Helvellyn's page

My only slight complaint is that it could do with an index by location. I really like the way it’s laid out and the break down of locations by adventure type is a great idea to help construct adventures. However, there is no way of finding things in reverse (I.e. what is going on if my players are on Vesk 8 for example).

Definition of Instance of Damage.

Although I would prefer them to keep the option open for scenarios for levels 11+ I'm not sure it's going to make much difference in practice.

Paizo has the data on what levels organised play characters are and for Pathfinder Society it has taken six years for the number of level 11 characters to reach a point where an 11+ scenario is considered worthwhile.

They will have similar information for Starfinder society and I'm reasonably confident that if in 5 years time there are sufficient numbers of level 11+ Starfinder characters to make such a scenario worthwhile they will be able to review the decision without people being upset that they have changed their position.

Really getting excited for 2nd edition Starfinder Society play. I always found the Starfinder scenarios to have a lovely tongue in cheek side to them.

One thing they seem to have done with Gunslingers is remove the blanket ban on achieving the highest proficiency on non firearms. Also when making an attack with the melee aspect of a combination firearm you can use your firearm/crossbow proficiency.

I was going to ask this very question so thanks to the opening poster.

We had always worked on the basis that any shield other than a Buckler occupied that hand unless you spent the action to drop the shield and another action to wield it again.

So for example you couldn't take the following actions:

Action sequence A

1] spend an action to regrip a two handed weapon so it could be wielded;
2] spend an action attacking with that weapon;
FA] use a free action to release the second hand;
3] spend a final action to raise the shield (As the hand with the shield is now free).

This was because you would need to spend and action to drop the shield before before spending another action to wield the shield

Instead the order of actions would have to be:

Action sequence B

1] spend an action to regrip a two handed weapon so it could be wielded;
2] spend an action attacking with that weapon;
3] spend a free action to release the second hand from the weapon;
4] spend an action to wield the shield;
5] spend an action to raise the shield;
6] spend an action to drop the shield as per page 416 (Which wouldn't fall due to the strapping but would free up your hand);
Then you were back to 1].

The effect was that you couldn't use a shield with a two handed weapon
in practice because you would loose so many actions. For it to work you would then need some kind of ability that would allow you to combine some of these actions (Like the Lightning Swap feat).

Bucklers, on the other hand allowed you to freely grip a two handed weapon, or take an interact action and then providing you were not still holding a weapon in the buckler hand, raise the buckler. As a result you could use action sequence A with a buckler making using a buckler and two handed sword practical without needed any special feats. You could also use this rotation to free up your hand so you could use it for any actions that required a free hand before subsequently raising the buckler as your hand wouldn't be holding a weapon.

Recently however, this was raised in an organised play game so we did our usual process of retaining our previous approach for the session with a commitment to double check the rules at some point after the game. However, upon going through the rules I could not find a clear rule to support our existing ruling or our ruling on using the buckler.

So if anyone can point in the correct direction (To either support or overturn the ruling) that would be of great interest to me too.

A definition on "Instance of damage" and how it interacts with weaknesses, resistances and Thaumaturge Personal Antithesis ability.

There aren't a huge number of lodges in Tian Xia. There's a big one in Goka (Lantern Lodge), an independent city on the west coast of Tian Xia which I think acts as a central control point for any other lodges in Tian Xia which the Pathfinder Society book lists as: Haseong (Hwanggot), Kayajima (Minkai), Zom Kullan (Nagajor), Ramparassad (Dtang Ma).

Other than that there is a new lodge on an island off the coast of Minkai (The Three Gates lodge).

There is also at least two lodges on a ship. A lodge actually in Galt and there are some others in the Society source book.

The one in Galt is a major one and critical to the success of the Pathfinders. It also has a lot of scope for subterfuge and interaction with the locals. So players will need to have a good head on their shoulders (Sorry couldn't resist).

Are these one spell per side or is the writing just on one side with a picture on the other (I know there is a picture card in the product images but it also has the text "Instructions" on that image so I'm not sure if it is a distinct card rather than just a back to all the spell cards).

There are a couple of rulings from the organised play team to get around some of the more obvious errors and confusion.

Organised Play Errata and FAQ

These will probably become formal errata in due course.

I would like a lot more fighting options.

Not so much new feats and abilities necessarily but structures describing different approaches to fights. For example: Cinematic, realistic, historical (i.e. Roman), etc. This should provide the necessary help to support GMs and players to adopt the approach in their games and the feats, weapons etc that help bring these to life.

New feats etc could then be brought in to allow for better adoption of these approaches.

Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All.

It states that resistance is applied in the same way as weaknesses with only the highest resistance being used. With the exception of Resist All which is called out at the end as a possible ability, the section on resistance does not provide any example or subsequent text to support the statement that you would apply both fire and slashing.

With regards to Mark's quote the main problem with using that is that the rules text has been changed for the remaster.

The text has changed to:

This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

The text has now specifically changed to included traits in the rule. If we take the flaming longsword again, the damage types are slashing and fire as the fire component has a trait (Fire) the sentence applies. The example which also points towards the flaming long sword only effecting the highest weakness was also added after the remaster and as a result there is now additional text supporting a different interpretation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

However, giving this some more thought I think my initial statement about Thaumaturges specifically is incorrect in most cases.
As Personal antithesis has no trait, damage type, or material type; I think you can also make a good claim that the multiple weakness rule doesn't apply to it.

Mortal Weakness is also similar. That ability too doesn't add traits to the attack so unless your triggering the same weakness (Attacking a werewolf with a silver weapon and using Mortal Weakness) again a good argument can be made that the highest weakness only rule doesn't apply here either.

Helvellyn wrote:

sacrelicious2 wrote:

The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.

The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.

Cold iron isn't a distinct damage type from the slashing. It's a modifier to it. See the rules for precious materials: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308

Cold Iron is still a distinct weakness from a weakness to Slashing hence why only the highest weakness applies. I cannot find anything in the core rules to supports the view that each damage type constitutes a separate instance of damage.

The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.

The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.

This has interesting implications for Thaumaturges. Let's say the thaumaturge used Personal Antithesis to grant a creature weakness 5 to it's strikes. If the strike is doing multiple damage types, which damage type does it apply the damage to? The Personal Antithesis feature doesn't specify, just that they have weakness to your strikes. RAW, I would think this means that the weakness gets applied to each damage type separately, given that we are treating them as distinct damage instances.

I would say from the rules that for the purposes of weaknesses (and resistances) you can only apply the extra damage from one weakness. So in this example you would be applying the highest value of weakness that applies. For example: if you have succeeded in applying Personal Antithesis with an attack that also does slashing and fire damage, the extra damage applied would be the highest of Personal Antithesis, Weakness to Slashing Weapons or weakness to Fire.

Bucklers can be very effective for a more defensive minded Swashbuckler but you do need to take the relevant swashbuckler feats for it to be really effective.

Elegant Buckler changes the circumstance bonus for the buckler to +2 rather than the default +1 when you raise it; bringing the AC bonus in line with steel shields. It also lets you regenerate panache if your opponent critically misses.

At 10th level you can get the Buckler Dance feat so you can spend one action to put yourself into a stance where you continuously have a buckler raised without needing to spend actions each round.

Shield Block can be taken whenever you get a general feat which allows you to use the shield block reaction (This does use up a reaction each round so you will loose some potential damage as you will not be able to make Opportune Ripostes).

The basic buckler can take a lot less damage than a steel shield making it very easy to break in comparison. However, this can be overcome and a buckler can be made so it is just as effective at taking blows as a steel shield (although it is more expensive to do). This works because the limit on the damage that a shield can take ends up being the maximum hardness, and maximum hit points from the reinforcing rune. You can therefore use a rare material to make your buckler alongside the reinforcing rune and you can reach those same limits as any other shield with a reinforcing rune.

I just have my characters paid in Ningis.

I've seen a lot of characters when running organised play games and with one exception they all have very varied list of skills they are trained in.

The one exception is Medicine and associated feats which has been present on most characters. The feedback I get is they have Medicine so they don't need to worry about whether they are going to be on a table with a dedicated healer.

In terms of higher levels of skill than trained the nature of organised play (Specifically the rarity of scenarios past level 9) means that most have concentrated on the skills required by their class as they haven't really reached the point yet where you can start increasing more than one or two skills.

Thank you.

Pre-Remaster a few feats had a specific class's DC listed (so few I couldn't find them if asked, though I recall running into it when crafting some MCD builds years ago...meaning I could be mistaken too!). After Remaster it's clear there's no distinction made of separate Class DCs. Class DC is one thing. Use your highest like a caster uses their highest Spell DC and gets to use them across all spells. The exception is Kineticist which explicitly calls it Kineticist Class DC.

Some classes have both, but most don't so need to pick up the other when they take an MCD that uses the other. Otherwise some feats would be useless to them. I'd argue that since the DC seldom progresses (Kineticist again being the exception w/ an IMO costly, but necessary feat since that drives all their offense). So gaining a Class DC or Spell DC when you already have one is redundant, made to prop up some non-functional PCs to functional in their MCD's abilities.

This leads to some odd situations, like a Commander becoming extraordinary w/ Snares while a Wizard remains only Trained. Not that it's imbalanced, since the Wizard's gains so much with non-Arcane scrolls using their Spell DC (via Trick Magic Item if necessary).

Is this right?

Each class is trained in a specific DC for their class (Monks get Monk Class DC, Fighters get Fighter Class DC etc. Although the abilities do just call out your Class DC, but if a Fighter feat calls out class DC surely it would be Fighter Class DC?

Thanks for the responses.

I've been looking all over but I can't find what the range is for setting a snare.

Does it have to be adjacent to you are can you create a snare and throw it into a space further away from you.

I'm sure there is something somewhere but I can't find it.

Helvellyn wrote:

If you want another D4 melee weapon, the Tian Xia character guide has the Liuyedao as a D4 weapon with the Deadly D4 trait (Also the Agile, Finess, Versatile P and Sweep traits).

What category [simple, martial or advanced]?

Martial

If you want another D4 melee weapon, the Tian Xia character guide has the Liuyedao as a D4 weapon with the Deadly D4 trait (Also the Agile, Finess, Versatile P and Sweep traits).

Monastic Weaponry now allows weapons you have familiarity with as Monk weapons as they gain the monk trait.

pg 118 Player Core 2

"If you have familiarity with an agile or finesse weapon (such as from the Catfolk Weapon Familiarity feat} the weapon gains the monk trait for you."

Weapon Familiarity isn't defined anywhere but with most of the races they have a weapon familiarity feat identical to the Catfolk one, it is pretty clear in terms what counts as weapon familiarity for those races.

Humans however don't have a Weapon Familiarity Feat but they do have Unconventional Weaponry. The wording of which is different to that used in the racial familiarity feats {and is a different name}.

pg 64 Player Core

If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can instead choose an uncommon advanced weapon that has an ancestry’s trait or is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon and have familiarity with that weapon. For the purpose of proficiency, you treat it as a martial weapon."

Although Unconventional Weaponry doesn't have the word familiarity in the name, the Monastic weaponry feat just states that you need familiarity with the weapon and Unconventional Weapon does use that language.

Is this how others see this?

Helvellyn wrote:

I might have missed the text in the book but having read through the swashbuckler, none of the Finishers have the attack trait.

The general text for them includes the rule that you cannot take any actions with the attack trait after you use an action with the finisher trait but there is nothing to say that finishers themselves have the attack trait.

I'm pretty sure from reading the other text that they are meant to as it talks about finishers being an attack but the trait itself is missing and there is no text about finisher's being a strike either.

This is covered by Subordinate Actions, which is on page 415 of Player core. The relevant part being:

"An action might allow you to use a simpler action— usually one of the Basic Actions on page 416—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it’s modified in any ways listed in the larger action"

Finishers all call for one or more Strikes. Strike has the Attack trait and as such is affected by MAP.

Yeah, I'd missed the description of each finisher; so although the general text on finishers doesn't mention making a strike it's in the description of each individual finisher.

I might have missed the text in the book but having read through the swashbuckler, none of the Finishers have the attack trait.

The general text for them includes the rule that you cannot take any actions with the attack trait after you use an action with the finisher trait but there is nothing to say that finishers themselves have the attack trait.

I'm pretty sure from reading the other text that they are meant to as it talks about finishers being an attack but the trait itself is missing and there is no text about finisher's being a strike either.

Great that they've started doing the pawns again. I can go back to my regular Dad joke at the gaming shop where I discuss my Pawn collection.

Hopefully they'll do some of the hardbacks that contained lots of monsters like Book of the Dead. Perhaps an anthology of some of the books into one pawn set?

I think it's a bit of a shame that there aren't Commander options for having Int, Wis or Cha as a key stat. There are different types of commander in fiction:

The Intelligence Mastermind that knows every strategy and identifies every enemy weakness through study of the enemies culture etc.

The wise and/or mystical commander with an uncanny or supernatural sense of how the battle is playing out, able to instinctively feel the flow of the fighting and instantly spot weaknesses in the enemies formation.

The commander who is charismatic and as a result is loved by his squad mates, able to easily communicate anything to them, and maybe also strike a bit of terror in the opponent.

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.