This is something I've been using in my campaigns for a while now and I like the extra flexibility it gives players to do various character concepts. It does result in slightly more powerful characters compared to just using bonus archetype feats, but it's not generally a huge difference.
I should note that I use a houserule that Advanced Muse's Whispers and equivalent feats have a level limit of level-4 instead of half your level; obviously the Dedicated Multiclass option would need to be tweaked if you don't want to use that houserule (or perhaps it could just switch to level-4!)
Archetype Styles
At 2nd level, characters choose from one of three archetype styles, which defines the kind of bonus feats they gain. A character may also to forgo this choice, in which case they are a Generalist: They use the normal bonus archetype rules, gaining a bonus feat with no restrictions at each even level.
Once a choice of archetype style is made, it cannot be easily retrained; only a major character development or significant undertaking should allow retraining into a different style. GMs may wish to be more flexible with allowing characters to retrain into or out of Generalist, however.
Archetype Specialist: Fully embracing a couple specific archetypes to augment their playstyle, an Archetype Specialist gains two Dedication feats as bonus feats at 2nd level, with the restriction that these cannot be multiclass dedications. From then on, all of their bonus feats must come from the chosen archetypes (although there is no limitation on how they spend their regular class feats). At 12th level or higher, the Archetype Specialist may choose a third Dedication to gain; this ignores the normal required number of feats to gain a new dedication, but still costs a bonus feat slot.
Dedicated Multiclass: Some individuals have two true callings in life, and the Dedicated Multiclass is one of those people. At 2nd level they gain the Dedication feat for a multiclass of their choice. From then on, all of their bonus feats must come from that multiclass. However, they treat their level in the multiclass as their level-2 instead of their level-4 for qualifying for class feats from the multiclass. A Dedicated Multiclass has no restriction on how they spend their regular class feats - they could choose to gain an archetype or even another multiclass that way.
Class Paragon: Forgoing versatility to becomes the ultimate expression of themselves, Class Paragons cannot gain archetype feats at all, by any means - including through regular class feats. In exchange, they gain a powerful benefit: At each even level except 4th and 14th, they gain a bonus class feat. At those two levels they gain no bonus feat. Even with these drawbacks, eight bonus class feats is a potent benefit, and GMs running very high level campaigns may wish to limit Class Paragons to only spending their 16th level and higher bonus feats on class feats 2 levels lower than themselves, unless the expectation is a high-power game.
I suppose it's just more of my general dissatisfaction with Paizo sanding the darker edges off their setting as time goes on - it's hard to imagine any reason other than that for Socothbenoth to not even have been name dropped in years for example - and that seems to clash with what most people here want from the setting, so I'll just keep yelling at the clouds in my corner over here. :)
My love for Golarion still vastly outweighs my annoyance with those few things anyway.
I guess I just wish Paizo wouldn't have put it under the heading of "these changes were specifically for smoother gameplay" but I get it, it's fine.
First off, Shalelu being back I could not possibly be more excited for. <3 <3 <3
Lore question though:
Quote:
While this campaign is exceptionally well suited to a party that consists entirely of elven characters, Kyonin is welcoming of all ancestries.
I thought I had vague memories of Greengold being a melting pot but outsiders being less welcome in the rest of Kyonin - am I misremembering or is that something that was changed over time as the setting became more developed?
I'm honestly not sure why people feel like this change hits Magus so hard.
For one, my Magus player has not cast sure strike a single time in the course of an 11-level-so-far campaign and she does fine in combat. It is in no world required for the class to function.
For two, Magi only get like 4 good spells a day and how often are you casting all of them in a single combat? If you are spellstriking with a cantrip you really don't need sure strike, cantrips are an infinite resource anyway.
Lamashtu: Replace the “indoctrinate children in Lamashtu’s teachings” edict with “indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings”
Answer here could be as simple as "why not adults as well?" Answer could also be that "indoctrinate children in X ideology" is a dog whistle in certain political groups right now and they'd rather avoid that. I don't think this really changes much of anything in game, since all that happened is additional targets for her teachings.
I see where you are coming from, I just feel like this change detracts from Lamashtu's focus on children specifically which has always been a big "thing" for her, Mother of Monsters and all.
Tridus wrote:
errata wrote:
replace the “attempt to treat a mental illness or deformity” anathema with “attempt to change that which makes you different”.
Personally, I just like this one better. It's broader, and as a nonbinary person I can project onto this Lamashtu saying "you're weird and that's awesome, don't ever change". Even if that's not the writers intent, though this being Paizo, it may very well have been their intent. :)
Aside from that, telling people "don't get treatment for mental illness" is... icky. I know this is an evil deity and all, but I don't think that message is one they really want to be printing when players with real life mental illness may read that.
I also think the alignment removal has left room for more "well this deity is evil but has some respectable qualities" and these changes may reflect that. You only need so many cartoonish supervillain gods, after all.
My problem with this is that while Lamashtu has always had some respectable qualities, toning down parts of her evil nature to make her more aspirational badly ignores that she's still really freaking evil.
Like, there are lots of deities in Paizo's setting for people to look up to - I'm not sure the Goddess of Getting Raped and Eaten by Monsters needs to be one of them.
Hm... love the update the Magus, definitely on board with the change to Sure Strike, totally see the logic behind most of the anathema/edict changes... good errata!
The one thing I'm still a bit on the fence about is the edict/anathema changes to Lamashtu, which rather than having gameplay implications like the others seems to kinda just... serve to make her less evil/objectionable?
I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. I'll be curious to hear what my priest of Lamashtu PC feels about it.
So Arcadia is now home to these giant - dare I say Colossal - creatures that resemble humanoids or great beasts, huh? And they either Wander about or keep to their own devices unless disturbed, hmm? And each one is totally unique and occupies a different region, eh?
For my players, the shards hazard and then the robot attack were a suitable amount of drama for the ending, and the shards hazard in particular definitely created a sense of urgency in them.
They also seemed to enjoy that there wasn't a climactic final battle, so much as just "we did a bunch of research, we figured out what the problem was, and we solved the problem."
The feedback I got was that it felt very much like a Star Trek episode.
The scenario is intended for a level 5 party, so at that point everyone should have access to level 5 tactical armor.
This is not true. Regardless of whether you use the wealth table or the lump sum option, the maximum level of item you are allowed to start with is 1 level lower than your actual level.
Since the players are level 5, it's impossible to have level 5 armor at the adventure's start.
As far as the Doshko is concerned, if I remember clearly, the Vesk trait tends to lock the weapon behind Vesk Weapon Familiarity according to Pathfinder 2 weapons availability/proficiency rules, and Vesk ancestry feats like Tear Wound build upon their damage output per attack. I'm guessing the Unwieldy trait is being used as a limiter in this case.
Just wanted to point out that this is not at all correct - the doshko is a common martial weapon, and as such is available to all characters and anyone proficient with martial weapons is proficient with it.
Vesk Weapon Familiarity only matters if your character is not proficient with martial weapons.
EDIT: Also, I agree with the general sentiment that Starfinder gear should feel "overpowered" compared to Pathfinder gear, at least/especially compared to nonmagical Pathfinder gear.
And really, the 15ft range on the flamethrower is just embarrassing.
The Stellar Cannon is a better missile launcher than the missile launcher, anyway, and fully works with soldier abilities.
Missile launchers are just kinda really bad all around right now; trying to make them halfway between a real weapon and a consumable has left them in a feelbad place, especially compared to the stellar cannon which lands the rocket launcher fantasy really well.
Although after thinking about it, the second interpretation is good but not insane. Double Slice is two attacks at +0 for two actions; this is three actions for two attack at +0 plus a weak cantrip.
I just now noticed that burst weapons must place the center of the burst within the first range increment. With the star cannon's 50 feet being the longest range of any burst weapon, if you're close enough to shoot someone with a cannon you're also close enough to take a double move and punch them in the face. This actually does give you a use case for the grenade and missile launchers. They can shoot more than 50 feet, at a cost of 10+ credits per shot.
Meanwhile in first edition a plasma cannon has a range increment of 100 feet and you can shoot up to ten increments away with the escalating penalties you'd expect.
The auto fire rules are largely unchanged but first edition machine guns and automatic rifles at least had 60 foot range increments, giving you a 30 foot cone. Zero cannon gave you a 60 foot line instead of 40. Some of these weapon ranges being oddly short is an actual change between first edition and playtest.
I didn't even really get into the actual problem with the missile launcher, though, which is that if you want to do respectable damage the cost is outrageous.
An advanced stellar cannon costs 1040 credits upfront and then only a single credit per shot to do 2d10 damage in a 10-foot burst with a +1 to accuracy.
A comparable missile launcher may only cost 500 credits upfront, but to do comparable damage with the missile (in a smaller burst) you are paying 100 credits per shot.
And this gets worse at higher levels - sure, an elite stellar cannon costs 20k credits, but can you look at me with a straight face and tell me you are willing to pay 3000 credits per shot just to match that damage with a missile launcher?
Primary Target says: "This Strike uses the same multiple attack penalty as your Area Fire or Auto-Fire action but doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty."
Punishing Salvo says: This does not make a new area attack, and is treated as a Strike made using primary target."
Emphasis mine.
So my question: Is the Punishing Salvo attack at -5 MAP? Or is it also at -0 like the attack from Primary Target?
Because if it's at -0, I have to say "area attack followed by two -0 attacks against whoever you like least" is a really crazy 3-action routine to be able to do every round.
I feel like the range on almost all of the area/automatic weapons is pretty anemic.
Particularly disappointing is only a 15-foot cone on the flamethrower, with no way that I see the increase that. And in fact the longest cone weapon that I can find is the machinegun, with only 20 feet.
And then you have the Stellar Cannon.
Which hits a 10-foot burst at a 50-foot range with a Reload value of 1 and the cheapest ammo type in the game.
I'm sorry what? That's amazing! That makes the missile launcher look like a joke, what with only having a 5-foot burst, doing less damage, and costing 30 credits per shot.
I don't want the Stellar Cannon nerfed - I want the other area weapons to be equally cool. Right now the Stellar Cannon far outstrips every other area weapon, especially when you consider that by 4th level the Soldier is laughing at that "unwieldy" tag and making three attacks with it per turn regardless.
In comparison the 15-foot cone on the flamethrower, which does the same damage but has reload 2 and more expensive ammo, feels like a bad joke.
Zorro was definitely a skilled swordsman. I don’t think that the Swashbuckler needs to be equal to the Fighter. I just don’t want the Swashbuckler to be actively bad at fighting, which it kind of is at low levels pre-remaster. Bravado looks like it will fix that (mechanically), it’s just still not going to convince me that being terrible at something (failing, repeatedly) is what gives Swashbucklers their flair.
Could I see a style that gives the flavor of Jack Sparrow? You succeed more with your cunning and luck than with your skill with the blade… etc. Sure. But Swashbucklers are the classic high adventure fencers. They should be good at fencing as a baseline.
Relying on Finishers to keep up in damage was just the wrong decision from the beginning, in my opinion. I would rather their baseline damage be closer to other classes, and then Panache be used to do cool things.
Regardless of how their combat mechanics work, they should have at least a little flexibility in their skill choices without making that combat effectiveness even worse. My initial point in all of this was not that auto-advancing skills is the only way to do that. It was that the reason...
Really this is kind of the problem with Fighter, more than anything else.
The defining feature of Fighter is being better than every other class at baseline, generic fighting.
By definition, in PF2E, if you are the best fencer in the world, your class is Fighter.
Fighters having that space is very necessary mechanically, but it crowds out some other classes thematically. Swashbucklers can't be "the best fencer in the world", no matter how thematically appropriate it is, because a Fighter will always beat them in raw skill.
One could definitely argue that the thematic space Fighter occupies is far too wide, but I'm not sure how to fix that without reverting to the problem other editions had with Fighter (namely that so many other classes were just Fighter+).
tbh "Not particularly good at fighting" is on brand for the swashbuckler anyways-
I don’t know if this is sincere or a joke about the state of the pre-remaster Swashbuckler. If it’s a joke, I agree!
I believe it's driving at the idea that the iconic swashbucklers (Guybrush Threepwood comes instantly to mind, but this applies to characters like Zorro or Jack Sparrow also) tend to win fights by being clever and taking advantage of the environment, rather than by being strictly better at swordfighting than their opponents.
That's not to say that Zorro or Jack Sparrow are bad swordsmen, but their extra edge comes from that cleverness instead of raw skill and that's why they are swashbucklers and not fighters.
That’s a fair take on it. I’m not entirely sure Jack Sparrow would be a Swashbuckler as the class stands in PF. Despite being on a boat, he comes across more as a Rogue to me. I haven’t watched all of the movies, but I never got the sense he was particularly good at fighting. It’s been a while, though.
Jack Sparrow is actually supremely good at fighting. He loses most of the fights he's in, but that's because he mostly fights against people who are (often literally) inhumanely good at fighting.
He definitely multiclasses rogue, but swashbuckler is his main thing. At least my humble opinion.
Bravado sounds amazing. My read is that Swashbuckler is almost certainly going to get Bravado on nearly all of the actions that generate panache, just because it would be confusing otherwise.
Twirling Throw sounded amazing when I didn't read it very carefully, and then I read it more carefully and saw that it has the Finisher trait.
The crafter's labor is worth the same gp regardless of the project. If the crafter "rushes the finishing" they can increase the risk to then get more value from that finishing process.
This is the decisive point, for me. A crafter who is looking to make money from crafting a) should not be able to quadruple their income by crafting batches instead of single items, but more critically b) should not be required to craft batches instead of more interesting permanent items to min-max their profits.
EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear, my interpretation is that each day spent reducing the costs would do so for all items in a batch, not for one item at a time.
I'm with you up to this point - I don't see where the rules indicate this.
Rather, the cost of crafting the batch would be treated as the total crafting cost, and reduced in the same way that total crafting cost normally is, wouldn't it?
Oh! Favorite "small" change though might be that rangers no longer have to ask the GM if difficult terrain is "natural". Their class features that involve difficult terrain now work with all difficult terrain, even magical.
What!? That's awesome! These quality of life changes just keep getting better and better.
MaxAstro wrote:
Also love that gnomes get to talk to all animals with a single 1st level feat, and that druids get to choose between animals and plants. That means a gnome druid can talk to both animals and plants at first level at just the cost of an ancestry feat!
I saw this too. Super fun roleplaying potential there.
"Just because I'm a hermit doesn't mean I'm alone." *Casts animal allies.* lol.
I know this has been talked about to death but I'm just so, so happy that all the weird finicky weapon proficiencies got upgraded into just full proficiency at the next tier.
Bards, rogues, and wizards rejoice.
Oh, also, the new warrior bard feat that lets you extend inspire courage (or whatever the new name is) by smacking someone is great.
Oh! Favorite "small" change though might be that rangers no longer have to ask the GM if difficult terrain is "natural". Their class features that involve difficult terrain now work with all difficult terrain, even magical.
Also love that gnomes get to talk to all animals with a single 1st level feat, and that druids get to choose between animals and plants. That means a gnome druid can talk to both animals and plants at first level at just the cost of an ancestry feat!
I've actually been using a deadlier variant of the dying rules for a while now, originally as a misreading of the rules - my variant is that whenever you lose the dying condition, your wounded value becomes equal to whatever your dying value was.
Despite that being extremely lethal to any character that gets dropped by a crit, I've had very few player deaths.
Mostly, my players save a clutch hero point to stave off death if they need to, and I'm surprised to hear that others don't. Unless you are burning that last hero point willy nilly, it's pretty hard to actually die in my experience.
I will probably keep using my own variant rule for a while just because we are used to it, but once Fantasy Grounds has automation for the new dying rules I'm sure I'll switch to those.
I don't see a thread for this and my campaign just had its first character death so... here we go!
(Warning: Obituary details contain spoilers!)
Name: Finley
Ancestry: Sprite
Class: Alchemist/Druid
Cause of Death: Cursed vengeance
Location: Literally one hex away from the capital
Chapter: Season of Bloom
Details:
A lover of nature and animals, Finley was very interested in the magic ring the party found that could charm any animal. Also easily distracted, the little sprite didn't bother to use the ring until months later, when giant monsters began attacking the kingdom.
After tracking down one such monster - a manticore - Finley was able to use the magic ring to charm and befriend it. The party named it Fluffy and made plans to make it an unofficial member of their kingdom... until the next day, when the ring's curse triggered, causing Fluffy to attack Finley to the exclusion of all else.
Caught off guard, Finley was first pinned to the ground by spikes and then crit three times in a row, ending his existence mercifully quickly.
Finley is survived by an extremely large extended family (at least, there are a lot of sprites who claim to be related to to him) and his role in the kingdom will likely fall to one of them.
Not sure if this is the right forum or what would be the right forum. :)
My partner and I are currently working on creating our first "we might actually sell this" module. The module is written and being edited, and the part where it needs to go from a text document to a PDF document is rapidly approaching.
Problem: I've never touched InDesign before in my life, nor any similar programs (I don't even know what similar programs exist).
At this point I'm looking for literally any advice, but especially: Is InDesign the best tool for this job? What are my other options? Where could I find good tutorials for using InDesign, especially tutorials relevant to this specific kind of project?
TIA for any help at all, and if this is the wrong forum sorry and please let me know where to ask!
The foxhead medallion grants complete immunity to all magical effects, right?
Only for magic affecting you directly. Indirect uses of magic, like someone chucking some manure at you or walking through an already existent magical portal are not canceled by the fox head medallion. It does have a cool interaction with creatures that have an antimagic field, though, so be sure to bash one of them with it.
Are... are you guys making Wheel of Time references?
Holy crap you guys are making Wheel of Time reference.
I love you. <3
(Although clearly the medallion only functions against casters who identify as female [except randomly in the last session of the campaign the GM may decide to ignore that restriction])
Sneaking the reveal of upcoming mythic rules into the playtest document... FFS Paizo my heart can't take this! XD
Anyway, I certainly hope mythic characters are straight up more powerful than non-mythic characters of the same level. What's the point of being mythic otherwise? Just attaching signs to enemies that say "you must be this mythic to fight" is boring.
The 1e mythic rules were TOO broken, but the basic concept wasn't the problem. Mythic heroes should be stronger than non-mythic heroes, and should face little (or at least less) threat from non-mythic enemies.
That should be the baseline expectation of choosing to run a mythic game, imo. It's what 1e mythic promised - it just overdelivered a fair bit!
Just giving free levels to PCs already does this. I sincerely hope PF2 Mythic goes beyond.
Yes, making characters more powerful makes characters more powerful.
I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.
Sneaking the reveal of upcoming mythic rules into the playtest document... FFS Paizo my heart can't take this! XD
Anyway, I certainly hope mythic characters are straight up more powerful than non-mythic characters of the same level. What's the point of being mythic otherwise? Just attaching signs to enemies that say "you must be this mythic to fight" is boring.
The 1e mythic rules were TOO broken, but the basic concept wasn't the problem. Mythic heroes should be stronger than non-mythic heroes, and should face little (or at least less) threat from non-mythic enemies.
That should be the baseline expectation of choosing to run a mythic game, imo. It's what 1e mythic promised - it just overdelivered a fair bit!
As someone who ran PF1 multiple games a week since it came out, and has run PF2 the same, combat - especially high level combat - is significantly faster in 2e.
1e combat was only fast if the caster won the fight with their first spell. Fights where everyone was participating equally took forever to resolve. I had single combats last multiple sessions.
It's hard for me to imagine what you would need to do to make 2e combat slower than 1e combat, unless you just have players that have vicious choice paralysis and really struggle with having to decide on three actions per turn.
I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.
Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.
I am SO excited. :D
Oh my god, a Vitalist successor would have me over the moon. One of the coolest things ever made for the old d20 chassis!
Based on the video, it sounds like the Mystic class feature works exactly like Vitalist. You have a bond with your party members, you have a floating pool of hit points, you can spend an action to send hit points down the bond...
Hopefully there will be feats to do some of the cool stuff Vitalists could do with their bond.
I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.
Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.
Thinking about this more, I think the things I most hope stay in Starfinder for 2e are
-the different gear paradigm (ranged combat is the default assumption, flight is easily available from low levels, etc.)
-high level equipment being technologically better rather than magically better (i.e bigger fancier guns that do more damage, not just magic runes)
-weird ancestries that actually get to do weird things and aren't just mechanically equivalent to a humanoid (kasatha being able to use all four arms effectively)
That would be the things that I "care about", I suppose, the most, as far as Starfinder having its own distinct style and feel.
For the most part if you want to run or play a game that is old/out of print/not supported, the traditional way to do that is "convince your friends".
This is, I think, a very valid reason to be disappointed in this change, for people who aren't happy with the direction of PF2.
Although I personally play mostly home games, I know that's not true of a lot of people. And going from "I can easily find tables" to "I have to convince people to play the game I want to play" - I can definitely sympathize with that feeling like a downgrade.
One of my close friends doesn't like PF2 - mostly just too invested in PF1 - and the changeover pretty much resulted in him not being able to play anymore.
Terevalis, you approached the periphery of a valid point, which is why I said something.
But you've been pretty combative the entire time, and flinging insults at one of the most respected members of the community (not to mention claiming to speak for people other than yourself) is not going to win you any favors or sway anyone to your point of view.
Interesting that voicing inpopular opinions brings out the vultures.
Do you have any evidence any of these statements are wrong? I'll be happy to correct them if you do.
1: No one is making you buy anything, it's a choice only you can make for yourself.
2: Starfinder 2e won't even be out for 2 years.
3: People still play Pathfinder 1e, there's no expiration date on the books.
I'm definitely on the side of being excited about Starfinder 2e - heck, I'm in the elite group of people that has been accused of being a Paizo shill - but sealioning like this doesn't strike me as conducive to a non-toxic discussion.
And while Terevalis phrased it in an unhelpful and combative manner, I do feel like sometimes people are quick to go on the offensive. There has been a time or two that I've felt a bit unwelcome on these forums, because my opinion on an issue diverged from the zeitgeist.
I love Pathfinder 2e. I adore it. It's by far my favorite system ever. But I think sometimes people forget that it's okay to not like things.
Not this forum, but watching some people literally attack Puffin Forest for daring to not like Pathfinder 2e at first blush was embarrassing. Being an inclusive community means more than just being accepting of people with different backgrounds and orientations. It means also accepting people who don't enjoy the same things, and even (especially!) people who are unhappy about decisions we are happy about.
And doing so with previously published third party products for Pathfinder and Starfinder would do wonders more in helping you get your foot in the door than sending a reply to Thurston offering to sign an vague NDA.
Also, if I can offer some unsolicited advice: Asking for an NDA like that screams "I'm an amateur". It does not present the level of professionalism you are looking for.
Novice writers are forever worried about people "stealing their ideas". Experienced writers know that ideas literally aren't worth the paper they are written on; only execution has value. No one is going to steal your ideas, no one wants to steal your ideas, and publicly worrying about your ideas being stolen really just marks you as inexperienced.
That said, if you can find where someone made a post like that, please share it with me, as that sounds hilarious.
Since no one else replied to this I will - without naming any names - say that you should look around the middle of the third page of this thread for someone who posted twice in a row.
I like the Metal and Wood planes, but I will miss the PF1 lore of wood kineticists drawing from the first world.
I suspect that the First World would still have strong ties to the elemental planes, possibly even having areas directly tied into particular planes. If so, perhaps kineticists would gain a benefit near an area attuned to their element.
Also, the languages for some planes will likely be renamed, such as Abyssal.
Hopefully to something other than Riftian.
I’m guessing Demonic.
The only possible issue with "Demonic" is that some things in the Outer Rifts that aren't demons speak it, like qlippoths.
I'm running Kingmaker as an evil campaign, and one of my players wanted to get into making Soulbound Dolls. So, here is my write-up for the process I came up with. Feedback welcome!
Doll Body (Item 4):
Cost: 30gp
Craft DC: 19
Description: This is a Small-size wooden body with articulated joints, suitable for turning into a Soulbound Doll. The specific features of the body, such as its shape and appearance, are left to the crafter’s choice – however, for best results it should be at least vaguely humanoid. The body has a slot – usually on the chest, neck, or forehead – in which a filled soul gem may be placed. Setting the gem requires ten minutes of work and a DC 15 Craft check; on a critical failure, the gem is damaged in such a way that the soul fragment escapes it (although the gem can be repaired for reuse with 5gp of materials and a further DC 15 Craft check). On a success, the doll comes to life as a standard Soulbound Doll with the same alignment as the soul fragment. On a critical success, if the doll body was supplied with a filled soul gem that was also created with a critical success, the resulting Soulbound Doll has the Elite adjustment.
Once a Soulbound Doll has been created, the soul gem cannot be removed without destroying the doll. However, if the gem is destroyed but the doll body is relatively intact, it may be repaired and reused.
In theory it is possible to create more advanced doll bodies with additional abilities, but even if researched such constructs are likely to require either more complex soul containers or a steady supply of filled soul gems as they burn out their soul energy.
Fill Soul Gem (Ritual 2):
Cast: One day to prepare a ritual circle plus four hours to conduct the ritual (see text); Cost: 50gp in non-consumable materials (such as powdered silver) for the ritual circle, an amethyst worth 20gp, and 10gp worth of consumable materials (rare oils and candles); Secondary Casters: 1
Primary Check: Occultism (Expert) DC 23; Secondary Checks: Arcana DC 18
Range: 10 feet; Target: One dying creature (see text)
Description: This ritual ensnares a fragment of a dying creature’s soul, using it to charge a soul gem that can later be used to create a Soulbound Doll. In preparation for the ritual, a special ritual circle 10 feet in diameter must be inscribed in a cool, dry location and etched with powdered silver and other reagents. Properly creating the circle required a DC 18 Craft check and a day’s work; on a critical failure, the materials are wasted, while on a critical success the circle provides a +2 circumstance bonus to Fill Soul Gem ritual checks.
Once the ritual circle has been created, a creature that is unconscious and at 0 hit points must be placed within it and remain in that state for the duration of the ritual. Once the ritual has been started, the target is placed in a kind of stasis: Even if they were poisoned or dying before beginning the ritual, the magic keeps them on the edge of death until the ritual is either completed or interrupted. This does not prevent the target from being healed, either from outside interference or their own natural abilities (such as regeneration), which of course ruins the ritual.
The strength of the target does not affect the outcome of the ritual, as only a small fragment of their soul is captured in any case; however, unwilling targets (that is to say, any target that would be unwilling if they were conscious and aware) receive a Will save against the primary caster’s Occultism DC; if the save succeeds, the target dies but no fragment is trapped. For this reason, weaker individuals are typically used if unwilling, to reduce the risk of wasted time and effort.
Once completed, the ritual has the following effects:
Critical Success: The target dies and the amethyst becomes a filled soul gem of unusual quality with an alignment matching the target; if combined with a doll body of similar quality, the result will be a stronger than usual Soulbound Doll.
Success: The target dies and the amethyst becomes a filled soul gem with an alignment matching the target.
Failure: The target dies but no soul gem is created. The consumable materials are wasted, but the amethyst may be reused.
Critical Failure: The target dies and the amethyst shatters, ruining all the consumable materials. There is a higher-than-normal chance that the target’s body or soul becomes some sort of vengeful undead, especially if they were unwilling.
Regardless of the outcome of the ritual, the ritual circle can be reused as long as it is not damaged. Ritualists should be warned, however, that any undead created by a botched version of this ritual are likely to attempt to destroy the circle – seeing it as being as much responsible for their wretched fate as the caster.
Heightened (5th): The heightened version of this ritual allows multiple soul gems to be created in one go using a larger, more complex ritual circle that is 20 feet in diameter (200gp; Craft DC 25). Each target needs their own amethyst, but only 20gp worth of consumable materials are used regardless of the number of targets. The ritual can target up to five creatures, requiring one secondary caster per target. Each unwilling target makes a separate Will save, but the result only determines if the ritual fails for them individually. However, if three or more targets succeed their saves, the primary caster suffers a -10 penalty on the check for the ritual.
Note that the write-up for Soulbound Dolls says that resisting should be Will vs Craft DC; however, I changed that to Occultism because I split the process into two parts that my PC will have to learn separately.
Also this ritual is slightly "stronger" than Animate Object, since it's a 2nd rank ritual that creates a 2nd level creature, instead of 3rd for 2nd. I think that's justified that with the additional complexity and needing a sacrifice, though.
The watercolor illustrations of each plane are indeed beautiful. But on the map illustration the “Overlapping Planes” section is super confusing. The Elemental plane is just written but not indicated (although at first I thought it shared the First World “indication line” and the other planes seem to be attached by white columns…is that just to indicate they are adjacent?
Assuming you mean the Ethereal Plane, the Ethereal is the boundary space of the image; it surrounds the overlapping planes.
Also, the white columns (on the left) and black columns (on the right) are positive/negative energy bleeding from the Forge and the Void into the other planes.
Surely I am not the only one noticing all these worrying little tunnels that seem to grow from the Outer Rifts and reach everywhere, except Heaven ?
IIRC, the Abyss/Outer Rifts is what exists outside the outer sphere, with the plane we are familiar with being an intrusion - almost like a wound.
Someone described it as the outer sphere being a "soap bubble floating in the infinite Abyss", which is a lovely mental image. XD But that's why it's drawn that way I imagine.
I have to say, I adore all of these changes, love the new names, love where the planes of Wood and Metal were fit in...
Except the Material Plane being called "The Universe". That does not spark joy. :P
With all due respect, that strikes me as willfully obtuse given the context.
A player will be able to play the game with only PC1. They will not with only PC2. It's not difficult to imagine someone comparing the two to decide "oh, I want to be a monk...I'll get the Player Core book that contains that class" -- only to find out they can't actually play the game with said book. It's an objectively bad title, because the book doesn't do what it says on the tin.
While I definitely get where you are coming from here, I want to offer the counterpoint that if a game system contains multiple books named "Core", it is probably a reasonable assumption that you may need all of them.
I'm just here to say I'm glad to see the subtle mention that ancestries with flaws aren't completely going away in the Remaster; I was concerned the +3/-1 ancestries would get changed to +2, but I see the blog post still mentions flaws so that's good.
