Evilgm's page

Any word yet on whether this AP is going to be getting Foundry support? We've been really impressed with the official Outlaws mods and are definitely hoping to see a similar level of support for this AP.

Yeah I'm glad Scare to Death isn't as auto-picky as it used to be

It still is, and for the same reason it was before- there are very few skill feats worth taking for most characters.

There is no particular mechanic that stops a Wizard wearing Heavy Armor, beyond a lack of proficiency making it unappealing. If they were to take Feats that gave them proficiency in Heavy Armour, it would work the same as for any other class that's proficient in it- it doesn't hinder their spell casting in any way.

I've always seen Karl "Helo" Agathon from Battlestar Galactica and Alphonso "Mac" Mackenzie from Agents of SHIELD as great examples of Lawful Good characters. They have a rigid sense of right and wrong and will follow it even when that means they have to go up against their friends and allies. They don't expect their colleagues to always agree with them, and know that sometimes they just won't be able to convince their friends to see things the same way, but they stick to their guns even when it causes them problems.

This is wonderful news. Foundry has allowed my gaming group keep playing throughout the events of the last few years, and definitely was vital in keeping some of us sane through the isolation. Really happy to see Paizo taking full advantage of the tools and opportunities Foundry provides, and working with the amazing volunteers that have worked their asses off to make the Foundry PF2 system as good as it is.

What makes you think I don't already do that? I'm asking because I want to see what Paizo's excellent developers can do without being slaves to balance.

They aren't "slaves to balance", they've made a balanced game and most people who play it prefer it that way and want it to stay that way. It sounds like you don't like that aspect of PF2, and it seems likely the only two solutions available are work with your GM to change your home game or use a different system, because it would be foolish for Paizo to undo all the good things they've done with PF2 simply because you don't like it.

He has a one page writeup in Lost Omens: Mwangi. He's a relatively shy and inexperienced god, and his followers are mostly about encouraging personal growth and change, and ensuring others are free to do so.

As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?

If what you actually want is never to have hard fights, as suggested above that's a conversation you need to have with your GM before the campaign starts, so they can make adjustments. But it's unreasonable to expect Paizo to write their APs that way, since having the occasional Severe difficulty encounter is part of the design of the game, which I assume Paizo did because their playtest and market research showed a significant portion of the playerbase enjoy that.

Runic Impression, Magus Focus spell (pg 143) can give the Returning Rune, but the effect ends immediately as soon as you throw the weapon. Not sure it's errata worthy, but seems like a mistake on some level.

I have finally realized why my friends are not hyped about SoM (or PF2 in general). In Paizo's quest to make high level play, they have created a system where character concepts do not come on line until level 12+ (5 class feats with 2-3 available for non class such as archetypes). I am going to see if I tell my friends to start at level 12, that I can entice them back. OF course, this does not help PFS

Considering how well Abomination Vaults runs, I haven't found this to be accurate at all.

What really annoys me is when there are partial squares at the sides of a map. When there are full squares across the whole map (like on Flip-mats) I can just resize the map to Squares x 100px and import it with no issues. When there is what might be a third of a square along one side and what looks like a half a square along another then I need to cut away the outside partial squares, but on a large map that can result in distortion since I'm not going to get the cuts pixel perfect and any error amplifies as it goes across the map.

So I have to ask, are we ever going to get 17th level feats for more ancestries? Or more 17th level feats for existing ancestries.

Is there any reason to think Paizo won't print more feats? Isn't that basically what the majority of their rules content is? It'll just take time.

Noting? Well if there's nothing new, one must wonder what the point of the books is then.

You asked for what changed. You didn't ask for what was new. Those are different things. There's a ton of stuff that's new or expanded from before, because unlike most of the regions covered by Core Book and World Guide large sections of The Mwangi Expanse had very little detail compared to what they get in this book. Though I understand that if you're trying to push some weird agenda your approach makes sense.

I think you're playing PF2 very differently to my group...

I hope high level APs become something just as easy for newer players to jump into as lower level APs.

They won't be, for the reasons that have been brought up, and no Player's Guide could remedy that. That's not a PF2 issue, that's an "All games with an experience system" issue.

High level characters innately rely upon skills learned by their players at lower levels, either with that character or with other characters, and expecting a single 15-18 page document to distil that down over a few pages is asking way too much.

Put simply, as written, Carman Rajani is ... well... a failure as a NPC foil as written. There's no point dodging the obvious: he sucks. Rajani becomes an instant maguffin; a mere plot device summoned when needed and disposed of just as quickly. The moral quandary posed later in Volume 2 has no teeth; there is no air of reality to it -- because Rajani is not even a pretend person. Rajani needs work.

One of the core assumptions for the entire AP is that the party will spend time in Otari and get to know its citizens. You aren't supposed to wait until the start of Book 2 to introduce the character, and this entire rant seems completely over the top.

Has anyone come across art that would make an interesting backdrop for VTT scenes during the Spear Hill Camp and Feast of Blood section?

How are people handling the arrow slit-style windows that are found all around the exterior of the surface level? I was originally going to run them as the small windows that they are, but I'm concerned that the players will spend the first session walking around all the external walls and looking in to see all the encounters beforehand, which doesn't feel particularly exciting.

I would really like if all the maps ended on the edge of squares instead of having a bit extra around the sides. Having them perfectly fit (like the flip-mats do) means you can just count the squares and multiply by your square size and it's ready to go on VTT. Instead I need to use a few different programs to cut out the maps and get them ready, which can still end up a couple of pixels off. A couple of pixels doesn't really matter on a standard map, but on Gauntlight maps that can be 50+ squares it can lead to serious issues with grid alignment.

If you have a 1h fighter for instance the target is probably going to be flatfooted practically all the time anyways.

If you choose to be a 1h Fighter and then choose to use swords knowing they lack synergy, that's your own decision. Designers can (and should) only do so much to make various builds viable, and if you actively ignore big signs saying "these don't synergise well" that's entirely on you.

Just because you like swords doesn't mean they need to be better.

It's really obvious now that you've explained it, thanks a lot.

I'm a bit unclear on how Bequethal works- is it only for things with a listed rarity? If I've played Extinction Curse Book 1 and assign the Chronicle Sheet to character 2001, and later want to Bequeth "Run Away and Join the Circus" to my 2002 character so he can become a Juggler, is that possible? And how much does it cost?

The game is a year and a half old, with only a year and a half worth of releases. Every Focus Spell printed meant something else wasn't printed, and vice versa. More options will be printed as time passes. Undoubtedly this will include more access to Focus spells as its obvious design space.

But Animal Conpanions don't die as easily as constructs get destroyed.

Technically they die easier, since the rules make no mention of Animal Companions using the Dying/Wounded mechanics. Though I imagine most games do use them, because it feels mean otherwise.

The difference can easily be explained by where you're aiming at on the target and how you're firing, just like any other Versatile weapon, especially since damage type generally only matters for creatures with specific biological or magical differences from standard targets. I don't think that Firearms should keep B going forward, though I understand the legacy reason it is there for playtest, but how Vesatile works isn't part of the issue.

Fortunately this issue is specifically raised in the playtest survey, so Paizo are aware of it.

I've no idea what the cause was and it certainly never happed to me before on this site.

A storm knocked out the servers, causing the session the cookies are for to no longer exist.

Is the Inventor really more of a martial class than the alchemist or investigator?

Yes. The Inventor is absolutely just a Martial Class of similar design to the Ranger. The Alchemist has significant party utility through elixirs and the Investigator has massive non-combat utility. The Inventor is no better at Crafting or Recall Knowledge checks than a Witch or Wizard, and that's basically the entirety of their out of combat utility.

Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.

The concept of this thread is already a ludicrous waste of time ("I assigned arbitrary points values and then it turns out they aren't balanced. Why Paizo?") but this bit really takes the cake. Design doesn't work this way. The whole is great than the parts, there are a dozen moving pieces to how a character is built, nevermind an entire class and trying to math out how to make balanced classes takes away from time Paizo employees are better off spending actually making the game.

Game Design isn't a maths problem.

Sadly the Animal Companion option from Extinction Curse isn't something that can be used in PFS, as it is not on the Chronicle Sheet.

The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.

A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.

The issue is that for 4 of those "Half your levels" it's the start of the game, where characters have the least access to clever combat tools and are most reliant on just rolling regular Strikes. You are worse than a Ranger or Barbarian at regular Strikes and not any more useful in non-combat situations (unlike the Investigator who suffers similar issues) and don't bring lots of in-party utility (unlike the Alchemist who suffers similar issues).

The Inventor isn't actually a Crafting focused class that needs to start with Int 18 to do its main job. It's a Whacking Things In The Face focused class with some set dressing to explain having a slightly fancy weapon or Animal Companion, and a Rage-style damage buff that sometimes fails to justify having to roll a Crafting check. It needs to be as good at Whacking Things In The Face as the Barbarian, Ranger or Swashbuckler, because that's the role it occupies in a party.

This is the exact same issue the Investigator had in Playtest, one that was mostly corrected by the addition of Devise A Stratagem. And the Investigator has a lot more out of combat utility than "good at Crafting, but no more so than a Wizard who also Trained in it".

Imaging facing 3 swarms.

A feat that matters in maybe two or three encounters in a 20 level Adventure Path is not a useful feat.

Even in other scenarios, many enemies tend to have smaller hp pool, could be a cleanup after a fireball. It will be situational but sure to find its uses

They would have to have a hit points 6+ levels lower than the level of the party for 1d6 per 5 levels damage to matter. The damage is much too small to be useful in all but the rarest of occasions- the Gunslinger would be better off just throwing the bomb because they would be up a Feat for the 99% of other fights it doesn't matter in. Like a lot of the Gunslinger Feats, it is cool flavour and terribly underwhelming math.

Friendly
"This condition reflects a creature's disposition toward a particular character, and only supernatural effects (like a spell) can impose this condition on a PC."

Charm is a spell. It can apply the Friendly condition to player characters.

I feel that Misfire for the firearms and Unstable for the Inventor's contraptions are basically the same thing

They aren't though. They have very little mechanical similarities, and the only real link is they are both in the same document.

Misfire is a mechanic to add additional risk to certain feats, and basically just costs an action to undo- you can keep doing actions that may trigger Misfire all day if you want.

Unstable is a mechanic that limits specific actions to a single use per combat, in a similar fashion to Focus Points, with the option to try again at a high chance of simply failing to do anything.

Any rule that tried to combine both of these into one thing would end up being six paragraphs of text, half of which would only apply at a time.

Using a tripod in combination with Way of the Sniper only works in rare situations where the party are set up and the combat comes to them. It takes an action and two hands to set up a Tripod, and then another action to draw your Arquebus. And then an action to Hide. That's the whole first turn of the combat, which didn't include an attack so you don't get the bonus damage from your Way.

The Hide action results in a form of Hidden that breaks "if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step." Unsteady requires an Interact action to be taken before firing or else suffer a penalty, which would cause the character to stop Hiding. This makes it difficult to take advantage of the Sniper weapon trait. This would also affect Way of the Sniper Gunslingers, who will need to spend an action re-Hiding before firing to take advantage of One Shot, One Kill or face a penalty when using the Arquebus.

Lightning Raven wrote:

The single specific strike in this case means Tiger Claw, Crane Wing, Cobra Fang, etc. As long as it mentions "unarmed strike", the Monastic Archer works, if it mentions one of the attacks on the table, then it doesn't work: http://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?Traits=112

But we can’t be in both those stances so we are automatically restricted from these strikes and the wording is different than Monastic Weaponry.

Thoughts?

My thought is that Lightning Raven is 100% correct, it's wording to make it clear you can't use Stance-specific Strikes whilst under the effect of something like Fuse Stance.

But that is also something represented by a Critical Failure- it doesn't have to be a mistake on the part of the character, it can represent incorrect knowledge they have been taught. Whether they remember it right or wrong doesn't matter, all that matters is that it's incorrect.

Common sense would certainly suggest that the only time Bob the Guard's Unique trait should apply would be for things unique about Bob - who is Bob's wife, what kind of beer does Bob drink, what street does Bob live on, etc. Unique should not apply to stuff about every human. Sadly, common sense is not always common.

It's not just common sense, it's also the current rules of the game, as noted above. This whole thing is literally a non-issue.

Sanctioning an AP for 'just' home play doesn't help build community and would be an inefficient use of limited resources, imo.

But that's what all APs in PFS2 are sanctioned for now. They aren't supposed to be run like Scenarios.

Quote:

We’ve gone back into some scenarios from Year 1 and created Chronicle Boons to grant access to thematically appropriate items

Are they still pending being posted? I searched through my boon list and I don't see anything new other than the boon for 2-03 which doesn't involve the Society Guide. For instance, which scenario involving Venture-Captain Bjersig Torrsen now grants access to a pair of magical snowshoes of the long trek? As far as I can see, Torrsen has only appeared in Q3, 1-10 and 2-04. The latter is not in the boon list and the boon attached to the other two does not reflect the item.

It is "Iceferry Lodge Gear", which is rewarded for completing #1-10. Its under the Game Rewards section, rather thab the Chronicle Boons section.

Boons are nice to slot but what's more relevant is what the player does ingame.

Was there anyone even hinting at the opposite?

At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three.

That is absolutely not the common experience. Most players in most games start with one, and scenarios need to be written from that point of view.

Shave them off? I just use alt and move maps to right spot on the grid. The maps don't actually need to perfectly align with the grid

Yes they do, because a map of any significant size with just a few pixels off will cause exponentially bigger errors the further out it goes from the square you use as your baseline. It took a significant amount of time to align some of the Extinction Curse maps properly because for some reason the squares around the edges weren't squares, they were inexplicably longer than they were wide, and this map similarly has boxes around the edge that aren't square. Importing Flip-Map pdfs (which have perfectly aligned borders) is super easy, because you can just set the image size to (squares X 50px) and then set your square size in the VTT to 50px, a process that takes less than a minute.

It's not like I'm making some insane request, I'm asking that maps be as big as the amount of squares they require, no more or less. My assumption is that it's just something that hadn't occurred to anyone involved in the process, because it certainly never occurred to me until I was preparing games in VTT. If it is actually way more work than I expect they'll likely ignore the request, but there's no harm raising the issue.

The addition of a separate pdf with the map is great, but please when doing maps in future content have the borders be on the sides of the squares. Having fractions of squares on a map makes importing them into some VTT programs a lot more work, as you need to shave off those extra pieces first to line up the grid.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage.

What non-damage spells is the Magus set up for using? Most of them are save spells, which aren't particularly better with Spell Strike unless you are consistently critting (which you aren't against threats worth using a rare spell slot on), and you have worse save DCs than an actual caster 90% of the time. They are certainly capable of channeling more than damage spells through their weapons, but not mechanically encouraged to do so.

Most PF2 players have seen the benefit of debuffs and they are a much bigger part of the game for a lot of parties than they were in PF1, but as designed the Magus is positioned to be one of the classes benefiting from them, not setting them up. "Folks on this forum" are playing it focused on damage because that's what the current design encourages.

What are you talking about? I'm running Extinction Curse, have been for months, and I've never seen anything of the sort.

I would like to see the restriction removed so that a Magus can prepare something like Cone of Cold, and it gives the versatility of having an AoE if needed whilst still having a spell for Striking Spell on a single target. The damage wouldn't be as efficient as using a single target spell, but that's the trade off for more options.

Combine the effects of this with Act Together (removing that silly actions must differ limitation) and then you might have something.

"You choose which order the actions are taken, and you and your eidolon can each take a different action."

It's not a limitation