in this way.
Is 45 not enough for you? Really? Is 55 or 75 feet with spells not enough? What's even the point?

I think the player is calculating it this way, the base leap is being set to 45, as per lava leap. Then all the +leap distance is being stacked on top of the new base of 45. So far, from what everyone has stated here, lava leap changes what applies to leap, removing +horizontal leap distance from the equation and applying only movement speed. I'm fine with the investment into fleet step and tailwind increasing it.

I said it above, it's not a "base". It's new everything, there's nothing else at all. You "Leap up to your Speed", full stop. This is the new rule. If there were something else, it must have been written there. But this game probably never works in this way: when it overrides something completely it doesn't allow anything on top.