Plane's page

Never read anything about it. Assumed it was just a dogslicer with the cutouts packed with explosives that blow up when you hit someone with it.

Hard as iron,
Sharp as steel,
Stop for no man,
You better beg to kneel!

As I destroy,
Last thing you'll hear me cry,
Is victory,
IS VICTORY!
>>>>>

Don't fall into the stereotype of being a joke. Get hard!

...the bleed returns immediately.

...bleed damage will return...

The argument for bleed returning immediately is only supported by your insertion of the word "immediately" or "next round" into the rule. It's not in the poison description, but inexplicably you keep adding it.

I get that you think this line must mean something more, so here's a way to think about why it might be in the description other than author error or poor writing:
Most effects that apply persistent bleed follow bleed's rule that once you heal to full, the bleed is removed. This poison is saying that doesn't end the poison.

Agree with NorrKnekten, the poison obeys the general rule of applying effects on stage interval. If this poison were intended to break with that, it would state an alternative time interval to re-apply bleed. It does not. You keep adding it yourself.

I don't think this thread will progress past this difference in interpretation unless both sides understand the grammar tenses being used and what events truly fulfill them.

Trip, even when logic shows the RAW reading of the rule, you're not accepting it, because you believe the re-statement of the normal rules means something different must be happening. That's the definition of an RAI argument. You insist that it must mean something more, even when the math shows that it's completely not intended to do that much damage.

The existence of a line that can be read like it just repeats normal rules is not evidence that it is more than just normal rules.

This. Over and over.

However, that is not what this discussion is about. This is trying to interpret how the poison works RAW, and specifically what that bit of problematic rules text entails. Reading that line, it says the bleed returns if the poison's duration is ongoing, so as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. That is the RAW reading of that line.

You are 100% correct in what you have just said except for the portion in bold. However, you are hung up on a logic flaw in your conclusion that the poison must return immediately.

Nowhere in the poison does it say when it must return. It does not in fact say as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. You incorrectly believe that it must be the next round or immediately. The poison text says, "the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing."

Here's your logic error: The return statement holds true if the bleed damage returns at the next stage. It does not become false if the bleed does not return in 1 round.

For those of you arguing that this poison makes you bleed every round automatically:

This poison is L10. It is virulent.
An affected person will have to make two consecutive successful saves to reduce the affliction by 1. Saves are done at the end of a stage, so every minute.

In the typical case when someone is afflicted by this poison, they will automatically endure two Stage 1 effects: 3d6 bleed (and Drained 1 making it harder to make the poison's fort save)
Average dmg/round: 10.5
Number of rounds/minute: 10
Average dmg/stage1: 105 x 2 for virulent = 205

You're arguing that this poison does 205 points of damage and cannot be mitigated. For 200gp (pocket change at L10), this would be the greatest damaging effect in the game gold piece for gold piece.

No way.

L11 Blightburn Resin is 225gp
Saving Throw DC 30 Fortitude; Onset 1 minute; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 6d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 2 7d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 3 9d6 poison damage (1 round)

It is not Virulent, so let's compare properly to the above example by requiring 1 successful save:
Average dmg/round: 21
Number of rounds/round: 1
Average dmg/stage1: 21

Even if you double that, it's only 20% as much damage as the lower level poison.

Don't get hung up on phrasing even when it's rules text. BotMG doesn't do anything differently from any other poison, despite that weird sentence. It doesn't say when to re-apply Bleed, so it clearly happens like any other poison - at stage time. The math supports that for its level.

NortKnekten is correct according to how Pathfinder writes its rules. The poison says the bleed will return. True. Nothing says when the bleed will return, so it defaults to normal poison behavior. When the next stage triggers, if the poison is not resisted and cleared, bleed is applied. Thus, the addition of the sentence with bleed returning is meaningless and unnecessary.

If the sentence said the bleed returns in one round, that would be a different story, but it does not. This is already a virulent poison. No need to make it any worse.

Remember, the remaster was to disconnect Pathfinder from DND. Not republishing a spell doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't viable. It means the name had to go. That's certainly the case for these spells. Maybe Paizo didn't have time to rewrite them yet.

You're welcome to use them in your games though. Some groups use the remastered version where one exists, but if a spell doesn't have that, then do what you like.

Meanwhile, check out the remastered version.

There are more ways to become immune to death effects than being undead. Can the spell target an undead? No. Can it target someone protected by a death ward? Yes.

The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.

This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions.

Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese.

Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character:

- "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe gets within 5' of me." - Yes
(In both of these cases, the foe can continue their movement if they have some left.)
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe ends their movement in reach of me." - No, that's a player-observable game mechanic not a character-observable narrative moment.

Spell called Paralyze causes paralysis. I wouldn't roll a save if the target is immune to paralysis. I would tell the caster they're completely unaffected so it's clear. Trying to argue the target would be stunned by this spell on a successful save is classic rules lawyering.

Well, you're solving the problem, but at level 4 you're also adding a big bonus to the companion. I think making it level 2 without the companion rage would be fine. Most groups use free archetype now, so it synergizes well. You could get beastmaster and this at the same time and make your build come online.

Consider a line of feats to share rage and enhancements at a higher level. I would drop it from this feat.

Because that is what all the "good" examples past level 5 or so boil down to.

That hasn't been my experience. After each casting of a summon, I give it a score of 1-5 for effectiveness and track the trend on a spreadsheet. My scores average 4.2 (with 5 being the most effective). I might be a high performer, but for me summons are not a wasted top rank slot. If you pick a good creature for the situation, I haven't found it hard to achieve an effective result compared to on level P2 spells.

I'm playing my second wizard who uses summons, and I'm happy with the outcomes. There are levels where attacks and athletics are good. There are cool spells you can leverage from your summons. There are nice 2A abilities you can get off on round 1. Folks complain about the 3A cost to do a summon, but a better way to think about it is 2A for casting it and 1A to command it do 2 actions of its own right away. That's pretty fair.

They also waste enemy actions with 100%+ effectiveness. Sure, they can get taken out easily, but they can also get lucky and last a whole fight, especially with clever play. Hits on a summon don't require healing and waste the enemy's 0 MAP attack.

If you like details and research, it's easy to build a list of summons and what they can do for you. Then it's not hard to pick one that's ideal for a situation. I like this sort of thing, and it's one of the reasons I like wizard.

I have reasonable expectations that a summon is not an I-win button and won't outshine anyone. I also view that as a challenge to try to apply them as smartly as possible to get a lot out of them. Summons are sweet in that context.

Sounds like cheese when you apply the same logic to different scenarios.

You have an ability that imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks against you for a round. An enemy attacks you with an ability that gives them a +1 circumstance bonus to hit. You think their +1 should be treated as the same thing as your -2 and nullify it?

No, it makes sense to treat penalties and bonuses as different things.

Here's 4 reasons why monster entries in the Bestiaries have more rules text than they do flavor text...

Thank you for adding that background to the conversation. It's always excellent to hear directly from your team on the reasoning behind publications.

As a GM, I absolutely never write an ending to an encounter that nullifies player agency. Being able to change the world and affect the story is the one thing tabletop beats computer games at. Some degree of nudging can be expected so that the party is able to engage with content, but the less of it, the more of what's special about tabletop can be enjoyed. When it goes beyond that, it's railroading.

A sustain focus spell with a useful 1A effect is wonderful. It raises the bar for wizard focus spells and is long overdue.

If your turn is after a martial, they can end their turn next to a foe more safely. You can move them back forcing the foe to waste an action reengaging. If it's a reach fighter, that opens up a reactive strike synergy. If it's a shield user, they can raise their shield for 3rd action, and you can scoot them away.

If no foes have a turn between you, you can move your martial into reach of a foe to let them start their turn attacking. No move action needed.

If someone is injured, you could move them back, possibly to a healer. Then you could also move someone into place to block the fire foe from reaching them.

It could constantly be a useful option.

I hear a lot of "it's not supposed to do that," "it's not supposed to increase damage," "that's what picks are supposed to do."

None of that is written anywhere. To me you come off as an adversarial GM. It boils down to this:

Two enemies are side by side, which let's pause right here, is not common... and your axe player can get into reach of both of them, which pause again, puts them in risk of high damage... and in this situation where they've invested in a feat and invested in the CRIT spec of axe, and they happen to score a crit, you disable the CRIT spec effect of axe, because... pick, because target, because you personally think your player having a feel great moment with their axe isn't how the game should be played?

The game isn't that fragile. You don't need to protect its integrity by dying on this hill. Let your player have their moment and celebrate it. I would feel robbed if I were your player, and I'd probably find another game if the GM were rules lawyering against me with "target" wording.

Hi, GM. You are wrong in several ways.

First, axe crit damage is only the weapon die. It's a small bonus for scoring a crit. It's not close to pick crits.

Second, you are singling out axe to shut down its crit effect. I can't guess why, but think about the non-swipe scenario.
1. Solitary target crit - No effect. Axe is poor in that regard.
2. Crit on a target beside another foe - The other foe takes weapon damage die damage.

Now, you're saying that because of wordage in Swipe that somehow axe crits stop working against targets beside each other. It doesn't make sense. You should support your player trying to make this very situational and niche weapon attack work. Give them the damage and be happy for them if they are ever in a scenario to use the feat and manage to score a crit. Avoid being adversarial.

What's Oracle systems for the GM?

The idea that I've seen even one episode of Mandalorian is presumptive!

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I already heard from JJ.

It's a runelord collaboration with the Mandalorian. Baby Yodas are the new ancestry.

Started playing in the 1980s and D&D with the red box, then went through all editions while also playing other games like Call of Cthulhu...

Ditto. We were up to 3.5 heeavily modified in a Mystara campaign when one of our teen players mentioned one day that he was playing Pathfinder, and it was awesome. Ok. So I checked it out and was really impressed. We converted and switched for the rest of the campaign. Everyone was happy.

4.0 came out. I read it. I read it twice. Nope. If I want to play WoW, I wouldn't do it on tabletop.

I was so impressed with Paizo and P1, that I committed to P2 for the playtest and beyond. It is the most elegant version of D20 I have ever seen, yet if you had shown it to me in the early 80s, I would have recognized it as the same game I loved. It's such a win to have it. I can see myself playing it for a long time.

And I already really dislike surface-only spells in this game full of flying enemies. Then people start saying ground isn't a surface...

LOL

The ground or floor is fine. They are incontrovertibly a surface and usually flat. A vine could come out of them just as easily as a wall, and if history has proved anything, you can crush people against the ground just fine.

It's a primal spell. I wouldn't even care if the ground weren't flat. There's no point trying to limit this spell except to be antagonistic.

Devaluing gold by artificially injecting more in to the supply chain.

Or a much weirder interpretation:
As the value of a given mass of gold goes down via increased supply from your repeated spell casting, the spell will slowly start to yield a larger mass of gold to maintain that constant worth of 2d6gp.

Hilarious! Townsfolk eventually have to pay people to haul the gold clutter away, switching the value of gold negative, at which point the next casting floods the multiverse with gold drowning all life in pure, flaky gold sin.

Assuming TheyDidTheMath correctly,

The second wand would only take 103 days to earn. We're at 219 days.
3rd - 93 (312 days)
4th - 84 (396 days)

We're starting to pick up speed here. Let's spend another year at the grind. It only takes an hour of time per day, so it's not like a job, more like a hobby.

5th - 77 (473 days)
6th - 71 days (544 days)
7th - 66 days (610 days)
8th - 62 days (672 days)
9th - 58 days (730 days)
10th - 55 days (785 days)

In 2 years and 2 weeks, you could assemble 10 wands. Using those alone, you could earn 70gp per day which is over 25,000gp per year. Those numbers don't seem very boring for an hour of "work" per day, then a few minutes once you have the wands.

Look into the most OP L1 feat in the game, Scroll Thaumaturgy. It's not draw for free, but it's hold in your weapon hand for free.

If you argument is that you should let someone say they are rolling Lore instead of a "regular" knowledge skill, I can agree with that, in the sense that it might let someone roll using int, rather than wisdom. Which I'm fine with that part.

As you note, the GM sets the DC and whether or not there is an adjustment.

And all I'm saying is, I'm not going to give an adjustment that reduces the DC if you're using Untrained Improvisation.

The whole idea of lore skills reducing the DC is kind of "hey, you're investing in this skill that isn't broadly useful, and for doing so we're going to throw you a bone on these specialty topics".

To me, arguing you should get the same benefit from Untrained Improvisation is where I have the problem, because you could argue that you have literally every specific lore you could imagine and have the bonus from Untrained Improvisation. It's simply too much. Call it bad vibes if you like.

This is it.

Because it's so hard to predict damage type, I would prefer to use chain and reduce crits for all damage types. However, there isn't a worthwhile heavy option.

I would allow the spellcaster of the group to try to restore it by magical experimentation in a lab. A wizard could use arcana (Difficulty: Legendary) for example with a DC of the original effect. On a critical fail, I would extend the duration by 1-3 days. I would let them try with only master level in the skill but extend the duration by 1 week on a crit fail instead.

Foundry runs P2 mechanics as close to flawlessly as possible. It's an upfront price, not a subscription. It's under constant development to keep it up-to-date with new content.

Try a game someone's hosting on Foundry to experience it yourself for free. Once you get it, there's no going back to any other system.

The problem that people have with the Fury Instinct is that not only is it lacking in any unique mechanics, as you would expect, but it is also the weakest at the level of shared Barbarian mechanics, and to compensate, it gets... nothing.

Although I enjoyed RPing my fury barbarian, I demonstrated 6 levels of advantage for my playstyle that was only possible with fury and that had advantages over the other subclasses.

Unique advantages of my build:
1) Allowed demoralize without sacrificing the sole L1 Barb feat - This is a strong advantage for the lizard folk's Threatening Approach [two-actions] Effect: You Stride to be adjacent to a foe and Demoralize that foe. If you succeed, the foe is frightened 2 instead of frightened 1.
2) Allowed for darkvision and acute scent 30' by L2 - Impossible for any other subclass without sacrificing Sudden Charge or their L1 feat choice.
3) Grants STR dmg bonus to Athletics maneuvers (a focus of the build) via L6 feat almost impossible for other subs to acquire. Reactive Strike is more common when not getting the L6 Barb capstone. RS is also an early option for this build.
4) d8 dmg + versatile PSB + free hand + shield + 2-target attack (0 map, +1 circ). No AC penalty. Not possible with giant (requires weapon so either no free hand or no shield).

Unique advantage of Fury in general:
1) Only class in the game that can start with up to three L1 class feats.

Folks are making it a point to mark it as unequivocally sub-optimal, but it's not true. The extra feat enables build combos with your ancestry and archetypes that are not possible with the higher damage mod subclasses. P2 is widely acclaimed for unique combinations hitting above their Dmg mods. For players interested in building something unique, it has a distinct advantage.

Fun. Optimized. Sub-optimal. I think we're missing the point of what options enable. It's easy to argue that Giant beats Fury, but what if I have a different goal than move, biggest possible damage strike? You can still argue that other subs have Fury beat, but here's an example of a "monster" I played my way. Fury enabled it to come online very quickly.

- Lizard folk, frilled for its demoralizing approach
- 1d8 jaw attack - No, I didn't want to reflavor snake for a larger damage type. I wanted to be a lizard folk monster and use its own attacks.
- L1 Barb feat: Acute Vision - Again, on theme of wanting him to be a primal lizard monster with Darkvision
- L1 Barb feat: Raging Intimidation - This extra feat enabled him to both get amped senses (darkvision) and demoralize as a rage action while L1. He gets free skill feats which free him up for focusing on his other pursuits.
- L2 Barb feat: Acute Scent - On theme. He has monster senses to smell hidden creatures.
- L3 picks up lizard Tail attack - Only d6 but it's bludgeon and Sweep
- L4 Barb feat: Swipe - My monster's natural, versatile attacks are improved. +1 circ bonus to make 1 roll to hit 2 adjacent targets. Jaw is for single targets. Swipe is available commonly in tight rooms with multiple foes. When team saw these ops, I got guidance for a +1 status bonus on top. That's easy to achieve fighter-level accuracy and 2 crits for 1 roll.
- L6 Barb feat: Brutal Bully/Reactive Strike - While other builds might be investing in their 6th level capstone, I got BB. With a free hand and a shield, I was frequently doing athletic maneuvers. This added consistent damage every round. You could instead take RS ahead of the other builds.

You can absolutely make a case that a human snake animal barbarian does this build better or that it's generally sub-optimal. However, Fury enabled it to have all the things I needed to be optimal in the ways I wanted: Enhanced senses (dark vision, scent), demoralize, able to take advantage of multiple natural attacks (S/P/B), shield + free hand + non-arm natural attacks, multi-target attacks, and athletics maneuver dmg.

The other subs would have sacrificed some options, delayed others, and they tend to focus on other abilities. Fury enables builds that want more L1 feats. Was this build more effective than a giant who just Sudden Charged and smacked everything? I don't know. It was the top damage dealer and controller in melee plus demoralizer, and it had a lot of options in any given round even at low levels. It was definitely more fun for me to play than another sub-class, because as a player, I need a lot of options. This delivered from L1.

Heck of a fun build and enjoyed the RP to boot.

Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn’t take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at the GM’s discretion, if it’s holding a simple, lightweight object that’s not a weapon).

What you can and can't do with a shield under certain conditions is clear from this passage.

What is not clear is "strapped." I think there's a reasonable expectation that it means there is a strap or straps on the inside of the shield. Your arm goes through them. I think it's clear from the above section, "you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free." that the strap is expected to keep the shield equipped on your arm even if you want to use that hand for something else. You would lose the shield's benefits if it fell on the ground, so of course the strap keeps the shield on your arm even if your hand isn't wielding it.

Where there continues to be an unknown about shields is what does strapping and unstrapping require? There is no mention of strapping shields anywhere else in core. Does it take any action to strap? To unstrap? What if you want to drop your shield? Can we assume it's no action for either since it isn't defined or mentioned as being 1 action or a free action? If you score a critical success to disarm someone of their shield, it says, "the object falls to the ground in the target's space." Strapping doesn't say it has any effect. It's just mentioned in the text as a requirement. Disarm specifically says objects fall. I assume disarm wins, but it's weird not knowing if straps are supposed to do anything beyond keep the shield on your arm while you use your hand for something else.

It would be nice to have more explanation added about what "strapped" means like, "Shields are automatically strapped when wielded and unstrapped when dropped. Interacting with straps does not require any actions. Straps only keep the shield on your arm while using your hand for other activities but have no other effect." As is, it creates confusion.

I enjoyed reading the sentiments on this thread. Thematically, summoning things out of nothing is not my first thought when imagining necromancers, but making mechanics easier in practice is understandable.

The class is unique and fun, and I agree there's huge potential to make this plants, constructs, astral forces, or whatever you dream up. I think it's a huge space for a third party publisher to expand upon.

Overall, I'm not disappointed in the theme of class name. I'm more interested in how you can wield the new mechanics. In that regard, it's looking great so far, Paizo.

The drivethrurpg discord has a Looking for Work channel. You can check that out.

No matter the platform, building a portfolio requires writing. Write your own material. Have it available to share with publishers. Start an easy build website to post it. Try publishing on Pathfinder Infinite. Learn by doing not by waiting for opportunities.

In Abomination Vaults, you are going to face a lot of cramped combats. Skipping AC isn't going to work. I don't recommend trying. You'll have much more fun with on par AC. Personally, I dump con a lot. You can get by without a lot of hp (False Life lasts 8 hours, 12gp on a scroll). You can't get by without AC in AV.

In that case what is a good sturdy instrument that our barbarian can use to rhymically and soundlessly batter down the door or break the interrogated prisoner?

Upright piano

Or if you want to go ludricrous (unlike the above obviously):
Cathedral pipe organ
Earth harp
Five meter drum

I got a little further and found another issue tied to Arcane Evolution.

Greater Physical Evolution, L12 Sorcerer feat
Prerequisites Arcane Evolution or Primal Evolution

You change form readily. Once per day, you can use a sorcerer
spell slot to cast any common polymorph battle form spell of the
spell slot’s rank as if it were a signature spell in your repertoire.
You can use the extra spell slot from either Arcane Evolution or
Primal Evolution instead of a sorcerer spell slot.
>>>>>

So far as I can interpret, there's no extra spell slot from Arcane Evolution. How is this supposed to work for an arcane sorcerer?

I'm confused by the terminology of how this L4 Sorcerer feat is written in the remaster.

Your arcane legacy allows you to perceive how magic affects everything. You become trained in one skill of your choice. Additionally, you can use arcane arts to tinker with your selection of spells. During your daily preparations, you can choose one spell in your spell repertoire to be a signature spell that day. You can use the Learn a Spell activity to add more arcane spells to the list you choose from, but if you prepare a spell that isn’t in your repertoire, you temporarily add it to your repertoire at the spell rank of your choice instead of making it a signature spell.

Reading carefully through this, I see three benefits. The third is the one I'm not parsing well.

The terminology in three doesn't seem to match the class. "You can use the Learn a Spell activity to add more arcane spells to the list you choose from..." Sorcerers don't have a list they choose from. They have a repertoire. What does this mean?

Then it continues, "...but if you prepare a spell that isn't in your repertoire, you temporarily add it to your repertoire..." Sorcerers don't prepare spells. What is it referring to? How long is temporarily?

Are people interpreting benefit 3 not to be a separate benefit but further explanation of benefit 2? So instead of getting a free signature spell from your repertoire, you could pick another spell from the arcane list as a non-signature spell? If so, why is it written this way? When it says you can add more "arcane spells" (plural), does that mean it's not limited to one? Learn a Spell says it takes one hour per spell rank to learn, and you must pay the price on the Learning a Spell table. Does that mean if you want to add a 5th level spell to your repertoire, you have to spend 5 hours during your daily preparation and pay 70gp and then it's only temporarily added until your next daily preparation?

I would appreciate hearing folks' opinions on how they're parsing this, thanks!

Balkoth, P2 is the right kind of crunchy. Think of it as "sustainable" crunch. You can plan out awesome, collaborative characters and effective combos that give your team the edge. There are endless ways to do that, so the crunch options are really fun.

You can give your team the edge, but you can't press the auto-win button by spamming a tactic like P1. Grapple will rarely shut down a foe for more than 1 round, but even on a success, it gives you and your team a round to deploy more effective combos -or- it strips actions from your enemy while increasing their MAP (multi-attack penalty). In the action economy battle, that's a solid win with a big attack debuff.

Combine grapple with higher level maneuvers, and you're not only doing all of the above but inflicting damage and other debuffs as well. Deployed against a foe with weak or weakened Fortitude, it's significant.

The crunch is excellent, especially because it's not overpowered. Your players will get it if they explore the system further.

That is correct. It does spell out that it goes to +3 instead of +1.

Bonuses of the same type don't stack. If you get a +2 circumstance bonus from one effect, it overrides any +1 circumstance bonuses you get from other effects.

Reposition and Shove seem like the same thing, but there are significant differences.

Shove is limited in direction. You are pushing your target away from you. That's a limitation that Reposition doesn't have. On the plus side, you can follow the target, and you can push them off a cliff. The downside means that if you want to push your target into an obstacle, you may have to move into the right square to set it up.

Reposition on the other hand allows you to move the target anywhere within your reach. That's its flexibility. You can't move with your target, and you can't push them off a cliff which meets the definition of an obstacle without any mental gymnastics. If that doesn't seem useful to you, think about pulling them between you and a nearby ally for instant flanking without having to move, trigger reactions, or do anything to set it up. It only costs 1 action.

Pertaining to armor, it makes no logical sense as written. Maybe the phrase was added as they were thinking about shields. On a critical hit, it is intended to do full 3d6 acid damage to the shield potentially breaking it before the shield can be used to shield block the hit. That would be a cool effect.

Why hasn't it been mentioned in errata? Was the wording so bad that they can't make heads or tails of what was intended, and no one remembers how it was supposed to work so they're not bothering? I don't know. I will err on the side of the player on this one. It's so situational, I would feel bad to try to limit the rune against the player.

Physical copies have been expensive. The costs have only gone up. I didn't bother with a physical copy of my last publication. The cost of proofs for originals and updates isn't worth it on a small scale.

Paizo is able to access discounts from their scale, but they also have to handle distribution and accommodate markup. I don't know how they're able to do it in this industry. I'm happy to send them my money to support P2, and I wish them all the success. I'm fortunate enough to be old and able to afford it, but I understand everyone has to make decisions about how to invest their resources. If you like the hobby, recognize that it's a high cost, low margin industry. Even if you only purchase pdfs, that's a great way to support Paizo. If you go for books, know that they're not making more off of them, and it's a lot more work to produce.