Gisher's page

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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. :)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

Linkified.

This was posted on Pathfinder 2e Reddit yesterday.

Barnes & Noble

and

Amazon

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.'

...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.

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. :)

-----
And it would be great if "ranged unarmed attack" was added to the list of qualifying attacks for Devise a Stratagem just like it was added to the Rogue's Sneak Attack options.

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.

Orcs are tall and powerfully built, with long arms and stocky legs. Many orcs top 7 feet in height, though they tend to adopt broad, almost bow-legged stances and slouch forward at the shoulders.

Orcs have rough skin, thick bones, and rock-hard muscles, making them suited to war and other physically demanding tasks. Orc skin color is typically some shade of green, though some orcs have other skin colors that reflect adaptations to their environments.

Orcs consider powerful builds, heavily scarred skin, large tusks, and tattoos attractive, regardless of gender.

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.

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.

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...

-----
Ancestries

• Catfolk

• Dwarf

• Elf

• Gnome

• Goblin

• Halfling

• Hobgoblin

• Human

• Kholo

• Kobold

• Leshy

• Lizardfolk

• Orc

• Poppet

• Ratfolk

• Strix

• Tengu

• Tripkee

-----
Versatile Heritages

• 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.

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.

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'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.

...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