Search Posts
The boon is "Specialized Training—Palatine Detective" Thank you! I finally joined PFS, and I'm still trying to get a handle on those specific rules, so this was very helpful!
The Palatine Detective archetype is Uncommon. Is there a way to take it in PFS? Perhaps by purchasing the Secondary Initiation boon for the Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye?
Let's say that a couple gets married in a community property state. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It wasn't intentional. I'm aware that my thought processes are unusual, and that this can often lead to communication difficulties — especially in online environments were facial cues and other aspects body language aren't available to provide me with immediate feedback so that I can correct misunderstandings as they occur. To clarify, I wasn't accusing anyone of being morally bankrupt. I don't even subscribe to the concept of moral bankruptcy as I think you are using the term. Since everyone has different values, and ethical systems are just methodologies for preserving or increasing the things that one values, ethical systems will naturally differ both in their approaches and their ends. Since value systems vary, there can't be a universal framework within which the morality of entire ethical systems can be evaluated. So while an ethical system can be evaluated based on criteria like effectiveness or internal consistency there isn't any framework from which one can meaningfully evaluate an ethical system as intrinsically morally good or morally bad. All of which means that, while other ethical systems are different from mine, or might even support values that are in direct opposition to mine, that doesn't make them morally bankrupt in my view — just different. In this current case, it seems that some people here are using a different ethical system than the one that I use or other ones that I'm familiar with, and I'm just genuinely curious as to how that system works. All analogies are imperfect, but I had hoped to create one that had a similar structure, but perhaps a bit less immediate emotional resonance so that people could clarify the principles that they are using to evaluate their concept of "theft" for me. From the responses that my post received its clear that my attempt failed miserably, and I'm sorry if my phrasing caused anyone emotional distress. I'm not judging anyone's point of view as "right" or "wrong" because, as I said, that would be a meaningless judgment. I'm just trying to understand points of view that differ from my own current point of view, and for me that requires understanding the fundamental principles that are involved. I'm still curious about this, so I'd like to try again. This time I'll avoid analogies and just try to strip the situation down to the bare essentials as I currently understand them. I have no idea whether or not anyone will find this approach offensive, but please understand that I am not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to understand how you are approaching this situation because understanding other peoples approaches helps me improve my own. Here is the general situation as I currently understand it. A number of companies want to engage in a business venture together that each believes has the potential to earn them a profit. They all hope that it will be a successful venture, but understand that there are a number of different ways that it might not turn out as profitable as expected or even fail completely: the product might not sell very well, the product might be accidentally destroyed or damaged before being sold, one or more of the parties might go into bankruptcy, new taxes might be levied during the sales process, costs of materials might rise, etc. So in order for each party to be able to make an accurate risk assessment before committing to this venture, they create an agreement that defines the processes by which the assets involved in this joint venture will be divided up in the event that any of those forms of failure might occur. All of the parties agree to the terms of the contract and they all sign on to it. Eventually one of those failure points occurs, and under the terms that all of the parties agreed to, some property that formerly belonged to one set of companies, now becomes the property of a different set of companies. For me, this transfer of assets doesn't qualify as theft in either a legal or ethical sense because the parties that had ownership before the property became part of this venture consented to this outcome when they signed the agreement. There's clearly a tongue-in-cheek sense in which I could refer to this as "legalized theft" (in the same way that I might refer to heart surgery as "legalized assault"), but because I view the lack of consent as an essential component of both the legal and ethical definition of theft, there isn't any meaningful sense in which I can refer to this situation as legalized theft. But it seems that some people here do consider this to qualify as theft in an ethical sense despite the fact that all parties involved consented to this arrangement before the failure point occurred. Those people must be using some principle other than consent to distinguish changes of ownership that are theft from changes of ownership that are not theft. That's the thought process that I'm curious about; what are the fundamental qualities that you are using to distinguish theft from non-theft in an ethical sense? Again, I apologize if this question offends anyone. I am just trying to understand your point of view, and would appreciate your help.
I believe there was also mention of an archetype that is like a remastered form of Drow Shootist.
I've been pondering why I had such a visceral reaction to the use of the word 'theft' in this situation, and I think it is because it seems to argue that while agency, consent, and responsibility are valid legal principles, they are not valid ethical principles. I find that very unsettling since they are core principles for every system of ethics that I would even remotely consider adopting. Let's say that a couple gets married in a community property state. Neither expects that they will get divorced, but each understands that if they do, any assets earned during the marriage will be split evenly between them. Ten years later they do get divorced. During the marriage, spouse A earned significantly more than spouse B did, so an equal division of assets will not correspond to the amount that each spouse brought into the partnership. So in the divorce more of spouse A's earned wealth automatically becomes the property of spouse B than the reverse. From my perspective, the ethics here are simple. Both people willingly agreed to this arrangement when they got married so each is responsible for upholding the terms of that agreement, and neither is acting unethically by insisting that the other person do so. But many of you seem to view this differently. Apparently, under your system of ethics, although spouse B is legally entitled to that property, by insisting that spouse A abide by their agreement spouse B is acting unethically. As I understand your point of view, spouse A is a victim here because this is the "legalized theft" of spouse A's property. But that seems to completely devalue spouse A's agency. Since both people were mentally competent when they willingly consented to this outcome, I don't see why spouse A is absolved of all ethical responsibility to follow the terms of the agreement or why spouse B is wrong to insist that the agreement be followed.
I am fairly certain that the flexible spellcaster represents most arcanist like character in PF2e. This is anathema to many people because of the lack of the exploits, but I doubt that there is really design space for a retread of the class.Sure, but at the same time... what would both fit Nex better and be new? I completely agree that a PF2 Arcanist class won't be a thing. But it did seem to fit QuidEst's criteria of a class which would fit in well in PF2 Nex, so I just threw it out. In my head space, the Runesmith is a full-class expansion of the Runescarred archetype concept so it feels like more of a Saga Lands thing to me.
I don't know anything about Pathbuilder, but as far as I know there aren't any ways to get four abilities at level 1. Witch familiars do start with three abilities as do familiars for Wizards with the Improved Familiar Attunement thesis. A few other options get you a specific bonus ability. The Alchemist's Alchemical Familiar feat, for example, gets you a familiar with the Construct ability in addition to the standard two abilities. I haven't updated it in a while, but you might find my Guide to Acquiring Familiars useful for seeing some ways to get and enhance familiars.
Sure, but at the same time... what would both fit Nex better and be new? Well it's an old class, but it would be new to PF2: the Arcanist. If memory serves, Arcanists were very common in Nex. But I'm personally much happier about the Runesmith than I would be for a new version of the Arcanist. I haven't been this excited for a new class since the Occultist.
Taking someone's product you don't own, selling it, and not paying the actual owner is literally theft. I'd say that a key difference between this situation (as I currently understand it) and 'theft,' as the term is normally used, is that the companies in question agreed to this arrangement when they signed their contracts with Diamond. If I own my house, put it up as collateral for a business loan and then fail to meet the terms of that loan then my creditors can force me out of my house, sell it, and pocket the profits. But I doubt that most people would view the loss of my house as 'theft' since I willingly agreed that that might be a consequence of taking out the loan. I gambled on my business becoming successful enough to enable me to pay back the loan on time, and I lost. Similarly, it seems that when these companies signed their contracts this situation was well-understood to be a possible consequence because that's how this area of the law has worked for some time. In signing those contracts they willingly made a bet that Diamond wouldn't go bankrupt, and so they'd be able to make a profit from those contracts. For a lot of companies that held true for a long time, but in this one instance their bets didn't pay off. To equate a company losing money because a financial gamble didn't pay off for them with, say, someone having their house broken into and their valuables taken against their will seems odd to me.
The question is does this count towards the two abilities or is this in addition to the two abilities. Flight would use up one of those abilities. As another example, a bat (excluding fruit bats) innately has both flight and echolocation so both standard abilities would be permanently used up if you chose a bat as your familiar. In that case you'd need to get grant your familiar more more abilities through feats like Enhanced Familiar if you wanted to add options like Manual Dexterity.
It doesn't appear to be that simple, Claxon. Under the Uniform Commercial Code the consignee is treated as having an ownership interest, and the courts have ruled that this interest can override the rights of the consignor in the event that the consignee goes into bankruptcy. From my cursory research, it seems that unless the consignor jumped through all of the many legal hoops necessary to perfect their consignments they basically have no case here. Here's a nice summary of the law in fairly non-technical language.
Hopefully we'll be getting Face Runes in Battlecry. :)
The runesmith is a martial with magic-like features and the kineticist, while hard to describe in these terms, its like a sort of elemental gish. The psychic is, and always has been in the context of PF2e, the cantrips caster. That's why I'm curious to see how the psychic could be if it was JUST a cantrips caster and not a caster that focuses on its cantrips. Ah, I see now what you have in mind. That sounds like something I'd be interested in playing. I do really love cantrips. There are a lot of fun ones that tend to get pushed aside by the need to have combat-focused options, and it would be nice to get more use out of those. Since you don't want such a class to have the martial progression of a Runesmith, I wonder if a good way to partially balance the loss of spell slots would be an increase in skill feasts. I'd love an Int-based skill monkey caster. But I'm sure you're right that the Psychic won't be altered that much in the remaster.
This kinda makes my think about what if the psychic didn't have spell slots at all and the class and its amps were buffed to compensate for that. I sadly think this isn't even a remote possibility because its probably too much of a jump from the current class and it would require pretty much a whole rework, which is way beyond the scope of the book, but I'm honestly curious how a caster (in this case the psychic) without spell slots would look like. To me it seems like you are pretty much describing the Runesmith and Kineticist.
I wonder if they'll mess around with spell components and how they interact with the psychic. Somatic, material, and verbal components aren't nearly as emphasized now. They won't do anything with spell components because those don't exist anymore. (Aside from very rarely used costs or loci.) WotC got spell components in the divorce.
I like the way he uses both ends of the shovel. Wasn't there a relatively new feature that lets someone dual wield with a polearm and its butt-end?Recently got the itch to play a martial character whose weapon of choice is some kind of reinforced metal-handled shovel,...Thinking of this guy? Don't forget your trowel. :) Yes, it's Haft Striker Stance from War of Immortals. It's pretty neat and it works with polearms or spears.
Agreed. I'd love to have an archetype specifically for those who want to use slings as well as one specifically for those who want to use thrown weapons. Both are underserved ranged playstyles.
For what it's worth, Barnes & Noble seems to have leaked the upcoming remastered Dark Archive via its online storepage: Link Sweet! February of next year.
I think the potential Asmodeus shakeup in the future is foreshadowed by his "Death" in that series of short fiction leading up to the reveal of who was going to kick the bucket. Specifically the fact that his brother might not be as dead as Asmodeus has let on, as Ihys persists as sort of an anti-corrupting influence within Asmodeus, and might be gaining in strength over the eons. For those who haven't read it: The Godsrain Prophecies Part Two.
It wouldn't even be too much of a stretch to adapt the song: "Katapeshi Nights, like Katapeshi days!"It'd do violence to the meter, stuffing an extra syllable in. I count four syllables in both 'Arabian' and 'Katapeshi.'
My party is trying to decide what to do next so we would need to unlock Anadi and Sprite. Is there a difference in how we unlock them?I have a character from a campaign I really like and was considering recreating in PFS to try out this style of play. But the race I was is restricted. It would cost 160 AcP, which I could earn by playing. I live in a remote area so home games would be my only option, which looks like it gives single digit rewards. So I it would take a long time. Am I missing something? How long would I actually need to play a "throw away alt" before I could get to be the one I actually want to play?What ancestry are you interested in? I was just wondering which one since it can be hard to find out which ancestries are now free, and I thought maybe you were looking into one of those. But Anadi and Sprite aren't on my current list. ----- I this is my current list of free options. Ancestries • Catfolk • Dwarf • Elf • Gnome • Goblin • Halfling • Hobgoblin • Human • Kholo • Kobold • Leshy • Lizardfolk • Orc • Poppet • Ratfolk • Strix • Tengu • Tripkee Mixed Ancestries • Aiuvarin • Dromaar Versatile Heritages • Changeling • Dhampir • Nephilim • Dragonblood • Duskwalker
I have a character from a campaign I really like and was considering recreating in PFS to try out this style of play. But the race I was is restricted. It would cost 160 AcP, which I could earn by playing. I live in a remote area so home games would be my only option, which looks like it gives single digit rewards. So I it would take a long time. Am I missing something? How long would I actually need to play a "throw away alt" before I could get to be the one I actually want to play? What ancestry are you interested in?
...You will probably want a ranged weapon. An INT maxed Magus can use Cantrips for ranged damage in a pinch. An INT dumped one would be better with a bow. But any cantrips gained through the Sorcerer archetype would use Cha rather than Int, and the OP's description of the character as an "intimidating brute" makes me think they want a high strength build. With a low Dex and medium to high Cha, the Sorcerer cantrips could easily be a better ranged option than using a bow.
A new online store is under construction. No telling when they'll get it up and running, though. And I've had the same login issues that you are having. At the moment, I can log in on my iPhone, computer, and even my old iPad mini, but no matter what settings I change, my iPad Pro will never log in.
Player Core 2, page 103 When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided you Strike with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it’s a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap. The sap is an agile melee weapon so it is already covered by the statement "an agile or finesse melee weapon," and so it doesn't need to be listed separately. Somehow this unnecessary text has survived both the second printing of the APG and the transition to Player Core 2. :) -----
It's sad, and a bit strange, that Leshy seedpods can be used for class features like a Rogue's sneak attack or a Starlit Span Magus' Spellstrike, but somehow can't be used for Devise a Stratagem.
I love that she doesn't have a clear resolution to her story. Me, too. I wonder if the events of the upcoming war will help resolve some things for her. And as others have pointed out, she's definitely experiencing some cognitive dissonance, but that's pretty common. People are complex. It's one of the reasons that I'm glad the overly simplistic alignment system is gone. I agree with others that she doesn't really LOOK like an orc... She fits the description from the Player Core pretty well to me.
That drawing seems to check off all of the boxes to me. Long arms? Check. Stocky legs? Check. Bow-legged stance? Check. Slouched shoulders? Check. Rock-hard muscles? Check. Large tusks? Check. Rough, green, tattooed skin? Check. It seems like a good match.
I've just noticed that the Sukgung was moved to the crossbow group in the Tian Xia Character Guide before the Treasure Guide Remaster, seemingly, moved it back to the bow group. I'm going to take the Tian Xia entry as further support for the idea that the actual intent was to move all five of these weapons to the crossbow group.
Recently got the itch to play a martial character whose weapon of choice is some kind of reinforced metal-handled shovel,... Thinking of this guy? Don't forget your trowel. :)
I'm sad that the Bow Staff is now uncommon. :(
Errata: Pages 30-31 The Gauntlet Bow, Rotary Bow, Sukgung, Taw Launcher, Crescent Cross, and Lancer are all referred to as 'crossbows' in their descriptions, but they are all still listed as being in the 'bow' group rather than the new 'crossbow' group.
Et voila! You should now see the update under the Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide sanctioning. If I'm not mistaken, that makes the current list of free options... -----
• Catfolk • Dwarf • Elf • Gnome • Goblin • Halfling • Hobgoblin • Human • Kholo • Kobold • Leshy • Lizardfolk • Orc • Poppet • Ratfolk • Strix • Tengu • Tripkee -----
• Changeling • Dhampir • Nephilim • Dragonblood • Duskwalker
Errata: I'm certain that the 7th level spells for the Celestial Staff (page 131) are incorrect. They are listed as frigid flurry and howling blizzard which make no sense for that staff, but are an exact match for the 7th level spells for the Boreal Staff which just preceded it. So this looks like a copy/paste error. For reference, the 7th level spells for the pre-remaster version were angel form. inner radiance torrent, and summon celestial.
Yep, I just downloaded my copy! Thank you!
Just heard from the team! It's on the list of things to do today, so please be patient! It will be done by end of day at the latest! No rush. :) I just wanted to let you know that it hadn't shown up yet in case that was a glitch that needed fixing.
Hmm. I still only have the pre-remaster version on my digital content page.
Eldritch Archer seems to cover some of this. A few more variations on that would be nice. Yeah, I really like the remastered Eldridge Archer. I believe that we are getting a remastered archetype based on Drow Shootist in Battlecry!, and I'm excited to see what that archetype, and possibly other options in that book, will offer for ranged character builds.
...Actually received the physical copy yesterday, so in even less of a hurry now. :D Oooo! Any interesting changes leap out at you?
I hadn't noticed this part before. Ancestry and heritage options to play a draconic character of your own, from expansions to the dragonblood and kobold to a brand-new dragonet ancestry! I would love to be able to recreate my pre-remaster dragony kobold character without having to take dragonblood.
One more day!
Hate to necropost this, but I'd like to know if there are any special conversion rules to use the Ancestry Guide's content in the Remaster properly. Sort of. Go to the FAQ page and scroll down to the section titled "Ancestry Guide Errata (Spring 2024, Remaster Compatibility)." Mainly the changes are that Sprites and Strix now get their flying options earlier than before. That's a pretty big deal for PFS players since Strix will soon be a free choice for players. You also might want to scroll down a bit farther to the section titled "Ancestry Guide Errata (Spring 2024, 1st Printing)" for the errata that isn't remaster specific.
I hadn't looked at Strix for a long time. The improved flight ancestry feat progression from the 2024 Spring Remaster Compatibility Errata is really nice.
I'm glad that helped. :) I initially had the same search issues that you did, but then I was able to find mention of the sepulcher in some online gaming session threads for Debt to the Quah that were here on this site. Like this one. You might get some more details from those threads. For example, here is an introductory passage that was given to the players in several of those threads. I'll put it behind a spoiler tag because my OCD is insisting on it, but it's an introductory passage so there isn't actually anything spoilery in it. I'm pretty sure that there are spoilers later in those threads, though. Spoiler:
"Our relations with the quahs have already been somewhat strained, although friendlier than their other connections with outsiders. Fortunately for us, we have some history of goodwill with the Shoanti, so Cousin to All was able to convince the other quahs to send representatives to hear our side of the story. Unfortunately for us, our side of the story is still bad. Lumketul showed no regard or respect in his blind pursuit of discovery, and frankly, the Society doesn’t have much grounds to deserve forgiveness. The Muschkal Sepulcher is an important location for all the quahs, and Lumketul’s disregard has cast the Society as a whole in a bad light. We’ve tried contacting Lumketul, but he has cut contact with the Society, and no one in the Society has heard from him in over a year. This is where you come in. I would like for all of you to travel to the meeting of the councilmembers and represent the Society. I believe excuses will not be received well; rather, please petition the council with utmost earnestness and sincerity.
I’ve had Lumketul’s notes on his expedition dug up in the hopes they’d be of some use. I’ve also included a copy of his Chronicle publication, although his embellishments and obfuscation of truth may have rendered it useless; nevertheless, maybe you’ll glean some helpful information from it.” Ambrus then reaches down beside him and pulls up a large satchel and an egg-shaped rock that emits a warm, red glow. “The bag contains the items Lumketul plundered from the burial site. At the very least, we must return the items to the Shoanti, and I request you try to convince the council to allow you to restore the sepulcher to its proper state. As for the stone, if you touch it to a broken object, it will gradually repair it. It won’t last forever, but it should have enough magic left in it for this mission.” The venture-captain pauses for emphasis. “It’s important to the Society to develop further relations with the quahs, so this could be an opportunity to show that we can be trusted." I have to say that I find the idea of an adventure that is the opposite of tomb raiding very refreshing.
It is a sacred Shoanti burial ground that was raided by a member of the Pathfinders. In Debt to the Quah, the players are tasked with returning looted items and repairing relations with the Shoanti.
Yay, Rime dragons! Hopefully, they will expand the list of Dragonblood Exemplars to include them. I miss having a cold-themed option.
I assume this still is not a thing? Or am I just too dense to find it? Sadly it still is not a thing.
...Lost Omens Character Guide, published two months before the Magic Warrior archetype in Lost Omens World Guide, does not say that the Magic Warriors had to always where their masks. Instead, it says, "Others, such as the Magaambya’s magic warriors, subsume their whole identity into the mask, disguising every other aspect of themselves." I am going to have to remove always wearing the mask to make Noor Khan playable. Technically, I don't see the requirement that they must always wear their mask anywhere in the World Guide, either. What it says is Once you take this feat, if another creature ever learns your true face or name, you lose your abilities from this archetype. So you could take the mask off if you are alone, and should be able to take it off around other people so long as doing so wouldn't reveal your "true face." Revealing a "false face" doesn't seem to be an issue here so wearing a really, really good disguise under your mask or being under an illusion spell or polymorph spell that prevents people from seeing your "true face" might be considered sufficient to avoid the problem.
Smurph
Smarf
Smarph
|
