Sheyln (Symbol)

Evilgm's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 214 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Radiant Oath 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
That is rather precise rules lawyering (although I'll take it :-)).

This isn't rules lawyering, it's rules reading. All Focus Spells are Uncommon, and access to all of them is granted by specific Class and Archetype options, because that's how Uncommon options and Access funtions. That's how the game has worked since day one.

Radiant Oath

CraziFuzzy wrote:


in fact, the scrounger dedication feat is so vastly superior to the improvised tool feat - it just makes the improvised one look even worse.

It should. Scrounger Dedication is a class feat that also locks you into a Dedication. Improvise Tool is a level 1 skill feat, which anyone can pick up by being trained in Crafting.

Radiant Oath

The Raven Black wrote:

I think the Recall Knowledge included in Devise a Stratagem only gives the +1 and does not give any info about the creature. So later attempts do not get the higher difficulty IMO.

Recall Knowledge is a specific action, which includes getting the info on the creature. Just like if it said make a Demoralize check, you would apply the Frightened on top of other effects.

Radiant Oath 1/5

TwilightKnight wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
if the first character had played the scenario she wouldn't be stuck making a new character just to run it
No, you don't have to create a new character in order to run the scenario, but in order to transfer the boon to the 1st character, it has to come from a 2nd character. So if she ran the table in order to gain access to the chronicle, she would have to create a 2nd character, even if it was "just on paper" so she could apply the chronicle and then Bequeathal. There is no function to transfer the boon directly from an unassigned GM credit to an existing character

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Her 2001 character levelled past the scenario before it came out, so she can't play it. If she wants the item she needs a 2002 character, with 50+ Reputation, to Bequeath it. Why does it matter in any way if the scenario is repeatable?

Radiant Oath 1/5

TwilightKnight wrote:
I'm assuming the scenario you are referring to is replayable since otherwise there aren't many (any?) options to replay scenario in 2E and so the second character would not be able to play for the access anyway.

Presumably if the first character had played the scenario she wouldn't be stuck making a new character just to run it. Coincidentally though, that particular scenario is Replayable.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

Kinda my thoughts. My groups tend to rely heavily on setup. So flat footed is rarely a concern.

Then don't take it.

It's not supposed to be the ultimate go-to ability for Rogues, it's a way of guaranteeing a Sneak Attack when you have no other alternative available. And its fine for doing that.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Massive fan of Foundry, have been using it to run 2-3 PF2 games a week since shortly after the lockdown began. The volunteers working on the PF2 module are constantly improving and updating it, and in general any content they haven't put in yet (like AP specific NPCs) I can put together in 10-15 minutes work- finding art is generally the most time consuming part.

I can't really speak to it's quality or advantages over other VTT, except to say that we tried Fantasy Grounds and that required the GM to also be the host, which wasn't workable for us. With Foundry any player can host, which is important for me with my terrible internet.

Radiant Oath

Gaulin wrote:
For the life of me I can't figure out why people say that animal skin gives you almost the highest ac. It gets you expert proficiency in unarmored, which never goes higher so the feat only gets worse. It has a dex cap of +3, and only gives a +1 stat bonus, later +2, so eventually a +5 max to ac. That's what all armor eventually adds up to, and it doesn't take a status bonus to get there.

I think you aren't taking into account Bracers of Armour, which allow Animal Barbarians to get an item bonus to AC whilst still being Unarmoured. They aren't getting to Champion AC, but they'll be noticeably better off than any other type of Barbarian when Raging.

Radiant Oath

Has anyone else had issues with getting the map of Oppar Vandy's house to work in VTT? I've spent over an hour trying to line up the grid, and at this point I am absolutely convinced that the map images in both the AP pdf and the Map pdf have variably sized squares. I even trimmed one down and resized the whole thing to have a width and height of 50px per square and it still didn't line up.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting to see the new Backgrounds are stronger than the non-Campaign ones, hopefully this strong encouragement to take them means they'll be more impactful later on in the campaign than Extinction Curse ones were. Regardless, as is they do a great job of helping provide some cool character ideas, as well as helping establish the "personalities" of the various other guard units.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:


Ray of Frost is 1d4 plus 1d4(per +1 heightening). That's half of what Snowball does; 2d4 plus 2d4 (per +1 heightening).

1d4+4, as Ray of Frost also adds you spellcasting ability modifier.

Radiant Oath 1/5

A couple of crafting related questions, the answers to these may be in the Guide to Play but I couldn't find them.

1) Does having access to an Uncommon item also include access to its formula? If not, is there currently any way to gain access to Uncommon formula?

2) A number of magical items require the Supply of a spell. In a traditional game the party casters can help out with these during their own Downtime, but with PFS Downtimes being handled individually does this mean characters can only utilise spells they could Supply themselves? And if so, would Trick Magic Item function as a potential workaround for non-casters?

Radiant Oath

Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
The Laws of Mortality are about cooperation amongst mortals, rather than relying on Gods to fix everything. It fits in very well with the Pathfinder Society, which generally doesn't expect it's members to swear religious oaths or engage in religious wars. Sure you may not like that the Cleric you've been assigned to work with relies on a deity's aid, but that's not really any different than a Champion of Abadar being forced to work with a Cleric of Cayden Cailean- you can disapprove of someone's beliefs and still work with them effectively.
Except neither of those clerics is actually required to refuse heals or buffs from the other: They may not like it, but it isn't an actual anathema like it is for followers of the 'Laws of Mortality'...

You're saying that like it's a big deal, when it's really not. Followers of the Laws of Mortality would prefer Clerics not cast spells on them, that's hardly a party destroying issue. "Please don't use the powers from your God on me" isn't an insane request, nor is it an aggressive one. PF1 had the very common Superstition Barbarians that disliked having spells cast on them and that didn't tear the PFS apart.

It's definitely less likely to cause party conflict than a follower of Sheyln or Serenrae wanting to accept the surrender of a foe whilst followers of Calistrea or Torag aren't supposed to forgive or show mercy. Unless you're playing a Class that is affected by their Anathema (which is very hard for a follower of the Laws of Mortality) these are all roleplaying guides, and its on all players involved to ensure that they are doing their best to stay true to their character but more importantly aren't overly disrupting the game because of it. The Laws of Mortality don't require the character to be judgemental or aggressive in their dislike of religion, for most people outside the Pure Legion it's simply a matter of preferring to rely on other mortals rather than trusting the Gods.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Laws of Mortality are about cooperation amongst mortals, rather than relying on Gods to fix everything. It fits in very well with the Pathfinder Society, which generally doesn't expect it's members to swear religious oaths or engage in religious wars. Sure you may not like that the Cleric you've been assigned to work with relies on a deity's aid, but that's not really any different than a Champion of Abadar being forced to work with a Cleric of Cayden Cailean- you can disapprove of someone's beliefs and still work with them effectively.

Radiant Oath 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:


Your particular obsession with controlling how other people post is your own, kindly keep it out of my thread.

The purpose of this particular forum is to help GMs run the scenarios to the best of their ability by pooling knowledge and feedback. Using the full title of the scenario as the thread title makes it easier for GMs to find the relevant discussion. I'm very unclear on why you are being so hostile about it.

And as an additional note, you don't own the thread. Being the first person to post on a topic doesn't allow you to control all discussion about it.

Radiant Oath

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been looking forward to this AP from the second I heard about it, but I have the benefit of coming from a country that has a much better relationship with its police force, to the point where the recent death of a detective has been a national tragedy.

Hopefully Edgewatch will show that there are other relationships that can exist between a community and its protectors than the toxic one that has grown in places like the US and Hong Kong, and based on Paizo's record I have faith they can do just that.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have liked some Backgrounds just for characters to have been involved in the Circus of Wayward Wonders in future games- we were super pleased we could have a former Kintargan Rebel because we really enjoyed Hell's Rebels and it allows some nice callbacks or humour ("Oh yeah, I'm definitely good friends with all the Silver Ravens"). This is especially true now we know they are usable in PFS, though I imagine you weren't aware of this when making the decision.

The new capstone Feats are fun, especially because the flavour ties in so well, but they really are a one chapter mechanic at the end of campaign so I don't think losing them would be a big deal.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It means another stance action.

Radiant Oath 1/5

Matthew Owens wrote:
Nefreet, it seems like you're arguing that, for a lay worshiper taking this feat, the prerequisite of being a follower of the Laws of Mortality is just fluff? Since anathema mechanically doesn't apply to lay worshipers?

It's as much fluff as being from The Saga Lands or the High Seas- it affects how you are likely to roleplay your character and what options you have Access to.

Radiant Oath 1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I think house rule is a little harsh to describe the idea that your patron deity is more than just the name you have scribbled on that section of the character sheet. Which is what your argument boils down to. Arson Carson has a saranite related feat, but there's no penalty for burning down every orphanage in katapesh?

Those are currently how the rules are written. Whether or not it makes sense or is fair are separate issues that would need specific rules changes to rectify. For most classes, your patron deity is a tool for access and a roleplaying device, not a proscription on playing a certain way.

Radiant Oath 1/5

I fear this would have the opposite effect than you intended- if you could have slotted this at the start of the scenario and didn't you'll still have the same issues, so you'll end up having to waste a slot every game just in case.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:


Yes. I find it very hard to believe that the intent is that if you waste a full consecutive hour treating a single patient, in most cases, assuming you are attempting a DC appropriate for your Proficiency, you get the exact same result as you would by treating them for 10 minutes, ignoring them for 50 minutes, and then treating them again for 10 minutes.

Nobody would ever do that. Why would I waste an hour treating one patient, when I could treat 6 patients once, and the original patient twice, in roughly the same amount of time, with roughly the same result for the first patient?

If that's the intent, it was a waste of ink to even print the option.

Because you do it at the end of the adventuring day, not during it, so that a character who nearly died will be ready to go tomorrow.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:


Except that Impressive Performance specifically substitutes Diplomacy on making an impression. Nothing regarding qualifying for Diplomacy Feats or substituting it for every instance.

Versatile Performance

"You can use your proficiency rank in Performance to meet the requirements of skill feats that require a particular rank in Deception, Diplomacy, or Intimidation."

Radiant Oath

albadeon wrote:

Assurance guarantees a result of success for a DC 15 trained Treat Wounds check, as long as the character has a proficiency modifier of +5. If Mortal Healing were to apply to Treat Wounds checks using Assurance, it would guarantee a critical success instead. On a roll of 1d20+5 for a DC 15 Treat Wounds check using Mortal Healing you'd have a chance of 1/20 crit fails, 8/20 fails, and 11/20 crit successes. Now, if you modify the wording of Mortal Healing to allow it to be used with Assurance, you turn those crit fails and fails into crit successes.

While not quite the same that seems extremely close to Aratorin's quote from the published Errata that no ability will ever change your degree of success by more than one step.

I must be missing some important part of your argument- Assurance prevents you rolling a Critical Failure by guaranteeing a Success without rolling. That is two steps by the logic you are using.

Radiant Oath 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:

It boils down to what your GM thinks fulfilling the requirement "you follow the Laws of Mortality" actually means in practical terms.

Presumably the purpose of asking in this forum is to get an answer that should be generally applied in PFS, rather than varying from GM to GM.

Radiant Oath

My interpretation is the former- you work for ten minutes, heal X amount and you can spend the next 50 minutes continuing the same treatment to heal an additional X amount.

I hadn't even considered the alternative until Aratorin posted it, and thinking about I don't believe it is a correct interpretation. I think if interpreted in that way it would make Continual Recovery largely irrelevant since "you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing" doesn't specify it has to be an hour, so if you can roll every ten minutes then that is functionally the same as the Feat. It also would result in massively excessive healing, as even a first level character Trained in Medicine is likely is likely to heal more than twice the injured party's hit points after 6 tests doubled.

It seems to me that being able to extend to an hour to double the amount of a regular treatment allows for characters to received extra treatment at the end of the day, so they start fresh, it's not supposed to be an efficient method of healing.

Radiant Oath

There's a significant difference between worshipping a god that is actively and intentionally evil and refusing to worship any god. I could understand not healing a extremist Pure Legionnaire who goes out of their way to harm the faithful, but most followers of the Laws of Mortality don't hate the gods or actively work against them, they just think that people out in the world are relying on divine aid instead of relying on each other. In general this would be particularly true of those who left Rahadoum to become adventurers rather than some form of anti-theist missionary.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

So its a legitimate question to ask, why is it that Wizards don't get all simple weapons?

My guess is that they got the free 1st level class feat as compensation for that penalty. But it was errata away because it was seen as "too strong" by some people.

When you include an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory in your rant it makes it appear unlikely that the question you ask is legitimate, nor does it seem like you would give any answers proper consideration.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regular characters aren't subject to the Anathema of their Religions. Following the Laws of Mortality means you don't want to take the help of a Cleric in the same way that a lay follower of Sarenrae doesn't want to lie, not that you suffer some crippling consequence if you do.

In regards Mortal Healing, the entirety of the mechanical representation of the impact of breaking the tenets of the Laws of Mortality is that the bonus doesn't work on someone who has received hit points from a source of Divine healing in the last day. It doesn't stop you from having friendly Divine spells cast on you, though the character should at the very least be uncomfortable at the prospect, as it is primarily a roleplaying drawback.

Radiant Oath

Powerful Leap increases the distance you travel with the Leap action or on a failed Long Jump. It doesn't affect a successful Long Jump (where the distance travelled is based on the DC you set) nor does it increase the distance you can Long Jump past your speed.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:


Or you know, "Imagine them as realistic, normal shields, which were destroyed when used to directly block attacks in battle as opposed to deflecting them. You know, like real weapons and armor."

I'm not normally a simulationist, but the idea that all shields should be durable when used to absorb blows is... kindof silly.

So are you also advocating for weapons to break when they hit monsters made of solid rock?

Radiant Oath

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because a significant portion of American police are trained to murder innocent civilians doesn't automatically mean that anything with police in it is negative. A lot of police forces around the world have the support and respect of their communities.

Radiant Oath

Evilgm wrote:


I do feel it's unfair to only look at their second-level feats, when the archetypes are giving out first-level options that you're considering. After all, if you don't already have a familiar on your Sorc, you can take that first level feat. (Which is what you're usually expected to do.) That's of the same power an archetype would give you.

So far Dedications have usually been better than just a 1st level Feat, as they include a skill training. The later ones even allow a non-Rogue to get to Expert in time to pick up a relevant Skill Feat, which can be a big bonus for certain builds. This is sort of balanced by the restriction on going into more than one early, but that's only a restriction if there's another one you'd also like to go into. Assuming Familiar Master just gives the "Familiar" feat identical to the Sorcerer one, based on how Dedications have worked so far, you would be better off with the Archetype than the Sorcerer Feat, as you would get another Skill. This does, of course, assume they come with a Skill, which admittedly not every Dedication has.

There's also Natural Ambition, a Feat I wish didn't exist- if you really want to get two 1st level Feats from a class, you're generally best off just going Human or a variant. With 2 free stat options AND access to several good Heritages, Humans are rarely a sub-optimal choice. Obviously this is entirely from a Mechanical point of view, not factoring in the Roleplay element.

Radiant Oath

Quote:


The reasoning for creating Twin Feint was to allow the Rogue their own style of TWF. By giving everyone access to Double Strike, you've pretty much invalidated the need to ever go...

That's an assumption. My assumption is they created Twin Feint as a way to allow Rogues to always Sneak Attack if needed. And if a Rogue really wanted to focus on Two-Weapon Fighting, I don't see why they would be unhappy having both options, and perhaps retraining later when the Party are better able to set up their Sneak Attacks.

Midnightoker wrote:
But it does enforce a certain kind of meta where everyone generally wants to Archetype

That was true when the Core Rulebook was printed. Across all the Classes, very few have 2nd level Feats worth taking, and often those that are any good are just "gain access to the other Class tree you didn't pick at first". Barbarians, Rangers and Rogue 2nd level Feats tend to be hyper-situational to the point of uselessness, and the 2nd level Sorcerer options are "more Cantrips" and "I hope you already have a Familiar".

Everyone wanting an Archetype is not only fine, it's awesome. As long as people don't all want the same Archetype (which would represent a significant and unlikely failure in Design), it allows players to better realise the character concept they're playing- the Class choice is just the framework, not the finish line.

Midnightoker wrote:
I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't cost them a level 2 Feat to get a level 1 Class Feat, because presumably the Archetype is going to have incentives that make taking the Archetype worth it, I'm pointing out that the person who was MORE TRAINED to be a TWF has to do more retraining than a person that doesn't, which makes no sense.

Honestly unless you're playing with a comedically strict GM I don't see this being an issue- even PFS lets you retrain your 1st level Feat before your first game at 2nd level. The rules are designed to allow for flexibility and GM fiat because there are edge cases like this very specific scenario where a character took a Feat and wants to take it again a different way that rules written for the more common and general scenarios just won't cover. If a GM won't let me change my 1st level Feat even though I'd still have it anyway, then I genuinely would question whether I want to play with them, because they're putting the letter of the law about the spirit of it. Basically this situation is a bug, but it's a minor one that is easily fixed with a mature conversation.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I guess the reason I find it surprising is because it conflicts with design principles that I had heard argued many times about how "removing combat feats" was a good idea, when this just means the pool's name changed, but it's the same kinda pool.

I don't think I ever saw them say that combat feats were being removed, simply that the system was being changed so that you didn't feel like you should spend every feat on them. Class Feats are generally combat feats, and it makes perfect sense to me that Archetype Dedications start enabling the playstyle they support immediately, rather than just being an expensive Skill Training.

Double Strike isn't automatically better than Twin Feint, since the entire benefit of Twin Feint is enabling Sneak Attack, which Double Strike doesn't do. Taking the Dedication to get it is a choice, one that locks you out of a lot of other good options in return for helping you build the character you want, and that's exactly how I want PF2 to function, so I'm very happy.

Radiant Oath 1/5

I ran this as 1g per NPC, so generally 3 gold per player, but it varied day by day, and the fifth player spent nearly every day talking to the
locals. They completed the last steps of a number of projects solo, and finished with a couple of gold left over and a few days left on the time limit. It worked well, as they were keeping an eye on their expenditures and it felt tight without being overly restrictive.

Radiant Oath

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I continued to be reassured that the vast majority of the time someone declares that something is broken in PF2 they are just wrong.

Radiant Oath 1/5

Gary Bush wrote:
No because the boon has a faction tag and you can only slot one boon with the faction tag per scenario.

The "faction" tag is literally the word "faction" that is found on Champion boons.

Radiant Oath 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought the same, but Undead Lore is a Lore skill already in the game - it is the Lore granted by Lastwall Survivor background, as well as several others. I believe the intention is that a broad Lore like Undead would be a -2 to the Recall Knowledge DC, but a more specific one like Lore Vampires would be a larger bonus and Lore Straveika larger still.

Radiant Oath 1/5

It was in the latter half of the Organized Play panel that was on in the 12-2pm slot Thursday 28th.

Radiant Oath 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They answered your questions on the stream yesterday

Hmm wrote:


1) Since they are repeatable, that means they are for Society credit, correct?

They will award credit.

Hmm wrote:


2) Does accessible to newcomers mean they'll all be low level, or will there be higher level bounties?

The currently planned ones are all level 1 only.

Hmm wrote:


3) Will they still have the same tiers and challenge points?

They're designed to just be played at a single level.

Radiant Oath 1/5

You can acquire this boon at level 1, and at levels 1 and 2 the likely income from the 8 days it takes to prep the boon is 40 copper, meaning the first 3 of these you acquire cost 1 Fame and 40 copper each, which is a very good deal. The fact that the completed Boon is slotless means it keeps value throughout the career of the character, even if you make them early.

Radiant Oath 1/5

You can normally only buy an item level equal to or less than your character’s level (minimum 2), unless they are on a Chronicle Sheet, in which case it becomes level plus 2. So theoretically if you access to a Wayfinder of s higher level but not through a Chronicle this would allow you to purchase it. It's a minor benefit, but it may come up, which seems on par for a Quest boon.

Similarly the second half of the boon doesn't seem to do much, since the most likely way characters will have a Wayfinder they want to upgrade out of is to buy the basic one with Fame, which is effectively 0gp when upgrading it. Again though, there may be some edge cases where that comes up.

Mostly it's a nice bit of flavour.

Radiant Oath

Sporkedup wrote:

Just got my PDF and glancing through! Always start at the back of the book.

Here's my question: Rhoka Swords.

They are, for sake of brevity, one handed swords, advanced weapons, d8 damage dice. Two brilliant traits though: fatal D10, two-handed D12. Sick, right?

But if you're wielding one two handed and crit, how does that interact with Fatal? Obviously it isn't gonna change the damage dice back to d10s. However, do you treat it like Deadly d10 or Deadly d12? Might be answered elsewhere in the AP, but I haven't read the whole thing yet. Looks like a cracking adventure though!

The Rhoka Swords also feature in Bestiary 2, where they are Deadly d8 and Two-Handed d10, which is much less impressive but also much more likely.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with necromancy-ing old threads is that the information is often out of date. The Errata that came out the end of October last year changed Magic Fang to have "1 Willing Creature" as the target.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
We bring up real world shields not because we think the game should operate on real world mechanics, but because people keep saying things like "real world shields don't break that easily" when in actual fact they do. It isn't in support of realism, its showing that relying on realism for your argument in this case does the opposite. These shields are blocking blows that absolutely would devastate a real world shield (ooh let me hold up my shield against this trebuchet shot!)

Yes, in the real world a shield can't block a trebuchet shot. But then the guy holding the shield wouldn't survive either. So how about making it okay for a magic shield to survive the blow that couldn't kill the wielder in the first place?

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

You beat me to it. I was looking for the historical basis of that awesome scene from the 13th Warrior...

Real shields aren't indestructible. They weren't intended to be.

They were in fact, closer to being... consumable, expendable, and replaceable.

Edit: Hell, the design of the ancient roman pilum was intended to foul up and ruin shields...

Real shields also weren't generally constructed in a setting with magic and higher level effects. How they functioned in the real world isn't entirely irrelevant, but it's definitely a minor factor in balancing the game once you get past level 3 or 4.

No one is saying a standard Wooden Shield shouldn't break when it's hit a few times by an axe. They're saying that that a magic Lion's Shield that is able to almost come alive to bite people probably shouldn't be almost as easy to break as a regular Steel Shield.

Radiant Oath

Razzle Dazzle may be an option for Chameleon Gnomes, as it was a type of camouflage used on ships in WWI to make it hard to determine how far away they were or what direction they were moving

Radiant Oath 1/5

In PFS everyone can take it, regardless of their home region-

"All characters have access to Pathfinder Agent Dedication and all Pathfinder Agent feats "

Presumably the requirement usually represents needing to spend time studying at the various Schools, rather than the character needing to be born there, effectively taking up the time you'd be learning any other culture's main Archetype.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really looking forward to Agents of Edgewatch, having a variety of City Watch options is great.

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>