Gisher's page

Yes, shroudb, I quoted that part of the rules.

Something I wonder is what this means for the entire concept of blue/purple skinned elves in Golarion.

It's an aesthetic I find pleasing, and many settings have found a way to create very distinct versions of that type of elf. Night Elves in Warcraft and Dunmer in Elder Scrolls come to mind immediately as very different takes on the concept of a dark elf from the drow.

So with the removal of drow, does this specifically mean the removal of evil, demon-worshiping, underground-dwelling offshoots of elves called the drow, or does it include any other possible future interpretation of a blue-skinned elf as well?

We haven't gotten a breakdown of the PF2 version of aquatic elves yet so blue/purple/green/etc. skinned elves might be a possibility there.

breithauptclan wrote:

Dragonhearthx wrote:

If you combine the 2, do you get a base climb speed of 20ft? This is not talking about climbing trees.

If you have both what is your climb speed for anything but a tree?

Well, first - both of what, specifically? There are a few different feats that we were talking about ... almost a year ago. So which ones do you mean?

But in general the abilities aren't going to stack.

One ability that says you get a climb speed of 10 feet and another ability that say that you get a climb speed of 10 feet will result in having a climb speed of 10 feet.

One ability that says you get a climb speed of 10 feet and another ability that say that you get a climb speed equal to your land speed will result in having a climb speed of your land speed (unless you somehow have a land speed less than 10 feet normally).

The only time it would stack is if an ability specifically says that it increases a speed rather than setting a speed to a value. So one ability that gives you a climb speed of 10 feet and another ability that increases all of your speeds by 10 feet would result in a climb speed of 20 feet.

We were originally talking about tree climber and cave climber. Would having both give you a 20 ft climb speed?

No. As noted above...

Your time in forest or jungle canopies has taught you how to scramble across branches with sure feet. You gain a climb Speed of 10 feet. If you also have the Cave Climber ancestry feat, your total climb Speed increases to your land Speed when climbing trees.

So if you have both feats then your climb speed would be the higher of 10 ft. or your land Speed.

I'll start by noting that necromancy is was one of 8 schools of magic, and it includes included under its umbrella literally anything to do with positive and negative energy.

I updated that for you. ;)

I have never gotten Runelords. I haven't had a player try one either.

It just seems such a disservice to rune magic as a concept to tie it into the seven deadly sins. Runes have always in my mind been a discipline about precision and control.

For me the concept is a non starter.

I'm not deeply steeped in the Runelord lore, but I thought I'd read that they were originally associated with seven virtues, and later became evil and came to represent the seven vices.

If my memory is correct, that suggests to me that their schools of magic are morally null, and the virtue/vice thing is a simply a statement of how people use their magic.

In which case your view of them as example of precision and control isn't really affected by the whole 'sins' theme.

graystone wrote:

keftiu wrote:

From today's PaizoCon streams, we got some very interesting news: both of these are presented in Player Core under a 'Mixed Ancestries' section... and are no longer restricted to being Half-Human!

I'm surprised 1/2 human wasn't the heritage you add to abcestries.

The Asians Represent podcast did an episode on this, and they had a lot to say about the racialozation of orcs and elves and how humans get used as a proxy for whiteness - so same reason people usually aren't called half-white, as that's the assumed default. They were also pretty critical of orcs only being available if they were half human.

This chamges just make sense. Of course different ancestries are going to interact without that being mediated by humans. They don't pause in stasis until a human shows up lol.

I suspect that the language is a holdover from Tolkien's use of 'half-elven.' But it's definitely a weird way to look at things.

A human with a half-Elf (or half-Orc) heritage shouldn't be any different from an Elf (or Orc) selecting a half-human heritage.

On a side note, I'm really starting to appreciate how Paizo doesn't just seem focused on ditching the legally problematic OGL systems, but seems to be putting serious effort into making the remaster systems broad and flexible enough to accommodate lots of design options for future ORC members. Replacing the fairly rigid Schools of Magic System with a system that is contextualized within a particular world-design, for example.

Gisher wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

...

Even mathematicians bicker.
...

Yes, we do. Quite a lot.

Now, what would you consider the best framework for more formally quantifying how much that "quite a lot" is?

Well, I'm old so I still prefer Leibnitz v. Newton theory over the more modern Taylor v. Perry analysis.

Gisher wrote:

In my opinion the schools of magic often involved a lot of overlap when it came to the classification of spells.

Barkskin, for example.

Quote:

The target's skin becomes covered in bark.

Sure, it's abjuration because it protects you, but it also sounds like it could fit into Transformation or maybe even Conjuration.

So I don't think it was ever true that spells were objectively assigned to clearly defined schools.

Obviously barkskin is transmutation because it is changing matter.

Abjuration is about creating barrier, negating effects, and repelling intruders. Not just "anything that is defensive". Just like Evocation is about creating energy, not just damage. Or how conjuration is about creating creatures or objects out of nothing, not just making things.

You are making my point, because it currently is Abjuration, not Transmutation.

In my opinion the schools of magic often involved a lot of overlap when it came to the classification of spells.

Barkskin, for example.

The target's skin becomes covered in bark.

Sure, it's abjuration because it protects you, but it also sounds like it could fit into Transformation or maybe even Conjuration.

So I don't think it was ever true that spells were objectively assigned to clearly defined schools.

...

Even mathematicians bicker.
...

Yes, we do. Quite a lot.

Only Wayne Reynolds can make me go from (before seeing cover art) “Ho-hum, not for me” to (after seeing cover) “Wow, that book looks interesting”.

The cover art doesn't influence my purchasing decisions either way, but I agree that this is a very cool cover.

Gisher wrote:

Here is my current list.

Take away those that the druid isn't proficient in, that you likely don't have access to (that are Uncommon), and that require additional components (such as ammunition) and you have...

...the club and the staff.

I could get that without spending a feat by saying I pick up a stick off the ground.

Well then, I apologize for trying to be helpful. I'll mute this thread so that I don't bother you again.

Here is my current list.
.
.
.
.

Simple Melee Weapons

• Club

• Juggling Club

• Staff

• Poi

Simple Ranged Weapons

• Atlatl

• Blowgun

• Sling

Martial Melee Weapons

• Bo Staff

• Fighting Stick

• Flail

• Greatclub

• Leiomano

• Nunchaku

• Probing Cane

• Rungu

• Sansetsukon

• Thorn Whip

• Tonfa

• War Flail

• Whip

• Whipstaff

Martial Ranged Weapons

• Bola

• Boomerang

• Composite Longbow

• Composite Shortbow

• Shortbow

• Longbow

• Halfling Sling Staff

• Sun Sling

• Thunder Sling

Advanced Ranged Weapons

• Daikyu

Aren't the hinges of nunchaku and sansetsukon made of metal?

They don't have hinges. The sections are connected by rope or chain and we know that the verdant weapon can make vine ropes.

The nunchaku is constructed of two wooden or metal bars connected by a short length of rope or chain.

The sansetsukon, also known as a sanjiegun or three-section staff, is made up of three wooden staff segments, each about 14 inches in length. The staff sections are connected by short lengths of cord or chain, similar to nunchaku.

-Be wary of firearms action economy. Carry some backup in case you need to slap someone in the face instead of running away-reloading-shooting. Quickdraw is nice to have.

Backup melee options that you might consider are a bayonet or reinforced stock either of which can be attached to firearms.

You would need separate runes for the attached weapon, but they let you avoid the action economy costs of drawing and sheathing weapons or spending actions switching grips.

...

-I see you got the alchemical specializzation. Great choice. Have a GOOD look at alchemical items, there are like a billion and you do not get many every day. This is a nice guide on it..
...

I think they went with Empiricism, not Alchemical Sciences.

@gisher - I believe I used 2 on con since I started at 8 right? Being an elf if not I’ve missed one, easily fixed :)

Oops, my mistake. Int got four boosts so all are accounted for.

Str: 10
Dex: 14 (two boosts)
Con: 12 (one boost)
Int: 18 (four boosts)
Wis: 14 (two boosts)
Cha: 10

I shouldn't try to post with a migraine.

-----

Ancient elf she’s like a great shout though, Thankyou.

Since your concept is a gunslinging Investigator I thought it would be nice not to have to wait a level to experience it. And having the second level feat available for an actual class feat is really nice.

Exactly. But they would need a Spellcasting class feature (like the Basic Spellcasting Feat) to use the Spellheart spells no matter which interpretation of the dedication rules you use.

I'll note that we now have ancestries like poppet and leshy for which the normal concept of 'bloodline' as the inheritance of genes doesn't really apply. Yet they can be sorcerers. So I'd say that we already have a pretty broad concept of how characters can become sorcerers.

An alternative would be to take the Ancient Elf Heritage. That lets you start with Gunslinger Dedication right away at level 1 and also frees up your class feat at level 2.

You've got plenty of skill feats, so it's not tough to pick up detect magic through Arcane Sense rather than Seer Elf.

-----
Also, your ability scores seem to be missing one level 1 boost.

Str: 10
Dex: 14 (two boosts)
Con: 12 (one boost)
Int: 18 (three boosts)
Wis: 14 (two boosts)
Cha: 10

That's only eight net boosts where you should have nine: two from ancestry, two from background, one from class, and four free.

Gisher wrote:

Lucerious wrote:

The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.

That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.

What qualifies as a spell casting archetype, if not one that allows for casting spells?

Here are the rules governing Spellcasting Archetypes. breithauptclan cited the requirements earlier.

Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat. These feats share their name with the archetype; for instance, the wizard's master spellcasting feat is called Master Wizard Spellcasting.

Red Mantis Assassin doesn't meet those criteria.

-----
I believe that the current complete list of Spellcasting Archetypes is:

• Bard Multiclass

• Beast Gunner

• Captivator

• Cathartic Mage

• Cleric Multiclass

• Druid Multiclass

• Eldritch Archer

• Magus Multiclass

• Oracle Multiclass

• Psychic Multiclass

• Sorcerer Multiclass

• Summoner Multiclass

• Witch Multiclass

• Wizard Multiclass

In case you are interested, I've got tables showing the spell slot progressions for all of these as well as for a few archetypes like Red Mantis Assassin that grant multiple spells but aren't Spellcasting Archetypes.

But the real question is. This reach the requirements of many items like scrolls, staves, wands and spellhearts?

Only scrolls, staves, and wands get special dispensation from the Dedication.

A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.

But anyone can use a Spellheart.

The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.

That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.

Xethik wrote:

So in this case, it's a bit uncertain if Red Mantis counts as a spellcasting archetype. If you ruled that it was, that would be enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands.

It pretty clearly isn't. the Spellcasting Archetype gives its basic requirements here:

Quote:

Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat.

Red Mantis Assassin archetype doesn't meet almost any of those. The dedication does not give any cantrips, the Basic Red Mantis Spellcasting and Expert Red Mantis Spellcasting feats are both mis-named, and it is entirely missing the Master Red Mantis Spellcasting feat.

Yeah, Red Mantis Assassin clearly doesn't meet the requirements to be a Spellcasting Archetype.

The point of language is to be understood, not to be correct.

Exactly. Humpty Dumpty was on the right track.

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

More generally, words mean whatever the people in a conversation agree that they mean.

It's why a major portion of any philosophical discussion is typically involved in working out the agreed meanings of the terminology. :)

Invictus Fatum wrote:

It's not even a made up fantasy word. It's just a word not commonly used in English and people keep mispronouncing.

Well it's Latin, and there are two forms, Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin.

In ecclesiastical Latin I've always heard it pronounced "May-Jus"

To be technical, the terms were originally Classical Latin.

Now they are also English and probably also belong to other Romance languages.

So there are likely multiple pronunciations even without including Ecclesiastical Latin.

But I suspect that Paizo is using the English version.

Gisher wrote:

Right now the tags represent a weird blend of two different concepts: how common are these options in the 'default' Golarion region and how restricted they should be because of power concerns.

Just trying to head off this missconception. Uncommon and Rare options aren't more powerful than common options. Everything is bound to the same Level Math. What they can be is really unpredictable in how they affect the game. Many divination spells are uncommon because of how they can easily blindside a GM who hasn't thought through all the implications to his puzzles and mysteries. Likewise Antimagic Field is Rare not because it's more powerful than other 8th level spells but because the ability to shut down all magic can radically change the dynamics of encounters and not necessarilly to the party's benefit because of all their magic items and such shutting off.

Yes, that's a better way of describing the second set of criteria.

So yes. If there is a conflict between the errata given in YouTube and the errata that is actually written into the rulebooks, I am going to go with what is written in the rulebooks.

At least when discussing what RAW actually is.

Exactly. That's why I said that there isn't any point in debating the issue at this point. The decision as to which methods of information delivery someone will accept as official is purely subjective and so can't be objectively resolved.

Gisher wrote:

Trust me that there is no argument that will convince them otherwise, so you might as well just stop trying.

I'm not trying to :) Just clarifying. Especially when for practical purposes breithauptclan would probably not run it in the strictest version, as they wrote.

And that rule sentence really is ambiguous at least a bit. I hope designers will clarify casting archetypes and magic items rules in the remaster.

Yes, it is ambiguous, but the lead designer Logan Bonner, speaking on behalf of the entire the design team, did clarify that the dedication grants the ability to use scrolls and wands before the Basic Spellcasting feat in this Q&A session.

For the majority of people here, that was sufficient to resolve the issue on the side of not needing the Basic Spellcasting feat. However, breithauptclan doesn't accept errata or clarifications that are delivered in that format as official.

I do agree that they should make the text more clear, though. Without that video I would still be on the fence as to what it means.

Based on this exchange that I had with James Jacobs, it seems that the Pathfinder terms are the same as the English terms.

Gisher wrote:

I'm making a character who was left as an infant at a Monastery/School maintained by an order of Esoteric Magi. (Magi? Maguses? What is the plural of Magus in Pathfinder anyway?) ...

The plural of magus is magi, same as in the real world.

-----

You still need to meet the Access condition, being from the Golden Road region. Other than that, just meet the prerequisites, in their modified form for this campaign, as they are listed on the character options page.

For ease of reference:

Characters with the Living Monolith Dedication feat have access to Ka Stone Ritual (page 59).

...

The Prerequisites entry for Living Monolith Dedication (page 59) is “Osiriani language, trained in Crafting” rather than “Ancient Osiriani and Sphinx languages, trained in Crafting.”

The Prerequisites entry for Ka Stone Ritual (page 59) is “Living Monolith Dedication” rather than “Living Monolith Dedication, a sphinx or living monolith with this feat performs a ritual with you”.

breithauptclan wrote:

Depends on how strict RAW you want to run.

I don't see anywhere in there that it lists giving a spellcasting class feature or equivalent. So by the strictest of RAW

Even by the strictest: "Basic ... Magic", "You gain the Cast a Spell activity." (general one, not "to cast your focus/innate spell/s"), "You’re a prepared spellcaster", spell slots - is that not enough? Do we really need code words "a spellcasting class feature" that much?

Otherwise it should be as Ectar wrote.

Breithauptclan doesn't accept the interpretation that

A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.

is a specific rule that overrides the general rule that you need a Spellcasting class feature to use scrolls, wands, and staves.

So they don't believe that any Spellcasting archetypes grant that ability before the Basic Spellcasting Feat is taken.

Trust me that there is no argument that will convince them otherwise, so you might as well just stop trying.

The real Aroden died the moment that he first encountered the Starstone. The 'god' Aroden was just a sockpuppet operated by the Starstone.

The same is true of all of the other people who 'passed' the Starstone's test.

;)

Have they talked at all about Ancestry Rarity changes?

Iruxi are widespread across a bunch of Garund, and Kobolds are the union mascot... I'd love to have them get promoted up to Common.

One thing I'd like Paizo to consider for future updates is a remaster of the rarity system.

Right now the tags represent a weird blend of two different concepts: how common are these options in the 'default' Golarion region and how restricted they should be because of power concerns.

As you point out, there aren't any clear rules on how to adjust rarity for other regions, and if there were such rules they would inevitably cause problems when they interact with the second assessment.

I know that they were trying to simplify things by using a single system to represent both criteria, but I really think that splitting this into two different tag systems would be simpler in practice.

When I first heard that they were eliminating the alignment system, I was Neutral on the issue, but the more I've thought about it the more I've become convinced that getting rid of it is Good.

I don't know what PF2 rules say about it, but if I'm looking at an illusory bridge over say a deep chasm, and I step out onto the bridge, I would expect that I would fall into the chasm.

That reminds me of the end of Batman: The Killing Joke.

When it is an illusory bridge over a chasm you wish to cross!

Or perhaps you don't want to see through that illusionary wall because you know there's a medusa nearby.

I wonder if they'll get rid of holy/unholy runes entirely or have them deal positive/negative energy damage instead.

Although that would step on the toes of the disrupting rune a bit.

Magis wrote:

Hi! I'd like to play something from this sourcebook at GenCon in the organized play games, but it appears it will be debuting *AT* GenCon. Since I'm a rulebook subscriber I'd hoped to have access to the material in time to play it as my low level org play character. Is that going to be possible or should I reset my expectations accordingly?

The release day for Pathfinder Rage of Elements is August 3, the first day of Gen Con. Subscribers will get access to a complimentary PDF when their copy ships. This is often before the release date, but not guaranteed. I am looking into if we will have Gen Con subscription pick-up this year.

Yay! Added to my calendar.

QuidEst wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

The mirage dragon seems like kind of a combination of enchantment and illusion, from my reckoning. That would mean they're not what you're hoping, but it would also mean that we can have even more combinations of dragons.

The only potential reference to enchantment I see is the word "captivate", and the fascinate condition belongs to both illusion and enchantment. Given everything else only mentions illusions, I think it's just the one school.

Oh, I also misread their breath as a confusion attack, but rereading, it seems pretty focused on hallucinations. You must be right!

Curiously, the image mentions concave openings in the neck that intake air for the dragon's flames. I wonder if they actually intended the breath weapon to be fire originally or if that was just a placeholder.

I love the weird kinda-masked face shape. Excited to see what these pair with - perhaps a divination-focused Truth Dragon?

I could see an illusion-focused caster taking the Magaambyan Attendant archetype and having a mask familiar based on a Mirage Dragon.

They'd be covering their face with a mask of the face of a mask-faced dragon, and it could turn into a little mirage dragon made of colored light. :)

It seems pretty thematic to me.

Ravingdork wrote:

Was there an actual announcement somewhere regarding changes to focus points and abilities, or is this all conjecture and wishful thinking?

In the announcement/Q&A stream, Logan Bonner mentions how his favorite change in the Remaster (aside from the removal of alignment) was the changes to Focus Points. They are making Focus Points easier to use, and making Refocusing much simpler than before.

If you wanna listen for yourself, the timecode for what I'm talking about is at 51:35 on the stream HERE.

Thank you for the link! I had no idea what the source of this information was.

It would be nice if they simplified, or at least clarified, the rules for which feats increase the focus point pool.

I think at first they were a little worried that focus spells might prove too powerful, so they had feats that didn't increase the focus pool. That, of course, led to all sorts of odd situations that have been the subject of many threads here.

Now that we've seen that having a maximized focus pool isn't a game-breaker, it would be nice if they just said that any feat that gives you a focus spell will increase your focus pool by one.

Moth Mariner wrote:

Yeah the counteract is only to see through the illusion, that was my point 1.

So is the process here:
•GM rolls secret counteract check, succeeds.
•GM doesn’t complete the secret counteract, but instead tells the Thaumaturge “there’s an illusion here, you can see through it if you want to”
•The Thaumaturge can say no at that point, and so nothing happens.

And if that is the process, why? I’m feeling like I’m missing something obvious here.

The choice is the whole point of the thing

I think that maybe their real question is "why would you ever not want to see through an illusion?"

Gisher wrote:

Quote:

...and also I don’t want to wait for YEARS just so I can play a lizardfolk investigator or a tiefling warpriest due to most of the uncommon ancestries being locked being ACP

People already explained to you that new players get 80 ACP to spend which means that you could play a Lizardfolk (40 ACP) Investigator or a Tiefling (80 ACP) Warpriest right away.

So why are you still complaining about having to "wait for YEARS?"

At this moment in time I can only really do PBP games, which take a bit to complete

If I spend 80 ACP for my tiefling character, it’ll take a long time to get to enough ACP to get an uncommon ancestry for another character like lizardfolk

That's irrelevant. You would be able to play the Teifling character right away which is what you said you wouldn't be able to do.

Every time anyone confronts you with contradictory facts you either flip-flop your position or you move the goalposts.

You don't ever seem to want to have a real discussion. Instead your goal seems to be to complain endlessly about everything Pathfinder related.

Maybe you should just find a different game.

I'm going to follow HMM's advice now, and I think I'll mute the many, many other complaint threads that you've started as well.

...and also I don’t want to wait for YEARS just so I can play a lizardfolk investigator or a tiefling warpriest due to most of the uncommon ancestries being locked being ACP

People already explained to you that new players get 80 ACP to spend which means that you could play a Lizardfolk (40 ACP) Investigator or a Tiefling (80 ACP) Warpriest right away.

So why are you still complaining about having to "wait for YEARS?"

It's probably a bit more than they intend to add with this errata/update pass, but I'd love a spellcasting Methodology for Investigators.

(The Psychic Detective Archetype was one of my favorite class options in PF1, and I'd love to have something similar available in PF2.)

In PF2 they could model this Methodology on the Eldritch Trickster Rogue by granting a spellcasting multiclass dedication at 1st level. Alternatively it could be a unique system that does something like grant a few cantrips at first level with a few more as they level up.

Regardless of the chosen approach, getting Int-based cantrips through their class at first level is one way to address some of the combat issues that various PF2 Investigator builds face.

Jacob Jett wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

A dire period is also called a comma--a period holding a knife under the table.

OT: Isn't that actually a semi-colon? :P

That's a dire colon, silly.

This conversation is making me giggle repeatedly. :)

I wonder if darkvision will get a name change.

Afterall, it was (to my knowledge) WotC who coined the term when changing it from TSR's infravision, and it has long become ubiquitous to D&D fantasy creatures and characters.

Ah, infravision and ultravision. Those were the days.