Evilgm's page

This would be a substantially more compelling argument if there weren't an entire rest of the planet they could have picked to set this scenario at where this problem didn't arise.

Well by your logic not the whole planet, because anywhere that has already been featured wouldn't be suitable.

I just shared this blog with the group I ran AOA for and every single one of them got angry about it.

That's very sad.

Setting a one-shot in a place that people know makes most players happy to see it revisited. I know I love seeing stuff set in Sandpoint or Kintargo.

These are not Feat Taxes, because they are not in any way essential to making the class work. They are options for specific builds, which is exactly what Feats are supposed to be.

Barbarians are good. There is no evidence that designers don't like them.

I would prefer consistency.

I prefer design that's focused on achieving its intended purpose than being consistent for the sake of consistency.

Changes to anathemas are disapointing, even if minor. Make the game easier, sure, but also *make the game easier*, as in: waters down dogma, makes it less interesting, dieties more forgiving and plain. Neutering seems to be in line with this edition in general, though.

This lame take is certainly in line with this forum. They didn't "make the game easier", they removed unintended interactions between flavour and rules. Worshippers of Urgathoa weren't supposed to be unable to play Blood Lords because it primarily features undead opponents. Worshippers of Pharasma are supposed to be able to play in most Adventure Paths, which tend to involve looting at least one tomb.

Are we getting too many new "silos of things?"

No

Can we be certain it was a choice of one over the other? Do we know if there's much overlap between the errata team and the playtest team?

Not at all, but that won't stop people using it as another way to complain about the Impossible playtest.

So the necromancer does not reanimate the dead, and the beings it summons are just tokens for abilities....then why call it necromancer?

It does more necromancy than the Inventor does inventing...

Does anyone see a way for the Runesmith to wield a regular 1-handed weapon and shield while still being able to Trace? The "have a hand free" requirement seems to limit them to free-hand weapons or attacking with the shield, and that doesn't seem to be intentional.

3rd level? Really?

The PCs can't be *that* dignified, then.

What an odd take. Why does level affect how important characters can be? It's primarily a measure of combat ability, not social standing.

Buy a playtest book? No thanks.

It's an option for people that prefer to have a physical product, rather than just using the free pdf that's also being provided. It may not appeal to you, but it suits some people a lot better.

Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?

I remember vividly an undead creature from Shattered Star AP not being able to feel any pleasure from murder that it once felt in life. So I guess this was wrong, then.

Situations can exist without becoming the default reality. There are living, breathing real-world humans that cease to feel pleasure from things they once enjoyed- that doesn't mean all humans are incapable of feeling emotions.

Man y'all Magus stans are really missing the forest for the trees. Getting bent out of shape because one spell is different when most other spells will be too feels rather silly.

It's not just iconic "one spell" though, it's the main spell for a Magus to use if they want to blow a spell slot for extra damage rather than another True Strike. It doesn't really matter if Cantrips got a couple of points more efficient for Magus when they lose one of the fun things about the class- blowing someone up with a big damage spell.

There will be new attack spells.

Obviously they'll occasionally print new attack spells, but based on everything we've seen past the Core book I wouldn't be too convinced of them being any good. Secrets of Magic was the Magus book and had very little in the way of decent attack spells, and so far there's no sign of one coming in the Remaster- otherwise it would seem a bad idea to print an article showing how Magus lose their iconic spell and not show the new alternative.

I must be reading Cutting Without Blade very differently to other people, as it seems to be me its function is to effectively be the equivalent of the Quicken feats other classes get at 20, in this case for Shift Immanence- it allows you to move your spark before or after every relevant action, so you always have access to both the Immanence and Transcendence you want without having to plan it out. I don't know how powerful that is having not played the class yet, but it seems it may fundamentally change how you can play.

Additional Weapon feats are simply more necessary than Body feats, because they are generally suited to very specific builds. Every Exemplar will have a Body Ikon so in general most Body feats are an actual option, but not every Exemplar will have a Bow Ikon or a Hammer Ikon so there needs to be feats for both, as well as swords, spears etc.

Is it meant as a replacement for the Weird spell? If so it misses the mark...

In what way does it miss the mark? It does the main job that Weird did, which was deliver 16d6 damage to any number of enemy targets without hitting friendlies.

There's a worn ikon that gives you +1 AC or +3 while you have a shield raised.

It's still effectively only +1 if you have a shield raised, it just includes the shield's +2 circumstance as well.

Or, of course, be the classic "naked Spartan with a shield and spear" if you take the bracer ikon.

The classic Spartans are usually shown wearing gleaming golden breastplates.

They are all Wandering feats, so you can change them during your Daily Preparations to match the Apparitions you are using that day.

Is this a joke?

Not the best opening to encourage people to pay attention to your feedback.

It seems like a book based around creatures that by definition have immunities and resistances (there's even a big diagram in the book about how the Elements counter or reinforce each other) shouldn't be considered the new baseline for anything. There's been a lot of completely random unsubstantiated speculation about the Remaster, and I can't help but think the end result is people getting annoyed that the change they decided will happen didn't happen.

I mean I can tell you number 1 absolutely has been an issue. I have seen it happen at the table. It probably doesn't happen at your particular table of power gamers, but the game isn't just for your particular table of power gamers.

Players not knowing what their casting modifier is and having to determine it to know what damage their cantrips do seems like a fine way of teaching players a vitally important aspect of their class. You don't need to be a power gamer to read and understand basic concepts of a class, and it's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

Another issue with the Highhelm Animal Companions- their additional skills are Acrobatics and Athletics, which are the two skills Animal Companions are automatically trained in. Are they intended to be effectively down a skill on other Animal Companions or can they take an alternative like PCs can?

Man alive the dev team really loves the Primal Tradition, wowie, I never realized.

It's only love when those spells are better than what other lists have access to. When the spells are Dinosaur Fort then it's more about memes than quality.

I tend to run long series of combats with no rest as I have entire areas descend on the party. So it was more problematic for my DM style. I can't run one room at a time with creatures ignoring what's going on in other nearby areas and sit their like some paid actor to wait until the party is done, refocuses, and then shows up any more than I start every combat at 30 feet like the enemy is sitting their waiting for them to get within 30 feet or the PCs should be expected to do everything in 30 feet.

If you choose to run the game completely contrary to the encounter design rules then your opinions on balance are completely different to design intent, so things simply aren't going to work the way you'd like unless you change them for the game you're running- you absolutely shouldn't expect the default rules to be appropriate for your game.

My plan for Blood Lords is to have the Lich Archetype count as a Dedication into the player's caster class they qualified with. This will allow them to spend feats to boost the amount of lower level spell slots they have, helping fulfil the fantasy of becoming a Lich to achieve greater arcane power. It's certainly an increase in power, but I'm not too worried about the player getting more lower level spells.

Not an error exactly, but Spell Echo Shot, p. 83 in the PDF, references that it is composed of "generous amounts of djezet and orichalcum."

I believe that horacalcum is what was intended here, rather than orichalcum. As far as I know orichalcum is never referenced in Pathfinder lore, and I could see one being autocorrected to the other.

Orichalcum absolutely is part of Pathfinder, so much so that an entire group of monsters is weak to it. Horacalcum is simply another, less commonly used, name for it.

Perpdepog wrote:

The library robes let it be each day. They limit the level of spell you can scribe on but you've only got to pay the crafting cost rather than the full price of the scroll to inscribe.

Do they? Because that's not what it says

They do, because it is what it says.

The rule of tie you loose the initiative IMO is basically a tax to sell feats like Pilgrim's Token and Elven Instincts.

It's not, and misusing terms like feat tax just waters them down.

1s and 20s work as normal on Flat Checks. If the DC is 1 or lower or 21 or higher, you don't roll but take the listed result instead.

These two things aren't contradictory, they are just two different rules that apply at the same time.

If you crack open Impossible Lands, none of the ancestries have a penalty, just a boost + free space. They're already implementing it going forward. Whether the community likes it or not, the optional is becoming mandatory.

That book was written long before the decision to add the optional stats was made.

It might not always mean "better" but it happens often enough that the expectation is there.

But there's also a lot of Common options that are better than the things you listed- if all Medicine Feats were Common and level 1 I'd still be taking Continual Recovery and Ward Medic before I took Paragon Battle Medicine. As a Master level Skill Feat Paragon Battle Medicine doesn't feel like it's out of line with Terrifying Retreat or Kip Up as situational feat that can save your ass when it comes up.

Of course there are good options that are Rare. That doesn't mean they're good because they're Rare.

I'm still very unclear what it is your party is doing that leads to them all becoming fatigued constantly, because I think it's safe to say most parties don't suffer from this issue.

I've run three Adventure Paths and I've seen the casters Silenced more than I've seen Fatigue inflicted on the party. And I've definitely seen more Precision-immune, high Resistance Ghosts and Oozes, which completely shut down the mechanics of several classes.

Sometimes things will be harder for one class over another- that's a feature, not a bug.

on another topic the rotbomber has this strike

"necrotic pustule +26 (negative, range increment 60 feet, splash),
Damage 3d10+14 bludgeoning and negative damage plus necrotic rot"

are undead immune to it completely? does it do the whole dmg as splash?

relevant passive ability, "Propulsive Pestilence The pressurized necrotic gases within the rotbomber’s pustules make them explode far more dramatically than most alchemists’ bombs. The rotbomber’s necrotic pustules deal splash damage to every creature within 15 feet of the target."

my undead PCs also won't really be affected by necrotic rot either

Immunity

"some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire."

Just let Soothe work on Undead. The Undead ancestry and archetypes were seemingly written with the assumption it does (based on the boxout in that section), even if its own text says otherwise.

Look at any aoe from casters or martials.

What are the limits?

Range, action cost, uses per day.

Currently a kineticist can do them effectively infinitely. And at massive area of effects. So the damage is low as well as the action cost being restrictive.

We'd probably need drastic range decrease to get better action economy early on.

Amped Telekinetic Rend is the baseline for doing AoE damage all day. Psychics can do this twice a fight, every fight, and often at a higher Save DC than the Kineticist.

It does not. Endure Elements does exactly what the text says, which is protect you from the mechanical effects of Severe/Extreme Cold and Heat.

My plan is to treat the undead language of Necril as including the non-verbal sounds various undead can make.

I see Urgathoa's Anathema to be the mirror of Pharasma's Edict to destroy Undead- it's an action based entirely on the fact that they are Undead, and nothing else. Pharasma is saying if something is Undead then that is a good enough reason to destroy it. Urgathoa is saying if something is Undead that isn't a justification for destroying it. If they get in your way or otherwise piss you off then Urgathoa doesn't really care if you destroy them, as long as there's a reason beyond them being Undead.

Would the slowed condition actually affect the donkey's overland travel speed?

I wouldn't bother having it slow overland speed. In general it's assumed characters aren't spending three actions moving anyway, plus a zombie donkey could just keep inexorably walking when a regular donkey gets tired, so it makes sense that they have approximately the same speed over long distances.

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.