Feragore's page

Elemental damage adding the relevant trait was a rule in an early version of the game that was later removed.

What is awkward is that many effects rely on the trait system and the absence of this rules makes some abilities not work as intended. These effects only check for traits alone and do not affect energy types as a whole, particularly elemental effects as elements don't overlap with energy types.

For instance, Elemental Absorption says "You gain resistance 5 to damage dealt by effects with the chosen elemental trait", and Suli's Dualborn feat has similar wording.

The question is, if the trait is not added by default, an eidolon with Energy Heart will not suffer resistance to its attacks by these effects, nor will they gain a damage bonus if a Witch cast Elemental Betrayal as it states "The target gains weakness 2 to that trait." rather than weakness to the damage type.

The same question also applies to Ranged Combatant, which gives an eidolon a new attack with the magical and propulsive traits, an energy damage type, but doesn't state that the attack gains the relevant energy trait. And my own summoner has that feat, with a Witch casting Elemental Betrayal.

Feragore wrote:

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The ONLY part of that at all that's relevant is the holy symbol (because it's a specific drawing). Nothing else is relevant, and don't let Paizo or anyone ever try to convince you a license would be needed for such a thing. There's no owning an art style.

And the artist could trivially work around that by you giving a the text description of the holy symbol and the artist not look at the official rendering of it.

Specific characters is muddier and is not resolved clearly.

An art style is how a work is created, it doesn't relate to physical characteristics. A Paizo goblin is a distinct creature regardless whether it's in a cel shaded, exaggerated, or grounded style.

If certain monsters and ancestries had to be removed due to being other IP, then depictions of Paizo's own original monsters and ancestries are in a similar boat.

But otherwise yes, many characters can have no ties to Golarion or other Paizo IP, so long as you only refer to them with generic terms such as 'magic swordsman' or 'god of healing and fire'. Clean-room design essentially, if you were less concerned with a true depiction.

Feragore wrote:

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If this is an issue, it's always been an issue since the CUP explicitly forbids making money off it.

That is true, and I can only guess that Paizo is updating their licenses out of a new willingness to enforce them.

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The Fan Content Policy doesn't apply to digital works, nor to full-time artists (business venture) clause. There are no applicable licenses, aside from contacting Pazio directly for a bespoke license, but they won't grant them to individual artists if they are only granted to “established companies”.

Maybe unless a hobbyist artist posts a physical print that the commissioner takes a photo or scans in for their game, and the digital file never sees the light of day, but that's a reach.

Arachnofiend wrote:

A cross-compatibility issue with the melee weapons is that if you're using archaic Pathfinder weapons they are... often times going to be better than scifi weapons because the Unwieldy trait only exists in Starfinder. A doshko is a greataxe that you can only hit with once per round. Not sure what to do with that other than to simply say not to use Pathfinder weapons.

I thought the same at first, but I think there might be a semi valid reason for the Unwieldy trait on the Doshko. It has the Parry trait, which I'd argue might be a bit more useful than the Sweep trait in many cases.

I used the playtest soldier in a combat demo and the doshko was a very strange and flawed weapon. Unwieldy says you can only "use" it once per round, which means you can't make a strike and parry in the same round as you are using the weapon to strike or to gain AC.

It fights itself by having two exclusive uses, and I was left wondering "Nevermind the third action, what do I do with my second?"

The two rounds I had it out, I ended up just making one strike then striding twice out of melee, and later in the fight, striding, striking, then dropping it to Reposition someone out of cover.

It did have some use when parrying while moving out of cover, but that's only because a machine gun with the bombard fighting style is a bad pairing as its effective range is just 20ft; a real build wouldn't need to close the distance as much.

It just occurred to me that Pathfinder Society has its own set of modules, and I found they are all
available for purchase on the Paizo store.

From this, I had an idea of creating a sort of customized campaign of a series of modules, rather than an established Adventure Path. This would be ideal as a side campaign, so that players (and the GM) don't need to be completely invested in a full campaign, and can concentrate on the the specific stories told by each scenario. Also, everyone need not commit to a complete adventure path that spans 10 or even 20 levels which can take months or even years of real time and may only see payoff during the conclusion.

Essentially a part-time affair, where we play as-and-when we are available.

Has anyone tried to use Pathfinder Society's content this way outside of Organized Play? And if people have played in PFS, what are the stand-out scenarios and quests that absolutely should be played?

Note for mods: I thought of posting in the Organized Play forum, but this idea feels more general to pf2e game running. If anything, the idea of a home game that remixes years of the living campaign and ignoring strict PFS rulings would be off-topic there. I certainly doubt we could have sanctioned characters without any oversight at least, as well as ignoring the boon system in a home game. If a forum mod thinks I'm wrong, please let me know.

Buying the book pays for the editors, writers, bookbinders, and others involved in making the hard copy books.

Buying the digital assets pays for the programmers, server managers, IT professionals, and others involved in setting up and maintaining VTT support.

Please don't pay one and not the other if you intend to use both, even if you find a loophole or workaround of some kind. People work hard on this stuff, often have families that they need to provide for, and aren't deserving of being robbed.

If you prefer physical copies (loads of people, like you and me, quickly get "screen fatigue") then it's pretty simple to just read from said physical copy whilst running the game on VTT. I know several GMs who run their games this way.

I would have assumed that the OP is just trying to be aware of deals and bundles which have existed before rather than somehow trying to exploit a storefront 'loophole'. If a website is offering a bundle, its on them, not the consumer, to compensate both creators.

The alternative, and unfortunately usual, scenario is that OP pays extra, even twice, for something that was officially offered cheaper as a bundle due to missing credentials, or one website not talking to another.

It's not wrong for a consumer to try and find the best deal, and far from it to suggest they might be robbing people or their families just for asking. The people you should be saying that to are already looking on piracy sites, not those asking on official forums.

The Psychic is a primary blaster class however, while the Sorcerer is not. Psychics also don't have to worry much about friendly fire, while the primal bloodline Sorcerers can't get a Fireball or Cone of Cold off when everyone's cuddled up in melee & flanking exercises.

I think you should try playing a few different Sorcerer bloodlines to see...

I get the impression you are comparing the best psychics to the worst sorcerers. If someone wants to blast with a sorcerer, they aren't likely to pick a bloodline that doesn't help that build.

Not all conscious minds are blasters - Infinite Eye and Unbound Step are largely support conscious minds where Unleash does little for them - and not all blaster-oriented psychics ignore friendly fire: only Silent Whisper's Shatter Mind specifically avoids allies.

Other psychic spells have narrower AoE than fireball butcan still be a hazard. Especially Oscillating Wave, the quintessential blaster, that uses the same fireball as the sorcerer's until level 10.

Ferocious Vengeance might need a phrasing pass. It seems a little ambiguous.

Apply Taunt, and if they don't crit succeed, they are taunted until the beginning of your next turn. Ferocious Vengeance triggers if they attack an ally, which happens on their turn. Your next turn rolls up. Taunt has ended.

What happens next?

You deal 2 additional damage on Strikes against creatures affected by your Taunt if they take a hostile action that doesn’t include you as a target. This bonus lasts until the end of your turn.

All the interpretations I can think of:

2) Vengeance is tracked separately. So if "a creature affected by Taunt takes a hostile action", that is a separate trigger and the damage bonus on that creature lasts until the end of your turn even if the creature is not taunted when you make a Strike.

3) Hostile actions are tracked. So if an enemy not taunted took a hostile action on an ally, then you Taunt them for the first time, they are considered to be a "creature affected by your Taunt that took a hostile action"

I'm leaning to the intended rule as [2], but is a bit ambiguous and involves more tracking of what has Taunt and what has Ferocious Vengeance. It should also probably say 'end of your next turn'.

Scour the Library reads:

(1 action, Psychic, Psyche) Seeing an enemy's attack, you quickly consult multiple scraps of lore in your mind, synthesizing them into the perfect plan. Make a check to Recall Knowledge (using an appropriate skill) about one creature within 60 feet. On a success, in addition to the normal benefits, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against that creature and to your AC against the creature's next attack. On a critical success, the bonuses are +2.

As Recall Knowledge is a secret roll, how does the psychic gain the attack and AC without knowing the result of the secret check? Does the GM have to apply the bonuses secretly?

Reading a discussion about retraining posed an interesting question I've not really seen challenged.

Many adventure paths have special archetypes you may gain access to over the course of the campaign, often as a reward. Some of these can appear quite late, but unless it's at level 2, players have already made build choices, so they might need to retrain.

However, the rules on retraining state:

When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat. If you don’t remember whether you met the prerequisites at the time, ask your GM to make the call.

To me this seems as written a character who obtains access is not able to retrain to that dedication and subsequent feats. Access is a prerequisite that wasn't met when they were level 2, 4, or 6, even if now they have it available to them.

But that also means that those archetypes can't reliably be bought into. A campaign might even be over before you get past the dedication feat and you have to start over instead of taking stronger high level feats as some rely on the lower level ones.

Also, if the archetype was made access by a particular person or faction, what happens when that person or faction no longer exists or is on the other side of Golarion?

I would assume this would also prevent retraining as they couldn't find a suitable expert to retrain with, but would PCs even be able to learn those uncommon feats without their mentor when leveling?

How would you rule these?

That is one of the major announced changes. Determining the number of focus points is consistent across all focus abilities. So the rules for how many you have are now in the general rules for focus abilities rather than duplicated on each feat that gives a focus spell or other ability.

Except psychic amps and the dedication feat.

Subutai1 wrote:

Mostly good fixes. Too bad Daze will stay useless, but I guess there are enough usable cantrips now.

Did it at least lose the duration so Silent Whisper has an amp that gets the damage bonus from unleash psyche before 6th level? I won't have the books in my hands for a few hours.

Nope. Still "Duration 1 round". The only errata was to the short description that suggested it could cause off-guard.

Brilliant, I expected to have to wait much longer for things like Psychic errata, really appreciate everything you are doing to make sure everything is still playable <3

I'm glad for the cantrip updates, but they still need a bit more. Every other caster has a 'Focus' feat at level 12. Psychics still have to wait until level 18 for Deepest Wellspring. Especially if they want to use focus spells from other classes as their baseline "Refocus for 2" is conditional on only casting amps. Ironically, they are the worst at casting focus spells from then on.

Speaking of, what is an amp? Is it a focus spell for the purposes of a focus pool? The rules are now "The maximum number of points in your pool is equal to the number of focus spells you know or 3, whichever is lower." which especially complicates things for anyone taking the archetype.

Flaming Sphere also does no damage on a successful save.

Just want to jump in to highlight that metamagic can't be used with psychic amps. Any hotfix item should be aware of that, unlike Shadow Signet.

Maybe even if that's a Special entry on the item.

I like the double-boosting idea, but it was pointed out to me that taking the double-boost at 10 means you can only boost 3 attributes. If you are reasonably MAD that you care about 4 attributes, or have two dump stats, then this system would force you to boost the 5th stat you don't care about.

Consider a heavy-armor champion that decides they have no need for DEX or INT. Starting with a 4-2-2-1-0-0 array, they can boost STR/CON/CHA/WIS, then STR/CON/CHA/WIS again at 10 for a 5-4-4-3-0-0 array at level 10.

With double-boosting, they're forced to take a dump stat as they can't invest in STR. So their boosts look like CON/CHA/WIS/INT and STR/STR/CON/CHA for a 5-4-4-2-1-0 array at 10th.

While they get the extra 5th stat from levels 5-9, it's not something this example cares much for, so they end up with a weaker array at 10-14, losing out on their 4th priority stat.

Verzen wrote:

The whole, "You're poaching abilities.from other classes by getting that dedication into that class" is at best dishonest and at worst, a childish take.

The entire point of getting the dedication should be to obtain some of the flavor of that class.

And it should remain viable for actual usage otherwise what's the point?

Meh, that's pretty standard for archetypes. For spellcasting archetypes, even if you spend the dedication, several skill boosts, and three more feats you will constantly be two spell levels behind what an actual spellcaster could cast. You know - those highest two spell ranks that are actually usable in combat.

Except Psychic. You kinda get most of what they get through dedications as most deeper/deepest cantrips aren't great so you aren't missing out on much compared to the base class.

graystone wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Cthonic is a particularly rare word.

And one that has a broader meaning: it's ancient Greek for things "in, under, or beneath the earth". While it CAN be referencing the Underworld, it also encompasses things like planting and growing as it takes place in part under the earth: this means gods like Plutus, Demeter, Saturn, Flora, Antheia, Phaunos, Ceres, Priapus, Pan, ect that are associated with plants are Cthonic deities but have no relation to the underworld or what in PF2 used to be the abyss. So while it's a real word... I'm not sure it's a good fit for those that know what it means: personally, I'd have preferred one of those "nonsense word that just needs to sound "right"" in this case.

Just a note that we also have Marvel's Chthon : "Chthon is one of the Elder Gods of Earth and the planet's first master of black magic. Like his brother Set, Chthon degenerated into a demon."

And the ARPG Grim Dawn has the Cult of Ch'thon as a major enemy faction, worshiping monsters from the Void and the titular Dying God himself, who dwells below creation.

I think it’s medium as its only stat. This is a pro with a few other creation impulses as well. I assume none can be damaged.

If that's the case, then there's cheese potential as sustaining it for up to 10 minutes gives it an effective range of a mile and change. If it can't be destroyed, how do you stop a Kineticist's remote-controlled siege weapon - assuming they get line of sight with a telescope or some form of scrying?

Elemental Artillery makes it possible for a familiar (Manual Dexterity, Independent Action) to actually be useful in combat for once. An errata is clearly necessary.

On the topic of that impulse, it also doesn't have any statistics (Defenses, hardness, BT/HP, immunities) for the ballista. If it just copies the existing Large ballista from Guns & Gears, then it's still missing scaling for those stats as well as referencing another source book.

Feragore wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Also I didn't expect fire shield to get a nerf. What did it ever do to deserve that?

As someone who was about to play a melee gish, I'm disappointed. Who has the actions or spell slots to cast a shield spell barely better than the cantrip? And putting the damage behind an action plus reaction makes it near useless for a magus etc.

A backline caster is just going to prepare resist energy for resist 10 cold for two people instead.

That is an understandable change in my eyes. The old fire shield was basically a damage buff disguised as a defensive tool. Instead, it is now a pretty decent defensive tool, which probably was the intention in the first place. Against enemies using a lot of fire, this would be awesome.

Eh, it's still taking away a spell that used to exist. Make a new version of it rather than taking away options.

But I disagree it's even good against fire enemies. For Fire Shield to be useful against enemies using fire, you have to shield block with it several times; it gives cold resist 5, only the shield is immune, but that immunity only comes up when the damage exceeds Hardness; you still only block 10 per hit. The shield will only take less damage.

But like a shield, you can only block physical attacks as per the reaction, and an SR4 resist energy will give you the same resist 10 fire without spending additional actions each turn raising and shield blocking, lasts longer, cast on two two targets, and also works on non-attack sources of fire like persistent damage and fireball etc.

Luis Loza wrote:

No need for a link! I'm here to let you know that Focus Pools are still capped at a maximum of 3 Focus Points.

Um, is Psychic amp and/or focus cantrips counted as focus spells?

Psychic only has focus cantrips, and Deepest Wellspring could be removed if you don't know why I asking this.

Presumably this would also mean that they would get their full 3 at level 1, rather than level 5.

Would this also mean Psychics gain a new "Focus" feat at level 12 (or even earlier given their reliance on them)? Currently they only have the Wellspring feat, and no Focus feat. If Wellspring is removed, they're stuck at 2 per refocus, and only 1 if they use a non-psi focus spell.

Also I didn't expect fire shield to get a nerf. What did it ever do to deserve that?

As someone who was about to play a melee gish, I'm disappointed. Who has the actions or spell slots to cast a shield spell barely better than the cantrip? And putting the damage behind an action plus reaction makes it near useless for a magus etc.

A backline caster is just going to prepare resist energy for resist 10 cold for two people instead.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

A martial's Strike generally does more damage and only costs one action, so it benefits more from true strike. True strike + Strike takes 2 actions, but true strike + takes an entire turn.

True strike is a 1st-rank spell fhat doesn't require any spell DCs, so martials can pick it up fairly easily. True strike cast by a martial, especially one that has a powerful attack, is much deadlier than the same spell cast by a spellcaster.

Okay. Let's look at that. We'll look at level 8. The martials get decently damaging property runes and weapon specialization, and the casters are throwing around level 4 slots, which means that it's reasonable to start breaking out the True Strike. We'll take 2-action Horizon Thunder Sphere, because it's pretty much pure damage, and we don't have to worry about doing things like calculating in the effects of the drained 2 from Polar Ray or the second save for disintegrate. We'll use the Giant Barbarian because we want to give the martials the strongest argument we can.

Level 8 caster throwing Horizon Thunder Sphere does 9d6 damage - 31.5 average damage.

Level 8 Giant Barbarian with a d12 weapon does 2d12+1d6(frost rune)+4(str)+2(weapon specialization)+6 (giant instinct rage) - 28.5 average damage.

Your argument? I'm not convinced.

If its level 8, shouldn't giant instinct rage be 10 as they get their Specialization ability at the same time as Weapon Specialization? That will be more damage than the spell.

Besides that, HTS only doubles on crits. Martials can get deadly, fatal and crit specialization effects that encourage crit fishing.

Pieces-Kai wrote:

So I don't know if info about this about has been said but with regards to spell schools being removed how will this effect Arcane Cascade for Magus

It will need to exclusively use old spells that do have schools, or the GM will have to houserule in a school.

Your old stuff still works, it just may not work with new stuff going forward until (or if) there's a relevant remaster or errata. Secrets of Magic content have a lot of issues with new things going forward with no announced solution.

At least for Cascade, Paizo are allegedly on record (I heard it was via a Discord post) that it'll get errata. Everything else is up in the air, including whole archetypes.

One of the great things about 2e is not having to pester the GM to rule a given interaction, which we have to remember ourselves to remain consistent. I don't want to be in a position, like in a certain other game that uses d20s, where that benefit is lost.

As levels 1 to 4 are fixed, by 4th you'll have 3 1st level spells and 2 2nd-level spells in a repertoire.

When reaching 5th, as you lose just two spells and gain two more, you will still have at minimum one 1st-level spell in your repertoire until you freely replace and any all spells at 6th.

With Unlimited Signatures, it's not a major problem as you likely can get a 1st-level spell that heightens well like Soothe or Heal. Less easy for Arcane though.

Something I just wondered: Saves were changed to defenses, but AC is a more iconic D&D term going way back to when it was THAC0. Did they feel AC was safe to keep anyway?

It apparently appeared in the Chainmail game that predated D&D, but saves are also used in other games today like 40k's armor saves.

I think it'll be less simple, there's a few subtle distinctions between the two.

For instance, the Silence spell stops speaking including spells with verbal components. Silence will need errata but I wonder how this errata will look without changing some edge cases.

My guess is that it might read something like "all spells with the concentrate trait" but that hurts Psychics who used to replace verbal components with special mental components that still have Concentrate. Similarly, the Silent Spell metamagic will need an overhaul. And I'm sure there's a few more effects like that, such as deafened affecting verbal spells as speaking has the Auditory trait.

Besides that, how will it be listed? Right now the two traits are listed in the action entry, but if they are baked directly into spells in the traits box, I fear it might clutter up a spell sheet from more specific traits like Fire, Mental, Polymorph, Illusion, Contingency and so on.

And material will need a new name too; its significance was that you needed a free hand to use them. A new Free Hand trait?

Yep, and what actions are and aren't activities isn't well-defined, and I'd like that to change. But lines like

Feragore wrote:

[Flurry of Blows] is an action, not an activity, yet it has subordinate actions. But you still can't use Strike-based actions or riders with it or before 'If your last action was a Strike' effects. Manifest Eidolon is a 3-action 'action' as well to cover the other description of activity.

and

Ascalaphus wrote:

[An activity] "usually costs multiple actions" (but there are also things labeled an action that cost multiple actions)

[An activity] "usually has subordinate actions" (but not always, and so do some things labeled as actions)

seem to be confused about rules lines that refer to activities as "actions" as if that makes them no longer activities.

I'll concede that point. But I can ask again, what does an activity do? Is there any significance whatsoever to demarkating 'single actions' and 'activities'? All the same rules apply if you find-replace activity for action. And once you do that, you have a term that is just as overloaded as the word 'level', which is specifically being partially addressed in the remaster with 'spell ranks', and level is always accompanied by a noun like counteract or character. 'Action' has no nouns and has to be inferred by context alone.

The fact that activities don't even know what they are with the "usually" wording just makes it even less clear.

Feragore wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah untangling actions and activities would be really nice. Like, where are you supposed to draw the line, since the CRB is full of things called an action but that

- take more than one action (ready basic action)
- take a reaction or free action (various basic actions)
- have a subordinate action (Long Jump skill action)

Meanwhile some activities have multiple subordinate actions, some have only one, some have subordinate activities (spellstrike), and some have none (most exploration activities).

Was there an actual point to distinguishing actions from activities? Is there supposed to be a hard difference so that you can't perform an activity any time you could perform an action (that costs that many action pips)?

Not only that but activities even state "In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action."

If that's the case, why have activities be a separate word when they can seemingly apply to the same things as actions?

And especially that last point: is there any reason for this separation, is there any rule or effect that doesn't apply to both actions and activities? Because action is used in multiple ways and even activities like Cast A Spell are also referred to as Actions, it adds ambiguity to rules that might apply this difference. Is the Ready action talking about 'actions as things that cost 1 point' or specifically Actions? Can you can Ready to Cast A Spell for a 1-action spell?

It matters for metamagic because they care about the next action used being "cast a spell". But an activity that has cast a spell as a subordinate action is not "cast a spell". There is also a rule about being able to split some activities between multiple turns. I don't think the same is true for normal actions.

Regardless, I agree that Action (currency) and Activity (what you spend it on) is a tiny bit less confusing. But then people would just call 1 action activities "1...

But if metamagic was 'If your next action was to Cast a Spell' that would mean it would never be valid - they're not actions; they're activities. RAW-silliness aside, I feel the Cast a Spell example is semantically irrelevant. It's just as valid even if Cast a Spell was an action. Spellstrike only finishes resolving when the Cast a Spell and Strike is concluded and your Spellstrike is your last action, which is why Arcane Cascade specifically states that as a condition.

Case in point, the Monk feat Flurry of Blows says

You can attack rapidly with fists, feet, elbows, knees, and other unarmed attacks. You gain the Flurry of Blows action.

It's an action, not an activity, yet it has subordinate actions. But you still can't use Strike-based actions or riders with it or before 'If your last action was a Strike' effects. Manifest Eidolon is a 3-action 'action' as well to cover the other description of activity.

It's a term that's doesn't have any concrete meaning, and everything should have been called activity or a smaller term like act or task mentioned earlier to distinguish it from the action currency. Or go the other way and refer to action (currency) as AP instead, and keep actions as the name for things you spend AP on.

Secondly, you can split certain actions. Disable Device and Interact to Reload come to mind; those actions aren't complete until you spend the required AP but you can spend individual actions until it is.

Yeah untangling actions and activities would be really nice. Like, where are you supposed to draw the line, since the CRB is full of things called an action but that

- take more than one action (ready basic action)
- take a reaction or free action (various basic actions)
- have a subordinate action (Long Jump skill action)

Meanwhile some activities have multiple subordinate actions, some have only one, some have subordinate activities (spellstrike), and some have none (most exploration activities).

Was there an actual point to distinguishing actions from activities? Is there supposed to be a hard difference so that you can't perform an activity any time you could perform an action (that costs that many action pips)?

Not only that but activities even state "In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action."

If that's the case, why have activities be a separate word when they can seemingly apply to the same things as actions?

And especially that last point: is there any reason for this separation, is there any rule or effect that doesn't apply to both actions and activities? Because action is used in multiple ways and even activities like Cast A Spell are also referred to as Actions, it adds ambiguity to rules that might apply this difference. Is the Ready action talking about 'actions as things that cost 1 point' or specifically Actions? Can you can Ready to Cast A Spell for a 1-action spell?

Feragore wrote:

Dancing Wind wrote:

Hey there,

Paizo senior staff have repeatedly requested that you not denigrate their work by referring to it as "fluff". Instead, they'd like you to talk about "flavor text".

If you want your request to be taken seriously, it would probably help your cause not to be rude to the people who create the game.

Until reading this thread, I didn't see an issue with f----; I always thought it to be a fairly innocuous term. Nevertheless, I find it pretty hostile for the very first reply to immediately jump on a new user as being rude after insinuating that they've been told several times directly. This is the first time I've heard of it and I'd expect I'd have easily made the same mistake.

It's always better to let people know about such things right away.

You can do it without being utterly condescending and accusatory. Don't assume malice if ignorance is more likely.

Here's a better phrased version: "Just so you are aware, Paizo staff really don't like the word "fluff" when referring to their work as they feel the word diminishes its importance. They would please ask you talk about "flavor text" instead." and replace the last line with something on-topic so you didn't solely barge in to scold them about using a slur - a bit like the sandwich method of delivering constructive criticism.

Hey there,

Paizo senior staff have repeatedly requested that you not denigrate their work by referring to it as "fluff". Instead, they'd like you to talk about "flavor text".

If you want your request to be taken seriously, it would probably help your cause not to be rude to the people who create the game.

Until reading this thread, I didn't see an issue with f----; I always thought it to be a fairly innocuous term. Nevertheless, I find it pretty hostile for the very first reply to immediately jump on a new user as being rude after insinuating that they've been told several times directly. This is the first time I've heard of it and I'd expect I'd have easily made the same mistake.

On topic, we have an answer that it's too late for the remaster, but if there are any common ambiguities as a result of flavor text suggesting rules, then could those instances just be addressed in an FAQ or errata to clarify them?

I remembered studded leather isn't real, so that could go. Easily replaced by brigandine, which is near visually identical, but a real historic type of armor - the 'studs' are rivets that hold steel plates on the inside.

As a bonus, studded leather was even invented by WotC long ago so there's a case that it's OGL property and should be replaced.

Basically, "staying the same" when the rest of the options get new features around them is akin to "getting worse".

As a side point, this is the main thrust for psychics if they don't get something to compensate for everyone else getting the new refocus rule.

They don’t have to explain any of it!!!! They already published that material and they own those stories.

If they want to go back and write new stories that build upon 2nd dark or abomination vaults, etc, AND publish them under the ORC license, they won’t reference Drow in them. They might tell some new version of what happened, or make a mystery of it, ir present a different perspective.

Golarion is not 1 unified world or universe. It becomes each tables version when you play adventures that happen there. There are millions of different Golarion’s out there. You can can use any of the existing material to tell the story of yours, or even make up new stuff, or combine in proprietary adventures from dozens of other companies however you see fit…Paizo is not going to do that with theirs though, and they are not telling new stories about some of their old material. That is all this means.

Except they're already playing with the idea that Second Darkness will no longer be canon. And such changes also retcons our characters - unless you rewrite the hypothetical sequel, but why run an AP if you have to do the work to restore table canon, if that's even possible and you aren't creating plot holes by doing so?

Additionally we've also had official comments there that Abomination Vaults will remain printed under OGL, not be rewritten that "those drow are fine"; which means they will now apparently be the only drow in existence. The AP doesn't support discovering a whole new ancestry like that; the PCs are expected to know what they are and typically represent.

keftiu wrote:

I also loved the AV take and am sad to see them go, but I've made my peace with it. James confirmed that the Ayindilar are not taking over their role... so maybe in a few years we can get Protean-friendly blueish elves who are a little stranger than the Ayindilar.

Abomination Vaults remains an OGL book and we can reprint it as needed and so on—those drow are fine. And that Adventure Path exists in the current rules-set in hardcover, so we don't have to worry about how to "fix" that if we were to do an ORC version of that adventure. Which I doubt we will, because the game is compatible, and we can just keep the current version in print.

But what does this mean? If Abomination Vaults is OGL and you aren't changing anything in that AP because it's already under license, how does it line up with the new ORC Golarion lore-wise?

If drow don't exist, how is that actually compatible with the lore and events of that AP?

For all we know, if they are truly still drow, then that would make their presence ever more auspicious because they are now this mythical ancestry and seeing them should be a Big Deal.

However, to me this is very different from the Covered Reload ability which states "Hey you can do this and try to hide" and then you look at the hide rules and see that you can't. That ability very intentionally tells you that you should be able to hide when using this ability. So even though it doesn't explicitly grant an exception to the normal hide rules, it's only logical to assume that the ability is intend to work at doing what it says it should be able to do.

You've still not discussed the GM fiat part, or if someone wants to reload in hiding without being a gunslinger. Crossbows are already bad enough.

Here's a similar situation: Hide only calls out Strikes benefitting from flat-footed, then you become observed. Vital Shot (and many other similar activities) are not strikes, but activities that allow a Strike to be performed. But as per the Subordinate Actions rule, you become observed before you act.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions [...] As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise.

Only basic Strike actions benefit from the flat-footed stipulation.

I'm beginning to think Hide is the action that is too restrictive, rather than Covered Relosd being poorly worded.

As before, I don't like rules where the GM has to adjudicate every possibility and situation as they have enough going on.

This wouldn't be the first time a feat was so poorly worded that it was unusable. Prone Shooter in 1e is the biggest example.

Pistolero's reload was designed for both 1 and 2 handed pistol use, but it doesn't have the stipulation that you can reload without a free hand like with Dual-Weapon Reload. If you use dual Dueling Pistols it becomes unusable, is that also intentional?

I've already mentioned how the "particularly unobtrusive action" calls for the GM to adjudicate and also suggests further Stealth rolls. That puts more work on the GM to think about if you are in a reasonable position to use your Slinger's Reload every round, and what penalty to apply if necessary.

And if someone without Covered Reload wanted to reload while hidden, how would it be ruled? Also by GM fiat, or are you allowing an extra rule for Covered Reload that it doesn't specify? Or does it go the other way; because Covered Reload exists, Hide is altered to allow reloading without becoming observed as a general rule? Consistency is key.

I just noticed something about Covered Reload that makes it non-functional when hiding.

You duck into a safe position or minimize your profile while reloading to make your next attack. Either Take Cover or attempt to Hide, then Interact to reload. As normal, you must meet the requirements to Take Cover or Hide; you must be prone, benefiting from cover, or near a feature that allows you to Take Cover, and you need to be benefiting from cover or concealed to a creature to Hide from that creature.

Take Cover and firing from cover has its own problems (taking 1 turn to set up), but Hide is just non-functional.

The Hide action states:

If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check.

So as part of Covered Reload, you Hide, then you Interact. That is not a "Hide, Sneak or Step" action, so you become observed. There is nothing specific on what at 'particularly unobtrusive action' is, which puts the action in the realm of GM fiat at best ("you are only 10 ft away so you become observed" "Make a second Hide check to see if the monster hears your Interact"), and simply doesn't work at worst.

And subordinate actions also "still has its normal traits and effects", so the fact the Interact is part of the Covered Reload action does not change its effects.

Thoughts?

Dream Magic from the Sleepwalker archetype grants 4th-level Sleep or Dream Message:

You learn dream-related magic to aid your studies. Choose dream message or sleep upon taking this feat; you learn this spell as a 4th-level innate occult spell. If you choose sleep, you can cast the spell only while in a Daydream Trance. You become trained in occult spell attack rolls and spell DCs, and your spellcasting ability for these spells is Wisdom.

It does not state how often they can be cast as per Innate Spells:

The ability that gives you an innate spell tells you how often you can cast it—usually once per day—and its magical tradition.

Other features that grant innate spells specify if their spells are once per day so it is not a 'default unless specified' type of rule.

Outlaws of Alkenstar appears to set itself up as a Wild/Weird Western AP with outlaws, heists, guns, saloons and clockwork inventions.

The human ethnicities most prominent are Garundi, Keleshite, Mwangi, and Vudrani; each ethnicity has its own distinct culture loosely based on, as far as I can tell from the wiki, real-world African and West Asian cultures.

They also seem far removed and at odds from the basis of the American culture of the Wild West, to the point where it almost feels insensitive given the imperialism that was going on at the time.

Given that Paizo has probably thought about this already, what is the culture of the city, and by extension, the AP? Is it the 'Wild/Weird West' city? Is it a Garundi city? Or is it its own thing?

Are you sure it requires 2 hands to reload a firearm?

Quote:

Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

I'm talking about 1-handed guns. You have a pistol in 1 hand, a sword in the other. Neither are free and you can't switch your grip to not hold a gun at all. Reloading Strike implies this as well as it states you do not require a free hand when performing the action. As does Dual-Weapon Reload, which you mentioned.

So, what about being a ruffian ( to get proficiency in all simple weapons ) and using unarmed attacks?

By lvl 2 you might consider getting the monk dedication or martial artist archetype.

By lvl 4 you'll retrain into gunslinger ( lvl 2 ) with dualweapon rload ( lvl 4 ), using the melee weapon you like.

Ruffian wouldn't even be required. Sneak attacks can be executed with agile or finesse unarmed attacks anyway, even with a different racket.

When your enemy can't properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

Though it would be nice if I didn't have to just punch things.

I have also been informed that there is no opportunity for retraining. The AP has no brakes, at least for the first book.

Pistol phenom is a great choice if you are building for charisma. Only way to feint at range aside from thaumaturges weird feint thing they get.

It would be a charisma build, using Demoralise and Dread Striker to get flat-footed (and Hiding or using melee at levels 1-3). Pistol Phenom sounds good, but I don't see how it reloads the pistol with a sword in hand.

Human though Unconventional Weaponry would already qualify the dwarf weapon without needing to dip into Adopted Ancestry anyway. But the coat pistol is a simple weapon and would be 'good enough' especially with the Concealable trait, but still runs into the same problems of 1-handed firearms in that they also require 2 hands to reload anyway.

The main question is how to also have the melee attack without dropping weapons, or Interacting.

Swordmaster has the problem as other dedications in that it only gets the Expert proficiency feat at level 10. The AP ends at 10, so it doesn't solve problems except for perhaps the final few encounters. Besides, it's also only accessible to characters in the PFS and I doubt a wanted criminal would be in the Society to have access in the first place.

I'm making a rogue for an Outlaws of Alkenstar campaign and figured, "I should try and get a gun to work."

At first I tried to get a rapier and pistol, but without Way of the Drifter from Gunslinger, you can't reload the pistol. Air repeaters have other problems like expensive ammunition (1 sp each) and very low damage.

I had almost got it to work with a 2-handed gun as you could still reload a 2-handed gun, and fitting a bayonet or reinforced stock would give me melee attacks without having to spend Interact actions to switch-hit. Unconventional Weaponry (see note) would be used to get scaling jezail proficiency and I'd have a good ranged weapon to boot, sacrificing the critical specialization for a better die over the flintlock.

However, I just checked back and the Bayonet and Reinforced Stock are both martial weapons - even though the stat profile is equivalent to the respective dagger or light mace. As they are common weapons, they would never qualify for Unconventional Weaponry even if I swapped to a simple flintlock musket.

Is there a cost-effective way to have both a firearm and a melee attack on a rogue that can both scale without Release/Interact, or is the general feat Weapon Proficiency the only way which still falls behind from level 5 onwards?

Free archetype rules are on, but the archetype feats ended up being decided upon before the class so I can't use that without starting over. I'd end up going Investigator otherwise for full martial proficiency with similar skill progression but I don't like its implementation in 2e at all.

Firearms use bullets which are priced at 1 sp per 10 rounds, regardless of the weapon.

But an air repeater magazine is 6 sp which 'typically' holds 6 pellets, or 1 sp per pellet.

The air repeater doesn't use black powder which is the expensive component in bullets, as implied by the cost of blunderbuss and hand cannon ammunition.

Is there a particular reason why air repeater ammo, one of the weakest ranged weapons, costs 10 times the price?

Didn't work.

Sent an email to CS, but I expect a reply will take a few days.

Must have just missed it then.

New problem, I'm getting "The requested URL was not found on this server, or you do not have permission to access this area." In step 3 of the order process, after confirming my payment details.

It is 'tomorrow' in my time zone, and I can't find any details by searching.

What time is a product released on street date for new products typically?