Loreguard's page

At first I was going to say, sure, just make it cost the same as 50x a scroll. But I hadn't considered the thoughts on the actions to pull out scrolls and change them, so yes that would give the wand an advantage in those aspects over a scroll.

Some might say that you should then make them cost more, but I don't know, perhaps having them be a concentrated, item make them a bigger risk and that might be enough of a drawback for the cost.

I'm guessing however that your plan was to make the wand give you a per-casting discount as if a bulk scroll. I suppose that means that how much it breaks things would just be by the amount of the discount you give them for them being a bulk consumable spell device. If you make it anywhere close to 50% you are making such wands significantly discounting their cost. If you make it a 40% discount like the old wands, that is close to 50%. If you make it a 10% discount, it gives a reason.

You can also argue potentially, wands can't be used to learn a spell. You could also make using such a wand such that it can only be activated once per round. (or make it once per minute)

You could even have 10 charge wands either cost even for 10 scrolls (or maybe (5% discount). While 50 charge wand might give you a 10% discount (might even have a longer delay between castings, to say a minute)?

Does it break things... if it makes it so no-one would want scrolls, that is probably problematic. But you can probably make it so there are good aspects as well as bad for the choice, it would likely work. The biggest thing is making sure such a change improves the feel for most or all your players. (frequently they like things that make things easier for them, better for them, so might not be hard to have them like it)

Wait wait wait! They can cut your head off but you don't die? I'm interested to see these mechanics.

Perhaps the perfect companion for the King who is just a little too free with the 'Off with their head' anger issues, but who'd prefer to stop losing the few friends around them so much... but insists on sticking to their decisions.

"Off with there head..." Umm... thinking a second. "Vorpy do you mind doing it? I'd like for them to finish their turn quickly so we can resume the game."

Splash as a drink gets spilled on them. "Off with your head! This was my second best tunic." casting a quick cantrip to clean it themselves causing no actual permanent damage to the garment. "Send them downstairs and have them put on display afterwards."

"Ohhh... Vorpy... please don't let this disrupt you, my friend here needs to finish their turn after you are done."

Note that in 2nd edition, you don't really make actual profit by crafting. You pay for half the cost of what you make in raw materials (starting cost) and you either pay the rest in raw materials or use Earn an Income with the level of the item to earn value to replace what would be raw materials cost.

Then if you decide to sell, you sell for 50% of the price... or basically your raw materials starting cost. So by the rules PCs lose either time or money from crafting for sale, unless there is a specific story reason for them to have a customer willing to pay full price for a specific item.

But otherwise, again, I'm not interested in making new consumables that might be worthwhile having, but trying instead to make existing consumables something to make them have more tangible use for people when the cost is a notable part of their resources, rather than waiting for it to become either cost-negligible when they can buy them up and use them for full effect.

I'm trying to make it so that you are more inclined to use the various scroll you find, instead of selling it for a wand of something like Tailwind.

I'll admit that maybe +2 may be too strong, but I guess I was hoping to get feedback that that would be the only thing wrong with the idea. Pointing to making other permanent items or different consumables to do something else that might be useful doesn't seem to do much to make Scrolls more useful as loot and on-level resource.

I've also considered the idea of making consumables more likely to be used than just sold off by changing the 'standard' sale of consumable from 1/2 the prices, to down to 1/4 the price. that at least would give the advantage of insuring that you should be able to reduce how much of Wealth by Level any consumables should take up in treasure calculations.

Going a bit back to the original question... in the very beginning, it was accurate that the smaller races frequently had STR flaw, and some of the larger/bulkier ancestries tended towards having STR Boosts, and in the beginning you could sort of say that the change in damage was just a factor in the STR. That sort of gave a feeling like it could be a somewhat workable explanation.

Of course then there were eventually complaints that sticking an ancestry with a flaw, meant that someone's concept for a character might be impossible due to this expectation and the push was to make people pick any arrangement they want irrespective of their ancestry.

Also, originally, all ancestries were either small or medium, and equipment didn't' have a different size for use between the two sizes. And when dealing anything monster related (which was the only place you had creatures which were not either Small or Medium) were all using different arbitrary rules already.

So the argument that people should have brought this up before during the playtest, the sizes where it starts being a factor. (they are treated differently, technically by the rules, despite in the manner of damage treated the same) So in effect this was a moot issue then... the differences didn't really exist as options then.

Although, I'll admit I remember having conversations with people about it seeming wrong at first when first trying second edition. The factors that no longer really exist (ancestry driving flaw and boost), and Small and Medium being the only two sizes for characters, and them being technically the same size for equipment. Are no longer the case in the expanded and remastered rules that come to be over time.

In my mind there is room for it being a factor that could be introduced, without making that factor as overwhelming as the first edition rules were, which were as mentioned kind of prone to double-dipping benefits/costs and gave people an extra die of damage after a step or two.

If a Pixie with a tiny long bow and 16 STR did 1d8 +1 str -1 size (1d8 damage)
vs. a Human with a medium long bow and 18 STR did 1d8 +2 str +0 size (1d8+2 damage)
vs. a minotaur with a large long bow and a 18 STR did 1d8 +2 str +1 size (1d8+3 damage)

I don't see a big issue with it. Especially if the Size modifier only got applied once, not per die of damage. The pixie being down a hit point of damage isn't a giant thing in my opinion, since they can duck through the big-bad's cat door and shoot them from the kitchen without having to make a squeeze check like the party's gnome that follow them to unlock the door.

Honestly, it while slightly bothersome... hasn't been worth fixing, because, as I mentioned it is rarer in the Medieval fantasy genre, and is only as blatantly wrong for short-bows doing less damage than longbows for being smaller, however, smaller longbows smaller than the shortbow do more damage than the shortbow. It becomes a more apparent issue in the Sci-fi setting where someone's holdout laser pistol can't do as much damage because it is smaller, but a full sized tiny pistol of smaller size, can do far more damage than the larger holdout pistol, because of its size.

But anyway, I don't think it is the largest of issues that Second edition had, as other have said. I also say it isn't an unfounded concern for people though, as it took me a while to not feel like it was not significantly problematic. It took me a while to realize that there wasn't going to be a differently sized weapon for small or medium creatures, its just regular, so no need for different damage on any of them. Then it stopped being much of a concern. Just getting over the categorization affecting creature size, but not actual equipment size. And other sized equipment, although could exist, generally was out of scope for PCs since you didn't naturally get any such size other than s/m without a spell which gave you any rules you needed to know.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm partial to a mastery system, myself. Let everyone use all the weapons, but weapons will have very simple profiles with minimal traits unless you are a martial class or otherwise have some special training. Then you have one, maybe two tiers of improvements a weapon can have to its traits or other statistics.

Honestly I think this is a great idea and also avoids the issues with divine simplicity, [ancestry] weapon familiarity and such. Every weapon group gets one or two simple weapon profiles (for one or two handed). Martial weapons are described as one or two additional traits (some traits are worth more than others) added to a simple weapon, plus another tier of one to two traits you can add on to become an advanced weapon (so most weapon names cover both a martial and advanced version and technically a simple version). Maybe some weapon groups have no simple versions if it's important that there are no e.g. simple bows. [Ancestry] weapon familiarity can just add a new set of advanced traits you can slap onto certain weapon types.

Honestly, this does sound appealing, having proficiency unlocking additional traits, or improvements on the weapon.

This way technically, wielding a sword may be much like wielding a club for someone not particularly skilled at the sword, but by having more acute proficiency with it might unlock greater damage die, and the versatile P.

Some weapons might actually have some traits even with simple proficiency, but greater proficiency would be able to unlock additional traits. In some cases honestly, it might make some weapons that are different in simple form, share a lot of the same traits by they time they get to martial proficiency but that still leaves the value and flavor as becomes meaningful for those whom aren't a proficient in the world.

I'd almost say the biggest impact would be it would complicate the weapon tables more.

I'll grant that first reading Second Edition rules, I found there not being a change in damage for size changes was a bit perplexing. However, it didn't take much to explain SOME of it away quickly. Simply put, putting a giant's sword in the hand of a medium person and expecting it to do more damage, when the weapon clearly wasn't made for an individual or that size, when you think about it, actually made sense it wouldn't cause more damage. (in fact, it maybe should do less damage if you want to cite 'realism') The leverage and such would simply not provide that much advantage, and might literally make it worse. So from that standpoint, it made perfect sense to not have it affect die size unlike how it had in first edition. A two handed sword in the hands of a gnome, may very well do more damage to someone than a longsword in the hand of a human. The gnome is using the leverage of multiple arms, vs. the human's one hand. And if using two hands, not optimized for two hands, just using it for a little extra.

Where I have to admit the 'view' seems to fail is when a Tiny Sprite's longbow, and its arrow does more damage than a human's short bow. The long bow is supposed to do more damage because it is bigger/better leverage right... but it doesn't in this case, it is smaller.

In the game, the game doesn't differentiate between small and medium... they are considered the same size, just with two different sized creatures using them. That seems a reasonable abstraction for me, though it took some getting used to. But it did bring up the idea that while considering them a S/M combined size, it seemed like there could be an acknowledgement of other sizes.

I don't think I'd considered the idea of boosting the floor or reducing the ceiling of damage, but I had considered size differences past the S/M baseline having a +1 damage (or +1 per die) bonus per the size. I imagine someone is going to complain that it hurts their sprite concept, but I honestly don't think a sprite doing 1 less point of damage a strike less being concept breaking (especially if rather than per die the adjustment only applied once). And honestly, if anything could actually make a sprite with an 18 Str and a polearm even more fantastic, since it would do so much damage, even overcoming a slight disadvantage.

Ohh... and for clarity... the bonus damage doesn't come from using a larger weapon... it only would come from a larger creature using a larger weapon. Giant Barbarian's have different rules which override this more mundane effect, which enables them to use larger weapons effectively. That is fine, but as a general rule, someone needn't get more damage from a weapon because they pick up a bigger one of it.

Ok... I might have forgotten a detail, but if we have established subscriptions, do we have to sign up for Paizo plus or are we pre-enrolled. If we aren't pre-enrolled when do we need to do this to have our first subscriptions from the new system count towards our Paizo plus?

I like most of Teridax's suggestions for the most part.

For the selection of the weapon, I agree rather than having a list of specific weapons, I'd suggest you could simply make the choice for your Dueling weapon being either a staff (which you then treat as finesse) or any simple or martial weapon which you have access to that already has the finesse trait. Then treat this specific weapon as a simple weapon for purposes of proficiency. This would get all the weapons you want, expands to offer some others that might pop up in the future, but gets you the feel you expect. (This also avoids just giving them full weapon martial proficiency which might be seen as granting too much)

It seems like your Warding Sign should be targeting one item. And you have the choice of targeting an Armor (generally active), a Shield (only in effect when raised, but potentially easier to transfer), or Clothing (if no armor). The +1 to Saves seems reasonable, it being circumstance rather than status is interesting, but could work. (I think Teridax recommends it becoming status and applying to saves and AC) I wasn't familiar with the Spellwatch rune, but I'd be tempted to instead of using that, would allow any spell saved against by the recipient, trigger a reaction allowing the caster of the Warding Sign to spend a reaction to attempt to counter the spell as long as they are within 30' of the target. (or maybe this distance could be 100' to be more useful)

Star Sign sounds confusing to me, I'm not entirely certain what it is supposed to do, and as was mentioned, probably being a focus spell shouldn't have a specific number of activations, and needs to be more clear. The stealing spells also sounds confusing, but if it needs to stay, might be something to enable via a heightened version.

I sort of feel like the cost of scrolls is a lot for low level characters, making them too expensive, but then the cost goes down significantly as the character levels up.

What if to help make scrolls of on-rank spells be more worth the 'relative' wealth they cost for spellcasters, do the following. Any normal (permanent consumable) scroll when used to cast a spell, gives the spell a +2 status bonus to its DC or Attack roll, as long as the caster's level does not exceed twice the rank of the spell on the scroll.

This would mean that for casters investing in on-level/rank consumables, which are expensive, it gives them a 'boost' to their use of the consumable. If the caster can cast higher rank spells, it stops boosting their ability, because their ability surpasses the extra oomf able to be packed into the consumable.

My definition of permanent consumables is to say they are a consumable that is paid for and remains until used. If any ability produced 1 or more scrolls that would be good for a day or until used, that would not be a permanent consumable, so this rule would not boost that scrolls spell effect.

This gives a caster a reason to want to invest in a scroll of a useful spell that is on their top rank, despite the cost, as it would give them a boosted effect. A little like having a masterwork arrow, so to speak. But by making it not apply when someone's level exceeds the rank it keeps low level scrolls from providing a cheap boost. They have to be willing to spend enough to get the rank of the spell up to their level to get the boost.

It also makes higher level scrolls potentially a little easier to pull off, as scrolls use the DC/attack of the caster, not creator.

I'm not sure how one could do something similar with potions (or if we'd want to) but it is another thought.

Since wands/staves are daily items, I don't think they need such a boost beyond what, for instance staves provide some spells. The premise is to make the commitment of wealth to consumables, give you a notable benefit, in the particular moment beyond what using a renewable resource would have gotten you with no longer term cost.

I think over the by now decades the idea of what class does spells in what way and why has drifted. Perhaps drifted a whole lot faster in PF2 than before.

For me one of the key elements of the "wizard fantasy" is that a wizard goes out into the world to learn new magics and is really excited to get hold of a defeated rival's spellbook. If you just knew all the spells already it'd take a lot of the wind out of those sails.

But it's already a bit busted in PF2. The "Learn Spell" activity can also be done by talking to someone who already knows the spell, doesn't require it be the same tradition. So a wizard can just find a druid buddy who automatically knows all the common primal spells. And then just take notes on all the spells that happen to be on the overlap of the arcane and primal list.

The way that clerics and druids automatically know all their common spells also seems like a bit of an archaism to me. Back when, a fair bit of those spell lists were really really circumstantial things. Not spells that you'd normally use when adventuring, but things that you might use to run a temple as a social organization, or to position yourself as the mysterious person in the wood who's awakening animals. A lot of that stuff has been turned into rituals instead (which helps trim the spell lists down to stuff that makes sense during encounters).

My big dream is that by the time of PF3 we'll mostly migrate to everyone using spontaneous casting, but that classes like the wizard have a better ability to switch a few spells from their repertoire during the morning.

It's already pretty rare that you switch a majority of your prepared spells. Usually you just make a few tweaks. Often you can't really predict what you're gonna face, so you pack a fair amount of generic spells that work well against any kind of enemy. I don't think the supposed advantage of the wizard of being much more versatile and preparing the perfect silver bullets (compared to a sorcerer) is really happening. In fact it's more likely that...

I agree that part of the lore basis of wizards trying to expand their spell book was deflated significantly by other casters whom automatically know all the spells of their tradition. As you mention chatting with someone you know of another class becomes a much simpler method of gaining access to vast sets of spells.

As to the suggestion from someone about granting them automatic knowledge of some non-common spells. I don’t think having the thing wizards get being automatic grabbing of a few uncommon spells, as by definition, uncommon and such spell are supposed to be acknowledged as gated, and someone would argue their class ability gives them the right to override the gem not wanting to give them some spell that the GM may consider detrimental to the game. I think that would be the wrong direction to go. It seems like opening up a bad can of expectation worms.

I do also agree that the spell book (and familiar) mechanic does rely on gm or adventures insuring there is an opportunity to learn new spells. It is something I could imagine some GMs failing to allow for it.

I agree that the difference between Prepared casters, whom have full access, and Prepared casters whom are limited to known spells is a significant class difference which isn't really strongly addressed. I think originally the Divine list was supposed to be a generally weak list, but with boosts of select spells by relevant Domains, would make them excellent with healing and various buffs, and debuffs with some specific thematic other abilities which could be tied back to choices and their original choice of deity. Druids I think were given the same benefit, less because of Primal being bad, but historically druids being similar to clerics. I think they likely felt that Druids didn't need the boosting of other spells to 'augment' their more limited list.

The spontaneous classes, don't have as much of a problem being able to select from their entire list, because, of course, they don't get their whole list, they get a 'preset' number of spells they have to choose out of the large list. As the list gets bigger, they don't get more spells, they just have more competition in what spells to pick to have.

I honestly wish that clerics and druids started with only a subset of their spells, even if it was more than your average wizard or other such classes had as known spells.

There would be the option to give wizards or all prepared spellcasters spell substitution, and it doesn't seem like a bad option, and is simple save that it eliminates an existing choice(one some feel is too mandatory). But you could even further and potentially allow the prepared caster fill their spell slots with the spells they want, and allow them to cast any spell from a slot they have that they haven't used that encounter, as long as they haven't cast more spells of that level today. I.e. the difference being if you picked a magic missile, a flaming hands, and a heal, with your three slots, in your first encounter you could cast one, two or three of those spells. In your second encounter, you would have the same selection, but if you had already cast one spell, your second encounter, you'd only be able to cast two of the spells (any two). And if you'd cast two spells, you'd only have one left (but for the encounter it could be any of the three). Granted, doing this takes away a lot of what makes a spontaneous caster supposed to have a strength, so it would seem like they should get something. I actually wonder if spontaneous casters need some way to cast spells not in their main known set more easily in exploration (or more importantly downtime) without having to sink money into consumables. Something like a non-combat slot, that requires longer to cast, but gives them access to the ability to know and cast other spells in the background.

Honestly, I'd dislike taking learning new spells from a wizard. They are supposed to go out and encounter new spells, and learn them, not know them from simply being a wizard. Removing the restriction of them needing to learn spells would actually be a Nerf on the flavor of the class in my opinion. The selection of what spells the wizard knows is, and should be important in my opinion. But I can understand why others looking at it from a mechanical stance may feel it is unfair, so I'm at least sympathetic of the idea of wanting to get rid of that limitation. But rather than making it a bonus, I'd suggest you try to find ways where it is a trade-off, rather than specifically an asset.

Another quick though, what if:
You offer spell substitution to all prepared casters.
But Wizards keep their 'School' spell slot. With a 'special' ability attached to it. They wizard can spontaneously use one of their other prepared spellcasting slots to cast their slotted school spell of the same level if they so choose. (they can also later in the day substitute their school spell to a different spell if they wish, even if they used a different slot to cast that spell) This would allow the caster to prepare less likely used spells as backup, and can count on using them as one of their school spells if those prove a better use. It doesn't step completely on the spontaneous spell casters ability, but it opens up the wizards flexibility some more which may help it lean into preparation of flexibility.

I agree conflux cascade could be made a 1st level feat. Actually at first, I was concerned spending focus point for casting it was too much, but it occurred the feat would grant one, and it isn’t as difficult to renew them now. But I had actually contemplated if it could be made into a cantrip, so it would occupy a cantrip slot if they wanted to prepare it but would make entering cascade much easier to do.

The shield feat seems overly powerful from an initial impression but I haven’t been looking at 16 th level feats as much so it may be more reasonable than I feel.

I’ll admit that I like the staff one, but I feel that it should probably have the caveat the spell needs to be cast out of a person’s spell slot and not cast from an item be it the staff itself, a wand, or scroll for instance. (Even with that I have to admit that boosts the doubles potential charges from the standard staff charging bonus.). Might require further thought and balance consideration. But I like the flavor.

Honestly as to spellcasting defenses, I’m inclined to give magus a circumstance bonus vs attack reactions against their spellcasting, as a baseline. And I have contemplated an ability that would change a critical success on reaction attacks to a regular success unless the roll generating it was a natural 20. My philosophy is that magus should provoke and be risky, but less likely to have ‘the Worst’ results of it. ( I also advocate melee reactions that hit them when they are cascading, as well as genera melee attacks that crit miss them during cascade do the baseline damage that cascade normally boosts attacks as a free action. This is partially inspired by special materials used by armor and natural attacks by creatures with weakness to the material)

I’ll confess the flight spell, I’m tempted to have it require being in cascade, and potentially be like early flight and require landing between move actions. I suppose requiring arcane cascade would mean it couldn’t technically be used out of combat, which might be too strong a nerf. What if speed was 1/2 your normal speed unless in arcane cascade (I.e combat) in which case it is your normal movement. But then as I consider further, it is a rank higher than normal fly spell with a shorter duration, and shorter casting actions ( and by being focus spell more repeatable than slot). The more I think about it it seems remote reasonable… but makes me wonder about a lower level one with more limited flight and requiring being in cascade being an option.

I’ve been thinking about the idea of allowing players to override an item’s DC with a level-based or class-based DC, and my first impression is that it’s generally a bad idea. Item creation rules are already somewhat arbitrary, and DCs are a core part of an item’s balance. Presuming all items should have DC's consistently based solely on item level seems like a bad step.

Examples:

Frost Breath (GM Core): Its standard DC is three less than the normal DC by level. Simply scaling it to “level-based DC – 2” could make the item unexpectedly powerful when a character advances a level.

AP Items (Mindrender Baton, Drover’s Band): These may intentionally not be scalable. Drover’s Band has a target-level limitation and the incapacitation trait, suggests to me the DC was designed to be a hard DC for its maximum-level target which is 3rd. The Mindrender Baton isn’t even intended as a proper magic item, so scaling it with investment could break its intended role.

Conversely, some items have higher-than-normal DCs by design. For example, the Ring of the Ram is roughly +2 DC above its expected level, implying it should be a hard DC. Automatically scaling DCs based on wielder level would undermine these intended effects.

A Potential Approach:

Rather than automatic level-based scaling, I prefer limited scaling tied to Investment and item level:

Modest natural scaling: Items could scale only 1–2 levels relative to the difference between the wielder’s level and the item’s base level. This could occur if the item is assigned as “invested” in the character’s morning preparations, even if it normally doesn’t require investment.

Further scaling via GP investment: Beyond 1–2 levels, scaling would require gold investment as well, again still capped by the difference between the wielder’s level and the item’s level. My recommendation, it could cost roughly half the difference between the base price of a permanent (or consumable) item of the original level.

Tier limits: If a higher-tier version of the item exists, this boost can only reach the level immediately below the next tier. Reaching a new tier would still require a full upgrade, although prior GP investment would count toward the cost of that upgrade.

This preserves design intent—hard DCs remain hard, easy DCs remain easy—while allowing low-level players to make newly found items functional without breaking balance. It also encourages strategic investment: hold onto lower-level items, gradually grow them, or upgrade to higher-tier items when available.

Exceptions & Considerations:

Some items, like Drover’s Band, should remain fixed to their intended target levels, as scaling could create unbalanced scenarios. Items that explicitly call out maximum target levels, for instance may fall into this.

Items with DCs far outside the normal range (±2) could be flagged as potentially “non-scalable,” be recommended to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the GM.

Consumables most specifically scrolls are unaffected, as they already scale with caster level.

Lore justification:
One could say a higher-level wielder could purchase costly oils and other materials to better care for an item. By investing time and attention into the item, the item gradually empowers itself, making future magical upgrades easier. This adds flavor while maintaining balance.

If one did the above, would it be reasonable to make the limit of (just daily Investment) allow boosting One (or should it be Two) levels worth of boost? Does the cost base being 1/2 the cost of the difference between items of the given levels seem appropriate cost for the natural upgrade cost for going past the first or second level boost? Or should it cost more/less than that?

Honestly, I think one of the potential weakest points on this idea is the question about how this would affect consumables such as poisons, as I haven't interacted with them nearly as much. Does scaling them make them too powerful, does requiring the investment usage limit the doses too much? Would/Should one investment cover 4 identical doses of consumables such as poisons, similar to crafting rules, or is that too powerful?

While obviously such changes/recommendations would have been something that could have more easily be implemented in Remaster, it seems like with some considerations, it isn't that impossible to put forward a set of generally viable guidelines. They could be adopted officially, or put forward as a set of optional rules, such as the ABP for Free Archetype rules, helping people hone into a more enjoyable play style. Admittedly it might be hard to find the right 'book' to include such an updated rules/option in.

You could perhaps define a Sling proficiency, treating it as an Advanced Weapon proficiency.

You could boost the damage by 1 die step as baseline, and give the weapon wielder the option if all adjacent spaces next to them are free of obstruction (inanimate, friendly, or hostile) above the ground, they get the damage boost granted by Vicious Swing, and it counting as two strikes for purposes of MAP. A part of me considers making it Deadly D8 as well, since you are going from Simple to Advanced, and the requirement to have space around you free/safe.

For what it matters I felt that Gunslingers absolutely should have included slings in their forte, if not by default, as a Way since they shared such a significant part of their name with it, leaving them out was a missed opportunity.

It might be mitigated in part by having set number of your 10 investments which would allow you to boost the DC of effects by the difference between the item level and your level. So Investing the item with the 'premium' investment slot would allow a 10th level character investing a 4th level item to boost its DC by +4.

There are a variety of ways you could set the number. It could be based on a fraction of your level (min 1), or could be 1 + your CHA modifier. By setting the number low enough it forces you to make choices, you make it a viable limitation and encourage people to pay for leveled up items when such a version is available. By having it affect the DC, but not the damage, etc. it leaves value to investing your wealth in available upgrade. I'd also suggest incorporating official means or offering official upgrades for some items that might only have one version now, if implementing something like this.

As an example the Ring of the Ram, there are reasons to want to 'upgrade' your ring to the higher levels, but in the in-between levels, it might be enough to enable an option to boost the DC for the in-between levels.

You could potentially even allow the option to 'invest' consumables with these slots to provide a means to upgrade the consumable's DC like this. This would be potentially expensive to spend a premium investment slot to get the higher DC for a one-time use item, but might also be worth it in some cases.

This avoids the situation where an item might have a DC based on how effective the item is. (relatively High DC for an effect that isn't too impactful, but useful enough to use in certain circumstances) or might have relatively Low DC for a particular Level because the impact of the effect is rather 'strong'. If you have it always jump to some Class DC, that might be bigger jump than would be really balanced.

Excellent point, I had intended that the Ritual was to summon a specific type of elemental, not all elementals. But as pointed out that may not be completely transparent/clear in the text of the ritual.

I imagined for instance it being Conjure Elemental (Cinder Rat) as opposed to Conjure Elemental (Fire), or just plain Conjure Elemental. I will confess I had not decided exactly how specific it would need to be, would Elemental, Scamp be enough or Elemental, Wisp or would it have to be Elemental, Fire Wisp? Would you have a single one for Gennayn? They can attune to different elements.

With respect to the access to spells, decent point to consider. Perhaps an even more relevant concern might be to access to the Wish ritual (or variants) by way of Genies.

Would that perhaps mean that this ritual should exclude Genies from being able to be created? Or exclude Genies so created from leveraging Wish Rituals? Or should creating Genies with the ability to preform wishes require additional cost in the creation to equal the cost of a Wish ritual, and have a caveat that any 'conjured' Genie which preforms a wish ritual becomes free of its creator in the process? Or require to preform the wish ritual, the conjured Genie must have the components to preform a standard Wish ritual, and is freed from the conjuration during the process of the ritual prior to its final interpretation.

I'd also been given some additional feedback to potentially require creatures of 10th level or above to require additional requirements, like an otherwise undefined Primordial Heartstone as an additional material component. Perhaps Higher level Genies might require such a component. Maybe a Primordial Genesis Shard. A rare gem that is very hard to acquire and has a cost of at least 100,000 gp.

II think I'm inclined to say Conjured Elementals don't have access to grant wishes by their traditional Wish rituals, until they preform their first Wish ritual, using a 100k gp Primordial Genesis Shard, which frees them from any magical ties to their creator in the process of the ritual. (the 100k gp is the cost of preforming a normal rank 10 Wish ritual)

One could also make conjuring Genies generally harder as a general rule, and add an additional material component cost to Genie conjuring rituals equal to the cost of a permanent magic item of the creature's level, in order to conjure a Genie.

Thanks for your feedback!

A part of me wonders if there could have been more Flavor given to the Traditions if some spells had a Primary Tradition, and when a spell had a Primary Tradition. Those casters from that Tradition (or explicitly have the spell added to their Tradition, such as Domains) have full access to the spell. But casters from alternate listed Traditions would not be able to fill their Highest slot with a spell whose primary Tradition is listed as some other tradition.

Potentially, cantrips which have a primary tradition defined, might heighten to only maxRank -1 for casters of secondary traditions? Also you could make non-primary spells take a -2 circumstance penalty to Learning the spell potentially for non-primary tradition casters.

If you wanted to give Wizards a 'perk' they have to 'collect and learn the spell' but maybe they can ignore the primary tradition limitations on their top rank spells other casters might be limited with.

With this, not all spell need have a defined/primary tradition. Some could simply be open to all traditions, or only a few, without a specific one being primary. But you could take some of the stronger spells and make them have a primary tradition, which would strengthen their association with said tradition, without keeping the other traditions from having any access to it.

It would be harder to take away access to spells via this, than it is to grant things not currently had from a logistical view, but if the players were for it, it wouldn't be impossible to accomplish. It would take going through all the spell lists and determining what if any tradition to make its primary tradition. (maybe making force barrage primary Arcane)

You'd also need to decide if Primary Tradition limitations only affect ranks above 1st. (if having cantrips heighten to max -1, do you have it be unavailable to other traditions generally until they reach rank 2 spells, or do you make the heighten always be minimum of rank 1?

On the side, I got some feedback; I've made some adjustments.

One suggestion was that this ritual should only allow maintaining one minion sourced via this ritual. It was suggested that elementals might be more socially acceptable than undead, and that having four elemental minions may be more impactful to a campaign than four undead. How do people feel about it. Does it make sense to gate this more strongly on how many minions they can get with this method.

They also recommended making the diplomacy penalty greater/longer to increase its impact an flavor on failures.

I'm also considering adding Crafting as a potential secondary caster skill with the concept of putting the elements together to form the initial body. What do people think?

Conjure Elemental Ritual 2

Uncommon
Source Homebrew inspired by Player Core pg. pg. 393 2.0
Cast 1 day; Cost rare primordial materials, see Creature Creation Rituals; Secondary Casters 2
Primary Check Arcana or Nature (expert); Secondary Checks Arcana, Nature or Religion (different from primary)
Range 10 feet; Target(s) 1 new elemental creature
________________________________________
You shape raw elemental material into a living elemental creature of the appropriate type (air, earth, fire, metal, water or wood). The creature’s level, rarity, and ritual rank are determined by the Creature Creation Rituals table. If the chosen elemental is rarer than uncommon, this ritual takes on that rarity.
The elemental is permanent, though your ability to control it depends on your success.

Creature Creation Rituals (table from other creation rituals)
Creature Level Ritual Rank Required Cost
–1 or 0 2 15 gp
1 2 60 gp
2 3 105 gp
3 3 180 gp
4 4 300 gp
5 4 480 gp
6 5 750 gp
7 5 1,080 gp
8 6 1,500 gp
9 6 2,100 gp
10 7 3,000 gp
11 7 4,200 gp
12 8 6,000 gp
13 8 9,000 gp
14 9 13,500 gp
15 9 19,500 gp
16 10 30,000 gp
17 10 45,000 gp

Critical Success The target becomes an elemental of the appropriate type. If it's at least 4 levels lower than you, you can make it a minion. This gives it the minion trait, meaning it can use 2 actions when you command it, and commanding it is a single action that has the auditory and concentrate traits. You can have a maximum of four minions under your control. If it doesn't become a minion, you can give it one simple command. It pursues that goal single-mindedly, ignoring any of your subsequent commands.
Success As critical success, except that an elemental that cannot become your minion is only friendly to you and does not follow commands. Unintelligent elementals leave you alone unless provoked.
Failure The ritual fails, producing no creature. The meddling leaves a trace of elemental dissonance: you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Diplomacy checks with elementals for 1 month.
Critical Failure The ritual fails catastrophically. You still create the elemental, but it emerges uncontrolled and hostile, attacking all creatures nearby until destroyed or driven off. You also take the same –2 Diplomacy penalty for 1 month.

Suggestions for any improvements?

Conjure Elemental Ritual 2
Uncommon
Source Inspired by Player Core pg. 390 2.0
Cast 1 day; Cost rare elemental building blocks/items see Creature Creation Rituals; Secondary Casters 2
Primary Check Arcana or Nature (expert); Secondary Checks Arcana, Nature or Religion (different from primary)
Range 10 feet; Target(s) 1 new elemental creature
________________________________________
You imbue a target with a collection of Elemental material in such a manner as to create an elemental creature with a level up to that allowed by the Creature Creation Rituals table and of a type corresponding to ritual (specific rituals create specific types of elementals).If the creature created is more rare than Uncommon, the ritual takes on that Rarity.

Creature Creation Rituals (table from other creation rituals)
Creature Level Ritual Rank Required Cost
–1 or 0 2 15 gp
1 2 60 gp
2 3 105 gp
3 3 180 gp
4 4 300 gp
5 4 480 gp
6 5 750 gp
7 5 1,080 gp
8 6 1,500 gp
9 6 2,100 gp
10 7 3,000 gp
11 7 4,200 gp
12 8 6,000 gp
13 8 9,000 gp
14 9 13,500 gp
15 9 19,500 gp
16 10 30,000 gp
17 10 45,000 gp

Critical Success The target becomes an elemental of the appropriate type. If it's at least 4 levels lower than you, you can make it a minion. This gives it the minion trait, meaning it can use 2 actions when you command it, and commanding it is a single action that has the auditory and concentrate traits. You can have a maximum of four minions under your control. If it doesn't become a minion, you can give it one simple command. It pursues that goal single-mindedly, ignoring any of your subsequent commands.
Success As critical success, except an elemental creature that doesn't become your minion is only friendly to you, and an unintelligent elemental that doesn't become your minion leaves you alone unless you attack it. It marauds the local area rather than following your command.
Failure You fail to create the elemental creature. The taint of meddling with fundamental elemental components settles the casters and they take a -1 to diplomacy checks with elemental creatures for 1 week.
Critical Failure As with Failure except that you do create the elemental creature, but it goes berserk and attempts to destroy you.

I agree that since it is supposed to be a secret check, while discussing what skills might be useful seems a perfectly relevant discussion, it also seems like it could become a 'give away information' situation as well, which might not be exactly as intended.

Example:

Say I have Divine, Occult, and Ghoul lore, but not Arcane or Primal. So if I suggest Divine, they say it would be a really high DC, suggest Occult they say, sorry no DC available, ok, so I say ghoul lore, they say a low DC, now without even rolling, I know it is something covered under Ghoul Lore, even if end up rolling a natural 1 on the roll.

I think it makes the most sense to have the player give their question, and while they suggest what skills may be useful, and give a chance to mention bonuses that would be relevant, it makes sense in my mind for the GM to look at the RK relevant skill and pick the most appropriate skill they have to generate the DC and roll their secret check, and give them the information relevant to the check. (which on a success, I'd probably also give them the skill I as GM used for it)

Conceptually, in both cases the existing Creature Creation rituals are 'constructing' an entity or in one case 'awakening' one and thereby potentially making the caster be able to make it a minion. What sort of concerns would one have with the idea of creating a Conjure Elemental ritual patterned off these, which could call up an elemental of the given power in the table.

Create Undead
Animate Object
Awaken Animal

Elementals are such a staple of Conjuration and Summoning it feels like it makes sense for such a ritual to exist. I'd probably plan make it tied to Arcane and Primal, instead of Occult or Divine Traditions/skills but is there something inherently problematic about allowing Elementals to be longer term minions of a character if they have invested resources in them?

I imagine that the Success result for such a ritual would probably be similar to the Create Undead ritual, making a guess.

You might consider looking at Crown of the Kobold King but it might be bigger than you would get done in a one shot.

I really like the idea behind this; I think this nails the theatricality of villain monologues. My two recommendations at this point would be the following:

I think the feat could be rephrased slightly to add the linguistic trait to the Demoralize action when you use it in this way.

I would probably reformulate the feat so that it lets you use Performance to Coerce or Demoralize, much like how Impressive Performance lets you substitute Performance for Diplomacy when you Make an Impression, and find a different benefit -- for instance, preventing the target's frightened condition from going down so long as you continue to Demoralize them in this way.

As an example:

Theatrical Dread (Feat 1)
Traits: general, skill
Prerequisites: Trained in Performance

You can deliver a chilling monologue to instill a sense of dread in those you attempt to intimidate. You can Coerce or Demoralize using Performance instead of Intimidation. If you Demoralize a creature in this way, the action gains the linguistic trait. If you succeed on your check to Demoralize a creature in this way, its frightened condition doesn't decrease at the end of its next turn, even if the creature might be immune to the normal effects of your Demoralize action.

---

Effectively, you wouldn't be able to raise the success rate of your Demoralize checks, but you'd instead basically be able to continue monologuing to keep one or more creatures frightened throughout a fight.

As this give you a better Demoralize, I think it would reasonable to have it also require Trained in Intimidation. You also don't specify when the frightened condition does drop.

That said I think you need to say the demoralize drops its level at then end of the round after their next. Then add a line saying that if a subsequent round you make aa action making performance check, and it includes or you add the linguistic trait, it delays the reduction in their frightened condition until the end of the turn after next.

So as an example, one could demoralize foe 1, and then, on turn 2 you demoralize foe 2, that action would keep Foe 1 demoralized for another turn. They could potentially stack multiple demoralizes this way with their actions. This I think justifies requiring them to start with both performance and intimidation. Not only would this require acting, but it would require being able to scare as well.

The feat switches what skill is used for advancement, allowing a really good performance individual to scare really well for purposes of this. It elongates the effect of the demoralize, granting a means of 'sustaining' the effect, which effectively would grant them the ability spread the dread to others, and might also allow other performance based checks to continue effect.

Honestly the simple ability to sustain the effect it might honestly be too powerful, but I find the concept of the ability compelling.

Reaction spells are things that are Niche, which makes them dangerous to potentially take as a spontaneous spellcaster but if you find one you would get to use regularly having it as a spontaneous caster can be useful, when those circumstances hit. But as you mentioned, as a prepared caster, they also are potentially a costly choice and you judge you likely may not be able to use it. If only you could prepare it, but then as the day progresses if you haven't used it and you wanted to swap it out for a spell you prepared but already cast, if you could do that as a 10 minute activity that also got you a focus point back, it would probably help immensely for useability, but not necessary a giant power boost.

As the number of spells widen, it changes to dynamic of what you can do with spells. The more spells that exist, it helps the prepared casters out more, if they automatically have access to the spells, but wizards and other spellbook classes don't get as much of a benefit of this. For spontaneous casters, they get more to choose from at the start, but they have such a limited selection of spells which become very locked it. It creates a situation where you almost have to insure your pick widely useful combat spells and can't invest in downtime or exploration spells, or you shoot yourself in the foot.

I'm not entirely certain what your question is however?

Are you saying, movement in the astral plane should occur and be driven by different game mechanics than in the Known Universe?

Like are you saying Astral travel distances shouldn't be your walk speed but instead your (INT mod + 5) x 5' instead? If movement is by mind, then what happens to a mindless arrow, does it not fly from the bow to the target because it doesn't have a will?

I would suppose that you could invent a new 'trait' which could be shared by Planes and it could modify certain rules elements, such as movement speeds, and you could choose to apply it to Astral or Ethereal planes if you wanted to. However I don't think by default they have actually implied that the universes are different like that.

Granted, the Astral Projection ritual talks about if the primary caster leaves the others behind they don't have the ability to 'navigate' in the astral plane. But it also makes it clear that the travelers aren't entirely in the plane, but only partially there, and they can't use it to travel to other attached planes. So the limitations of the primary caster being the means they can 'navigate' isn't an aspect of the Plane, but instead an aspect of the ritual/mode of travel they are using.

I think for example the subjective Gravity trait is there to make these alternate planes seem Alien and different. Having other rulesets to change a variety of other things might certainly strengthen that flavor, but I don't know it is expected. However if it is in line with what your players want, I would say go for it.

Just try to keep in mind you don't want anything that will allow the players to just steamroll encounters if you allow it, allow a character's concept to become untenable in the environment unless the player in question is on board for the challenge being presented to them.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I see no real advantage with the arcane list. To me it is the least interesting spell list even if the longest. You have only so many slots a day to use and only so many actions a round for combat, so you have to use spells that will impact with the actions used.

The Power of the Wizard going back to when it was the Magic User class in AD&D has always been access to spells and the ability to create scrolls.

Every time a wizard finds a scroll, if it is on their list, they can learn the spell adding it to their spell books. This gives the wizard access to a great much more variety of power than any of the sorcerer or the Warlock that can spontaneously cast. Sure they access anything on their list of spells known but their knowledge is limited by level.

A wizard through experience, adventuring, finding scrolls, sharing with other casters, buying spells for other guild mages could have every spell on a list known if they can find it and pay for it.

The wizard would make up for their limited spell slots and the fact that they can create scrolls meaning that if they have preparation they are the strongest caster in the party but once they have used up resources they are the weakest.

Too often DM's overlook this in game because it is book keeping but it has always been why a wizard is powerful.

Know here is where a wizard really shines. They class as wizard but pick up say the sorcerer dedication and then pick a Primal or Divine or Occult list from the choices of patron, type etc. They choose the Basic Spellcasting, Advanced and Master getting spells of first to eighth level in the other list meaning they can create scrolls or cast from those scrolls, etc.

This is what truly makes a wizard powerful, versatility of magic.

I am not sure how well of an advantage that is in second edition yet. Dynamic has changed but Wizard does have the ability to learn spells.

Actually, I have to admit I forgot, but do agree that many an aspect of the old Wizard/Magic user concept all came across how they could collect and horde scrolls and learn new spells to put in their spell book.

It makes me wonder how bad it would be if you let a Wizard craft a scroll a day as part of their preparations, with it simply costing half the list GP cost. (not a batch of 4, but just a single) That way, if they wanted to invest in extra spells like that they could, but they shouldn't be getting ahead in GP because they should only be able to sell them at half price, which would be at cost so not an economic advantage.

That isn't specifically buffing the arcane list, but by boosting their ability to Buff their 'number' of spell slots effectively, would boost their spellcasting effectiveness.

So when fighting Chafkhem, if a character fails the rather high DC from one of his attacks, are they just supposed to resign themselves to become dust? At the level the players are at they aren't supposed to have access to Cleanse Affliction at a high enough rank to oppose the Curse, so they can't get rid of the disease affliction, and they can't heal the damage it caused? It seems doubtful many could even survive a three day trip to Absalom.

I had a player whose character is known for failing their saved, managed to save vs. the first strike, but failed the second one they eventually had to make.

They figured out they were in trouble when they couldn't heal, so went back to town, but I figured out that Vandy wasn't high enough level to help.

In the end I didn't feel it was a very fun situation and decided that a priest just happened to be visiting from Absalom. The actual reason they were visiting was that the Mayor had concerns about his daughter and Vandy wasn't able to help, so they brought in someone higher. But they came and blew off the Mayor saying she wasn't cursed or sick.

Hence why the mayor now contacts the heroes for help. Also why a higher level priest just happened to be fortuitously in town and available to cast a Cleanse Affliction for the party member. I kind of liked the coincidence of the situation working out.

The same character spent a week recovering from a different disease not that long ago having come very close to a bad end there too.

But was that encounter supposed to be a character killer for each character that got struck and didn't roll high on their saves? Or am I missing some other way they could have counteracted the curse/disease?

You aren't 'commanding him' making him take your orders. You are a teacher and strategist whom sits down in the morning with their pals and discusses how they can work more cohesively together and potentially surprise [not cheatingly trick] their opponent to get yourselves an advantage to help keep everyone alive.

It could be pointed out that that refusing to coordinate or listen to you could be similar to refusing to listen to the cleric or wizard whom is detecting magical auras to avoid unnecessary damage to the party, collateral innocents, or nearby terrain.

It could be the champion may have a historical memory of the old Paladins and some of the struggles with working around a companion thief whom would make the team seem like criminal elements stealing away in the night.

In the end I wouldn't do the well if you won't cooperate, then I won't accept your help. All that does is hurt the rest of the players, and thus indirectly all the players.

The most likely 'rational' explanation I can come up with short of just arbitrary, story-wise they decided it sounded interesting to not be cooperative, is that perhaps the player had issues in the past with other players 'driving, or taking control, or credit' for their character's contributions, and perhaps 'taking orders' from a 'commander' sounds like it is going down the same path.

Perhaps talk to the GM about calling the class Strategist and make it clear that what you enable to ability for the party to do these cooperative actions. It isn't by you 'forcing' it, but rather simply enabling it for those interested.

On second thought, perhaps they are worried you are going to 'consume' their reactions which they want to keep for their Champion reactions. If that is the case, point out that they don't have to participate in the reaction if they don't want to, but they can when they think it is good for them, as long as they have trained as part of the squad. It enables options, it doesn't dictate actions. Unless you are short on number of people to include in the squad and don't want to include him because they seldom participate, it can be made clear it opens up options, not restricting their options.

Use a weak law spell on yourself ahead of time to prevent your opponent known for using them, successfully using them on you.

I started using three tiered tokens… at the start I give them a gold and silver token. Gold is a hero point… reroll… the silver lets them bump their roll as if they rolled one better but doesn’t make a natural 20. But they can also use it to make their opponent roll one worse. ( but not making a natural 1). The coppers are like the silver but can only be used on your rolls. If spending a hero point doesn’t do better, you get change back in the form of one coin type lower.

This way there is a bit of cost, but instead complete was when you roll bad on a hero point. They have sometimes paid attention and realized all they needed was one more on the roll and so strategically used the lower valued tokens to get a crit, or keep from taking a crit.

I’ve been starting them with a gold and silver each.

But contributing to the story as you mention could certainly earn them a hero point to use for it, or earn them a hero point for trying it.

I've done some searching, and I am coming up blank on where it was. Honestly, I checked the players guide for Outlaws of Alkenstar as I thought that was where I had read it, but I've tried doing searches in a few documents and not finding a hit so I am wondering if I misread something or might be pulling something in from a different game, which I don't know what I'd have mistaken it for so a bit confused.

I do remember reading that although a whole section of the city has an Anti-magic zone, the AP says there shouldn't be any feeling that a spellcaster would be at a disadvantage in the campaign, which just seems odd.

Might I be thinking that things like Golems continue to operate despite being magical within a anti-magic zone... was I thinking that something 'created' by magic (the rune affecting the weapon) would find the weapon is still 'changed'?

Maybe I read something about if using the high quality weapons optional rules, but that isn't the context I seemed to be remembering. If I find again what I think I was remembering, I'll point you to the source but am having trouble finding it.

I thought I read somewhere that Magic Weapons kept the effects of their Fundamental Runes that were on them before entering the dead zone. So magic weapons still functioned, especially the important striking capabilities.

That said, it does leave room for all sorts of questions for what sorts of magical attack abilities of a creature should or should not be impacted by the loss of Magic trait. (things like dragon breath, etc. being mentioned and very good examples of iconic abilities that might become in question)

I do believe it is clear that cast-a-spell activities should be blocked, but as another example (and I'm guessing there may be explicit guidance on this that I haven't read, since I haven't read that much on Kineticists, is do elemental blasts get blocked.

I think in a way, Pathfinder had shied away from effects that overly cripple whole character concepts, as a general rule, such that immunities are generally far fewer. But I think it also created an avoidance of really delving into the ramification for things like Dead Magic areas seem to avoid a lot of details, as if not making a firm commitment to specific ruling within the game, leaving a lot of table variation. Not sure if that is intentional, or skimpily an aspect of avoiding codifying something that could be seen as concept crippling.

However, on the other hand, ruling out the existence of dead zones sort of cripples certain types of stories and challenges, so they keep the implication these areas can exist, but perhaps don't super clearly define exactly how to rule them. I don't know if that is what they are doing, or not.

I believe that is purely because they lifted the Incorporeal Trait from the premaster content, as monster core lists the immunities and resistances for ghosts as

Monster Core pg. 160 1.1 wrote:

Immunities bleed, death effects, disease, paralyzed, poison, precision, unconscious Resistances all damage 5 (except force, ghost touch, spirit, or vitality; double resistance to non-magical). This resistance increases to 10 at 9th level and 15 at 16th level.

Most incorporeals did get the spirit damage exception when they were reprinted aswell.

Otherwise most other non-undead,non-shadow incorporeals deal either force damage or some kind of energy damage. Whatever energy causes them to manifest and give them form. For ghosts this happens to be void and thus they use void against the living.

Heres another question, What stops ghosts from dealing physical damage to eachother? Arguably their strikes should all have the properties of ghost touch.

One could make at least one of their attack versatile giving them the ability to do Spirit or Void damage with their strike. Gives them some flexibility to do damage to creatures that might have otherwise been immune to pure void damage.

Or potentially you could add an alternate attack that does Spirit damage that they could use if they want to switch things up or they discover their opponent is immune to void damage.

For another instance of why doing this would be that it wouldn't make sense to add versatile (spirit) to a draining attack that also replenish the ghosts HP by doing damage to a living creature. So that would be another option to create an alternate attack doing spirit damage.

I think the flavor of ghosts being able to do spirit damage would make sense... although I concede it isn't inherently wrong for them to do void damage either.

Hey, some questions with relation to formatting:

First:
Is it still accurate that everything in Italics is Homebrew additions which the author (yourself or other) consider withing flavor of the city but not specifically Cannon? [for instance is all the NPCs from Absalom coming from non-cannon sources, or are they italics because they came from a source other than the stat-block, etc.]

Second:
Is there reasons why some Cities are in all Capital letters, while other have mixed case... and similarly sometimes SETTLMENT is in all capitals, while others are in mixed case.

Lastly: Thanks for your work on the compilation.

I think part of the concept between the Jousting trait, both mechanically and lore-wise, is that when mounted, you don't worry about moving yourself, as you just direct your mount to go the desired direction and it focuses on that. You instead focus on using your body to leverage the long lance in the appropriate direction to make the best use of the lance to turn the momentum of your mount into damage to an opponent.

As an example, this means you are almost assuredly investing in an action to command a minion you are riding. That helps eat up an action, keeping you from doing three strikes (not that the third would be effective normally).

For a centaur using a lance, they wouldn't have the benefit of being able to focus on simply pivoting the lance, they also have to focus on balancing their body, and charging forward, just like it were any other weapon. The are focused on factors all over their body.

Not sure it would matter a whole lot, but also human riders on a horse, are back closer to the center of mass, which is likely good for balance and leverage of a weapon like a lance. A centaur on the other hand, has their human-like torso at the front of their body, which might make certain aspects of their leverage harder for them.

I think that said, it isn't unreasonable that they by raw, would not benefit as if being mounted for purposes of the Jousting trait. However, to let centaur pc's lean into that sort of a concept, it seems quite easy to be something which could be enabled by a centaur ancestry feat. As someone mentioned, it would even further benefit them as they wouldn't be losing the reach trait by using it on a mount.

I think it makes a lot of sense to unlock things and to even offer them free (or as mentioned with committing downtime to it after unlocking it).

I will say that since we are talking about unlocking/granting specific Feats, it is relevant to note that while giving these things for free would generally probably be seen favorably by most. If the things being granted/offered for free never seem to coincide with something that would be in character for a particular character in the party, it could create a situation where that person feels left or pushed out from the center of play.

To solve this the GM might feel compelled to give them something more to their liking, and of course that could then affect others, who accepted the 'given' ability because it was the only choice, and after seeing someone get 'what they wanted instead' might feel a little robbed themselves.

I'd suggest that to avoid such a cascade of 'hey, how come they got that' I would say it could be brought up in session zero that some things may become unlocked and available for people to earn as free extra feats, but they aren't mandated, and presumably would not have other alternatives, other than any other feats that are earned and unlocked by the story.

If in session zero there is already known to be a character concept that doesn't fit into the typical mold expect of the characters, if there is going to be any alternatives for that character, that can be worked out ahead of time, and any other players whom would have a problem with such accommodations can voice it in the start, rather than at the end, assuming the given player requests such accommodations, and the GM agrees to be willing to make accommodations.

The important thing being to make it so people feel like they already expect any such change, so it doesn't catch them unexpectedly.

I certainly feel that by making them free, it makes it easier to make room for them in your character build. Otherwise, if you have started already planning for some other feat, giving up your planned feat to leverage a 'unlocked' feat to get more into the story line may end up feeling like it is robbing you of your plans, more than it is a reward for you work in the story. (or you bypass the opportunity, and feel like you aren't leaning into the story, because it conflicted with your character idea) Again, internal conflict that might not feel like it contributes to the fun of the story.

So for the original (Magus) Archetype, and the Second edition one, the archetypes started with non-detection related effect being granted-related to the mask, followed by some animal-transformational abilities tied to the mask, followed by non-detection related abilities, and the original one granted some Druid spells to the magus what seemed sort of Halcyon-esque keystone.

I really like what you mentioned about the origin and the importance of hiding your identity as a resistance fighter. An aspect that might become less important in future generations if not fighting as widely controlling an adversary.

I liked how you pulled some of what was created for the Vigilante for your implementation of the Magic Warrior, but wonder if it would be better to leave out some of the granting of specific martial and spellcasting proficiencies out of its ending scope.

You make transforming from one identity into the other much quicker, an even in combat action, vs the Vigilante's requirement to take no less than a minute. But you limit the capability to do it to requiring you to have the mask.

I'm tempted to suggest that part of the dedication involve you creating it as a magic item, which would require 10gp in materials, and would become a 20gp magic item, usable only by you, or an inheritor defined by you in the future. (could not be 'stolen' and used, but leave open for passing the item to a child or student in the future, potentially)

This also gives you a potential cost if your 'identity' does become compromise, recrafting a mask may allow you to regain the identity protection abilities/separation.

I will note that the identity protection provided by the Vigilante dedication is far more powerful than the ones in either of the other magic warrior archetypes. But it also was created to solve a specific problem that would potentially not necessarily be a problem in all campaigns, but would really need to be that powerful to work in such cases when it would be useful. This said, I wonder if it is possible, or would be advisable to weaken the starting identity protection from the dedication, to leave more to give later on, but I'm not certain. For instance do we have to completely separate the two identities, or can at a low level one would you be able to have it prevent any divination or recall knowledge to cross between the two identities unless it was a critical success, which would be dropped to a regular success and potentially limited to vague information. This would give room for stronger protections to be enabled at a higher level, such as the 6th level feat. Which could in addition to granting the Nondetection spell on yourself, would fully separate your two identities (if not widely known) from being able to be magically tied together. The nondetection spell being able to prevent even your active identity from being detected.

Otherwise, you could look for other animal transformation and/or identity related abilities you could add to the dedication to give it more. Some things that come to mind includes the ability to mask a minion's identity. (Minion Guise) Ability to potentially speak with animals of your mask kind, or even perhaps to call/summon one of your chosen animal, might some other useful abilities.

Perhaps something akin to Hidden Magic from the Vigilante Archetype to hide your magic items, might contribute to this Archetype.

Potentially being able to have a secondary mask/identity seems potentially useful.

If you wanted a 'Nod' to the old ability for the old Magus archetype to gain druid spells in the end, you could have a high level feat that allowed a spellcasting member of the dedication to choose either Arcane or Primal, and allow them to pick up to one spell from each level, and replace one spell from their existing repertoire if spontaneous or add said spell as a spell known, if a prepared caster.

For lower levels as an ability, you might allow a feat, if they have casting cantrip ability, to swap out or maybe it would be fine to simply add one to their currently prepared (or repertoire) cantrips for a specific cantrip chosen from either Primal or Arcane list, instead of their normal list.

The dedication should also probably count for some of the prerequisites for the various 20th level mask feats for the from the SoT AP.

I think all of these sorts of things would seem to add to the flavor, grant useful items, and likely stay within most power levels appropriate for dedications. Thoughts?

Note that the original 2e Magic Warrior prerequisites required that they have the ability to cast focus spells already. You removed that requirement. (and I understand that impacts your Rogue build) but by starting with that requirement, it gives you potential to incorporate any number of classes, which might get it automatically via normal choices, or might have gotten it via an investment of a class feet. It also would be something you could achieve via an Archetype dedication to get focus spells as well.

I think one risk of your Archetype as you have it written is that most Archetypes let you Dabble into a certain direction. That direction is often defined in the dedication, starting you off in that way. In this case, you have a dedication feat that honestly, first impression doesn't seem overpowered, and the various feats in an of themselves many mostly not seem to out of scope for what an archetype feat might grant, (other than I believe there were questions about if an Archetype should grant Master attack proficiency in martial weapons.)

However, in this Archetype, you have it granting, ala carte things feat by feat from the entire buffet of spellcasting, martial weapons proficiencies, and martial armor proficiencies, etc. For better or worse for instance, the Fighter Archetype only granted weapons proficiencies, and not armor ones, and an different (sentinel) archetype was created which seemed to grant Armor proficiencies if you didn't' want to go the Champion route. This wider smorgasbord/range of abilities might push this archetype's power potential too big, or make it a riskier allowance.

It would almost seem like if it were to be limited to Magus, it should be a Hybrid Study, which seems like it wasn't an obvious decision on how to build such a hybrid study. I agree, that by making it an Archetype Dedication, it made it more widely available for a variety of classes. I'll confess, however, not my mind has challenged me to wonder if I could come up with something that would be buyable as a reasonable Magus hybrid study.

Some questions, would it be reasonable to have the feat that grants armor proficiency to instead make the mask be able to replicate/form an equivalent to said armors, or to absorb a suit of magical armor of the supported types. Which would appear on you when the mask's abilities are activated. The supported armors the mask enables, would treat you as being proficient in them. This way, you may not have the full proficiency, and ability to be proficient in the armor without your mask, but in warrior mask mode, you effectively do. It might be a strange distinction, but might be worthwhile, both for game balance as well as flavor.

Did you build your rogue teacher, with free Archetype in mind, and do you allow the free Archetype feats to not be bound by a multiclass archetype bought via a regular class feat? Could you have your Rogue be somewhat Arcane Trickster-like and have gotten a druid or wizard multiclass feats? Blessed One, I believe would give them a focus spell in one feat, but I am not certain it is the flavor you are looking for. I'd think that since the players are able to be various classes + a spellcaster archetype, it makes sense to consider such for the teachers too.

A few options for making them potentially better at counterspelling.

Potentially, make a Wizard counterspelling as a reaction, with a prepared Wizard Spell, to counter a spell being cast. Have them counter spell as if their counter spelling rank is one rank higher than it is. It doesn't boost the counteract rank of spells and effects which have already occurred, or are caused by something other than a spell being cast by a person or item.

Another option to improve counterspell ability for a wizard would be to allow them to counterspell any spell which they 'Know' which is one of their school spells. They expend their school prepared spell slot, losing that prepared spell if this choice is utilized. They treat the counteract as if they had expended the school spell with that slot instead.

I believe this option would need to modify the Automatic recognition of spells being cast, to include any school curriculum spells which they know, whether prepared or not.

Honestly, I confess some people might want to offer this second counterspelling to potentially other classes, except instead including the 'Domain' spells, or 'Bloodline' spells(although sorcerer's always have their bloodline spells in their repertoire unless they are Archetype Sorcerers, so probably not likely a clamor for this one), etc. But that might lose some of the 'advantage' you were potentially considering granting the wizard. However, wizard curriculum may include more than one spell per rank, so it might be a slight advantage to them.

Another option, allow a wizard to recognize any spells available, in an Invested staff, and allow them to counterspell using the staff and a charge if the staff is in hand.

Perhaps allow counterspelling from an invested wand as well, but recognition and counterspelling would likely only be available if the wand was already in hand when the spell started being cast.

This might make such magic items more seen as Tools of the Wizard, and making the wizard the expert of magical tools.

I am now remembering a thought I had for a suggestion for a benefit for wearing the mask.

While wearing the mask all recall knowledge checks are made as though you are at least Uncommon (like the mask archetype). Additionally the first item of knowledge gotten from any check may only be generic level, saves, or an ability from the Magic Warrior Archetype. Other abilities from their main class or identity are only possible to gather via critical success.

Would be a potential angle you could take.

Ascalaphus' suggestion is pleasantly reminiscent of the Vigilante. A complicated class, but was really cool concept. I'm wondering if the masks of the Magic Warrior was supposed to be similar to it. I wasn't aware of it when it came out.

I'm wondering if one way to handle the Magic Warrior Archetype would be to have the dedication give the character the ability to make a special magic item (irrespective of crafting proficiency, etc) that would cost about half the cost of a spell heart, and would 'grant' certain abilities/activation. (cantrip and once per day spell perhaps) They have to invest the item, and they stick to the anathema/edicts about secrecy of identity, and it loses magic and would have to be re-crafted.

So the archetype might have room for a bit more power than an average archetype, because it has a GP and Investment cost to it that many archetypes wouldn't (in addition to the edict/anathema aspects)

I also wonder does the anathema of not taking off the mask count if you aren't in your Adventurer/Hero garb and around people you don't know so no-one would associate 'you' with the 'masked one'. Can you not wear your mask when you are wearing a disguise? (it seems really hard to 'successfully' disguise yourself as a random peasant wearing a big wooden animal mask in most cases, for instance) Or was it supposed to be more like the extremist interpretation of the Mandalorian never take your mask off in front of someone.

Edited out a part of my post about the Magic Warrior Dedication, but will leave my trailing thought.

Another question or alternative. What if the current attribute prerequisites moved from being prerequisites, to being attributes that if you meet them at say 11th level, you gain an improved benefit from your base dedication? Such attributes would be far easier to move into if you've had a couple extra sets of attributes to distribute into appropriate attributes.

Here is a thought for your issue with Magic Warrior

Magic Warrior Dedication 2
Prerequisites ability to cast focus spells
+ Trained in Magic Warrior Lore; Arcana or Nature
Access You are from the Mwangi Expanse.

Grants:
Magic Warrior Lore becomes Expert (this is really very minor boost for flavor, and should be negligible power cost)

Pick your mask and associated creature.

Gain basic Spellcasting abilities, including Add one Variant Cantrip from the choice below:

Tame (variant is instead of being limited to any domesticated creatures is limited to creatures of the type selected by the mask)
Gouging Claw (variant causes damage is per spell save the damage type is per the primary damage of the animal aspect chosen)

The Cantrip take the Tradition of your focus spellcasting from your prerequisite.

Not sure how one would translate the Divination bonus. Maybe an ability like:
Reaction
Trigger: a spell or magic ability is invoked that would reveal your location, name or information about your abilities.
Effect: Apply a +1 status bonus to the DC required for the spell, or +1 to any save to prevent its success.

So if you switched Multiclass dedications from having attribute prerequisites, to having skill prerequisites.

How might you change them.

For Swashbuckler Dedication
- Prerequisite: Charisma +2; Dexterity +2
+ Prerequisite: Already trained in either Acrobatics or the Skill of their chosen Style.

Would the dedication then grant the other trained skill (Acrobatics or Style Skill) at Trained or a choice if both already trained.

Now picking an arbitrary other class to examine

Sorcerer Dedication
- Prerequisites Charisma +2
+ Prerequisites Already trained in one of the two skills of the chosen Bloodline.

It looks like it grants the two Bloodline Skills as trained normally, so would you change the prerequisite to having one of the two Bloodline skills, and have it grant the other one. (that still leaves a net loss in the change, unless you have it grant a free additional skill)

Actually, honestly I'd suggest that since Sorcerer's don't get to change their cantrips out daily, that they start with two cantrips chosen, and add their bloodline cantrip, to the two chosen.

Now a potentially controversial one

Fighter Dedication
- Prerequisites Strength +2; Dexterity +2
+ Prerequisites Trained in either Acrobatics or Athletics

Would this grant training in the remaining skill of the pair above?

Honestly, I'm not entirely certain why the Dedication didn't offer a choice of Training:
[] Martial Weapons
[] Light and Medium Armor
For individuals whom already have Martial Weapons Training, potentially offer an alternate of selecting a single Advanced weapon to be treated as a Martial Weapons for training proficiency purposes.
For individuals whom already have Medium Armor Training, potentially offer them all armor training.

I have to admit however I don't know if it makes sense for ALL multiclass fighters to be trained in both Acrobatics and Athletics. It seems to be over-specific for individual's who's nature it to Dabble deeper into fighting.

I guess I should also apologize as I'm not just dealing with changing the prerequisites but also looking at what they grant. But I guess the OP was also saying maybe it could make room for the additions. So maybe this is still in scope.

What do people feel about the fighter Dedication basically pushing both skills. One you have to pre-allocate and the other getting consumed by Dedication budget?

Regardless of Arc is referring to the fact you can choose to pick any TWO weapons and fire them.. it doesn't change what arc the target of said weapons can hit. But it does imply that the rolls to hit will be separate, and should be able to target different targets.

I think they were trying to differentiate between Broadside, multiple/all weapons, but only in one arc. And this which is two weapons, which can come from any arc, can be fired. Each one targeting a valid target for that weapon, with the given modifier.

I don't dislike the concept of having Multi-class Archetype's having a prerequisites of certain Trained skills, in general. However, I at least might consider the fact that it might limit classes that are short on skill trainings, from potentially have the resource room to invest in an Archetype unless it overlaps with the class already from a skill perspective. That might not be ideal, it might be trading one partially arbitrary constraint for another.

(had to afford attributes prerequisite due to the attributes not being a priority for the original class, vs. not having enough skill trainings to be able to afford the skill prerequisites.

So you interpret the Dedication as granting two trained skills? Because I read it as granting only one. Which was also part of my weighting that made gaining Panache being empty being too bad to be true.

....

You become trained in Acrobatics or the skill associated with your style.
....

I'm proposing an addition to the Swashbuckler Archetype to make it more mechanically satisfying and better aligned with the design philosophy of Pathfinder 2E. Here's the new feature:

Stylish Combatant (Archetype)
While you already have panache and are in a combat encounter, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to skill checks with the bravado trait. Additionally, while you have panache, you gain a +5-foot status bonus to your Speeds.

Design Justification
As written, the Swashbuckler Dedication grants:

Training in one of two skills based on your chosen style — a weaker benefit compared to most dedications, where a skill training is typically a bonus on top of a more defining feature.

The ability to Gain Panache — which, by RAW, is functionally empty unless the character spends additional feats to do anything with it.

This second point is my biggest concern. Granting the ability to gain panache without any accompanying effect is essentially like giving a character spellcasting but no cantrips, spell slots, or focus spells — just a label with no substance. This feels contrary to 2E’s design philosophy, which generally avoids "empty" abilities and feat taxes.

On the New Feature
Initially, I considered omitting the circumstance bonus to bravado checks. But after reflection, I decided to make it conditional on already having panache. This design:

Encourages the archetype user to engage in bravado-style actions to gain and maintain panache.

Preserves a distinction between archetype users and full Swashbucklers. The class Swashbuckler gains their circumstance bonus to Bravado skills even before they have panache, giving them an edge in gaining it in the first place.

Helps archetype characters maintain panache longer and gain modest combat utility from it, without overshadowing the full class.

It’s similar in spirit to how Archetype Barbarians get a weaker version of Rage — they get the flavor, but not the full power.

Potential Concerns – Looking for Feedback
Is the +1 circumstance bonus to Bravado skills while in panache too strong? I don’t think so, but I’m open to hearing why it might be.

Is the conditional +5-foot status bonus to speed too much? Again, I feel this is fair. The Swashbuckler class gets a higher bonus and can invest in feats to increase it further. The archetype's speed bonus is locked behind having panache, and future feats are still required for improvements or for gaining Precise Strike and Finishers.

Class Swashbucklers get:

Panache that grants Precise Strike, access to Finishers, a movement speed bonus, and passive bonuses to Bravado skills.

Higher-level upgrades to that speed bonus, including a passive portion even when not in panache.

By contrast, this archetype version:

Provides only the speed bonus while in panache and a minor bonus to Bravado skill checks, and only when panache is already active.

Requires feat investment to unlock even a weaker Precise Strike or any further increased speed benefits.

I believe this strikes the right balance: flavorful and functional, but clearly a watered-down version from the full class. It gives panache meaning for archetype users, without stepping on the toes of full Swashbucklers.

Background Context:
I’m running a Free Archetype game, and one of my players picked Swashbuckler. Up until now, I’d only let them benefit from the speed bonus while they had panache. Going forward, I’m planning to also allow the Bravado bonus whenever they already have panache, to give it a bit more utility and feel like the archetype choice is paying off.

Thoughts?
I'd love feedback from others. Do you feel this adjusted version is too generous? Too conservative? Does it align well with other archetypes in terms of power and feel?

Don't forget to include adjustments for Zero level and Minus 1 level creatures in your chart. (even if it means calling them level 1) But you might consider making them -0 instead of -1, for instance as you are reducing the consequence of individual levels so maybe being lower in level doesn't mean they need to drop more?

I'd also suggest you NEVER not adjust the creature or challenge per your chart. However, after adjusting the creature (or item/trap/etc) for the chart, you should feel to adjust individual end values by one or maybe two if you feel it helps you feel like it gives the creature the right flavor. It might be a good idea to print out an updated creature by level expectations so you can reference it when making adjustments so you know if a creature falls within Extreme, High, Moderate, Low or Terrible for particular aspects to help you stay in the guard rails.

Also, you'd want to print off an updated DC by Level table to reference for coming up with level appropriate DCs. Remember to re-DC any defined DCs in the skills section that are level based, such as heal checks, for instance.

My suggestion if you want to let them do it is create it as a Spellheart. And have a special ‘rider’ for the item that it can be activated by shadowdancers who have ShadowDancer focus spells.

It avoids the character from having to use trick item, and is believable such an item might have been made for such ShadowDancers.

It also seems you ‘Want’ to do it for them and you are asking us permission, and verify it doesn’t break things significantly in flaws you hadn’t anticipated. I don’t think it is an unworkable departure from standards, but as others suggested, I’d make it a ‘Fluttering Ribbon of Darkness’ spellheart you attach to your armor. Which was invented to help shadowdancers of old. Make it Rare, as it is not typical for Spellheart to have special allowances for specific archetypes. And have the player learn of someplace that may have one. The party can work together to help them get it.