It's the same as your character level, so 9th in this case.
Search Posts
Classes: Magus, Summoner, and Psychic. Issue: Lack of Class DC. Background: Pre-remaster Bards, Clerics, Druids, Magi, Oracles, Psychics, Sorcerers, Summoners, Witches, and Wizards all lacked a Class DC. All of those except Magus, Summoner, and Psychic were given a Class DC in PC1 or PC2 which suggested that those last three spellcasting classes would also be given Class DCs when their books were updated. However, Dark Archive and Secrets of Magic have now each received two post-remaster errata passes without mentioning the addition of those Class DCs. Clarification as to whether this was intentional or just an oversight in the errata would be helpful.
Does that mean we also get updated PDFs at some point? Yes, when each book has a new printing.
This is due to the fact that they are still granting divine power, though in a very limited sense. If you check out the entry for owbs in Bestiary 3, we have stats for the owb prophet, a creature that gains a fragment of divine power from the Forsaken. How and why this happens is yet to be explained, but it's technically possible. The nature of the Forsaken is also such that a PC receiving power from them would be exceptionally rare, but not impossible (i.e. talk to your GM before worshipping them!). The entries in the In Memoriam section are for deities who can't grant power to PCs currently, whether it's because they're dead or some other, unknown reason. Of course, you're free to adjust that for your home game. Hmm. So Acavna (dead) and Amaznen (missing) weren't on the "In Memoriam" list because their divine power is technically still accessible through the Starstone?
That player is completely in the right. That's why no matter how many times the GM tells me that my opponent is dead or that the other players beg me to move on, my characters will never stop attacking their first opponent in every adventure. How is my character supposed to know what the dying 4 condition means? None of that metagaming nonsense for me.
Yeah, combining Scaly Hide, +3 Dex, and Mystic Armor to give a Wizard, Witch, etc. a 24/7 +6 armor bonus at 1st level really was too good. Keeping the Scaly Hide bonus to +1 until buying actual armor runes is possible makes a lot of sense. So now those spellcasters can still get the equivalent of wearing medium armor but not heavy armor.
Womp. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread. That the problem with these sprawling ones-- eventually they shift to topics I don't care about and I skip to the end. Probably worth amending that example to say "certain staves" then.It was pointed out later in the thread that there is one staff that does have Invested (probably because it's also an apex item). So the errata is fixing edge cases like this (and potentially future ones). :) I'll just note that using staves as an example of invested items that aren't worn was a mistake which has already been corrected in the errata. The updated GM Core errata uses walking cauldrons as the example of an invested item which isn't worn. • Page 219: The text on investing items didn’t allow for items that are invested but not worn, such as walking cauldrons. Change the first two sentences to “Certain magic items convey their magical benefits only when invested using the Invest an Item activity, tying them to the PC’s inner potential. These items have the invested trait, and most are worn items.” So there is no longer any implication that staves in general are invested.
I don't see how nimble shield hand helps with the Trace Rune action and a bow. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. So you don't meet all free hand requirements — just the ones applied due to any interact actions. That would help if the Trace Rune action only required a free hand because it incorporated an interact action, but that's not the case since it doesn't involve any interact actions and has its own free hand requirement anyway. And since bows are Dex-based while shield spikes are Str-based, that's not a great combo anyway. Nimble shield hand would work a little better with a gauntlet bow since you could trace runes with your gauntlet bow hand, fire a bolt (applying Remote Detonation if desired), and then use your shield hand for the interact action needed to reload. But even then shield spikes and the gauntlet's melee function would both be Str-based so they won't mesh well with the Dex-based crossbow.
I'm intrigued that the commander and guardian both made the list of highly recommended classes despite not yet being published.Yup. We started work on Spore War before Battlecry! did, quite a bit ago, but by the time we were done, it seemed weird to NOT include a nod toward the big "war" rulebook in an Adventure Path that uses the word "war" in its title. That makes sense. And Commander is a class that I'm very much looking forward to playing. In fact, I've got a really strong urge to play a fungus leshy commander/wizard MC for this AP. I like the vibes of a "good fungus versus evil fungi" theme. :)
I always saw the thaumaturge as the new occultist, myself. Yeah, it also uses an implement mechanic. But it's Cha-based rather than Int-based, and I only enjoy playing high-Int characters. So Thaumaturge doesn't work for me.
I'm loving the Runesmith! A bigger selection of runes (and maybe getting some at every 4th level rather than every eighth) and it might well be a suitable replacement for my beloved Occultist class.
Pretty much this. I love the feat, I just wish it was on a class that could actually capitalize on what it offers. I think I could see a Necromancer using an osteo crossbow to deliver attack spells at long ranges with the Eldritch Archer archetype. I haven't run the numbers yet, though. And the Necromancer wouldn't qualify for Eldritch Archer until 11th level.
I'm intrigued that the commander and guardian both made the list of highly recommended classes despite not yet being published.
Three classes — Magus, Summoner, and Psychic — do not have a Class DC. Given that other spellcasting classes (like Wizards) were given Class DC's in the remaster, a clarification on whether those three classes are also supposed to have them would be nice.
Despite the name, a shield bow isn't a shield. It's just a weapon with the parry trait. So you can't use shield block with it or trace shield runes on it.
Unless I've missed something in the errata, the Magus is still one of the classes that doesn't have a Class DC at all.
Do you think that would be feasible as an honest-to-goodness paintball gun in sf2e? Stick in paint, elixirs, or potions and fire away. Like witches do in Kim Harrison's The Hollows series.
My personal favorite errata is Page 231: Change the Bulk of moonlit chain from 2 to 1. It was a really minor error where someone confused the chain shirt and chainmail bulks, but I've been mentioning it in errata threads since I noticed the error in the first printing of the CRB. It survived four printings of the CRB and the first printing of the GM Core, but now that bug has finally been squashed! For me it's symbolic of the thoroughness that the Paizo team applied to this first bi-annual errata. -----
I'm sure that it took a lot of work, but it is so much easier to find particular changes and to identify the timing of those changes than it was before. So thank you to the "errata team!"
I've added the Necromancer and Runesmith to my
Please provide the definition of a mirror in PF2e... It seems to me that you are arguing that there isn't any symbolic significance to a mirror being used as an implement but rather that the only necessary characteristic is functional — that any object that is able to reflect light would qualify as a mirror implement. So similar physics is your criteria rather than the symbolic rules of magic. Am I correct in that understanding?
-snip-It's not a variant of an existing rule, though, it is turning the existing rule into a variant rule, thereby completely invalidating the previous existing rule. As I said at the beginning of this conversation, I don't have the book. If the book specifically stares what you say it does, then there isn't any reason for me to continue. Could you cite the text that specifies that?
It is entirely possible that Paizo intended for these specific Rituals to permit Mythic versions of themselves, but that is pure speculation and has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking. You seem to love attributing motives to me, and somehow in all of these years you've never been correct about any of them. I don't know whether to be amused by that or just feel sad for you. There's no wishful thinking in my part. I have zero interest in using rituals whether they are mythic or not, so I have no investment in whether the mythic rituals replace the old ones or not. I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability by tying it to the variant rules, so this argument of "variant rules don't override core rules" makes no sense. My point is that isn't clear to me that variant rules can or should count as reprints of core rules. Variant rules are elements of variant systems, and if you reject a variant system then it doesn't make sense to me that you would have to accept elements which only exist within that system. That would mean that those elements of the variant rules are actually core rules and thus not actually variant rules. Imagine that Rule A is valid in a particular non-Euclidean geometry but not in Euclidean geometry. Rule B, on the other hand is true under Euclidean geometry but not under any non-Euclidean geometry. And Rule A and Rule B are incompatible. Given all of that, saying "I accept Euclidean geometry and reject non-Euclidean geometry, but Rule A can't be true under Euclidean geometry because Rule B contradicts it" won't ever make sense to me. Claiming to reject the entire system of non-Euclidean geometry while still applying rules derived from it to Euclidean geometry is clearly not consistent. I'm fine if Paizo intends for those rituals to be replaced. I don't care about the particular outcomes in this case. But it seems to me that your reasoning for why this should work can only be true if either the meaning of "variant rules" has changed or that the mythic rules aren't variant rules.
But if the rule changes are part of a variant rule set that you aren't using, then shouldn't you ignore that those variant rule descriptions exist? It seems to me that if you aren't using a variant system like Automatic Bonus Progression then you should just ignore any rules contained within that system. For example, the Armor Proficiency general feat printed in PC1 clearly replaces the version from the CRB because neither version is part of a variant system. They are both part of the core system and so the more recent one replaces the older version. But let's say that in the future Paizo prints a variant rule system in which that feat works differently — perhaps it lets your armor scale with your unarmored defense progression. Wouldn't the existence of that particular version of Armor Proficiency only replace the PC1 version if you were using that new variant system? Otherwise you end up in the odd position that the players can't use the variant version because those rules aren't part of the system you are using, but they also can't use the old version because you are accepting the new rule as part of your system. It just seems odd to me that someone would accept the variant version as part of the rules and simultaneously reject it as part of the rules. It's Schrödinger's rule.
Ok, then they are arguing for my second theory. But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?"My club is shaped like a baton and is thus a wand implement, and also has a piece of regalia in the pommel so is also my reglia implement." You can get very silly with this very quickly. Exactly. It seems like this line of reasoning is a steep, slippery slope to chaos. That's why I'm unclear why people are making the argument that merely flavoring a shield as shiny eliminates the difference between item categories like 'shield' and 'mirror.' I'm not particularly familiar with the Thaumaturge, but it seems pretty obvious that such a principle would make the concept of separate implement categories basically meaningless.
By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last. Normally, that's the case, but does that apply if the rules in question are variant rules and you aren't using that variant system at all? It seems to me that not using a variant system means that you are treating all aspects of that system as if they don't exist as part of the rules. So if you aren't using mythic rules, you would ignore the printing of mythic rituals, and those non-existent rules wouldn't replace the already existing rituals. It seems weird to say that mythic rituals don't exist in your rule book because you aren't using that variant system, but at the same time they somehow do exist in your rule book and therefore they do replace the existing rules.
In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last. I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course. I don't have WOI, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mythic Rules were a variant ruleset. In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.
I'm very confused as to how this would work. I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item. Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror? ----- But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?
I suspect that you are thinking of the PF1 Sling Flail feat.
Staff slings are real weapons and are indeed a staff with a sling on top, they actually work like a handheld trebuchet. Real staff slings don't ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling, like the Halfling Sling Staff description says. so I think you are right that Halfling Sling Staff are just oversized slingshots in PF2e, or maybe a slingshot on top of a walking stick. For those who've never seen one, here's an interesting video on the history and mechanics of the real-world staff sling. The illustration of the halfling sling staff in PC1 (page 280) matches the historical staff sling rather than the book's written description, so I suspect that in the rush to do the remaster someone just forgot to update the text to match the design change. Combination weapons weren't a thing yet when the CRB came out, but I'd love it if the halfling sling staff eventually got updated to be one. That would also make its use with Staff Acrobat make sense. Alternatively, Paizo could introduce the historical staff sling as a combination weapon — perhaps dealing less ranged damage than the halfling sling staff so as not to make the halfling sling staff obsolete.
Post-remaster do ghouls even have a paralyzing touch?
And for a few niche things like "healing" a poppet familiar.
Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway? I think that the cruuk is intended to replace the rungu in order to avoid the issues of cultural insensitivity/appropriation raised in this thread. The Ancestry Guide wasn't likely to get a reprint, but it seems obvious to me that the remaster, with the conversion of Grippli to Tripkee, provided Paizo with an ideal opportunity to remove the problematic real-world reference. Since the two items are mechanically identical, I suspect that Outl wants to switch to the cruuk so as not to engage in such cultural insensitivity/appropriation. It seems to me that that's a choice that PFS might want to encourage by making the switch from a rungu to a cruuk be a free option for all players.
Of course, the universe might be a deterministic system, and in that case nothing, including die rolls, would be truly random.
That's my list. What's yours? Everything on your list sounds fun, but I'll add Droon. Lizardfolk and dinosaurs takes me back to a childhood of Saturday mornings spent watching Land of the Lost. :)
I am not seeing one for Message, but it wouldn't be hard to homebrew one. They aren't spelhearts, but there are the Messenger's Ring and the Spy Staff.
If you are taking the Spellshot Dedication at level 2 then, as HammerJack said, you should be able to take Basic Wizard Spellcasting at level 4 or higher. Thank you! That's what I thought but I figure the official tools would be right, so it was driving me mad! I'm not familiar with the software that you are using, but basically every piece of sufficiently complicated software will have at least a few bugs. In this case the text you quoted was added in errata so it might be more likely to see an error pop up on this issue. You should let them know. Also the wording of "This counts as the wizard archetype for the benefits of Basic Wizard Spellcasting" is weird. I'm pretty sure that it should say "This counts as the wizard archetype for the prerequisites of Basic Wizard Spellcasting." Perhaps the programmer who put in the errata was confused by that wording. I'm also switching over from D&D 5e, so some things still make my head spin. Yeah, switching is hard. I still have trouble separating the PF1 part of my brain from the PF2 part. :)
It's in the book itself. The Character Options tells you everything is Standard availability (unless otherwise noted on that page, and those options aren't noted), the book tells you it's Uncommon, but tells you what you need to access it. Thanks! I don't have the book yet.
Where does that information come from? Like the OP, I can't find it on the additional resources page.
There was something awful growing in that armor. Like a living Ginnungagap.
Potential Spoiler*stares in growing shock and horror at learning a parasite was living inside of Gorum and has a name I recognize*What's it called? Huh. So my speculation back in April didn't entirely miss the mark, after all. What if the hole in Gorum's armor wasn't caused by an attack from without but rather was caused by something hatching from inside him? ;) There was something awful growing in that armor.
Here is a description of Basrakal for those who, like myself, didn't remember much about it.
My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.Where can I find that?I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. I found the conversation that I was thinking of.
So at some point they'll be announcing which gods are no longer available, and then PFS players will have until the end of 2024 to rebuild characters that mechanically depend on those deities. I suspect we'll have a list of lost gods (at least the ones whose worship was allowed in PFS) shortly after the release of War of Immortals (October 30).
Where can I find that?I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.
I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. As I understand it, PFS will be posting guidelines for players whose deities are no longer available. I'd expect them to list the dead/missing deities as part of that. I think that's probably your earliest opportunity for getting clarification on which deities were involved here. (I assume that Divine Mysteries will also have that information, but it's not out until November.)
As others have said, focus spells aren't excluded from working with Spellstrike. Similarly they can work with the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot ability. I have a complete list here: • Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike It's all of the spells (including focus spells) with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions. It's a Google doc so it's best viewed in apps which are designed for those.
That sounds a lot like the PF1 Warlock Vigilante with their Mystic Bolts. It would be fun to have something similar in PF2.
Spear Rogue you say, now that could be interesting.I saw some people talking about new Fighter feats. Did any other classes get additional feats, outside of class archetypes?Yes, the Avenger Class Archetype section has a little section stapled onto the end that provides two spear feats for the Rogue Ranger AND Fighter. Based on your description, I whipped up some tables showing which weapons would qualify for these feats. It's a Google doc so it's best viewed in an app designed for those. It occurs to me that the Fighter's Fork would also qualify when in its two-handed form.
It's a little off topic, but after reading through this thread and the other current magus thread I decided to update my list of • Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike It's all of the spells with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions. Just thought I'd share it. It's a Google doc. |