Niloc716's page

Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere (or in the AP itself), but I can't seem to find any reference to what happens if Kyrion dies in Book 2. The AP has all sorts of details on what happens if he lives, but if he dies, do the players just suddenly get possession of a shard of the orb of golden dragonkind, even if they can't properly ID it?
Just seems like a morally dubious group could end up with a fairly high-level artifact fragment while their level is still in single digits.

Hello,

Finally getting back to running after several years and decided to run a group through the beginner box and troubles in Otari.

Thing is

Thanks!

Lucky the new gods book is coming out post-remaster, so hopefully the overhaul gives us what we need.

Niloc716 wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Niloc716 wrote:

That's pretty much what I figured.

Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.

It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rush

Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.

Ok, so I read through current warpriest versus new warpriest and I see no discernible differences.

What are you seeing that makes them so much better for tanking? Is it in the class feats? Because the versions of the doctrine look identical.

The feats definitely help, as does the alteration to their font. Without needing charisma to keep your font's slots up warpriests are now able to invest those boosts into stats like strength and constitution to give them more survivability.

Ok, I see a cleric feat to get heavy armor proficiency up to expert, and the lack of Charisma needed for divine font is certainly nice, but I would still argue that good as this is, a champion is still a vastly superior tank.

The warpriest has other stuff going for them line divine font, and some feats like INVIOLABLE, but I don't think they've significantly reduced he need for a champion.

Unicore wrote:

Niloc716 wrote:

That's pretty much what I figured.

Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.

It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rush

Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.

Ok, so I read through current warpriest versus new warpriest and I see no discernible differences.

What are you seeing that makes them so much better for tanking? Is it in the class feats? Because the versions of the doctrine look identical.

Unicore wrote:

Niloc716 wrote:

That's pretty much what I figured.

Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.

It is probably more the case that they needed more time to decide exactly how to implement the champion class because it was tied so heavily to alignment and it was something they didn't want to rush

Warpriest has also been significantly improved which probably reduces (NOT eliminate) the demand for a Champion. You can now build a very tanky holy warrior using the Warpriest chassis.

I'll have to check it out.

That's pretty much what I figured.

Honestly, I wish they'd included champion in this remaster initial release tho. Doing away with classic alignment affects champions and clerics more than any other class, so seems weird to me that they would omit the champion entirely when the new rules have such a strong impact on the class.

So, this feels obvious, but I'll ask anyway.

Since "traditional" alignment is no longer a thing and we're essentially working with holy v unholy, does this mean that for a champion, other than determining which of these they are, any of the 3 causes that align with that trait are now open?

In other words, if I'm "holy", I can now choose freely whether to be a paladin, redeemer, or liberator, because there's no characteristic defining lawful v chaotic. Is this correct?

I guess we'll see. I'm honestly a bit surprised about the remaster, given all the work they did towards scalability for this edition.
Like many others, I'm still of two minds on the subject, and especially interested in how places like Archives of Nethys will handle it, or the numerous modules that run the game on Foundry and other VTT services.

You've basically got it right. It's a lawful equivalent to the Champion feat that does the same thing but with good damage. Indeed, the function is pretty much "I can hurt the antithesis of my philosophy harder" and "I can ignore most types of resistance they might have" with the one additional supplemental feature "If I mistakenly use it on a creature that is not evil/chaotic, converting the damage means I can choose to deal 0 damage and restart negotiations, if relevant".

Be advised, of course, that if you intend to start using the remastered rules patch coming out in a couple months, abilities like this will soon be irrelevant since no creature has alignment anymore (except, like, fiends and celestials).

Okay, thanks. I figured that was about the size of it, but I've been wrong before.

And yeah, I'm deeply curious to see what ends up happening to these things in the absence of alignment.

Hello,

I've seen this referenced elsewhere, but no one seems to have answered this satisfactorily (or I'm just dumb).
So the text for Blade of Law reads as follows:

"You call upon the power of law and make a weapon or unarmed Strike against a foe you have witnessed breaking or disrespecting the law or otherwise acting disorderly. The Strike deals two extra weapon damage dice if the target of your Strike is chaotic. Whether or not the target is chaotic, you can convert the physical damage from the attack into lawful damage."

So my questions are:

1. Why would you ever use this against a non-chaotic creature intentionally?

2. Why would you convert your physical damage to lawful if the creature isn't chaotic?

I thought alignment damage only worked on the opposed alignment trait (good hurts evil, lawful hurts chaotic, etc.).

Can someone help me understand the full intended use for this ability, because I'm just not seeing it beyond getting extra dice against chaotic creatures and potentially bypassing physical damage against said creatures.

Thanks!

I'm a player w/ a lot of general TTRPG experience and who is playing through his first P2e Path (Age of Ashes). I just ran Dirge for a group and was looking into running Abomination Vaults into Ruby Phoenix but also liked the other Otari adventures, so the advice here is perfect.
I'm looking forward to weaving a fun adventure through both Otari adventures, AV, then Ruby Phoenix.

If you have the mantle of ice spell, there's an ability where you get something like +20 or 30 movement speed on flat surfaces. I'm just sayin'.

So, I was super excited about all the new dedications in Secrets of Magic, but as I looked through them, Soulforged definitely caught my eye.
As I'm playing in an Age of Ashes game as a Warpriest with a Champion dual-class, it occurred to me that a thoroughbred Champion with a divine ally and soulforged armaments was basically a shard bearer and even similar to a Radiant in the oaths and ways the bond could be corrupted.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but as a fan of the Stormlight Archives, I definitely found myself idly daydreaming about creating a Skybreaker. :D

What about the actions themselves? Like, maybe a weapon with a flaming rune doesn't gain the fire trait, but the strike itself deals fire damage and thus has the fire trait?
I would figure the same would be true for a weapon that has Clerical emblazoned energy on it. If the energy type is included in the damage from a strike using the weapon, even if the weapon itself doesn't have that trait, the strike would by virtue of the damage being dealt.

Howdy,

Looking to make a character and have them take the champion dedication. I want to take Champion's Reaction and since my alignment would make me a Paladin, I'm curious if the strike gains the divine smite and exalt upgrades.
Not surprised if the answer is no, but since the dedication feat doesn't specify it, I'm just trying to confirm 100%.

Niloc716 wrote:

Forgetting for a second about the grenade idea - assuming you have a glyph in a container and the container is placed somewhere, would it still be possible to have it trigger based off a creature of a given time entering a stated proximity? So, less like a grenade, and more like a landmine.

Next, since you can have it cover an area, is there any rule stating that a glyph can't overlap partially or fully with another glyph in terms of the area it's inscribed in?

Would it be possible to inscribe a glyph on your own armor with a trigger for when a creature attacks you, and the target set as that creature?

Lastly, if a glyph is set off by a creature touching it directly, whether it be a container or an area (for the container, the creature touches or otherwise manipulates it, and for the area, the creature steps inside the glyph), if a melee attack spell is used, would it need a spell attack roll since the creature is the one who initiated contact, even if unknowingly?

I'll try to do these in order:

1 - No, you can't make a landmine. You can target either an object or an area. If you target an object, then it only goes off when someone touches it, moves it or opens it without doing whatever needs to be done for it not to go off (aka, speaking the password, fulfilling the trigger, or both).

2 - Glyphs fo Warding can absolutely overlap each other, so long as you don't have more glyphs active than your Spellcasting modifier.

3 - No, your armor isn't a container.

4 - The spell goes off as normal, it just targets whichever creature triggers the glyph. So yes, you'd need to roll a Spell Attack roll if the spell requires it.

------

On the topic itself:

While I think that the intent is for the spell to only activate when a creature willingly manipulates whatever object, the wording is not that precise. Touching is touching, whether voluntarily or not, so the hand grenade idea works fine, on paper. Just as the glyph would work if you dominate someone into...

For 1 - Seeing the wording, I can definitely believe that interpretation. My thought had been that if a creature set off some kind of effect from a 1st glyph, it could set the second off, but if direct interaction is involved, then it makes sense.

For 2 - Good to know. Thanks!
For 3 - Why not? As the specifications for the container are essentially non-existant, I'm curious. I personally disagree with the grenade or weapon use interpretation due to the fact that a spell storage glyph exists for weapons, meaning that as someone doing the interaction with the weapon, you can't force it to go off when it touches another creature both because it's not the intended use of the spell, and another in-game mechanic already covers it.
But since armor isn't going to be used in that way, I could still see it as being booby trapped. Still, I was also considering that if not armor itself, perhaps a shield.
For 4 - I thought as much, but I wondered at the interpretation, since to set off the glyph the creature would already need to be in physical contact. I am not precisely sure how such things are treated in this system. By that I mean, does a failed melee attack miss, or potentially simply connect and not get through? And depending on that, how does it work in terms of a spell? My thought on Shocking Grasp, for example, would be that a failed attack has to miss, since even slight physical contact would be enough for that spell to work, especially against metal armor wearers.

Forgetting for a second about the grenade idea - assuming you have a glyph in a container and the container is placed somewhere, would it still be possible to have it trigger based off a creature of a given time entering a stated proximity? So, less like a grenade, and more like a landmine.

Next, since you can have it cover an area, is there any rule stating that a glyph can't overlap partially or fully with another glyph in terms of the area it's inscribed in?

Would it be possible to inscribe a glyph on your own armor with a trigger for when a creature attacks you, and the target set as that creature?

Lastly, if a glyph is set off by a creature touching it directly, whether it be a container or an area (for the container, the creature touches or otherwise manipulates it, and for the area, the creature steps inside the glyph), if a melee attack spell is used, would it need a spell attack roll since the creature is the one who initiated contact, even if unknowingly?

Another option would be to pick up Weapon Familiarity with your ancestry feat if you're an elf, half-elf, halfling or hobgoblin -- they all offer ranged weapons in their list. Provided you invest in your Dexterity and enchant your weapon regularly, you should be able to keep your accuracy with it on par with your spells up until you get expert spellcaster (7th or 11th level, depending on your doctrine); and even then, you'll only be 2 points behind.

The big advantage of ranged weapons over cantrips and spells is the increased range (60+ feet vs the typical 30 feet for spells) and the fact that you can use them with only a single action.

Unfortunately I'm human, so no interesting feats for me where specific weapons are concerned. Also, I have no Dex bonus because I've had to invest in other stats, so won't be seeing any improvement there until level 5, if at all.

Thanks! This was all exceedingly useful!

I have a War Priest with Pharasma / Imot as dieties. Unfortunately, this means both are true neutral and divine lance is useless to me as a spell.
I'm just wondering if there are any decent damage spells or paths to getting one for a cleric. As far as melee goes, I'm mostly fine, but I would love some basic ranged attack that could be used regularly, like a reliable cantrip.

Additionally, I wonder about Chilling Darkness and Searing Light. Both are very good spells, but seem highly bound by their specific elements and are, for example, not great against a plethora of devils. I mean, I can fight a bearded devil and either do cold damage to it, or good damage, but somehow an evil creature with fire resistance got overlooked.

Are there any decent workarounds to help make me at least a little competitive in terms of being able to do some decent ranged attack damage that isn't wholly contingent on specific target characteristics to be effective?

Honestly, my GM just let me fudge the heavy armor requirement and everything else was manageable. As long as you're able to get into it by the time you actually go for the Signifier (I assume that's what they'll use?) feat, it's not as though the heavy armor means much. I mean, without the actual suit of hellknight plate, who really cares if they're using heavy or not?