MadamReshi's page

The playtest for Battlecry! mentions war between Golarion nations, something likely with the god of war's imminent demise and previously confirmed by developer comments anyway. Where do we think things are blowing up?

I think there's going to be a war in the Oprak region - maybe between Oprak, Molthune and other nations up there. Especially since an AP is set in Belkez, and Oprak wanted an alliance with Belkez. Perhaps a war between Oprak and someone is what is part of that AP's premise.

I mean it was already in place since the core rulebook with thief rogue, and the Chirurgeon kind of. They have used it sparingly since then, and I trust Paizo to continue to only apply it in specific circumstances.

To expand upon this, I suspect that Paizo are concious of how classes like Investigator and Alchemist have had some small awkward issues about how they are classes that Strike with weapons but their key ability score is Intelligence, and that Intelligence is overall considered one of the weakest Key Attributes.

I think they may have decided that, for some classes, giving the option to use a different mod for skills to make the class less MAD may be an OK design space.

Hmm depression and other writing projects took time from me figuring out whether it would be better to do two statblocks or one page adventure plus statblock :'D I wonder if its too late now, at least won't be time to have anyone else proof read

Do the latter; I'm trying to get something done, and originally had two custom stat blocks, and had to cut it down to one. To be fair, I have some lengthy abilities, but two pages I have found to be fairly restrictive - and a fun challenge.

It's very welcome that they did that mapping and update!

I know it'd be a lot of work but I'd be really down for more token packs like this for mapping for different books as a collection. Something that combines previous books such as *Guns and Gears*, *Secrets of Magic* and *Dark Archives* would be wonderful.

What info about Kaoling can you divulge? How much of an effect on its culture is the link with Oprak having?

I still feel like 'failure' or a god losing sight of their purpose is a big part of their

Erastil is out-hunted. His followers then fail to track down the beast that killed him.

Cayden loses his confidence, then is betrayed by his own friends and followers.

Pharasma, the god most tied to prophecy, crumbles under it and notably her systems and psychopomps are basically useless in maintaining any order without her.

Asmodeus' entire system is brought down and repudiated by his death.

Zon-Kuthon falls, but even beyond that we then see Dou-bral abandon his station and Shelyn destroy artistic creativity in the aftermath.

Even Urgathoa, who sort of 'wins' I think is notable in that she does more to further the cause of spreading undeath and upending Pharasma's order by dying than she ever did by unliving. Doubly ironic given that Urgathoa's existence is sort of an act of defiance against that unmaking. Urgathoa's assassin also essentially fails here, in that undeath runs rampant because of it.

... Even in this story: Obviously, the gods somewhat fail to protect Golarion, but Rovagug here fails utterly at being a reality-ending threat. The battle is described as intense, but the being who was supposed to devour all of reality failing to even destroy the single world his final battle takes place on is somewhat pathetic, don't you think?

etc.

One notable connection is also the idea of a god falling in part because they've stepped away from their original purpose.

Desna is specifically disparaged for turning her attention away from watching the stars. Erastil, likewise, stops being just a hunt god and becomes a god of family and community as well. Both of them fall in their respective prophecies perhaps in part because of the dilution of their domain.

We also see a similar theme of gods trying to step 'beyond' their station. Nethys tries to tamper with the fundamental laws of reality and dooms large parts of the world for it. Irori allows his selfish need for personal perfection...

So.

Which god has changed the most since Burnt Offerings? Have any of them had major character growth since then?

If it's any of the ten remaining, they are very high on the list to die.

The next prophecy concerns one of the Prismatic Ray. Let the speculation begin!

I will be immensely terrified for Shelyn if Desna or Sarenrae is the one to get the prophecy.

I was completely wrong in my guesses. The fact that Sheyln also loses so much from this is terrifying.

I'm filled with fear for the Prismatic Ray.

Oh wow! There's a gazetteer in here for Sandpoint!

I was at some point going to pick up the AP; being a newer fan of the system and setting, I really do want to dive into a special moment and at-least read and appreciate it (if not run it at some point).

But I was also interested because my party in my own campaign are coincidentally going towards Sandpoint, and will probably be there by the time the book drops.

The fact the Sandpoint gazetter is in the player's guide - oh this is going to be SO useful to me.

Really fascinated to read this AP and be inspired by it.

And yeah. Congrats on 200. That's something special.

If a beast starts devouring gods the first thing I'd check is if anyone's seen Achaekek recently.

Yes. What IS Achaekek's role in all of this?

He's supposed to protect the gods, right?

I suspect he's going to be the first death in all this, as part of the prelude to the main event. His death opens all sorts of nasty things to happen to the gods.

Ectar wrote:

Almost irrespective of who it is, I have tepid interest in what changes in Arazni to make her popular enough to be one of the new core 20.

As she currently is, her portfolio is rather on the narrow side.

I could see it if Urgathoa dies and all undead gain sentience and complete free-will on the spot and thus the chance to escape the overwhelmingly evil/Unholy trend.

And Arazni steps in to negotiate a truce with Pharasma for all those unwilling undead that do not wish for death, but just to exist peacefully until they meet destruction.

That type of storyline, I feel, would be something that could only happen at the end of the Pathfinder setting.

Not that you couldn't continue to do stories in Golarion anymore, or about evil undead afterwards, or have some mindless undead left as typical enemies, but it does feel like such a significant, huge change to the setting that significantly changes so much of the world and entire nations that it would be difficult to continue afterwards.

Undead like skeletons, zombies and others are so useful to structure specific stories about and not worry about the implications of dealing with them all the time.

I say this as someone who likes more grey plots and PCs fighting against people who may be redeemable or have logical plans and ideas, and not just trying to destroy the world or are totally evil. But I think it is nice to have variety and spice, and to have a class of enemy I can put down and go much more all out on, and expect the players to deal with (or do something funny like about face and decide to work with evil necromancers and the like).

This is without going into how it changes all of the afterlife and a significant amount of the planes, how it interacts with Asmodeous', Pharasma, and Sarenrae's stories, etc. etc.

So I don't see this happening without it being an end point for the setting.

I still find the clue about 'Shyka will survive' so specific. Even the 'development around Torag' and 'an orc deity will die' are very vague and might refer to a number of things.

I don't get why this is a specific hint though. Another one of the clues says the god will stay dead; so I think that rules them out from becoming part of Shyka. But what would threaten things so that Shyka could / would die?

Is there going to be some sort of issue around time that is going to occur? I do find it fascinating that Seasons of Ghosts is one of the few APs to take place in the past. Did that have any bearing on things?

It's going to be down to the way its handled.

I think I have a certain amount of favouritism towards Sarenrae and Shelyn for a variety of reasons. Either of them being taken out would sadden me and complicate things; but if it's done in a compelling way it could work out well.

I do, however, have this fundamental feeling that the changes to the Prismatic Ray will not be because of death, but either an addition to the pantheon, or as I suspect, a partial breakup.

There's a reason Zon Kuthon is high on my list of who is going to perish; and his relationship to Shelyn, and what she may do if he passes, is a big one for me.

Alrighty, thank for the detailed explanations. The stunned condition and counteracting seem to be the most obtusely written rules I've so far encountered in 2E. So the explanations are very appreciated.

Yeah; the rules for counteracting are actually simple once you understand them but I do find they were not well written, at-least in the Core Rulebook.

Thank you for your stories and for the wonderful items!

The diversity of different cultures here is simply wonderful.

An entire setting book covering cultures of indigenous peoples and their cultures translated to the world of Lost Omens would be pretty cool.

I think the always clear clarified but always RAW changed why Paizo why 'deadlier' rules would make for an excellent official variant rule, for those groups wanting a 'grittier' game.

(Struckthrough text added for some light humour about the huge arguments we've all engaged in for the past few weeks - I am solidly behind Mark Seifter's probably over-optimistic hope on Reddit for this to bring about a "peaceful conclusion to the discourse")

I think it'd make for a great rules variant too for particularly deadly game and a particularly well optimised group; rather than throwing harder encounters consistently and making things too difficult in that area, having a game where death can come more suddenly could be quite an interesting variant.

Historical question: does the proliferation of low light and darkvision across both Pathfinder and D&D come from D&D 3e, or does it have its origins earlier? I'm guessing the reason for it being so common is that because it was common in the systems common ancestors.

The Fantasy Grounds post in question.

Basically what I'm taking away from this is that Sandpoint deserves those Seven Dooms.

This is the first adventure path that I have read and makes me instantly wonder if I should get a group to play it (after reading it!)

Not that the others haven't been interesting, but as a new GM this is the first one that has gotten me really, really excited into running it straight.

I am personally quibbling whether this is pure errata or clarification because of the fact that this discrepancy has existed between two sources - the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen - since the start, but the Core Rulebook has won out, because it is the main game source over an accessory product and it is what is available on online sources. However, neither have been errata'd to match the other until now.

And it's causing a lot of confusion because it seems to make the game harder and lead to major debates over the 'right' course of action to take when someone is unconscious, that didn't exist before. And it affects anyone playing PFS who are going to use the clarified / errata'd rules.

Is there any variant in the new GM Core that has less deadly rules around Dying, Wounded and Recovery Checks?

A different rule preference does not confer whether a group is 'sane' or not. Can we stop using loaded language? I don't even like what the rule is supposed to be. But insults do not lead to a constructive conversation.

The thing is, the Core Rulebook and the GM Screen have always disagreed; and they were released on the same day. The GM Screen states:

"Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value. The wounded condition ends if you receive HP from Treat Wounds, or if you’re restored to full HP and rest for 10 minutes."

This verbage is apparently what playtest documents stated before.

So. Is this a mistake in the GM Screen, or the Core Rulebook?

It seems the Remaster assumes that the Core Rulebook was wrong.

From everything I see, I intend to use everything, and officially say that I am house ruling the rules around the Dying and Wound condition, and how Recovery Checks work.

Everything else I've seen looks like changes I agree with.

That is all fair. I didn't mean to distract the thread with my musings.

I really would like to ask this question in any of the streams or videos by content creators coming out over the next two weeks. Or maybe I should just calm myself and wait for the PDF release =p

MadamReshi wrote:

I can see that; but it is a major setback to lose a weapon that has runes on it, economy wise, and it's a major disadvantage if the fight is otherwise winnable, especially if it's important story wise - for example, it's totally possible for a fight to go in a way for a melee martial to have been the only one taking significant damage, while the rest of the party has only last resources; and several enemies are well damaged or dead.

In that scenario, getting up and running away without your weapon takes you out of the fight unless you have a backup... which I suppose may be wise, but is expensive. And that could cause friction at the table, or at-least cause issues for the Martial player in question unless they have another form of contribution.

It's also uneven in who it affects; quiet a number of Monks are going to be fun.

It is an interesting balance point, though I'm not sure how fun it is; on the one hand, it is quite a powerful thing for anyone reliant on unarmed attacks, or have backup weapons and magic items to support that, or those who carry ranged and melee weapons about. On the other hand, anyone using a shield is going to suffer.

It is something I'll keep an eye on, no matter what rules I'm running.

I was speaking of a case where the character is running away. If you're planning on staying here, you should recover your weapon but then you are not really running away.

Or you can leave your weapon and retrieve it if needed in later rounds. If you are running away from the enemies, chances are high you won't try to get to melee range soon and should use your ranged option in the meantime instead. If you don't have a ranged option then you should have one.

And if you care more about losing a weapon than your character, well, to each their own. But I tend to dislike this kind of reasoning that I find extremely metagamey (as I'm pretty sure the player considers their character can't die or that a resurrection is not really costly compared to a fully runed...

To be fair, I haven't played; I'm seeing it from the perspective of a GM, and I might be looking at this too much from the worry of 'what if the players decisions could make it difficult for them to get weapons? What adaptions am I going to make to solve this?' As an actual player, I would care more about my life.

MadamReshi wrote:

which is kind of a problem for Martials in particular, who have to spend an action to get up, *and* an action to grab their weapon, and then have to Stride - or Step

I love it when martials are running for their life and spend an action grabbing their weapon. I killed at least one of them because of this mistake. Don't grab your weapon if you intent to run away, it's suicidal and pointless.

I can see that; but it is a major setback to lose a weapon that has runes on it, economy wise, and it's a major disadvantage if the fight is otherwise winnable, especially if it's important story wise - for example, it's totally possible for a fight to go in a way for a melee martial to have been the only one taking significant damage, while the rest of the party has only last resources; and several enemies are well damaged or dead.

In that scenario, getting up and running away without your weapon takes you out of the fight unless you have a backup... which I suppose may be wise, but is expensive. And that could cause friction at the table, or at-least cause issues for the Martial player in question unless they have another form of contribution.

It's also uneven in who it affects; quiet a number of Monks are going to be fun.

It is an interesting balance point, though I'm not sure how fun it is; on the one hand, it is quite a powerful thing for anyone reliant on unarmed attacks, or have backup weapons and magic items to support that, or those who carry ranged and melee weapons about. On the other hand, anyone using a shield is going to suffer.

It is something I'll keep an eye on, no matter what rules I'm running.

I admit; I'm not a fan of this.

While it does me going down once is okay if you get stabilised (and are facing enemies who won't just finish you off and you aren't hit by persistent damage), dying potentially instantly on one failed recovery roll once when you have Wounded 1 is extremely punishing. Essentially, if you get revived, you HAVE to run - which is kind of a problem for Martials in particular, who have to spend an action to get up, *and* an action to grab their weapon, and then have to Stride - or Step, if they're in range of an enemy (because while only 1/4 enemies have Attack of Opportunity, how can you ever truly know unless you've moved out of range before?) You'd need to be heal substantially and protected for that to work.

Ironically, this does give a serious advantage to Casters; they can get up, Step or Stride, and then Stride again.

... I just don't know. I feel this is too deadly and I wonder if this is partly why there is a gap between people who feel the game is too deadly versus people like I that feel the game is dangerous but not too dangerous; if the former were running RAW and RAI, then I think that criticism starts to be less based on the severity of encounters ran and perhaps some mistakes on players and GM parts, and more so that the rest of us were running a kinder version of the game...

I think this should be an optional rule, honestly. Wounded adding to your initial Dying condition - making it so that, if you're Wounded 1, one Critical Fail is all it takes to end you - is already a powerful incentive to to make sure someone doesn't go down, make sure they are stabilised, and clear enemies away from them.

With this rule in place, it's fairly arguable you shouldn't heal them at all until the end of the fight - because it seems like it's much more likely for them to die if you heal them and bring them back up at all, rather than giving them some chance at running and being more of a tactical decision.

Note, I'm a rather junior GM; only about 22 or 23 sessions under my belt, and I've only ran a few severe encounters - and I've only had a character gain Wounded once. Perhaps my view if this is rather skewed by my general worry of making encounters too hard and killing newer players or characters - to the point I may be making encounters a bit easier than the players could actually handle. But that fear is without the clarified RAW and without adding Wounded to every time you gain Dying. If I followed RAW and RAI, I would be even more afrad

By the by, there's now a Tan Ripper who's also one and two starring every Pathfinder 2e product.

I don't want to be cranky, but please Paizo, can this be dealt with? Or can someone explain an easy way to leave a review on a product? This is actually making it very hard to evaluate whether any Pathfinder 2e book is worth it, because a heckler's veto is being applied to the products and being one and two starred in such a blatantly false way. There's no way this isn't spam, considering they are all blank reviews and it's every 2e product.

Trained skills lose value over time as the game assumes proficiency boosts in all skills ever acquired. This is why Intelligence is a bad stat.

The GM isn't supposed to make every skill check an a level based skill check though. You are supposed to continue using both lower level and simple DC trained, expert etc. skills when it is appropriate. Mind you I haven't ran higher levels and I don't know how adventure paths handle this, but for a lot of skills, especially ones like Athletics and so, I think it's pretty important to have those less intensive checks still there

After all, it serves to help highlight those who have invested in those skills versus who hasn't when, say, your party ends up falling into a stormy sea, and some automatically always Crit Succeed their rolls, some nearly always succeed - and some need help to stay above water.

I think its weirder that some people are against playing the game for what it is: A combat simulator with a splash of RP and a heaping dose of worldbuilding.

Different people get different things out of a TTRPG.

Yes, a significant amount of focus on Pathfinder 2e is on the combat. But it's a flexible enough system that you could have skill challenges without combat and focus mostly on roleplay, diplomacy, and saving people rather than fighting something and still have a great time.

People just have a different way of playing and running things, so I think it's weird to say that people are 'against playing the game for what it is' when their concept of the game is different to yours and the system is very clearly designed to support that type of play. The subsystems available, including some for much more narrative based combat, along with the extensive skill and skill feat system, make that clear.

MadamReshi wrote:

I don't think you understand. In the Elementialist spell list, you can select the Inner Sea Elementialist option to see the exact same spells as the old archetype. The same content is still there.

I think you may be confusing the split between 4 and 6 elements with the remaster changes. Right now Inner Sea Elementalism on AON doesn't have its pre-remaster only spells like Blistering Invective.

Ah okay. Understood.

MadamReshi wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

Hey players, Happy Equinox.

As you’re discussing the remaster changes, kindly be aware that the remaster reflects the rules we are using going forward, but that no content is being banned at your tables. We need to publish what we need to publish for the legal health and safety of our company—and we’re adding improvements to the game along the way. But nothing we’re printing should be considered a subtraction from the game you love. All the options will still be in the System Reference Document at Archives of Nethys.

The Remaster Project is a process. We’re going to be remastering Pathfinder at least into Gen Con 2024 with Player Core 2. And that doesn’t even address the errata that our design team may consider for every rule published after the Advanced Player’s Guide.

In short, a blended OGL/ORC experience should be expected for many months. And we’re never, we can’t, put an end date on what you play at your tables. We’re not coming to your home and taking away your older books. We want you to keep using everything you’ve purchased. As always, we’re trying to deliver to you the best deep character customization options in the industry.

Adventures Ahead!

I love the Remaster, but options are *already* gone from Archives of Nethys.

Which options?

Secrets of Magic Elementalist Spell List is missing. The current one is just the Rage of Elements spell list, which doesn't have all the options Secrets of Magic did. Blistering Invective, Flammable Fumes, etc.

Deities that appeared in Rage of Elements but also was written before have had their alignment removed. ie Sairazul

The SoM one is right here, for example, and those other spells are still up and findable.

The Secrets of Magic spell list literally isn't there?

...

I don't think you understand. In the Elementialist spell list, you can select the Inner Sea Elementialist option to see the exact same spells as the old archetype. The same content is still there.

GameDesignerDM wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

Hey players, Happy Equinox.

As you’re discussing the remaster changes, kindly be aware that the remaster reflects the rules we are using going forward, but that no content is being banned at your tables. We need to publish what we need to publish for the legal health and safety of our company—and we’re adding improvements to the game along the way. But nothing we’re printing should be considered a subtraction from the game you love. All the options will still be in the System Reference Document at Archives of Nethys.

The Remaster Project is a process. We’re going to be remastering Pathfinder at least into Gen Con 2024 with Player Core 2. And that doesn’t even address the errata that our design team may consider for every rule published after the Advanced Player’s Guide.

In short, a blended OGL/ORC experience should be expected for many months. And we’re never, we can’t, put an end date on what you play at your tables. We’re not coming to your home and taking away your older books. We want you to keep using everything you’ve purchased. As always, we’re trying to deliver to you the best deep character customization options in the industry.

Adventures Ahead!

I love the Remaster, but options are *already* gone from Archives of Nethys.

Which options?

Secrets of Magic Elementalist Spell List is missing. The current one is just the Rage of Elements spell list, which doesn't have all the options Secrets of Magic did. Blistering Invective, Flammable Fumes, etc.

Deities that appeared in Rage of Elements but also was written before have had their alignment removed. ie Sairazul

The SoM one is right here, for example, and those other spells are still up and findable.

The Secrets of Magic spell list literally isn't there? What are you talking about? That's the Rage of Elements...

See the updated archetype.

Secrets of Magic Elementalist: This section updates and expands the elementalist class archetype originally presented on page 206 of Secrets of Magic. If you're using the version of the archetype from Secrets of Magic and are happy with it, you don't need to make any changes—that original version functions the same as using the new text and choosing Inner Sea elementalism for your elemental philosophy!

Captain Morgan wrote:

Because as of 2021 there was exactly one creature with weakness to acid.

I hate it when this stupid forum software truncates a quote, not quoting the part to which I want to reply. :-(

Interestingly, I tried searching AoN for creatures with weakness to acid. According to the documentation this is a complex search for "weakness.acid". When I do this, I get zero hits. However, when I changed the "acid" part to "cold", I also get zero hits, even though looking at the full list of creatures the first entry is Adult Gold Dragon, which does have a weakness to cold. So either I'm doing it wrong, or AoN is not working correctly.

Using the number filter on AoN to select creatures with at-least Weakness 1 to Acid, I found four creatures with a Weakness to Acid. For Cold, I found 77.

In comparison, about 133 creatures are resistant to Acid, with 199 resistant to Cold.

That indicates to me that there should be more creatures weak to Acid added. May the next version of the Bestiary take this into account.

So essentially casters should be able to get a Gate Attuner like item? That seems fine to me. If True Strike is a problem, then remove True Strike or make it a two action spell that applies on your next Strike (for up to a minute).

Honestly - is it not possible the Remaster will have Gate Attuners for caster classes? Have Paizo stated that won't happen or revealed enough items for us to believe it won't happen?

MadamReshi wrote:

Whatever about players*, the second solution particularly strikes me as essentially denying the player's successful spell** against the boss, which would feel pretty bad. How could a player ever expect that a GM would rule that the spell essentially works anyway, especially in a context whether the loss of an action - out of three - isn't going to matter? I'd be gutted as a player.

I do not see it that way. If a player under a similar effect asked me if they could use a normal action to cast Feather Fall instead of strictly a reaction, I would very likely allow it. What I'd allow for the player - and I make it known when situations like this come up - I also allow for their enemies. So in this case the boss, sans reactions, would fall gently away because it's what would happen if a player was in the same situation.

Quote:

(* generally, I think players knowing metaknowledge is a lot more allowable than bosses knowing metaknowledge due to the power dynamics - but I think that's something to talk about at the table for spell effects that aren't obvious)

I do not agree. Either everybody metagames or nobody does and given that my players are experienced and probably couldn't help but metagame bosses would get the same benefit. If people want to run it strictly raw and use flowery obfuscating spell descriptions so nobody can metagame I'd also be cool with that.

Quote:

(** and the first one strikes me a little about it as well, because how does the boss know? But less egregious since it still blocks the boss from doing an escape, and forces them to engage).

I've always ruled that you know the immediate effects of spells that impact you. So Hideous Laughter would mean you know you can't use reactions. As discussed above it just helps with evening things out when I know my players will be metagaming.

Okay, fair enough, but I'd be very careful about changing the action economy like that for reaction spells - that could lead to very strange situations.

I would not run it that way at my table. The character would have either attempted to cast the spell and not have jumped when it didn't work (sane and intelligent) or been allowed to cast Feather Fall with a normal action as a means of escape (I would also allow my players to do the same). Either is a better solution than what happened.

Feather Fall is a reaction spell that has the trigger that it has to be cast on a creature within range that is falling. Unless the creature is falling, it can't attempt to Cast the Spell before jumping. Changing the spells action economy to be a full Action to avoid the effect is also bizarre. If a creature jumps out, they could use Grab an Edge instead to attempt to hold on.

Whatever about players*, the second solution particularly strikes me as essentially denying the player's successful spell** against the boss, which would feel pretty bad. How could a player ever expect that a GM would rule that the spell essentially works anyway, especially in a context whether the loss of an action - out of three - isn't going to matter? I'd be gutted as a player.

Isn't that what we're trying to avoid here? You seem to be arguing against yourself in this case - or at the least, rewarding players for good play and being somewhat adversarial against them?

(* generally, I think players knowing metaknowledge is a lot more allowable than bosses knowing metaknowledge due to the power dynamics - but I think that's something to talk about at the table for spell effects that aren't obvious)

(** and the first one strikes me a little about it as well, because how does the boss know? But less egregious since it still blocks the boss from doing an escape, and forces them to engage).

From a GM perspective, it feels to me that Magus and Wizards do need special consideration as spellcasters when it comes to spell availability and being able to learn more, since their Spellbook adaptability is a critical component of their class.

It does seem to be an issue where certain classes require special consideration - Inventor, Investigator, Magus, Wizard etc. - when it comes to ensuring they have access to different critical components that may not be as obvious as ordinary loot, or that the game structure enables their base assumptions to work. That advice would be most potent in non Adventure Path play, but would still be useful in Adventure Path play as a reminder to the GM that these considerations need to be taken into account if a player plays one of those classes.

I think a good question to ask is: would prepared spellcasters break the system if they all had Flexible Spellcaster without losing spellslots per day, cantrips learned, or having a specific collection of spells to prepare from?

I would like that to be a variant rule presented in the GM Core - mainly to hear the designers' thoughts on it. Does that make prepared spellcasters too strong?

Here's another question: would Wizard be too strong if they had Flexible Spellcaster but with the same amount of spellslots and cantrips learned as of now, and being able to use any spell in their spellbook whenever?

graystone wrote:

Say what now? Casters don't use wands?

Optimized casters don't.

A Wand gives you an additional spell per day and 2 for exceptional circumstances for 10 to 15 times the price of a scroll.
A small bunch of Scrolls (you don't need many, 2 or 3 scrolls of your highest level is enough) gives you 2 things:
- First, it's a buffer for the famous unexpected tough fight at the end of the unexpectedly long adventuring day. Because you have this buffer, you can be more liberal in your spell slot use. And thing is: The unexpected tough fight at the end of the unexpectedly long adventuring day is a rarity. So the result is just that you go to bed with more spells used, roughly 30-40% more than a caster without scrolls and you rarely use a scroll because of that. That's extra free spells, and more than the Wand can give you for half its price.
- Second, for life or death situations, you will cast as much as you can and you will end up using your scrolls (that's the main case when I use my scrolls). You will also overcharge your Wand (because it's a life or death situation so you don't really count your pennies). The Wand will give you 2 castings with half the chance to be broken for 10 to 15 times the price of a scroll.

The effect of Scrolls on your character is much bigger than the effect of Wands. Buying Wands of spells you can cast is a weak choice, you should buy Scrolls instead. But I get it, it's a bit hard to accept (it took me a bit of time to realize the effect of Scrolls on my character, but after saving the party from a TPK and a potential character death I was damn sure it was the optimized choice).

So, as a GM, the impression I am getting is that it's better to give wands as loot while letting players buy a variety of scrolls?

What I'd love to see is better magic item scaling.

I hate when magic items are only usable for 2 levels, then become useless.

At the very least, an official variant rule for upgrading specific magic items would be useful. I'm going to allow my players to do that - because I want them to have cool items and be able to use them until the ydon't want to.

Personally, I dislike the fact that to get from 18 to 20 in an ability, I need to invest two ability boosts into it, but the first one provides me no benefit at all. I would prefer if the rules just said you can't reach 20 in an ability until 10th lvl, and allow us to use that 5th level ability boost somewhere else rather than being forced to waste it.

It's also the only time an odd ability score is used in 2E, which is strange.

Do we know what the balance implications of this would be? I think it would certainly make MAD characters stronger - which could be appealing.

I feel like I'm missing something about Flexible Casting being default for Prepared Casters versus Spontanious Casters as they are now, and that being something that wouldn't make the Spontanious Caster chasis strictly worse at spellcasting.

What is the advantage, as a chasis, for Spontanious Casters if Prepared Casters got Flexible Casting for free? Not as a class - I can accept that with class abilities, Spontanious Casters have a place still. But it would seem to me then that being a Spontanious Caster would be a limit on your raw spellcasting power versus being a Prepared Flexible Spellcaster.

Am I misreading the rules?

What would be the point of playing Spontanious Casters if other spellcasters got Flexible Casting for free?

My argument would be that while class features and specific exclusive spells do make a difference, but there would still be quite the power imbalance when it comes to spellcasting versatility and being able to react to handle different situations.

I think it's good that you have a choice between maximum flexibility in exchange for less spellslots and only being able to prepare a number of given spells at a time; flexibility in spell rank and how many spells you can know but you have to plan out your day; and flexibility in what spells you can cast but only knowing a few and only getting a little flexibility in spell rank.

I am interested in seeing arguments for flexibile spellcasting to be a default thing, but I am somewhat skeptical.

MadamReshi wrote:

Could Tandem Strike be worth it for a class such as Fighter to take if they get the Summoner Archetype (particularly in a Free Archetype game?) It could take a while to scale up but it could be somewhat attractive. I know you do not get Act Together unfortunately, but there could be other ways to make the character concept work, and you can get Tandem Movement beforehand.

Summoner Dedication explicitly forbids you from gaining or using tandem actions, so that wouldn't work.

That is a real shame :(

Could Tandem Strike be worth it for a class such as Fighter to take if they get the Summoner Archetype (particularly in a Free Archetype game?) It could take a while to scale up but it could be somewhat attractive. I know you do not get Act Together unfortunately, but there could be other ways to make the character concept work, and you can get Tandem Movement beforehand.

The PF2E system for Foundry V10, and both the Abomination Vaults and the Beginner Box modules have been updated for V10.

I want to call out that right now, the PF2E system for Foundry V10 is in beta, and to expect bugs in the system for now.

Aura states:

"An aura is an emanation that continually ebbs out from you, affecting creatures within a certain radius"

I feel that contradicts assuming all emanations just pulse out from the caster.

At the same time, Bless and Bane seem really difficult to use without being auras.

I think we do need a clarification on this; it seems like a strange rules bug.