FowlJ's page

Yes.

It also does NOT say you cancel (or even weaken) the effect if you successfully counteract. Counteract is just a check, it doesn't provide an effect. So you only gather. But not because you already have this element.

This is wrong, when something says you attempt to counteract an effect it is referencing the Counteracting rules, which define the degrees of success for those checks.

By your reading most already existing counteract effects would do nothing, because they use the same wording.

Well, it just so happens that the forum already has an automatic swear filter, and it didn't pick up any of those words, so... I'm not sure what problem you think exists?

She wasn't suggesting that the filter be made more sensitive, nor that the forum moderators be replaced with robots - 'ambiguous' words would still be allowed, and the mods would still be exercising their own judgement whenever necessary. This thread is suggesting improvements to what the forum already does, to be more in line with how the moderators are already choosing to deal with swear words.

There is no official flavouring about Summons or Familiars answering the call of casters and offering them the help willingly as a norm, it's just 100% onesided "This sentient being must do as you tell them."

...No?

The flavour text in the eidolon description is quite clear that the two of you act together, and coordinate your shared actions. You, the player, command the eidolon as a separate entity to your character, the summoner, but there's no in-game requirement to issue commands to your eidolon at all, and most things that reference both characters do so equally, like tandem actions.

There are, to be fair, no rules for your eidolon packing up and leaving, which is partly because that would just mean you aren't a summoner anymore and the game doesn't really have a mechanism built in for that, but also because eidolons differ from other companions in that they aren't really NPCs - you have full control of both entities, and so the only person who can decide that your eidolon is unhappy enough to turn on you is you.

Like KC I can't say that I consider swearing a big deal at all, but if the moderators really don't want it then I would support any of the proposed changes.

The thing about the way the filter currently works is that not only does it not really stop you from swearing, it endorses it. Somebody programmed it the way it is on purpose, after all - the filter detects swears, and then instead of getting rid of the word entirely or just not letting you post at all, it leaves it still pretty legible to anyone who knows what word it's supposed to be.

Conscious thought was dedicated to the question of 'what happens when people swear on our forum?', and the answer chosen was 'let it happen'. Of course people swear sometimes when that's the case.

Simply not letting that happen at all instead of making the moderators go around and clean up after the fact seems like it would save them a lot of grief in the long run.

Paizo has already clarified that they aren't removing slavery. They, personally, are no longer focusing on it as a story element, much like other topics they've decided are too extreme to be a major focus of their writing, but slavery and liberators and the bellflower network and all that still exist and still do what they do.

Yeah they do:

Sometimes you’ll want a creature that’s just a bit more powerful than normal so that you can present a challenge that would otherwise be trivial, or show that one enemy is stronger than its kin. To do this quickly and easily, apply the elite adjustments to its statistics as follows:

• Increase the creature’s AC, attack modifiers, DCs, saving throws, Perception, and skill modifiers by 2.
• Increase the damage of its Strikes and other offensive abilities by 2. If the creature has limits on how many times or how often it can use an ability (such as a spellcaster’s spells or a dragon’s Breath Weapon), increase the damage by 4 instead.
• Increase the creature’s Hit Points based on its starting level (see the table below).

I don't believe there is any general rule stating that hazards don't take MAP, no. However, many of them do have a note to that effect in their description, so in practice many do not suffer penalties.

Nah.

As far as I can tell, the fireworks are in the archetype itself. For example, the Coughing Dragon Display costs 2 infused reagents.

It's a bit weird, but it's probably just using the Alchemist's resource to avoid needing to create an entirely new one. The advanced alchemy level is for calculating an effect.

Coughing Dragon Display wrote:

Choose either auditory or visual effects. The display gains that trait, and you attempt to counteract one or more effects within 60 feet that have this trait. On a success, the effect is suppressed until the start of your next turn, rather than ending entirely. Use your Fireworks Lore modifier as your counteract modifier, and your counteract level is equal to half your advanced alchemy level (rounded up). A coughing dragon costs 2 batches of infused reagents rather than 1, but you can increase the cost to 3 batches and spend an additional action to create an even bigger coughing dragon display that attempts to counteract both auditory and visual effects at the same time.

That is a use for your reagents (and thus the archetype is still basically functional), but the dedication also specifically mentions using Advanced Alchemy to create items during your daily preparations, as a separate activity to Launch a Fireworks Display.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.

In my example, neither item is magical. Please read my post before patronizing me with "wHAt GaME aRE yOU pLAyIng?"

If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist. Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables. The +3 sword exists in a state of quantum superposition -- if the party has already earned enough wealth by level then the sword ceases to exist, because to give it to them would put them over the reward threshold. If they have not earned it, then they find a +3 sword.

Again -- I understand why. But it's still more work.

Sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?

Creatures and NPCs have the items listed in their statblock, like they always have. A non-magical sword is worth the same no matter who carries it, and if the statblock gives the character a better sword than it doesn't disappear based on what the party owns.

There are also plenty of examples of this, in the bestiary and also a section in the creature building rules in the gamemastery guide - Archives of Nethys seems to be having technical difficulties tonight, or else I'd link some examples, but they're not exactly hard to find.

FowlJ wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them.

I mean, the Critical Role cast was playing Pathfinder, the first season of the show was them converting their long running PF1 home campaign to 5e because they felt it would stream better.

I otherwise agree though that they've pretty strongly associated themselves with D&D and WotC as a brand in a way I don't especially see them going back on.

The first season was entirely 5e. Only their home game before was Pathfinder and they played very infrequently back then. I think some of the cast would have a hard time adjusting at this point to a crunchier system. They still get tripped up by 5e mechanics after playing it for years. This isn’t a jab at the CR crew because I love their campaigns. I just think PF2e is more mechanically intensive then they need.

No, it was Pathfinder. That's why Percival was a gunslinger and the party had a bunch of PF1-converted magic items, among other things. The entire part of the campaign they streamed was 5e, but the stream started at 9th level in the middle of an ongoing adventure, not at the beginning of the campaign.

And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them.

I mean, the Critical Role cast was playing Pathfinder, the first season of the show was them converting their long running PF1 home campaign to 5e because they felt it would stream better.

I otherwise agree though that they've pretty strongly associated themselves with D&D and WotC as a brand in a way I don't especially see them going back on.

Fling Magic is a basic save, not an attack roll - those normally don't have runes, and the Shadow Signet wouldn't apply to it anyway.

A little typo ( I guess ) for the Agument Summoning.

The way it is written gives the creature a bonus on his check to hit concealed/hidden creatures, removing persistant damage and so on.

The wording of Augment Summoning wasn't changed at all, though (except to add to damage):

You augment the abilities of a summoned creature. The target gains a +1 status bonus to all checks (this also applies to the creature's DCs, including its AC) for the duration of its summoning, up to 1 minute.

Flat checks also explicitly take no bonuses or penalties of any kind:

When the chance something will happen or fail to happen is based purely on chance, you’ll attempt a flat check. A flat check never includes any modifiers, bonuses, or penalties—you just roll a d20 and compare the result on the die to the DC. Only abilities that specifically apply to flat checks can change the checks’ DCs; most such effects affect only certain types of flat checks.

It's not a free action. When an Item has 'Cast a Spell' as its Activate entry, it inherits the normal action cost and traits of the spell you're casting.

If this weren't the case then scrolls, staves, and wands would all be free actions too, and that's pretty clearly wrong.

This is homebrew for sure but if you want a rule of thumb, NO BONUSES to d20 checks should ever exceed +3 and that's at max level, the fact that you're looking at +5/+6 tells me you are way off base, there is literally nothing in the whole system that offers that high of numeric bonus, even for extreme niche activities or actions.

That's not exactly true. Nothing adds a general +5 to something, nor should it, but Pickpocket removes a -5 penalty to a particular type of task. If the base DC for these tasks was higher than normal, as OP suggests, the net effect effect is pretty similar.

That said, OP could stick closer to the design aesthetic of PF2 by just copying the format of pickpocket entirely, and saying that these tasks have a regular DC but you take a -5 penalty to attempting them without the feat.

Guntermench wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

Well, he's screwed. Not kidding.

The one out for Alchemists is to pick up a Cantrip (especially if they have a decent Int), which he's adverse to doing. He can make do w/ a crossbow or sling in that "it's not much, but it's not nothing" kind of way and that's about it. Right now he's a shopkeeper without a shop, and of similar value to the party, more likely to need protection than to contribute anything. Maybe he could pick up a shield. Raise Shield, Stride into a Flank, then Aid his ally.

IMO this situation will worsen as he levels. Yes, Alchemists get a boost of supplies at 5th and Perpetual Infusion at 7th, but the latter's for minor items, so it's not even as good as Cantrips. He may want to rethink the class. A martial w/ MCD Alchemist can get a decent amount of bombs, throw them better, and still have all the resources of the base class available. Similar flavor, but less reliant on bombing.

Separately, some people have played melee Alchemists and enjoyed it, but there are many caveats with that and if not built for that from the start, it's difficult since the class does little to help with that. I would dissuade any player from doing that, though if he has the Dex, maybe the Archer Dedication might give him some reasonable attack options other than the bombs (and w/o having to put his fragile self into melee).

The level 7 cantrip bombs are perfect for additives though, and those can be pretty decent.

As far as I recall, the majority ( if not all) of the additive stuff is linked to quick alchemy, which specifically require the alchemist to expend a batch of infused reagents.

Is there anything I missed which can be used with perpetual infusions?

You are using Quick Alchemy when you create Perpetual Infusions - they're not a separate ability, they're an exception to the normal requirement of spending a reagent.

Arachnofiend wrote:

One question.

Did you miss the part in my post where I specifically said the word "untrained" or are you being obtuse on purpose?

No.

I added the part you are deliberately ignoring.

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like bickering is missing the point.

Is PF2 primarily a combat oriented game? Yes - easily visible from the class-level system, which is set up to make sure characters remain in the same ballpack for what they can deal with in combat.

Does that make PF2 bad for running non-combat things? No, that conclusion does not logically follow.

---

In fact PF2 has a good framework for designing and running non-combat challenges. You have the very customizable victory point minigame framework from the GMG which can be used in many different ways. And you have a scale of level-appropriate DCs that allows you to pit skills against saves against Perception against attacks against spell DCs and get sensible results. If someone proposes an unorthodox approach, it's not that hard for the GM to improvise a way to roll a check for that.

Exactly.

I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.

This is a really weird hill you've decided you have to die on, especially now that you've backpedaled to agreeing that Pathfinder is a primarily combat focused game (which it pretty transparently is), which was the entire point in contention in the first place.

You almost certainly can't combine whatever those finishing moves are with Spellstrike, because both would likely be separate, discrete activities.

That said, it does seem like it would be a very cool archetype for the Magus, so I definitely look forward to seeing what the two can do together.

Exactly! They're rules written for a dungeon crawl, and they stop working once you move outside of the dungeon.

Correction: A mode of the rules is written for a dungeon crawl, and doesn't work as well once you move outside of the dungeon. But that's why there are other modes. The game can't be designed to handle every situation all at once to the same degree of satisfaction, so it splits parts off into sections relevant to achieving a particular experience.

Movement rules are a great example of this. The basic movement rules are designed to quickly and easily handle grid based movement in tactical combat, and they by and large do a pretty good job of that. If you want one party to flee across a city and another party to chase after them, though, the grid based movement is not going to create an interesting or enjoyable experience. Which is why you stop using those rules for that purpose, and use the Chase rules instead.

Likewise, for stealth, there's the Infiltration subsytem. That's aimed at things like heists first and foremost, but it can be adapted to other situations where the party needs to achieve an objective subtly. Failing that, adjudicating a stealth scenario using the generic Victory Point subsystem is also an option, or improvising something else based on the philosophy of having these different modes of play.

If you only run stealth scenarios using the combat stealth rules, it will be difficult to do some 'genre typical' stealth actions. So, switch to a mode of the game that better facilitates that gameplay instead.

While the scrolls are free, the materials needed to "teach" the spell to your familiar are not. A witch who takes a 1st level scroll from a wizard is still going to need to fork over the 2 gold.

I'm not sure this is true, the familiar eating a scroll seems to circumvent needing to use Learn a Spell entirely:

Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.

The written spell you create using Learn a Spell can be consumed as if it were a scroll, but if you already have a scroll you don't need to separately create a scroll substitute (unless you want to keep the scroll afterwards, at least). I assume this is because the rule is written with the assumption that the scroll itself has value, and being able to use it with free scrolls is probably an oversight.

So if we were to change the DC to match the scaling of Long Jumps, that would be a DC 5 to successfully jump vertically 5 feet.

If I had a feat that increases the height of my High Jumps by 5 feet, the DC would be 10.

Incorrect.

Long Jump has the success condition 'Increase the maximum horizontal distance you Leap to the desired distance', with the desired distance determining the base DC. That, and not the DC itself, is what determines your ability to jump that far.

High Jump has no such language. It doesn't care what the DC is, the degrees of success specify your maximum jump distance directly (modified by applicable feats). Critically succeeding at a DC 5, DC 30, and DC 50 check all do the same thing.

The only way we arrive at your interpretation is by using the degrees of success from Long Jump, but also trying to combine them with the degrees of success from High Jump. That's not taking just the DC from Long Jump.

The actual outcome of your interpretation is that you can declare any target distance for your High Jump, which sets the DC, and then it doesn't actually matter after that. Which means you should always pick DC 1, and anything else is screwing yourself for no reason. Which if you figure that's obviously how they intended the ability to work then more power to you, I guess.

I would prefer seeing every AP from here out released in two formats, one softcover as they are released now but with at least 40% more page count and material that covers approximately 1 more character level of an adventure than the current four-level span they use, and then ALSO (once the 3rd part is released) a Hardcover book with ALL AP material included in it, packaged in a box that ships with Pawns + Bases, Flipmaps for EVERY major encounter area, two softcover printed Player's Guides, copies of any "handout" type thing that's part of the adventure, and a set of dice.

So, they should spend a whole bunch of time and money printing books nobody is going to buy because they can just wait for the compiled version?

There's a reason why every anniversary edition AP they've done has been years old and for an outdated version of the game.

This is something I also don't really like about a lot of the AP maps. Yeah, a lot of them are pretty realistic in size for real buildings, but 1 tile wide corridors suck, and there's sometimes barely enough room for all combatants to fit anywhere. (Hell, sometimes there are rooms literally too small for what they contain, though that's more of an editing goof than a problem with the map per se.)

I tend to much prefer the maps in adventures that involve a lot of Large+ creatures, and are scaled to allow that.

Why is every type of non-western weapon always considered advanced even though weapons that were rarely used IRL, such as flails, are considered martial?

They aren't. Most such weapons are simple or martial, like any other kind of weapon.

Arachnofiend wrote:

"The limited feat support" literally every feat that doesn't call for a specific kind of unarmed strike supports monastic weaponry what are you talking about

Those feats don't support MW... MW just piggybacks off existing feats. There's only three feats that make use of Monastic Weaponry: one that lets you use shuriken as well, one that unlocks your racial weapons as monk weapons, and two different stances.

Allow me to help you out with your math a little bit: this is more feat support than any given stance, since every other stance is 'piggybacking' off of feats that don't explicitly require them just as much as Monastic Weaponry does.

*looks at solo and duo campaigns*

Yes a cooperative game totally not one some people play one on one....

The game isn't designed around those campaigns, to the point where the guidelines for smaller parties recommend changing fundamental parts of assumed gameplay like giving each player separate multiple characters or using Dual-Classing to boost their versatility and strength considerably.

So, yes, a cooperative game.

Arguing that one feat should allow all Monks the ability it ignore all the special weapon requirements that all weapon using classes have to contend with, does not remotely seem inline with PF2's over-balalnced, stay-in-your-lane, feat-locking, nerf-bat approach to feats.

Ignoring the fact that this isn't actually how the game is designed outside of your imagination, you do understand that monk stances are also feats, yes?

Insisting that Monastic Weaponry must be designed on purpose to be worse than other feats because feats are designed to be bad (ignore all those ones you just said are better than it) doesn't actually make any sense, and is based on absolutely nothing.

I know people will claim this is "just flavor text" but Metal Strikes states that you can "adjust your body" to replicate the effects of rare metals. This implies there's been much training in order to modify your body in such a way so that your unarmed strikes can bypass those weaknesses, and yet you expect us to believe they can simply pick up a random bo staff and suddenly that random staff can bypass those same weaknesses?

You mean the same way you can use any of your other magic monk powers through that staff, which you took a feat specifically to be trained to use in that way?

Yep.

The overly-lucky bumbling hero sounds more like a flavor thing.

I strongly agree - there's no actual reason why your big critical hit can't be because you tripped over your feet and stabbed the monster through the eye by accident, or whatever. Making a whole bunch of specific rules for a character that's terrible at everything but is supposed to still function at the table is a lot of work for little gain, and that's assuming those rules work in the first place instead of just being actually awful.

Arachnofiend wrote:

A PF1 Swashbuckler was only "generally incompetent" by the error of the developers. Luck manipulation is already supported in PF2 (there's even a specific tag for abilities that do that), what TMS is referring to is an entirely different archetype of character.

Swashbuckler was there because they literally get Charmed Life as a class feature.

Swashbucklers being lucky didn't mean that they weren't assumed to be as generally competent as other character classes, which was what was being talked about.

And options that make you lucky exist in 2e, including the swashbuckler and Charmed Life, so if that's all it takes to make a lucky bumbling idiot character then that's clearly not a concept that's 'difficult to create in PF2'.

Rysky wrote:

*double checks 3.5, P1, P2, and Errata Goodberry*

Oh wow, yeah, it’s less restrictive than it’s ever been.

Goodberry now replaces any need for a cleric, goodberry (1d6+4)is more powerful that heal spell (1d8), and the druid can refocus and cast it every 10 minutes. So at first level a druid can heal for 240-480 hit points in an 8 hour shift.

Heal is 1d8+8 per spell level if you cast it using two actions, or 1d8 per spell level per party member if you cast it with three. An expert in medicine can also restore 2d8+10 hp per 10 minutes to two people at once. Out of combat healing isn't a big deal, and Goodberry is worse than Heal as a combat spell.

You're also responding to a post from over a year ago.

Beyond the fact that Vow of Poverty wasn't pathfinder material, and pathfinder isn't under any particular obligation to replicate it, there's... not actually that much difference between the 1st edition ABP table and the Vow of Poverty bonuses. You get a little bit less, a little bit later, in exchange for miscellaneous resistances and immunities and up to eleven bonus feats.

So to replicate that in 2e, just, do that, if you really want? Push ABP back a couple levels and hand out some extra feats. The character will probably be bad, but they'd probably have been bad with Vow of Poverty anyway, so that's just being authentic really.

I have a second question about Wall of Stone.

I run a PF2 conversion of the Ironfang Invasion adventure path. In the 3rd module, Assault on Longshadow, the PCs are preparing the city of Longshadow for an assault by the Ironfang Legion. One task to improve the city's defenses is to repair the city wall, which is broken down in a few places, reducing the climb DC to 10. The module expects a Crafting check to lead laborers in repairs, with only three daily checks necessary to repair the entire wall.

The 9th-level primal sorcerer knows Wall of Stone, and wants to use the Wall of Stone to create a veneer of smooth stone for fast repair. Six spells over two days would be enough. I ruled that due to the "its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects" restriction in the spell, the Wall of Stone cannot actually touch the city wall. I figure they could be an inch apart if the party clears away any dirt and rubble piled up at the base of the city wall. However, the Wall of Stone would be unsupported and vulnerable to smashing by catapult stones.

The 9th-level druid can prepare Stone Shape to fuse a few parts of the Wall of Stone to the city wall. Or they can buy mortar and pour it between the walls. Or both.

The city wall curves slightly, but the sorcerer will have plenty of time to survey the city wall. Their plan would probably not save any days, but would reduce the cost and the DC on the Crafting checks.

Is my one-inch separation between the Wall of Stone and the city wall reasonable? Using a Wall of Stone as a bridge or an inclined stairway requires part of its side touching the ground, so the spell does not necessarily require separation.

As for the original question about the Wall of Stone, I will houserule that wall must be mostly straight overall or with a slight curve, but it can also be zigzagged or wavy to form stairsteps or weight-supporting ridges (realistically, a...

In the fourth book of Agents of Edgewatch, the party needs to hold out in a building for several days, and is given multiple options to fortify it. Under 'Using Magic', the book says:

Magic can cut down [the time needed to barricade a door or window] dramatically. Shape Stone seals a single door or window, as does Wall of Stone (which, despite having a long length, must be doubled up multiple times to effectively seal an opening in the 5-foot-thick walls).

So, at least as far as the AP is concerned, the spell is treated as being able effectively barricade an opening without further adjustment, and can also be folded over itself to create a shorter, thicker wall with a single casting.

You're pretty much correct, in PF1 there was a gap after getting 9th level spells at 17th level, so now it's filled in with 10th level spells at 19th level.

The striking rune is an expected damage upgrade that doesn't compete with property runes. The two aren't meant to be comparable.

Level Up doesn't look entirely uninteresting (only mostly uninteresting), but it's unfathomable why they picked the most uninspired, unsearchable name that they could think of. If they didn't run their own RPG news website, nobody would ever hear of this game.

Beyond being able to block a lot of spaces at once and having a bit more overhead to run, troops also have Troop Defenses, which seem like they could be a concern:

A damaging single-target effect, such as a Strike, can't force a troop to pass through more than one threshold at once. For instance, if a troop had 60 Hit Points, with thresholds at 40 and 20, a Strike for 50 damage would leave the troop at 21 Hit Points, just above the second threshold. A damaging area effect or multi-target effect can cross multiple thresholds at once and could potentially destroy the entire troop in one shot.

Non-damaging effects with an area or that target all creatures in a certain proximity affect a troop normally if they affect the entire area occupied by the troop. If an effect has a smaller area or numbers of targets, it typically has no effect on the troop

A troop minion seems like it could have an awful lot of staying power against enemies that would trash a non-troop creature of its level.

EDIT: Correction, I misread it slightly, thinking that a creature would stop after 1 threshold instead of stopping 1 damage short of 2 thresholds, so this only starts really mattering at pretty extreme level differences. Still a bit of extra toughness in a lot of circumstances, but not disastrously so I guess.

TSRodriguez wrote:

Cast slow, you win. If you fail, do it again, until win.

Slow isn't auto-win on its own right?

Depriving a boss of 1 action is nice but doesn't inconvenience most monsters that much (their lowest attack for most) unless the party also denies the boss actions right?

Or am i missing some common tactics?

This isn't universally the case, but a lot of monsters will struggle to use their strongest attacks without all of their actions. If they are already in position for a two action activity they can still do that, but if they need to move then it stops them and if the activity is three actions then that's right out.

For example, a dragon recharges its breath weapon if it critically succeeds on a Strike, which it has a high chance of doing if it's higher level than the party. With three actions, it could crit, recharge its breath weapon, and then use it immediately - that's a whole lot more dangerous than just making an extra attack at -10.

Arachnofiend wrote:

For clarity, I would consider it a completely reasonable solution if (for example) the Demonic Sorcerer's "deity" was assumed to be a Chaotic Evil Demon Lord regardless of their actual alignment or values. That would resolve the issue in a flavorful way, though as I say it I realize it'd be difficult to come up with a similar solution for other characters who's divine magic is not so easily traced. Really should have been avoided from the outset given that this is a problem that was already there in the CRB.

So we agree I think.

To give an example:

Grandma ran foul of a contract and had a dalliance with an extraplanar follower related to Asmodeus (LE). As a result the grandchild is an Oracle powered by Asmodeus.
The PC follows Cayden Cailean (CG). They are a regular and devout worshiper. In a very real sense Cayden Cailean is their deity. In fact they could even be a multiclass Champion and have Cayden Cailean as their deity explicitly.

When they cast spritual weapon with an Oracle spell slot, in my opinion, they get a mace from Asmodeus, not a rapier from Cayden Cailean.

Yes technically you can argue that RAW says otherwise. But common sense should prevail.

The mistake you're continuing to make is that the Oracle's power doesn't need to come from Asmodeus, or any other god. The class entry could not possibly be more clear about this:

An oracle wields divine power, but not from a single divine being. This power could come from a potent concept or ideal, the attention of multiple divine entities whose areas of concern all touch on that subject, or a direct and dangerous conduit to raw divine power. This is the oracle's mystery, a source of divine magic not beholden to any deity.

FowlJ wrote:

Under Actions:

Quote:

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.

You are Recalling Knowledge, with all of the normal effects of doing so except where specified (increasing the item bonus of the badge on a success).

I'm also not sure what Cordell is talking about, since the badge is quite clear that you can Recall Knowledge about "some other type of creature" - it's not limited to an ethnicity or ancestry.

Yes, like Bears. If you're talking to bears and want to use your badge, you would make a Recall Knowledge check about Bears. Not that specific bear you are talking to, but Bears as a species. You know they like fish and honey, and can use that to your advantage while talking to Bears for the rest of the day. There's no reason to assume this magic item works any differently than any other by giving you a free action to Recall Knowledge AND get a Diplomacy bonus.

This can NOT be used to Recall Knowledge on a specific creature in the same way that the standard Recall Knowledge action is used as. The function of this check is to recall information about the creatures you want to impress with diplomacy, not recall weaknesses and resistances and what not.

Again, since this action is used to Activate a magic item, it is limited in how it's used. Like I said before, an item with Interact doesn't mean you can Interact with anything you want. If the activation was Cast a Spell, you don't get to Cast anything you want either, you Cast the spell on the item.

A) Recalling knowledge about a type of creature is what you normally do when recalling knowledge about a creature, I have no idea where you got the idea that recalling knowledge about specifically one bear is meaningfully different.

B) You Recall Knowledge as part of activating the item because that's what it says that you do. There are no special limitations other than to be recalling knowledge about a group of creatures (which, again, is pretty normal) because the item does not indicate that there are.

Under Actions:

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.

You are Recalling Knowledge, with all of the normal effects of doing so except where specified (increasing the item bonus of the badge on a success).

I'm also not sure what Cordell is talking about, since the badge is quite clear that you can Recall Knowledge about "some other type of creature" - it's not limited to an ethnicity or ancestry.

No. Instead, Basic Wizard Spellcasting indicates that they gain two free spells whenever they gain a spell slot of a new level (so, they get up to 16 free spells of levels 1-8 if they get all spellcasting feats from the archetype).

Some math I'd be interested to see is how much differences in save modifiers affect the potency of white room underperforming spells. Like, against a target dummy electric arc deals more damage than daze even against a single target - how much higher does the reflex save have to be than the will save for that to no longer be true? Just talking about damage, not even the extra spike in utility Daze gets against bad will save targets by stunning them.

I haven't sat down and done the math for every level, but quickly checking the endgame versions of the spells they about level out when a level 20 creature has a high reflex (+36) and a low will (+30).

That level favours electric arc a bit, since it heightens one last time at 20th and daze does not.

Exocist wrote:

Level 1-4 rogue hit bonus should be +7/+9/+10/+11

Level 1-4 caster spatk should be +7/+8/+9/+10

Level 1-4 caster DC should be 17/18/19/20

I don’t think any enemy in plaguestone has that high of a save bonus.

Caustic Wolf (pg.5), an enemy creature in very first combat of Fall of Plaguestone, has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+6

Boss of first segment has Fort+8, Ref+10, Will+7.

Skipping to the very end, boss enemy has Fort+11, Ref+13, Will+8.

Okay...?

OP was under the impression that enemy saves rivalled caster DCs, which all of those clearly don't.

I think you forgot a word or two there?

I'm also pretty sure the answer is 'generally yes' - I didn't find any general rule that hazards don't suffer from MAP, and numerous hazards spell out in their descriptions that they don't, which seems unnecessary if that's already how they all work.

That said, the number of hazards that do say they don't take MAP seems pretty large, so it's important to always check the description of the particular hazard to be sure.

It doesn't. It specifically says 'teleportation spells that transport more than one person', so it has no effect on spells that don't do that.

Beyond the fact that common options are generally available to anyone unless they have additional requirements, the description of common languages is:

Languages that are common are regularly encountered in most places, even among those who aren't native speakers.

'Regularly encountered in most places' is pretty much the exact definition of 'prevalent', and 'languages prevalent in your region' is what the ancestry entry says are available to you.

All characters have access to all common languages, in addition to any others from their region or that they can otherwise access.

So according to AoN, that's Androffan, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, Goblin, Halfling and Sylvan that this character can pick from, in addition to Jotun, Undercommon, and Terran.

They receive the same number of ancestry feats as everyone else, but they can be picked from either the human or the aasimar feat list.