Now, let me be clear: I like this creature. I think it’s a fun creature (even though Ride the Wind is more than a little clunky). I don’t, however, like that it’s called a wendigo.
Now, I’m not a member of any kind of native tribe or anything—I am a super white guy who is just interested in folklore—but the whole thing about wendigos being weird deer creatures has always kinda irked me. I do agree that Paizo’s deer-antlered wendigo could just be renamed and that would fix a lot.
Now, I’m also not one to speak about the whole thing about whether it’s appropriate for Paizo to even try to recreate the wendigo, but if they did, I think it would accomplish a lot of what the folklore says about it if they made it into a type of ghoul with a winter theme. Just my two cents.
A couple things I noticed (excluding stuff like “we don’t know what X does” since that was likely omitted for page space):
Putting it in a spoiler because it seems like more of a playtest feedback thing:
QuidEst wrote:
Internal Respirator is a bummer to see as a level 9 feat. Androids in SF1 could survive vacuum indefinitely from level 1 by default, while this is just giving an hour of breath-holding halfway through the career. This really feels like a first-level feat in terms of what it can do and how Starfinder should be valuing things as a game with space suits as armor.
Just re-emphasizing this
The networked android heritage mentions “a construct with the technological trait,” then Machine Saboteur mentions “a creature with the tech trait.” Those feel like they should be the exact same trait (which would be the tech trait, since PF2 has a couple published items with that trait already).
Internal Compartment mentions how many actions it takes to store an item, but it would be nice for confirmation on how many actions it takes to DRAW said item, too. And just for clarification: the last sentence of Internal Compartment is meant to say that you can basically Quick Draw with a weapon stored in your arm, yes? It seems obvious, but I could see some weird discourse in the exact wording.
Memory Matrix has the fortune trait, which…doesn’t really make sense to me. Also, it would probably be easier to say that you end the confused or controlled condition on a critical success (rather than just a nat 20), since that feels about right for a level 17 feat, but I can also see the balance with how it’s currently written.
Armor Ace seems a bit powerful for a level 1 feat, especially considering Mighty Bulwark is a level 10 feat. Similarly, how DOES Armor Ace interact with feats like Mighty Bulwark?
For Bathed in Blood, does that one-action activity count as assisted recovery (thus reducing the flat check DC to 10 for the rest of that persistent damage)? Similarly, seems a bit odd that that action doesn’t have a frequency (since assisted recovery is exclusively once per round), but I could see the balance in that if it DOESN’T count as assisted recovery.
One with the Night seems a bit powerful, considering that the closest analogue is Shadow Sight, which only gives greater darkvision for 1 minute once per hour. (There’s also Defy the Darkness, but I’m not really counting that since even PFS looked at that and went “that seems like a bit much.”)
My only concern with the new presentation is that it's going to make it a lot more difficult to introduce new ancestries if it requires two pages of lore plus another two pages of heritages/ancestry feats.
I say this because in SF1, reducing species to a sidebar made it easier to introduce species and create that cantina feel a lot more.
I get WHY you're doing it like this (so it's backwards compatible with PF2 and there's more to an ancestry than just the starting statistics), but it is still a concern that the "barrier of entry" for a new species will reduce the out-there species that really add to the cantina feel.
That said, it also opens the opportunity for an entire book based around species that will introduce all of those out-there species like the living swarm and whatnot.
For the purpose of abilities that require successfully identifying a creature using Recall Knowledge (like the mastermind rogue racket), how do I know what creatures I have successfully identified.
Let us imagine that Robbie the Mastermind Rogue is attacked by three identical wolves: Alice, Bob and Charlie.
For the purposes of such abilities, a character is considered to have successfully identified a creature when they succeed or critically succeed at a Recall Knowledge check, regardless of what information they gain. If Robbie successfully Recalls Knowledge against Alice, their racket ability triggers against Alice, but not against Bob or Charlie. The information they gain would still be useful against all three.
If Robbie later tries to Recall Knowledge against Bob, they would use the typical DC, not an increased DC for a subsequent check against the same creature. Similarly, if Robbie is later attacked by two new wolves, the checks to Recall Knowledge would start at the typical DC.
In short, each creature is treated as a separate creature, even if they appear to be identical.
Okay, while this IS a helpful clarification, it still doesn’t address one of the elephants in the room: how would I know whether or not I succeeded (and can thus make that creature off-guard with the mastermind racket) if Recall Knowledge is a secret check? And how do I know I didn’t just critically fail and get false information?
Not exactly satisfying answers to some of those, but that's probably on purpose. And thus wise. These minutiae are likely something I'd have to bring up with a lawyer.
A couple more questions for you Mark (because I’m extremely neurotic). I’m so sorry, you’re probably sick of hearing from me so often.
Mark Moreland (on stream) wrote:
The Compatibility License only grants you access to limited Paizo trademarks, like the Compatibility logo and such. So you still need to fall back on another license to access the content itself. If you’re not using our setting, then that license can be the OGL or the ORC, but if you’re using any of our named NPCs, for example, then the license you’re falling back on is the Infinite License. In this case you’d still need to use the OGL to reference the Horde Lich, or the generic NPCs from Gamemastery Guide, and couldn’t reference any named NPCs at all without Infinite.”
1) You said this on stream and I’m hoping for some clarification on the bolded section. What is “this case” that you’re referring to? Context clues are a bit jumbled as to whether you’re referring to “publishing under the Infinite License” or “publishing under the Compatibility License.”
2) A hypothetical came up when I noticed that the SRD has nightshades in it. Paizo repurposed nightshades under the name “darvakka” and gave each one their own unique name (“nightwing” to “vanyver,” etc.). Are those still usable as long as I don’t refer to the names “nightshade” or “nightwing”?
3) By the same token as 2), could I still, say, link to AoN with a “pride demon.” Is that kosher due to the fact that I’m not explicitly saying “marilith”? Even though the thing I’d be linking to would then use “marilith”? I figured that that’s another Russian nesting doll thing (where only the outermost layer matters), but I figured I’d ask. I do recall the adventure card game not being under the OGL and still having images for a glabrezu while referring to it as a “treachery demon.”
4) to follow up on 3), assuming I never used the word "marilith," could I still stat out, say, Ylleshka, the siamese twin marilith? It would be of my own creation, but it would be toeing a line due to it being a "six-armed demon wielding longswords" and that's really close to being clearly a creature derivative from the OGL. It's basically a question of how close I can get to the line without crossing into the "I definitely have to use the OGL" situation.
5) Stuff from the Tome of Horrors is just an absolute “do not touch this whatsoever” with the Infinite License, yes? And how would that work with, say, Baphomet. I’ve seen a lot of “Baphomet from Tome of Horrors” stuff here and there, but I notably DIDN’T see it in Gods & Magic, which is where Paizo “statted out” Baphomet as a deity to be worshiped.
For something as OGL-laden as Wrath, I would recommend waiting until after Monster Core comes out, so you can get a clearer idea of where Paizo drew the line between mythology/original creation and OGC-derived work. It will also provide you some alternative demons to use in place of the ones we didn't reprint.
To be fair, I’d have to wait for War of Immortals anyway, and as far as I can tell the release date for that book hasn’t even been announced yet. Generally speaking I just google a monster’s name, and if it’s not obviously from mythology (like a succubus) and I see the Forgotten Realms wiki or some other 5e thing come up, I pretty much don’t use it, because that’s a legal line I don’t want to even try to balance. But yeah, for stuff like a new pride demon and whatnot, I’d have to wait until Monster Core.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Yeah, you could make a P2 stat block for Areelu Vorlesh, an alu-demon, that didn't use that OGC term and just used Remastered rules. Since P2 NPCs and monsters are all custom stat blocks and not "built like PCs" as they were in P1, you are already making a mostly original work by statting them up anyway. You just need to make sure you're not using any spells or feats or other terms that Paizo can't license to you without the OGL.
Areelu was probably a bad example, since she was always referred to as a half-succubus rather than an alu-demon. I was more referring to Mistress Anemora, a drider cleric of Deskari. Or Svendack, a drow cleric of Baphomet. I know, for example, that the FAQ said "matriarchal demon-worshiping subterranean dark-skinned elves are likely Open Game Content even if you call them something other than 'drow.'" And I would, at the bare-bones, present Svendack as an elf with darkvision who's (obviously) a worshiper of a demon lord, so that is skirting a VERY specific line. I wouldn't outright use the word "drow" or "drider," but still.
Kinda-Random Side Tangent:
Also, Baphomet is going to get real weird during the remaster transition. Him being a demonic patron of minotaurs has been a thing since the TSR days, but WotC presents him as a fiendish minotaur, while Paizo presents him more faithfully to the mythology as having a goat head, which is a departure from the OGL. That’s somewhat important because all of Book 5 of Wrath of the Righteous is very explicitly centered around Baphomet being a patron of minotaurs.
Question for you, Mark (assuming you’re still looking at this thread):
Long story short, for a Wrath of the Righteous conversion I want to use the mythic stuff coming out in War of Immortals, but WotR has so many OGL-isms that it’d be an absolute minefield to edit out.
Assuming War of Immortals is under the ORC, that means that I couldn’t refer to the mythic rules in there while also putting my conversion under the OGL, yes? Because that’d be mixing the licenses?
And would I be able to still stat out any unique NPCs that are, say, a drow, but just not use the word “drow” anywhere? Or would that be too close to “cavern elf who worships a demon lord is obviously a drow”?
I assume that is the case and I’d need to edit out any OGL-isms, which is a massive overhaul. I ask because there’s a surprising amount of mariliths, balors, etc. in WotR and i was just wondering my options.
Mark, you are a wonderful human being and I want you to know that your efforts are not going unnoticed.
But I do have one more follow-up.
Mark Moreland wrote:
You can reference the horde lich, GameMastery Guide NPCs, and sahkils, for sure. You can even use more specific references to them via a micro stat block or give tactics advice for running them, referring to specific abilities (with a few exceptions, but mostly). You can reprint their stat blocks in their entirety with a few modifications, like removing alignment and any spell or feat that we didn't reprint in the Remaster or that uses another company's IP.
So, following up on this, I’m a bit concerned about the layering of what I was talking about before. For example, you just confirmed to me that I could say “NPC X is an advisor (Gamemastery Guide pg. 207)” in one of my conversions. Now, that opens a weird can of worms because the advisor has magic missile (an OGL spell) in their spell repertoire. So would I still be able to cite that statblock? Or would I have to only cite statblocks that are not only original to Paizo, but also ONLY contains stuff that’s ALSO only original to Paizo, and so on down the chain?
Look, I just typed the equivalent word count of a Pathfinder Society Scenario across all these forum posts, and you're going to correctly call me out for using the wrong word? How dare?! I meant "cambion," obviously, but decades of reading X-Men comics and my 12th-grade Shakespeare teacher made me say "caliban" instead. This is what I get for trying to remember anything these days.
Sorry...Didn't mean to offend, I was just genuinely confused.
Thank you for answering my other questions, though. That was very helpful!
One last thing, because it's not fully clear to me: will Infinite creators have to put the ORC legalese stuff at the end of our documents like we did with the OGL?
You can reference the horde lich, GameMastery Guide NPCs, and sahkils, for sure. You can even use more specific references to them via a micro stat block or give tactics advice for running them, referring to specific abilities (with a few exceptions, but mostly). You can reprint their stat blocks in their entirety with a few modifications, like removing alignment and any spell or feat that we didn't reprint in the Remaster or that uses another company's IP.
Oh yeah, I very much assumed that "de-OGL-ifying" things would have just come with the work of the conversion. I was just wondering if I even COULD, say, tell my buyers to read through AP#100 so that they would have the story context. Like, I was just wondering if I could put something like, say "The First Warden is a horde lich (Book of the Dead pg. 121)" or "The blue-scaled Rivozair is a diabolic dragon (Monster Core pg. XXX) with the hellbound creature template (Bestiary 3 pg. 64)"
(Also including a hyperlink to AoN)
I was wondering if I could still DO that without needing to license it under the OGL, because I'd still be referencing OGL books for the statblocks, for example.
Mark Moreland wrote:
then you can get around a lot of this by just using proper nouns and using a Paizo-owned term like nephilim or caliban or hellspawn if you need to refer to Strea's heritage.
Side note: you keep saying "caliban." That's...not a word I've seen anywhere else in Paizo's material. I thought the new term for "fiend-blooded nephilim" was "cambion."
Okay, this is just…really hurting my brain. So, I make 2e conversions of 1e Adventure Paths, and I do not want to put my stuff under the OGL from here on out if I don’t have to. If I’m referencing a book published under the OGL (like, say, AP#100: A Song in Silver), then do I HAVE to publish my conversion under the OGL? I’m not reprinting the whole book, just creating a supplementary document that makes minimal sense without the context from the original book.
And by a different coin, let’s say I want to use the Horde Lich from Book of the Dead, which is not under the ORC, would I be unable to reference that creature because that book is under the OGL? Or the vast number of NPCs in the Gamemastery Guide that weren’t reprinted in the GM Core. Like, obviously if it’s something like an aboleth then I have to use the OGL, but sahkils are Paizo’s IP, but still in Bestiary 3 under the OGL.
I am far from a lawyer, so a lot of this stuff is going over my head.
EDIT: Or, say, providing hyperlinks to AoN in the document. Is that something I can do without needing to include the OGL?
Beginning on November 15, 2023, no new characters may be created using the class chassis printed in the Core Rulebook if the class has been reprinted in the Player Core.
What about the Advanced Player’s Guide? Is that likewise being phased out in a similar way?
Alex Speidel wrote:
If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.
1. Example: the brooch of shielding has not been reprinted. Characters may still purchase and use a brooch of shielding.
I presume that if a character DOES do the Remaster rebuild, then this option is waived? So if I rebuild my wizard to be in line with the Remaster, then I can no longer purchase a brooch of shielding?
That's it. That's the post. I just think needing to take Additional Ikon for another weapon ikon to dual-wield is a bit too restrictive. Especially since they made the perfect dual-wield feat in Twin Stars.
I also just realized something: the transcendence ability for Gaze Sharp as Steel is made irrelevant by a 6th-level feat. There should probably be a caveat for if the exemplar already has Reactive Strike.
EDIT: Wait, Exemplars don't get a class feat at 1st level?? That's weird.
EDIT 2: Barrow's Edge also seems to be overall the best option. Persistent damage and pseudo-at-will healing.
Alright, time for my regular massive post on an initial read-through of playtest classes.
The table for the exemplar uses “ability boost,” when it should be changed to “attribute boost” in the Remaster.
Okay, you can Shift Immanence as part of rolling initiative. I’m very okay with that.
I feel like Spark Transcendence could have been simplified into a trait. And the transcendences from the epithets have that trait??? I dunno, feels like it could have been more streamlined.
Ikons:
Yeah, like others said, the transcend ability of Scar of the Survivor really seems like it’s just unlimited healing.
For the transcend ability of Skin Hard as Horn, I know it meant the resistance granted by the immanence, but the vagueness makes it unclear. It should probably be rephrased to something like “resistance equal to your level of the same kind as your immanence.”
Does a striking rune affect the extra spirit damage from the transcend ability of the Noble Branch ikon?
Fracture Mountains from the Titan’s Breaker ikon is a bit confusing. Normally the spirit damage is 2 per weapon die. Does Fracture Mountains make it 4 per weapon die plus an extra die of damage, or just 4 plus an extra die? RAW, it’s the second reading.
Does the immanence of the Palisade Bangles affect allies with a shield spell raise?
Okay, Bear Allies’ Burdens got a good laugh out of me.
I feel like Humble Strikes should only apply to a weapon ikon, but that’s just me.
Okay, the implementation of epithets is really cool.
For Restless as the Tides, there should be a specification that the exemplar is immune to this splash damage (in case the weapon ikon is a melee weapon).
Reap the Field from the Peerless Under Heaven epithet creates a weird circumstance: what happens if either of the Strikes are crits?
So…Complete the Hero’s Journey creates a weird situation, because…as soon as the transcend ability is used, the ikon no longer grants the aura. And then it gets weird; since the spark is no longer in the worn ikon, does that mean that the immanence that increases the aura to 30 feet doesn’t apply? So how close does the target of Complete the Hero’s Journey need to be?
Feats:
Thorns of Mortality feels a tiny bit too powerful. Like, I think it’s an awesome ability, just…maybe make it a higher-level feat.
Mated Birds in Paired Flight should also be able to be applied to ikons affected by the Twin Stars feat. That would make a lot more sense.
Is the extra damage from Infinite Blades Celestial Arrow affected by a striking rune?
I feel like the last sentence of Strike Rivers, Seize Winds should be clarified that they can’t be counteracted by stuff that normally counteracts magic.
For Sunwrecker, darkness is a burst, so it should be centered on a corner of the target’s square.
So...Spirit Walk makes it so that you and your party don't trigger reactions of haunts while in exploration mode. Haunts, like all hazards, need a reaction to roll initiative. So barring very weird exceptions, Spirit Walk just straight-up makes a party immune to haunts, because they will never trigger.
Similarly, does it constantly make Apparition Sense a precise sense? Or only in exploration mode? And what happens if the animist doesn't have Apparition Sense because they attuned to Imposter in Hidden Places? Do they just not get that?
Alright, time for my regular massive post on an initial read-through of playtest classes.
I was…a bit surprised to see the “animist” was more connected to spirits and such rather than the primal essence of Shoanti animism. Similarly, really surprised that the iconic isn’t a Shoanti practicing Shoanti animism—that was…just right there.
Wait, animists have a spell DC and a class DC? That’s a first. EDIT: Yeah, animists shouldn’t have that. It’s literally not used. Why is it listed with its other initial proficiencies?
Okay…the fact that you attune spirits during your daily preparations feels…a bit TOO versatile. I get that the main subclass seems to be the “Animistic Practice,” but the fact that stuff like an entire “spell list” and a focus spell is something that can be changed every day feels a bit too flexible. I think it would maybe make more sense if it was done like the shaman in 1e where your primary spirit was chosen at 1st level and couldn’t change.
Interesting that animists have only one focus spell at 1st level, but start with 2 Focus Points
Maybe in Apparition’s Possession, add “Sustain an apparition spell” to the list of actions that can be taken.
Wait, Third Apparition is a 4th-level class feature? And Fourth Apparition is a 12th-level one? I thought class features like that only really came into effect on odd-numbered levels? Because, y’know, class feats are at even-numbered levels.
The subtle trait??? That’s interesting.
Okay, Grasping Spirits Spell is so weird and I love it!
Channeled Protection is weirdly worded. It has the aura trait, but doesn’t explicitly list an aura. I’m sure it meant to say a “5-foot emanation,” but right now it’s not really an “aura.”
I feel like the void/vitality damage of Grudge Strike should scale. But also, +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll, so it’s probably fine where it’s at.
Roaring Heart seems…a bit overpowered. Two actions to get four actions plus some temporary HP. Sure, the Shoves apply MAP, but that still seems like a lot.
So…Spirit Walk makes you literally immune to any haunt in exploration mode? The hazards need a reaction to roll initiative. This seems like an absolute must-have feat since it just straight-up trivializes an entire category of hazard. This REALLY needs to be nerfed. Also, is apparition sight only a precise sense in exploration mode? Or does that extend to encounter mode too? This feat is waaaaayyy too powerful.
Okay, mentioning “true name” in Banish Falsehoods of Flesh makes it have a weird overlap with the true name mechanic from Secrets of Magic. Does “true name” here mean the same as “true name” there? And if so, then why doesn’t this have the true name trait?
Okay…Eternal Guide creates a very interesting munchkin scenario of a character committing suicide so they can retrain all of their ancestry feats with only a week. I dunno, that feels kinda icky to me.
Darkened Forest Form just seems like a straight-up better wild shape since it’s only one action.
I feel like the Stride from river carving mountains should be given for free upon Sustaining the spell…
For those also wondering, yes, that's Runelord Xanderghul on the mirage dragon for the GM Core. We've put a runelord and their dragon buddy on the previous two GM books, after all.
Just four more GM books to go before you run out of options!
We’ve also just pushed a couple of minor changes to the Treasure Vault items on the Pathfinder Character Options page. We added a missing access condition to the polytool to bring it in line with Lost Omens: Gods and Magic, permitted the black tendril shot thanks to errata, and removed the cassisian helmet from legality. Any character who purchased the helmet can sell it back for full price.
I…don’t see those changes having been implemented on the Character Options page.
Quick design question: why did you have Helekhterie have Color Spray as a 4th level spell? Was it because she has it on her 1e spell list as a first level spell?
Had to double-check this one because I wrote this particular conversion so long ago.
a) I try to convert such that the 1e tactics are still as valid as possible for a 2e creature. In the AP it says that Helekhterie casts color spray on heavily-armor foes.
b) If you were asking why it was heightened to 4th level despite not having a Heightened entry: color spray is an incapacitation spell, so it’s most effective when used in a higher-level spell slot.
c) If you were asking why she (a divine spellcaster) had color spray (a non-divine spell) in her repertoire: well…she’s an oracle, and the Divine Access feat is a thing (and Pulura has the necessary domain for a cosmos oracle to get color spray). I didn’t explicitly spell that out in Helekhterie’s statblock because doing so felt overly-explanatory.
Also, apologies that it takes me so long to actually respond on this thread; I've kinda considered this project finished, so I didn't really think it necessary to revisit this thread regularly.
Hey, just thought that I'd provide a visual for the Ruby Tower for those that went cross-eyed trying to interpret the map on page 48. It's obviously omitting the ladders, rope, and moving parts.
Other changes are good! I agree with someone up above that either the Healing trait needs to be adjusted so it doesn't kill off Soothe's purpose as an Undead healing spell, or the Undead PCs stuff from BotD should have an FAQ clarification about the Healing trait and how it interacts with the Undead trait that all Undead PCs gain.
My opinion: fix it in the undead trait. It would just be as simple as omitting the last clause in that trait (“…and don't benefit from healing effects.”), or even just adding the word “positive” right before “healing.” It’s silly to me that an undead creature is immune to restoration and remove curse. Like, if an undead BBEG gets blinded by a PC, they should be able to use restore senses on themselves.
And it won’t even render Stitch Flesh obsolete, because Treat Wounds still says it has to target a living creature.
I was hemming and hawing over the cover image (or rather the lack thereof), but I just decided to bite the bullet and just upload it. So...yeah. Started this conversion in March of 2020 and...now we're here. Honestly, thanks for the kind words along the way, everyone.
I'm already working on my next conversion, this time of Return of the Runelords, so y'all should be sure to see that in...two years' time XD.
To anyone looking here at this time: I decided to bite the bullet and actually decide to put this conversion up on Pathfinder Infinite.
But not yet.
I am currently going through the arduous process of converting what were my glorified GM notes into something that actually looks presentable (and not just a massive text file). Honestly, it's kinda surreal to think that this has been a project I've been working on for almost three years.
I will let you know when I have finished and the final version is live on Infinite.
Thank you for this lovely blog, and for the amazing work you all do! I’m a white girl myself, but I’ve never lived outside the American Southwest, where Latinx people and culture are inescapable and vital. It’s overdue that such rich histories, traditions, and languages get an equal spotlight; I’m glad Paizo has such cool people on board to make it happen someday.
Carlos, thank you for the calaca and the guitar both! Santana was beloved in my childhood home.
Not to be an SJW, but from one white person to another: don't say "Latinx." The community really doesn't like it because it's basically just the white man's haphazardly made label. I think most in that community just say "Latino" as a catchall, but I do know the more accurate gender-neutral term would be "Latine," especially since it's a lot more grammatically consistent with Spanish than "Latinx."
But I'm just another white guy forcibly making himself the mouthpiece of another culture, so if an actual Latine person would vouch for or against what I'm saying, then much obliged.
As always, I do a massive post regarding my first impressions for a class.
Overall:
Key Ability Score
Getting investigator playtest flashbacks. I ask you this: what does Con do for a kineticist? They still use Str./Dex. for their attacks and damage. In 1e it made sense, because Con. added to their damage, and they had a whole feature about giving up HP for powerful effects. In 2e, you could just as easily change the key ability score to “Strength or Dexterity” and it would actually be better for the class.
Three action abilities
There are…way too many three action abilities for this class. Some of them I get (like the various walls), but some are just…not that great. Especially when they’re overflow abilities, so you have to use an action later to Gather an Element.
Class Features:
Gather Element
So…Gathering an Element is basically the kineticist’s way of Interacting to pull out a weapon? I feel like there should be at least a bit of fluff to explain that better, even if it’s just “as easily as a fighter draws their sword.”
I…kinda don’t like the clause “…[you can] use [the Gathered Element] in environments where this normally wouldn’t be possible.” I kinda get the idea (so a fire kineticist isn’t completely shut down if an adventure suddenly goes underwater), but it’s just baffling to me.
I feel Gather Element should be able to take it from somewhere other than your inner gate (see Adapt Element below).
The ability doesn’t specify what happens when the kineticist falls unconscious while having a Gathered Element.
Elemental Blast
So, Striking with your element is its own action? Why? I know the answer is probably to include those special traits onto it, but making it its own separate action is more restrictive. For example, a hasted kineticist can’t use the quickened action to Strike with their element (since to do so requires using the Elemental Blast action rather than the Strike action). It would just be easier to put something in Gather Element like “you can Strike with your element; when you do, it gains the evocation, impulse, and primal traits.”
“Though [Elemental Blast] is not actually an unarmed attack…” Why not? It’s literally an unarmed attack for every other reason. Just make it an unarmed attack and say it has its own special critical specialization. Is it to prevent it from being used with Flurry of Blows? Well, attacking with it requires its own special action, so it already couldn’t be used with Flurry of Blows, but if my previous grievance regarding that is addressed, then what? It doesn’t break anything since it still requires multiclassing and whatnot. If it uses unarmed proficiency, is affected by handwraps, and gets weapon specialization as if it were unarmed attacks, then just say it’s an unarmed attack! Saying “it’s not, except it is” just makes it more confusing. EDIT: Also, you already basically give Flurry of Blows with Blast Barrage.
I also have a similar grievance regarding “impulses aren’t spells, except when they are,” but I feel that that one is a bit more understandable because “spell” is a very specific thing in this game.
Adapt Element
“If you have a gathered element, you can choose that portion of element.” The “gathered element” should be capitalized to make it clear you’re referring to the specific action.
Why would you ever use the Gather option in Adapt Element? This implies that using the Gather Element action just spontaneously creates the element from your inner gate. Using Adapt Element to Gather an Element is pointless, as it’s using two actions to do something you can do in one. I feel like taking Gathering an Element from an external area (like water from a stream) should already be part of Gather Element. If anything, I feel like it should take more actions to Gather an Element by spontaneously creating it from your inner gate than it should to Gather an Element from the environment. As it stands, it takes more effort to Gather an Element from the surrounding environment than it does to just make it out of nowhere.
Elemental Resistance
Again, you should capitalize “element gathered” to make it clear that you’re referring to the specific action.
I know that this is handled by the whole “source with that trait” clause, but I also know that metal as an element is being added, and I could definitely see someone arguing “Well, why doesn’t a metal sword have the metal trait?!”
Extract Element
Once again, it’s somehow easier to Gather an Element from a fire elemental than it is from a torch on the wall (see Adapt Element above).
Why isn’t there a damage type listed for Extract Element. I know it’s mostly because otherwise it would be subject to resistances, but it’s nevertheless a bit awkward.
Critical Element
I have issues with the water critical specialization. Usually, you don’t know when you’ll crit, so having splash damage come online only when you crit can cause issues. I could see a water kineticist at 1 HP using a melee blast against a creature and then cursing that they got a nat 20 and knocked themselves unconscious. I could also see making a ranged blast at a boss that knocked out the kineticist’s friend and then the kineticist accidentally killing their friend because they got a crit and did splash damage. There’s also the issue with regards to PFS, where you must get consent if you were to damage another PC. Basically, if you create an ability that would make a player go “I didn’t want a crit” more than once in a blue moon, then you’re doing something wrong.
Blast Expertise
Why is this a 7th level feature? Kineticists get mastery at 13th like the other martials. They should get expertise at 5th.
Final Gate
That’s…cool. I guess. I dunno how often a PC would be Gathering an Element, though. Maybe if they’re using overflow actions a lot, but it still seems like a weird permanent quicken.
Regular Class Feats:
Voice of the Elements
Why is this an action? And why is it an impulse? Does that mean I can only use it while I have an Element Gathered? I feel like this should just be a passive thing. (It also brings up the question of what language the planes of metal and wood would speak)
Aura Shaping
After reading some of the kinetic auras, this feels like a mandatory feat if you want to use the auras and avoid hurting allies/helping enemies.
Gather Amalgamation
The wording of this ability will need to be updated for the final release to also include wood and metal.
Steadfast Kinetics
I feel like this should be listed with the other earth feats, but I’m pretty sure the reason it’s not is because it’s not also an impulse.
Air Feats:
Soothing Breeze
Uh…what’s the third effect? It mentioned three but only listed two.
Clear as Air
“While you are Clear as Air, you can gather air quietly and invisibly, but the invisibility doesn’t hide any manifestations of your other abilities.” There should be a mention of the Gather Element action for clarity.
Earth Feats:
Swim Through Earth
The ability does not specify a slowed value.
Rock Rampart
This should be a three-action activity to bring it in line with both wall of stone and the kineticist’s other wall abilities. I also feel like this should have the overflow trait.
Assume Earth’s Mantle
I feel like the parts of this ability that make it similar to a Strength apex item are a bit much. And it would also stack with the apex stuff because those aren’t typed bonuses.
Rebirth in Living Stone
Totally irrelevant, but there’s a single line in this ability that’s a very different font.
Fire Feats:
Crawling Fire
There should probably be a note about reach with the larger crawling fires.
Furnace Form
“Your fire Elemental Blasts add a die of their normal damage die instead of the 1d4 your unarmed attacks get.” I’ll be honest, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
Water Feats:
Return to the Sea
I feel like there should be a heightened version of this that increases its duration.
Ride the Tsunami
The last sentence is weird, because I think that would mean you could only do the actual Swimming if you were in an environment where you would need to Swim.
Overall, I like the idea, but some of the execution leaves much to be desired.
And with that, I have finished my Ruins of Azlant campaign. As such, the conversion documents are now in their final state; they will no longer be tweaked and updated.
Okay, can someone help me understand the aolaz encounter (G1)? It says that “Each turn, one aolaz attempts to roll across the bridge and Trample any enemies it can, while the other maneuvers within the mines, creating the illusion that there is only one construct here that happens to move preternaturally quickly through the tunnels.”
My issue is…what tunnels? I don’t see any indication of tunnels on the map. All it shows is two bridges over a pit of lava (which is corroborated by the box-text for that area), but no indication of where the aolazes would go to “hide.” I can’t figure out for the life of me where the aolazes would go on the map to enter these tunnels that only seem to be mentioned in their tactics.
Finally, PVP combat is not permitted in Paizo Organized Play. Previously, engaging in PVP combat would earn Infamy, but Infamy is not meant to be a consequence for out-of-game behavior. You may not fight other players’ characters unless the scenario calls for it for some extremely specific reason.
Can't find it super well on the guide at the moment Obviously this is a good rule to have in place, but my mind goes to very fringe circumstances (like dominate or knocking out a dominated PC to prevent bad stuff). I'm sure what's here is a super brief overview, but that's just what came to my mind.
Once again, I've just been making tweaks here and there to allow for fairer play. Notably, with the release of Book of the Dead, I made a few changes: one was replacing my weird ad hoc statblocks for the gholdakos in the Compass with the actual gholdakos' stats. The other, and one I've been going back and forth on, was to make Jazradan an elite fluxwraith. I did give him more abilities than a regular fluxwraith, but most of those are just abilities relevant to the story; the only non-story stuff I gave him was a casting of meteor swarm (because the idea of using a mini-Earthfall on Ochymua is too glorious) and at will disintegrate (that one may be a mistake, but it's one I'm going to stick with as an homage to his 1e stats).
My home group is just near the start of Book 6 (they just killed the linnorm at A1), so the official final version of my conversion of this AP should be coming to pass within the next few months.
Two things I noticed when going through Monsters of Myth:
The Ulgrem-Lurann animal companion’s Snap and Zap ability scales the electricity damage, saying “1d4…damage (2d4 for a mature Ulgrem-Lurann…)” however animal companions cannot gain their advanced maneuver until they become advanced (e.g. nimble or savage), which can only occur AFTER they are a mature companion, so Snap and Zap will always start out as dealing 2d4, making the first 1d4 statement unneeded.
Ulistul’s and the imperfect automaton’s statblocks list their abilities as [Ability Name] ([ability traits]) [Action Symbol]. The order should be [Ability Name] [Action Symbol] ([ability traits]), meaning that the symbol should come before the traits, not after.
Wow, I am...genuinely surprised that people are still posting their appreciation here. Thanks, folks!
I haven't really been posting here very frequently because, well, I've been running Ruins of Azlant XD I have been making adjustments to the various documents, though; I just haven't posted them in this "changelog" thread because they've usually been super minor, changing a few numbers here and there and whatnot to allow for fairer play. The most notable changes that come to mind from this are reducing Wavewalker's resistance to 10 and dropping Onthooth to level 11 after my players had an absolute b*tch of a time trying to fight him (it's still definitely a severe encounter due to Onthooth's preparations and his much better swim speed compared to the PCs). I also modified Jazradan to be in-line with the Flexible Spellcaster archetype, since he is, y'know, an arcanist.
One of my players mentioned something about me putting these conversions on Pathfinder Infinite for a little extra cash, and I might do that for the next AP I'm converting (Crimson Throne), but for now I'm keeping the conversion of Ruins available to the public; lucky you ;)
EDIT: Oh yeah, I also reflavored Auberon to be (to use PC-building terms) a wizard with the inventor dedication, because no duh.
I'll just point out two things in the quoted text that directly answer two of your quandaries:
1. It explicitly states that a blind character cannot be blinded (so no gaining the Blinded condition).
2. The blind character requires a DC 5 flat check to target a Hidden target.
1. I AM SO DUMB! I utterly missed that, so that solves some of my issues. I still think it should be more clearly stated, though.
2. Yes. That’s…still a flat check. Again, unless I’m vastly misunderstanding the awareness rules, hidden means that one can’t perceive the creature with any of their precise senses, which unless something super weird like bat-like echolocation is going on, means that that’s basically every enemy. The average adventurer only has vision as a precise sense, so taking that away means that everything is hidden. So for blind PCs that means that every average enemy has a 20% miss chance (to use 1e terminology), which is still a major hindrance. That was my point from the beginning: instead of a DC 11 flat check for a visioned PC in specific circumstances, it instead makes it a DC 5 flat check for a blind PC in basically ALL circumstances, which I would argue is worse (hence my quandary). The Hiding rogue 30 feet away is hidden, because you can’t see them; and the screaming barbarian right next to you is hidden, because you can’t see them. Yes, it’s 30% more likely to work because of the benefit, but it’s still a 20% chance of failure for a really basic action.
We now have stuff in the Guild Guide for disabled PCs. So, I love how things were done with PCs with disabilities for the most part, but I have concerns with one particular area: blind PCs. I am aware that what follows is a super nitpicky approach that heavily sticks to RAW, but it’s PFS; nitpicking RAW is what we do.
To start, the rules from the Guild Guide:
Guild Guide wrote:
Characters that are blind from birth or are otherwise permanently sightless cannot detect anything using vision. They automatically critically fail any Perception checks based on vision, are immune to visual effects, and can’t be blinded or dazzled.
Blind characters who either can’t or choose not to remove their blindness hone their other senses. They are not flat-footed to creatures that are hidden from them (unless they’re flat-footed to them for reasons other than the hidden condition), and they need only a successful DC 5 flat check to target a hidden creature. Normally, such characters can’t remove their blindness later; if they somehow do, they lose these benefits.
Now, technically it never says the PC constantly has the blinded condition, but for the sake of argument and common sense, let’s say that a blind PC is “blinded.”
These benefits do offset some of the downsides, but not all of them. Blinded creatures:
•treat all terrain as difficult terrain.
•take a -4 status penalty to Perception if vision is their only precise sense. (Being accustomed to blindness doesn’t automatically grant true echolocation)
•still need to make a flat check against hidden creatures.*
*As far as I can tell, a hidden creature is just one that can’t be detected with any precise senses (unless I’ve VASTLY misunderstood those rules), meaning a blind character would still need to roll a flat check against a raging barbarian standing right in front of them.
The PFS rules for disabled characters address NONE of these hindrances. The only possible way that the rules would make sense as they currently stand is if it’s implied that being blind and having the blinded condition are two different things, in which case a) that needs to be very explicitly stated, and b) that is some absurd levels of nitpicking that implies that a blind PC can become more blind by gaining the blinded condition.
My overall point: Depending on table variation (which is not a good statement to start with in organized play) a PC born blind has significantly more trouble adventuring than any other kind of physical disability, which feels like the exact OPPOSITE of what the organized play team was going for, so I feel those rules need to be amended in the Guild Guide.
Well, now that both of those Pathfinder books are sanctioned, that brings up a pretty important question that I am certain has been talked about: What’s the stance on PFS PCs with physical disabilities? Should we expect a follow-up blog on this? An update to the Guild Guide? Or has the Organized Play team not yet come to a conclusion about that?
OH MY GOSH I totally forgot to include this in the blog, but the Guide to Organized Play now has rules for that! My sincerest apologies!
Noted. Reading it through I have some issues with how it was done, but this is not the place to voice it; I’ll start my own thread for that.
Well, now that both of those Pathfinder books are sanctioned, that brings up a pretty important question that I am certain has been talked about: What’s the stance on PFS PCs with physical disabilities? Should we expect a follow-up blog on this? An update to the Guild Guide? Or has the Organized Play team not yet come to a conclusion about that?
