It looks like Apple Pay still isn't an option for the new store. Does this mean you've just changed your minds about accepting that payment method?
Search Posts
It's nice to finally have rules for equipping and unequipping shields. And I like the new rules for Staff Nexus Wizards.
People didn't complain that imaginary weapon was too good on the Psychic, the criticism was that it synergized too well with the Magus, and that's something that changing the MC archetype would have fixed. It appears that amped cantrips can no longer be used with Spellstrike, anyway. Reportedly the text now says You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects. You can't spend the focus point as a free action during the Spellstrike, and activating Spellstrike after spending the focus point would mean that your next action wasn't casting the psi cantrip so the cantrip wouldn't be amped. So there's no way to use an amped cantrip as part of a Spellstrike. The previous wording let you spend the focus point as part of casting the cantrip so it worked with Spellstrike back then. So the changes to the Psychic Archetype weren't necessary to prevent the most overpowered part of the Magus/Psychic combo. The old version of Imaginary Weapon would still have delivered slightly higher damage than the non-psi cantrips, but the overpowered Amp + Spellstrike option wouldn't have been available.
Given how much the creation of the Psychic Multiclass Archetype boosted the Magus power level, it seems relevant to the Magus portion of this discussion that, in another thread, Dr. Frank Funkelstein is reporting that Imaginary Weapon has been changed from 1d8 to 1d6 and that the Psychic Dedication now doesn't give you access to an Amp until level 6.TBH, I am okay with this. Psychic was too good of an archetype choice for the Magus to begin with. Reading more online, it appears that amped cantrips can no longer be used with Spellstrike, anyway. Reportedly the text now says You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects. You can't spend the focus point as a free action during the Spellstrike, and activating Spellstrike after spending the focus point would mean that your next action wasn't casting the psi cantrip so the cantrip wouldn't be amped. So there's no way to use an amped cantrip as part of a Spellstrike. The previous wording let you spend the focus point as part of casting the cantrip so it worked with Spellstrike back then. So the changes to the Psychic Archetype weren't necessary to prevent the most overpowered part of the Magus/Psychic combo. I'm not terribly upset that Imaginary Weapon's damage is now in line with common cantrips, but I am sad that the archetype moved amping to 6th level. Given that the dedication only grants 1 cantrip and the archetype allows fewer spell slots than other casting archetypes, getting that early amp was pretty much the only compensating feature. I doubt I'd ever choose Psychic archetype over, say, Wizard or Witch for any of my high-Int characters now, and that's a shame since I love the flavor of Psychic.
Given how much the creation of the Psychic Multiclass Archetype boosted the Magus power level, it seems relevant to the Magus portion of this discussion that, in another thread, Dr. Frank Funkelstein is reporting that Imaginary Weapon has been changed from 1d8 to 1d6 and that the Psychic Dedication now doesn't give you access to an Amp until level 6.
I hope they change magus by allowing us to pick spell lists... That would be really nice. I enjoyed that sort of option with the PF1 Magus archetypes.
I'm not so sure it was forgotten. I suspect that a lot of the elements that it used were thought to be too much associated with D&D.
I think I'd be happy if they just made entering Arcane Stance recharge your spell strike. Make a Spellstrike on your first round and then recharge while entering the stance seems like a pretty good use for my first round actions.
...Aquatic Elf - Aquatic Elf Heritage with supporting Ancestry Feats... I definitely want this along with as much cultural background as they can fit in.
The book with Necromancer, Runesmith AND remastered Magus is Impossible Magic. It was announced today! Sweet!
We're all just lab rats to you aren't we Maya? ;)You are my community that I am so glad to be a part of ^_^ And we are very, very glad that you are part of this community. :)
... I just enjoy watching you all speculate! ^_^ We're all just lab rats to you aren't we Maya? ;)
Thanks. Hopefully we get a FAQ on the Palatine Detective error since that will be sufficient to get Demiplane to change their implementation. Literally "yes, it's a 10th level feat, obviously" is all it will take. Are you referring to Greater Esoteric Spellcasting? It clearly only makes sense if it's a 10th level feat.
I'm happy that the tracker thread seems to suggest that progress is being made on some issues. :)
Thanks for the update, Maya. :) I get it. This has been a crazy year for Paizo, and this errata wasn't the highest priority. Hopefully things will be a bit calmer for all of you next year.
...but the store doesn't support physical products being mixed with digital.In the year of our lord 2025 the store can't list both physical and digital products on the same page? That is absurd and, frankly, hard to believe. It is very hard to believe. And if true, it's even harder to understand why Paizo would choose a store with such a limitation.
Well, I guess this isn't going to be fixed in time. When the new store opened I was excited to see that I could use my online payment option of Apple Pay and that there was a nice week long sale price. So I immediately tried, multiple times, to make a purchase only to find out that you couldn't deliver on the promise to accept Apple Pay. I understand that glitches in new software are to be expected, but that's why offering a discount during the first week of operation is obviously problematic. I'm seriously annoyed that I can't get the discount that I was promised when I attempted to make my purchase simply because you didn't get your software working properly before offering that discount.
I'm surprised this issue is taking so long to fix. I'd have thought the software for accepting Apple Pay was part of the standard package for Big Commerce. Is there any chance this will get fixed before the Legendary Week Sale ends?
Maybe it's moved to the new store?
So Mocking Dragons can add insult to injury and also injury to insult? ;)
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing black text on a white background. But links on the blog pages are showing up as dark gray text with no underline as opposed to the usual blue text with an underline. So it's really hard for me to tell the difference between the links and regular text.
I had the same problem. It kept telling me that my email or password were wrong even though the forums recognized me just fine. On the login page there should be a link to request an email to get in. I clicked that and then clicked to link in the email, and the store let me in.
I'm excited about the new store, but it doesn't seem to be able to accept Apple Pay. I've tried three times and it keeps getting rejected
However cantrips don't have a spell rank so technically you can't meet that requirement. :) Thank you! I hadn't noticed that with the remaster the word "level" had been changed to "rank" in the Reading Spells section.
However cantrips don't have a spell rank so technically you can't meet that requirement. :)
I'm not surprised to hear that this is your design. :) I loved this dragon immediately, and I've always had an affinity for your work.
Hopefully the blog page will get redone. I haven't been able to view it for months since it always crashes while it's loading.
Player Core 2: page 308 The major Staff of the Tempest is listed at 14,000 gp, but that is extremely high for a staff with only up to 6th level spells. Comparable staves seem to be priced from around 4,000-4,500 gp so the 14,000 gp price is likely a typo.
Just be aware that Staff Acrobat doesn't grant the trip weapon trait to your weapon so you won't be able to apply the weapon's potency rune bonus to your trip attempts unless the weapon already had the trip weapon trait. So you'll probably want to invest in a Lifting Belt or Armbands of Athleticism.
Ok, now you HAVE to make an archetype (or similar) for the Runesmith based on the Rune Dragon :D That would be awesome! Alternatively, I think I'll make a dragonblood Runesmith with a rune dragon exemplar. :)
"This amount" refers to the 4 base abilities that you now have. So 4+three witch bonuses = 7. I don't see the source of your confusion.
I can't believe it's already October! Only two more months until the Codex is here!
I came across this video examining a late 19th century weapon that is a real-world version of the Dagger Pistol, and I thought I'd share it. :)
Draconic Codex is going to have some dragon-based options for Kobolds, and I'm hoping that those will enable those of us who really liked the pre-remaster dragon-descended Kobolds to recreate those characters without needing to take Dragonblood.
Please don't waste a boon on chakrams for a +0 Dex build. Why would you need a boon to use Chakrams when they have Common rarity?
...I still haven't tried to figure out my fighting style, but I did go with a +3 strength and a +0 dex so archer may not be the best fit here. :) As Bretl says, you'll want a hand free for Battle Medicine, and I agree with them regarding the flexibility of a banner on a pole attached to your backpack. Of course you'd need a free hand to draw and plant the pole when that would be useful. With a large, high-strength character it seems a shame to me not to invest in Athletics attacks, and a free hand is useful there as well. So I think I'd take Dragonchess' suggestion of Ironhoof + Steelhoof so the character could use a shield in one hand while keeping the other free. For a ranged option, you could carry a few bolas to perform the occasional ranged trip. That gives you options of striking with your hooves, raising/blocking with your shield for extra defense, and using your free hand for either battle medicine, melee Athletics attacks, drawing and/or throwing a bola, or drawing and planting your banner.
Updates to this: All of these were part of the bow group in the first printing of Treasure Vault since the crossbow group didn't yet exist. The Sukgung was moved to the crossbow group in the Tian Xia Character Guide, but was then moved back to the bow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. Despite this, Archives of Nethys still lists it as being in the crossbow group. The Gauntlet Bow was moved to the crossbow group in Battlecry!, and Archives of Nethys reflects this. The other three have not been reprinted since the remastered Treasure Vault came out. The most parsimonious explanation for this mess is still that all five of these were supposed to be moved to the crossbow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. If you assume that to be true then everything else here makes perfect sense.
My best guess is that it's a nod to Will Blankenship who performed as a "one man band" in the 1930's. From Wikipedia: ...Will Blankenship of the Blankenship family of North Carolina played harmonica, autoharp and triangle in shows during the 1930s.
the main issue with gauntlet bow is that the gauntlet is not finesse. So either your melee hit would be behind your ranged hit or the other way around. It's a nice option for Investigators, though, since they can use Dex or Int for the crossbow and Str or Int for the gauntlet.
It's available now. :) Also, the PFS Character Options page has been updated to include this book. Jotunborn is now a free ancestry in PFS.
I'm stumped as to how Ulka can have ten attribute boosts (STR +3, DEX +1, CON +1, INT +4, WIS +0, CHA +1) at level 1 instead of nine — 2 from ancestry, 2 from background, 1 from class, and 4 free. What am I missing?
The Chakram has an interesting/confused evolution. In Grand Bazaar (GB) it follows the normal rules for a thrown-only weapon. The reload is —, range is given, and the thrown trait is listed. On its return in TXCG, the reload becomes 1 like it's a weapon that needs ammo loaded into it, and the thrown trait gains a 20ft, like it's a melee weapon that can also be thrown. GB version makes more sense, but TXCG is newer. I notice that despite citing TXCG as a source, Archives of Nethys doesn't list the Chakram as having a reload time nor does it add the "20ft" onto its Thrown trait. Make of that what you will. I'll also note that the Tamchal Chakram is a melee weapon with the "Thrown 20ft" trait so I'm guessing that someone accidentally looked up the wrong Chakram when typing up the weapon traits in TXCG.
On the Official FAQ Page I can't get any of the book listings to "open up" so I can read the errata. I noticed this last night on my old iPad mini, but figured it was likely a compatibility problem because it is running a very old iOS and using an old version of Safari. But just now I used my iPhone running iOS 18.5 and I've encountered the same problem. So I think something is wrong with the page itself. -----
-----
The boon is "Specialized Training—Palatine Detective" Thank you! I finally joined PFS, and I'm still trying to get a handle on those specific rules, so this was very helpful!
The Palatine Detective archetype is Uncommon. Is there a way to take it in PFS? Perhaps by purchasing the Secondary Initiation boon for the Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye?
Let's say that a couple gets married in a community property state. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It wasn't intentional. I'm aware that my thought processes are unusual, and that this can often lead to communication difficulties — especially in online environments were facial cues and other aspects body language aren't available to provide me with immediate feedback so that I can correct misunderstandings as they occur. To clarify, I wasn't accusing anyone of being morally bankrupt. I don't even subscribe to the concept of moral bankruptcy as I think you are using the term. Since everyone has different values, and ethical systems are just methodologies for preserving or increasing the things that one values, ethical systems will naturally differ both in their approaches and their ends. Since value systems vary, there can't be a universal framework within which the morality of entire ethical systems can be evaluated. So while an ethical system can be evaluated based on criteria like effectiveness or internal consistency there isn't any framework from which one can meaningfully evaluate an ethical system as intrinsically morally good or morally bad. All of which means that, while other ethical systems are different from mine, or might even support values that are in direct opposition to mine, that doesn't make them morally bankrupt in my view — just different. In this current case, it seems that some people here are using a different ethical system than the one that I use or other ones that I'm familiar with, and I'm just genuinely curious as to how that system works. All analogies are imperfect, but I had hoped to create one that had a similar structure, but perhaps a bit less immediate emotional resonance so that people could clarify the principles that they are using to evaluate their concept of "theft" for me. From the responses that my post received its clear that my attempt failed miserably, and I'm sorry if my phrasing caused anyone emotional distress. I'm not judging anyone's point of view as "right" or "wrong" because, as I said, that would be a meaningless judgment. I'm just trying to understand points of view that differ from my own current point of view, and for me that requires understanding the fundamental principles that are involved. I'm still curious about this, so I'd like to try again. This time I'll avoid analogies and just try to strip the situation down to the bare essentials as I currently understand them. I have no idea whether or not anyone will find this approach offensive, but please understand that I am not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to understand how you are approaching this situation because understanding other peoples approaches helps me improve my own. Here is the general situation as I currently understand it. A number of companies want to engage in a business venture together that each believes has the potential to earn them a profit. They all hope that it will be a successful venture, but understand that there are a number of different ways that it might not turn out as profitable as expected or even fail completely: the product might not sell very well, the product might be accidentally destroyed or damaged before being sold, one or more of the parties might go into bankruptcy, new taxes might be levied during the sales process, costs of materials might rise, etc. So in order for each party to be able to make an accurate risk assessment before committing to this venture, they create an agreement that defines the processes by which the assets involved in this joint venture will be divided up in the event that any of those forms of failure might occur. All of the parties agree to the terms of the contract and they all sign on to it. Eventually one of those failure points occurs, and under the terms that all of the parties agreed to, some property that formerly belonged to one set of companies, now becomes the property of a different set of companies. For me, this transfer of assets doesn't qualify as theft in either a legal or ethical sense because the parties that had ownership before the property became part of this venture consented to this outcome when they signed the agreement. There's clearly a tongue-in-cheek sense in which I could refer to this as "legalized theft" (in the same way that I might refer to heart surgery as "legalized assault"), but because I view the lack of consent as an essential component of both the legal and ethical definition of theft, there isn't any meaningful sense in which I can refer to this situation as legalized theft. But it seems that some people here do consider this to qualify as theft in an ethical sense despite the fact that all parties involved consented to this arrangement before the failure point occurred. Those people must be using some principle other than consent to distinguish changes of ownership that are theft from changes of ownership that are not theft. That's the thought process that I'm curious about; what are the fundamental qualities that you are using to distinguish theft from non-theft in an ethical sense? Again, I apologize if this question offends anyone. I am just trying to understand your point of view, and would appreciate your help.
I believe there was also mention of an archetype that is like a remastered form of Drow Shootist.
I've been pondering why I had such a visceral reaction to the use of the word 'theft' in this situation, and I think it is because it seems to argue that while agency, consent, and responsibility are valid legal principles, they are not valid ethical principles. I find that very unsettling since they are core principles for every system of ethics that I would even remotely consider adopting. Let's say that a couple gets married in a community property state. Neither expects that they will get divorced, but each understands that if they do, any assets earned during the marriage will be split evenly between them. Ten years later they do get divorced. During the marriage, spouse A earned significantly more than spouse B did, so an equal division of assets will not correspond to the amount that each spouse brought into the partnership. So in the divorce more of spouse A's earned wealth automatically becomes the property of spouse B than the reverse. From my perspective, the ethics here are simple. Both people willingly agreed to this arrangement when they got married so each is responsible for upholding the terms of that agreement, and neither is acting unethically by insisting that the other person do so. But many of you seem to view this differently. Apparently, under your system of ethics, although spouse B is legally entitled to that property, by insisting that spouse A abide by their agreement spouse B is acting unethically. As I understand your point of view, spouse A is a victim here because this is the "legalized theft" of spouse A's property. But that seems to completely devalue spouse A's agency. Since both people were mentally competent when they willingly consented to this outcome, I don't see why spouse A is absolved of all ethical responsibility to follow the terms of the agreement or why spouse B is wrong to insist that the agreement be followed.
I am fairly certain that the flexible spellcaster represents most arcanist like character in PF2e. This is anathema to many people because of the lack of the exploits, but I doubt that there is really design space for a retread of the class.Sure, but at the same time... what would both fit Nex better and be new? I completely agree that a PF2 Arcanist class won't be a thing. But it did seem to fit QuidEst's criteria of a class which would fit in well in PF2 Nex, so I just threw it out. In my head space, the Runesmith is a full-class expansion of the Runescarred archetype concept so it feels like more of a Saga Lands thing to me.
I don't know anything about Pathbuilder, but as far as I know there aren't any ways to get four abilities at level 1. Witch familiars do start with three abilities as do familiars for Wizards with the Improved Familiar Attunement thesis. A few other options get you a specific bonus ability. The Alchemist's Alchemical Familiar feat, for example, gets you a familiar with the Construct ability in addition to the standard two abilities. I haven't updated it in a while, but you might find my Guide to Acquiring Familiars useful for seeing some ways to get and enhance familiars.
|