Paul Zagieboylo's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 188 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Losing a Progress Point on a normal failure is not typical for these kinds of Progress Point-based situations. I'm not sure why this one is written this way. Maybe just remove that? It should work much better that way, at least for people who get a success on a 14. I'm definitely going to do that when my players get to this scene (in September, probably).

Also, +8 to +10 in social skills probably means that none of your players took on the "party face" role, because a party face should be a bit higher than this at their preferred skill at 4th level. My 4th level bard is going to have +13 Diplomacy to Make an Impression, assuming he gets to use his maestro's lyre with Versatile Performance. Yes, this is completely ridiculous. But even a more normal sorcerer or rogue party face should have +11 or +12, as long as they remembered to put on their high-fashion fine clothing and/or ventriloquist's ring!

DC 24 is still Very Hard for 4th-level characters, though; even very focused characters are going to have a tough time with it. I would consider bumping this down to 23, which is a Standard DC for Grigori's level. But I think just not reducing progress on a standard failure is probably enough.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
The highest level for any of the magic immunity wisps is 9th level. It is very reasonable for any character to still have a weapon to use at this point, probably with at least a striking rune on it. All of the wisps of this type have very low AC.

No they don't? The specific creature we started talking about, the will o' wisp, has AC 27, which is "extreme" for a 6th-level creature. Even fighters are going to have a tough time hitting it reliably, and anyone else is looking at a 30% hit chance at best, if they can even find the thing in the first place. It has incredibly low, trash-tier HP, but... that doesn't matter if you can't deal any damage at all.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

Actually Fire Elementals are immune to all effects with the Fire trait though:

Quote:

When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you ignore all damage of that type. If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can't be affected by that condition or any effect of that type. You can still be targeted by an ability that includes an ability that includes an effect or condition you are immune to; you just don't apply that particular effect or condition.

If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect both has a trait and deals that type of damage (such as a lightning bolt spell). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire.

That is... sure enough, what Immunity says, Player Core p. 408. But the last sentence just completely turns the rest of the second paragraph on its head. Surely, an effect that deals both acid and fire damage would invariably have both the acid and fire traits, which would mean a creature immune to "fire" would be immune to the entire effect. Honestly I think most of the second paragraph here is just total nonsense, because it's clearly self-contradictory. I feel like this is verbiage left over from a previous version, that wasn't thought about too hard.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
arcady wrote:

A compound complication in this discussion is that extract elements has specific wording to undo immunity.

If you 'extract' air, the wording is that a creature you have done that to that was immune to your impulses is now no longer immune.

This ability is 100% useless if it can't be used on something immune to your impulses - as it's use is to make something that was immune to you, no longer immune.

So... either extract elements is useless, or there's wording that needs to be cleaned up.

No, this is straightforward enough. Normal elementals (example: fire elementals) aren't immune to effects that have the "fire" tag. They're only immune or highly resistant to the vast majority of the damage that such effects deal. You can still zap them with impulses no problem, and you'll get any ancillary effects the impulse might inflict (conditions or whatever); just not the damage. This is the immunity or resistance that Extract Elements defeats, which is fine because that's what the vast majority of creatures have. "If the target normally has a resistance that would apply to damage from one of your impulses, ignore that resistance; if it normally would be immune to that damage type, it instead has resistance equal to its level to damage from the impulse." (emphasis added)

That's not what a will o' wisp has, though. The wisp is just straight up immune to the entire ability. It can't even be targeted (well, it can, it just doesn't do anything). It is just plain completely immune to most spells, and, as an impulse, Extract Elements is spell-like enough to qualify.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really don't know. I just wanted to confirm that I was reading this right, and it looks like I am. The problem isn't limited to kineticists, either; pretty much all casters can just go out for pizza in a fight with a will o' wisp, once someone's managed to stick revealing light.

I think the intention here is that "your special stuff doesn't work on this this thing, only basic attacks", so if I were designing the will o' wisp anew, I would say that its spell immunity doesn't apply to cantrips (as well as force barrage, revealing light, and quandary), and Elemental Blast (but not other impulses) is considered a cantrip. And I would probably give the will o' wisp an amount of HP somewhat more commensurate with its level, instead of the absurdly low amount it has right now, since this change would make it much easier for many character types to attack it. But that's clearly not how it was actually written.

And maybe its actual purpose is "this is where you pure martial characters get to shine", which would be a shame to take away; it's just that the kineticist in particular feels like a martial character otherwise but gets totally whammied by this. In fairness, my untamed order druid is supposed to be a primary caster but will have no problem with this one! I don't hate Gortle's house rule that a Weapon Infusion Elemental Blast counts as a weapon instead of a spell. It seems like a hideous patch though, and makes Weapon Infusion even stronger (it's already on the strong side as a feat, at least assuming that you've made some kind of ruling to let the added traits do literally anything).

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Extract Elements is still an Impulse, so it would presumably be covered under the rule I quoted above, making the will o' wisp immune to the entire effect in the first place. The resistance-ignoring effect it provides pretty clearly applies specifically to immunities or resistances to particular damage types, which is not what the will o' wisp has. It's not that the will o' wisp is immune to the damage from your spells by virtue of being an Air creature (which is the kind of immunity common to elementals that Extract Element is supposed to beat); it's just immune to the entire effect right from the word "go."

(It wouldn't help anyway because my kineticist won't have Air until 5th level, and they'll be finding this guy well before that, probably. But the bard is taking Esoteric Polymath at 4th, so maybe I can convince him to prepare revealing light temporarily as well!)

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A kineticist's impulses (particularly including Elemental Blast and Extract Element) are treated as spells in some situations:

Rage of Elements wrote:
Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature’s bonus to saves against spells) also apply to impulses.

Will o' wisps, of course, are immune to almost all spells.

Monster Core wrote:
Magic Immunity A will-o’-wisp is immune to all spells except force barrage, quandary, and revealing light.

Does this mean my kineticist player is just basically helpless against a will o' wisp? Do I need to get one of the other players to casually recommend that the poor guy carry a spear or something, despite the fact that he's essentially useless with it?

Spoiler:
Specifically, the Spirit of Stisshak on the Isle of the Lizard King in Kingmaker, which my players will probably find somewhat soon (they just finished off the Stag Lord and his buddies). This encounter just comes completely out of left field with an extremely polarizing enemy, although I guess the fighter will kill it eventually as long as the druid has revealing light prepared!

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

How much of a disadvantage you see Large size as depends mostly on how cramped your typical adventure location is. Paizo, at least for the last several seasons, has written very, very cramped adventures, presumably to weaken archers (which were historically overpowered in PF1). The number of times I've tried to set up a sensible battle with 4 PCs, the druid's pet, a boss, and 5 mooks in a 20'x20' room...

So it makes sense that an ancestry which is typically Large would have other advantages to make up for what Paizo sees as the serious shortcoming of "being too big to fit in published adventures". That said, I'm not sure it's quite as much of a disadvantage as Paizo seems to think, especially if you're playing anything other than the absurdly cramped adventures they produce. If there's enough space that the wizard can cast spells without being up in the boss's face all the time, there's enough space for the minotaur. So I agree that the minotaur, as printed, seems more than a little overtuned. But pretending that Large size is always an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, is a bit disingenuous too, unless your adventurers never go cave crawling (and a lot of the minotaur's power comes to its strength in enclosed stone spaces i.e. exactly the places minotaurs don't really fit).

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Trip.H wrote:
Not too sure on the specific interaction you mentioned. Each weakness can def only be triggered once. If a swarm has weakness to "area damage" then that can only happen once total. If the incoming damage is multiple types of area damage, they may all be compatible to trigger the weakness, but "area damage" is still a single weakness.

Then why would a resistance to "all damage" apply to each type separately? This is the example specifically mentioned in the RAW, and I refuse to believe that resistances and weaknesses are not supposed to be exactly reciprocal.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I had a similar problem with weaknesses and abilities that deal multiple type of damage, e.g. feral shades vs. spider swarms. In this case the RAW is fairly clear: each type of damage is its own "instance" of damage, and the victim's weakness applies to each of them separately, or at least that's how it works for resistances. Which makes area spells with multiple damage types (feral shades, cataclysm, I think there are others) absolutely brutal against swarms!

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know this was mentioned earlier but it's still true. Archetype-based multiclassing is the way it always should have been done, and it works so, so well. Every class has its "core kit" that you can't change, and then class feats are how you make your bard different from every other bard in the universe.

"My bard can play two songs at once, on a single instrument."
"My bard knows everything that has ever happened, every story ever told around a campfire or to a child in her cradle."
"My bard channels Sarenrae's holy sunlight to redeem the repentant and punish the guilty."
"My bard has a spellbook to hold all of the goofy, special-purpose stuff that I don't need very often."

You see how neatly the multiclass archetype fits in with the others? Making your "uniquifier" be "a weakened version of another class" just works.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't know, I think having to take hours and hours to fail makes perfect sense. Just think of it, a wizard slaving over their spellbook for hours on something that they can normally dash off in a few minutes: "This doesn't make sense! Why does it not work? Ugh, maybe I dropped a comma or negative sign or something in this section, let me do it out the long boring way... ... ... What in the Abyss, it still doesn't work!?" &c for several hours until they step away from it to clear their head.

(Yes, I am a mathematician and programmer, why do you ask?)

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

An addendum: Training DCs for Army Tactics are mentioned in the Train Army activity, but are completely undefined. This isn't your fault; it's this way in the printed version as well. I assume it's supposed to be a Standard DC based on the tactic's level. You also forgot to include anything about attaching special units to the Train Army activity.

The Skirmisher and Siege basic units don't actually have an amount of ammo listed for their ranged attacks; it should presumably be 5 shots in both cases.

The skirmisher example in Record Statistics under Recruiting an Army seems to be referring to a level 5 army, not level 1.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Time to necro this thread! I transferred this into a more accessible format for my players, and encountered a handful of typos, questions, and so forth while doing so.

  • Does Irrigation have any purpose? It doesn't seem like it, if the rivers created are normally considered non-navigable (which I assume is true because of the Boating feat Canal Aptitude, which makes them navigable). I added a bonus 1/2 Food production for any farmland that shares a hex with a river (including an Irrigation canal) or freshwater lake.
  • Wooden Walls have no skill entry for construction; it should be Defense DC 15.
  • Planning Bureau has no description.
  • The descriptions and effects for Thieves' Den and Thieves' Guild seem to be pretty much copied from one another.
  • I regularized the "improved shopping" effect of buildings, because it was just too confusing. All "improved shopping" effects stack to a limit of three levels above the settlement's real level. If my players want to build multiple temples in one city, I don't care enough to stop them.
  • I regularized the "upgrade multiple structures" effect too, just for Temples, Castles, and Universities. This also has the effect of being able to upgrade two identical small structures into a single big structure; I'm fine with this.
  • Trade Commodities was incompletely renamed to Sell Commodities throughout. I recommend a big search.
  • A few missing entries in the big table at the top of Skills, most notably Build Structure (but there were a few others, I didn't take notes, sorry!)

On the whole: thank you so much for putting this all together so concisely!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
At the very least you'd expect some sort of expansionist power to gobble up Galt. Their military consists of angry mobs.

I mostly agree with you but this one in particular I think is justified in-universe. Cheliax still considers Galt to be imperial territory. Cheliax's internal problems (having to do with House Thrune and resistance thereof) mean that they don't have the time or determination to fix the Red Revolution properly, but all of the other nearby powers (particularly Taldor) know that if they try to conquer the place, Cheliax will get over its own problems to come tell them off. Although it seems likely that Druma is secretly buying up major portions of Galt, just like they're doing to Isger.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What rank is Octavia's unique vision of beauty spell? It's written as Spell 4, but it says Octavia shares it when she reaches 3rd level, when she would not have access to 4th-rank spells herself. Also, it seems extremely low-power for a 4th-rank spell: it's a weaker and shorter-duration version of the 2nd-rank stupefy combined with a single-target, shorter-duration version of the 3rd-rank hypnotize. I think this is actually supposed to be a 2nd-rank spell? Or am I missing something that makes it much better than I think it is?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Do warpriests get convenient access to the fighter (or champion) feats that make shields not an abysmal drain on action economy? Or are you just expected to take Champion Dedication to get access to those, like you did before? I admit, it is a little less bad for warpriests because of Emblazon Armament and Raise Symbol, which at least makes raising your shield really good for the action cost.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SatiricalBard wrote:
Can a Champion become Sanctified? If so, do they do this the same way as Clerics?

I would tend to assume that a Champion must be Sanctified, and equally, must choose a deity that allows this. Certainly that's how I would rule in my game at the moment, if I had any players who wanted to be champions. Unless at some point we ever get rules for Champions of Neutrality, which... doesn't really make a lot of sense. Champions were always more about alignment and only incidentally about worship, just as most clerics were primarily about worship and only incidentally about alignment. But we'll see what actually happens with them when Player Core 2 comes out next year.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
It just feels bad if I play a Human Bard with a falcata because he's from Taldor and was taught the traditional rondelero dueling style and have that falcata end up basically being only for show because his proficiency with it won't be able to keep up with the enemies advancing in power, and there's no "Cultural Weapon Familiarity" feat line to act as a band-aid!

I would certainly allow Unconventional Weaponry to apply in such a situation, both the old version and the Remastered one (they're equivalent in this respect). It already says you can choose a weapon which is "common in another culture", although it's really not clear what this means. Another culture compared to... what? The "generic culture" defined by the typical availability and classification of weapons? Is this Absalom, or Cheliax, or what? In any case, I think it's clear that this is meant to cover cultural weapons such as the falcata, in addition to things like sawtooth sabres or katanas.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The druid feat Reactive Transformation allows a druid with Dragon Shape to use it automatically if he takes acid, cold, electricity, fire, or poison damage to transform in to a shape from dragon form that resists the incoming damage. However, the sidebar for the new types of dragons available doesn't include any that resist acid, cold, or electricity: only fire and poison are present, as well as some other goofier things like force or bludgeoning. It seems like neither this feat nor Dragon Shape were really updated with the new menagerie of tradition-based dragons in mind; they're still focused on the old chromatic/metallic system of dragons. The dragon form spell itself is in great shape, though!

The druid feat Form Control no longer requires Strength +2. I guess that's nice! But Perfect Form Control still requires Strength +4, which was always kind of a tough lift for druids who were planning to spend most of their time in battle form anyway. This just seems kind of inconsistent.

(One of my PCs is a druid, can you tell?)

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I didn't see it: frostbite still has the Attack trait from ray of frost despite now being purely save-based.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Without the party's interference, Tartuccio will EVENTUALLY lead the Sootscales to victory over the mitflits. After all, he can almost mince through the whole hive with his own sickle, if he ever gets off his duff and starts actually helping. After this, under his leadership the Sootscales will quickly become a serious problem for the newborn nation. I would have Tartuccio build his own kingdom starting from the Sootscale Mine hex (probably RIGHT NEXT to the PCs), attracting any remnants of the Stag Lord bandits, other kobold and goblinoid tribes, and possibly even the Lizard King's followers, and opening diplomatic relations with M'botuu. No one says he needs a charter, if he's charismatic enough to attract followers all on his own. (Well, the King-Regent would probably say that he needs a charter, but... too bad for him.) This would set up quite some diplomatic tensions as the two realms race to grab land, possibly from each other. It might even give you an excuse to introduce the warfare rules early!

I don't think you'll ever see Svetlana's wedding ring again, though!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the clarification about Foreign Aid. I think it's reasonable either way, although your interpretation makes cultivating multiple allies less valuable; but I think Manage Trade Agreements is probably a good enough reason to have multiple allies, with Foreign Aid reserved for more emergency situations. In this case I would recommend changing the paragraph describing the neediness penalty to read "cumulatively increases the DC of further attempts from all groups by 2" (emphasis indicates added text).

That's a reasonable opinion about the split for the mechanism of investment bonuses. I disagree, but I certainly see where you're coming from. I will probably change this for my group, because I would prefer to emphasize training rather than natural ability for kingdom leadership, but it's clearly a matter of taste.

Special Units: I LOVE this idea, although I'm not a huge fan of the name: I would suggest something like Auxiliary Platoons. I have two questions:

  • Are all the possible special units provided by kingdom feats? Or did I miss one somewhere that's just always available?
  • Is there a cost to add a special unit? It seems like there should be; at least it should require either a Train Army or Outfit Army activity (or something equivalent), but most of them are good enough that I feel they should come with some persistent cost.

I still have to go through the feats in detail; I'll hopefully get to this next week.

I do want to make clear: I'm sorry if it feels like I'm picking at nits here! I wouldn't bother with detailed feedback if I didn't think that this was mostly pretty good already. I mostly give feedback not because I absolutely think something is wrong, but because I think you might not have thought something through enough in your own mind, and I like to force game designers to do that. Even if I end up changing a handful of things in... like 4 months when my PCs get to this point, you have saved me SO MUCH effort I can't even imagine.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Investment bonuses: As previously mentioned, I love that you added these, and I also love that they don't matter THAT much, so it's not so critical when you don't have them available. But given that they exist, I think it's very strange that half are based on the official's abilities, and half on the official's skill training. It should be all one or the other; I vote for skill training. That's definitely the way I'm going to rewrite it for my party, but I'm curious about your opinion.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I still... don't love the wording on Request Foreign Aid. Maybe I'm being excessively obtuse and/or pedantic, but it's just not really clear to me how it's supposed to work. Suppose I have three allies: Brevoy, Mivon, and Gralton. For the sake of example, we'll say they're all normally DC 20 allies. Now, some kingdom turn, things are going poorly, so I Request Aid from Brevoy. This is clearly a DC 22 Statecraft check; so far so good. Let's suppose it fails. That sucks, I really needed the help, so now I call up Mivon. Is this check now at DC 22 (as would be standard for Mivon) or DC 24 (with one cumulative penalty)? Your comments here suggest that it should work separately, so this second request would be against DC 22 and increase only Mivon's penalty, but I would want to see this spelled out more clearly. I get the aid I need and go on with my life.

However, on the next kingdom turn, something even more ridiculous occurs and I need more aid. Obviously I can't ask Brevoy or Mivon because they're all tapped out, so I call up Gralton for some help. This would clearly be the same situation as Mivon before. However, at the end of this turn, do the penalties for Brevoy and Mivon decrease? Sure, I've Requested Aid from someone, but not from them... I personally feel that they shouldn't; the "neediness" penalties should only decrease when you make it through an entire turn without begging for help at all from anyone. Does that make sense? So having more allies still helps if you're constantly in need of Foreign Aid, but only to a certain point; you really have to start standing on your own at some point.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just the change to Take Charge that it now gives you an *extra* Region or Civic activity in place of your Leadership activity fixes so many problems it is not even funny. Why did I not think of that? It's interesting that you made it so that a substituted activity now requires two checks instead of one (a first to Take Charge successfully, and then a second to actually do the thing). I've decided I like this.

I disagree with not putting Plains in the terrain costs table. Even if it's not very rough (it's 1 RP in the original printing), it needs to have SOME cost. Is it your intention that Preparing, Fortifying, Building Roads (!), Irrigating, or Establishing a Work Site (!!) should be completely free in Plains hexes without rivers? Because that's what you've got right now.

I agree that declaring Amiri as a good Warden always seemed weird to me, too. I think Paizo got Amiri and Valerie backwards.

More comments later but I have to get to work!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
VanceMadrox wrote:

A lack of useful repeatable Leadership actions was one of the big issues in the base rules as well.

Yes, that's how I knew to watch out for it. This revision helps some, but I'm not convinced it's enough. Although I guess I left out Purchase Commodities in my list above for some reason. That's quite repeatable and you'll probably need to quite often, unless you're VERY diligent in getting your work sites set up. I would want to see how many commodities you really need, compared to how many are easy to get.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Provide Care: The results on this seem wacky. It reduces Unrest on a success (an important and hard-to-get effect), but on a critical success it INSTEAD reduces a Ruin (a not-so-important and easy to spam effect). Should it also reduce Unrest on a critical success?

Spammable Leadership actions: With respect to my previous question, I went through and looked for all the actions that might actually be worth doing over and over, every Kingdom turn. Here's what I ended up with:

  • Craft Luxuries: While this is "spammable", there's no reason to do so because you can do as much as you want in one action. Also, Purchase Commodities for Luxuries (8 RP for 2 Luxuries is 4:1) is slightly more efficient than Crafting them except for small kingdoms (d8 RP for 1 Luxury is 4.5:1), unless your Arts or Industry skill is much better than Trade. I think the ratio on Craft Luxuries is right and Purchasing them should be even more expensive.
  • Focused Attention: it's the Leadership version of Aid, it's fine I guess and needs to be there, but try to find something better to do
  • Quell Unrest: is this once total per Kingdom turn, or once for each leader? Seems like it's intended to be once overall, but other actions (e.g. Provide Care) call that out clearly and this one doesn't. I'm assuming it's once per turn, total; Unrest is supposed to be hard to get rid of.
  • Repair Reputation: yup, spam this like crazy, it won't go out of style
  • Take Charge: probably spammable but why bother? Unless you have a specific Region or Civic activity you want to Take Charge of, it only generates a tiny amount of RP. Also, Taking Charge of a Region or Civic activity should require you to use the same skill for Take Charge as you plan to use for that other activity.
  • Hire Adventurers: depends on the prevalence of continuing events, but you're unlikely to need this more than 2 or 3 times per turn
  • Infiltration: I like this one. I don't know how useful it will actually be, but it makes sense and it's quite spammable (assuming you're good enough at Intrigue that you're mostly safe from critical failures)
  • Supernatural Solution: basically similar to Focused Attention, it's good but needs something to support
  • Creative Solution: see Supernatural Solution
  • Request Foreign Aid: does the cumulative penalty apply overall, or tracked separately for each foreign partner? Either way, there should be a penalty for doing this TOO much.
  • Manage Trade Agreements: should probably forbid managing the same trade agreement more than once per turn. Also, if we need more spammable actions (which we do!), this could be changed to be just one trade agreement per action; it seems pretty powerful if you have a lot of trade agreements.

This is... not a lot of spammable actions that actually do things. There are several I didn't include because they have anti-spam mechanisms built in, but are still worth doing once every other turn or so. This doesn't help us get to 24 actions per turn. Maybe 24 leadership actions per turn is just way too many.

Region Activities: Assuming that "most" of the time, kingdoms will want to spend as many region activities on Claim Hex as possible... there are too many other things that you would need precious region activities to do, that just don't even come close to competing with Claim Hex. Yes, Claim Hex has the bonus "this action is free" on a critical success, but that's not something to count on. Maybe Claim Hex should be moved into its own category, so it stops outcompeting all the more interesting (but less powerful) region activities. This would also help all the weird verbiage about the number of times you can Claim Hex per turn.

Establish Settlement: should probably mention that the hex needs to be claimed, also for several other region activities, unless that's intended to be the default, in which case the "remove a danger" use of Clear Hex needs to call out that it can be used outside your borders.

Clear Hex: I know Paizo glued the two uses of this together into a single activity, but it was a mistake and just causes lots of confusion elsewhere. Just separate them into two activities: Clear Terrain and Remove Danger.

Boating: is still trash and needs a lot of propping up. Making Go Fishing a leadership activity instead of a region activity would help. Probably not enough, but it would help.

Trade Commodities: consider renaming to Sell Commodities.

Wilderness: better than Boating but still kind of bad. Making Hunt and Forage a leadership activity would help here too (and should definitely be done if Go Fishing is changed).

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Claim Hex: the action (Skills p. 3) states that it grants 10 Kingdom XP, but Table K-1 Kingdom Size (General p. 2) suggests that this should scale inversely with kingdom size. I prefer the scaling, a lot. Small kingdoms are just too hard to level up otherwise.

Craft Luxuries critical success effect: This sentence contains the word "number" three times. I recommend: "Gain d4 Luxuries for each Resource Die rolled."

Pledge of Loyalty: The description suggests that certain groups may be more or less susceptible to approaches involving each of the skills, but no guidance on this is actually given.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This looks really good! My group will be starting their kingdom sometime in the next few months so I'm looking for improvements and fixes (since the printed rules are.... not amazing). I'll definitely want to read through this more carefully, but here are some initial questions and observations:

NPCs in Leadership Roles: Do NPCs get 2-3 leadership actions every Kingdom turn, just like the PCs? It seems like it would be a pretty significant balance dependency on the number of PCs if they do not, but I'm not sure how many of the leadership actions are actually worth spamming 24 times per turn.

The General Kingdom Rules (p. 9) give restrictions on which NPC leadership roles are automatically invested, stating that more invested roles may be added or changed with the New Leadership activity. However, the New Leadership activity (Skills p. 4) doesn't provide any way to invest a role without changing the current officeholder. Is this intentional?

Additionally, most of the companions explicitly max out at 8 Influence Points (or even 6) in their original social encounters, but you've set the requirement for investment at 12 IP. Maybe I'll have to tell my players to start chatting up Amiri again! Just curious about the reasoning behind this decision. 12 IP seems REALLY high, unless players are constantly dragging companions along on adventures to chat them up every night (which I have generally discouraged my players from doing).

Additionally, the bonuses that the officeholder gives to some of the roles (which I really love! I was going to do something like this myself) don't quite match up with the provided recommendations in some cases. In particular, Linzi is no longer a competent Counselor (although she's a good Ruler or Magister), nor is Amiri an especially good Warden (or anything else but General). On the other hand, Ekundayo and Jubilost are now pretty good Viceroys, which they honestly should always have been in the first place! (In the printed version, no companion enjoys the Viceroy role.) "Half of the proficiency bonus excluding level" is too confusing for Warden; just spell it out.

I think you may be seeing the Counselor role a little bit differently than Paizo intended, in that you seem to be focusing on the "advise others" portion (Int/Wis based) while Paizo clearly leaned more into the "liaison with the populace" role (which would be Int/Cha-based using Performance or Society). Honestly I might just mostly swap the Ruler and Counselor investment benefits, so the Counselor can spend an action to gather input from the people on the kingdom's problems while relying on their own Society or Performance training, while the Ruler can always use Statecraft and their own Int/Wis bonus to back up any of the other leaders.

Feats: The Crush Opposition feat (Warfare) is listed in the table, but doesn't seem to exist. I generally love what you did with the feats though; there are so many and they are actually somewhat balanced (looking at you, Practical Magic).

Building On Rough Terrain sidebar: Deserts is misspelled, and Plains/Grassland isn't listed. I don't know what "Shorelines" is supposed to represent that would be different from "Lakes".

Focused Attention action: seems to have the effects in the description, as well as in the actual effects (and they don't match).

Table K-X4 Army Gear: I know you just alphabetized this table and went on with your life, but please put Vision Enhancers in level order instead, because this arrangement is too ridiculous.

Enhanced Weapons: the individual items list "enhanced armor".

Special Armies: you didn't include any statblocks for them. Are you just assuming that the ones given in the printed version are fine? You're probably right; it doesn't seem like you made too many changes to this area in the first place.

I have a lot more careful reading to do on Skills, Buildings, and maybe Events, but I'm really liking what I see so far!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I suspected that's how the Players' Guide was constructed, and that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to do it. Fortunately none of my players picked Necril (because, you know, undead), and the one who picked Iruxi (a very language-dependent bard) will appreciate the Lizard King plotline when it comes up. I had just managed to flip past that when I was looking the first time!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

All right, I missed the fact that most of the evil fey speak Aklo. Still, almost everything in this book that speaks Aklo also speaks Sylvan, so if the PCs are worried about communicating with something, Sylvan is the way to go.

The only iruxi I can find in the entire book are in the village on the Isle of the Lizard King, which I guess I had also missed. They also all speak Draconic, although I'm not totally sure why.

But thanks, you've convinced me enough that I won't bother making my players change it. I'll give them a scroll of comprehend language or something so they can understand Garuum, whom they'll trip over relatively soon here, although they won't actually be able to talk with him because comprehend language is only one-way at 2nd rank. That might be even more fun to make them roleplay!

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would certainly argue against any interpretation that treats Backswing and Sweep differently, no matter how they happen to be worded. I think it's quite clear that the original wording never considered that a weapon might change traits from attack to attack, because... that just wasn't possible, and no one thought about it.

However, I also have considerable respect for your argument that "abilities should do something", especially abilities that come with investments as heavy as a class feat. And even by your reading, Sweep clearly does absolutely nothing at all (that isn't already covered by Agile), and Backswing only by a pretty tortuous reading. So I would consider supporting an even more generous ruling that adding any of these three traits to your first attack (chosen before you swing) grants you the corresponding bonus on your second and third attacks (regardless of what you add to those ones), especially considering that otherwise the only melee trait that Weapon Infusion usefully adds to your first attack is Reach (which is pretty good, but still). Although I would still rule that Forceful only increases to 2/die on your third attack if both of your first two had it.

I know I'm not running a PFS game, and I can rule however I want. I just wanted to get some discussion going about what rulings would be reasonable.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In the Players' Guide for Kingmaker, it recommends Aklo and Iruxi as suggested languages for players to take. As far as I can tell, these two languages are not used at all, anywhere; not a single NPC in the entire adventure speaks either. Necril is pretty marginal too, useful only against Vordekai and his minions. Two of my players fell for these lies before I realized enough to stop them. Am I missing something critical, or should I ask my players to retroactively change these, hopefully to something more useful?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Actually Dragonborn might be right. Backswing is worded differently than Sweep or Agile. It activates when you miss and gives you a bonus on the next attack.

Hmm. It's clear that the original wording of Backswing never considered the possibility that a weapon might have Backswing for one attack, and then lose it for the next. Still, I think it's unreasonable to expect that an attack without Backswing (or any other similar trait) can still benefit from it.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, you clearly can't stack Backswing (or Sweep) and Agile. If you want the 2nd blast to benefit from Backswing, it has to actually have Backswing on it.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

All right, at least I'm reading that right. It did seem odd but if different elements provided different traits in the playtest, it makes more sense.

But what about Forceful? Does my ruling seem reasonable? Or being even more generous, just treat "Elemental Blast" as all one weapon for the purpose of Forceful, even if earlier Elemental Blasts didn't have it?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

How do the backswing, forceful, and sweep traits work for Weapon Infusion? All three traits specify "when you attack again with the same weapon", but (a) Elemental Blast isn't really a weapon, and (b) even if it were, each Weapon Infused Elemental Blast would be its own new weapon, not the same one.

Under the general rule of "assume abilities do something", I would probably rule that you can benefit from forceful on subsequent Blasts as long as you made your first Elemental Blast that round forceful as well. Backswing and sweep really seem to have no purpose at all, even interpreted generously, because even when they work they just give you the same benefit as agile, which Weapon Infusion could also give you.

Am I just misunderstanding this ability? Are these effects more useful while multiclassing, maybe? Agile is certainly quite good, if you're (say) a fighter with Agile Grace multiclassed into kineticist. But I just don't see any useful purpose for backswing or sweep, even if your GM rules that they work at all.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly... I think the mistake is actually earlier. It seems like the wording on the Expert Bounded Spellcasting benefits assumed that the slots you end up with at 12th level are 2 3rd and 1 4th, which would make the rest of it make perfect sense. I understand that they wanted to make the progression from Basic Bounded Spellcasting realllllly slow, but... maybe this is too slow.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was just going through some edge cases because I can't trust one of my players to be reasonable unless I make him. I'm trying to make sure I understand correctly what spell slots are granted by the bounded spellcasting archetype feats, e.g. the Summoner archetype. As far as I can tell, assuming you pay the appropriate feat taxes at the earliest possible levels, it goes like this:

6th level: Basic Bounded Spellcasting: 1 1st, 1 2nd
8th level: still 1 1st, 1 2nd
10th level: 1 2nd, 1 3rd
12th level: Expert Bounded Spellcasting: 1 2nd, 2 3rd
14th level: 2 4th, 1 5th (this seems like a really big jump)
16th level: 2 5th, 1 6th
18th level: Master Bounded Spellcasting: 2 5th, 2 6th
20th level: 2 6th, 2 7th

My main question is the really big jump at 14th level. Is the improvement from Expert Bounded Spellcasting at 12th level supposed to be better? Just seems strange to me.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tactical Drongo wrote:
Huh? Why would a 3rd Level Item be out of reach for a 3rd Level character?

The guidance for creating a new character at a level higher than 1st assumes that they have just barely reached their current level (which is the case here), and therefore they only have access to items whose level is strictly lower than that during character creation. (CRB p511)

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm introducing a kineticist (earth/water, if it matters) at the start of 3rd level in my current campaign. The problem I'm having is, I really have no idea what to recommend for 75gp of initial purchases. Kineticists don't need or want weapons, gate attenuators and skill-boosting items are 3rd level so technically out of reach, and... what else would you want that actually costs money? Mundane armor, toolkits and mounts only cost so much, and it's not 75gp, or even 40gp. I'm mostly looking for ideas of other things to suggest and/or grant to this player, particularly for low-level permanent items. Am I just missing an entire category of useful stuff?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What else would you add to the fire element? There isn't really anything else appropriate. At least, having a "fire" blast inflicting cold damage can be explained as the impulse working in reverse: you have such control over the element of fire that you can violently suck it out of your targets, leaving them frozen in place.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Giant Tick has an Attach ability which allows it to glom onto anything bigger than it. This doesn't seem to do anything against enemies the same size or smaller than the tick. This then prevents it from using Drain Blood against smaller creatures as well, because it would have to be attached first. Even if it wanted to do something like Grapple a smaller creature, that doesn't actually help it attach its hypostome.

Is this intended? It seems like the tick just has no way to drain blood from smaller creatures. Are their veins just too small to get ahold of? This seems like it makes the tick a much less interesting enemy, especially the unique Medium one that my players are fighting right now.

(Why yes, my players DID just reach the fight with Grabbles and Tickleback in Kingmaker, why do you ask? I think I'll rule that Tickleback can still Attach to Medium characters as a normal giant tick could, even though he's a little bigger than normal so Grabbles can ride him around. But I'd still like opinions on the original question.)

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My group started out with a Sylph Human Bard (maestro/polymath), an Undine Human Investigator (alchemical sciences), a Changeling Human Fighter (one-hand/wrestler), and a Bright Fetchling Druid (wild order). I was really enjoying the "haven for all those touched by the planes" vibe, but the investigator ended up dropping and we picked up a Versatile Human Magus (sparkling targe) in her place. It's going pretty well so far; they're stomping their way through the Old Sycamore right now.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I've already ruled that Sustaining an amped shield is equivalent in all ways to casting a shield for the purpose of magus abilities. It really seems to me that this is the way the amped shield is supposed to behave: it's just a shield that you can cast and use up 3 times in 1 minute before incurring the 10 minute cooldown. I agree that this interpretation pretty clearly isn't supported by RAW and I wouldn't be able to use it in PFS, but, it just makes more sense to me.

The main thing I felt weird about was the ability to cast it on other people, as part of an ability that's really meant to guard the magus himself. It probably doesn't matter that much because I think the magus player has completely forgotten about shielding strike; in his defense, it's not really a great conflux spell, and his focus points are much more precious for amped shields.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have a character who is a magus with the Sparkling Targe hybrid study, but he took Psychic Dedication at 2nd level so he could get the improved version of shield provided by the Tangible Dream conscious mind. My main question is: how much of his Sparkling Targe stuff can he use with the improved shield, and particularly the amped version that gets 3 charges?

Currently I've ruled as follows:

  • He can use the improved or even the amped version of shield as part of the shielding strike conflux spell (although of course this would require two focus points!).
  • He can Sustain (and re-raise) an amped shield as part of shielding strike as well; it seems like this is the intention of how the multi-round amped shield is supposed to work.
  • He can Sustain an amped shield (on someone else!) in pest form, even though he couldn't cast it in the first place. I honestly don't know how I feel about this one, but also pest form is an absolute waste of a spell slot for a magus and I really wish he'd stop using it. I don't understand why he keeps doing so. Especially because we already have a Wild Order druid who gets it for free (and is better at scouting than any magus could dream of being in the first place).
  • He can activate Arcane Cascade after casting the psychic shield (this seems to be standard for all non-magus spells), even if he casts it on someone else; he likes to shield the fighter, which is fine although it seems to be a pretty good combo because of reaction economy!

Rulings I'm unsure about, and would like to get some additional opinions before they come up:

  • Can he use shielding strike to cast or Sustain a shield on someone else? My instinct would be "ugh, I guess so", but I could see arguments against.
  • Does the bonus Hardness from Sparkling Targe apply if the shield is on someone else? I would go with "probably" on this one.
  • I feel like I had another question but I had two hours of meetings in the middle of writing this post and now I've forgotten.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Good summary! I do agree with Chris_Fougere that the number of random encounter checks it suggests is completely nuts. Whoever wrote that didn't understand probability, at all. As written it nearly guarantees at least one random encounter per day every day, usually two, sometimes three in a low-DC area.

I would recommend one check during the day (which is pretty much always at the base DC for the area) and one check for the night (modified by various camping activities; I also adjusted the modifiers a little to make Camouflage Campsite more useful).

I also didn't do the accounting in "hours" because it was annoying. I just told my players that they normally got 1 camping activity each (there's usually not that much reason to want more anyway), and allowed them to trade exploration activities 1-1 for more camping activities if they want, with the assumption that they would normally take their maximum of 2 exploration activities.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Baarogue wrote:

Either that was an oversight in editing or this is a crap poison not intended to give long-term frightened. I'm 50/50 on which, but the fact that it lists "confused 1" when confused doesn't have severities leads me to believe it was editing and/or a writer who doesn't know how conditions really work. But unless and until they issue errata we're stuck with how it is now, which as you say is shaken off in an instant compared to the duration of the potion

If you can choose when to start the fight, arsenic is p good. You'd have to do something about the low DC though, but then again belladonna doesn't have much higher. What level are you limited to?

I'm not stuck with anything at all. This isn't a PFS game: I can make different rulings if I want to. I was just looking for guidance on what was intended here, and I agree that given the clear evidence of other editing errors in the same stat block, I think this is likely an editing error as well. Bokken is supposed to be 4th-level, so I would definitely side-eye anything higher than 5th, but Cordell Kintner is right that my intended victim is tough enough to just ignore most low-level poisons. Blue dragonfly poison does seem weirdly low-DC for the level, as well.

I think I will probably end up going with a slightly leveled-up variant of belladonna, instead. But thanks for confirming that this seems weird as heck!

jcheung wrote:

fail? welcome to stage 2. next 10 minutes you're dazzled and frightened 1. both conditions permanent until poison is cured.

10 minutes elapse.

This is where you're going wrong; under RAW, the frightened condition passes off after one round the same way it always does (when inflicted by an instant effect like fear). This is the part that seems super lame to me, especially on a stage with a 10 minute duration, and I just can't imagine this is what's intended.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What exactly does it mean for something like blue dragonfly poison to apply the frightened condition? Normally, frightened wears off after one round, but stages 2 and 3 of this poison might go on for 20 minutes. Does the victim just get frightened 1 for an instant once in a while, but shake it off immediately? This really doesn't make sense to me; it seems like the frightened condition is intended to last for the full duration of the poison (unless the victim makes a save against the poison itself to get down to stage 1). Many poisons have some extra verbiage like "the sickened condition can't be reduced until the poison's effects end", but this one does not.

I found a couple of older threads (link, link) about this question but I managed to give myself the confused condition while reading them, and they mostly focused on the question of conditions lasting longer than the poison, not the other way around.

Backstory: I'm looking for something I can have Bokken sell to my PCs that they can use to poison the Stag Lord in chapter 3 of Kingmaker, which won't kill him but will likely weaken him for a fight about an hour after he drinks it. A longer-lasting variant (which I'm fine with) of either belladonna or blue dragonfly poison would seem to fit the bill, and Bokken should even be able to get blue dragonflies in this area, since boggards live nearby.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I guess potions and oils aren't considered spell trigger items anymore, so anyone with Magical Crafting (and a recipe) can craft them. Although it seems weird for an alchemist to do so? Surely science is enough for anyone, who needs all this mysticism and mumbo jumbo!

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>