Jerdane's page

I think there would be another group of cultists who have realized that Razmir isn't divine yet, but believe that he is getting close to achieving it. These ones know their current powers are a bit of a facade but believe that once he ascends they be getting into his actually-divine hierarchy on the ground floor. Maybe if they're his main servant now they'll even get to be transformed into his divine herald? Sounds sweet. These ones might be the ones Razmir uses for tasks like getting Sun Orchid Elixir or researching the Starstone since they're actually invested in him achieving godhood.

IIRC there is a map of Thassilon before Earthfall somewhere. It might help envision how Earthfall affected the coasts and thus guess at their old configuration.

Yeah, that's the one at the end of Rise of New Thassilon, the sixth book of Return of the Runelords.

That all said, if a player wanted to play the mechanics of a Wisdom-based prepared divine caster but didn't want to worship a deity or deal with anathemas or edicts, then I wouldn't mind reflavouring the cleric a bit. I'd probably remove a few deity-specific abilities to make sure that the ability to choose one's domains and the freedom from anathemas didn't make it an objectively better choice. Certainly no free divine skill, and if that's not enough maybe take out the free domain and divine simplicity feats from the doctrines (though certainly they can buy them with their regular feats).

To me it depends on the type of requirement.

If it is a vague thing, like 1E's version of the barbarian or monk, I don't think you should be forced into a certain manor. There were certainly ways to make a character who was an orderly barbarian or a maverick monk. And I am thankful those limits were removed going into 2e

If it is about aligning with a specific character in lore, a deity being the case, I think it's fine to metaphorically sign the contract and be expected to not make them angry with your actions. If you want to be a more vague priest that doesn't align with an existing god, for example, you can probably have your GM tailor a custom god that does match your exact philosophy. But if you wanna be a cleric of pharasma, well it only makes sense you should lose your powers if you decide you wanna practice necromancy.

Then there are the druid orders. They are a bit more dubious, as they approach closer to the vagueness of 1E I just brought up, but their anathema are pretty hard to break, as they are written in a way that if you wanted to break them, you were unlikely to want to be a druid in the first place. So it's at least certainly better than being in the "You're a monk, so you cannot lean toward chaotic mannerisms." deal.

Yeah, that's basically how I feel about it. Monks and barbarians only made a vague sort of sense with their restrictions, so I'm fine with them being free of role-playing restrictions. I can imagine a barbarian who has a rigid sense of honour and a monk who achieves enlightenment by breaking free of the world's arbitrary restrictions. However, clerics (or at least clerics who worship a specific god) really need to have edicts and anathemas to make sense to me.

In many fantasy settings, including Golarion, clerics are servants of their deity, so it would be weird if a deity continued to provide power to a cleric who worked against their deity's goals. It would feel similar to if an NPC gave a PC aid when the PC was helping save his friends from cultists, but then continued to provide the aid when the PC decided to join the cultists and personally sacrifice the NPC's friends. In such a situation I would actually be disturbed if the GM did not have the NPC act in a realistic fashion by withdrawing his aid, and likewise I would be disturbed if the GM had Pharasma continue to give my cleric magic even when he started using it to create an undead army. Essentially, deities function like NPCs in such universes, and NPCs need to act in a semi-coherent fashion or else they really aren't characters at all.

Of course, that just applies to clerics in settings where clerics are servants of specific deities (and where the deities actually exercise agency). In other settings deities don't care what their clerics do or clerics get their power from some impersonal source. In such cases I would not find it disturbing to have a cleric be free of edicts or anathema. I think I'd still find such settings slightly less interesting because I sometimes find it a fun challenge to role-play characters who have to follow unusual strictures, but that's a very personal preference on my part.

Climbing should never be a 1 Crit fail instant death unless the character is doing something incredibly difficult, like climbing across a ceiling. Grab an edge exists almost exactly to prevent things like climbing to be one bad roll = dead.

Also, any time a rope can be tossed down or used, the DC of the task should be 15. Anything that complicates that should be a penalty that assurance overcomes.

Apologies if this is exactly what you meant, but it's worth explicitly pointing out that DC 15 to climb a rope is exactly what's given in the rules for Athletics to Climb since it's listed as an Trained simple task.

(As a side note, another thing about Climbing is that the climbing kit lets you avoid falls if you succeed on a DC 5 flat check, so long as you're only going at half speed. Combine a rope, a climbing kit, and Grab an Edge, and characters can usually avoid falling. The issue is that these tools aren't explicitly called out in a single specific place so they are very easy to miss.)

I doubt I'll ever get the chance to play Myth-Speaker, but that's never stopped me from dreaming up characters for APs before, so...

I'd play an awakened badger barbarian named Alkter inspired by the Greek idea of hospitality/xenia mentioned in the player's guide. When he was a normal badger, a local druid fed him during a harsh snowstorm and let him stay in his tent. This gave the badger a faint understanding of "hospitality", so a few years later he showed hospitality to a hunter by letting him shelter in his burrow during another snowstorm, but the hunter betrayed him by killing his mate and running off with her hide. The druid realized that he'd caused this problem, so he awakened the badger and let him track down an slay the hunter in revenge. Alkter is now somewhat grumpy against the druid for introducing him to the knowledge of good and evil, but he knows he can't so back to his former innocence in the forest, so he's trying to find his place in the city. If he became a hero-god he'd be concerned with hosts, guests, and newly awakened animals.

I would like to see a Fulu Scribe archetype. One that lets you make a number of free fulus per day.

I was just about to say that you could use the Talisman Dabbler archetype for that, but on double-checking it seems that only some fulus have the talisman trait so it wouldn't entirely work.

OK this thread sent me down a rabbit hole of old maps because I was kind of curious as to exactly how revolutionary the terrain-revealing aspect of the map would be in renaissance warfare (not including the troop-revealing aspect for now). Like, maps are important in warfare for sure, but on the other hand the land doesn't change very quickly, and if you're invading your neighbour it's not like the hills and rivers are wandering around (unless you're waging war on the First World, but that's on you). Anyway, it looks like even in the 1600s they had pretty decent maps for most places in England, showing the larger towns, coastlines, rivers, and hills, and these were just the commercial maps that you could buy at a store. It'd probably be a bit different if the wars were being waged in less well-mapped countries, like Iobaria, but I'd imagine that if Andoran decided to "liberate" Isger in the Hellfire Crisis then getting a simple topographic map would probably be very easy and much cheaper than getting a magical version.

(Of course, this is completely separate from the map's daily ability to point out all the troops in the area, which would be obscenely useful. I've got no real argument against that being overpowered. Many historical accounts of battles include words like "Lord So-and-So thought that the opposing army was still three days march away so his army wasn't formed up into battle lines and they got trounced". It also doesn't touch on how it affects hex crawls. I just got dragged into a wiki hole and want your all to suffer too :-P)

It's a little unusual that the writers decided to explicitly mention a specific in-universe event in the class description like that, especially when they didn't really do it for other classes. Maybe they intended the class to be specifically tied to the Godsrain as a bit of flavour for Golarion specifically, but I doubt they'll mind at all if we create Exemplars with other origins.

In that spirit, here's another possible origin story: Gods can bleed even when they don't die. One god gets into a scrap with another god and while neither kills the other they do get some good swings in that spray blood all over the metaphysical battleground. The Exemplar gains their power when they bathe in a river or pool that had been (unknowingly?) contaminated with a drop of that deific blood. For bonus drama, the deity might be of the less-friendly variety and sends their servants to retrieve their missing bit of divinity from the Exemplar.

Why would a GM want to do that? Legitimate question. What is the intent and purpose?

I figure some GMs reflexively deny requests for a more generous interpretation of the rules because they assume the player is trying to get an unfair advantage. Of course, this is partly because some players really are constantly trying wring every possible advantage out of the rules, but it certainly sucks for other players who just want to correct an unfair interpretation.

For Fabios, there unfortunately doesn't seem to be any cut-and-dried statement in the rules about it. The most convincing argument to me is that the equivalent ability for familiars specifically allows the player to define their actions in most situations. You could also bring up Player Core page 206 which states "An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders."

If rules arguments are just making the GM buckle down harder, then maybe you could go for a diplomatic approach and suggest a trial run? The GM might agree for you to run the companion using the more generous interpretation for a set number of encounters (say three) and then review the results. If the GM still considers the results too powerful then they switch to the less-generous interpretation and let you instantly train out of the companion feats (or even switch characters).

If the GM doesn't agree to any of this, then unfortunately this character might have to wait for a more flexible GM...

Not an iconic, but I think Benedict Cumberbatch would make a good Xanderghul. He's got the high cheekbones and would have fun doing all the self-aggrandizing arrogance.

Hmm...

[GM] The Great Gazebo Hunt: Have everyone in the party fail to identify a creature and never tell them what it really was.
[GM] When Suddenly, the Animator Suffered a Fatal Heart Attack!: Have an enemy spontaneously vanish mid-fight because you just realized they were much higher level than the party could defeat.
[GM]Unintended Consequences: Institute a houserule, then later revert to the regular rules.
[GM] Just Cross Your Legs: Create a sprawling mansion for the party to explore, then realize that it does not have a single toilet.

Out with a Bang: Simultaneously kill both an enemy and yourself with your own spell.
Ra-Ra-Rasputin!: Kill the same enemy three times in separate encounters.
Lovers in a Dangerous Time: Marry another party member in-game.
Shoot the Breeze: Critically hit an enemy who is Hidden from you. (This one is admittedly stolen from TF2)
It's Good to Be the King: Gain a royal title.
The Circle of Life: Open a tavern.
I Have a Cunning Plan, My Lord: Successfully execute a plan hatched by a creature whose Intelligence is less than 0.
Fiat Lux: Kill a vampire using sunlight.
Crusaders! We Are Leaving!: Exit a extra-planar fight by teleporting back to your home plane.
Take a Fricking Sip, Babes: Administer three potions in a single fight.

An item like that could also be used for the Locate spell if the serpentfolk go on the lam! As for petrification, that would be quite plausible too as the PCs capture a basilisk and return it to its owner earlier in that very adventure.

(Also, just realized that I referred to serpentfolk as "lizardfolk" in my previous post. Well, too late to edit!)

One option is to convince the lizardfolk to willingly undergo the geas ritual, which would only require the 3rd-rank version. If the lizardfolk were presented with the option of either doing 10 years of hard labour in a highly secure environment or taking the geas and doing 10 years of reparative labour somewhere with much lower security (maybe even in the community itself), they might take the latter. If the PCs want to be involved, you could make it a skill challenge to convince the lizardfolk and find them a suitable job in Nantambu.

Regarding it being worse for the enemy to see us, do you mean that if an enemy guard happens to notice a group of adventurers trying to sneak past, they may decide pretend they didn't see the adventurers because if the guard confronts them then they'll probably just get dismembered by the much more powerful adventurers? If so, that reminds me of a story I heard about a character who used Intimidate to sneak by walking up to guards and telling them "You never saw me" in the most terrifying tone possible...

WRT players who don't use QA, perhaps the player who wants to sneak separately does understand how QA works but they want to roll separately anyway because they consider it advantageous to split up the consequences of failure? If the PCs are using Quiet Allies then a failure on the group Stealth check would presumably make the enemy notice all of the PCs at once; conversely, if one of the PCs decides to roll separately then a failure on the group Stealth check wouldn't cause the separate PC to be noticed (unless they also failed their roll). Rolling separately obviously increases the odds of the enemy noticing at least one PC, but it might let the separate PC start combat unnoticed, which they might consider useful for one reason or another (not drawing fire, going around back of the enemy, using some specific ability that relies on being unnoticed, etc.).

Of course, if the separate player thinks that going separately actually decreases the chance of the enemy noticing at least one person, then they're very wrong and it's likely that they've misread the text of the feat. If they actually have a problem with the math, maybe you could point out that the group's attempt at Stealth will always fail if the PC with the lowest modifier fails, regardless of whether the other PCs use QA, so it's best to use QA to avoid more rolls. Alternatively, you could try an inverted argument and ask them to describe a situation where rolling separately would cause the group to succeed at Stealth where rolling with QA would cause them to fail. That might be helpful for rooting out exactly how they are getting the math wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

I agree that it's odd to bypass their AC like that, but it doesn't feel like an entirely free hit to me. The monk still needs to beat their enemy's Reflex save with Acrobatics to Tumble Through or Critically Succeed at DC 30 check with Athletics to High Jump, so the enemy does have some good defence against it. I'm not terribly familiar with the jumping rules, but I don't think running up a 2-3 foot obstacle would really help because the monk still has to travel 3-4 feet vertically (to account for the enemy's typical height of 6 feet) and at least 10 feet horizontally (to actually jump over them and not on them), which would still require the DC 30 Critical Success.

In terms of damage, it's also more of a half hit than a full hit. When a monk can first get the feat at 2nd level, its 1d6 results in an average of 3.5 damage, whereas a regular unarmed strike will do 1d6 plus the monk's Strength or Dexterity (usually 4 at this point) for a total of 7.5, which is over double. At 20th level, when the monk probably has a major striking weapon or handwraps, Waterfowl Stance increases to 3d6 or 10.5, but the regular unarmed strike increases to 4d6 plus 7 for Strength/Dexterity plus 6 for greater weapon specialization, for a total of 4d6+13 or 27, which is about 2.5 times the damage of Waterfowl Stance.

You're right that Waterfowl Stance has its upsides though. With it, the monk can target a tanky enemy's Reflex DC instead of their AC, add some automatic damage to their movements, squeeze in another attack without worrying about the Multiple Attack Penalty, and more. I just think that these upsides are reasonably balanced by the low damage and other restrictions.

My theory involves some spoilers for Hell's Rebels regarding Mephistopheles:

To piggy-back on one part of what YuriP said, I don't find that there's a big power imbalance with the Fighter's weapon proficiencies (though there might be a bit of an imbalance), I just find it odd and inconsistent with other classes.

To reiterate, all weapon characters have a basic combat trick. Barbarians get rage, Swashbucklers get panache/finishers, Rogues get sneak attack, Rangers get hunter's edge, and Fighters get increased proficiency. The oddity that gets to me is that during levels 1-4 and 19-20 the Fighter's combat trick (increased proficiency) applies to all weapon groups, but during levels 5-18 it only applies to one weapon group. Of course, all other classes have their basic combat tricks restricted to certain types of weapons too, but these restrictions last all the way from levels 1 to 20. Only the Fighter has their combat trick apply to all weapons at lower levels, then have it restricted to a single weapon group at middle levels before having it again apply to all weapon groups at very high levels. It has the weird result of making the Fighter switch from being a master of all weapons to a specialist at one weapon group then back again.

Consider if this applied to other classes and their weapon tricks. Say the Rogue could use sneak attack with all weapons in levels 1-4, then was restricted to using Sneak Attack with only finesse weapons in levels 5-18, then was allowed to use Sneak Attack with all weapons again in levels 19-20. Or if Barbarians could use rage with bows at early levels, then couldn't use it with them at middle levels, then could use it with them again at later levels. That would surely be weird and inconsistent design for those classes and their combat tricks, but for some reason it is applied to the Fighter and its combat trick.

To be clear, I'm not sure whether the best option is to restrict the Fighter to a single weapon group for its combat trick (higher proficiency) or to let it use any weapon with its combat trick. I just think that it should be consistent from level 1-20 because the switching back and forth makes me twitchy!

For me, it is the storytelling in the Adventure Paths. My local chain bookstore had the first three books of Jade Regent AP, so I read bits of them and got enthusiastic at playing in those worlds. Took a while to actually join a group, though, and even after all this time I've only ever managed to play two APs (Age of Worms and Age of Ashes, weirdly enough). My other games have had the GM running a sandbox in their own world, which is less to my taste as I prefer scripted plots with foreshadowing, fancy set pieces, custom maps, and such.

I like using Hero Forge, as well, even if I don't plan on actually buying the minis. Very good tool for realizing your character concept, even if it doesn't have everything perfect I want (compromising is good practice in and of itself, I think).

For online VTTs, pretty much anything works, obviously. Meme images or official art, as long as you think it represents your concept properly. My Hell's Vengeance Oread Gnome named Chrysoberyl has a raw chunk of crystal as his token on Foundry.

If physically playing and money is a concern, Errenor's suggestion is pretty perfect, especially if you like to recycle old boxes you have lying around. We had a boatload of dice when I played 5e with friends a while back, and so we just used different dice whenever we had to pull out the battlemap.

Another use for Hero Force is to take a screenshot of a character and use it as their VTT icon. That's what I'm doing for my current campaign. They have a premium membership if you want to add some fancy effects too.

For fun, maybe Minkai? They're out from under the heel of the oni and Ameiko is probably a pretty chill empress, so life should be reasonably peaceful. It's somewhat isolated from the other countries in Tian Xia, so invasions are less likely. Ameiko is also apparently encouraging trade with the Inner Sea, so hopefully the economy is going upwards as well. If you have political ambitions, you might even be able to convince the imperial seal of one of the four extinct houses to let you restart the house.

I want the Galtan squash from Dance of the Damned: A squash carved like a severed head and drenched in a red sauce so spicy you have to make a Fortitude save to eat it properly!

Rival Academies: Piled higher and deeper.

Which is, for the record, a joking explanation for the acronym "PhD"...

Jerdane wrote:

Of course, a lot of things in politics and warfare do not operate on pure logic. Sometimes a country (either it's leader or it's populace) can let hubris, fear, or anger get the best of them and get into a war that a more objective observer would consider unwise. They also might start an unwise war if their knowledge of the situation is incorrect, either through poor intelligence or outright disinformation from their enemies.

As an example, maybe the leader of Qadria is so proud that he thinks he can conquer Taldor or at least take enough territory to cover himself in glory and convinces his superiors in the empire to allow it by staging a false flag operation that makes it seem like Taldor attacked first. Suddenly, Qadria is in a war they might well lose.

The satrap wants a war, it is the Padishah emperor who wants peace currntly.

Oh yeah, I think that's what I meant but I was too lazy to look up the proper terms, oops! The leader of Qadira (the satrap) is hankering for war but is being held back by his superior in the Padishah empire (the emperor himself). If he manages to trick the emperor into believing that Taldor attacked first, he might be able to start the war that he's been hoping for.

Anyway, it's true that it's pointless to speculate what would happen with extreme amounts of disinformation and irrationality since that could be used to "predict" a war between any two nations on Golarion. I just think a little bit of disinformation and irrationality can be used to explain why a country might go to war based on its existing prejudices and desires even if war isn't actually the best way to achieve them. For example, everyone knows that the government of Andoran strongly dislikes Cheliax for both ideological and practical reasons, but they haven't fully gone to war with them yet because they know that Andoran's army is not strong enough to comfortably win that fight. Add a little disinformation (not even a whole lot) and the picture changes. Perhaps an Andoran diplomat gets offed in Egorian with Cheliax framed for it and Andoran hears rumors that Abrogail has been beefing up some diabolic champions with warshards, so the Andoran government mobilizes its armies to prepare to be invaded. Cheliax notices and mobilizes its armies too, the Andoran population panics and demands a pre-emptive strike against the "obvious" Chelish invasion, and suddenly Andoran is in a war it will have a hard time winning. So I think it's reasonable to imagine how a little irrationality and disinfo might cause a country to act on its existing desires without adding so much irrationality and disinfo that countries start wars that they'd never had any reason to even consider before, like Osirion deciding to take on the Linnorm Kings or something like that.

Of course, a lot of things in politics and warfare do not operate on pure logic. Sometimes a country (either it's leader or it's populace) can let hubris, fear, or anger get the best of them and get into a war that a more objective observer would consider unwise. They also might start an unwise war if their knowledge of the situation is incorrect, either through poor intelligence or outright disinformation from their enemies.

As an example, maybe the leader of Qadria is so proud that he thinks he can conquer Taldor or at least take enough territory to cover himself in glory and convinces his superiors in the empire to allow it by staging a false flag operation that makes it seem like Taldor attacked first. Suddenly, Qadria is in a war they might well lose.

I think the difference between Andoran and Cheliax here is that Cheliax controls the Arch of Aroden, so they can let the pirates into the Inner Sea on the agreement that they only prey on ships under the Andoran flag. If the pirates wanted to take the same offer from Andoran, they'd have to either sail all the way around Garund to enter the Inner Sea from the eastern side (and then back again to return with their loot), or force their way through the Arch on their own. As such, aligning with Cheliax here makes much more sense for the pirates.

As for why pirates would risk their lives for Cheliax, I assume that the deal would be that the pirates could keep most of all of the booty they stole from the Andoran ships and then drop off any Andoran officers to the nearest Chelaxian port for a nice fat bounty. Money talks, and it speaks Infernal!

Kavlor wrote:

I think we will have this sides:

Cheliax, Ravounel, Nidal, Isger, Katapesh goverment, Mzali, Shackles, Korvosa, Molthune, Oprak

vs

Andoran, Nimrathas, Katapesh Firebrands, Senghor, Vidrian, Nimrathans, Kraggodan, Five King Mountains

I don't see the Shackles teaming up with Cheliax.

Also, many nations and groups would probably stay neutral until their opposite take sides, with some "play/trade with all sides" types in between.

This is also asuming A vs B, not some A vs B vs C thing.

For the Shackles, maybe Cheliax doesn't do a full alliance but instead offers the pirate lords letters of marque that lets their ships through the Arch of Aroden so they can prey on Andoran shipping? Privateering like that was pretty common back in the 1700s, so it would make sense that nations might do it in Golarion as well. Would make for some fun mini adventures as well, where the PCs can engage in ship combat!

Alynia wrote:

vyshan wrote:

So with this war, are we going to see Cheliax take more beatings and stop being a threat, or be utterly defeated and another big bad empire is removed from the board?

I am afraid about the same thing to be honest. "Hellbreakers" sounds a lot like Cheliax will loose this. And removing the last "Big bad evil empire" might feel good while doing so in the story itself, but leaves a big hole afterwards narrative-wise.

To be fair, Cheliax works as a bogeyman but every time they appear in APs they get the stuffing kicked out of them and end up taking the L (which makes sense, since they're villains).

Even if we take into account that they win in Hell's Vengeance, this is counterbalanced by how thoroughly they got trounced in Hell's Rebels.

However, I don't think the AP will see Cheliax gone. I think a much better bet, given the geographical positions involved, is that Andoran takes part or the entirety of Isger, which has already tried rebelling before.

That would deal a blow to Cheliax without removing them from the board, so to speak.

Yeah, though if Cheliax loses Isger then they would have very little left of their empire except Nidal, who are pretty independent anyway and are only staying under Abrogail's thumb because pulling off a revolution would be too much of a pain (and not the kind of pain that Kuthites usually enjoy). Cheliax would seem like a new Taldor, a has-been empire restricted to their home country, and in that case it might be better to destroy them outright than turn them into a punching bag.

Ultimately, that's the difficulty that tends to come up if APs are considered canonical: Since good/neutral campaigns are more popular than evil ones, evil threats slowly get eliminated one by one. At the start of the Golarion setting we had foes like the Runelords, the King of Biting Ants, Deskari, Irrisen, the Technic League, and so on, but all of them have been beaten or at least convinced to be less of a jerk. Even in the first evil AP, Hell's Vengeance, the PCs didn't actually make Cheliax more powerful, they just prevented it from collapsing entirely to the Glorious Reclamation.

But of course that doesn't mean the APs should stop being canonical, since people really enjoy seeing their characters have a real effect on the world. Maybe the best option is to to provide new threats or bolster old ones by writing APs like Tyrant's Grasp, where the PCs have to react to a new-ish threat (a freed Tar-Baphon turning Lastwall into the Gravelands) and are just trying to prevent the antagonists from taking over the whole world. In that vein, maybe Hellbreakers could see Cheliax start losing the war with Andoran, so Abrogail spitefully invokes a last-resort option in her covenant with Hell to let devils directly take over, turning Cheliax into a Hellish sort of Worldwound, and the PCs have to evacuate Chelish citizens outside the country and prevent the infernal tide from flowing outside of its borders? Something like that would let the PCs affect the world while still allowing some threats to flourish for future APs.

Yeah, I think C would be RAW but I would certainly allow A since the feat swap does not actually result in the character having an excessive number of high-level feats, which is the actual balance concern.

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

sort of like the entwined succubi statuettes that appear every so often.

I thought we knew their provenance?

New people are still coming into Pathfinder.

Also, just because we know where they're coming from doesn't mean they aren't an Easter egg. We know where the Vandercaskins come from, for example.

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel that if Arazni (a lich) and Nocticula (a demon lord) can change their ways, surely a human such as Sorshen can change too.

I would also argue there is a big diffrence in that those two never really had a choice in the matter whilst Sorshen willing chose to do all that stuff (Also dosent help in the ap itself it comes across less as wanting redemption and more sick of the other runelords with a dose of not wanting ganked by the next adventuring party that comes along)

Arazni certainly never had a choice in going evil, though I'd argue that Nocticula probably did since demons come from highly sinful souls that almost certainly did something awful in their mortal lives.

As for just being semi-redeemed, they all sort of fit into that slot in one way or another, though Sorshen seems certainly the most self-interested and coolly pragmatic about it. I think it's good to see some variety among all the redemption stories, though; some people give up evil after being in enforced evil, some people live in evil happily before gradually deciding against it for moral reasons, and some people live in evil for a long time before realizing that it's no longer cool (or safe) and so decide to avoid it for their own survival. Lots of ways it might come about, though in Sorshen's case if be worried that she might switch back to evil if she saw a great opportunity for it.

That all said, I do agree that Sorshen's redemption story is somewhat less satisfying that the others'. I'll grant that humans would have an easier time of it than demons or undead of course, but my issue is more to do with the story and it's foreshadowing. Specifically, Arazni was portrayed as an unwilling servant of Geb for a long time, especially once it was shown that the Council Libertine were her jailers not her lovers, so it wasn't surprising that once she finally broke free she quickly took a more moderate ethos. Likewise, Nocticula's interest in redemption has been hinted at in multiple APs for years, so everyone who read them was expecting it to become a plot point somewhere along the road (though there was always the possibility it was a ruse for her to assassinate a full deity and take their power, which certainly added some spice to our guesses). On the other hand, Sorshen didn't get an awful lot of screentime before her redemption, and I don't recall any particular hints about her being interested in it beforehand, so it came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course a person in Sorshen's position could certainly come to redemption in the way the AP describes, it just that Sorshen's story didn't have that nice lead-up over the years to tickle my interest.

A few ideas off the top of my head:

1) I agree with yanking info from other creatures, especially creatures of the same group. If a PC fail RK against a Jiang-Shi vampire, they learn that they're vulnerable to ringing hand bells (true) and people announcing their personal secrets (false, that's vetalarana vampires). Kind of hard to come up with those ideas off the top of one's head, of course.

2) If the creature looks reasonably natural, you can make it more or less unusual. If it's a normal bear, say that its fur pattern indicates that it's actually a were-bear in its animal form, or maybe a kind of fey-touched bear that has a roar that causes confusion. On the other hand, if they meet a magical creature like a Silvanshee Agathion, say that it's just a regular cat, people around here are just fond of breeding kitties with funky fur patterns.

3) Meddle with their movement abilities. Yeah, this guy can totally fly, or climb, or burrow, or sprint, or make massive leaps, or run on water, or teleport.

4) If the creature has abilities that only work in certain situations, subtly alter those situations. Hounds of Tindalos can normally teleport to/from any angled surface, so tell the player that they can only teleport to/from surfaces with a gentle curve.

5) Add some on-death effects to creatures that don't have them. Yeah, this guy gives you a death curse, or explodes a round after death (especially funny if the PCs run for cover after killing it and spend an awkward amount of time waiting for it to blow up but nothing happens).

6) If they have fast healing, change what counters it (to avoid player frustration, tell them that the fake counter does not work the first time they try to use it, or else they may spend a painful amount of time trying again and again).

7) Alter the creature's personality. If an NPC is actually very prim and proper, tell the player that they can get in their good books by telling a bawdy joke. If a creature is highly untrustworthy, tell the player that they aren't nice but will follow any agreements they make to the letter.

Howdy!

I'm just putting something together for an upcoming session and I was wondering if anyone knows any good sources about the dimension of time. I'm aware the wiki has a bit, but it really isn't that much. I can obviously make my own stuff, and I most likely will, but if there's any more additional content I can draw on, I'd love to have a look.

Thanks!

Hmm, for books, The Rise of New Thassillon is largely set in the Dimension of Time. That's the 6th book of an entire adventure path, so you'd either get an just that book (which may be unsatisfying) or the entire adventure path (which would be expensive).

Basically the explorable region of the dimension is the island of Stethelos, which is not terribly large and is inhabited by guardians like time flayers and time dragons, plus whoever else has the actual power to get to the plane (it is NOT easily accessible by any stretch of the imagination; in the adventure the PCs need to use a powerful artifact and obscure ritual to manage it). This makes it a good place to stock any ridiculously powerful NPCs you want. Note that people who stay too long have to avoid falling under the spell of the anima mundi, a kind of green moss that covers the whole area and and constantly whispers to people. The whole place is ruled by the god Tawil at'Umr, who is very powerful and capricious, and may ask for PCs to make odd sacrifices if they want to travel into the past.

The other place people could theoretically go is the woods on the Desolate Shore, which are implied to lead to wherever the Hounds of Tindalos come from. However it is obscenely dangerous. The PCs would probably need the blessing of Tawil to even think about venturing there...

The removal of the hag deities is interesting in itself. Wonder if the devs considered their presence to be a bit misogynistic, especially since Kostchtchie is no longer around to represent their opposite. Maybe we'll also see some more benevolent/less malevolent hags as a result.

(It would also be really funny if their sudden absence somehow catapulted Baba Yaga into godhood involuntarily as all their former followers start praying to her out of desperation!)

Bombes, on the other hand...

Sarenrae is the god of the sun, she is not the sun itself. There are also several other sun deities in the setting.

True, though given that she at least represents the sun in some sense it would be reasonable that she might be more easily killed in a way that would suit a sun more than a warrior. Like, maybe she takes on too many responsibilities or power and she explodes (like a supernova) or collapses in on herself (like a black hole), or maybe she uses up her reserves of strength and becomes bloated and powerless (like a main sequence star). None of those things sound like something that Achaekek would be good at, so Sarenrae might do OK against him.

Oh, also, I believe the First Edition Book of the Damned had a series of rituals by which a person could gradually transform themselves into a fiend without needing to die, so it's apparently possible in the lore though if you want to mechanically represent it in Second Edition you'd need to convert it.

Skelms from Bestiary 3 sort of work that way, as are transformed from extremely angry men without dying first. The transformation process apparently includes an existing skelm to manipulate the target into a supernatural level of vindictiveness or rage, but it might suit your needs. See https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1301 for one example.

Regarding foes not going after downed players, there's an odd interaction there with some of the dying rules. While PCs and significant NPCs get to survive dropping to 0 HP, the rules explicitly state that most creatures just die (or are destroyed) at 0 HP. If I were a GM, I'd probably explain away the fact that enemies don't go after downed PCs because they've probably never seen someone be healed from 0 HP before, so as far as they know they'd just be wasting time attacking a corpse. Of course, if an enemy sees a PC get up after hitting 0 HP, they'd probably figure out that the PCs are unusually durable and might start double tapping...

batimpact wrote:

I know Enervation got changed to a 60 ft range 10 ft burst spell from a 30 ft line. It also had a name change that I remember can’t right now.

Edit: It’s called Whispers of the Void now.

Doesn't Live Wire damage only scale 1d4 on a critical hit?

The spell says "Heightened (+1) The slashing damage, initial electricity damage, and persistent electricity damage on a CRITICAL HIT each
increase by 1d4."

I think everyone is assuming it gets +1d4 per Heightened +1, but to me it reads that only critical damage gets the +1d4.

That makes Live Wire a crappy spell, because my caster never crits against AC.

Note that part that says they "EACH increase by 1d4", which to me clearly indicates that all of the damage types increase by 1d4. If the intent was that only the critical damage increased, then the Heightened (+1) description would probably just say "The persistent electricity damage on a critical hit increases by 1d4" and it wouldn't mention the other damage types at all. Also, I can't think of any spell or cantrip that only increases the critical damage and not the regular damage, so that would be pretty unprecedented.

OTOH, it could be the other way around: The horrible volume of death in WWI made someone sick enough of war that they put plans in motion to kill its god. Given WWII, it obviously didn't work...

Wish spell while strong is not anywhere near what some earlier versions of D&D are power wise. This is not erase reality levels of power.

You can basically replicate a 9th level spell effect of your own spell list or 7th level of some other spell list or an effect that replicates similar levels of results.

So you could wish yourself a ton of money and it would likely work like a teleport that grabs that money from somewhere and dumps it in front of you. It is not an end the world power it is I would like to drop a really big rock on a castle type power.

The original 2e version of Wish was limited like that, yeah, but during the remaster the developers renamed that spell Manifestation and created a ritual version of Wish that can literally do "anything" the caster desires. Ascending to godhood is explicitly listed as a possibility, for example. A Wish could therefore do quite a lot of damage to the universe.

Regarding the original question, the ritual takes 1 day to complete and the description does note that "The GM might decide a wish draws the attention of deities or other powerful creatures, leading to interference with the ritual or attempts to undo the wish." So, I would explain the continued existence of the universe by saying that that deities often interfere with wishes that go against their areas of interest and that the annihilation of the universe goes against just about every deity short of Rovagug. As such, even if someone could coerce a genie into casting that wish, they'd end up with every other god on their doorstep within minutes of starting the ritual.

(For less-destructive wishes that don't warrant godly intervention, the spell is theoretically balanced by the fact that the caster only gets exactly what they wish for if they critically succeed on the rolls to perform the ritual. If they merely succeed, their wish has "unintended consequences" that complicate but don't entirely ruin the desired effect. The descriptions of the genies' abilities only says that they "succeed" at the attempt to cast the wish, so the wisher is always going to get those unintended consequences.)

As a historical tidbit, back in the day governments would debase the coins they minted by adding in other metals so they could create more coins, so you often see phrases like "Emperor Blorbicus Maximus debased the coinage yet again to fund his many wars" in Roman histories. Apparently the Roman denarius went from being pure silver to about 2% silver in the end.

In that vein, maybe the treasure that adventurers find in the dungeons is valuable because it dates from a time before the government debased the coinage? OK, yeah, probably not the most compelling plot point...

Ah shoot, I think I mixed up Pharasma's opinions with those of her psychopomps. The wiki does say they sometimes work against those trying to achieve immortality, but doesn't say anything about Pharasma caring much about it.

Kinda feel that Pharasma should have the harm font. Obviously you can't use it to heal under, but she is still the god of death so it would make sense for some of her clerics to finish off people who are trying for immortality...

keftiu wrote:

I mean, Szuriel's waving her sword around on the cover of War of Immortals... it feels like that makes things pretty clear.

EDIT: ...though now that I think on it, both Prey for Death and Curtain Call are part of this event. The former's about Achaekek devotees, the latter seems to have Norgorbor-following villains; that's two murder-gods in the air at the same time.

All of them are involve someway in mercenary/assassin work. So a collab for the right price is not out of the question.

The question is that divine murder is a very serious crime and a overstepping of bounds even more then Desna’s murder of Aolar and that almost started a interplanar war before Calistria used her seduction skills to cause the demon lords to fight amongst themselves.

It’s possible that it’s someone else disguised as Achaekek. As Achaekek is the Assassin god and Assassin tend not to kill people in the open in front of the whole multiverse. Trying to get people mad at Achaekek.

Of course exepctions apply. Like how Lincoln was murdered in a play.

It’s worth noting Gorum lived in Elysium and had a military defense pact with them. A attack of Elysiuem is an attack on the whole plane.

Oh, I like the idea of Achaekek bring framed for it! I think the Prey for Death AP involves some of his worshippers trying to clear their names of something, so maybe someone's framing the entire religion? Perhaps Razmir convinces his patron Sivanah to impersonate Achaekek and assassinate Gorum so that Achaekek is prevented from stopping Razmir's attempts to attain godhood...

Whenever I see this thread title, it comes across to me as "Pathfinder 2 options for dummies"

Whenever I see this thread title, it comes across to me as someone trying to start up a Pathfinder 2 game at their local Tim Hortons.

Do we know what levels this will be for? Maybe Wardens of Wildwood would be a good lead in since they're both (maybe) focused on nature...

Arachnofiend wrote:

Wait, why not? Taunt is the whole class. Taunt is what you're getting instead of rage. I don't know why you're playing a Guardian if you don't expect to have Taunt up most of the time.

The point of Taunt is to get the enemy to focus you instead of an ally. If an enemy's already focusing you and you feel they're going to keep doing that, then you won't be needing to Taunt. Taunting all the time, even when you're already being focused, means you'll just be wasting actions and making yourself easier to hit. If you sense that an enemy is going to deploy AoE, you're really not going to want to Taunt, because you'd be making yourself much more vulnerable to that AoE without actually redirecting anything.

Going back to this, I suspect that's the way the designers assumed it would be used. If an enemy is threatening a squishy team-mate and the Guardian uses Taunt to draw an attack, the threatened ally isn't intended to just hang around within reach of the enemy. If they did, the enemy can just go back to attacking them, so the Guardian needs to use Taunt again and again, greatly reducing their own defences. Instead, the squishy team-mate is probably intended to use the opportunity given by Taunt to get to a safer spot or activate some defensive ability like Invisibility. In that case, the Guardian can probably forego Taunt on the following rounds and keep their defences high.

If that's the case, maybe Taunt could be changed so that it is more powerful* but also makes each affected enemy immune afterwards, maybe for couple of rounds? This would let the Guardian momentarily draw attention from foes more reliably, but also discourage allies from using the Guardian as just a permanent meat-shield.

* For a buff, maybe increase the foe's penalty against the ally by 1 and/or prevent them from using reactions against the ally on a failed save?