Lia Wynn's page

HammerJack wrote:

The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.

This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions.

Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese.

Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character:

- "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe gets within 5' of me." - Yes
(In both of these cases, the foe can continue their movement if they have some left.)
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe ends their movement in reach of me." - No, that's a player-observable game mechanic not a character-observable narrative moment.

I do not fully agree here, and that is because there are reactions in the game that do let a reaction happen when movement ends. Examples are

Goblin Scuttle, which lets a Goblin Step when an ally ends a move action next to them.

Another example is the reaction that Medusa get, which lets them make a Strike with their snake hair if an enemy ends their turn next to them.

The first of the examples above triggers off of another creature (in that case, an ally), ending a move action adjacent to the goblin, and the second shows that ending a turn adjacent can trigger a reaction. There is nothing in the rules that even hints in any way that a Ready trigger of 'If any enemy ends a move action next to me, I do <whatever>." is not allowed. I mean, that is exactly (again with ally instead of enemy), what Goblin Scuttle allows!

At rank 6, Thunderstrike significantly out performs disintegrate as a blast spell without a lot of manipulation of factors like off-guard, status bonuses to attack, and debuffing. Disintegrate is not the default single target arcane blasting spell. I have never seen anyone present it as the standard to measure arcane blasting with.

Does it?

I can agree with outperform, but significantly? Average damage is 54 for Thunderstrike and 55 for Disintegrate .

On the plus side for Thunderstrike is that it is a save spell, so only one roll. However, its damage is split between two types, meaning that there are two ways damage can be reduced, and Electricity Resist is not all that uncommon with higher-level enemies.

Disintegrate needs to hit, and then there's a Fort save. Those are downsides, absolutely. No one would debate that. However, its damage is untyped. That means basically nothing resists it, and anything that does is [i also[/i resisting both parts of Thunderstrike!

However, on top of that, the 'manipulating of factors' for the to hit is *already happening to help the melee!*. If anything, it's giving those normal things like trip more impact, since now it also helps the caster, and it's going to get easier with Guardian setting things off-guard via taunt.

I will agree a lot of the time that Thunderstrike is a better choice. However, I do not think the difference is significant, and depending on the group and enemy matchup, Disintegrate is the better option.

And that is good. Different situations having different answers is what makes a game interesting. It's boring to do the same thing the same way every time.

Also, Slither is not enemy only, so you may not get Reactive Strikes from allies when people stand up, since they likely do not want to be in the AoE themselves.

That said, Slither is a very good spell, and having an option to give it a variable effect would just make it better. Options do tend to be good to have.

I do not think any of what I am about to say will actually happen, but my wish list would be this:

Open up page space by cutting the DA Adventures. I have run a few of them, and they are really good, but this would allow player-facing things like Deviant Powers to have more space, it would allow cryptid stat blocks, which would be more useful, and it would allow a rework of Psychic.

For Psychic itself, I'd like to see it go to a 1 subclass class, and I'd like to see IW be made a class feature around level 10, so that it cannot be poached. I could be wrong, but I think people bounce off the complexity of Psychic, and I don't think its power level justifies that complexity.

Yuri's idea of a new casting system for it would also be possible with the extra pages opened up in this idea, but again, I do not think that will happen. It's just wishful thinking.

I disagree. There will be many times when you won't want to taunt. I'm fooling around with a Guardian in Dawnsbury Days right now - and it doesn't even have all the options one would have in a PF2E game, and there are times when I do not Taunt.

Maybe the enemy is too far away. Maybe I'd rather make another Strike because there is one foe left, maybe I'm low on HP, and the enemy goes before the cleric, and I want it to go after the DPS that round.

Yes, Taunt is good. Yes, most rounds the Guardian wants to Taunt. But, like with every other ability in the game, you need to make decisions round-by-round and not get into a rotation.

Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.

I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer it if Taunt was a class feat and not a class feature.

I was just considering MCD Guardian on a prospective build when I realized I don't want them taunting anybody, mechanically or thematically. Even when my allies were struggling and I could take the hits I'd typically have better actions. Compare to one-action/one-round Compositions for amount of targets or effect and Taunt isn't efficient enough. That's a bit unfair out of context since the Guardian feats which depend on Taunt are strong and they balance w/ the Guardian being a hit point sponge.

It seems my words could be used to argue either direction on this. Hmm. But since a Guardian must invest in feats to make Taunt effective enough to warrant the action (especially if they have to Raise Shield too), and is thus easily ignored in a build, maybe it should be a feat (perhaps starting off at long-distance as per the 1st level feat upgrade).

I very much disagree that baseline Taunt is not effective on its own. There is no save, there is no roll. It just works. It does one of two things:

It determines an enemy movement before they go, and that can be very useful for planning. Or, it debuffs the enemy with both a malus to hit and Off-Guard for every single PC.

Put it this way - if you were playing in a game, and an enemy used Guardian Taunt on you, and you were next, would you think it was weak? You would either have to attack that specific enemy - and maybe you don't want to - or you would be Off Guard to the entire monster team.

Is it broken? No. However, it is very well designed, IMO, soft taunt, and I think a hard taunt would not have been liked by many players, given how, in the play test, a number of regulars were saying they hated the very idea of a taunt.

I do not think it should be a class feature. I like it as an option for a Guardian, but depending on your group and your character concept, multi-taunt might not work well. The way Taunt was changed is great, but, just like in playtest, you probably do not want to Taunt every round. It is a good tool in the toolbox, but the situation will determine if you want to use it.

I also would not say that Group Taunt is better than the other level 8 Guardian Feats. None of them are bad.

Juggernaut Charge allows you to literally pull an enemy away from an ally and gives action compression.

Mighty Bulwark gives the Guardian +4(!!!) to ALL Reflex saves when they are in any armor with the Bulwark trait, which most will be.

Repositioming Block allows you to totally change an enemy's turn, or put them into a position that helps your allies while doing something you already want to do (Shield Block)

Shield from Arrows gives an ally +4(!!!) AC against an already declared attack (and later gets an upgrade).

Shield Wallop might be the weakest, but is still an excellent anti-caster tool.

I would not say that Group Taunt is an absolute must pick by any means. I thinkl all of them are solid picks, and having choices that matter is something that is good.

If you make Group Taunt baseline, then you remove a choice, and that to me is not bad. I can see the argument for baseline as an anti-poaching tool, but a non Guardian gets it at 16, and that's pretty late game.

When it comes to Hardness, Plant Banner feat adds Hardness to the Weapon or Pole the banner is attached to equal to the Commander's Int modifier+level.

Here is what I am wondering about Plant Banner, especially a banner like a battle flag (as that is how I envision them. I know they can be other things, and that's good.). What if a Commander did the following sequence of events:

Action 1: Plant Banner.
Action 2: Any one action, non-Brandish, Tactic.
Action 3: Grab the Banner. Not pull it out of the ground, but just Grab it so that it is not unattended and hence can't be stolen.

In Subsequent Rounds, spend 1 action to Grab each round. You'd give up PC mobility, and you could not use any Brandish tactics, but I think it would keep the Plant Banner benefits and prevent theft.

What do other people think?

Another option is to simply Delay until someone who can use that Strike goes.

Or, use Courageous Assault in Round 2.

Lia Wynn wrote:

I'm not sure Guardian with Champ Decication is good.

...

From a mechanical aspect, though, you only have so many Reactions each round. If you use Champ reaction, especially at low level, you can't Intercept Strike, or Shield Block, or any of the other Guardian Reactions. At higher levels, sure, you can get extra Reactions, but they are only for the base class, so it's not like you can use them for extra Champion reactions.

Guardians get a 2nd reaction at 7th-level. That's still considered low level / early game by many players.

They do, and it can be used for Guardian feats and class features only. Not a Champion reaction. Guardian also has a ton of feats that give or improve on their class reactions.

So, to use the Champ Reaction, you still have to use your one normal reaction to do so, so it still fights with your Guardian features, and I still don't see how Paladin gives a benefit. It's a Punishment ability, and Guardian has those.

Now, Redeemer, or Obedience would be different. That would add to the toolkit.

I'm not sure Guardian with Champ Decication is good.

First of all, one of the Guardian's design goals is to have a non-Divine defensive class. By taking Champ dedication, you toss that right out the window. RP aspects matter in a RPG.

From a mechanical aspect, though, you only have so many Reactions each round. If you use Champ reaction, especially at low level, you can't Intercept Strike, or Shield Block, or any of the other Guardian Reactions. At higher levels, sure, you can get extra Reactions, but they are only for the base class, so it's not like you can use them for extra Champion reactions.

Lastly, does Paladin's reaction even help a Guardian? Liberator or Redeemer, yes, they would give something new. But, Guardian already has Punishment feats, and that'll all that the Paladin reaction is.

My gut feeling is no. Here's why.

You have a corpse. If the corpse was killed by Puppetmaster Extract, it becomes a Zombie. As a Zombie, it is animated, and hence, no longer a corpse, and you do not control it, so you can't even order it into the sphere.

If you were to grapple it and force it into the Galvasphere, and then activate the sphere, the sphere checks to see if there is a corpse. And there is not. There is an animated zombie. As the zombie is already animated, it cannot be animated again.

Now, when the poison wore off, and the zombie was no longer animated, then, yes, the Galvasphere could then animate the once more corpse, but it would not be a Puppetmaster Zombie, it would be a Galvasphere Zombie.

Basically, you can't animate something that is already animated.

I want to weigh in on the idea of a clock mechanic being baseline in 2E. I am not against such a mechanic, but I do not think it should be baseline.

There are a lot of players who hate timers, even when they are very generous. So, a rule saying 'every adventure needs a countdown' would not go over well, IMO.

However, I would like to see an optional rules section with guidance on how to use countdowns for tables that would like them, or for specific adventures or scenarios in them.

I just do not think a timer should be a default state for every adventure.

Maybe you're playing in a game with limited or no magic, so the rune is not available.

Also, it's 77 for the same stats: 75 for the rune, and 2 for the steel shield :)

But, if magic accessibility and cost are not issues, why are you not putting the Mirror Rune on the Minor Sturdy Shield instead? I can't see a reason why you wouldn't do that, but I might be missing something.

While I appreciate this post and think the ideas expressed in it make a lot of sense, I disagree.

I like that simple hazards are simple in PF2, and not very impactful for a simple reason: it discourages the use of what I call nuisance traps, and makes gameplay better as a result.

What do I mean by nuisance trap? Oh, things like the old 10-foot pits in D&D adventures. Take a d6, pull the character out of it, pop a charge from a Cure X wounds on, and keep going.

They were not narratively impactful; they were not engaging gameplay, the entire point was typically resource attrition, and they were really overused. Most of us, I imagine, have seen old school adventures that had pits, trapped doors, etc, all over the place, including places where they made no narrative sense.

PF2 creates a disincentive to create that sort of trap, as they don't even resource attrit very well now, and I love that for a very simple reason: every hazard in my adventure has a narrative reason to exist where it does, simple or complex.

But, all the above said, if you want a debuff-style hazard, make it! The hazard creation rules are easier than the monster creation rules, and the monster creation rules are simple. I would just remind that if you are using XP, and not milestone, then you should expect your PCs to complain when they get single-digit XP for a lasting debuff, since simple hazards (since they are simple) do not give out much XP.

I much prefer complex hazards with their routines for anything lasting, but it certainly can work with simple ones.

An animal companion goes during the PC's turn.

If the PC commands it, it logically gains the actions when it is commanded. If it's more advanced and can take one action without a command, it logically gains it when the player says 'My companion does <action>.'

That's all it needs to say. I mean, it's simple. It doesn't need to be some hyper-specific math formula. It's ok to just keep things simple and have the game flow.

A quick reminder for questions from Battlecry! is that it does not go street live until July 31. If you are a subscriber, you get the PDF early when the physical book ships, but for many of us, we can't get the book until the 31st, so you may want to hold questions on it for a week or so. That way, more people actually have the book and can chime in.

I want to make a couple of points here.

Yuri, it seems to me that you are equating Guardian Taunt to an MMO's hard taunt. There is no hate generation from the Guardian taunt. The creature is not forced to attack the Guardian. In MMO terms, it's a soft taunt.

There is no compulsion at all for the taunted creature to attack the Guardian. There is a penalty if it does not, and that penalty is significant.

However, it is not crippling, and that is good.

This allows for the narrative of the fight and the nature of the foe to determine what the creature will do in response to the Taunt. It may very well go after the Guardian. In that case, it's focusing on a high AC, high HP PC. That is a win.

Or, it may attack someone else at a penalty, be off-guard to *the entire party for a full round*, and possibly draw some sort of reaction from the Guardian if that PC has taken any of the punishment feats. That is a win.

No matter what the foe does, the party gets a benefit. The GM should not always attack the Guardian, and the GM should not always ignore the Guardian. It needs to me mixed based on a) the needs of the fight, and b) what the PC wants to do with the Guardian.

Very much like if you have a blaster caster you need to sometimes send in large groups of weaker enemies, and if you have PCs that are anti-undead, or giant, or demon, you need to give them those sorts of foes as a GM, the Guardians GMs will have to let that PC shine in what they want to do as well.

I think the post-playtest Taunt is great. It creates a lot of options without being something like mind control, and it will be interesting to use *against* PCs, as well, to see how they deal with the choices that it creates.

If/when I run it, I'll have each character decide how they knew Terpsime rather than have them be randomly chosen by her. However, I'd also fill them in in advance on the Ibydian hospitality tradition, so the players knew what the characters should.

I would not limit them to being from Pol-Bailax as people from all over the world pass through the area, so I'd open it up to let them be from anywhere.

I would much rather see classes given more options than see new classes. I would very much like to see an options book loaded with new feats for classes, new impulses for kineticists, new ancestry feats (especially since there are still a lot of ancestries with very few 9+ feats), and maybe even new optional rules, or a Daggerheart like section that talks about using narrative tools in a PF2 game.

Lia Wynn wrote:

It is also cheesy and lacks common sense. If you do not actually Tumble Through anything, then it's a Stride. Stride cannot be used to sustain. To me, it's that simple.

This strikes me as a weak justification when the reason you can't use Stride is specifically, per developer commentary, that you're supposed to Tumble instead because it covers the same use case.

You're right, you're not wrong for saying "not at your table" that's fine, but the logic here is a bit problematic when the thing you're arguing demonstrates cheese is part of the design choice.

Ok, I can see what you are saying.

But let's use a different class with this example. Someone at your table plays a Swashbuckler, says "I am going to Tumble Through", and then Strides 25 feet. Are you giving them Panache?

To me, when the player says my character will Tumble Through, and gains a mechanical benefit from that, then they need to actually make a roll to Tumble Through. Tumble Through is not Stride.

When it comes to Liturgist sustain using Tumble Through without actually Tumbling Through anything, I'm with Deriven.

Yes, it's RAW, and it's also apparently RAI.

It is also cheesy and lacks common sense. If you do not actually Tumble Through anything, then it's a Stride. Stride cannot be used to sustain. To me, it's that simple. To me, people using it that way are trying to exploit the rules, and I do not find that fun as a player or GM. But that's me.

You are in no way wrong if you use RAW or RAI at your table for this, and he and I are not wrong for saying "Not at my table." Every table is different, and rules should be adjusted for what makes the game fun for that table.

I would also hazard a guess that it might be to prevent players from complaining if they did not get a save against something when they were paralyzed or stunned.

I want to touch on some of the things mentioned in the above post.

The first thing I would like to say is that while the story beats of an AP can be linear, how you get there is not. Different groups will have different experiences in the same AP, even if they are the same players, based on how they approach the challenges the AP gives. IMO, APs are not linear in the same way, say, a novel is.

Influence can be clunky, I will agree. I do want to say, first of all, that it is certainly better than having an all-or-nothing Charisma roll for a party face. The Discover mechanic, IMO, is meant to help people who may be stuck on what to role have an IC reason to roll a skill. Most of the time, however, if you pay attention to who the NPCs is, and what their goals may be, a player can figure out good skills to roll for the Influence part, and just skip Discover entirely.

Is the NPC a cheerful actor: Performance, Acting Lore, Theater Lore would be skills that would likely work without Discover.

It is a shady fence: Thievery, (Location) Lore, Underworld Lore.

Research tends to be pretty easy, though if anything, it's the most likely to drag if you have players who are not into Lore. Most Research scenes will just be rolls until you hit the target number, and progress will tend to be Lore. My group loves Lore, so they are good for us, but YMMV.

Infiltration is awesome, and certainly not at all a drag on the GM. I've used it a lot. Much like with influence, rather than have one person roll once or twice, in an all-or-nothing roll and instead it turns it into a real scene where everyone gets to take part.

Opportunities let the GM reward players by adding in elements of back stories, giving them items from wishlists, or tying things into parts of the story that they have engaged with. Obstacles allow for group creativity.

An example could be a guard post. Instead of just 'Rogue, roll Stealth', the GM gets to say "How do you want to get past it?", and let the party come up with a plan to do just that. It's much more fun for me as a GM, and from what I've seen, for the players to actually be able to toss RP into something like a heist.

The VP sub-system is just easy. When it comes to tracking things, well, I can't speak to that. Having GMed 3.5 with its 10 billion separate things to track in combat, the tiny amount of tracking I have to do with some VP challenges is so minor that I don't even notice it. However, other people may have more issues with that, and in that case, I think it is a valid criticism.

I don't think you have to teach the rules of sub-systems to players at all. You can, and I do, as my players like to know that. But if players don't want to learn them, just let them tell you what they do, and let them roll, and track it all behind the screen. It's no different from combat. They don't need to know exactly how many VPs they need any more than they need to know how many HPs a monster has.

Another thing to remember is this: the skills listed on any skill challenge are the best skills to use, not the only ones. If a player comes up with a good way to use another skill Let Them!. Use the DCs in the challenge, or the DC by Level chart, to choose the DC and go with the flow.

Just like with combat encounters, you can - and should - adapt non-combat encounters, which sub-systems are, to your group. The great thing about sub-systems is that they make non-combat encounters as engaging as combat ones, and reward the players that want that kind of character shine in their thing as much as the barb or blaster caster do in their thing.

Now, every AP does not need a lot of them, and if something in an AP does not work for your group, cut it, just like with fights.

As for Mythspeaker specifically, the systems they use are 100 percent needed for the style of story this AP is telling. That may not be a good story for every group. Just like Quest for the Frozen Flame and the survival elements in it will cause some groups to bounce off it, the heavy sub-system use in Mythspeakers may also cause some groups to do the same.

And that's fine.

Not every AP will be good for every group.

Sub-systems add a lot to the game and are much simpler to run than combat is. They add the same depth to the rest of the game world that combat has had for decades.

I do not think most APs need the amount that Mythspeakers has. In fact, I think most need very few. But, I'd rather have them exist and be used and adjusted as tables need, than go back to the old ways of resolving skills.

He was not mythic as far as I can tell. His hero speaking never worked, which is stated in the Q&A on page 9. However, I can't find - and maybe I missed it - what his cause of death was.

This adventure certainly is different. I feel the intro is a little weak in bringing players together but it is wild how much of this adventure is non combat and isbtsd skill focused. I'm hoping next adventure increases the stakes and offers a more balanced experience with some more vigorous combat encounters.

I don't think it's weak in bringing players together, but I do think it could have been done better. If I were to run it, I'd have the players decide how their character met the point of contact NPC rather than the way it is written, and would probably do some RP with the group alone, so the PCs could get to know each other before kicking things off.

I like subsystems, and I can tell you why: they are a good way where characters not built for combat get to shine. They are also good ways to add to the story without violence. That's a plus as it gives a GM more tools than just fights to add tension.

I don't see, and I am curious about, why rolling to hit and damage doesn't break immersion, but rolling skill checks does? If anything, I would think it would flip as IMO - and I very well might be wrong here - you have more options as the GM to describe things out of combat.

Like in your fishing example above, I can think of a lot of ways to describe a failure to control a boat.

I also think a GM tracks *less* in a subsystem than one does in a fight. Typically, in a subsystem, you track VP, which almost always works the same way (-1 points for Crit Fail, 0 for Fail, 1 for Success, 2 for Crit Success), and maybe a debuff or two from a fail.

In a fight, you track HPs and conditions on multiple foes, as well as things like Persistent Damage. This can lead to a crazy amount of tracking, though I suppose that's easy to not see if you are using a VTT, as it will do it for you.

As I have not read my front matter for Myth Speakers 1 (I have read the back matter), I can't give an opinion on whether there are too many. I believe, and I could be wrong, that part of Book 1 is games for the equivalent of the Olympics, and in that case, I'd expect a lot of subsystems.

SKT Book 1, Chapter 1, had a lot of subsystems, and they were absolutely needed for the story that chapter was telling. Age of Ashes had very few because they were not needed. It's going to vary by AP, and the book in the AP, and sometimes the chapter of the book.

Adjusting is part of being a GM. As an example, Sky King's Tomb is one of my favorite adventures of all time. But, when I ran it, I cut two fights, for narrative reasons, from Chapter 2 of Book 1, and if I were to run it again, I'd rewrite all of Chapter 3 of Book 1. If you think there are too many subsystem events in Mythspeaker 1, cut the ones that don't support the story that you want to tell with it.

I would guess that the wording is there for future-proofing, just in case an archetype gets it as an Additional Feat at some point.

Lia Wynn wrote:

It also lowers *max* HP by the monsters (or PCs') level. This impacts how much they can heal if they run away.

Drained also reduces current HP. Which is pretty equivalent to dealing damage. It is explicitly not the same as taking damage, but the differences are hard to notice in most cases.

It isn't all that much - weapons probably will do more damage than the HP loss from Drained. But it does reduce HP in addition to reducing max HP and affecting Constitution proficiencies and saves.

Yes, it does.

But Deriven had already mentioned that, and I was attempting to add additional things Drained does that he had not mentioned.

To piggyback a little on Deriven's excellent post, there are some other things to remember about Drained.

It also lowers *max* HP by the monsters (or PCs') level. This impacts how much they can heal if they run away.

Also, unlike things like Clumsy or Enfeebled, it lasts a long time. After every Daily Prep you lose one rank of Drained, so if your campaign has monsters that run away, in many cases, they will still be drained when you find them again.

The best way to look at Drained, IMO, is this: You do something, you get the effect that you normally would, and you also remove bonus HP from it equal to its level and make it more vulnerable to some of the nasty Fort save things out there - and given that many monsters best saves are Fort, debuffing Fort can help your casters a lot.

Like a lot of others have said, I wouldn't sign up for a paid GM game. But, I don't see any harm in Paizo allowing them to be posted here. IMO, more game accessibility is good. And, if I was running a free game, and someone wanted to pay me, I'd take it. I mean, I'd never expect it, but, in the end, is it really that different from someone making food and bringing it to the game, or buying three or four pizzas and bringing them?

There is already Dawnsbury Days on Steam. It's a fun little PF2 game, and just got an expansion that is hopefully just the first one.

Monk or Archer are definitely things I've considered. Whatever I did, if I played in the AP, I'd want to highlight speed and mobility when outside, if I could.

But, I'd also want to lean into where the group had weak spots, so if they were, say, a harpy archer, and a satry'ish monk already, I'd go something different, so that everyone gets to shine.

If I had a chance to play this, I'd go with a centaur. I don't know what class, it would depend on what the group needed if other people had more solid concepts.

But, I've wanted to play a centaur since they were released, and this seems like the perfect AP for one.

Also, I love that missionary idea TheTownsend!

I would suggest making your own adventure. Your players like Korvosa and want to interact with factions they have grown fond of within it. Rather than try to force a square (an AP set elsewhere) into a round hole (Korvosa), make adventures that play to what your group wants.

You can even do this by taking stand-alone adventures from PF1, or other systems, that are location agnostic, and adapting them to your needs.

My Shattered Star group went to Kaer Maga via Korvosa, and I tossed a side quest at them from a 4E Dungeon Mag that they had a great time with.

In the fire section of Rage of Elements, it points out that the major cities of the plane of fire have magically controlled temperatures so that creatures from other planes can survive.

I think that the entire point of Mythic Resistance is that non-mythic people have a hard or impossible time defeating a Mythic monster. They need a Mythic hero, or group, to help them.

Look at Beowulf. Grendel is a mythic monster and wipes out a whole long house of battle-hardened warriors. They were very skilled and experienced, and could do nothing against it.

Beowulf, who is literally a mythic hero in this tale, kills Grendel.

That's the point, I think, of Mythic Resistance, creating story elements that make the PCs into much larger than life heroes.

I think that Mathmuse's example is not a hit on PF2 at all. It's just a poorly designed encounter.

Without the hazard, it is a level +1 encounter. Ok, that's not bad.

However, the terrain in the cave favors the monster. It's immune to Precision, which significantly limits the level 1 rogue's damage potential. It has an AoE effect which heals the corpselight *and* debuffs the party.

On top of that, it has damage resistance, and its weakness to sunlight that could level the playing field is negated *by the blizzard* outside. The actual damage that the creature does is not overly high.

In effect, in the example, *everything* was set up for the monster to succeed and for the party to fail. Of course, the fight would go the monster's way,

In PF2, as Deriven has pointed out in the thread, character are so much more suriviable at level 1 than in any previous d20 game ever made.

No game can compensate for a badly designed encounter. This one, though, at least gives great encounter design rules and a HP buffer at low levels to help people learn.

I would agree with Errenor. If you are in a Dual Class game as a Kineticist/Alchemist, your Alchemist abilities use Alchemist Class DC, and your Kineticist abilities use Kineticist DC.

James Jacobs wrote:

Not only do the shorter ones sell better (in large part because there's twice as many opportunities to "get in on the ground floor" of the story), but they give customers twice as many opportuniteis to get excited about an Adventure Path (since we do four a year instead of two). The amount of time it takes the typical group to play through a 3 parter is generally more than 3 months, so by the time they're wrapping up, there's even MORE choices of where to go from there.

Also, while I do understand folks wanna play a pC from 1st to 20th level (that's my preferred method of play), many MORE folks are eager to always be building new PCs to try out new character concepts, in part because we continue to publish so many interesting and intriguing new options for new characters (ancestries in particular are VERY popular, and you can't easily switch your ancestry over on an established character). More opportunities to start a new campaign plays better into that sort of player mindset, I suspect.

For the time being, 3 part Adventure Paths are here to stay, in other words.

I can live with it, since the points you make are quite true. However, one thing I got to say, having AP's like Spore Wars, which pretty clearly is the "Elf AP", without an appropiate lead-in is a bit annoying.

I look at the 1-11 AP's on offer currently and we have Abomination Vaults (which I am already running and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix is the already agreed-upon follow-up), Gatewalkers (which is widely seen as one of the worst 2E AP's) and then Outlaw's of Alkenstar, Quest for the Frozen Flame, Sky King's Tomb and Triumph of the Tusk, which are all pretty inappropiate entries into an elf-centric AP. Warden's of Wildwood would probably be much more doable, but ends at level 13, which makes connecting it to Spore Wars quite hard (except if I would tell my guys that they don't level for the first module and rewrite all encounters, too).

Curtain Call also seems to have not really have an AP which leads...

I want to make a few comments here:

First, Gatewalkers. I have run this, and while I do have an issue in that there are not enough Deviant powers for a group of four, and they are so non-impactful that they don't get used much if at all, it is not a bad AP. In fact, outside of the deviant power issue, it's fun and flavorable and has some interesting twists.

The people that complain about it complain about Sakuachi, and 'It's her quest, not ours.', which is not true. Yes, she has a role to play, but the PCs have the biggest role to play as they can

Second: SKT. SKT is a great lead into Spore Wars. Why? Because as Highhelm points out, *Kyonin*'s Government approached Highhelm's with a 'Hey if you help us if Treerazer attacks, we will help you if Tar Baphon attacks.'

It makes absolute sense that heroes who have proven themselves in Highhelm are sent to a conference to help with Kyonin's security to show that Highhelm is serious about that offered alliance.

As for Curtain Call: Every adventure leads into it. AP. Homebrew. Whatever. Your group is literally asked to make a play about *their own adventures!* What can be easier as a lead-in? Your very own actions directly lead into the AP and it does not matter what those actions even are.

It does not need to be defined in the ability, as it is already defined in the rules for Afflictions.

Player Core, Page 430:

When you're first exposed to the affliction, you must attempt a saving throw against it. This first attempt to stave off the affliction is called the initial save. An affliction usually requires a Fortitude save, but the exact save and its DC are listed after the name and type of affliction. Spells that can cause an affliction typically use the caster's spell DC.

On a successful initial saving throw, you are unaffected by that exposure to the affliction. You don't need to attempt further saving throws against it unless you are exposed to the affliction again.

Double Poison says to use the lowest save. Poison is an affliction, and afflictions tell you what save to use. So, in the example the lowest DC is not 26, it's Will 26.

There is no question at all about the save. It uses the lowest DC save. It says that right in the ability. In the example, the lowest DC save is Will at 26.

Lia Wynn wrote:

I do not think it needs an errata.

It does not work on people to begin with.

It specifically targets animals and is a once-per-day ability with a minor bonus. Basically, it lets you, at level 5, give that cat, or dog, or cow, or whatever a combat bonus.

I would also not allow it to be used on an AC/eidolon/awakened animal PC.

Awakened Animal characters are not people. They are not Animals any more either (they have the Beast trait instead), so the effect wouldn't work on them. Beast Eidolon also wouldn't work since they also have the Beast trait instead of the Animal trait.

But there is nothing that prevents the ability from being used on an Animal Companion with the Animal trait. There is technically nothing that prevents it from being used on a Familiar either, but the Familiar still wouldn't be able to use Strike with the improved attack.

So if you wouldn't want it being used on an Animal Companion, then the ability needs errata.

However, is there an actual balance problem with using the ability on an Animal Companion? It effectively gives a 1/day Runic Body effect (including the rules language of making the target's unarmed attacks +1 Striking unarmed attacks) that is only usable on the party's Animal Companion.

Am I missing something? That doesn't seem overpowered to me.

From a mechanical perspective, I do not think there is an issue.

There might be since ACs do get bonuses from progression naturally. But, as Yuri pointed out, the writing of the ability does seem to minimize any balance issues.

However, the reason I would not allow it to be used on ACs is the intent behind the ability. As Yuri also pointed out, and as the ability itself says, it's meant to be used on other animals. It's not *just* a game about numbers, it's also a game about story-telling, so the intent behind an ability is just as important as a +1, and this Ancestry Feat has a very clear intent.

I do not think it needs an errata.

It does not work on people to begin with.

It specifically targets animals and is a once-per-day ability with a minor bonus. Basically, it lets you, at level 5, give that cat, or dog, or cow, or whatever a combat bonus.

I would also not allow it to be used on an AC/eidolon/awakened animal PC.

0. It would be specified by the GM. No type of terrain is always uneven ground. As an example, you walk on a road, and it is even ground. You come to an area of construction where the road is all torn up, and your GM tells you that part of the road is uneven.

1. Yes.

2. I would imagine yes, but that would be up to your GM. For instance, the building-destroying aspect of Earthquake could lead to uneven ground.

3. Yes, there can be.

Uneven ground is, IMO, meant to be an element used to vary up an encounter and add an extra challenge to it. It will typically be placed by the GM deliberately.

I'm waiting for the Foundry module to drop to be able to read this.

I hope with the new marketplace we could get pre launch pages and even trailers for the content!

Do you mean trailers like this: Shades of Blood

Here are the answers, IMO.

For 1 and 2, No.

A Jump, be it a High or Long Jump, requires the creature to Stride, and then make the jump movement. A creature in the air can only move with Fly, and a creature in the water moves with Swim. Neither uses Stride and Flinging Updraft does not have the 'this may be used with alternate movement types' language.

As a GM, though, I'd probably allow it to be used on creatures in the air because I think that makes sense for an Air Kinesticist to be able to do.

As for three, well, objects can't jump. You can pick up a chair and throw it, sure, but it will never jump on its own. However, a GM could certainly allow you to use it to move something. They would likely put a bulk limit on it, and make it unattended as a requirement, and I know that I would not allow it to be used to make any sort of attack.

However, it is clearly meant to be a mobility too. If I am the Air Kinestist, on my turn I can either try and hinder an enemies mobility, *or* I can use it to move an ally.

And, as PFS has ruled it forced movement, it does not trigger Reactive Strike, meaning you can move a friendly squishy away from a dangerous melee attacker, or move the Rogue into a flanking position right before they go.

I think that those rulings make sense. I think your point 3 is the best point, as they should not stack, for the reasons you gave.

I think it is a fair ruling that gives the player fun options and doesn't cause any balance issues.

Why not go to AoN and search for arcane spells with traits like: Force, Mental, and Sonic? That would give you your answer.

There are likely other traits that are not coming to mind for me at the moment, as well.