Gisher's 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.

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

Smirf

Smirph

Smerf

Smerph

Smorf

Smorph

The change in my avatar picture above is a glitch.

It was this sentence.

Yet Untamed Order druid's morphing abilities appear stronger.

"Smorph" is one of the phonetically similar misspellings of "Smurf" that still triggers the Smurf Easter egg.

See my posts below for some examples. :)

A curse shall light upon the limbs of men.

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy.
Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
And dreadful objects so familiar,
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war,
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds,
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

— William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act III Scene 1.

The quote in the Character Options page says:

"All dead or missing gods (pages 312-314)"

Acavna and Amaznen are from Azlanti Pantheon (page 300-303) and thus not included in that restriction. Also, Acavna's description says that she no longer grants divine powers, but other azlanti gods descriptions mention that they still have priests and clerics, so it's unclear if all or none or some of them should be valid choices for a PFS cleric.
Aside from Sicva who is explicitly called out as restricted.

That's interesting.

Acavna and Amaznen also aren't listed among the dead, missing, or unaccounted for deities in the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement.

Gisher wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

From the description in Player Core 2, it says they resemble their non-vampire parent's ancestry, but with pale eyes. Since elves don't have visible pupils, an elf dhampir would appear to have solid white eyes.

I think you meant "irises"rather than "pupils."

Nope. I meant irises.

I'm confused by the "nope." If you meant to use "irises" then you are agreeing with me that you intended to use the term "irises" rather than "pupils," but your "nope" seems to be indicating disagreement.

The iris is the colorful part of the eye, and the pupil is the dark circle at the center. The sclera is the "white of the eye." In elves, the only part that's visible from afar is the colorful part—the iris.

Yes, I'm well aware of the parts of the human eye, but according to Player Core, the colorful portion that makes up the entire visible portion of an Elven eye is the pupils — not the iris.

Their eyes are wide and rounded, featuring large and often vibrantly colored pupils that make up the entire visible portion of the eye.

Thus Elves have huge, visible (and possibly colorful) pupils, but they don't have visible irises or visible sclera (or whatever analogies to those structures that Elven eyes might have).

So your statement that

...elves don't have visible pupils...

would seem to be incorrect.

From the description in Player Core 2, it says they resemble their non-vampire parent's ancestry, but with pale eyes. Since elves don't have visible pupils, an elf dhampir would appear to have solid white eyes.

I think you meant "irises"rather than "pupils."

Can't wait to see the Runelord, and all the Wizard options.

And highly hopeful for some Witch options too.

The blog posts make me think that we might be getting some Witch options through the Cobyslarni school.

I think we might be getting some Bard options through the Kitharodian Academy.

We are clearly getting Monk and Magus options from the Monastery of the Unbreaking Waves.

pixierose wrote:

So with the Remaster the Ranger already progresses its spellcasting, roughly at the same time as a spellchecking dedication, in addition the remaster made all spellcasting dcs progress at the same rate regardless of your tradition. So even if the Ranger didn't innately progress its spellcasting dc's you could just pick up a primal spellcasting dedication(although that would be counter intuitive with the whole religion flavor going on, but thankfully you don't have to worry about that since the Ranger warden spell dcs progress just fine)

Oh, I see where I missed that now. The spellcasting proficiencies get bumped up at the features that class DC gets bumped up. Thank you. Now it's all coming together.

My Guide to Proficiency Bonuses gives you a visual comparison of that progression to that of other classes.

You'll see that Rangers with warden spells have the same progression as Magi.

(It's a Google doc so it might not display well in a browser. Google doc apps should work fine, though.)

Or is it not considered an attack roll?

Right, it's an athletics check not an attack roll.

Here's the clarification from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata on the FAQ page:

Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

To clarify the different rules elements involved:

An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.

Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.

The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well. As it says later on in the definition of attack roll "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

But since the whip has the Trip weapon trait, you would get the item bonus from the potency runes on it.

I managed to download my copy!

Thanks, Katina!

BlocktheGM wrote:

I would so love to have remastered Magus and Summoner. Yeah it's unlikely, but I want it xD

Those definitely aren't coming in a Lost Omens release.

Probably not. I'm not really sure how much more change is needed for the SoM pats of the Magus after the errata that we've already gotten. More feats and hybrid studies in other books are always nice, though.

I don't suppose there will be any updates on the Magus class in this book...?

We will!

There's a new hybrid study, Resurgent Maelstrom, from the Monastery of the Unbreaking Waves.

The new approaches can be seen most clearly among those studying the Resurgent Maelstrom. Combining faydhaan spells and techniques with mortal ingenuity, a magus can use the power of water to turn any tool into a weapon and embrace their transience by shattering them against their foes.

It's the same as your character level, so 9th in this case.

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.

scary harpy wrote:

If the Forsaken disappeared like the Osirian and Hag deities, why are they not listed in In Memoriam (Other dead, missing, or unaccounted for gods)?

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?

...

When the other rogue finally moved into flanking, they started their turn by feinting. When we told him it wasn't necessary, since the act of flanking already made the target off-guard, he responded with something to the effect of "our characters don't possess any knowledge of the game's mechanics; of every +1 that they can get. I'm not going to metagame."

I told him that "even dogs and other animals know about flanking; your character most certainly does as well. Sure they don't know about the mechanics, but they do understand survival instincts and basic combat strategy. It's common knowledge."

"I'm going to feint anyways. It's what my character would do."
...

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.

...

As for my favorite errata... probably the balance being struck by the dragon-kin natural armor change. It works better than the "perma-medium" armors, but I won't feel cheesy taking it to get that unarmored feel.

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.

Tridus wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Indeed. If one were to buy a copy of the book with this errata printed, that example explaining intent wouldn't be there and there would be no rule change. Nor would the change exist on Archive of Nsthys or similar rules repositories. By RAW staves definitely don't have the invested trait. There's now a RAI case they should, but the "writer forgot staves weren't an applicable example" explanation seems more likely IMO. And if you've been playing with the unnerfed Inner Radiance Torrent the past 3 years despite Mark stating that should be nerfed, you certainly shouldn't need staves based on this.

Staves already took it in the teeth because their best use was spamming sure strike.

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). :)

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.

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.

Gisher wrote:

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. :)

Gisher wrote:

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.

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.

Saedar wrote:

I like them in-theory and the vibes are certainly great. I just wish they were punchier or had clearer feat paths to make "fight with weapon/whatever" a mechanically significant part of the character.

I get that they are intended to be backup options. Just kind of wish the intent was different.

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.

Guys the shield bow is where it is at. Then add a bladed gauntlet in blunt mode with the splash damage rune for fun and blazons of shared power. Now you have a Dex forward build with a shield, a 1H+ ranged option, and a rune upgraded 1d6 finesse free hand option.

...

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.

I saw someone make a suggestion for Spellstrike saving throws a few months ago that I still think is an excellent idea.

For the saving throw of the Spellstrike target, instead of using the Magus's Spell DC, it can use Magus's Class DC.

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.

-----
And since it hasn't been mentioned, I really appreciate the reorganization and reformatting of the entire errata page.

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

• Guide to Proficiency Bonuses