Gisher's page

Well, I guess this isn't going to be fixed in time.

When the new store opened I was excited to see that I could use my online payment option of Apple Pay and that there was a nice week long sale price.

So I immediately tried, multiple times, to make a purchase only to find out that you couldn't deliver on the promise to accept Apple Pay.

I understand that glitches in new software are to be expected, but that's why offering a discount during the first week of operation is obviously problematic.

I'm seriously annoyed that I can't get the discount that I was promised when I attempted to make my purchase simply because you didn't get your software working properly before offering that discount.

I'm surprised this issue is taking so long to fix.

I'd have thought the software for accepting Apple Pay was part of the standard package for Big Commerce.

Is there any chance this will get fixed before the Legendary Week Sale ends?

Maybe it's moved to the new store?

So Mocking Dragons can add insult to injury and also injury to insult? ;)

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing black text on a white background.

But links on the blog pages are showing up as dark gray text with no underline as opposed to the usual blue text with an underline. So it's really hard for me to tell the difference between the links and regular text.

I can log into paizo.com, but cannot log into store.paizo.com.

When I log into paizo.com and go to store.paizo.com it asks me to login

I had the same problem. It kept telling me that my email or password were wrong even though the forums recognized me just fine.

On the login page there should be a link to request an email to get in. I clicked that and then clicked to link in the email, and the store let me in.

I'm excited about the new store, but it doesn't seem to be able to accept Apple Pay. I've tried three times and it keeps getting rejected

Gisher wrote:

However cantrips don't have a spell rank so technically you can't meet that requirement. :)

No they absolutely do if you read the "reading spells" section. Everyspell has a nameline or header, The spell's name line also lists the type of spell if it's a cantrip or focus spell, as well as the level.

Most cantrips one can normally learn are level 1 and gains additional benefits per heightened level. But there are still cantrips of higher ranks gained from class features. Shattered Mind for example is third rank because thats whats written in its header.

Thank you!

I hadn't noticed that with the remaster the word "level" had been changed to "rank" in the Reading Spells section.

You can get cantrips into your spellbook in the other ways you can learn spells, which is this:

Learn a Spell wrote:

"Spend 1 hour per spell rank, during which you must remain in conversation with a person who knows the spell or have the magical writing in your possession."

However cantrips don't have a spell rank so technically you can't meet that requirement. :)

Also, I'm glad people are liking the vorpal dragon! I specifically went into this design with a mind towards how the biology—or absence thereof, in some cases—would function. If your neck is heavily armored and you're covered in blades, how do you eat? By sucking up blood and other vital fluids, like the classic arcane spell desiccate or its differently-named legacy counterpart. (And given how much crossover there is between "magical sharpness" and bleed effects, it was a perfect opportunity to tie them together.)

Dragons-as-magical-creatures really lets one do a lot of creative things... not just handwaving them with "oh it's magic", but actively exploring how a creature suffused with arcane or primal magic—especially one that was literally born from a primordial magical item, as the vorpal was—thinks, behaves, or functions biologically. And the book gave us plenty of room to explore these ideas! (On top of some very evocative game mechanics, of course.)

I'm not surprised to hear that this is your design. :)

I loved this dragon immediately, and I've always had an affinity for your work.

Hopefully the blog page will get redone. I haven't been able to view it for months since it always crashes while it's loading.

Player Core 2: page 308

The major Staff of the Tempest is listed at 14,000 gp, but that is extremely high for a staff with only up to 6th level spells.

Comparable staves seem to be priced from around 4,000-4,500 gp so the 14,000 gp price is likely a typo.

Just be aware that Staff Acrobat doesn't grant the trip weapon trait to your weapon so you won't be able to apply the weapon's potency rune bonus to your trip attempts unless the weapon already had the trip weapon trait. So you'll probably want to invest in a Lifting Belt or Armbands of Athleticism.

Ok, now you HAVE to make an archetype (or similar) for the Runesmith based on the Rune Dragon :D

That would be awesome!

Alternatively, I think I'll make a dragonblood Runesmith with a rune dragon exemplar. :)

Then why would it say "Add the bonus familiar abilities you gain for being a witch to this amount."

"This amount" being the extra abilities granted by the feat.

If that wasn't the case then surely there's no point in including the above text in the feat. It goes without saying that a feat that gets you extra familiar abilities isn't going to take away abilities granted by a different source.

"This amount" refers to the 4 base abilities that you now have.

So 4+three witch bonuses = 7.

I don't see the source of your confusion.

I can't believe it's already October!

Only two more months until the Codex is here!

I came across this video examining a late 19th century weapon that is a real-world version of the Dagger Pistol, and I thought I'd share it. :)

Draconic Codex is going to have some dragon-based options for Kobolds, and I'm hoping that those will enable those of us who really liked the pre-remaster dragon-descended Kobolds to recreate those characters without needing to take Dragonblood.

Please don't waste a boon on chakrams for a +0 Dex build.

Why would you need a boon to use Chakrams when they have Common rarity?

...I still haven't tried to figure out my fighting style, but I did go with a +3 strength and a +0 dex so archer may not be the best fit here. :)

As Bretl says, you'll want a hand free for Battle Medicine, and I agree with them regarding the flexibility of a banner on a pole attached to your backpack. Of course you'd need a free hand to draw and plant the pole when that would be useful.

With a large, high-strength character it seems a shame to me not to invest in Athletics attacks, and a free hand is useful there as well.

So I think I'd take Dragonchess' suggestion of Ironhoof + Steelhoof so the character could use a shield in one hand while keeping the other free. For a ranged option, you could carry a few bolas to perform the occasional ranged trip.

That gives you options of striking with your hooves, raising/blocking with your shield for extra defense, and using your free hand for either battle medicine, melee Athletics attacks, drawing and/or throwing a bola, or drawing and planting your banner.

Book: Treasure Vault (Remastered)

Rule: Certain weapons should be moved from the "Bow" group into the "Crossbow" group that exists as of the remaster.

TV (R) weapons that are explicitly described as crossbows or which include crossbows, and which have the Bow group, are

- Crescent Cross (ranged mode)
- Gauntlet bow
- Lancer (ranged mode)
- Rotary Bow
- Sukgung
- Taw Launcher

Updates to this:

All of these were part of the bow group in the first printing of Treasure Vault since the crossbow group didn't yet exist.

The Sukgung was moved to the crossbow group in the Tian Xia Character Guide, but was then moved back to the bow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. Despite this, Archives of Nethys still lists it as being in the crossbow group.

The Gauntlet Bow was moved to the crossbow group in Battlecry!, and Archives of Nethys reflects this.

The other three have not been reprinted since the remastered Treasure Vault came out.

The most parsimonious explanation for this mess is still that all five of these were supposed to be moved to the crossbow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. If you assume that to be true then everything else here makes perfect sense.

My best guess is that it's a nod to Will Blankenship who performed as a "one man band" in the 1930's.

From Wikipedia:

...Will Blankenship of the Blankenship family of North Carolina played harmonica, autoharp and triangle in shows during the 1930s.

the main issue with gauntlet bow is that the gauntlet is not finesse. So either your melee hit would be behind your ranged hit or the other way around.

It's a nice option for Investigators, though, since they can use Dex or Int for the crossbow and Str or Int for the gauntlet.

It's available now. :)

Also, the PFS Character Options page has been updated to include this book. Jotunborn is now a free ancestry in PFS.

I'm stumped as to how Ulka can have ten attribute boosts (STR +3, DEX +1, CON +1, INT +4, WIS +0, CHA +1) at level 1 instead of nine — 2 from ancestry, 2 from background, 1 from class, and 4 free.

What am I missing?

The Chakram has an interesting/confused evolution. In Grand Bazaar (GB) it follows the normal rules for a thrown-only weapon. The reload is —, range is given, and the thrown trait is listed. On its return in TXCG, the reload becomes 1 like it's a weapon that needs ammo loaded into it, and the thrown trait gains a 20ft, like it's a melee weapon that can also be thrown. GB version makes more sense, but TXCG is newer.

I notice that despite citing TXCG as a source, Archives of Nethys doesn't list the Chakram as having a reload time nor does it add the "20ft" onto its Thrown trait. Make of that what you will.

I'll also note that the Tamchal Chakram is a melee weapon with the "Thrown 20ft" trait so I'm guessing that someone accidentally looked up the wrong Chakram when typing up the weapon traits in TXCG.

On the Official FAQ Page I can't get any of the book listings to "open up" so I can read the errata.

I noticed this last night on my old iPad mini, but figured it was likely a compatibility problem because it is running a very old iOS and using an old version of Safari. But just now I used my iPhone running iOS 18.5 and I've encountered the same problem.

So I think something is wrong with the page itself.

-----
Edit: I just noticed that the "opening" mechanism is working just fine for both devices on the PFS FAQ Page so the problem doesn't seem to be on my end.

-----
Edit: And while I was adding that last part the problem seems to have been fixed. Thank you!

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?

Gisher wrote:

Let's say that a couple gets married in a community property state.

Why? That's not even remotely similar to the scenario being discussed here? If you're going to accuse people of being ethically bankrupt (haha) you could at least have the courtesy of staying within the bounds of the actual topic instead of constructing an entirely different fictional scenario with entirely different circumstances and dynamics.

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.

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 am so excited since auth emails should start going out today (shipping isn't for a few more days) and while we know a fair amount about this book, a lot of it still feels mysterious, especially about like, archetypes. I recall the necromancer-ish one, and the personal siege weapon one, but we still don't how either work, or what else is there (if anything.)

I'm also interested in what support for casters the Commander got, how the Guardian actually turned out for realses. Gah, I'm just so thrilled to get my hands on this pdf.

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.

Gisher wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Certainly puts a new spin on being the party “face”. Might make me more accepting of bards, that’s for sure.

Now I’m imagining a Face class that takes hits directly to the head with an ability called Facetank.

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.

Gisher wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

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 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?

Yes, it's Haft Striker Stance from War of Immortals. It's pretty neat and it works with polearms or spears.

I have less an issue of the reload one but the fact that a ton of feats that work for reload weapons seem to specifically write out slings by specifying bows/crossbows/guns.

I would love to make a halfling slinger but the feat support for such a thing is kinda lacking compared to bows/xbows/guns.

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.

Linkified.

This was posted on Pathfinder 2e Reddit yesterday.

Barnes & Noble

and

Amazon

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.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

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.'

Gisher wrote:

Bubbik wrote:

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?

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 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?