Helvellyn's page

So far in the games I've been part of as GM or player we have usually had a disrupted attack count towards the multi attack penalty. Primarily due to the rules for disrupting actions on page 415 of Player Core:

"When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur."

If your have an attack disrupted then you still use the action you committed to and hence as that action has the attack trait it would still count towards your multiple attack penalty.

Initially the specific rules for multiple attack penalty on page 402 of the Player Core seems to agree:

"The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your check. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your check."

However it then goes on to say:

"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."

If an attack is disrupted there is no check so it would fall foul of this definition. As this provides additional definition to the multiple attack penalty does this take precedence and therefore should disrupted actions with the attack trait no longer count towards the multi attack penalty?

Does this not have the automatic pdf that you get with subscriptions.

I’ve received the shipping note for this and monster core but only monster core is available as a download.

My suggestion is that if you want to house rule this in you limit them to lores. It is easier to limit lore scope to prevent them from becoming unbalanced.

Another option to consider is bonus feats, which are easier to track than skill increases.

As a reference for house ruling this in your own game, this is similar to one of the organised play boons where you can use downtime to become trained in a lore skill or a language. It takes 50 days of downtime in organised play, however for home brewing you might need to adjust this as in society play 50 days of downtime is quite a lot (Around 6 adventures) whereas a home campaign might use much greater or lesser amounts of downtime between adventures.

Excellent. I was considering trying to get a second bestiary pawn box as organised play scenarios often require more pawns than one box on its own provides, but this is even better.

Hopefully we can start getting pawns for other books (maybe as a digest edition if individual pawn collections for books like Tian Xia/Rage of Elements etc aren't economically viable).

This was not reprinted. We found a few more in the warehouse and sold them.

While this product will not be reprinted at this time, we have more pawns on the schedule.

Does this mean reprints of existing sets or are you going to start releasing new pawn sets again?

With it starting up at fourth level, I wonder how viable it would be to start the players in Sandpoint at 1st level and run through Burned Offerings to get them to four.

As the death of some deities is going to be a major element of a number of books that Paizo are publishing, I think we can be safe with the assumption that they will publish what happens to worshipers of those deities.

Is there a way for a pathfinder society character to speak Androffan without being an Android? It looks like it’s a rare language and isn’t one of the available ones if your from The Broken Lands.

It will be interesting to see how heavy they go with the story. Is it just the War of the Immortals book or are there going to be additional books, adventure paths and accessories to cover it?

I never liked the idea of the deep underground being full of dangerous psionic monsters and evil elves.

I prefer my center of the earth to bull of barbarians in loincloths and bikinis riding dinosaurs and fighting ancient serpentine mystic cults.

So the idea that the barbarians in loincloths might be elvish works for me.

And even if the reason is legal; I am so glad to see the 'Curse of Ham' get tossed out of the game I prefer.

I misread this and now I can't get the image of a Velociraptor in a swimsuit out of my head.

Not sure if it's an error but Elven Weapon Familiarity no longer includes the Longsword.

Well that's that theory happily defenestrated.

Back to just waiting ;)

I wonder if it's a problem with subscribers outside the US and Canada. I know shops have struggled to get copies of the books in the UK so was wondering if it might all be tied up in that.

What is the correct approach to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook errata?

For example:
In the current remaster guide on spells, if it has a different name you can use the original version. The specific example given relating to produce flame is:

Example: the produce flame spell has not been reprinted, but ignition takes its place thematically. Characters may learn either spell anytime they would learn a new spell, and could learn both spells if they chose.

However in the new Core Rulebook errata it states:

Page 360: In the produce flame cantrip, replace "fire damage equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier" with "2d4 fire damage".

As the standard position on errata and organised play is that you apply the errata, does this mean that those remaster changes that have now been posted as errata to the original ruleset (Core Rulebook, Book of Magic, Dark Archive) also need to be taken into account?

Nine. We probably have enough on the ship now for a training day ;)

No. Instance of damage is only used twice in either book, only to say that weakness/resistance applies once to an instance of damage, with no further guidance. Just like the CRB.

The only example for 'instance of damage' is the same as in the CRB too, a cold iron axe being both cold iron and slashing. Nothing on mixed damage types (except the same example from the CRB about resist all).

Well that's disappointing as is the lack of clarity around unconventional weaponry. I was hoping they would take the opportunity to clarify these rules, but it looks like that is sadly not the case.

Have they clearly defined what is meant by an "Instance of Damage"?

Is the new Trained in spell attack modifier and Trained in spell DC going to be an overarching rule that applies to all spellcasters? I'm just thinking about some of the spell casters that aren't going to be part of Core.

The definition of Instance of Damage (or rather lack of one) has been the cause of much discussion in my organised play groups.

Another issue that it brings has been with the rule that you can only apply the highest weakness to an instance of damage. This has caused a fair degree of spirited debate from people who play a Thaumaturge.

I hope they have clarified it in the remaster but I suspect its now too late to make changes to the books now.

Are there any official rules for falling off a moving vehicle? I can find rules for falling damage but nothing to take into account forward momentum.

I notice that Elemental Blasts list a range, while ranged weapon infusions (From the 1st level feat) have a ranged increment instead.

As written the upshot of this appears to be that your elemental blasts are limited to 60 feet. However if you use weapon infusions your range is significantly increased (Really increased with a 100 feet range increment).

The only disadvantage is that the text from weapon infusion implies that you can only do bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage rather than your elemental damage in these circumstances.

Is this everyone else's reading of this?

Prior to my retirement when we moved to home working we just got given a new mobile phone and account that the company paid for. There was no additional line and we could tether our laptops to the mobile phone and use that to connect up to the virtual network and the wider internet if we wanted (Admittedly most of use just used our home internet provider rather than tethering to the phone as it was easier, quicker and still cost nothing but it wasn't required).

Can't see why you would need to install lines unless there are significant coverage problems.

I'm surprised at the art for Axis. I was not expecting it to look like Planescape's Sigil as I thought that was very much a TSR thing.

The only downer about books like this is that despite their being loads of new monsters and ancestries, we no longer get any Pawns to use them. It really affected my use of Book of the Dead as making my own pawns from the artwork in the PDFs is very time consuming. For the same reason it will probably effect my enjoyment of this book and likely the Tian Xia ones too.

If I remember rightly aren't Chaosium also signing up to the ORC license? There are a lot of serpentfolk adventures there (Including some recent campaigns). If the Paizo version is similar to the Chaosium version is this going to be an example of Chaosium and Paizo sharing a monster?

There are a few places where I would like to see some minor changes.

I completely agree with the opening poster around defining an instance of damage. Not only does it affect the examples provided but it has quite a profound effect on the Thaumaturge depending upon how it is defined.

Lore skills. I'm okay with the basic concept but think there does need some extra clarity especially on things like unique monsters (I think I know how to handle it but a bit more clarity would not go amiss). My other problem with Lore skills is that they become increasingly problematic at higher levels. Putting improvements into a lore skill is rarely effective as other skills are usually better. It would be nice to make them all auto improve in the same way as they do if taken from the feat.

Definition of succeeding in a roll. This came out when people were looking at the Swashbuckler. Some of the Panache generators required you to succeed at a check, however the question of whether you can succeed at a check against something that is immune. If you follow the stages in the rule book success is achieved during the roll, with later steps taking into account things like immunity. However it does feel against the natural use of the language.

I would like some consistency with weapon proficiency feats. Some allow you to increase in line with your weapon proficiencies available from your class others don't. Then there is some of the odd ones which aren't clear like Unconventional Weaponry.

I hope they balance out the the saves etc that creatures in the bestiary have.
For example: At the moment the number of creatures with a High Fortitude save far outstrips the number with a low one. It would be nice to see the majority of creatures having one high save, one low save and those being distributed evenly between Fort, Reflex and Will saves (More variety of Perception scores would also be good).

Is there a Specialist Crafting specialism that Inventors can apply to their Innovations or Gadgets?

A lot of the specialisms could apply (Artistry for clockwork maybe) but just looking at your Innovation for example, you could justify needing at least Alchemy, Artistry and Blacksmithing.

Is there anything definitive or is it just up to the GM as per the description of the feat?

Although I'm a big fan of a lot of the book, I'm a little disappointed in the shields. Was hoping Sturdy could be a property you could add to shields but as it is, there are very few circumstances where someone would want any of the new shields (including the new specific magical shields) over a Sturdy Shield.

I must admit I found the optional encounters in the past pretty uninteresting.

For obvious reasons they never had key plot elements and so tended to be quite dull. As a result we missed them out unless that affected the chronicle sheet in some way (at which point it probably isn't an optional encounter anymore).

Having to create an optional encounter that is interesting but skippable is a really tough ask of the writer who already has to work to the set time limitations.

Is a weapon implement always considered a weapon?

I'm thinking of a situation where you switch from using your melee weapon implement to a one handed ranged weapon.

For example: You are currently using a short sword as a weapon implement. You then spend an action to draw your one handed ranged weapon (lets say an Air Repeater for simplicity). When you then make an attack with the air repeater do you get to use Implement Empowerment?

If you didn't have a weapon implement (but say an amulet) there would obviously not be a problem as you meet the requirements for Implement's Empowerment (single one handed weapon in one hand and an implement in the other).

However if your implement is a weapon implement, you have more than one weapon in each hand even if you are not using the implement as a weapon. Does this prevent you from using Implement's Empowerment? Or can you treat the weapon implement purely as an implement and not a weapon, thereby allowing you to use Implement's Empowerment for your attacks with your (In this example) Air Repeater?

At 5th level you can avoid this as you can freely switch your weapon implement for your secondary implement avoiding this issue but up until then, can you use your weapon implement as just an implement?

Short Sword is a Martial weapon but Sickle could be used.

Am I missing something with the avid collector boon and it's access to firearms?

It would appear that you can take Avid Collector - Air Repeater and you would gain access to the item and ammunition. Also with it being a simple weapon any class trained in simple weapons would be able to use it without difficulty.

Is this correct?

Cheers

The text for Implement's Empowerment is:

The power of your implement can also be turned to the more common task of combat, its power adding to and amplifying the effects of runes and other magical empowerments. When you Strike, you can trace mystic patterns with an implement you're holding to empower the Strike, causing it to deal 2 additional damage per weapon damage die. Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.

Are you able to use Implement's Empowerment when your implement is a thrown weapon (Likely with a returning rune)?

I'm not sure when the check for holding an implement would be from a rules perspective. Does it check that you're holding an implement at the point when it hits the target and causes the damage or at a point when you throw it?

Any ideas?

I know this sounds like an IT tech asking you to check if a PC is plugged in, but are they calculating their proficiency bonus to the roll accurately? I’ve done a fair few society games where a character keeps getting dropped in combat and upon checking their character sheet they have forgotten to add their level to the proficiency bonus. In particular they have forgotten to add their level to AC, saves, spell DCs and attack rolls.

I probably isn’t that but I have found it is something worth checking before you start looking elsewhere.

Senko wrote:

... they already outshine the mechanic in their own field.

I've noticed this, too, not just with Mechanics. A friend of mine wanted to be an Ace Pilot soldier , but the Operative always had a higher piloting skill. It's like you have to buff other classes with regard to their specialty skills so they just don't all make Operatives.

Although I appreciate this isn't the point of the thread, but the special ops training in the character operations manual does give a way for soldiers to get a similar class bonus to the operative in some skills (Including Piloting).

Does anyone know if there are any subsystems that allow you to reduce the minimum crew needed to use a starship?

Thanks

To be fair to Aaron, what he describes that Paizo are going through are the initial stages any company would go through if they wanted to address significant cultural issues.

Cultural change is difficult and often fails. Creating policies to make the necessary changes requires expertise that just won't exist within most organisations. In addition, companies with cultural issues tend not to actually know the extent of the problem or problems.

Discussing these issues with the people you work with to draw out the problems and the hiring of a full time HR expert is really the starting point. Until this has been done they can't really start to address the problems.

Once they have spoken to their employees and the HR expertise is in place then you would expect to see changes to policy, procedures etc. As tempting as it is to go straight into problem solving mode it just doesn't work in the long run as it doesn't address the root causes.

My one concern is that there has not really been a statement from the top to set out where they stand on diversity and inclusion. Paizo constantly imply that it is their products and refer to it in blogs and forum posts but you would expect it to be up front on the website and if it does exist I can’t find it. Admittedly as that kind of statement would tend to come at CEO/Chairman level it would probably be Jeff’s to make which might not help considering some of the allegations.

The guide to organised play states:

The following conditions are not automatically removed and must be cleared from the character before the end of the adventure or the character ceases to be available for organized play:

Death
Permanent negative effects, including polymorph or petrification
Curses

Does this mean that if you don't have the Achivement points to pay for a Second Chance Boon at the time of the adventure you can never make the character available for organised play again? Or, can you purchase the boon at some point in the future when you have saved up enough achivement points from playing other characters and then be able to use the character again?

Helvellyn wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?

Not many, it's pretty rare.

But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.

After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.

Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.

Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.

According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.

The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.

I haven’t updated this spreadsheet since FotRP came out, it takes a long time to run and some parts (speed, a few errors) I have to fix up manually afterwards, so 2288 is a little under the current monsters in the game (missing Malevolence, FotRP 1-3 and SoT 1, along with any PFS scenarios that have come out).

Should still be a pretty good indicator of the overall frequency of precision immunity and AoO (note: this is things specifically named AoO, not any other feature that is like AoO and can still significantly disrupt a magus’ turn like twisting tail or lurking death).

Can I just say thanks for your work on the spreadsheet. It's something I find really useful.

Squiggit wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?

Not many, it's pretty rare.

But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.

After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.

Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.

Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.

According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.

The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.

Helvellyn wrote:

One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).

Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.

Nothing says you don't, it says you Cast a Spell. Anything that triggers off of casting a spell will trigger. If a subordinate action triggers something, it's still triggered.

Yeah. Rereading the text, Cast a Spell is capitalised so it does refer to the specific action. Although it reduces the output of the class it probably makes them more intresting as you will have to think how to avoid the AoO if you are up against creatures that possess one.

I can see Starlight Span hybrids being quite popular too,

One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).

Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.

I reckon it's going to do to Ultimate Combat what Secrets of Magic did to Ultimate Magic. It's probably the one major absence from the current line up.

Quick question.

For the final fight do you start with a blood ooze and a Dragon Forest Rot and then on round one another blood ooze and dragon forest rot appear or are the creatures listed for round one the intial ones?

Most of the caster first level feats are linked to the class themes. For example the bard's muse gives a 1st level class feat. There is also one non-muse feat for bards which gives an option for a human bard.

The other classes are similar.

There isn't really on consensus on these unfortuately. There are a fair few threads (For example: Does a wit swashbuckler gain panche from a successful, ineffective Bon Mot ) with a number of different view points (Things like success being specifically defined in the glossary as suceeding at a check which as a step preceeds later steps such as applying immunities etc.

In short, it's probably worth chatting through with your GM (You need to get a handle on if they are going to let you gain Panche from other sources anyway so you might as well get their view on this too).

A four point swing on a small number of monsters, as opposed to a +2 bonus that will apply almost every round.

Frequency matters.

I quickly checked 3 random monsters and saw +2, 0, -2 between their will and perceptions. Has someone got proper numbers on it?

I did check out the numbers in detail when the Swashbuckler first came out and if you use the Bestiary then it's a big bonus. There is a clear progression in the liklihood of a creature having a high save/perception DC. If you select only Bestiary creatures then targetting Perception is the worse, then Fortitude, then Reflexes then Will. The number of creatures with a Will save higher than their perception DC is very small.

This had changed a bit in Bestiary 2 and there was a much better spread of high scores for the monsters. I think they realised they had gone overboard on Perception DCs in the orignal Bestiary.

I must admit that I do feel the current number of interesting magic and mundane items is a little on the low side. However, I'm hopeful that the magic sourcebook will add a good number of such items and Guns and Gears will add the more interesting mundane ones.

What I hope they don't do is try and fix a game problem with a class/rule with magic items. It wasn't satisfying to have to use a specific item in Pathfinder 1 to enable certain class builds to be viable so I really hope they don't go down that line for pathfinder 2.

I am quite optimistic that they won't do this however as so far they have fixed issues without reliance on items (or not fixed it at all).

I would have said DC from item level and then modified by item rarity to account for the extra text in brackets.

"The GM determines the DC based on the item’s level (possibly adjusted depending on the item or situation)."

I seem to recall that rarity effects other level based DCs although I may have imagined that.