Swan Maiden

JackieLane's page

Organized Play Member. 201 posts (701 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think diagonal movement from other move actions should count when players are using Step. If my players want to spend a whole action moving carefully on a short distance instead of moving their full speed, I don't care if they happened to move diagonally an odd number of times with previous actions. I just treat step as its own separate thing. However, I do agree if someone can step 10' in a single action, it shouldn't be two diagonals.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to add that if the elven feat you're worried about is Elven Instincts, that is not gone, but won't get reprinted, since it came from the Lost Omens Character Guide book, which is still valid, but not core.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
keftiu wrote:

Two trolling reviews on this one, now.

One wonders what it takes to catch a ban.

Dude is really asking for it, using an obvious sockpuppet account. Or the original one was banned. I really think the mods should be removing all the one star, no written reviews from him, since they are so obviously in bad faith.
The new website might have a feature restricting reviews to people who actually bought the product. That could be a definite improvement.

I'm not so sure about that. If they did, people who buy their products from brick and mortar stores wouldn't be able to post reviews.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like you're looking for Jaidi, Erastil's wife, goddess of agriculture (with the family domain), who, in universe, has received much less attention since the fall of Azlant (somehow). I kinda wish she was given more importance, but she only has stats for worshippers in 2e, no full write-up. And yes, nature and family are the domains that would be most closely associated with concerns of agriculture and fertility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the moment, I'd say Strix. I love them, and I'd like more lore and feats to represent Strix that don't come from Cheliax, especially lower level feats not related to flight or hatred of humans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm looking forward to any non Europe-adjacent Lost Omens regional book (Golden Road, Tian Xia, Arcadia, Casmaron, mainly, but Darklands or First World would be interesting too).

As for the mechanical side of things, while new classes are always exciting, I'm most looking forward to new options for existing classes, such as witch lessons (priority to that, I want focus spell options that allow new thematically interesting choices), sorcerer bloodlines, barbarian instincts and feats for the classes, especially for caster classes.

Oh, and new skill feats with interesting effects.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

19 out of 19. Think of it like damage that can't be healed until you lose the drained condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my case, I give them a little extra information for free.

First, whenever players run into a haunt and notice it, I confirm that this does look like a haunt, which means positive damage and religion checks are likely to help with it (generic meta knowledge), but there may be other, easier, more specific ways to deal with it.

I also give more or less complex descriptions of the haunts (what the spirits are doing or saying, what it feels like), treating it kind of like a riddle or puzzle, so that players can try to figure out what might help, and I stay open to creative and interesting solutions if they make sense for the specific haunt. So players get to figure it out themselves or have their characters figure it out through rolls.

Of course, this may not be to every group's liking (it's challenging the players rather than the characters), and if you don't like it, I recommend allowing retries like others have said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd probably let them do it.

Have them make stealth checks to see if the goblin notices, otherwise the goblin may call for help or lead them to a different location, which you can use to take them to whatever encounter you'd rather have them do.

If they manage to follow, give ample warning (hearing lots of goblin voices and such). Your players might decide the information is enough for now. They might also decide that they can pick a fight with 12 goblins at once or have some clever plan. Whatever they do, unless they die, it's not going to cause much trouble to the plot, so let them try. Maybe just have the Barghest be gone somewhere when they get there, since that would be far too dangerous (I actually removed him and replaced him with a higher-level goblin, since I just didn't like the idea of a barghest being on this island and just sitting there with the goblins while other powerful intelligent beings schemed all around). 12 goblins is already a lot for a level 1 party.

If you don't want the fight, you could also have the goblin stumble into some hazard or wandering monster, likely getting killed unless the PCs save them. Then, you'd get a chance to trigger an encounter and give the players a warning that some things on the island are very dangerous, and you would delay their finding the tribe. They might still just go looking for it, though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really have that feeling. Of course, there have been some weaker options (and some downright useless spells), but a lot of options have turned out to be very good, and most are pretty balanced with everything else (sometimes harder to play, but able to be just as good as core classes, and better in a specific type of situation).

The oracle is hard to play, but much better than a divine sorcerer, imo. The magus looks really good. I'd take a Forensics investigator over a healing alchemist anytime. The gunslinger is a better ranged fighter if you can convince your GM to let you have good firearms. I'll admit the witch feels "meh" to me, but it does it in the same way wizard feels "meh", by being powerful, but having little really unique and useful stuff. The witch is just a little worse because it hasn't been given extra options and it really needs more lessons to allow more variety in builds.

I feel like they are targeting the middle of the pack in terms of strength of the Core, and that's fine to me. Not everything needs to be "the best". I'll admit they hit a little lower than middle (especially in playtests) more often than they reach higher, and I'd like to see them a little more confident at times, but it's not so much that I want to keep to core options.

The thing is, they have to make something new, and when you already have the best possible to-hit (Fighter), the best possible buffing cantrips (Bard), the best possible multi-attacker (Ranger), the biggest amount of heal spells without drawback (Cleric) that you can get without breaking the game's math, it's difficult to hit that power without overstepping that niche or adding extra complications, because it needs to feel different. So new classes end up either being harder to play, being more versatile instead of specialized, or doing something weird and niche really well. Basically, all the most straight-forward, obviously good options were printed in the Core. Now, the good new content's strengths end up less obvious, which makes the bad options stand out more, but I think there is still a lot of good, cool stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you do get +3 AC from your proficiency. Don't forget it increases at every level.

How much Strength and Dexterity does your character have? If you have a Dex bonus, you would have one more AC with Chain mail than your current calculation, since it has a max Dex bonus of +1. If you're waiting to get enough money for a full plate and don't have a Dex bonus, though, that is understandable. Also, depending on what you needed to buy at character creation, you may want to look into Splint Mail, which would give you one more AC. It is more expensive, but if you have the gold to spare and enough Strength, there are no drawbacks to having that instead of Chain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kinda curious as to why you say you have low AC. At first level, it might not be maxed since you can't afford a full plate armor yet, but it should be pretty decent, and it will quickly become very good (considering in Pathfinder 2E, the math is made so you can't make a character that is almost impossible to hit). What does your AC look like?

As for your actual question about Retributive Strike, let's take a look at that. The trigger states an enemy has to damage (so successfully attack) an ally of yours, and they both have to be within 15 feet of you. Even if the enemy isn't within your reach, so long as they are in range, you can use the reaction and protect your ally.

As for the timing, since it says they gain resistance to all damage "against the triggering damage", it means they are protected right away, against this specific attack.

Finally, the last sentence of the description says "If the foe is within reach, make a melee Strike against it", so unless you have a reach weapon or some other means of getting reach, you can't Strike the foe as part of that reaction if they are on the other side of your ally (for now. I'm pretty sure there are feats to allow it if you want).

So in the situation you are describing, with a mefit attacking your ally while you are 10 feet from the mefit, your ally would take only 3 slashing damage from that Strike (and full damage from further Strikes if they happen later before you get another reaction), but you could not attack the mefit with your hammer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Thaliak wrote:
Thanks to a post Gisher made in another thread, I now know that druids are the only full casters without Cantrip Expansion.

The thing is, almost any caster dedication is strictly better and gives these two cantrips. So now I don't see almost any value in this feat.

Even if this dedication is not based on your best stat, you could just take utility cantrips there and free main cantrip slots for something using your bonuses.

That may work, until there's an archetype you actually want for the full archetype and can't take it because you have to take two feats from the multiclass. Cantrip Expansion is certainly not my favorite feat, but it has its place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty happy with how things are, personally. I'm always happy to get more rule options both as a player and a GM, but I love reading the lore. Sometimes I wish there were a few more new player options in some of the Lost Omens books, but they're generally a really fun read. If they need to keep it rules-light to avoid things getting unbalanced or broken, I'm fine with that. As for the rulebooks line, I'm currently reading through Secrets of Magic and it seems like a great ratio to me. I'll admit the little bits of story interspersed among the spells are making it much easier for me to get through a few pages at a time without zoning out, so I end up appreciating both more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want something that we know nothing about and never will, then it's the continent of Sarusan. (I've always wondered why people don't just homebrew instead, though. Genuine question.)

If you want something that you could get some information about the general region, but not about any specific landmarks, maybe make up an island in the ruined continent of Azlant? There are some islands that have been described in adventures and APs, but it used to be a whole continent, so it makes sense that some are not known, and it's a nice way to have a somewhat enclosed world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This all looks really interesting! While I didn't have time or opportunity to participate in the playtest, I read the documents and the changes announced sound compelling. I'll be looking forward to getting Grand Archive!

I'm a little confused about the Creature Echo feats, though. Are they meant to replace a class feat in the character progression? Or are they solely intended as a sort of boon, as an extra feat?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the "movement cost" applies to Step, since the Step action isn't based on movement speed except for requiring that you have at least 10 feet of speed. My understanding is that the feat simply gives you the ability to essentially ignore difficult terrain when it comes to the Step action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cernunnos seems like the closest fit, although to my knowledge we don't know much about him, and he obviously doesn't have the "mother" part of the role, which is fine to me. And yes, Jaidi fits the Demeter role quite well. In fact, if you take that whole family as a sort of pantheon, it would work great : Erastil and Jaidi are the parents of Halcamora and Cernunnos.

As for gods of animals other than hunt-focused ones and Cernunnos, I recall something mentioned in Ruins of Azlant : There was a very ancient god of animals and travel at some point, but he was killed by Lamashtu, who stole his powers over animals and beasts and twisted them. Just found his name : Curchanus. It's in the description of a staff.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

It's an optional rule, so by default it's not considered when it comes to builds ( unless you specifically ask for it).

Personally, I happened to see that even though a character is still bound to its 3 actions + 1 reaction per round, being given more stuff could make the game easier.

- more skills
- more spells
- better saves/attacks
- too much versatility ( everybody being able to do anything, or being able to do stuff they normally couldn't because of "choices")

But fun is subjective, so if on the one hand somebody might find not appealing playing with a party with characters too versatile, on the other hand another person might find it more entertaining.

I think you're referring to dual classing, which is much more powerful than free archetype. Free archetype just gives extra class feats. It can be used for a few extra skills or spells with the right archetype, but it doesn't affect saves and doesn't allow one to do just anything.

To answer OP, I haven't tried free archetype because my players wanted to start playing the game without alternate rules at first so they could get a feel for it. Some of them think it will be far too strong and don't even want to entertain the idea. For my part, I've been enjoying the game without free archetype, but I'll admit it is compelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I so want a shifter class that could fully use bestiary entries. XD

Things I'd imagine my perfect shifter to be :

- You can stay shifted basically all the time if it's a form somewhat lower than your level (no super strong constant abilities).
- Turning into your strongest forms is a focus power.
- You pick specific forms straight from bestiaries and gain their senses, base movement speeds, attacks and vulnerabilities (weakness or special vulnerability).
- To avoid people being able to turn into everything and solve every problem, you are limited to a few forms. When leveling up, you choose forms much like a spontaneous caster picks spells.
- There might also be a "sub-class" that you pick at the beginning which dictates what type of creature you can become, with feats allowing you to grab extra types of creatures. These sub-classes would also give you specific benefits from the start, so you might get better unarmed proficiencies if you select animal, a spell-casting proficiency or ability to cast cantrips if you pick fairies, etc. Initial publishing would include animal, plant, fairy, ooze and elemental sub-classes, with others like dragon, celestial and fiend coming in further books.
- You would use your own stats for proficiencies and bonus damage. That way, you keep your own skills, not the ones for whatever creature you picked, and you can build for a more caster-like shifter with shapes that grant spells or build for a more martial-like shifter with high strength and so on. This would make the class very versatile without making every shifter a perfect jack-of-all-trades that outshines everyone by just picking the right shape.
- Some feats give you extra focus powers or better regeneration.
- Some feats give you bonuses when interacting with creatures of a similar type.
- Some feats make you better at Recall Knowledge about creatures of your type (maybe you always get one extra info?).
- Some feats grant you access to turning into creatures other than your main type.
- Some feats grant you access to your creature's more special abilities, such as spell-casting, auras, unique actions, resistances and immunities, etc.

I'm probably expecting too much, but that would be amazing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's plenty of dark stuff in 2E, but most of it is in the adventures. I suspect it's intentional, because that's where the majority of the scary dangerous things should be.

The Lost Omens books, while they include plenty of plot-hooks and some darker elements depending on which one you read, seem to bring more of a sense of wonder and amazement at a fantasy world you'll want to take a part in (and protect from the dark stuff in the adventures), which I absolutely love. I like settings that tell me about how the people live and all the cool things you can find. It helps me care more for the world and pick out the things I think will interest players or fit with my character in game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, I bristled a little when I read you tried to swap characters with a woman in this situation. Is it supposed to be easier for her because she's a woman? Actually, don't answer that, just ask yourself why you wanted to do that. Still, I'll try to be useful.

A few things to consider :

- First and foremost, respectfully and calmly talk to the rogue's player about the fact that you are uncomfortable with this and what your limits are, whether it's a hard limit on romance or just boundaries you won't cross. Not every romance has to be very showy, and not everything needs to be described. Also if the rogue's player is making you uncomfortable, he needs to know.

- You may want to talk with your group as well. In my group, while fights can be vividly described and somewhat gore, anything romance (it's rare in our group) is generally kept PG (not even PG13) as characters seek privacy for anything more than a very brief exchange or general attitude. It avoids hogging the spotlight for things that, while relevant to a couple characters, are not relevant for the whole party and for the main story. If you want to just do a brief summary of what happens without playing out the whole conversation or describing every detail, if it's not something you normally do for other situations, you can announce that you would rather keep it at that for parts pertaining to the budding romance.

- Is your character even interested? The rogue may well have an unrequited love. Manika sounds very gentle and caring, but she can still gently let him know she doesn't see him that way. Maybe she really does see the whole party as her family. Leave it to him to play the heartbroken character if he wants.

- You don't need weeks of "fade to black" down-time, just the moments you don't want to describe. Do you describe absolutely everything? Do you describe your character using the bathroom? Do you spend 24 hours irl roleplaying every conversation and action in a 24 hour in-game day? You can fade out unnecessary things even if the party is always gathered.

If you do decide to let the romance happen in game, you'll probably want to rp the initial conversation about it and there may be a kiss mentioned (with a reply letting others know whether your character responds positively or not), but you should feel free to put a stop to it when it has reached a point you don't want to go past. You can do that by describing your characters going further from the party and basically calling out "fade to black", by describing a general idea of what is being discussed/done without going into detail or full rp, or (especially if the rogue's player goes too far for you faster than you expected) just cut in and say "hey, let's put a stop to this". As rp-heavy as a group may be, it should never be so enforced that you can't respect your own limits.

Other than those key dramatic moments like the initial acceptance of romantic feelings, I generally like to make the romance show in simple, small details that don't take much time to add in. It may be a new nickname, a small attention like offering the other character a gift, a brief gesture, an exchanged look, a tendency to check on the other's wounds first when nobody is grievously injured, a comment about future plans/dreams as a couple. Little things like that can show the affection between the characters without turning into weird flirtation around the table.

*Edited to swap two paragraphs because I wrote "first" in my second one. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Owl people? Absolutely would love to see them (and just find out more about Arcadia in general). If they are such a big deal, hopefully, a lot of them are not villains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've only played lower levels so far (1 to 5), but my experience is similar. I think even at lower levels PF1 combat is slightly shorter, and it will only get better. Even with new players, it seems to be much easier and quicker. It certainly is easier and faster for me as a GM, as I have less things to track and less things to try and remember (you know, that pesky hidden info on PF1 stat blocks like what feats do and what "x creature type" means, which are now generally all written out in the stat-block).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, this is bound to happen. Sometimes, new feats have prerequisites that previously made characters don't have. Only some previously-made dhampir characters would be locked out of that feat, though, since the Straveika and Svetocher lineages are from the APG.

Still, if you want that feat, I'd talk to your GM. The main point of the prerequisite seems to be to avoid Ru-Shi and Adhyabhau dhampirs drinking blood (since their lineage doesn't drink blood at all). Some GMs might require that you have a lineage feat as a sort of tax, others might be open to letting you take the feat without it. You might also convince your GM to just let you change your 1st level feat. As The Raven Black said, just ask nicely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there's been an errata. I just compared my first-print copy of the Core Rulebook to Archives of Nethys, which now states, for the druid dedication, that "You are bound to the druid's anathema" right beside you learning the druidic language, before mentioning picking an order and being bound to its anathema as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welcome! I hope you'll enjoy your experience.

As for your question, you can't learn them in that way. To my knowledge, so far, witches can only learn one hex cantrip from their patron.

Basically, what you're describing with familiars and scrolls is the Learn a Spell activity, which specifies you can learn a spell from your tradition's spell list. Focus spells like hexes, however, are not on any of the four spell lists. Instead, focus spells are special powers that work much like spells, expect that they are only granted to specific classes through feats and features. I hope this helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does seem like you only get the senses and movement abilities. They have to specify a spell level for the sake of things like counteracting magic.

It has its uses and would be amazing for some characters (extra speed is good on anyone), but I'll admit it's not very impressive for an elven barbarian. Unless you absolutely want to turn into an animal for rp purposes or something, it might be best to pick some other feat on this specific character.


22 people marked this as a favorite.

The "unique" tag is purely a game term indicating a unique stat block, which makes sense to me. It is usually quite easy, then, to look up the type of creature (orc, green dragon, drow) and see its rarity and what they have in common, which is what would be obtained through most Recall Knowledge checks. Of course every orc is unique as a person, but it's a game term, with some orcs not being named and differentiated as a way to simplify the game. They use the tag only for npcs that don't have just the stats from the Bestiary or GMG, so you know to check the specific new stat block.

Graytusk is a specific orc in an adventure, who doesn't have the same level, stats and abilities as the orcs from the bestiary. Someone encountering Graytusk shouldn't know the specific abilities (oh, this one is especially good at reflex checks and has these ranger abilities), but they should still know about orc ferocity. You don't need to look up a specific class of orc, since she is unique exactly because she is not one of those classes. You only need to know in general what orcs are, and that they are quite common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll take the liberty to respond to that latest question :

It's a matter of the system itself, not lack of options. So far, new feats have been ways to allow yourself to do more things or do them in new ways. Very few options actually change numbers, and those always work with the basic idea of proficiencies and the three types of bonuses. There are also new things to pick out at every level, so there is always something new to look forward to as you level up.

As options accumulate, it might be easier to find more situations in which you can make use of those max stats or more situations in which you can get small bonuses, but the math in this iteration is super tight and you can't stack semi-infinite numbers of bonuses.

I do get the feeling, as Staffan said, that the most important decisions (or at least a large number of them) are made around the table, during games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 7th level Dinosaur form is double the damage dice from the base spell, not from the heightened version, so it does make sense. The difference between 4 and 5 is similar to the difference between level 4 and 5 animal form. Elemental form does the same between 6 and 7.

Basically, if you turn into a Stegosaurus with Dinosaur Form, you'll get the following damage.
Level 4 : 2d8+9 (average 18)
Level 5 : 4d8+6 (average 24)
Level 7 : 4d8+15 (average 33)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The regional backgrounds Belkzen Slayer and Ulfen Raider both give Intimidating glare. As for Bon Mot, I don't know any, but it might happen some day. There have not been many new backgrounds since APG came out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not that weird. In this case, when designing this feat, they probably focused more on the proficiency prerequisite than the level they wanted it to be available. Once they decided it should be available to people who are experts in heavy armor, they looked at what class could get that the earliest, the champion, and gave the feat the appropriate level. So now, paladins and tyrants (or fallen champions of other alignments) can get this at level 8, and other characters can take the feat later. It's a lot like all the skill feats that have odd level requirements just because of the rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi! I'm not looking to join your game, but I noticed Down the Blighted Path on your list and I intend to convert that module for my own group soon enough. I'd love someone to share ideas with, so feel free to send me a message if you end up converting that. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kind of confused as to why we are comparing Scare to Death to Finger of Death, a spell which is, despite its name, just a big blast of negative energy, not a death effect, rather than to, say, Power Word Kill (since we're talking about level 20) or Phantasmal Killer (for level 15, when characters can get Scare to Death, and for an effect that is very similar, giving the frightened condition, potentially an instant kill and having the incapacitation trait, though with the added benefit of damage). I'm aware it's way easier to boost a skill dc than a spell dc, which does kind of bother me, but at least, if the problem is the discrepancy in save dcs, compare things that have similar potential effects, no?

Of course, Power Word Kill won't kill a Balor unless it's already significantly injured, but for the scenario against lower level creatures, it does that job without any saves. Then again, it's a 9th level spell, so that might not be the most awesome use of those very limited spell slots.

Let's look at Phantasmal Killer instead. If the only thing we are looking for is the conditions and death effect (since that's all Scare to Death does), you can do that as a 4th level spell, which means you can start using it much earlier, and if the caster wants just that and doesn't mind lower damage, they can have a whole lot of Phantasmal Killer spells ready when they reach higher levels. The DC is still going to be a few points lower due to not gaining an item bonus, but it's a decent spell that you can get earlier than Scare to Death and which does basically the same effect with extra damage in case you don't manage to kill the target, on top of similar conditions. It's also not affected by a lack of shared languages which makes it better against some enemies. Mindless enemies can't be targeted with that, however.

In the end, is Scare to Death too strong? Maybe, but I think spellcasters do get to compete, and meanwhile they don't have to invest skill increases, stat increases and feats into that, so they can do some other amazing things with their own skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like a neat trick, and not really overpowered, even if it bypasses the immunity after ten minutes.

One thing I would say is that if the caster is further than 30 feet, they get a penalty on intimidate, as they can't assess the reactions quite as well, and it becomes a heavy penalty if they are too far to see and hear what is going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, I was thinking about that whole "summoners aren't that great at summoning things other than their eidolon and seem to have too few spells" and I was wondering :

What if summoners got a special pool just for summon spells, similar to the cleric's healing font? It would be based on some secondary stat, and you would pick a specific Summon spell that would get heightened to your highest level. Then, there could be feats you could pick to sustain summon spells as a free (or fourth) action, feats that give you access to another summon list (for those lists that don't have anything at first level), and feats that buff your summons. I think it would help a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yucka wrote:

Is the Magus Spell Slot list correct?

On the Summoner, the weirdness is explained, but in the Magus they seam to just ignore the fact that the spell slots are restricted.

Considering the existence of the Martial Caster feat (level 6), I think that table is right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no typo there, just unfortunately similar names. Jaidz and Jaidi are two different deities. Jaidz is an empyreal lord of... courage, from my understanding. Jaidi is detailed on page 130, among the "other gods". She is a goddess of agriculture.

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LN (female) Human (wintertouched) Monk 1 HP 20/20 | AC 19 | F +7 R +9 W +6 | Perc +4 | Stealth + 7 Speed 25 | Focus 1/1 | hero points 1 | Active conditions : None

I'm assuming we will be done by GameDay?

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LN (female) Human (wintertouched) Monk 1 HP 20/20 | AC 19 | F +7 R +9 W +6 | Perc +4 | Stealth + 7 Speed 25 | Focus 1/1 | hero points 1 | Active conditions : None

Weakness to negative? That's weird. I'm going to regret this, am I not?

Confident in her knowledge about shadows, Felika focuses her energy and strikes the shadow twice in quick succession, trying to work against the thing's own vital energy.

Using Ki Strike (and my focus point) to flurry, adding 1d6 negative energy to each Strike.

ki strike punch attack: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (14) + 8 = 22
potential bludgeoning damage (second d6 negative): 2d6 + 2 ⇒ (3, 3) + 2 = 8

ki strike punch (2nd) attack: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (3) + 4 = 7
potential bludgeoning damage (second d6 negative): 2d6 + 2 ⇒ (6, 5) + 2 = 13


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that's exactly it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brenden wrote:


Thank you both for the answers.

Since it says it is throwing the skull (thrown presumably) or because it is a jaws attack (what is in other cases in creature stat blocks a melee attack) should we add strength bonus to damage? I think a d4 sounds very reasonable for the die value. Should the skeleton take the -4 circumstance to the demoralize attempt for not having a language targets can understand?

I somehow forgot that about thrown weapons. Yes, adding the Strength bonus would make sense.

As for the penalty on Demoralize when it comes to language, I tend not to apply it when it is on abilities that are clearly not intended to use spoken language (so most monsters with specific abilities don't take penalties, but monsters (or npcs that don't speak the same language) attempting to intimidate with just the skill would). Otherwise the ability wouldn't really be relevant and it would really hurt the feel of the encounter. That's just my call, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering the Skeleton Guard has no intimidation bonus in its stat block, that means it is untrained. Therefore, it would only add its Charisma stat to the die (0, in this case).

As for the jaw attack, skeleton creation rules state that you give the skeleton the Strikes granted by its shape. Since the Skeleton Guard is based on a humanoid with no jaw attack, I'd probably make it 1d4 damage (with no bonus since it is a ranged attack). As for the attack bonus, it should be the same as any other ranged attack on the creature, so +6 in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for the universalist wizard, since the feat requires an arcane school, which I interpret as having picked a school to specialize in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering the rules say that a cleric adds their deity's spells to their list and prepare them like other divine spells, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to heighten them. If I'm not mistaken, only spontaneous casters need to worry about knowing the spell at the right level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assurance isn't meant to make level-appropriate challenges insignificant. It's meant to prevent critical failures, make sure you succeed on the fairly easy checks, and help in situations where circumstances and such would give you a lot of penalties. If it garanteed you make a level-appropriate enemy run away or die, it would make the game rather boring, no?

As for actually using the Scare to Death feat, I don't think it's worth making the whole party revolve around that, but one character maxing his intimidate the way you have stated and having feats, one human character getting high enough intimidate to provide help and one character being a cleric with Heroism doesn't seem so far-fetched and still lets you do lots of other things.

With the stats you have given us, unless you roll a one, you will at least make the balor frightened 2, which is already a pretty good debuff. Then, you have a chance to make it flee (and laugh when it dimension doors one mile away, in this specific case) or to kill it if you're lucky, with just two actions and a spell that lasts for a few encounters and buffs a lot more than just the one skill. I wouldn't call that worthless. Are you just looking for ways to end every non-boss encounter in a single round?

(Also, I don't know the names of the items, but yes, there are items which give an item bonus to intimidate.)

Edit: And of course, there is the matter of possibly debuffing the creature before-hand so that it will get a penalty on saves, but that would increase the number of actions and ressources required, so you decide if that's worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they should be the same skill. I see no real difference between Pathfinder Society and Pathfinder, and the background seems to be meant as something that would eventually lead to a character taking the dedication, so it would make sense that the dedication would make this background's lore better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The dedication feat is the first feat that makes you part of the archetype. (In this case, the initial ranger multiclass feat). Once you have that, you can pick any feat from that archetype you want, so long as you fill the prerequisites such as level or previous feat taken. The limit is that you must take at least two other feats from that archetype before you can start going into a different archetype (for example, multiclassing as monk as well).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
It is a bit jarring to have the value of coins suddenly change.

This is it for me but more than a bit. It seems like like something done JUST to reduce the size of numbers people use: that's cool for new people but seems off for someone coming over from PF1.

That said, this is pretty low on my 'things that bug me' as for as PF2 goes.

I don't think it was meant so much as a way of simplifying math as it was a way of making the world make sense a little more. I guess they could have raised the price of mundane things and the pay-off of crafting and professions and such, but then copper pieces would have been worthless to absolutely everyone.

When you think about it for two seconds, Pathfinder's economy is just weird. We had adventures where homeless, starving children gave the players jewelry worth multiple gold pieces, which could have given them all they needed for what, a year? Regular guards were also walking around with magic weapons worth more than their salary for years to come, possibly even a life-time. Magic item shops were often seemingly worth more than what the whole village owned. Even a second level adventurer was filthy rich by the standards of living for other characters. The only way we got through some role-play moments in my group was through just turning a blind eye to the financial discrepancies.

This new silver based system makes it so it makes a little more sense that lots of people (but not everyone) would be able to get low-level magic items, but adventurers will still become very rich and have impressive items eventually, as they face great dangers and explore forgotten areas.

Edit: I had somehow skipped some of the replies, but yeah, there is also the matter of weight. Carrying enough gold pieces (or even platinum) to buy some of the magic items would be absurd with PF1 costs. It may not be perfect in PF2, but it's at least a little closer to something that makes sense.

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>