Phntm888's page

Perception: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (16) + 4 = 20

No real point now, but I'll do it anyway.

Sense Motive on Tartuccio: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (5) + 6 = 11

Stanislaw considered Tartuccio's accusation and Harter's defense. He didn't know the Lebedan very well, although he knew their house sent traders far and wide. It was conceivable they'd conducted trade with Pitax. On the other hand, few Lebedans became followers of Erastil. For Harter to have done so, he must have either defied his house or else was from a minor enough branch that he had more freedom than most.

Most of the testimony in Harter's defense was of the character sort, but he strongly considered Elenaril's testimony about Tartuccio's magic, even as he thought back to the battle. Tartuccio could have been pulling his punches during the battle - or he could just be less skilled than he claimed to be. It was a point in Harter's favor, but not strong proof of Tartuccio setting the paladin up.

He didn't recall having seen the ring on Harter's finger during the initial gathering, either. Of course, he hadn't seen Tartuccio give Harter the ring. Ultimately, there was no evidence to support Tartuccio's accusation that Harter was Irovetti's spy, apart from the ring, which Harter claimed Tartuccio had given him. There was also no evidence to show Tartuccio was Irovetti's spy, apart from the fact that he may have been intentionally holding back during the fight.

If Lady Jamandi was serious about having them set out now, there would be no time to conduct an investigation. It would have to occur with both the accused and his accuser on their respective expeditions - and the difficulty with bringing them to justice from there.

Idly wondering if Kesten would be offended by Harter's suggestion - although a noble of House Garess in Lady Jamandi's guard was somewhat strange - Stanislaw spoke up, "Lady Jamandi, as a fellow servant of Erastil, I do not believe Harter would have committed such betrayal, but there might be a way to put your mind at ease. If there is a high-ranking, spellcasting capable priest here in Restov, it should be a simple matter to clear up. There is a spell that can be used to compel the subjects to speak only the truth within its area. While it would cause a small delay, having the priest come here to cast the spell, and then having both Tartuccio and Harter give their testimony from within it, should serve to clear up this accusation."

Drop a Zone of Truth, and let them both testify.

Glad I opted for Combat Expertise last round!

Kendren grunted in pain as the evil infused sword nearly eviscerated him. Bringing his shield hand close to his chest, he called upon Sarenrae's mercy to heal his wounds before retaliating in kind.

Swift action to use Lay on Hands. Choosing Extra Attack from BoF.

Lay on Hands: 4d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 1, 1) = 9

Attack vs Blue, PA, Prayer, IC: 1d20 + 16 - 3 + 1 + 3 ⇒ (13) + 16 - 3 + 1 + 3 = 30
Damage, PA, Prayer, IC, Fire: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1d6 ⇒ (2) + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + (2) = 19

Attack 2 vs Blue, PA, Prayer, IC: 1d20 + 11 - 3 + 1 + 3 ⇒ (19) + 11 - 3 + 1 + 3 = 31
Damage, PA, Prayer, IC, Fire: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1d6 ⇒ (5) + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + (1) = 21

BoF Attack vs Blue, PA, Prayer, IC: 1d20 + 16 - 3 + 1 + 3 ⇒ (14) + 16 - 3 + 1 + 3 = 31
Damage, PA, Prayer, IC, Fire: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1d6 ⇒ (6) + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + (1) = 22

Confirm Crit Attack 2: 1d20 + 11 - 3 + 1 + 3 ⇒ (2) + 11 - 3 + 1 + 3 = 14
Additional Crit Damage if confirmed: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1d6 ⇒ (5) + 5 + 6 + 1 + 3 + (1) = 21

AC should be 29 (+3 Lastwall Phalanx). HP 36/76. All saving throws get +3 bonus from Lastwall Phalanx and +3 bonus from Shake it Off.

While not ideal, they had forced the remaining three to come to them, and Kendren had no fear of their attacks. He stepped towards the nearest one and struck twice in quick succession.

5-foot step, then full attack vs yellow

Attack 1, PA, IC, Prayer: 1d20 + 16 - 3 + 3 + 1 ⇒ (10) + 16 - 3 + 3 + 1 = 27
Damage, PA, IC, Prayer, Fire: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 3 + 1 + 1d6 ⇒ (3) + 5 + 6 + 3 + 1 + (2) = 20

Attack 2, PA, IC, Prayer: 1d20 + 11 - 3 + 3 + 1 ⇒ (3) + 11 - 3 + 3 + 1 = 15
Damage, PA, IC, Prayer, Fire: 1d6 + 5 + 6 + 3 + 1 + 1d6 ⇒ (2) + 5 + 6 + 3 + 1 + (4) = 21

As the others discussed healing, Ardriel, having come through the fight relatively unscathed, heads for their supply stash, trying to see what they have that they might be able to use. He grabs a couple of wands that are in there, including one of daylight that would have been very useful to have previously, and some arrows with a holy enchantment on them.

Grabbing the wand of daylight, wand of magic missile (CL 5), and the 5 holy arrows +1.

Okay, the post with the wand of daylight was all the way back in 2020, on page 33 of Gameplay or so. I'm putting the wand of daylight on my sheet, along with a wand of magic missile from that post.

EDIT: I think Ian took the most negative levels after Dadna, so he should probably get the Restoration.

Also, on the Grey Garrison tab on the Loot Sheet, there's a scroll of restoration listed. Did we use that?

EDIT 2: Everyone with negative levels, sound off with how many you have.

Right! Mythic Bless!

Will, Mythic Bless reroll: 1d20 + 11 ⇒ (15) + 11 = 26

Fortunately, Dadna's spell fills him, and he breaks free of the hold. He pursues the demon, firing yet another arrow at it.

Attack, Mythic PBS, Mythic Bless, Smite: 1d20 + 14 + 2 + 1 + 4 ⇒ (11) + 14 + 2 + 1 + 4 = 32
Damage, Mythic PBS, Mythic Bless, Smite: 1d8 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 9 ⇒ (3) + 2 + 2 + 1 + 9 = 17

Level 10

HP: +8 HP
BAB: +1
Saves: +1 Ref
FCB: +1 Skill Point

Skills: 2 + 1 Int + 1 Human + 1 FCB = 5
Diplomacy +1
Heal +1
Knowledge (religion) +1
Perception +1
Sense Motive +1

Background Skills: 2
Craft (Stonemasonry) +1
Profession (engineer) +1

Feat: Lastwall Phanlanx

Class Features: Mercy (Nauseated)

I'm aware, thank you. I didn't know if anyone had the potion on their sheet, and thus needed to give it to me. If no one claimed it, then we'll say it's in my inventory and I'll just drink the potion.

Yes, I was waiting to see if I needed to help you.

Seeing Ian had resolved himself of his green slime issue, Ardriel moved into the room, taking care to stay within Ian's light as he waited for the other to approach further so he could see the creature they were facing.

Double move.

Ardriel frowned at the darkness. "I have one more scroll. Should I try to use it on the darkness again?"

Ian, I cast Protection from Evil on you earlier. You should have +2 resistance from that, overriding your cloak.

Will Save: 6 class + 0 Wis + 4 Cha + 2 Cloak of Resistance + 6 vs all Enchantment Spells and Effects. I am also immune to sleep effects, fear effects, and all charm spells and spell-like abilities. (Elven Immunities, Aura of Courage, Aura of Resolve).

Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (9) + 12 = 21
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (12) + 12 = 24
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (1) + 12 = 13 Nat 1
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (11) + 12 = 23
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (4) + 12 = 16
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (15) + 12 = 27
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (8) + 12 = 20
Will: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (8) + 12 = 20

Kendren spoke, "You had no way of knowing of Killibrandt's duplicity when approached - after all, who could have suspected the gnome would attempt to steal the Shield? As you said, at the time, you thought it was a generous act of philanthropy, and the Shield was clearly still there when the viewing was finished. In my eyes, you have committed no crime. That they used your mother's ailing health as a method of manipulating you shows the depravity these criminals will turn to. You have made a mistake, but that mistake need not define your role in this. If you wish to atone for this mistake, then the best thing you can do is act. We need to get to the dyeworks as quickly as possible, but we also need to make sure that Killibrandt and her co-conspirators do not escape. You have command of the Watchknights. Have them set a perimeter around the dyeworks. Use your position within the city to alert the Knights of Ozem, and set them to doing the work of finding other agents of the Whispering Way. Lastwall shall continue to stand as it always has - by standing shoulder to shoulder against the darkness. In these actions, you will find redemption, and if you wish punishment for yourself, you may face it after we have ensured Lastwall is safe from this threat."

Diplomacy, Aid: 1d20 + 14 + 7 ⇒ (8) + 14 + 7 = 29

- Rovagug: Same as Lamashtu, but 10 years of worrying about him getting out, him dying would feel like an appropriately built up event. likely to generate the most fuss, and could lead to interesting stories, thogh i think theres supposed to be an existing deity taking over the place of the god, so that's why this isnt my #1 pick. high chance

An important meta point for this one, Arazni is going to be the new member of the Core 20, but she is not taking the portfolio of the dead deity. So, if they kill Rovagug, Arazni would be the new member of the Core 20, but she would not take over any of Rovagug's portfolio or domains. It's not a 1 to 1 replacement.

- Abadar: My personal pick. Killing the god of cities and wealth and whatnot i think is the biggest shake up to the setting. If all the major cities suddenly are no more, and all the wealth gets out of whack, it would make for very interesting setting implications, and someone...

Abadar does have one very big meta reason for not being the one to be killed: If killing Abadar would completely disrupt wealth and currency systems across Golarion, then Paizo would need to publish rules for how to adjust prices of all equipment based on region, settlement size, surrounding country's natural resources, and all the other real-world factors that go into pricing of goods and services. No more "a longsword is 15 sp, no matter if you buy it in Cheliax or Osirion." I don't think adding an economics mini-game to the shopping mini-game would make for an improvement in overall gameplay.

Also, arguably the most major city, Absalom, is the headquarters of the in-world organization that is Paizo's Organized Play Campagin, the Pathfinder Society. I don't think they'd wreck that, which gives Abadar additional meta protection.

While Player Core 1 has fewer spell options, I don't think it's a huge problem yet. There will be plenty more spells in Player Core 2, and even more spells will come out in other sourcebooks down the line. Given that Paizo considers the "Core" rules of the Remaster to be Player Core 1, Player Core 2, GM Core, and Monster Core, they would expect players to eventually utilize the content in those books as their core game and have all of the options in those books (even outside of the online sources).

There's also the fact that some spells that were separate were combined, which contributes to the smaller number of spells. For instance, Player Core 1 no longer has the Web spell, but the Arcane spell list now has access to Entangling Flora (the renamed Entangle), which already had very similar Failure/Critical Failure conditions. Web gave additional options for those trapped in it to get around it via Athletics checks but that isn't a huge loss, since the Arcane spell list still has an option on it that fills the same niche.

I also think you're underestimating the "decision paralysis" of a massive spell list. While this is purely anecdotal, I know multiple people who flat out refused to play casters in PF1 due to how large the spell lists were. Even if you told them to just stick to the core rulebook spells, they still didn't want to do it due to the sheer number of options. When my wife finally did try a caster, she went Inquisitor (so it was spontaneous and a smaller spell list), and she still asked me to curate the list down to a few options each time she got new spells.

Having a smaller spell list in Player Core 1 may be better for the purpose of onboarding a new player who doesn't want to feel too overwhelmed by the amount of choice available. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's better for the game overall, or that it's better for experienced players like, I presume, you and I, but for a newbie? That smaller spell list looks a lot less intimidating, especially since they already had a lot of options for background and all the various kinds of feats.

As to Paizo's PDFs lagging in terms of glossary, clickable links, and searchability, I think that is a problem, and perhaps can be provided to them in the form of feedback here. It might be something they can implement for future PDFs, before going back and updating old ones.

I vote for Run. I'll see if there's something I can do to give us some cover.

Ardriel draws on his magical connection to Yuelral and casts a spell, conjuring a puddle of grease underneath the minotaurs and Staunton Vhane.

Spending 1 Mythic Point to use Wild Arcana and cast grease underneath the all 3 of them (the green square on the map). DC 15 Reflex.

"Grab the dwarf and let's fall back."

That'll do nicely. I will note that you accidentally typed 2d6 damage for the sporting blaster rifle instead of 3d6, but that's a typo, not an issue.

Anyway, due to Robert Henry's decision to withdraw his character, and Koral Dray'ith informing me via PM that they don't have bandwidth for another game, I've got 7 submissions left. That makes this choice really easy. I'm going to accept everyone to the game.

So, everyone, go ahead over to the Discussion thread. You all made it!

Announcement: While submissions are closed later today, if you still have any final adjustments or tweaks to make to your character, either from my notes or anything you aren't happy with, you may do so. I won't make a final selection until Friday.

Current Submissions
Imaginary Crayons - Jaath Rhendal - Human Scoundrel - Complete
Ouachitonian - Zixto - Yaka Jedi - Complete
Storyteller Shadow - Gotal of Umbara - Umbaran Jedi - Complete
Mokmurian the Great - Rilri Tonena - Rodian Soldier - Reviewed
Philo Pharynx - R2-AC "Ace" - 2nd Degree Droid Scoundrel - Reviewed
Jereru - Hasdrubal Praag - Human Soldier - Complete
Codanous - Koral Dray'ith - Ithorian Scout - Reviewed
Robert Henry - LE-M-07d - 2nd Degree Droid Technician - Complete
bigrig107 -Sai'liana'yi Vanyari - Twi'lek Noble - Reviewed

Jereru Correct on both counts.

If I start as a non-Jedi class and then take Jedi class levels later, does that give me the starting lightsaber for free when I take that class?

Can I even acquire a lightsaber without being a Jedi class?

Yes, multi classing Jedi would grant you the lightsaber, as it's a class feature. However, a lightsaber just "showing up" doesn't necessarily fit well with the narrative of the adventure. If you're open to it, you could multiclass Jedi when you want to and then get the free lightsaber later, when it makes more sense from a narrative standpoint. Of course, if you waited to multiclass Jedi until a point where it makes sense for the story, it wouldn't be an issue.

As for acquiring a lightsaber without being a Jedi class, not realistically at the start. A lightsaber costs 3,000 credits base and has an availability of "Rare". This means that typically it can only be acquired directly from the manufacturer, and, if available on the open market, usually costs double the list price (6,000 credits).

@Jereru: The Clone point buys are, in fact, 28 point buy. I did my math wrong, apparently. Clones will not get the extra 3 points, just the array.

@Robert Henry: I will allow the Technician, but the Yuuzhaan Vong Biotech and Malkite Poisoner talent trees are not allowed.

Submitted character reviews to come later today.

That works, too, although I'd make sure that the PCs still have a way to ally with the Sootscales if they are so inclined.

I agree that Tartuccio needs more time to become a credible antagonist. A lot of the PF2 conversion stuck with the PF1 AP story-wise, while incorporating some new content based on the PC game, and the result is that some of the new stuff works, and some of it isn't so good.

I actually just had the idea of replacing Grigori with Tartuccio, as, depending on what the PCs do with Grigori, he's another one who doesn't come back up despite being an annoyance to them. Apart from not being a Bard, I think he could fill the same role fairly well.

My suggestion is to use the standard DC for the party's level, not the Kingdom Control DC, since this happens outside of the Kingdom Building phases.

For the Post Snipers activity, I would go with either Stealth, to make sure they're well hidden, or Survival, to make sure they're in a good location.

Focus spells would be an awkward way to handle “tricks” (I would hope for a different name). They are supposed to be embedded at an earlier point in the day and then activated. As focus powers, you usually make decisions about casting them in the moment.

That's why I stated that they would likely rename them (I suggested Decoy Spells), using the switch from Magus Arcana to Conflux Spells as a previous example of that exact thing. And while you usually make decisions about Focus Spells in the moment, Mesmerist could have a unique way to interact with Focus Spells, kind of like how Psychics have Amps and the Oracle's Focus Spells are tied to their Mystery/Curse.

If you think that would stray too far from the Focus Spell design paradigm, then get rid of the "embedding" mechanic and make them Focus Spells that you can use as a reaction. Same net effect, gets rid of what some consider to be the problematic aspect of the ability, and doesn't require prep on the Mesmerist's part.

RE: Class narrative

"Weaving command of psychic magic with combat prowess, you seek to overcome the challenges before you through careful precision. You utilize your gifts to fool your enemies before delivering a pointed strike that they didn't even see coming, bringing them low even as they wonder how they missed it."

I'm a relatively average writer, so I'm sure someone else could write a better one, but there's a class narrative that has nothing to do with using magic to bend others to your will. The Mesmerist uses psychic magic to set up their combat abilities, similar to how the Magus uses arcane magic to deliver powerful spell strikes. This does assume that Mesmerists are an Occult wave-caster, but that's what people have been hypothesizing in this thread, so I felt it a safe assumption.

I mean, by the nature of this being a player class, the other players are going to be coerced, because if you don't let them mind control you, they've just lost a huge class feature. Its a lose/lose situation.

The tricks also don't have to be "mind control". Take the False Flanker trick:

False Flanker (Occult Adventures pg. 40): A duplicate of the mesmerist appears momentarily, as though he were fighting in tandem with the subject. The mesmerist can trigger this trick when the subject moves into or begins her turn in a square where she threatens an enemy. An illusory duplicate of the mesmerist appears in any unoccupied space adjacent to that enemy. This duplicate counts as threatening the enemy for the purposes of determining flanking, but can’t actually make attacks. The duplicate disappears at the end of the turn during which the trick is triggered. This is an illusion (figment) effect, and a creature that interacts with the false flanker can attempt a saving throw to disbelieve the effect.

This could easily be turned into a Focus Spell that, once triggered, allows the player's attack to be resolved as though their target had the flat-footed condition. There's no mind control there. There are also PF1 Mesmerist tricks that allow the Mesmerist to delay the onset of certain conditions for a creature, grant the benefits of mirror image, and end a fascinate or slumber effect on a creature.

And if a player doesn't want their character to be the subject of the Focus Spells? That's their call. There are other ways to benefit from flat-footed - like actually flanking. No Focus Spell should be so powerful that choosing not to use it actively makes you inferior, even if using it would be optimal (looking at you, Magus with a Psychic dedication).

Narratively, I feel like keeping “tricks” as subconscious triggers embedded in your allies’ brains pushes the class to hang on to its creepier narrative.

To implant a trick, the mesmerist must take a standard action and either touch a willing creature or implant the trick in himself.

They cannot be forced onto your allies. I understand the creep factor of some of the flavor from the PF1 class, but this ability absolutely does not play into that.

And honestly, Mesmerist Tricks would probably be renamed, anyway, since they are exactly the kind of thing Focus Spells were created for. The PF1 Magus had Magus Arcana - the PF2 Magus has Conflux Spells. The PF1 Mesmerist had Mesmerist Tricks - maybe the PF2 Mesmerist gets Decoy Spells.

I actually think this opens up a unique use case for Focus Spells. Mesmerists could be able to embed their Focus Spells in themselves or a willing ally at any time, but they would not be able to regain the Focus Point spent on the Focus Spell until after they activate the embedded Focus Spell. Activating the Focus Spell would require the use of the Mesmerist's reaction, so they would only be able to activate one Focus Spell per round (there could be a class feat that gives them a dedicated reaction for triggering their Focus Spells at higher levels). A given creature could only benefit from one Focus Spell at a time, so that multiple uses can't be stacked onto a single character.

I haven't played around with it, as I'm running it in PF2. I can, however, tell you that based on the date on that blog post, it was written in 2018, which means it might be based on PF1 DCs, as opposed to PF2 DCs. It's probably a good baseline to adapt from, though. Since PF2 DCs are calculated as 10 + X, and 5E DCs are calculated as 8 + X, the suggestion for DC 10 to DC 8 is helpful for establishing a starting point, but the rest of the chart might be a little off.

For adjusting DCs from PF2 to 5E, start by subtracting the level of the party from the DC. That will get you a DC using a more bounded proficiency system, like 5E uses. From there, subtract 10 from the DC to get the base modifier for the DC (since PF2 DCs are 10 + X), then add 8 (since 5E DCs are 8 + X). That will give you the skill check DC in 5E. If you think it looks a little too easy, you can always increase it by one or two points or go the other way and decrease it by one or two points if you think the DC is too hard.

The reason I suggested starting with subtracting the party's level is because in PF2, characters add their levels to skills they're proficient in, and the gulf can widen fairly quickly.

As for Critical Success/Failure, I would first check if your players are on board with it. If they are, then I would suggest starting with +5/-5 as the initial test, and then see if critical successes or critical failures are too common. If they are, then you may want to adjust it to the +10/-10 PF2 uses, instead. Be up front with the players that if it looks like either of those cases is happening too frequently, you'll adjust the critical success/failure DCs accordingly.

Kingmaker is a fun AP, and I hope your party enjoys playing it! I hope you enjoy running it as well, and don't find my wall of text too off-putting.

Swashbuckler - The class fantasy is based around using swords. But really can decompose that further to a flashy showy martial. Why can't I be Legolas doing crazy aerial flips with bow shots on the move? I point it out because its just another example of how trying to have a ranged archer fantasy is constantly punished by PF2e.

You can be Legolas doing crazy aerial flips with bow shots on the move. Elven Fighter or Ranger with Archery feats (either from class, archetype, or both) and the Acrobatics skill or the Acrobat archetype. You don't gain a mechanical benefit from doing so, but you can absolutely be a flashy, showy martial.

When you say "Legolas", I picture an Elven fighter with a bow. When you say "Swashbuckler", I picture Will Turner.

Rage is for barbarians and is states "You deal 2 additional damage with melee Strikes." I'm not sure why you're talking about monks. It wouldn't matter if you were an animal instinct barbarian or not you can't rage and get bonus damage on ranged attacks so the literal main feature doesn't work. Raging thrower can get it on thrown weapons which again is the formula of feat tax to get limited access to your class chassis features, and a big old **** you to non-thrown items.

I was talking about Monks as an example of how ranged unarmed strikes are limited in general. I brought up Animal Instinct because in your original post, you specified that Animal Instinct needed a ranged unarmed attack option. That's where the comparison came from. Yes, Rage doesn't apply to ranged attacks outside a feat tax allowing you to get the benefits on thrown weapons. I don't think is a problem. I think of archery as something that requires concentration and focus, which I find to be very much at odds with the theme of a barbarian's rage. Maybe Paizo brings back the Urban Barbarian in some way, where the Rage is more of a "combat focus" and less "Raar, angry!", and the Urban Barbarian gets the benefit with ranged weapons.

Monk is just another example that has monastic archer stance at L1, wild winds stance at L8 (stance and a focus point), or one of ~4 ranged unarmed strike options from ancestries (i.e., leshy seedpod which is aweful, kitsune foxfire which only goes 20ft so basically a s$$@ty thrown weapon, sprite's spark which is the same as the kitsune option, automaton laser eyes which are okay but a big walking robot isn't quite fantasy, and a L5/L9 fey dryad 2 feat combo for a hair leaf attack that doesn't have a range listed). Again, the formula of spending 1 or multiple feats to get to use baseline class chassis options and they are generally limited to half range which was essentially 30ft (i.e., thrown weapon range) prior to the new monk bow in Treasure Vault.

This just further illustrates my point that Paizo isn't interested in adding ranged unarmed strike options. As for monk only having the option of monastic archer stance or Wild Winds Stance, given that the traditional D&D-style monk has always been unarmed strike focused, I'd chalk this up more to the devs keeping in pace with that tradition than any direct intent to neuter ranged builds.

Inventor isn't an oversight. PF2e designers go out of their way to disengage ranged options from class options. An armour inventor can pick a stealth option which mean you can have a stealthy DEX based sneak and hide kind of build except that you can't because you're immediately at a disadvantage with base class chassis features.

Are you sure it isn't an oversight? Have the devs stated that they intentionally chose to prevent armor inventors from being able to use ranged weapons? Or is it that they just didn't think about it? I'm not particularly inclined to assign intent when Paizo has a history of creating mechanics that they didn't quite fully think through.

Thaumaturge shouldn't need to spend a feat or have special restrictions. Already the reaction on weapon implement is limited to 10 ft, so removing it to allow 1H+ just makes no sense. That damage from things like implement empowerment are again, there to make up for the fact that you only can start with a 16 in your main attack stat. Also, there is no need even talk about the weapon implement. All kinds of thaumaturges want to use a bow without having to pick that implement. Almost none of my thaumaturges want the weapon implement.

That's not entirely true. IE mostly exists to 'compensate' for their weird hand economy. It effectively turns their 1h weapons into 2h ones.

Squiggit addressed the point about IE already. As for Thaumaturges not needing to spend a feat or have special restrictions, I challenge you to go hold a bow in one hand, a cup or book in the other, then draw and shoot an arrow with any kind of accuracy and without dropping anything. That is absolutely something that should require a lot of practice to be able to do competently and be reflected by taking a feat.

I brought up the weapon implement because that seems the natural place to put an option allowing Thaumaturge to use 1H+ weapons. Since the reaction is limited to 10 feet anyway, you could choose weapon implement to gain that reaction (if you chose a melee weapon) OR to be able to use a ranged 1H+ weapon that both counts as the held implement for implement's empowerment and lets you ignore the free-hand prerequisite as long as the weapon implement is the only implement being held.

With respect to the general thought you put. I don't fundamentally disagree. But this is a systemic system bias that is just bad game design IMO. Especially now that we can literally throw boomerangs with 60ft range, returns on a miss, and uses full STR bonus, and no need for a returning rune thanks to the thrower's bandolier. Literally better than a short bow and if that's okay fix the rest of the system.

Perhaps it's just me, but I haven't noticed any systemic system bias against archery, just that some classes have class features that aren't particularly effective when it comes to ranged options. I'm okay with that, personally.

As far as the boomerang goes, it is Uncommon, which means it won't always be available at every table. I personally would have made the boomerang do either d4 B base damage or have a 30 foot range, so I do actually think it's a little overtuned for my taste.

You're not wrong, but that's sort of circular. Swashbucklers aren't ranged characters because their ranged options are super limited.

Yeah, what I typed does read as circular logic. Let me try to clarify. If the Swashbuckler class didn't exist and I wanted to make a Swashbuckler-type character, I'd try to pattern their abilities and combat actions off of someone like Errol Flynn or Jack Sparrow, and probably make a Fighter with good Acrobatics and class feats that focus on dueling or fighting with a free-hand.

Had to dig back to last year's posts to find that stuff.

My PDF copy from September is missing it, as well, so I'd say it was a mistake.

Okay, I was going to type up Sarela's response to Ophelia, and I realized I should probably find out how draconic-looking you were before I commented on your wings or horns.

Prior to recruiting or merging, would there be any objection to going and scaring Timeon with Sir Balin's head in order to collect a little blood from him?

The face to face game I'm playing in every other Sunday runs 5E. I'm hopefully going to be running Kingamaker 2E for another group sometime soon, and I do a decent amount of PbP (both PF1 and PF2).

I don't have a ton of issues switching between systems (apart from occasionally having to look up my feats or abilities). However, I do find 5E character creation rather boring. It just feels like all of your important choices have been made by level 3, with the exception of the Warlock and a couple of archetypes that give you options (like Battle Master Fighter).

I'm also not a fan of Legendary Resistances. It feels like a ham-fisted solution to the "spellcaster ends the fight in one round" problem of D&D 3.X, where as PF2's 4 degrees of success feels like a much more elegant solution. It's still possible for the spellcaster to end the fight in one round, but it's statistically unlikely, at best.

All in all, I don't hate 5E, but I think PF2 is a better, more refined system.

I simmed a few Kingdom Turns, as well. Two things I intend to change:

1) At least until the PCs' Kingdom catches up level-wise with the PCs, I would change either the XP reward for excess RP from 1 XP per RP to 10 XP per RP or lower the amount of XP needed to gain a Kingdom Level. Otherwise it will probably take 4-5 in-game years for the Kingdom to reach level 4 and be ready to start Book 2.

2) I would allow the PCs capital to either have an influence sphere of 1 or to grow into a town before Kingdom Level 3 so they can get an influence sphere of 1. That way they don't have to wait until level 3 before they can build farms.

As lively as the debate is, this isn't the thread for discussing the effectiveness of the PF2 system versus other systems. Perhaps that discussion can be moved to its own thread, instead?

I'd like to see some more skill feats similar to Natural Medicine or Acrobatic Performer. I know PF2 has a lot of niche protection, but I find feats like that can be very fitting on certain themes, plus they open up options for covering certain skill uses that maybe nobody in the party took or plans on keeping up with.

I'd also like to see the spellcasting tradition skills get more utility skill feats similar to Arcane Sense, where you can gain certain non-offensive cantrips as innate spells. That would give non-casters who invest in those skills some pseudomagical abilities, which could help fulfill a magical dabbler-type character concept without needing to investing in a multiclass archetype.

Sure thing. Below the post text box is a spoiler tag titled "How to format your text". If you expand that, it shows you some of the different tags you can use for your text when writing it. For the link, I used the URL tags, which have the format [url = Web Address Goes Here]Name of Website[/url] (eliminate the spaces around the "=" sign for it to resolve properly).

One important thing to note about Google Drive links is that sometimes when you copy and paste the link, a space gets added to the link and then it won't work correctly. lacker pointed out the one here. You can always hit the "Preview" button on your post, then click the link to make sure it's working correctly and find any problems before you hit post.

You also have up to 1 hour after you post to edit, so if you catch a mistake quickly enough, you can fix it.

I'm pretty sure Archives of Nethys is still the official SRD for Pathfinder 2E, so you can always look up a monster from a bestiary you don't have there.

<snip>

Fiery Grasp Your hands swell and grow with lava. You gain a lava fist unarmed attack in the brawling weapon group. Your lava fists deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage as their base damage, plus an additional 2d6 fire damage and 1d6 persistent fire damage.
Heart of Fire Your body's temperature becomes so hot that any creature that touches you, or that hits you with a melee unarmed attack or non-reach melee weapon attack, takes 2d6 fire damage.
<snip>

<snip>

Heart of Ice Your body temperature plummets to blistering cold. Any creature that touches you, or that hits you with a melee unarmed attack or non-reach melee weapon attack, takes 2d6 cold damage.
Icy Claws Your hands morph into vicious, piercing claws of ice useful for attacking or climbing. As long as you have both hands free, you gain a climb Speed equal to your land Speed. You gain a claw unarmed attack with the agile and finesse traits, in the brawling weapon group. Your claw attack deals 1d6 piercing damage as its base damage, plus an additional 2d6 cold damage.
<snip>

I've been following this conversation as it's gone off-track, so I've decided to give my interpretation of both the spells and an answer to the OP's question. I quoted what I consider to be the most relevant parts of the two spells for reference purposes.

For starters, it is my interpretation that the Heart of Ice/Heart of Fire aspect of the spell is a DEFENSIVE ability. I interpret it this way partially because the creature is the one touching you or striking you with a melee unarmed attack or non-reach melee weapon attack. I believe that they phrased it as "the creature that touches you" in order to account for a creature using a spell or ability like Vampiric Touch, which does not call for a spell attack roll but uses similar wording of "You touch", or for combat maneuvers like Grapple or Trip. The other reason I interpret it this way is because both spells give an Offensive option, in the form of Fiery Grasp and Icy Claws. Therefore, I believe that the way the spell is supposed to be used is that if you want to use it offensively, you need to use the Fiery Grasp/Icy Claws option. Heart of Ice/Heart of Fire can only be used defensively.

That being said, I also noticed up above that you said your GM has already agreed with your interpretation of how the spell should work. That being the case, since most of the people in the thread have disagreed with your interpretation, your GM would be the best person to ask how many times per round the damage from Heart of Fire/Ice should be dealt if you're grappling someone. I say this because I agree with the interpretation that the damage is not dealt if YOU are the one initiating the grapple.

That being said, if you were BEING grappled by a creature, I would apply the damage for each action the creature took that met the trigger, up to its normal number of actions. I imagine that most creatures would rather quickly decide that attacking the thing that's burning them is a bad idea, and go focus on someone/thing else, unless they were resistant to the damage type.

TL;DR - Most of the people in this thread disagree with your interpretation, including myself. Since you and your GM agree with your interpretation, ask your GM how often it will apply. If I were a supporter of your interpretation, I would only allow the damage to apply once per round, when you maintain the grapple. It may not be the most satisfying answer for you or the one that "makes sense", but I think it's the more balanced answer. Your GM may feel differently.

1. Deprioritize Nyrissa

She's going to be less of a final villain and more of a mid-game villain. She lives in the Thousandvoices forest rather than Thousandbreaths. Rather than the plotline of the Apology, her heart (Briar) is merely being held by Irovetti, and immediately after the players retrieve it, they can return it to Nyrissa or attempt to slay her with it.

So what is Nyrissa now, what're her actions and whats her motivation? I...don't really know, to be honest. As mentioned in point 8, I'm removing the Bloom entirely (very cool but not a great fit for my players). She's influenced the Stag Lord and Hargulka, but I'm not sure to what end.

I'll have to do a lot of thinking on the other things, but my thought here for Nyrissa's motivations don't need to change that much. It's less about the Apology, and more about just wanting her heart (Briar) back. When the Eldest removed her heart, they set a curse on it so that if she tried to steal it or take it by force, it would immediately vanish and be hidden in a random spot. It can only be returned to her if someone gives it to her willingly. She initially thought she could use Irovetti to those ends, but he chose to keep it instead of returning it to her. So now, she's trying to influence Hargulka, the Stag Lord, and anyone else she can find into going to war with Irovetti in the hopes that they will claim Briar and give it to her. You could even make her an indirect ally of the PCs - she can't take direct action against Irovetti, but she can still find surreptitious ways to help them. That would allow you to work in a bit of the early CRPG stuff with Nyrissa, where she seems to be helping the PC.

Instead of the owlbear attack at the end of Book 2 being caused by Nyrissa, instead make the bandit an agent of Irovetti's. Irovetti figures that if the owlbear attack wipes out the PC's capital, their kingdom will collapse and they won't be a threat anymore.

Anyway, just some thoughts on how you can adjust Nyrissa's motivation and actions without having to do too much work - you're already rewriting Chapters 10 and 11, after all.

There is no 1E to 2E conversion document for Kingmaker specifically. The Kingdom Rules are completely different, and 2E is very different from 1E.

If you go to this thread, there is a conversion guide there that can help with converting the 1E PDFs into 2E.

I've flagged the post to be moved into the correct forum.

I think you've got the build down fairly well. I'm not super into Lord of the Rings, but a battle against Sauron at the height of his power should definitely be the climax of an epic campaign.

I concur that that is probably a mistake in Amiri's stat block, and the level 11 version should be AC 29.

4th Level. As for getting any resources, there is nothing at either the end of Chapter 3 or the beginning of Chapter 4 about the PCs getting any resources besides the charter. There is also nothing in the appendix with the Kingdom Building rules, either. It looks like the only benefit to having Restov's support is the Charter itself, save for the Open charter.

It would not be unreasonable for you to rule that Restov provides some limited material support, such as 1 of each commodity or one or two bonus resource dice for the first couple of kingdom turns.

Reverting to the 1E format would help increase suspense, but Villamor still wins automatically. He has enough damage/high enough to hit that he can still wreck a log in one hit, he just now has to Stride in between logs. Rage lasts the entire time, so figure he destroys one log every odd-numbered Round, then 2 logs every even-numbered round, for 15 logs total by the time it's over.

Any ideas about Villamor's Jousting strategy? It just doesn't make any sense as written.

I would just ignore the recommendation that he use Knockback, and have him focus on just doing harm to the PC.

I don't think there's any hard guidance on this. Perpdepog's reading makes the most sense from an in-world finance standpoint. It does mean that purchasing a scroll of Raise Dead is more expensive than just casting it yourself, so if the party has a PC with access to the spell, they'll probably just buy the necessary diamonds and cast it themselves.

For a simpler direction, you could just have a scroll cost the same as any other scroll of the same level, but because raise dead is an Uncommon spell, make it harder to find for purchase, requiring a check of some kind. This option has the advantage of the party not deciding to sell a scroll they found for a huge wealth spike because they don't need it right now, and they might be too high level when they do need it. I don't know how many parties would do that, but I figure there are probably some out there.

If your group is interested in trying 2E, I absolutely think you should give the AP a try in 2E.

There are a lot of differences from 1E to 2E, but most of the changes are fairly well explained, and the 3-action economy is a massive improvement over 1E.

The hardest part of moving to 2E, I've found, is that 2E is much more focused on the group's tactics as opposed to individual character builds. Character optimization is much less important, and a highly optimized character isn't significantly better than a non-optimized character. If your players work well together already, they shouldn't have too much of an issue. If they typically each do their own thing in combat and don't usually work together, then the learning curve will be much steeper and they'll probably struggle a bit at the outset until they learn how to work together. It's important that they communicate with each other about their characters' abilities and figure out a way to use them in concert.

Since everyone would be new to the system, don't be afraid to let someone who's unhappy with their character rebuild the character or retrain some aspects of their character for free. It's more important that everyone have fun.

I brought this up here. You can see James Jacobs' responses to this exact concern. Essentially, my read is that the intent is that you either always prep Supernatural Solution or Creative Solution to allow you to use a skill you are actually trained in in order to deal with Events for skills you aren't Trained in.

I do think there should be other ways to train additional skills, but that is how the system is designed.

Thank you for the feedback! I absolutely did not expect you, James Jacobs, to chime in, but I do appreciate your doing so.

it sounds like what you're worried about is an unwinnable event working its way into your game.

This is a large part of the concern - that a series of bad rolls just dooms the PCs' Kingdom over the course of 3 or 4 Kingdom turns, and then the players lose interest in playing. I don't want to completely ignore Events that use Skills the players haven't Trained, but if the PCs don't train additional Kingdom Skills, there may be a lot of Events they struggle in dealing with. It's a hard balance on both the part of the GM and the players.

3. This solution would make your kingdom more powerful and agile in skills, so it would make the kingdom rules easier, yes. But it would also create an optic that the "right" way to play the game is to have as many PCs as possible, which isn't the best solution. Any RPG gets clunky and grinds if you have too many players at the table, or too many characters, becasue the more characters you have in a session, the shorter amount of time each gets in the spotlight to do things during the game (unless you expand your play session length in real time to build in more time for more players). If you want to give your kingdom more skills, I'd suggest instead allowing each player to pick 2 skills but still limit them to 4 characters total.

Question 3 was largely because I expect to have more than 4 players. I noticed in the Companion Guide that certain Companions automatically Invest certain Leadership roles if they are placed in those roles. Since that would seem to imply that more than 4 roles being invested is not unbalancing, I was wondering if allowing each player to Invest their chosen role would be unbalancing to avoid one or two players feeling like their character(s) is(are) less important than the others. I don't anticipate using the Companion Guide due to the number of players I expect I'll have, so that wouldn't be a factor.

4. It would unbalance it in the same way as 3, by giving your kingdom more skills than expected, and since a kingdom is more than just humans, it kind of makes it feel like humans are the "Best" at running nations, which some groups will find gross.

I also did not intend for this to mean "Humans can choose two skills", but rather, "The feat can grant two Trained skills" regardless of the PC's Ancestries, just using Skill Training as the previously existing example.

The best way to avoid this is to NOT roll those events randomly, but instead pick and choose them. This has a lot of advantages, and not just by letting you curate the events to things that you feel your players will enjoy being challenged by. If you pick events ahead of time, you can foreshadow them. If you know you've got a Crop Failure event coming up next month, then let the PCs know that they've heard rumors about blights in the fields, or a water shortage, or that they keep finding locusts in their shoes or something so when the event happens it feels like "oh we saw this coming" and not "Well that was out of the blue!"

I don't want to completely discard the randomness, since unexpected events can sometimes lead to memorable encounters, but what I could do is curate a more limited list of kingdom events to roll from, depending on the Kingdom size and whether the Kingdom is having a rough time or not. That would allow me to avoid having too many kingdom encounters that target Untrained Kingdom skills in a row, which might help keep things from spiraling out of control. Thank you for this!

NielsenE, thank you for your advice as well. I don't have time to do a full reply to you for this, but I wanted to let you know I did see it and appreciate it.

I've been looking over the Kingdom Building Rules, and I've noticed that you start with 6 skills trained total (2 from Government, 4 additional). I assume the intent is that you're expected to take the Skill Training Kingdom feat several times to train additional skills, but since each Event has a specific skill that needs to be rolled in order to resolve it, at higher Control DCs that could result in events that always end badly for the PCs because they're Untrained in the skill. I had some questions about modifications to the Kingdom Skill rules:

1. Has anyone given thought to providing an alternative Kingdom skill for each Event, possibly with a DC adjustment? Do you think that would unbalance the ruleset?

2. What if the PC in the Leadership role making the check has the Untrained Improvisation feat? Would you allow them to apply its benefits to the Kingdom Skill checks using skills the Kingdom is Untrained in?

3. I think the Kingdom Building Rules are written with the expectation you have 4 PCs. If you had more than 4 PCs in leadership roles, would it be unbalancing to allow them to choose additional Trained Kingdom Skills, one for each PC? The same question applies to Investing additional Kingdom Skills beyond the base 4 so every player can choose one.

4. Since Humans have the Skill Training Ancestry feat that allows them to train two skills, would you consider it unbalancing to rework the Skill Training Kingdom feat to allow the party to choose to train two Kingdom Skills when they take it, instead of one?

5. What about allowing Retraining of Kingdom Skills gained through either level-based Skill Increases or through the Skill Training Kingdom feat? While the initial skills can't be retrained, would you allow the players to retrain those skills?

Basically, if the PCs don't invest in additional Kingdom Skills beyond their initial choices, I see a lot of potential for their Kingdom to completely collapse if they have a few bad Event rolls that target skills they haven't invested in being Trained. Given how central the Kingdom is to Kingmaker, if the PCs are actively engaged in running their Kingdom (not Kingdom in the Background), I don't want the Kingdom collapsing to cause the campaign to come to an end, and these are just some ideas I had that might prevent that.

I return! Work finally eased up enough for me to pop in, now that we've hired a new person. I should be good to go for resuming the game.

"Gildevar, hold still a moment. I've got a little something for you." She reaches out and places a hand on his head, concentrating a moment, setting up a little something to help the priest out.

I am using my Misdirection Mesmerist Trick on Gildevar. I'll trigger it on his first attack roll against a cobra, and I'll pre-roll the Bluff check for it to keep things moving.

Bluff for Misdirection: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (16) + 9 = 25

Perception: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (11) + 4 = 15

Looking over the room, she too, notices the cobras. Leveling her scimitar at one of the small ones, she says, "Timeon said metal cobras. The big one is, I think, a distraction to draw attention away from the little ones so they can sneak up on us." Grimacing, she continues, "Also, I suspect that many of my abilities will be less than useful against these metal cobras, particularly if they do not have minds for me to affect or blood to spill."