Quentin Coldwater's page

Nevermind, some better filtering on Archives of Nethys gave me the answer. Pretty much all Monster Core undead are immune to bleed, except, weirdly enough, vampires. But blood's supposed to be their thing, so I guess it makes sense that they bleed.

Fair, good point, thanks for pointing that out. Still feels like a powerful ability to give to a PC without specifically mentioning it, though.

But while I was looking this up, I found something. Lots of undead from Monster Core specifically call out immunity to bleed, while older books don't. Is that just clarifying and moving the indirect reference to bleed immunity into the stat block, or are there also Monster Core undead that actually are susceptible to bleed? I haven't looked at all the undead creatures in MC to confirm either way.

My question wasn't meant to be contrarian, just a new question that popped up.

Time to bring up an old issue: do skeleton PCs bleed? They are not covered in the FAQ, and I've seen discussions flare up about this.

Some people say that undead PCs don't bleed, as per the normal skeleton creature, but that isn't reflected in their PC statblock.

I personally think that's a strong bonus to be given to PCs, especially since it's not listed in their statblocks (then again, not breathing also isn't...).

Against: Skeletons (and zombies) don't have a circulatory system, so what's there to bleed?
Pro: Magical animating life-force? I admit, it's not a great argument, but I feel it's reasonable. Also, if skeletons are immune to bleed, then so should Poppets. They could lose stuffing, but it's not vital to their functioning.

Not breathing is powerful, but very circumstantial. You won't encounter that very often. But lots of creatures or effects inflict bleed damage, and you could encounter that several times across a single level. Being immune to that while not listed as a benefit feels like a big oversight.

I could envision it being an ancestry feat, or a heritage even, but considering Skeletal Resistance is a level 9 feat, I definitely wouldn't give it baked into the ancestry itself.

PF2 chases seem to be a clever worker placement game, where you carefully figure out which PC should be doing which check, and who should be staying in reserve for the next obstacle. But it just doesn't really pan out. People don't understand, or don't really want to agonize over that kind of choice, or the GM isn't letter you look ahead to the next obstacle so it's a blind choice. All in all, the worker placement aspect of the minigame is a dud.

I've seen the reverse to be also true. I've had players with bad/few skills go first because they knew they couldn't clear the obstacle in one go. Going after the rest would only cost them their precious victories, while I ruled you couldn't go into the negatives (can't have -1 chase points). The people without the appropriate skill go first, then the skilled people. If the obstacle wasn't cleared, they'd go in reverse, hoping they clear the obstacle before the differently skilled people crit fail again.

"Looking ahead" isn't in the rules by RAW (as far as I can find), but seems reasonable. That makes the decision process a lot easier, but doesn't help if you're also bad in those skills.

My main issue with skill challenges is that I've seen a lot of players who just don't have a lot of skills, or have a wonky stat distribution so that they don't have backup skills. I've seen several Barbarians or Fighters with +4 STR, +3 CON, which leaves only two or three more stat increases across four stats. Plus, they tend to favour Athletics since that's their only STR skill, which leaves only two more skills they most likely only have a +1 in. Rolling at a +3 or +4 at best while others are rocking a +6 or +7 just doesn't feel like you're contributing. I know, it's a conscious choice when you make such a stat spread, but that's objectively the "best" way to make a Barbarian. Go have fun with your skill challenges when you only have one "good" skill.
I like skill challenges, and they've been streamlined a lot, but I think it's still easy to be dead weight (or worse, a detriment) in some skill challenges when everyone HAS to compete.

Haven't read book 6 in-depth yet, but you could also just have the PCs sail to Hermea themselves. You miss the big dragonstorm at the beginning of book 6 (which might be beneficial to the PCs, but you'd miss out on a cool setpiece), but now they'd have all the more reason to go to Hermea. Catch up with Uri, and stop the plan he and his sister have planned.

Also, there's a three-day countdown. They ran through all three days?

I (re)played this adventure yesterday, and while we personally had no trouble with getting Swallowed Whole by the tendriculoses, there is something I'd like to point out. They have a rupture value of 14. With piercing and slashing resistance, that goes up to 19. Most light weapons I've found go to 1d6. Let's assume you have a striking rune. That's 2d6. At level 7, most martials get weapon spec for +2. Assuming a maxed out Strength, that's 2d6+4+2. If you roll max damage, that's 16 damage, still not close to reaching the Ruptire value if you take the resistance into account. You'd need some kind of spell effect, item, or class feature that allows for additional damage in order to pop out, and Flaming runes and the like are available from level 8 on. The Thaumaturge in the example above is a good one, but how is a standard Fighter going to reach that (okay, running the numbers, most melee classes can boost their damage, but only if they took a certain feat/subclass: Barbarians with rage, Fighters with Power Attack, Investigators/Rogues/Rangers with sneak attack, Monk with the right styles and flurry, Wildshaped Druid)? Let alone a lower-level character playing up. Hell, even 14 seems like a high number. The only saving grace is that it's off-guard, so it's slightly easier to crit. The only other option is to escape through the mouth again.

An argument against resistances from the inside is also that for most creatures, their skin is protected somehow (thick hide/scales, and so on), but it wouldn't make sense for their insides to have the same protection (the stomach is basically a goopy bag - then again, would a plant have the same kind of stomach?). I don't know why a tendriculos would be resistant against slashing and piercing specifically, but I wanna bet the inside wouldn't have that.

TL;DR: I think Rupture 14 is already pretty tough, adding resistances on top of that (specifically resistances against damage types to escape the belly) is practically impossible for most classes.

I'm always torn between letting the unknown be unknown - there is so much to explore already! - but on the other hand, that's where you get cool stuff. Arcadia feels like forbidden terrain, since so little has been done with it, but on the other hand, Bhopan was really fun. I'd say peel away those layers slowly. Revealing too much ruins the mystique.

I expect Kyonin to change after the Spore War AP. But yeah, Kyonin has been vastly underexplored.

Not sure what to do with Hermea (currently almost in the final book of a certain AP), but it definitely sounds interesting.

I'd like more aquatic-themed adventures (not necessarily underwater, though that is an option). Not too many, but having to deal with different environments is fun. A change of scenery and different problems to solve. It's just that underwater poses a lot of challenges to unprepared PCs.

I haven't seen much of Tar-Baphon, despite him being free. He's just sitting there (I know there's a high-level scenario revolving around him soon). I would've expected to see more of him in the last five years.

Maybe more exotic places, even within the Inner Sea? The Mana Wastes, Nex, or Geb been left relatively untouched. Realm of the Mammoth Lords and megafauna are always fun. Numeria and its death robots, gloomy Nidal, or some classic horror in Ustalav. Or more hobgoblin goodness in Oprak. Thuvia and the Sun Orchid, or the Sodden Lands and pirates in the Shackles. And of course New Thassilon!
Basically, most of the adventures lately (I feel) have been relatively traditionally Western fantasy. I'd like something that pushes into an interesting direction.

Nope. AP Backgrounds tend to be for those APs only, that's why they tend to be Rare. Especially Gatewalkers backgrounds, who get access to deviant feats other PFS characters wouldn't get access to.

If my best skill only succeeds 35% of the time, why bother investing in any skill at all? I guess the only point is to get access to the trained only actions, because the numbers do not seem make an iota of difference.

Quote:

Okay, the fact that you seem behind in level does not help. But assuming a level-appropriate challenge, you should be succeeding 50%-60% of the time. Why invest in it? Because otherwise that would sink even lower. If you use the skill increases, item bonuses, and max stats available to you, you should be slightly ahead of the curve, I think. People who aren't specialised will have odds around 25%.

Also mind, most bosses are higher level, meaning your odds inherently go down. It's supposed to be hard to deceive an epic boss. Don't take your character's effectiveness on a boss character as a measure of how effective you are in general.

People have already made really helpful comments, but I'd like to add some more:

- Yes, it feels a bit frustrating that "excelling" at something means you only have like a 50%-60% shot at succeeding. I admit, it's something you have to get used to. There's no real solution to that, other than using teamwork. Debuffing enemies and buffing your allies really helps, a lot.
- Enemies have high to hits. But that's by design. Unlike in PF1, they're not built like PCs, meaning they get a lot more power budget. You will most likely get hit by the enemy's first attack. The trick is action denial and making sure their second hit will miss. Knocking an enemy prone means they have to waste an action standing up, which they then can't use to attack. If you have three actions and you stand in reach of an enemy, hit once, raise your shield (or try a second attack), then move away. That way, the enemy can't just wail on you three times. PF2 is a much more tactical game than PF1, and can punish bad plays a lot more. But conversely, smart plays will reward you all the more as well.
- Similarly, enemy saves are (usually) pretty high as well. That's again where debuffing comes in. You're forced to work together to make things stick. Some people like that, and some people don't. Enemies will rarely crit fail a save, but with effective debuffing, you can swing that in your favour. But I agree that it feels like crit fails feel more designed for players than for enemies, and that's something you have to accept. But when those crit fails do happen, whoo boy.
- With high enemy AC, don't expect to attack three times and hit three times as well. Most enemies have an AC where you have, again, a 50%-60% chance of hitting on your first attack. The -5 multiple attack penalty means the second attack only has a roughly 25% chance of connecting, unless you swing the odds in your favour. I usually only attack a second time when I am reasonably sure I have a chance of connecting. Otherwise, do something that makes the life of the enemy harder: move away, raise shield, debuff (demoralise is a really good aciton). Flanking means that 25% rises to a 35%. A simple debuff makes that 40%. Those are decent odds.

Finally, I think Pathfinder Second Edition is just a tough game. Like other people said, you're not superheroes. But it can be if you want it to be. If you find things are too tough, ask your GM to tone things down a little. Lower DCs by 2 or 3, use the Weak template on enemies, and you'll have a much more enjoyable time if you just want to stomp enemies. And there's nothing wrong with wanting that, it's just that 2e expects a grittier game than you're used to/want.

I think it's because of the pendulum swinging in different directions. Most seasons focus on a certain theme and the fallout around that. Last few seasons have been rather social in nature, so all the metaplots will focus on that as well. Eventually, the story will move away from that and find new themes to explore.

Another thing to consider is Pathfinder's now over fifteen-year history. A lot of scenarios currently are callbacks to other scenarios or earlier adventures, and unless you only explore only part of a bigger complex (such as the Pallid Peak), there's only so many ancient dungeons to discover. As mentioned earlier, there have been a lot of social events lately, and it's easier to write cause-and-effect stories around that. And those can theoretically be produced infinitely: Pathfinders meddle in business A, piss off group B. While fighting group B, group C gets involved, and so on. This is a practically infinite well of ideas and potential twists and turns. There's only so many ways to write an innovative dungeon delve.
That said though, I do feel like Pathfinder Society is starting to lean more and more heavily on its history and previously published content. I get the feeling a lot of scenarios are referencing (or needing prior knowledge of to enjoy fully) other scenarios. Sometimes I miss the simplicity of "open door, smash everything that moves, and move on." But like I said, there's only so many original ideas, and I feel like much of Golarion has already been "filled in," so at some point you'll just have to build on what exists.

I do feel like a lot of seasons require knowledge of the metaplot to enjoy, which is a shame. Not all players are able to play all the scenarios, and keeping up with the Society story isn't always an option. It's an extension of the my previous point, but I feel like earlier seasons, and also the earlier seasons in PFS1 were much more standalone in nature (I joined during Season 5 of PF1, and really started to follow the story in Season 6). It's a matter of balancing the pros and cons of an ongoing narrative (pro: lots of investment) against freestanding adventures (pro: easy to hop in), I guess.

Is it supposed to be dark? I'm not sure, the scenario doesn't mention it, but it seems reasonable. I'd say maybe.

Are PCs supposed to be fatigued? Definitely not. While it's not the biggest penalty, giving an all-round debuff without the scenario specifically mentioning it seems a bit much.

The time doesn't add up, but that shouldn't impact the scenario without specifically being instructed to do so. I think the two or three hours per leg was intended to impact the scenario in some way, but it was either forgotten or fell out during editing.

Just an after-action report: my very martially-inclined party (Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Thaumaturge) scored 8 points with a party of 4.

I found it a bit odd that you have to fight the entodemonologist if you want full treasure. The party had a very pleasant conversation (only got 3 points, sadly), but got some information and swiped some plans. Yes, I guess it would've been nice if they had swiped all the books, but I didn't want to dock them points for solving things diplomatically.

I had a few tiny niggles during the adventure, but overall it was a very interesting scenario, and I'm looking forward to potential follow-ups. Definitely looks like they're planning something. I'm sure the Godsrain will also open up new avenues here.

Ah, I knew I forgot something: the paper locust swarm (and tornado in higher tier) says it transforms into a swarm (or tornado) of paper locusts and one leather locust.

Since there's no size or stats mentioned for the swarm or the locust, I don't think I should treat them as an actual swarm, right? It's tempting to use the stats for the swarm on page 15, but since the encounter doesn't mention them, I think it's just a 5-foot square.

Similarly, the leather locust makes it appear that there's two individual creatures to fight, but the Routine only mentions the swarm/tornado.

While on the subject of encounter A5, I see that in both tiers the swarm/tornado does 2d8+5/2d8+9 damage on a save, while a fail is just a flat 2d8, but with persistent damage. I know persistent is much worse, but the difference doesn't seem like a lot. Is this correct?

Maybe I'm missing text from the Obstacle subsystem, but page 8 says about the obstacles in the maze: Each PC can attempt any of the checks set forth in each obstacle...."

The way I read it, that means, every PC can attempt a check at every obstacle. That's a lot of potential successes, while you only need a number of successes equal to the number of PCs to succeed.

Other than that, I loved the tone from prepping it! I was surprised at the conciseness of the scenario (12 pages to the conclusion), yet it has a whole lot of content.

Adventures have "fight to the death" as a default option I find, because that's the easiest way of dealing with them, from an author's point of view. Especially named NPCs or people who know the BBEG's plot could throw a wrench in the plans if they were to survive and spill the beans.

Plus, imagine an adventure where the author keeps track of every NPC after that encounter. The further you are in the story, the more elaborate the web of possible interactions becomes. An author might throw in an "if X is alive at this point, you can replace one random mook with X," but authors have limited time and resources available to them. Much easier to pass that job on to the GM, even if that seems lazy. I'd rather build that web myself than be overloaded with information from the get-go with flowcharts of which NPCs might do what, most of which becomes irrelevant when NPCs die.

For example, imagine four random unrelated NPCs that could potentially interact with each other, and might want revenge on the players. An author has to account for whether that person is alive or dead, and if they're alive, if they're free to do whatever or are thrown in jail.
A is free.
B is in jail.
C is dead.

A has several options:
- Break out B.
- Potentially resurrect C and join up with them. Or if resurrecting isn't an option, join up with C's family members, friends, colleagues, and so on.
- Join up with B and C.

Similarly, B might do the same, but has to plan from jail. Which requires a separate text explaining how they accomplish that. And same goes for C (or C's friends/family/gang members, etc). This is only three NPCs. Imagine doing that for every single NPC you meet. The only reasonable solution is if there's the same explanation for all of them. Explain how they do it once, and let some higher power take care of the rest. For example, some corrupt politician bribes all the jailed NPCs out of jail and resurrects the dead ones. That's a whole lot of text only for random NPCs to interact in the future.

TL;DR: "Fight to the death"-tactics might seem lazy, but it's just an easy way to not deal with enemies in the future. Any exceptions can be written out, but the GM will have to do the work if their players are merciful, because the author just can't account for all the potential outcomes.

Regular muggers? No, I don't think so. Most people prefer to live, so if they're outmatched, they either surrender or flee. Only truly desperate people fight to the death.

The only exception I can think of are mobsters or other people who report to some higher authority, where failure isn't an option. They might rather want to die than to bring shame upon themselves.

I had the same issue. Party of 5, three at level 3, one level 1, one level 2. 17 challenge points, barely low tier. I ended up at 30 points due to the high modifiers from the level 3s, and still enough fails that each leg took 3 hours, rather than 2. Not that that mattered much, just thought I'd note it.

While my table was especially lopsided, I do agree that 2 checks per person seems generous.

Also somewhat strange that there's no adjustment for 5 players. Seems a bit unfair that they just luck into the 4 player adjustment.

Whelp, I just checked some stuff to be sure. Turned out to be confirmation bias. Lots of positive reviews got eaten too. Nothing nefarious, but still annoying that the reviews disappear.

Yes, curiously some reviews get eaten sometimes. And even more weirdly, it usually happens to badly-reviewed scenarios (or at least, I happen to see it more on those, see also this scenario from PF1). Indeed, they're still visible on the user's page, but don't appear on the product page.

I don't want to assume bad faith or breach of community guidelines, but it seems very coincidental. There's certainly enough bad reviews remaining that I don't think someone is "cleaning up" the reviews to make them look better than they are.

I mean, I don't know how much gold there is on Earth, but it does indeed stretch the limits of believability when in higher levels you come upon hoards of 1000+ gold coins.

For OP: a very brief history lesson (all from high school economics, so I might be grossly wrong and oversimplifying): back in the day, coins were worth the amount of money they were because the amount of precious metal in the coin was exactly worth the value of the coin. Say you go to a goldsmith and buy 1 bar of gold. You can melt those down into exactly the amount of gold coins you used to buy that bar of gold.
As SuperBidi said, biting the coin was proof that the coin was real: if it bends, it's gold. It it doesn't bend/dent, it's some other metal with a gold paint.
Also the reason that coins nowadays have those grooves/ridges on the side was because people used to shave tiny little slivers off their coins. Each little sliver wasn't worth much, but it wouldn't be missed, and if you do it long enough, you can melt them down into new coins. The intentations on the side of coins is to prove these haven't been shaved down.

Banks started to come up where you could store your money, Basically, everyone at the bank had a bucket where people could store their money. You drop off your money where it's safe, it goes into your personal bucket, and later, you could ask for it again and someone grabs that amount of money from your bucket and gives it to you.

Later, "paper money" was introduced as a letter of credit. It wasn't worth the hassle of lugging around piles of coins. You store all your coins at the bank, and you got a note from the bank that you can then trade in again to get that amount of gold from any other bank. And then, you could trade your letter of credit to someone else so that if they go to the bank, they got that amount of gold. Basically, the amount of paper money was exactly equal to the actual amount of gold in circulation.

And rather than a clerk filing the bank note and withdrawing money from bucket A and putting it into bucket B, we just skip the whole middle process: banks don't divide their coins into separate accounts anymore, but keep it in one giant pile. Saves a whole lot of hassle and space, as you don't need like a million buckets anymore, with the risk of money accidentally going in the wrong bucket, and so on.

Even later, we now trust that the banks are good for the money they say they have. The banks still hold gold, I believe, but the amount of paper money in circulation would outweigh the value of gold in storage. But if we would all withdraw our savings, banks wouldn't be able to give everyone their money, as the value is only theoretical. Money has value because we all agree that the green bill with the number on it is worth money. That's why our coins are made of mundane and cheap metals: they don't represent the value of their metal anymore.

And to circle back to OP: the Middle Ages, roughly where Golarion is technology- and economy-wise, hasn't invented the bank notes yet (or maybe the early stages). Wealth isn't theoretical yet, so each coin is actually worth the value of their metal. The only abstraction is probably that 1 gold coin isn't worth 10 silver coins, but that's just to keep math easy and not worry about conversion rates.

Tracker is back online. Don't know if it's because of me, but I thought I'd let you know.

The certificate thing is happening again.

Is it helpful that I keep posting this? If it's not, I'll stop doing it.

You are overthinking about this. First because the Strike Hard! mechanic already exists in the game since the APG it's called To Battle! with the only main difference being that the commander doesn't waste the target reaction.

To Battle! is an archetype feat at level 8 that costs at least 2 feats to obtain (the dedication, and TB! itself). That's a pretty heavy commitment. Strike Hard! comes basically for free with the class at level one. Plus, since it doesn't eat an archetype, so you can archetype into something else (if you only wanted to get TB!, ignore this if you wanted it for other stuff as well).

Strike hard requires that the ally you want to give the tactic to is in position to make the attack at the start of your turn. You can’t use any other tactics to get them there, and any positioning or buffing needs to already be in place.

This means that the commander is probably delaying to go last in the round, and the enemy has every reason to focus fire down the big weapon wielding martial to begin with, but now it is extra obvious as soon as strike hard happens.

In anything less than a 2 handed weapon in the hands of a martial with free damage bonuses (so not tied to something they need to actively do) strike hard is a pretty bad waste of both actions and the utility you can get out of using a multi target tactic on your allies.

If you stress test the commander against severe and extreme+ encounters vs multiple enemies, you will see a party standing still between 2 rounds just get obliterated.

Already commander tactics are too easily shut down by knocking allies prone, so the -2 penalty there is not even the worst that can happen when an ally is prone that you want to use a tactic with, but it is a big set back, as is any frightened, enfeebled, dazzled or blinded condition. It is a party that is very easy to get shut down.

You don't have to go last. Just go after the person you want to use the tactic on, even if they're not next to the ideal target. Hell, I think it's better to go sooner rather than later, because knowing whether an enemy drops helps your party members prioritise. They don't have to spend actions walking over to an enemy if it's gonna drop in a single hit anyway. And more enemies on the field means it's more likely anyone is going to be standing next to an enemy at any one time.

Also, why pretend Strike Hard! is only useful with only a handful of classes? Rogues and Thaums do loads of damage, maybe the Swashbuckler as well. Hell, Ranger with Precision, Inventors (although both of those fall under "free damage bonus"), wildshaped Druids... like half the classes would benefit from SH!, and even those with one-handed weapons or average damage output would kill for an extra attack, and don't pretend otherwise.

Also also, oh no, a debuff, my day is ruined. Yes, getting penalties on to hit sucks, but it's not the end of the world. And in my experience, enemies don't debuff the party often enough to make Strike Hard a bad option.

Yes, Strike Hard! can be situational, but it's still a damn good option to have. And like Trip.H said, it'll become the most brain-dead routine if you have it most of the time, probably the opposite of what's intended with the Commander.

I like Urwal, but I get that he's not for everyone.

Pretty much agree with Hmm on Zarta. She feels like a totally different person now.

I'm personally worried that Strike Hard! is going to be a "best in slot" option. Many tactics are situational, but an extra attack is pretty much always going to be useful. In all honesty, in the shape it is now, I'd rather not have it at all, no matter how appropriate it feels for the class. Adding some kind of cooldown or a "once per combat" rider to it feels weird, but would prevent people from spamming it every single round.

Also, I think the "action loss" (two actions to do a single-action Strike) is completely fair. It's a powerful ability, plus, people forget it works across a pretty large distance. Instead of walking up to a creature, you can instruct your friend who's already there to smack it. Meaning you can stay out of danger or engage a different enemy. Two actions seems like a very reasonable cost, IMHO.

I guess the flavour of the Commander feels pretty niche, but Uncommon is more for things that don't fit the tone of the world. Druids wouldn't fit in an urban adventure, and Witches not in a low magic setting. The reason the Inventor and Gunslinger are Uncommon are that not everyone likes to have guns and tech in their adventure, because it implies a certain scientific advancement you don't want to deal with. A Commander wouldn't fit every party, I agree, but it does not shape the setting in any way.

I'm gonna throw a dissenting voice into the mix: I agree that 2 drilled tactics feels too low, but I think increasing it by one at every odd level is too much*. You'd have way too many options, and at high level many builds would have the same active tactics running, homogenising the class (though differentiating through feats is still possible). I'm not smart enough to suggest an ideal progression path, but I feel like it should be possible to increase them over time.

* Compare this to a caster: Sure, they get extra spell slots, and at high level you have an absolute wealth of options available to you, but many of the lower-rank spells are practically irrelevant at that point. In practice I tend to use the highest two ranks of spells I have in combat, and anything below that becomes utility (with some exceptions, of course). Plus, spells run out, naturally decreasing your options over time. Let's say that a high-level caster has 7-ish relevant spells at once (including cantrips), and that number goes down with each use. A level 15 Commander would have 9 tactics to choose from, on top of being a martial and always having their melee/ranged strikes available to them, and I haven't even mentioned class feats that open up actions. That's an absolute overload of choices for every round of combat.

Thanks for the list, eddv!

As a total aside, we know the identity of several Decemvirate members now, right? Or at least know of their existence, I believe. Am I missing people?

I don't think the Decemvirate should count as "leadership." Yeah, they're technically leaders, but in practice they rarely show up to hand out missions (excepting one or two scenarios). They're not the focus of the Society (unless there's a specific storyline, such as last year's). Yeah, they're around, but they're not important enough in your day-to-day life to remember. Or rather, you're too unimportant for them to involve themselves with you.

Anyway, point is, the Decemvirate is just a "plug in when needed" device, and that's fine (IMHO). I do agree though that Starfinder has a lot of cool storylines involving the faction heads I wish Pathfinder would incorporate. That could also fix the problem Zoomba mentioned of not being invested. Killing off or removing people seems a bit drastic, as I think they all fulfill an important role in the Society, but I would welcome a reason to care more about them (other than playing "f-, marry, kill" with the school heads) (Kreighton Shaine, Sorrina Westyr, and Marcos Farabellos respectively, by the way)

After a single PFS scenario as a Commander, I feel like Commanders need a little guidance to help them out. They feel a little unfocused, and because they're a bit unorthodox (IMHO), players might not know what to do with them. Subclasses could guide them, but might also unnecessarily restrain them.

Someone on the boards suggested three subclasses. One uses the Combat Medic, one the Deceptive Tactics, and I forgot the last one (Combat Medic and Deceptive Tactics have feat trees anyways). I like this, but I might do them differently: one focusing on the banner (increasing range and effectiveness), one on the mount, and maybe one more on the skills (giving bonuses to feinting and Medicine, for instance) and running interference. Like the typical inspiring warlord, mounted warlord, and cunning warlord style. The cool thing with this is that they don't step on each other's toes. You can take the banner subclass and still pick up the other feats without feeling like you're missing out. A lot of other classes have subclasses that lock each other out of goodies (Barbarians require certain instincts and Bards require Muses, for example), but that does not need to be the case here. There are no feats locked to certain subclasses, it's just that some subclasses get a bonus from them, similar to how Alchemist subclasses focus on different alchemical items (Poisoners boost their poison DC, but others can still use them).
Maybe three subclasses are enough, maybe more are needed, but they also immediately invoke a certain feel in the class, but don't preclude each other.

Anyway, as I said, not sure if the Commander needs a subclass, but I do think a little more hand-holding is appreciated.

This is why I don't really like the current tactics system. When you only have to prepare 2-3 tactics for most of your career, even if you can prepare them again the next day, based on which tactics you decided to learn it is entirely possible for someone to trap themselves with options that aren't going to be always useful. For example, a 1st-level wizard can prepare 7 spells (5 cantrips, 2 leveled spells) which gives them plenty of room to have backup options in case they need them.

A 1st-level commander has only two tactics, which means that its not only easier to prepare stuff that probably wouldn't be optimal but also that you can't even prepare backup options because you simply don't have enough room. I think basic tactics such as Strike Hard! and a single target version of Form Up! should be default options that you have always prepared, and then have two free slots to prepare whatever you want.

Would it be a good idea to have subclasses that give a "free" tactic to be used? Maybe divided into movement/offensive/defensive or something like that? Or maybe like a Wizard's school (which is essentially the same)?

I was thinking of maybe allowing a "one of each" approach, but that seems needlessly restrictive. Also, sometimes you want offensive tactic A and sometimes offensive tactic B, so forcing people into choosing only one seems bad.

I haven't played a Warlord yet (I will on Wednesday), but I do think the current number of 2 "active" tactics seems too limited. If you had one or two always available tactics that means you can choose more niche options so you're not locked out of options when your niche isn't available.
(I mean, similar to how I view Wizard schools: the schools aren't meant as your bread and butter, but to give you a "core," and the rest of your spells are your experimental options. But that's not how many people seem to see things, and it's besides the point anyways.)

Deceptive Tactics is good because it doesn't eat a Tactics slot. You only have two tactics at a time (so far), so this is for the people who didn't pick Pincer Attack (or vice versa). It's good to have redundancy/fallback options so people aren't stuck with the one option.

Another option is that you can use Deceptive Tactics and an actual tactic in the same round. You could do Deceptive Tactics, Piranha Assault, Strike, in the same round, for instance.

A third option, though this might just be an editing thing, is that Pincer Attack specifically says If any of your allies end this movement adjacent to an opponent, that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from you and all other squadmates who responded to Pincer Attack

Note the lack of "you or any of your allies" there (which is present in End It! or Piranha Assault), meaning that if you're the only one threatening an opponent (maybe the other frontliners are busy with other enemies), you didn't put that opponent off-guard.

The differences are subtle, but I think it's worth having Deceptive Tactics as a feat, maybe even alongside Pincer Attack.

I'm more baffled by the fact that increased CP count means higher DCs, regardless of player count. Six level 1 characters would be way more problems getting successes compared to four level 3s, despite them having the same CP count. (Yeah, the odds of people having the right skills are better in the six-player party, but a good skill challenge offers multiple skills)

In the case of the level 3 party, the DCs can go up. But six level 1 PCs should not face the same DCs. Increased number of successes, yes, but more people does not automatically assume they can hit higher numbers. The odds of one of them rolling well goes up, yeah, but one extra player present should not increase everyone's DCs by 2. The extra player could assist someone for a +1, but the other people wouldn't get that help. In this case, the extra player makes things more difficult for the party, rather than being an asset.

In these cases, I'd go for regular level-appropriate DCs, and increase the number of successes per X players or something. So yeah, a combination of CP scaling and player scaling would be ideal, IMHO. More tricky to implement, but better for the players, I think.

While I'm prepping this, the adventure keeps telling me how big the Xotanispawn are (several mentions of "larger than an elephant," etc). The stat block of an elephant is huge, while these critters are only large. Should I keep them at large, or increase them to huge size?

The certificate thing seems to be happening every so often. What causes it to happen? Does it need to be updated manually? Can't it be automated in some way?

I'm not complaining, far from it, I'm just curious to know how it works behind the scenes. Apologies if these were dumb questions.

Might as well start one of these off. Those with copies know what to do.

Roiling Mudslide on page 37 does not mention what the area of the effect is.

You form water and earth into a mudslide that smashes your opponents and coats them in mud. Each creature in the area takes 2d8 bludgeoning damage with a basic Fortitude save against your class DC. A creature that fails is also pushed 5 feet (or 10 feet on a critical failure) and coated in mud until the end of its next turn. While coated in mud, the creature falls prone at the end of its movement any time it ends a move action other than a Crawl or Step. The creature can attempt an Acrobatics check or Reflex save against your class DC, avoiding the fall if it succeeds.

Standing up is also a move action. So getting up means you automatically get knocked prone again. So you're basically prone for the whole turn?

Not sure if it's an error, but it sounds funky to me.

I love Larry Wilhelm. His scenarios are some of my favourite. Forbidden Furnace is just wonderful flavour. Immortal Conundrum is a fantastic bit of worldbuilding, Golemworks Incident is an all-time fan favourite. No Plunder, No Pay is a bit light, but has great NPCs, Shadows Fall on Absalom is great and strange, and while the scenario overall is kinda okay, I love the little details in Storming the Diamond Gate. And all his Fiend scenarios are great as well.

I really wish he'd come back for PF2, he'd do an awesome job I think.

That's true, but I've read a ruling that says only objects get shrunk. Anyone still living does not count as an object, and therefore does not shrink.

I think it'd use the same rules as embiggening it. Since there's a creature inside, shrinking the frog won't work (creature inside won't shrink with it, since it's not an object).

I had an idea for PFS1 where I would pretty much do the same. If the creature inside stays alive, frog can't shrink down and is perma-enlarged. The trick, however, was keeping the thing inside alive for long enough to this to happen.

If the mind theme was designed like a Kineticist element, it would A) have multiple mechanical roles, so a lot of your spells are control effects on enemies, but some might buff allies as well, giving you thematic options, and B) provide a way to empower your own magic to overcome the walls they know you specifically will hit. Maybe that means your mind magic can control the base instincts of the ooze, reprogram constructs, or mimic the commands of the necromancer who raised those undead. Or maybe it just means that these creatures are constructed a bit differently, so that they automatically critically succeed saving throws against mind-altering effects, but you have an ability that turns all enemy critical successes into normal successes to future-proof it. It could take many forms. In this model, your spell school IS your bread and butter, and it's very toasty bred with delicious butter that has a built-in way to overcome mold (the metaphor is breaking down). But if you were a wizard who chose to diversify, you would simply set that undead on fire. Both options would be available, and both would be fun and viable.

I feel like you have it the wrong way around: the whole game is designed around different types of encounters and not doing the same thing over and over, but that's why the Kineticist is the exception, not the rule. Martials have different weapons, spellcasters can choose different spells if one option doesn't work. Kineticists don't, and that's why they get a little help. Allowing a mind-wizard to target oozes and mind-immune stuff just means they get to keep pressing the same button over and over again without repercussions.

So... yeah. They currently are big umbrella lists, and this "themes" thing is intended to be a fix for some of the problems that raises. If you want your standard super-flexible casters, the solution is easy - just give them a bunch of themes. I'm not trying to prevent people from playing the batman wizard who has a spell for every occasion. Thing is, though, there's a lot of the playerbase that wants to play magic-users who aren't that... and the spell list thing means that every full caster pretty much is that, automatically. That's why we cant' give casters the really good buffs. We have to limit their spell DC because they have enough breadth in their spells to pick whichever defense they want to target. We have to limit the effectiveness of battle forms because after they're done playing around in battle form, they get to come back up out of it and use a bunch of spells that aren't battle form. Also... there are serious and largely unavoidable similarities between any two classes on the same list. There are differences between a divine sorceror and a divine witch and an oracle, but they're not as significant as we might want. So this structure lets them easily have both classes that get a lot of themes (and the breadth that goes with them) and only a few themes (and the ability to get other stuff with the budget that that specialization frees up).

See my comment above about how specialisation should come at the cost of utility. If you're a fire Wizard and you're fighting a fire elemental, well, that sucks. Better luck next time.

Oh totally. I'm one of those people who thinks domain should determine like 80 percent of your spells. Obviously it's not a perfect solution, but the way sorcerers work in 2E is close to what I'd like to see. Clerics of Nethys get the arcane list, clerics of Gozreh get primal, and so on.

But obviously that is still pretty broad. And Zon-Kuthon doesn't fit any established spell list. Ditto Forum.

Oh, I would love a WIS-based caster with variable spell lists. INT has the Witch and CHA has the Sorcerer, but unless I'm derping really hard, WIS doesn't have one yet. But I don't know if the Cleric is the right class for that. As you said, a lot of deities don't have a closely associated spell theme, but I liked how PF1 had the domain spells, where each domain had specific spells you could cast. Not sure why they did away with that and only tied spells to deities (probably too many domains that made it too easy to mix and match or to keep track of), but at least that reasonably differentiated a Cleric of Gozreh from a Cleric of Iomedae quite a bit.

Also, I like Clerics being the posterchild Wisdom-caster. I mean, in the Core Rulebook they compete with the Druid, but so does the Sorcerer with the Bard. Anyway, I feel like with all the history behind them, I think it feels strange to alter the Cleric too much now. It's an easy argument that "we've always done it that way," and sometimes that can change (look at the Sorcerer: at first they were similar to the Wizard, but now they get to choose their tradition), but some things are tradition for a reason. A non-divine Cleric just feels wrong to me. No status removal spells, no "f+%* you, evil spawn" spells, and so on... Again, specific Focus Spells and more deity/domain spells would fix most of that problem much more elegantly. It keeps the core of the class intact, and it still gives customisation.

What I find harder to swallow is priests of vampiric demon lords dropping sunbursts and good-aligned followers of the omnibenevolent goddess of love and beauty (Shelyn) creating vampiric maidens that slowly and painfully drain the life from their victims. Or cursing their enemies with agonizing despair . Or ripping the blood from their bodies with vampiric exsanguination .

I'd like to say that just because players can, doesn't mean they will. Any person who takes their RP seriously won't take those spells, because it's not what their character would do. And hey, even then, spells are just tools. I can totally see someone worshiping that vampiric demon priest preparing a Sunburst, purely because it's a powerful tool to be used. The ends justify the means and all that. And hell, Sudden Blight is on the Primal list. If Druids get access to a spell that destroys plantlife, I'm okay with a hippie Disney princess deity like Shelyn gaining Vampiric Maiden.

Imagine the wizard had the same kind of decision as a kineticist. A battle mage might get the Arcana theme for being a wizard, and the Battle Mage school grants them Warding and a choice between Fire/Lightning/Ice/Acid/Thunder. Over time, the mage takes the Expanded Studies option to pick up more elements and a few other war-appropriate themes for a huge repertoire of spells. This mage exploits elemental weaknesses to bombard enemies and pairs it with a few buffs or summons for good measure. They are versatile, and powerful as a result.

I mean, this is overlapping with the "What Exact is the Wizard Anyway?"-thread, but that's exactly why the Wizard had spell school specialisation (or schools in the remaster), right? They want you to be able to specialise in a specific theme without overcommitting. Like I said earlier, say I specialise in mind-affecting spells. Phantom Pain, Sleep, Agonizing Despair, and so on. All my spells are in this category. And now I'm fighting oozes. Or mindless undead. Or golems (though golems are an "f- you" to spellcasters in general). What are you gonna do now? The school you choose is supposed to be a bonus, a thing you excel at, not your bread and butter. It's to prevent you from making bad decisions you don't know are bad until way later. The remaster especially fixes this with a small list of bonus spells so that it's easy to homebrew extra schools without requiring hours of research or balancing. You get a handful of extra spells on top of your regularly allotted spells to show you've specialised in this subject, but not at the cost of anything else. Hell, even the Kineticist, who goes all-in on one or two damage types, has a failsafe built in. All the blasts (except fire) have two damage types they can do, just in case your enemy is immune to one of them. And there's two different feats to alter those blasts even more, making sure you're never out of options.

And hell, don't forget about Focus Spells. They're the ideal way to give each existing theme some spice without cribbing from other spell lists. Most of the classes can choose between several options to differentiate themselves from others of the same class. Giving them themed spells on top of that feels like overkill.

I mean, the spell lists are big umbrella lists for a reason. If they had to split up all the spells by alignment or theme, it'd become a mess. It's easier to have a few exceptions to the rule rather than a whole bunch of separate rules to fit everything (and potentially keep expanding when more deities are released).

I feel like giving each class only a handful of "themes" to work with will hamper their utility, unless they make sure to cover all the bases in each theme. And at that point, what's the point of picking a theme?
What I mean is, say the Cleric gets one default theme: Healing. And then one or two themes based on their deity. I pick Shelyn and get Protection (defensive buffs) and Passion (enchantment-type spells). Now I have no way to directly deal damage to my opponents.
Meanwhile, a Druid gets all the elemental spells. But that covers a whole lot, from defensive (Barkskin, Protector Tree), offensive (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold), control (Mud Pit), support (Endure Elements), and so on. Unless you force them to also make a choice (only have Fire and Water spells, for example), at which point they basically become a Kineticist.

You're basically reinventing the wheel and making up new spell schools based on theme and handing them out to different (sub)classes. Which seems cool at first glance, but pigeon-holes builds even more and potentially cuts them off from options available to them otherwise.
And don't forget that flavour can justify basically anything if you're not careful (see also early Magic: the Gathering, where Blue could do direct damage, or Red had counterspells). Fire is the go-to element of destruction (damage spells), but could so be seen as cleansing (healing or status removal). If you don't curate those spell lists very carefully, you can undo the whole balance of each theme (assuming you want them balanced in the first place).
I'm much more in favour of handing out a few select spells or themes as a bonus, rather than to design the whole system around it. But that's basically already happened: Clerics can learn non-divine spells through their deity's portfolio, Sorcerers get bloodline spells, and so on. If they expanded on this and gave basically every spellcasting class these options, you'd have very much what you wanted in the first place.
And like people said, it makes character creation hell for new players. Right now, a Cleric gets the divine list, easy as that. But imagine a first-time player having to decide from 30+ themes which they want to be stuck with for the rest of their character's career? And when you're starting out, you don't know all the spells or their potential.

What would be cool I think is if certain classes got bonuses depending on the spells they actually use. Sorcerers kinda get that with their Blood Magic. Though maybe that gets too complicated with too many floating modifiers. But imagine a Cleric of Sarenrae getting a bonus on hit points healed when they cast a Heal spell, a Bard getting a free round of a spell that's normally sustained, and so on. The spells stay the same, but depending on which class casts them, they get unique effects and feel more distinct.

My table ran a little shorter than usual. Like, 3-3.5 hours. The encounter with Gedun and Yeyacha quickly became a social encounter, which is handled much faster than an entire combat. Essentially, the scenario had only 2 combats instead of 3, which frees up a lot of time.

My players were kinda disappointed that there is nothing to do in the other rifts in area B. I quickly decided that some of the familiars were hanging out in the other portals, so there was an actual reason to visit them. I feel it really livened up the scenario, but only do this if you know they're doing well on time. Having little skill checks to get the familiars to come with you made it much more entertaining, such as maybe having a familiar be caught in a whirlwind/stuck on a rock on the water in area B4, or be injured by the fire in area B3. Obviously don't count time for that, but my players really enjoyed interacting with the new environments.

Also, I handled area B in general as a kind of "minimap." Just draw it section by section on a piece of paper/empty flipmat to show their approximate location. I found it a happy medium between drawing out the entire map and doing theatre of the mind. It still gave the players a bit of visualisation of where to go without any room for error theatre of the mind might have.

I think I'll grab Bottlespeaker.

UncleFroggy, please take care! I see you offer to GM a lot, please don't burn yourself out!

Hawthwile: I think in official PFS rules, you're not allowed to "cheat" your character in any way. But, since this is an adventure with pregens (and it's a Free RPG Day adventure anyways), I don't think there's any requirement to run it in PFS mode. We could technically all make our own characters and play it completely separate from the PFS structure, then assign the Chronicles as normal. The only issue is that this is a Gameday game, which might mandate PFS play. I'm not sure on the rules there.

Anyway, that's just my ideas as a player, I just wanted to offer options. I'll defer to the GM, as they have the final word in this.

--

Completely unrelated, I've been wanting to GM this one (that's why I signed up as a player first). How long would this run IRL? Is it full Scenario-length, or more/less? I'm just wondering if I can fill a regular 4-four slot with this adventure.