Gisher's page

Desna is the only member of the core 20 who I find interesting. I'm fine with any of the others dying.

I feel like "sex" has like thirty competing definitions nowadays before we even get into the other big category, but under the definition I think you're using (sex being purely physical traits linked primarily to reproductive characteristics), that wouldn't be a same-sex couple anymore. ;)

Yes, since the issue raised here was one of reproductive viability, I was using the term strictly in the sense of reproduction.

And they would only temporarily need to be the same sex (at least in terms of producing gametes). They could always use another Serum to undo the change once either conception has occurred or the baby is born (depending on which sex they shifted from).

So, for example, a couple who both have ovaries and uteruses, could use the serum to transform one of them into a form where they produced sperm, conceive a child, and then the current sperm producer could transform back.

As I understand the serum to work, the offspring would be the biological child of both parents — having its DNA (aside from the usual mutations) be from both parents.

So lumping same-sex couples into the "don't want to have kids" category is unjustified in Golarion even more than it would be in the real world.

Because I like playing around with edge cases, maybe "doesn't want children" is used to describe someone who's exclusively attracted to people of the same sex OR someone who prefers sex acts which wouldn't result in pregnancy OR someone who doesn't want to raise children, while "does want children" is the converse.

...

I'll just note that, given the existence of Serum of Sex Shift, same-sex couples in Golarion could reproduce.

...

Yup. I vaguely remember something hinting that you could only use the traits of a weapon that you are proficient with - but I can't find it and I half expect that I am hallucinating.
...

You might be thinking of the Parry trait which specifically requires you to be Trained or better with the weapon.

Parry: This weapon can be used defensively to block attacks. While wielding this weapon, if your proficiency with it is trained or better, you can spend a single action to position your weapon defensively, gaining a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

There is no such language for Disarm, Shove, Trip, Ranged Trip, or Grapple.

Now a weird corner case. Can you make a manoeuvre with a weapon you’re not proficient in?

Yes, as long as that weapon has the trait for that particular athletics action. Note that in my example earlier, the Wizard was untrained with martial weapons such as the rapier that he was using to disarm.

That's not the only unintuitive result of the athletics rules.

Consider that throwing a bola uses Dex for an attack roll, but only uses Str if you want to trip them with it.

So both weapon proficiency and Dex are completely irrelevant if you want to use a bola to perform a ranged trip.

Gisher wrote:

• You can't use dexterity to make an athletics check. It doesn't matter that a rapier is a finesse weapon because finesse only lets you "use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls," and athletics checks aren't attack rolls.

I'm accepting what you and Finoan are saying with regard to using the skill proficiency instead of the weapon proficiency for the check when using the weapon with a maneuver trait for the maneuver.

However, the issue of finesse allowing dexterity to be used is long and heavily debated on these and Reddit forums.

What does appear to be the case is that Stephen Radney-Macfarland gave the sole game developer input on the issue way back in the Playtest as noted in:
re: Debates on if Trip / Shove / etc. Traits plus Finesse trait allow Dex for maneuvers.
Errata (what do you expect most? )
Finesse weapons with trip / disarm
2nd Ed Pathfinder Playtest

The game developer supported being able to use dexterity for maneuvers with finesse weapons with the maneuver trait associated with one being attempted.

The issue boils down to that with Finesse "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

The key there is using Dexterity with "attack rolls" and the debate about whether a maneuver with a weapon is an "attack roll" or not.

Most maneuvers in the skill descriptions have the Attack trait. By definition, that only says "An ability with this trait involves an attack", so it's not clear...

Yes, I know the history. I was here for all of those debates, and I was arguing that you *can* use dex if you are using a finesse weapon.

Then Paizo issued the errata quoted by Finoan above and all of the debate ended. You can't use dex instead of strength for athletics attacks.

There is currently only one option for substituting out strength for athletics attacks. Investigators with the Athletic Strategist feat can use their Intelligence in place of strength for a disarm, grapple, shove, or trip if they use Devise a Stratagem.

So let's take the rapier for doing disarm. You have:

* Your level.
* Since it has finesse, a dexterity or strength modifier.
* A potential weapon potency rune to give an item bonus.
* Potentially a skill boosting item, like armbands of athleticism, to give an item bonus to skill checks.
* Your weapons proficiency bonus, in this case for martial weapons.
* Your athletics proficiency bonus.
* If it's not a reaction, the multiple attack penalty.
...

A few corrections.

• You can't use dexterity to make an athletics check. It doesn't matter that a rapier is a finesse weapon because finesse only lets you "use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls," and athletics checks aren't attack rolls.

• Since this is a skill check rather than an attack roll, your weapon proficiency bonus is not used here at all. You only use your athletics proficiency bonus.

• You don't add in your level in addition to your athletics proficiency bonus. It's just your athletics proficiency bonus. If you are Trained or better then your level is already included in your proficiency bonus. If you are untrained then you don't get your level added at all.

That's why the formula is just:

Skill modifier = skill’s key attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

It's not nearly as complicated as you seem to fear it is.

-----
So let's consider a level 12 Wizard who is Expert in Athletics, has a +1 Str and +3 Dex, is wearing a Lifting Belt (+1 item bonus to athletics checks), and is wielding a +2 rapier with which they are Untrained.

The skill's key attribute is Str so they get +1 from Str. Dex can't be used despite the finesse trait.

As an Expert in Athletics, their proficiency bonus is their level+4 which is +16. It doesn't matter what their proficiency level is for martial weapons.

They have two sources of item bonuses: the athletics check bonus of +1 from the belt and (because a rapier has the disarm trait) the +2 bonus from the potency rune. Only the highest counts, so that's another +2.

So their Skill Modifier for disarming with that rapier will be:

+1 (Str)
+16 (Athletics proficiency bonus)
+2 (Item bonus)
= +19

Of course, they might sometimes have additional modifiers like a MAP penalty or a Circumstance bonus, but those usually get added on the fly. The basic number that you would likely want to note on your character sheet would be the +19.

I'll also note that your disarm action is opposing your target's Reflex DC, rather than their AC.

Michael Sayre is currently on stream right now with TheBadLuckGamer, and just spoiled a really cool thing from Player Core 2,...

Link to the video

Sagian wrote:

Calcryx666 wrote:

H2Osw wrote:

Friday is a big day!

That trailer is awesome, I can't wait to get my copy!

There will be so so many refreshes and checking everywhere for this Player's Guide tomorrow, can't wait

Refreshes…refreshes again…and again…Calcryx666 is a prophet…refreshes again…

Let’s go: https://downloads.paizo.com/SevenDoomsforSandpoint_PlayersGuide.pdf

Player's Guide Linkified

...

When he pulled the Starstone up from the bottom of the sea, did he, for all intents and purposes, take the Test of the Starstone and become a "living god" (demigod in Paizo-speak)? Did he then do some "stuff" to ascend to "full deity" status?

Or, did he ascend straight to full godhood after raising the Starstone thus skipping over that demigod rung?
...

According to the PathfinderWiki, the Starstone raised itself, Aroden created the cathedral and test to isolate it, and then other gods granted him divinity.

Over 5,000 years after the destruction of Earthfall, Aroden—then still a mortal—was called to the Inner Sea where the heart of the ancient alghollthu weapon still lay. It erupted from the waves as an entire massive island, topped by a unique gem made of celestial materials, alghollthu magic, the blood of the goddess Acavna, and the scar tissue of the planet itself: the Starstone. Aroden used his magic to keep it from ever being misused again. In response, the gods elevated him to become one of them, and the Starstone has served as a vehicle to attain divinity ever since.

It looks like they got that information from Mythic Realms.

Five prophecies down, and five to go.

We're now halfway through these prophecies.

...

Anyway, I'm quite happy Urgathoa is not getting whacked, because she's probably one the more unique pathfinder deities (everyone has a Poseidon knockoff nature god and a good sun god after all).

I've always viewed her as just a slightly modified version of the Norse goddess Hel.

“The Dueling Quills Incident” has definitely provoked my curiosity.

My cleric leveled to 6th level and gets a skill feat, but there AREN'T any 6th level feats.

That isn't entirely true. There are 6th level skill feats available through archetypes. Pathfinder Agent and Magaambyan Attendent spring to mind.

I have a list, although it might be a bit outdated.

• Archetype Skill Feats

To find the remastered version of the rules that Taja cited, you'll want to turn back two pages to 426 and look under "Line of Effect." They are almost identical to the wording in the CRB.

Line of Effect

When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid. Usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.

In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target. For example, if there’s a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that’s within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn’t need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.

Since solid walls are between the characters in question and the bard, those characters do not have a line of effect to the origin of the emanation and so will not be affected by the magic.

VerBeeker wrote:

The possibility of a brew that makes you a deity is a scary thought, but also could possibly feed into a least a facet of the War to come if knowledge of it gets out, and the one vision from the end of the Stolen Fate AP.

And yet it's not without mythological precedent - the Gods of the Aesir were immortal because they ate Idunn's apples, not because they were intrinsically immortal.

Also in the biblical myth of the garden of Eden where eating the fruits of both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life is apparently how gods are created. After Adam eats the fruit of knowledge, the god Yahweh acknowledges that Adam has become partially like him and the other gods, and Yahweh takes measures to prevent Adam from completing the transformation by eating the other fruit.

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

One would imagine that a simpler solution would just have been to have destroyed the two trees, but perhaps they were the source of divinity for Yahweh and his fellow gods and he either lacked the power to destroy them or feared that destroying them would negate the divinity that they had granted.

Interestingly, Yahweh doesn't mention the need to prevent Eve from eating the fruit of life. Perhaps she had already eaten both fruits so it was too late to prevent her from becoming a goddess. Her death, unlike Adam's, never gets mentioned, after all. ;)

Beautifully written! And such a great takedown of that hoary old "belief creates gods" trope. "[S]olve for number of believers," indeed. :)

RAW it works fine because of the difference between "apply the effect" and "etch or transfer any property rune" ...

I wouldn't be surprised to see them plug that hole in Player Core 2.

There was a somewhat similar issue in the wording for the Magic Weapon spell where it stated that "The target becomes a +1 striking weapon." Doubling Rings replicate "the weapon’s fundamental runes" and, since Magic Weapon never explicitly said that the weapon gained actual runes, it wasn't clear whether the rings could transfer the effects of the spell to a second weapon.

But Runic Weapon adds the sentence "The weapon glimmers with magic as temporary runes carve down its length." This makes it clear that the spell creates actual, albeit temporary, runes and so the weapon would be subject to all of the usual rules regarding runes. So cast the spell on the rapier in your right hand and your doubling rings will turn the dagger in your left into a +1 striking weapon, too.

They made a similar change from Magic Fang to Runic Body. My guess is that all references to "effects of runes" or "benefits of runes" in abilities like Sword Ally and the Magus' Runic Impression spell will eventually be worded so as to make it clear that actual runes are created. They would resolve a lot of potential confusion.

(On the other hand, the new Ghostly Weapon spell does still use the "effects of" wording. It's possible that just slipped through the rushed editing process.)

Why anyone would use ChatGPT for any reason at all is irksome enough,...

It can be useful if you understand what it is and isn't designed to do. While I wouldn't rely on it to provide factual knowledge, it does have an extensive vocabulary and is good at imitating the structure of human speech. I've found it useful for things like generating lots of possible mnemonics which I could use for inspiration.

If you want a damaging cantrip without the manipulate trait, I believe that Elemental Wrath is your only option.

I really like how these new dragons each emphasize different aspects of the many, many draconic tropes. It makes them really stand out from one another. The old chromatic/metallic dragons all kind of blended together for me.

Ok. I don't care to be insulted, so I'm out of this thread.

...also as gender is more complicated than a binary option (male or female), that whole trope of attaching a gender to a word or role is increasingly becoming archaic and something we're moving away from where and when we can.

Hear! Hear! English has needed updates on this front for a long time.

The Inhaled trait says the following:

inhaled (trait) This poison is delivered when breathed in.

That's it. Nothing about any lingering clouds. So the cantrip affects just one target as advertised.

-----

The rules about lingering clouds are additional rules which specifically apply only to alchemical poisons with this trait. You've missed this because your snippet of text from AoN doesn't include the earlier text which provides the context.

Method of Exposure

Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
...
Inhaled: An inhaled poison is activated by unleashing it from its container. Once unleashed, the poison creates a cloud filling a 10-foot cube lasting for 1 minute or until a strong wind dissipates the cloud. Every creature entering this cloud is exposed to the poison and must attempt a saving throw against it; a creature aware of the poison before entering the cloud can use a single action to hold its breath and gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the saving throw for 1 round.

Notice how the rules say that they "define how a creature can be exposed to that poison." These rules aren't referring to all poisons with those traits, but only to the aforementioned alchemical poisons that have those traits.

Without this heading text to put things in context, it wasn't clear to you that the later references to poisons had already been restricted to alchemical poisons for this portion of the text.

And since the cantrip isn't an alchemical poison, these rules don't apply to the cantrip.

I think my favorite bit of deific lore is that of Ydersius' severed head living on and perhaps even teaching some magic to Old Mage Jatembe.

It's very reminiscent of the Norse stories of Mimir, but Ydersius being a giant snake slain in an underground cavern adds even more chthonic imagery.

tiornys wrote:

It's reasonable to use ChatGPT as a quick lookup...

This statement is sufficiently grammatically correct but factually incorrect that it could have been written by a chat-bot.

Just use a search, a technology that has existed for a long time now and that actually works.

Well... searches can provide accurate information if you know how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. There's a lot of nonsense out there. Being fed that garbage is part of the reason that AI software produces so many incorrect results.

That being said, a search of Archives of Nethys or the actual rule books easily settles the Raise a Shield issue.

...

It's reasonable to use ChatGPT as a quick lookup...

But is it reasonable?

Gisher wrote:

According to her creator, Desna is neither an Outer God nor a Great Old One.

Oooh thanks for that link and clarification. That makes sense and is fair. I can settle for "she is an alien entity" at least haha

You are welcome. :)

For my part, as much as I like the theory that she is an Outer God, I prefer Jacobs' more unique origin story for her.

Nethys stubs his toe at the precise moment some apprentice messes up a cantrip; the resulting harmonized feedback jars Nethys' precarious internal balance and leads to a massive explosion.

I just really want to see Nethys die okay, you can't have "this god is barely holding himself together" and then NOT describe what happens when he's no longer held together. Whether that's a what-if or the actual storyline, they'd be doing everyone a disservice if they didn't explore the concept.

Remaster Syndrome? Perhaps the schools of magic were the last threads keeping him contained. ;)

...

I'm a big fan of the theory that Desna is not REALLY butterfly lady, but an Outer God who had blended into the gods of Golarion. Given the way that she absolutely swings above her weight class.
...

According to her creator, Desna is neither an Outer God nor a Great Old One.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Cthulhusquatch wrote:

Desna as a Great Old One? Haha I like her.. but I'd like her even more then.

Desna is, by all the evidence, an ancient, alien, insectoid being from beyond the stars who visits people in their dreams.

She's never been technically stated as a Great Old One, and indeed she's among their greatest foes, but Alignments aside she has more in common with them than she does with most other Gods.

The 'friendly Great Old One' interpretation of her is really easy to buy into, and makes a whole lot of sense, even if it isn't 100% canonical.

Desna is indeed an alien entity who's kind of "adopted" the humanoid form in response to her delight in how we humans look and act. She's not from "outer space" even though she enjoys outer space—she pre-dates sapient thought/mortal life in the Material Plane, along with some of the other really REALLY ancient deities.

She's not a Great Old One, though. She's a full-fledged deity who doesn't get a stat block. Nor is she an Outer God, because she actively cares for and likes and wants to help us people.

If Desna were in Lovecraft's stories, she'd be classified along with Nodens as an Elder God, I suppose.

(We don't have an "Elder God" category in Pathifnder because it's nonsensical—"Elder God" basically means "deities who aren't Great Old Ones or Outer Gods," after all, so pretty much every other deity in the setting is an "Elder God" if you look at it from the Derleth Mythos world view—the creation of that category of deity being something August Derleth introduced to the stories in his sometimes awkward attempt to categorize Lovecraft's creations into narrowly defined categories like elementals and the like.)

Raise a Shield can be found on page 419 of the Player Core book, or on page 472 of the Core Rulebook if you aren't using the remastered rules yet.

In both books it lacks the Manipulate tag and so is not a Manipulate action. That's the rule. I don't understand what more proof you require.

If your GM believes that the rule books state that Raise a Shield is a manipulate action, then what part of the text did they cite to support that claim?

I feel like this is a prank of some sort, but the answer is really simple — the Raise a Shield action does not have the Manipulate tag so it is not a Manipulate action.

I'm unclear what Chat GPT has to do with this.

I wouldn't be surprised if "Who was the killer, anyway?" was massive spoilers for the associated AP.

The killer is Aroden. He faked his death to avoid being a suspect. ;)

This one was super fun, thank you! And it puts to rest the theory that Asmodeus would be a casualty of the OGL fiasco.

That never seemed like a viable theory to me. Aside from the fact that this event was planned long before the OGL mess, since Asmodeus has been part of the mythology of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for centuries I can't see how Hasbro could assert ownership of the character.

I suspect the return of prophecy heralds the return of Aroden. Perhaps the gods should tremble with terror at these words?

What makes you think that prophecy is returning to its previous status?

The answer to that question, like all ethical questions, will vary depending on what system of ethics you apply to it.

...Nethys is a god of magic but not the only one, and he's very, very new as a god on the timescale.

...

As a side-note, my favorite deity of magic is Yuelral. I'm hoping we'll get more info on her and the other elven deities as the remaster progresses.

...

In Lovecraft's original story, "Dagon," it's implied that Dagon is an enormous fish monster.
...

Naming his fish monster Dagon isn't surprising. At the time it was mistakenly believed that the mythological Dagon was a deity of fish or fishing and was depicted in ancient art as a fish from the waist down. This all turned out not to be true, but it still seems to be a popular trope in fantasy literature.

Gisher wrote:

lemeres wrote:

Let's go classical. A paired set of anathema

1. You cannot eat carrion meat (ie- no road kill)
2. You must always accept food offered to you by old women.

A reference to Cú Chulainn?

That's what I immediately thought of, but I thought that geas was specifically dog flesh, not generalized carrion.

Yes, in the myths it was specifically dog meat. I should have said "indirect reference."

Gisher wrote:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Is there someone who is actually arguing that the OGL material is all public domain?

Thomas Jones wrote:

I am mad as Hell about what D&D won't let pathfinder use any more. This is going to throw off the continuity of the world of Golarion one of the richest and most detailed fantasy settings of all time. I have been buying D&D products for about 40 years now, but they won't be getting a single penny from me ever again!

This. The OP. Thomas is angry that "D&D" (Hasbro/WotC) won't "let" "Pathfinder" (Paizo) use its IP any more. I'm trying to clarify that Paizo no longer has the legal right to publish that material, and Hasbro must protect its right to that material. The proximate cause for that is Paizo's decision to leave the OGL, though I think we all agree that their reasons for doing so were justified, to say the least.

There are plenty of reasons to be upset at Hasbro in this whole debacle, but Hasbro can't just decide one day to not be meanie-poopie-heads and pinkie-promise that they'll let Paizo play with their toys forever. It's a bit more complex than that.

Oh, I see. I had read the OP as being upset that Hasbro tried to alter the OGL agreement ex post facto rather than upset that, having rejected the OGL, Paizo was no longer able to use the OGL material. Now that you point it out, I can see that you he latter interpretation makes sense.

...

That said, as much as I sneer at what happened with the OGL, I hold WotC and Hasbro entirely blameless in the matter of protecting their IP from parties who are no longer part of an agreement to use it.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Is there someone who is actually arguing that the OGL material is all public domain?

As for Dagon, I have always had no idea why he is a demon lord or a qlippoth lord in Lost Omens. I mean, he is from the Cthulhu Mythos right? Shouldn't that make him a Great Old One instead?

Dagon is probably best known today as the god of the Philistines in the biblical myth of Samson. In it, the temple that Samson brings down around himself and the Philistines is that of Dagon. There isn't any archeological evidence that the Philistines actually worshiped Dagon, though.

I found this fellow with a quick google search

Aw!

Almost irrespective of who it is, I have tepid interest in what changes in Arazni to make her popular enough to be one of the new core 20.

As she currently is, her portfolio is rather on the narrow side.

While they have said that Arazni won't take over the portfolio of the core 20 deity that dies, I haven't seen anything stating that she won't absorb portfolio items from any of the other deities who will die.

...

I am curious what will become of the six OGL Demon Lords. I could see some of them being killed off in the upcoming War of Immortals. ...

My impression is that such OGL content simply won't appear in any future materials. Luis Loza has said, for example, that this will be true for the deities which are strongly connected to the OGL. They just won't ever be mentioned again.

Let's go classical. A paired set of anathema

1. You cannot eat carrion meat (ie- no road kill)
2. You must always accept food offered to you by old women.

A reference to Cú Chulainn?

...

We know that Rovagug isn't around in Starfinder AND has a replacement that is similar in attitude although physically very different. Maybe Rovagug finally starves to death in prison, and Pharasma judges Rovagug even dead to be too dangerous to put through the normal judgment process, and so throws Rovagug into the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Millennia later, the black hole awakes . . . .

I'm amused by the thought of a black hole being eaten by Rovagug.

Another way to cover multiple damage types and special materials is to get a Thrower's Bandolier. It can carry enough light weapons to cover every damage type/special material combo that you want.

It isn't as cheap as Doubling Rings, but it also doesn't depend upon your primary weapon being a one-handed melee weapon which is currently taking up one of your hands. One set of runes isn't a bad price to have a dozen or so different backup options.

Here's my list of suitable weapons for the Thrower's Bandolier Options.

IMO if you have 10 ft steps you cannot move 2 diagonals with a single Step action but if you use 2 Step actions you can.

I don't see how that would work. You are standing in a square and want to travel 10' to get to a diagonal square. Under your theory, what happens when you try to take that first 5' step diagonally?