Loengrin's page

Mmmh... For me the Rarity rule is a strange one...

I don't really like it, because as an experienced GM with my own World Setting it annoys me to have to look at all the tags and redefine them for my setting...
And it was a tacit rule that existed without the Rule book having to tell me... ;)

BUT I understand why they have put that in the Rule book : For new GM this can highlight the fact that you have to put this kind of rules in place, be it to avoid "problematic" things that can destroy a game if no attention are paid to them (It's like shouting to the GM "Hey, take attention to teleport, it can break some games depending of what kind of adventure you're playing if you're not aware that it's a really powerful movement effect that no ambush set on the road can stop ;) ), or more simply to provide some kind of consistency to your world (Katana is not common if you're not in an Oriental environment)...
And if you go with the Golarion setting it gives you the basic rarity setting of the "main" continent without having to work on it... :)

So I think putting this rule in place is a pretty smart move, it will help new GM to see that this kind of rule is a necessity to have, while providing the basic rules without having to make them.
But at the same time when you change setting or even continent in Golarion you have to "work" those tags around to suit your need and have a way for your players to know what the new tags are now which is a hassle... :p

Edit: Did you intend to quote Aratorin instead of me? Or perhaps misunderstand the context of my statement?

Sorry, yeah, wrong quote I intended to answer to Aratorin saying some people says that, by RAW, you can't attack object... ;)

You can't Strike object but you can attack them :p

To be clear, I don't say that. Other people do.

Attacking stationary objects / structures

On fireballing chairs

Why are hazards so damn powerful?!

Yeah they maybe right with the Strike action, but you can use another action to attack object :

Core p462 : "Other Actions
Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well any traits your action might have. For example, a spell that lets you switch targets might say you can do so “by spending a single action, which has the concentrate trait.” Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules."

With this you can make an Attack Object action... ;)

But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.

Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."

But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :

Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."

And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."

How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?

Aside from fact there isn't any real RAW wording distinction, I could see fair "fluff" / "immersive" rationale for Shocking Grasp and Druid rule to diverge in how they consider Studded Leather to fall in or out of their consideration of metal armor.

But RAW Studded Leather has always been a "Leather" armor, and the wording p276 make them "Leather" armor.

If the scoundrel takes the 18 charisma, it's certainly true that it's better in social encounters than the 16 charisma thief. Taking the crit system into account, that +1 on the top end means quite a lot. In a game where the social encounters are more important than the combat encounters, the charisma primary is clearly a good option.

I think that's one thing people have problem with... In PF2 a +1 IS important... ;)

I think I haven't made my idea come through when I said that there should be "warning" in the scoundrel entry... I mean that the entry should note that this is THE entry if you want to multi class in a Charisma based archetype... ;)
You can be almost as good as a Scoundrel with more INT at Social interaction with other racket but the "almost" is the point...
And the Racket tells you that CHA is your key ability without giving clue for why...

Having one more skill mean that you can ditch 2 point in INT to put elsewhere... if this is not a powerful ability I don't know what is... ;)

It's because Gary Gygax wrote them that way and it's stuck ever since. Yes, Pathfinder is not D&D, but, also, it is.

(Grrr you made me go and search for my Player's Handbook to take a look... And since mine is not in English please forgive me if the traduction is not literal)

Here's the rough understanding I had from the Druid entry in the Player's Handbook :

"Druids have access to high level spell and to a lot of different weapons but to compensate they are restricted to only non metal armor or shield"...

So no "fluff" reason for that but only rules balancing reason... ;)

This is incorrect. Not only are Spell Attack Rolls Attacks, which do suffer MAP, they are specifically called out as one of the 3 primary types.

Also, Attack is specifically defined as anything with the Attack Trait.

Oooh I stand corrected... Thank you for pointing that out, I would have misread that if not for you since Attack Roll and Spell Attack Roll are separated... ;)

Once again I just regret there's no chapter where something as important as the Trait are summarized and defined... (Searching for "Trait" in the PDF give too much response and searching for Attack Trait gives nothing, thanks for pointing out that if I search for a Trait I have to put parenthesis :) )
And the Spell Attack Roll should not be separated from the Attack Roll...
So it's even MORE right that you should be able to do nonlethal damage with attack spells and if they wanted to do it otherwise they should have precised "Weapon Nonlethal Damage" as the paragraph title... :)

And, thank you again for pointing this out for me, whenever they say "attack" somewhere then it applies to "Spell Attack Roll" too...

That's why I love this forum, it can really help you comprehend the rules... Keep up the good work everyone (and thanks again Aratorin for correcting me ;) )

Though without the reading of the Attack Trait you can infer there's no MAP since the entry specify "Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page." which does not have any MAP rules...
Once again proving that a real chapter on Trait should be made, you're not supposed to read all the Glossary and Index to understand the rules and especially if you have to search for "attack (trait)" instead of "attack trait" to find it... ;)

I can speculate why druids don't wear metal armor for out-of-game reasons.

Main reason I can think of this : Golarion is the official world of Pahfinder and so nothing in it can really go against the rules... So, no specific rules in Golarion...

The Pathfinder character classes are based on mythology and fiction [...]

Well, first and foremost the Druid in Pathfinder is based on the Druid in AD&D... Not being able to wear metal armor is a remnant of the past... ;)

Metal armor is not an affront to nature out of game. Instead, it represents cities and industry so it looks wrong on a druid who represents wilderness and surviving in the wild. A firearm would look out of place in a druid's hands, too.

It's not an issue of metal being "an affront to nature", it's an issue of metal "blocking" nature's magic which, at the beginning, has no relations whatsoever to "Divine Casting" at all... ;)

Edit : Usually from these really ancient rules Studded Leather is authorized for Druid if I remember well...

I'm not sure they're that much better, rogues get so many skills that like one extra skill over the other rackets and the ability to have Charisma as key ability isn't *that* big a perk, especially since I don't think you can responsibly actually make that choice over Dexterity and keep up your to-hit.... which you could do while still being able to put plenty of stat into charisma with or without the scoundrel.

Well, as the game plays now I think one more skill is pretty powerful, more importantly I think for a Court Noble this IS the class you should have... as a player this is usually my favorite type of class, not as useful in combat (but a minimum useful nonetheless)

It also isn't actually worse enough to justify a warning label, seriously someone ran the numbers earlier in the thread- it pulls ahead 1 v 1 pretty well, and is slightly behind if flanking is consistent, which it won't always be.

Yeah I agree with you but for newcomers in the game it's not that obvious since you need a very good understanding on how to optimise this racket, things that is a lot more obvious with other racket...

OP might want to lash out at anyone who disagrees with their assertion that its badly designed, or terrible, but that doesn't happen to make their assertion correct enough to reframe our community perspective on the class.

I will not make any assumption on what the OP might or might not have wanted to says in his first post, I don't care... :p

Because of Covid-19 our games are currently on Roll20 so it would look weird to throw all the roll secretly when the other pc are doing it openly

Well it's the same at a real table, if everybody is rolling out in the open and you are the only one not to that's suspicious too...

For mage/rogue The sneak attack rules looks like it must be added if you touch and the opponent is flat foot. They may have worded it in a way that it was optionnal because you don't always want to kill the adversary. The magic trickster say 'you can' so it might be optionnal for sneak attack on spell.

From the entry for "Sneak Attack" p281 it seems that you HAVE to add the sneak attack damage if you can, but if you read page 180 the Ruffian entry it says "You can deal sneak attack", implying it's not an obligation (and ever more implying that if you don't say you want to apply them then you don't apply them :p )...

Deception with a high character that is spying will already have it above 30. So only a natural 1 while pc are rolling high can trigger something.

The cantrip is really the big problem. The public roll indicate to the other players that you touch. Others players will suspect something if you say that you have no more spell to throw and those are impacting at full damage.

Yep, same at "real" table where players throw their dice in the open, the only solution to this is either :

- Everyone roll secretly

or

- People accept to draw a line between what they know and what their character knows... ;)

Honestly, I think even if the argument can be made the the Scoundrel is weaker because flanking is easy to get.

It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall, in a game more or equally socially/skill oriented (like a game heavily investigation oriented or with a lot of interaction with people like when you got a fief of your own) than combat oriented the scoundrel can shine out of combat a lot better than the others...

Well, the issue here is that at first sight it seem that the Scoundrel has a good advantage in combat with feint where his real advantage is in the Charisma and Skill one... Leading to post like this...

Maybe there should be something in the Scoundrel Racket description warning that this is a social racket or MC racket and that he sacrifice some of his combat prowess for this, while clarifying that Feint is less useful with PF2... ;)

The book is a little hazy

I concur, but with a book this thick it's no wonder... I still think the book is 99.98% well written though ;)

p453 The first sentence says that you can make a non-lethal attack without specifying a weapon requirement (even though the next three sentences all reference weapons)

I don't think this is "hazy" though, Attack Rolls are described p446 and are divided between Melee Attack Rolls and Ranged Attack Rolls. Spells Attack Rolls got their own entry (p447) separate to Attack Rolls, thus when you refer to an Attack Roll you can't compare it to a Spell Attack Roll.

In fact there's only two types of attack rolls in the Game :

- One called "Attack Roll" which consist of "Melee Attack Rolls" and "Ranged Attack Rolls".
- And the other is the "Spell Attack Roll" (for which there's no difference between Melee or Ranged, the same rule apply). To which Multiple Attack penalty does NOT apply for example, since it's not an Attack Roll and the MAP rule is specifically in the Attack Roll entry.

The "hazy" part is when they say "make an attack" where they should say "make an Attack Roll" if it's intended to be used only with weapons, or "make ANY attack roll" (or maybe simply "make any attack" if they want to the rule to be for weapons and spells).
Though since the Spell Attack is listed in this entry you can infer that an Attack refer to both "Attack Roll" and "Spell Attack Roll"...

p658 says that Attacks use Strike or other Attack Actions

p628 ;) Usually you can't use a "resume" of the rules in the appendix (this is in the Glossary and Index part) as a rule, you have to read the "real" rules, the detailed ones... But since there's no other definition of what an Attack is in the entire books then you I think you're right to take this rule.

Thus, a literal reading would seem to be that if a spell has the attack trait, it should be possible to make it non-lethal. Produce Flame allows you to make a melee attack with the flame in your hand and has the attack trait. Spiritual Weapon is another example

A corollary is that nothing in the rules allows spells that do not have the Attack trait to be made non-lethal. Thus, it does not appear possible to make a Fireball non-lethal.

Do I think that the designers intended that only physical weapons (not spell manifestations) could be made non-lethal? Probably, but that is not the way the rules are written

Since nothing other than the Glossary and Index part define what an attack is, and since this entry do list the Spell Attack Roll as being an attack it seems that per RAW you are right.

Granted, if they wanted the "nonlethal attack" to be weapon only, to be less "hazy" they should have said "Attack Roll" in the nonlethal attack definition ... ;)

It's even more impressive if the boat has less than 10' to the water line and you drop the area it's in down 10': suddenly you've got water above the deck coming in from all sides. Or worse is you're on a raft or barge...

Sorry, since it's instant water has no time to rush in the boat, but when the water go up again instantly you throw them into space same upping the water in the first place... :p

Ok, more seriously, with a duration lowering the water can be very powerful since you can cross river with this (if the duration is sufficient making an army crossing is a HUGE advantage) or as said by Graystone put boats in a pinch... ;)

I really hope there will be a duration in an errata...

You know if you want to take it like this the I can say you can't cast any spell on a Hazard since it's not an object, their type are either Traps, Environmental Hazards, or Haunts, having object immunities does NOT make them objects, same as having Fire Immunity does not make one a fire, they're Hazard and no spell can target Hazard... ;)

Umm, is this really topic for rules on how striking hazard or object works?

Well if you want to know if Hazards are overpowered the first things to know are the rules... If you can blast them with spells it's a lot easier to deal with them... ;)

An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. core p273

Oh my... This spell makes you the god of Naval Combat... Imagine 50*50 feet area were most of the enemy fleet is elevated 10 feet at instant speed... the boats are flung into space... :p

Well even falling 10 feet give damage to boat... ;)

Which Mental spell can you cast on an object with mind with your rules ? O_o

Oh and you can't cast most of your spell on a green slime or Brown Mold now too with your rules... since they are no longer creatures...

Well I think alignment in PF2 is "less bad" than in PF1 but I still stick to my home rule for alignment...
It's simple, for example let's take from Neutral to Good there's three state : you're Neutral, Half-Good (you're "a bit Good"), and you're Good.
Neutral is the Neutral Alignment

"Half Good" (equivalent ot Somewhat Good in the GMG) is you choosing a Good alignment but not wanting to go all out, this don't count as being eligible for a class that need you to be Good
You got only half the benefit or malus tied to your alignment rounded down min 1 (example aligned damage) or a +/- 1 degree if applicable (For example a +1 degree on Divine Wrath and a -1 degree on Divine Decree). And there's also a line difference in the Detect Alignment table, meaning you would only register with a Faint Aura at level 11 and none at level 9.
You are not as tied to the typical behavior of the Good alignment than real Good aligned people.

Good is the Good alignment. Only when you need to be of a given alignment do you really have to take this, or for rp reason if you really want to be totally Good.

My players really like this, they can choose to be "Good" without as much disadvantages though to the cost of certain advantages... And I apply this rule to NPC too... ;)

After careful read :

It seems there has been a great change with PF2, you can attack object and equipment (as well as hazard) with almost anything now, with some rules : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps." (core p272)

If it wasn't the case why put these rules :
"Object Immunities
Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap." (core 273)

Per the rules you can cast sleep on a door, you can cast heal on a chest it's immune but you can ;)
But more importantly you can cast entangle on a moving blade trap and it work... (it's the example given in the paragraph)

Well I really think it depends mostly on the age of the gnome... When he is young everything is new and fantastic, you discover knew things everyday and the Bleaching is less of an issue, you may be obsessed with something this early on but it's, now, not every gnome who are obsessed with something (Gnome Obsession is now an ancestry feat thus optional).

When you're young everything interest you and others can see you as hyperactive and qualify you as an oddball, since you can become interested in things they can find strange and even alien...

The longer you live and you experience the world the less you are susceptible to those "naive" reaction BUT the more you need to experience new things or to go further and further in things you know (you may need to travel again and again to see new things, you may need to go more in depth in one or more areas like crafting or cooking new things or more complicated things, find new blueprints or recipes etc. )

The biggest enemy of gnomes is boredom... and if you're an adventurer I think you're pretty set for the duration of the game without having to think much about boredom ;)

But since, if you begin at level 1, adventuring is new to you, and so is everything you do while adventuring, you will likely begin with a lot of "hyperactive" behavior, being excited at everything you do, ready to go with every plan the others players wants to go with etc.
As you level up you don't want a "routine" to kick in and you're more susceptible to come with your own plans to do thing in a new way, to innovate instead of doing the same things again and again even if in those old tactics seems full proof you're willing to take a little bit more (or less) risks to do something new.
If you've fought, for example, zombies for a long time you will jump at every opportunity to fight something else etc.
I think you get the gist ;)

So, in short, at first you're like a children in a chocolate factory, easy to please, everything is good and new, but as time pass you're fed up and crave for something other than chocolate ;)

Personally I think that this rarity stuff is more for PFS than for home-play... In PF1 there was rules for knowing what kind of object, magical object and even spell was available in a town... Add to this that if there was no Elves in the settlement then the probability for having Elven objects at disposal was not high... ;)

The only difference now is that you don't have to build all settlements statblock to know what is or isn't available, the GM can decide "on the spot" if he thinks that his players can find a +3 rune in a 50 habitants hamlet, so be it... On the contrary, by RAW in PF1 using the settlement rules you can't... :p

Well for my part, as a GM, if my players really really wants a particular magic object or something rare they know they can ask and I'm more than willing to put up a quick "mini adventure" for the group to find what they want, or to equip them on the next boss... But they also know that if they ask for a powerful object : the "mini adventure" will be a bit difficult and, more importantly, that all the objects they want will not be collecting dust in the Boss chest but be on the boss or one of his lieutenant and will likely be used against them before they could use it for their benefit ;)

Ravingdork wrote:

In the case of a lich, I feel it just shouldn't be possible without magical intervention.

It's not a lich if it doesn't follow the "magical intervention". That's part of the whole point about what makes a lich a lich. The more things you change about it, the less it's a lich, which is fine but you should name it something else unless you're deliberately trying to confuse people.

I think he meant that changing alignment to Good for a lich should require some magical intervention, not that there's no magical process in creating a lich... ;)

Or you can male your NPC communicate so when someone spot a PC he tells everyone else where he is, thus having the same status for every NPC... ANd vice versa if your one of your PC communicate the whereabout of a sneaking NPC then the other PC knows there's someone and where he is... ;)

Thanks for the great work, this looks amazingly useful. :)

Yeah, no effect on damage. Also:

Shrink Spell wrote:

Targets 1 willing creature

Aaarf... Thanks for pointing that out... The things you miss when you think you already know something and it has changed... I really ought to read completely the spells as if they were completely new ones... ;)

That was a thing with my groups they wanted to kill the group member that didn't work. like guys just kick them out of your adventuring group or like leave real early while they are asleep.

Frankly, that should not happen unless the GM wants it to happen for "learn a lesson" reason...

Else this is a miss from the GM...

When I begin a game as a GM I go with "what do you want to play" with each players... If as a result the group is unbalanced I ask the players that I know are likely to "like" changing class to take the missing role...

And it's the same role play wise... If the group as a whole prefer to play "borderlines Characters" (Meaning mostly Neutral tending on Evil... :p ) and then a new player wants to come in with a LG avatar then two things comes in mind : first discuss with the wannabee LG and tell him/her that playing such a character in this game won't end well... Second if first doesn't convince him/her then let him get in with a tavern encounter that will surely convince him that the players around the table are not going to cope with his LG alignment and surely not take him/her along just because he/she's a player and for that need special commodity from other players... ;)

What do you mean by concealed bonus to stealth?

Daaang.. Thanks for reminding me, but Cover provide a +2 to Stealth while Concealed provide only a flat 5 check to not be hit... :)

Well, now I know that I've been giving Cover bonus instead of Concealed Bonus to my players... Not that they care... :p

I assume "unnoticed" is being used as more of an informal term to denote that people have no reason to even look for you in the first place. In such a situation you could skulk around with none the wiser while invisible as long as you took no actions that reveal your presence or until someone notices you with a non-vision sense.

Exactly that's why you can't use "unnoticed" as a stealth mechanic, it's not a stealth mechanic, it's a"rp" mechanic.

so if you are invisible+stealth and fail then you are hidden, not undetected, invisibility only give you the assurance to not be "observed" with a critical fail. Well it also give you permanent concealed bonus to stealth while invisible, that's not bad too ;)

Being unnoticed gives to the benefit of the initiative* as in you are the only one that can actively decide to act to another ones presence, e.g. when to start hostilities. Once you are noticed and undetected at best, both parties can act to each others presence.

So if you want to follow a NPC rogue to the secret rogue hideout everything is fine as long as you remain unnoticed. Once you are noticed the NPC will probably not lead you to the hideout.

Any enemy that is not unnoticed can be reacted to, even if he is invisible, that is correct.

*not the initiative in combat, but who is allowed to make decisions first

It also give you the advantage that not everyone passing by will use the seek action to try to find you, but it does not gives you any bonus...

Another example is you sneak in a castle to steal a treasure, but another rogue got the same idea as you... Your Sneak is perfect with the help of invisibility but the other rogue is seen by two guards before moving, hiding and successfully "re-stealthing". One of the guard "chase" the intruder while the other go trigger an alarm shouting "intruder, intruder !!"

You are not Unnoticed anymore... Guards in the castle knows there's an intruder and while they don't know it's you they know there's someone, you are undected but no longer unnoticed... ;)

Your invisibility does not guarantee you to go unnoticed...

Yeah, while being able to swap out cantrips is an advantage, I don't think it is much of one.

That's why I think that giving Sorcerers more Cantrips Known is not a game breaker if you want to do it at home... ;)

The question is how much more Cantrips and when to gain them ? :p

You know that even if you are invisible if I know you're in the vicinity you are not unnoticed.

Let's say you're sneaking around, then someone see you, in response you enter a room, cast invisibility and move then you are not unnoticed, you are only undetected... ;)

Unnoticed doesn't give you any bonus at all...

Honestly that one is probably overpowered, as essentially disabling an enemy martial for 1-2 rounds is pretty strong for a Cantrip. It's just a rather iconic MTG Spell and I was having fun.

But I haven't understood where I gain life and where you lose life.. :p

So in English, malus is a genus of apple. I can't find any other language for it online, other than Latin, where it may have been the root for malice, meaning evil. Is your use of this word intended to mean penalty?

Sorry, my bad, a circumstance malus should be the contrary of a circumstance Bonus which in English is a Circumstances Penalty...

Bonus means Plus (+) which is easy to understand in English while minus is the inverse meaning, well, a penalty, but mathematically it means (-)

Sorry for the language ;)

Hope this help to understand what I have tried to convey :)

I think this only mean that except for the "Long way back ancestor"
Outsider are not yet discussed... We really don't know what they will do with real outsider yet... Let's wait and hope ;)

Why should a spell caster have the same regular damage per round in addition to an arsenal of tactical nukes? Lower base damage is the price you pay for all of your bad ass combat ending abilities. Nobody would ever play a martial if casters did the same base damage with Cantrips.

I totally agree with you... A SC should do better damage OR lesser damage depending on taht spell he is using...

And secondly Do or Die are less a thing now... They still exist but it's more of a gamble than before... ;p

In play if a player says they are going to the corner to peek, I ask "are you trying to be stealthy"? If they say yes, Then there would be a stealth check vs any perception dcs. If they say no, then if they see a creature the creature is able to see them.

It's not just limbs. If you stick your head out enough to see creatures you are visible.

Plus you are able to be heard and smelled.

I think the biggest take away is, just because you are not being stealthy doesn't necessarily mean you will be noticed. However, just being behind full cover most definitely does not make you hidden.

Sorry, I agree with you, head is a limb in my vocabulary.. Albeit a pretty important one and on you don't want to lose but a limb anyway... ;)

This might be a traduction error but when I say a "limb" I mean what you mean, a Head is a limb ...

Wasn't Sword of Sharpness "severing a limb" capable of beheading ? ;)

And I strongly advise you that even if your players didn't peak, the enemy can make a sound based Perception check if your player don't want to sneak... ;)

Perception check are NOT limited to sight.. ;)

Does your player does not invest in soap, or come out from a place that has a distinct smell that stick ? :)
That can prompt a Perception check too ;)

I would say that you would have the effect of Deafened towards detecting the silenced person. -2 Status penalty

But this would really be up to the GM and "what else was going on". I originally used the word "Circumstances", but since this seems to be a Status penalty I have excised it from my sentences.

Deafened
Source Core Rulebook pg. 619
You can’t hear. You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to hear. You take a –2 status penalty to Perception checks for initiative and checks that involve sound but also rely on other senses. If you perform an action with the auditory trait, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or the action is lost; attempt the check after spending the action but before any effects are applied. You are immune to auditory effects.

Oooh nice one... Having to resort to use a spell malus to be "coherent" is a little sad... I'm interested to know, do you often launch Perception check only on sound ?

But for their defense I have to say that the "Hidden" mechanic has always been one of the most "I try to cheese it" mechanic in D&D since it can really overpower a rogue if you rule one side or under-power them if you rule it the other way... The more complicated it was the less anyone was keen to use it...
1e rules were over-complicated, and really, really subject to interpretation, so much so that I have used third editor rules to do it...
2e rules are a little less complicated rule-wise, letting the GM more "in control" but at the same time more lost in what rules to use...

No rules on hearing, smelling etc. all to the GM to do... Only view really detailed... Mweh... Not a fan.

My table wants consistency, changing rules from one session to another is difficult especially since I've played with them for more than 20 years, being master or player... I know them well... :p

And I know that, for at least on of them, Stealth rule is important because he frequently invest in Stealth and want "his return on investment" ;)

For a spellcaster that want to pass as something else. What is allowed by the rule to intentionnally act worst than the roll of the dice and the modifier?

Can you be more precise in what you want?

For what I understand there's something as "circumstances bonus/malus" that you can claim RAW.

If you want to have an intentional failure you can ask your GM to :

- Ask for a circumstance malus(Maybe secretly or not depending on how the table manage "in game" and "out game" info)

- Have a minus on your die for certain action permanently "unless you say so" (with a secret wording ?)

- Agree on a sign when you want to automatically fail something with your GM (I think to willingly fail any action is something but I can't remember where I have read it).

If you want this to remain a secret you HAVE to discuss it with your GM.

Edit : Sorry, from a non English first language reader what I read was : "is there a legitimate way to not willingly succeed on a spell roll" ;)

This really does bring home the point that the largest rift between folks on this forum about cantrips stems from disagreements upon what role they are supposed to play to casters. For example, in my mind, cantrips are only the...

Well I haven't seen any Damage Sorcerer in play for now, my only experience is a level 2 Elemental Sorcerer but level 2 is far from a good experience...

From MY point of view as a master I can say that I'm really really satisfied with how the Wizard has gone.
I know it's a point of view, but, for me, a wizard is someone who can go undefeated if he knows what he is going to fight again...
A Sorcerer is more of a damage dealer for me, something the Wizard cannot achieve because, for me, trading versatility for damage is something.
Mostly because a Sorcerer is definitely an "On the moment" kind of guy... He doesn't have to chose his spells he use it on the moment, while a Wizard ALWAYS have to be on top information wise to know what he will have to do...

I don't want a good Wizard DPS 'cause a wizard can be what he want, but at the same time I want I want a good Sorcerer DPS 'cause it's usually his role in a group...

Once again I have not enough return for sorcerer to know if it need "help"... But as for Wizard I think it's good as it is...

Are Cantrips in need of some re-balancing ? Maybe but mostly it's in need to more clear rules like Acid Splash splash damage... Not something really difficult to grant ;)

Does the Shrink spell have any effect on the target's combat abilities or movement?

Well Once Upon a Time it did... Once Upone a Time this was used on enemy to, well, literally shrink them so they were more easier for your grab fighter/monk to grab abd easily kill... :p

But really thank you to pinpoint this kind of BIG change in the rule so that I can change my minion to NOT take this kind of spells (and as an afterthought prevent my players to do the same ;) )

Now it's an utility spell that can help you in some way, but you have to think about it before taking it... Wich is something I usually ask from my MC to do...

The only thing I don't understand is there is no heightened Duration for this spell...

Now it only : Reduce the Bulk so you can throw someone, all the while reducing the dice of his weapon... Well you can also Shrink to ride something you can't otherwise for a very short while... Other than that for a short time you can go where you can't in another situation...

Heightened time length would have given this spell a better utility but well...

I mean, there are lots of other Transmutation Cantrip possibilities.

Let's see that...

Ripping Talons

Transmutation
2 Actions
Range: Touch
Target: 1 Creature
Your nails grow into sharp talons, lashing out at your foe. Make a spell attack roll, dealing Slashing damage equal 1D8 + your spellcasting modifier.

1d8 ??? Are you crazy ? The best cantrip is Electric Arc with 1d4 and you have not even speak of heightened bonus (the most interesting things) or critical/failure modifiers... Come on...

Boiling Blood

Transmutation
2 Actions
Range: 30 feet
Target: 1 Creature
Save: Fortitude
You cause the target's blood to boil for an instant dealing 1D6 + your spellcasting modifier Fire damage. The target makes a Basic Saving through. On a Critical Failure the target is also Sickened 1 as their entire body spasms from the pain.

Same as before no heightened...

Swords to Plowshares

Transmutation
2 Actions
Range: 30 Feet
Target: 1 Weapon wielded by a creature. (Unarmed and Natural attacks are not weapons)
Save: Dexterity
You hold your enemy's hostility at bay by momentarily turning their weapon into a harmless farm tool.
Critical Success: The weapon is unaffected.
Success: The weapon deals half damage for 1 round.
Failure: The weapon cannot be used to attack for 1 round.
Critical Failure: The weapon cannot be used to attack for 2 rounds.

Oh a full spelled well.. Spell.. :p

Well I don't understand this spell... If you crit you don't do anything to the enemy weapon ? And if you Crit Fail your enemy weapon become disabled for 2 turns ? Not that I don't have concept for always failure caster but...
Even if this crit fail and your weapon is disabled then well.. you're a distance what's the downside ?

As it sits, because lore is so specific, I'd be inclined to let any lore any character has scale to legendary proficiency for free (not requiring the additional lore feat).

It most cases it wont come up, and when it does it'd be nice if it was actual at all useful and able to keep up with whatever level appropriate DC there is.

Well in a campaign with a majority of pretty specific ennemies don't do that... A Lore skill pinpointed at the "highlighted" ennemies in your game can really be disruptive... Especially if you have to advise your players in what kind of class can be viable in your campaign...

Well what I can do is for everyone to take the Goblin Lore so they can understand why their goblin "camarade" is acting like a Kender on steroid... :p

No one has ever played a Goblin at my table except for "We Goblins"... But that maybe because the first campaign I always go with with a new table is Rise of the Runelords... :p

Another factor might be that I always enforce that in a human-centric ,and where races exist for real, world some people will be racists...

That's why I usually completely accept Uncommon races at my table provided that they are keen to accept the downside of being a race that is not fully accepted in some town by some people in exchange for advantage in combat... You can find this an easy advantage but, well, you have to rp it to know... ;)

This is something that I find really educative for some people, playing a minority in a RP game can be an eye opener for some... :p

Does anyone else run into the problem of Fort quite often being higher than the enemys AC? Making these Tentacles difficult to land against anything resembling a large or bigger creature. I could see it being good vs non bosses though.

I currently master a campaign with lots of undead and frankly they are A LOT more sensitive to fort spell than before...

That's a total game changer that I have not seen that coming... So now I'm sticking with playable race ennemies for the time being... There's a lot of monsters to read again and a lot of habit to lose... :p

I think this kind of things are why most GM stay safe in playing playable races ennemies for now with easy classes to play, a lot of things have changed with monsters we have to regains our marks with fights... ;)

Yeah, bargaining with devils in Cheliax and practicing necromancy in Geb have something in common, they're both evil things done in evil countries.

Socially accepted doesn't make it not evil.

Some people want to play a game where it's not evil.

I personally really don't like that idea, but that's what they want.

Well as long as the table is happy everything goes ;)

Ok since the first post isn't really interested in an answer let's go ;)

First I have to say that magical world building is one of my hobby...

For Geb I would point out that even if Urgathoa is NE, Geb is LE... And I would argue that it is a pre-requisite for every kingdom who wants to use undead.

Loyal : Because without strong rule enforced at all cost, a territory who accept undead as a part of their daily routine is fated to quickly disappeared in the belly of a horde of man-eating monsters... ;)
So you can try to make a territory with undead of NE Or CE alignment but if your territory is mostly Neutral/Something or Chaotic/Something then your reign will not last long... :p
You can't afford something other than Loyal in this case, and I would say very, very loyal... Else you can say bye bye to your people and yourself.

Evil : Because summoning is Evil but not only because of that.
You have to think of the people who are going to live in your territory... First you don't need peasant in your territory, most of the menial tasks will be done by undead. And peasant is a big percentage of medieval population... In a way it means you need less people to sustain your realm...
Second all people strongly believing in Gods that abhorre undead will flee first, then you will attract people who LIKE undead, in this case Urgathoa believers and, most importantly, priest who will quickly rise in power.
Then intelligent undead will come too, and with the help of the clergy will want equality, and then with the decline in living people population, they will gain more power than living people...
But undead needs living people to "eat" so slavery or "living people livestock" will be implemented (they got the power to do so AND the time ;) )

Then you got a territory with few living people, sentient undead with most of the power and slavery/"voluntary livestock" (Voluntary Livestock are the people who agree to serve a sentient undead that can make them immortal) to "eat" be legal who need to be strict with the rules 'cause they don't want to unleash hell in their town (their "cattle" could die) or irritate other powerful countries by releasing large horde of undead unto them...

For that I would say that the territory if Geb was incredibly well thought out ;)

In summary: at a corner you can be observed. If you made no attempt to hide, you will be observed. But a corner provides enough cover to hide. If you end a Sneak action in cover, you can maintain that hidden (or better) status.

I would add two things :

- If you go to a corner and specifically tell me you don't let ANY of your limbs go past the corner I would rule you cannot be seen.

- None of your example guarantee that you cannot be heard... So Perception for that if you Stride and Stealth if you try to not be heard... ;=

And more specifically why it is really a transmutation spell and not a conjuration or evocation spell, as well as why there can't be any other transmutation cantrips in the core rule book.

For the first part I think historical reason is one of the answer.

For the later it's certainly because all the transmutation cantrips they could think of goes in the realm or rp spells too or are already in the prestidigitation trick spell, the others would be too powerful for an "at will" spell (you can't augment speed or lifting weight etc. at will it's too powerful)... :p

The concept of using a magical rune as a signature or seal is pretty cool, but I'm not sure how practical it's going to be when the effect can explicitly be rubbed off.

You know that a signature can be scrubbed off to, a wax seal too... At least you can't easily reproduce this one...

Though to be frank at my table I intend to re-establish the Detect Magic glow part and the non-removing part on non living creature. But that's Homebrew... ;)

This under Perception entry page 448 line 2 : "Every creature has Perception, which works with and is limited by a creature’s senses"...

So if someone can't see you and can't hear you and has no other means to sense you then no perception check...

Unless you never wash yourself or just come back from a sewer then I can prompt a perception check from the smell... :p

With no clear rules around when or how much people rely on hearing for perception, I am curious how many people actual memorize the 2nd level version of the spell, when they use it, and how GMs interpret it.

The rules are pretty clear for me : If you are Unnoticed and in Total Concealment (IE can't be seen) if you are under Silence spell then you can Stride without prompting a Perception check else you prompt a Perception check to know if you have been heard when you move even if you are not in view...