Quentin Coldwater's page

To answer this question immediately:

StarDragonJenn wrote:

I'm left wondering if there's space for a cleric that thinks like an individual at least a little bit. I mean there's the splinter faith feat, but even that doesn't quite seem to contradict the 'unthinking zealot' portrayal in the essay. If there's space for a Nietzschean-lite cleric who deliberately seeks out situations where their faith will be tested and deliberately pushes the limits of their deity's without breaking them, and with intent to refine them. Or just someone who sees their deity as a friend and confidant rather than a stompy master...

There absolutely is room for this; your Cleric very much does not need to be a zealot, and many deities very much go against the "perpetually angry tyrant" archetype and can even be quite friendly with their worshipers. Clerics in particular are meant to be the people other worshipers come to whenever they seek answers or guidance regarding their faith, so it is also often in their interest to be able to articulate the merits of their deity from a place of genuine understanding, rather than blind devotion. Becoming a Cleric or Champion of a deity does require devoting yourself to their faith, but that faith doesn't mean debasing yourself or shutting down your critical thinking, so much as embodying those deities' principles to the fullest. This does usually mean taking on those principles far beyond the extent most other mortals would, but depending on the deity those principles can be in service of personal agency and greater understanding, rather than repression and ignorance.

For specific deities, I would particularly look towards deities that have both freedom and knowledge as their domains, like so:

...

Awesome, thanks! I'll look them over more closely, but Zjar-Tovan and Aakriti sound like what I'm looking for. Aakriti is maybe a weird choice as an "ooze deity," but their anathema sounds great: "reject creatures or information due to bigoted or rigid beliefs." That sounds like an excellent questioner of faith. Similarly, Zjar-Tovan's edict "do not allow your purpose to be overly guided by another’s will," is an excellent example of avoiding blind dogma. Thanks for the information!

I hope I can sort of piggyback off this conversation: would it be possible to play a divine inquisitor? Not in the sense of "our" inquisitors, which sought out heretics, but someone who literally questions the power and scope of the deities? Coud a Cleric (or maybe a Champion) be critical of their own faith, of their own deity, and still be a proper follower of that faith? Or would it be better to drape that flavour over a non-divine class, such as maybe a Wizard who uses their intellect?

Reason is, I got inspired by a fictional character who uses their intellect to solve mysteries, even within his own church. And I'm just wondering if it's possible for a Cleric to be skeptical of, or question the power, scope, and limits of their deity, or if that's grounds for expulsion from the church. I want to believe indeed in critical thinking rather than blind faith, but which deity (if any) would fit best with that?

I think the main problem with influence encounters is that a larger party size is treated the same as a stronger party, which is not the case. Yes, 5 people can make more checks than 4 people. The encounter should be adjusted for that. But in my case, three people get +1 to their skills. That could turn a fail into a success (or a success into a crit success), but that does not warrant a higher success threshold (as my math above indicates)

Other scenarios typically give 6 rounds of influence checks, with one fewer round per player above 4. That seems reasonable (4 and 6 players get a total of 24 checks each, 5 players get a slight bonus with 25 checks). But flat out increasing the number of successes needed regardless of player count does not work. And hell, some scenarios even do both. I get that if you have two level 4s and two level 1s, you should alter the DCs a little. But in general, I feel picking one or the other gives a better result than a blanket "increase the threshold by X."

I get that you don't want to get too granular, so in a hypothetical situation of two level 1s and three level 3, there is no ideal middle ground, but an easy fix would be to not give a set DC, but a DC based on that party member's level. A level 1 character would roll against DC 16, a level 3 character against DC 19, or simply noted as level+1. This keeps the difficulty level, well, level, while giving options for additional party members. Makes it a little more difficult for the GM, as they have to cross-reference the player's level versus the scaling DC, but leads to better results, IMHO. The only downside is that you're supposed to be better at things as you level up, and the DC increases at the same pace as you do, so you're technically getting better at the skill. I still think this is a better solution than the current system, though. If the adventures were a single tier, this would've been so much easier. Then you can just adjust for player count, not necessarily for player strength (four level 2s will fare better than four level 1s, but that's fine, IMHO). For social encounters, at least.

As I reread the thread, I saw that my first point was also already raised by Hartan.

Ran this yesterday, encountered a problem I hadn't thought of while prepping it: what does "win over an NPC" (during the influence encounter) entail? Because depending on how you interpret that, things can get incredibly difficult. Reaching Influence 2, where they'll spill the beans and point you in the right direction, is already pretty difficult (certainly doable, but undoubtedly difficult) with all NPCs. But if it's the last influence threshold (4, or 8 for Fidero) with all of them is nearly impossible.

In my case, I had three players at level 4, one player at 3. That's 22 CP, so +1 influence point threshold. If they needed 3 influence points with each NPC (5 for the captain), that breaks down to the following:
16 checks total
Three times 3 influence points, plus one time 5 influence points, so 9+5=14 influence points needed.
So, assuming they skip the Discovery checks altogether and immediately go to influencing, they can only fail twice. Or they can try a difficult Medicine check to immediately gain 4 points with the captain, which means 11 successful checks out of 16. And that's only to reach the middle threshold, again with skipping all the Discovery checks. If every NPC gets Discovered at least once, you can miss a single check.

If they actually need to reach the final influence threshold to be considered "won over," that's literally only possible in the low tier. With a full party of six level 1s, you'd get 24 checks to get 3x5 +1x9 (low tier says for every 2 points above 10, while the smallest possible party starts at 8 challenge points, meaning there's no difference between 8 and 10 challenge points), is exactly 24 points. All checks need to go directly to influence, and not a single fail (or a few crits).

Furthermore, the Captain's DCs are way too difficult. I get that he's sick and hard to interact with, but this is ridiculous. A typical level 1 DC is 15. The literal easiest DC to influence him is DC 20, going as high as 24. That's simply not feasible. I know it's expected to not get full treasure bundles all the time, but the combination of higher DCs as well as higher influence thresholds means the captain is basically a lost cause, without the players knowing.

TL;DR: Influence thresholds seem difficult to reach with only four rounds, captain is unfeasibly difficult for this level.

---

Constructive criticism: when I played this, my GM didn't give the captain as an option at first, and introduced him as part of the influence rounds. It made the investigation feel more natural, rather than introducing three NPCs on the deck and oh yeah, there's a sick captain inside. I really liked that. You'd have to fit him in the narrative organically, but I feel it enhances the story.
Hell, my GM scrapped the influence system entirely and just made us roll checks organically, cutting us off at a certain point. That's a bit more difficult to do and I wouldn't advise it for everyone, but it really helped the narrative, rather than going "okay, here's today's minigame" all of a sudden.

Player to hit has already been discussed, so I'd like to focus on something else:

One thing I can't really change is I tend to roll pretty well (especially when GMing). Just to be sure, I've started tracking dice rolls, and while I do tend to roll slightly above average, and some of the players roll slightly under, my hit percentage is right around 60% while they are sitting at around 30%, and my damage is often much higher even normal attacks.

PCs and NPCs aren't built the same. NPCs of the same level typically have higher, well, everything (to hit, AC, damage, saves, etc). If you take a look at random monsters or NPCs, you'll see that they have higher AC, to hit, and/or HP than most player characters of the same level. The most balancedfirst-level enemy I can find at a quick search is the Giant Gecko as an AC of 16, 20 HP, to hit of +8, but a Reflex of +10. That's mostly on par with what a first-level Fighter would have, except its saves. A Reefclaw has an AC of 20, and a Reflex and to hit of +9, while most players's best scores are +7 and an AC of 17 (without shields). I can give countless examples. At first level, damage output is roughly the same, but as you go up in level, enemy damage goes up purely to keep up with Striking runes. It's not odd to see a +8 damage modifier at level 5 or so.

Point is, enemies just tend to be better at hitting than players. That's how they're designed. Don't compare their final results. It would be better to compare their raw dice rolls, which you already did. Some roll slightly under, meaning that on average, most people roll perfectly fine. That means, with a hit percentage of 30, they're skewing the odds by making more attacks at penalty when they shouldn't.

Shelyn's anathema make this quite easy:

Anathema destroy art or allow it to be destroyed, unless saving a life or pursuing greater art; refuse to accept surrender

This clearly means human(oid) life is valued more highly than art. People first, art second.

Plus, I mean, people can make more art. Can't make art if everyone's dead. In the grand scheme of things, saving people will produce more art than you'd save by prioritising existing art.

Plus, I mean, Shelyn's good-aligned (back when alignment mattered). Only absolute sociopaths would value objects more than human lives, and would definitely not be classified as "good."

I remember that AP, might be that exact case, where several quite spicy fights were chained together. GM was lenient on us, otherwise that would've been a TPK.

** spoiler omitted **

Ah, found it! And of course, just missed the edit window.

Not sure if that's the encounter you were referencing, but it certainly was a gauntlet for us. Basically, we fled from one encounter, accidentally pulled the next one, and wanted to barricade ourselves somewhere, where something even nastier attacked us from the other side.

A flying familiar is especially helpful for scouting purposes, as they tend to be less conspicuous than PCs. They're great for utility purposes, if you're a little creative. Delivering a letter, fetching something from a distance, and so on.

Default familiars have two abilities, I believe. You select these abilities from a list, and any abilities the creature would innately have, you have to choose first. So a parrot familiar would have the Speech and Flying abilities, for example. A monkey would have manual dexterity and a climb speed. If you have leftover abilities, you can give them other abilities as well, so you can have a talking bee, or give it darkvision. Important to know is that you can swap out these abilities each day, so you can have a talking bee one day, and one that resists fire the next. Discuss with your GM if you want your familiar to have specific abilities, but don't have the "slots" for it.

There are also "Master abilities" that allow you to do something, such as access to an extra cantrip, or look through your familiar's eyes. These work the same as the normal familiar abilities, in that you select them each day, just that they give you an extra ability, rather than your familiar.

There are feats and classes that increase the number of abilities your familiar has. The Witch starts with four abilities instead of two, and Enhanced Familiar does the same.

You can have specific familiars with special abilities if you have a certain number of abilities. For instance, a Mood Cloud requires you to have 3 abilities (so only available to Witches or if you take Enhanced Familiar), and comes with two of these abilities "pre-installed."

Familiars don't act in combat by default. You can give them a command as one action to give them two actions. The Independent ability gives them one free action each turn. They're (usually) not designed for combat, as they have terrible HP and no attacks. A familiar uses your AC and saves as its own AC and saves.

If you want an insect familiar, this is how I'd set it up:
- Give it the Flier ability for 25 fly speed. This one is mandatory.
- Give it one other ability of your choice. Independent, Manual Dexterity, and Speech are generally good ones, but depending on what you want, you can give it other abilities.
That's it! You now have a flying insect familiar! If you want to give your familiar more abilities, take the Familiar Master dedication, or ask your GM if you can take Enhanced Familiar as a class feat.

I remember that AP, might be that exact case, where several quite spicy fights were chained together. GM was lenient on us, otherwise that would've been a TPK.

Not 100% sure, but I believe Society scenarios are designed to be a a little bit easier than APs, to lower the barrier to entry. Plus, the shorter nature of scenarios means they're easier to playtest than an entire AP.

The broom to staff example does show why the broom is important: it evokes a certain fantasy. Sure, you can use a staff, which has better stats, and be done with it, but that's not the point. Some people want to use a broom because they like the idea of wielding a broom, and are happy there are rules that support that fantasy. Look, if there weren't rules for improvised weapons (and even an entire archetype), I'd be all for reflavouring a staff to a broom, but since there are, you need to cater to that. Yes, a broom is very similar to a staff, but you shouldn't just swap A with B just because B exists.

I really don't get your "You're not improvising enough" argument. I mean that in the sense that I don't understand you, not that I disagree with it. Yes, the character is really trained with brooms. So what? What's the harm in that? As long as the character isn't fudging the rules (bulk limits, costs, whatever), why wouldn't you allow it? The only argument I can think of is that improvised weapons might not be intended for long-time combat, and might break. That seems reasonable to me. In this case, staves are free so brooms should be a few copper pieces at most, and a brick could be a rock (free) or light hammer (3 silver pieces), so it's not like that's going to break the bank after level 1.

The example of the table leg is a disingenuous one. That one doesn't fit the mechanics to the flavour, and almost seems like it's intended to deceive the GM. Okay, for PFS it's a little more difficult, but you could easily discuss with your GM what the stats for each item could be, and if they agree to the reflavouring. There should not be a "gotcha" moment on either side of the table. Similarly, as long as they stick to the mechanics, and take all the same tags into account (concentrate and such) , I'd totally allow the Wizard to play an Alchemist (for a home game, not PFS).

I think the argument of "you're too trained in using this as an improvised weapon, it doesn't qualify as improvised anymore" is a weird one. IMHO, it doesn't matter how trained you are with using a weapon, it's whether the item was intended to be used as a weapon that qualifies it as an improvised weapon. I get that the idea of an improvised weapon fighter kind of muddies that, but with that logic, it would mean, that if you fight with the same kind of weapon for long enough, you lose benefits from using it, rather than gaining them. "I've spent years fighting with whatever was on hand in order to survive: a table leg, a broken bottle, the dented helm of a defeated foe. I know how to use each item to its maximum efficiency... And now that I've mastered it, I lose the +1 item bonus to attacks with it."

But yeah, unless a room is specifically stated to be spotless, there's always something to use as a weapon. It'd be weird if a cantrip like Telekinetic Projectile would randomly fizzle, while a similar Ignition cantrip would still work.

PFS1 pretty much always included optional encounters, which I really liked. I kinda miss them in PFS2, but Darrell makes a good point about consumables. I think PFS2 is lighter on the consumables, but still. Sometimes you have a longer slot, or the dice go well, and you have an extra 45 minutes to spare. A little extra encounter would be nice to have. But that's also extra pressure on the author to include them, something that they don't always have space/time for.

On the other side of the coin (and this is more for Pathfinder than Starfinder): any easy solution would be to "downgrade" one existing encounter to optional. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the word count is the same between PFS1 and PFS2, so essentially they should also have the same amount of encounters and alotted time. I have often run short of time due to slow play or newbies that need rules explanations. A clear-cut indication of "you can skip this encounter if you want to" would be nice to have, and would be cool if scenarios were designed with that goal in mind.

I see the change in Disarm and such more as bug fixes, in that the mechanics needed tweaking after the had been rolled out. But I do agree that it's nebulous, especially with how sweeping some changes can be. The changing of monsters isn't a bug fix, that's an overhaul, but again I agree it's muddy when it comes to tweaked numbers, rather than the changing of abilities.

The addition of player options is moot. Yes, later options can invalidate certain scenarios (especially Kineticists, I feel), but again those are not changes to the scenario. Hell, the scenario can change based on whether I play a Bard or a Barbarian. Like I said, a single changed die roll can make the scenario completely different. That 100% consistency is unattainable does not mean we shouldn't strive for it.

Fun example of how a new class can completely invalidate a fight: in a Starfinder scenario there was a guy in a mine cart playing keepaway. The cart moved faster than the players could move, so there's no way of catching up to him. The encounter was built around the premise of the bad guy being able to outmaneuvre the players. Then someone played a Witchwarper, who can teleport enemies a short distance, and the teleported the guy out of the mine cart. Now the guy was hopelessly outgunned and outclassed. But even if the Witchwarper had been out then, I feel like no one could have predicted that outcome.

EDIT: I misremembered, they managed to grab the bad guy, essentially holding it in place. I made a check and the cart moved on without him.

I kept harping on this in the previous topic, but I think this is still important. From the Lorespire site (emphasis mine):

The Paizo Organized Play program strives to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs are required to run Paizo Organized Play adventures as written, but are empowered to make adjustments to suit the table, fix obvious errors or typos, use alternate maps, and ensure all players have the best possible experience.

Again, that's the key to me. Unless there's a giant typo or error (Pathfinder Trials, for example), the scenario needs to stay the same. As umopapisdnupsidedown said, the Vordine is the "updated" Barbazu, but have vastly different abilities. But a lot of monsters got minor tweaks, such as changing the AC or saves by 1 or 2, but even still, that could be pretty major. If everything else went the same, a failed save could lead to vastly different outcomes, depending on which version of the monster you run.

Again, the Vordine or the Harpies are an extreme example where entire abilities get changed, and ignoring specific tactics enemies might or might not have, the intent of the game is that whether you play Second Edition in 2020 or 2030, the adventure should stay the same. You can't have people who played premaster have a different experience from the ones that play remaster, other than their characters. The adventure should stay the same.

Those were the "optimal" tactics. But there's no rule which states a GM must use optimal tactics.

I chose not to, because it wouldn't have been fun for my players, or for me.

Playing "optimal tactics" or not is up to the GM. Some GMs prefer to present it as a realistic situation, where sometimes things don't go in the PC's favour. The enemy wants to survive and tries their best to do so, even if it comes at the expense of the players' enjoyment. I personally roll the other way and play enemies suboptimal at times so the players have a good time and aren't frustrated. But that does mean they feel cheated sometimes.

Whether you play hardball or not should be discussed beforehand. Which isn't always possible in Society play, but if you have regular GMs, you probably know what to expect from them.

My harpy example was just an example, it doesn't matter whether they have those specific tactics in this case or not. Like I said, it's about keeping the experience the same across the globe. If one person runs the singing harpies and someone else uses the diseased harpies, that's not the same experience. That's the part that matters.

I mean, technically you're right, but if there's one interpretation that's clearly wrong (a creature that only has a Fly speed and an ability that specifies a Stride action can't use that action to Fly), and an interpretation that makes sense (a creature can use its Fly speed to Stride), it's easy to know which one to pick.

But again, it's intended that people have the same experience all over the world, regardless of edition (unless grossly invalidated, as you said). If the intent was to function like X and the alternative doesn't allow for that, then it's clear what should be done.

So okay, it doesn't matter in this instance, but I've seen Harpies used in First Edition where they sing as soon as people get within its area of effect and hope to coup de grace them. That's 300 feet, so essentially they lure you in from afar and hypnotise you before you know what's going on. That would be completely impossible woth the new version of the harpies, so the intended use is clear: use the old version, so the ambush is still possible. That way, you still give new players the same experience as the people before the remaster.

My problem with letting it depend on intent is that it allows for variation within the same action. If I'm summoning to use their Heal spells is clearly not hostile, but summoning for damage is, it feels weird to give different results to the same action. Or what if, after two rounds of healing, there is nothing left to heal, and you then use it to fight? That wasn't the original intent, but hey, it's here now, might as well use it.

Or if I'm invisible and blocking a door or passageway. I'm not actively harming anyone by not letting them past, but I'm definitely impeding them. Is "being in the way" a good enough qualifier for a hostile action?

If a rule requires this much interpretation and double-think, I prefer to view it as simple as possible until given evidence otherwise.

Ravingdork raised a similar argument: What if my character doesn't realize they're harming people even when they obviously do so?

That would mean a super dumb or ignorant person (very low WIS, maybeceven Feebleminded) would never break Invisibility. Someone with the intelligence of baby pressing the self-destruct button should definitely be considered hostile, even if they don't know what the shiny red light does.

Okay, extreme example, but still. Ignorance can only go so far as an excuse. A young child swinging scissors around might do so out of ignorance, but would definitely be considered dangerous. If you hurt something, it's hostile.

Hostile Action wrote:

For instance, casting fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster wouldn’t be.

Is opening a door a hostile action?

If you are doing it for the lols, no.

If you are doing it to let your ally into the room so that they can start beating on people, yes.

If you are doing it so that you can sneak away after a successful burglary of a room, no.

If you are opening the door thinking that you are just trying to escape, but accidentally release a ravening monster that comes into the room and starts wrecking things, still no. Because the intent to do harm wasn't there.

My rule is: does the action you're performing right now cause any direct harm to, or impact in any way, the thing you're doing it to? Yes, the intent behind opening a door might be malicious, but other than regular wear and tear on the door, nobody gets hurt by that action. Stealing keys, a potion, or a coin purse? Not harmed in the sense of HP loss, but it's definitely a negative effect. Same as an Intimidate or casting a Slow spell: a direct debuff and status effect onto the opponent is most definitely a hostile effect.

Opening a door breaking Invisibility is ridiculous, under any circumstance. Yes, rules are muddy in some cases, but it's clear-cut here: opening a door is not harmful to the door. If I'm under Invisibility and accidentally step on an ant, that's not harmful. Yes, I just killed a (regular-sized) ant, but that's practically unavoidable. If any action that might eventually lead to harm would break invisibility, then invisibility would pretty much be broken immediately. Casting Bless on my party to boost their chances of hitting you? Yep. Walking towards someone with the intent to harm them? Yep. Unsheathing my sword? Yep. Stand completely still while invisible, so someone accidentally bumps into me? Yep.

In fact, pretty much anything could be considered "hostile" that way. Casting Heal or Oaken Might on someone to survive more blows would be considered hostile. If all of that is considered "hostile," which actions are you still allowed to perform then? a simple Calm spell would be about as effective as a Paralyze spell, which is one rank higher (the only difference being that the target can still move with Calm).

In PF1, was always considered summoning non-harmful. You don't roll an attack roll, you don't force any saves, and so on. Yes, the thing you summoned is definitely harmful, but that's indirectly. I've seen several written encounters hinge upon the fact (and specifically spell out) that buffing allies or summoning does not break the spell. That seems clear enough to me. In fact, a Lilend Azata was most often summoned for their bardic performance or healing abilities, despite being decent with a longsword as well. Would Invisibility pop when using it to intend harm, but not when used as an additional healbot?

Grabbing someone to prevent them from falling into a pit, while noble and the intent behind it is definitely non-harmful: giving someone the Grabbed consition is harmful, easy as that. Transforming the ground to mud to cause difficult terrain is not doing anything harmful to anyone. Yes, it's annoying, but no one is directly harmed by it. Summoning a creature into being does not directly impact anyone, so that wouldn't be considered a hostile action.

While it might seem counterintuitive, yeah, NPCs stay as they were. The idea of PFS is that everyone has the same experience (barring any egregious errata). Plenty of people have experienced the pre-remaster Harpy, so people post-remaster should experience it as well. Especially since some monsters might have gotten updates the scenario doesn't account for.

And with the modified monsters, transplanting pre-remaster abilities onto post-remaster might just break things, or cause needless confusion and/or mistakes with changing numbers. For example, I don't know the scenario you're speaking of, but I can imagine the tactics saying something about using their song to lure people in. In the remaster, they have lost that ability and their tactic would be invalidated (granted, they have something similar, but still).

Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see why Engulf wouldn't work with a Fly speed?

Engulf says:
The monster Strides up to double its Speed and can move through the spaces of any creatures in its path.

Stride simply says:
You move up to your Speed.

And Speed says:
Most characters and monsters have a Speed statistic that indicates how quickly they can move across the ground. This statistic is referred to as land Speed when it's necessary to differentiate it from special Speeds.

When you use the Stride action, you move a number of feet equal to your Speed. Numerous other abilities also allow you to move, from Crawling to Leaping, and most of them are based on your Speed in some way. Whenever a rule mentions your Speed without specifying a type, it's referring to your land Speed.

Bolded part indicates why it wouldn't work on a Fly speed, but since the Incant doesn't have any other speed, it seems obvious to me that it would apply to the Fly speed. If it had both a land speed AND a fly speed, yeah, it should only apply to its land speed, but since there simply isn't one, the intended use is clear. Yeah, there's a hoop to jump through to jump to that conclusion, but not a far-fetched one. Since its Engulf ability is also referenced in its flavour text, I doubt it's put there by accident.

I have mostly low-level experience in PFS2, but I've played in several APs now that went to high level, and I've only encountered one PC death, and that was against a double crit failed Phantasmal Killer. Conversely, deaths in PFS1 weren't exactly common, but at least a realistic thing to happen to you, I feel. Nearly all of my Society characters have died at least once, or at least half of them.

I've seen plenty of people go down, and back up again (in both editions). It's just that the removal of "negative CON = death" makes survival so much easier. So often you just accidentally get crit, or take an unlucky blow in PF1 that just leaves you at an unfortunate amount of HP.

I'd say PFS2 isn't necessarily less deadly, it's just easier to recover from a dying condition.

Up above, Pirate Rob linked his travelogue, and says his party used mounts. Where can I find mounts and their gear? Is it just a simple horse?

Voluntarily failing or crit-failing a save, outside of specific cases like drugs, is not a mechanic that's in PF2 at all so that would not be a thing you can legally expect to do. If they could, the monolith surge would, of course, still have to roll against the DC of the grab, as per the Immobilized condition.

Way late of course, but I believe I read somewhere that in case of PCs forcing checks or saves on each other (such as a Shove or Reposition), you can voluntarily raise your degree of success by one step, though I'm not 100% sure on that.

Same for me. I'm a player in Michael's game, but I don't mind switching over to the GM seat.

A corrupted temple, and a demon that needs to be defeated? Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down? :P

Champion's Chalice indeed has a memorable temple and demon. The Grippli vilage is 100% definitely #6–14 Scions of the Sky Key, Part 2: Kaava Quarry. It has indeed a very cool map. Part 3 also has a temple and a fiend-like enemy that needs defeating.

Piggybacking on this discussion: say we're in combat, so we have 3 actions. I'd like to Recall Knowledge. The GM says it would be Arcana to identify. I don't have Arcana (or any other skill to substitute). Should the roll automatically fail (or crit fail)? Am I allowed to say, "okay, then I won't do that"?

As a GM, I like my players to have (almost) full information before they opt in, to avoid gotcha situations. But I can certainly understand the interpretation that if you say, "I wanna know more about this," and you lack the skill to do so, the action goes to waste.

Just checking, "Aslan" is meant to be "Aslynn," right? Unless we have a Narnia crossover planned. :P

Ah, thanks for the correction! I realise now that my post could be read as condescending or in a "hey, you're wrong" kind of way. I didn't mean it like that and I'm glad it wasn't taken as such. I should've worded my first sentence better.

Just wanted to say that the Thundering Dominance spell specifically calls out companions or eidolons. I think familiars and companions are separate things, right? I like the idea of a Tiny rat familiar letting out a giant roar, but not sure if the rules agree.

(Played this yesterday, no GM experience with this yet.)

I'm not sure. I agree that the specific callouts feel weird, but on the other hand, allowing you to substitute your (probably) best skill for any other skill feels weird. It's like being rewarded even more for doubling down on one skill. It's like answering a maths test with a three-page essay about why you think you deserve an A on this test.

Not necessarily disagreeing, just saying it's not flawless.

Hell, I would maybe allow it as-is, but at a higher DC. That allows a broader range of characters to try it, but still keep the playing field even.

I hereby withdraw my submission. I thought I'd maybe get a spot if there weren't a lot of applicants, but I see you have a lot of options to choose from, so go ahead and choose someone who has an actual idea for a character, rather than my "I'll fill any slot" application.

Dotting for interest. Have no ideas for a character yet, but I'll post something in the next two-three days.

1.I'm very flexible in class choice, and I like filling gaps in the party. I'm also pretty mechanics-first, as in, I build my character's personality around what they do mechanics-wise, not the other way around. Not the best "pick me"-pitch, I know. :P If there's a strong fourth contender, I'm happy to pass my spot to them.

2. I'm currently GMing the third book of Abomination Vaults, and I've done several modules and scenarios in both first and second edition.
As a player, what I find most difficult is sometimes interacting with other players. In my experience, most players don't really interact as much with each other as you would on a real-life table. Simple things such as commenting on a cool action someone else did. And if you do, not all players reciprocate the banter, as by that point the moment has passed and it feels weird to call back on it.
(This isn't meant as an attack or insult to my fellow PbP players, just something I noticed.)

3. The dice fall on incredible odds. Not simply good odds that favour the suspected gambler, but simply interesting situations. Triple ones, for example, or a straight. The gambler would be excited more by the outcome than whether they won the bet or not.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

I also see Mike Hallet offered to run a game with two Animists, so I've claimed a spot there as well, but the offer still stands. :)

I had three reserved spots and the other three spots were already filled. Sorry.

Realised that after I signed in. Sorry for jumping the gun, and have fun!

I also see Mike Hallet offered to run a game with two Animists, so I've claimed a spot there as well, but the offer still stands. :)

Hey all, a bit of an odd request here: I'd like to make an Animist, but I'd like to see one in action first, see how it plays out. I'm willing to run any scenario if there's at least one (ideally two, minimum) Animist at the table.

I was thinking a 1-4 scenario, so people can easily make one if they don't have one already, but if a group of people happen to have Animists at a higher level, I'm happy to run higher tier. :)
I was also thinking something that runs over multiple in-game days, so people are encouraged to switch things up a little and show off a little more, but this is no hard requirement.
With these two soft rules, I was thinking maybe Lost on the Spirit Road, because that fulfills both requirements, plus, I mean, it's the Spirit Road, that seems to be a good thematical fit for Animists. :)

Anyone up for joining? Feel free to whip up a new character altogether if you don't have an Animist. Or play a different character, as long as someone brings an Animist (maybe even two someones?). :) And also feel free to suggest a scenario. :)

I mean, Gisher exaggerated, but he makes a good point. Our characters might be aware of things our players aren't and vice versa. Overlaying game rules onto a fictional world requires some suspension of disbelief, and I think experienced players are just more familiar with the constraints and "invisible walls" than new players. I don't mean to say new players are bad at it, they just aren't (completely) aware of the social contract. It might feel natural from a game perspective to not squeeze every bonus out of a situation, but in the fiction, in a life-or-death situation, you'll grab every bonus you can get. And it's up to the players, not the characters, to adjudicate how far you wanna go.

Yeah, Ascalaphus and Unicore bring up a good point. Sounds like it's a bit of inexperience combined with poor expectation management. Players don't like being told what to do, combined with not knowing how the other players want from you.

This doesn't have to be a thing, but a "hey, I'm used to a different style of game, let's see if there's a middle ground" conversation might be a good idea. That also prevents fingers from being pointed at each other and saying badwrongno. Though I also really like the idea of an in-character training session.

I'll be running this soon, and the adventure is obviously pre-remaster. I'm not even sure if I should change the pregens at all (run as written and stuff), but it seems like an obvious choice to allow the Cleric to use the new rule of 4 Heals per day. But if I do that, it becomes a slippery slope to also allow the Sorcerer to swap out Dangerous Sorcery.

I'm just split between keeping things as-is and running things as written (you know, what PFS is about), and the whole "remaster means everything gets updated" mentality.

See, updating the Cleric's Healing Font is just a simple adjusting of numbers. You get two extra Heals per day. Sweet. But allowing the Sorcerer to pick up a whole new feat seems like it's going against the spirit of having pregens in the first place. Then again, is it even necessary to update the pregens at all?

If I were to change feats, I'd probably give the Sorcerer either Reach Spell or Natural Skill for two more trained skills (Intimidation is always good on a Sorcerer, though maybe not appropriate flavour-wise, and maybe Occultism), so it's not like it's a drastic change, but still.

I like to think that characters that are new to each other, such as at the start of a campaign, aren't a well-oiled machine yet, and play suboptimally for two reasons:
- To show off their characters. They do a thing two or three times to show their standard modus operandi, then slowly phase it out as other players get the vibe.
- They don't know how the others work. Yeah, someone might keep out of the frontlines because they're relatively squishy, they could also just be playing a sensible character. Besides, so many classes aren't made for the frontline, so it's not weird to stay on the edges of a fight. Once a character knows "hey, this person's much more effective when they're flanking, maybe I should set up a flank for them," they might start discussing tactics or opening moves.

I get what the player is doing with feinting: they're showing off what they can do. But on the other hand, as others have also said, it's not metagaming to know there's only one penalty for being distracted. Maybe in a more rules-light game you could make the two effects stack, but not in PF2e. Yes, you don't have to squeeze out every +1 you can get or be as efficient with your actions as possible, but that shouldn't get in the way of basic combat.

I have two stories I'd like to share, both from PFS:
- Back in PF1, two people rocked up. A Bard (I think) and her bodyguard (Barbarian). All the bodyguard did was stand in front of the Bard and, well, bodyguard. No rage, no attacks, just full defense every single round. She was just a bag of HP. She would only rage and attack once the Bard got hurt. Which, considering it was a backline Bard, rarely happened. I get that it's in theme for you, but you're actively not contributing to the fight, and it was frustrating to me, because she did add to the challenge. But it made sense for her character, so it also felt wrong to speak to her about it.
- A guy popped up with a knife-throwing Rogue. Literally all he did in combat was throw daggers from 30 foot distance, as he didn't want to be in danger. +4 DEX, +0 STR, so he did 4 damage a round, max, unless he won initiative and got a one-time 1d6 sneak attack. If he hit at all, that is, since daggers have a 10 foot range and he was taking -2s left and right for no reason whatsoever. Turns out in his friend group they all play very rules-light and low power, it's more about the story than the combat. All completely fine, but he just didn't adapt to the PFS mentality where it's a group effort and things are a bit more hardcore than he's used to. Ine one fight, of our party of four, two people were knocked out, only he and the other Rogue were still standing. He hasn't flanked all scenario. Boss is breathing down the other Rogue's neck, who is standing at a handful of hit points. Other Rogue couldn't flank, and he's doing 2 damage a round. Guy says, "I throw a dagger and run away." (he's at full HP, by the way) We literally had to stop the scenario and say that if he didn't get his ass into melee, we'd all die. "Yeah, but this is what I would do." Eventually we managed to persuade him and he grumbled about being told what to do, but we barely won.
That guy is still playing that awful character. He's level 4 now, doing 2d4 a round with his Striking daggers, against enemies with 30+ HP. We all dread playing with him, but he doesn't seem to understand why.

Bottom line of these two stories: "It's what my character would do" is fun at the start and in low-stakes situations but players (and characters) should adapt to the group. It's a team game, and you cannot do your own thing if it is actually in the way of the group dynamic.

Definitely. Not sure if it should key off Charisma instead, but it's definitely a feat that changes the whole feel of the class, and deserves more exploration.

Not sure what other subclasses would look like. If you go off the Rune-singer and interpret subclasses as different ways of calling runes into being, I'm just thinking of how other media depict different styles of magic. I've come up with:
- A prayer-focused subclass (potentially Wisdom-based). Invoke the name of the gods and inscribe holy symbols on things/creatures.
- An occult-focused subclass? Tapping into eldritch signs and unspeakable horrors. Maybe more mind-affecting than other subclasses, like putting Sanctuary-like effects into place, or drawing aggro in some way.

Also, I think gnomes have different hair texture. the iconic Druid, Lini, has grass-like hair, though maybe that's just the artist's style.

I also get the feeling their skin colour tends to be a lot more vibrant compared to halflings. Good Gnome art really shows how alien gnomes are compared to humans/halflings.

I like to envision the inverse to be also true: a Tiny creature suddenly rising as a Medium thrall! Wonder what that looks like. Ooh, or a thrall rising from a slain swarm!

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?