Ruzza's page

What I LOVE about exploration mode is it cuts down on a lot of the unnecessary dice rolling. I'm so sick of four characters rolling perception on every empty hallway, or rolling stealth checks to check on empty rooms. Just establish what people are doing and roll when it actually matters.

Flashbacks to high school -

"As you approach the-"

"I'm Hiding.... 23 and Moving Silently... 18."

"...As you approach the door, you can see that the trail of blood ends here."

"I open the door... stealthily. That's a 24 for Move Silently. I'm still Hiding, too. Nat 20."

"Okay, so inside you see three doors, each-"

"I'll Move Silently up to each one, checking for traps..."

Dice rolling intensifies.

I mean, I would be hard pressed to say that Exploration activities are perfect, too. When writing my own material I give them a glance over and feel like I am writing in reasons for PCs to remember them outside of very specific situations. Like you said, Exploration mode is a very nebulous area - if Encounter mode tracks the moment-to-moment decisions and Downtime mode tracks periods of time that range from a day to years, then exploration mode covers... minutes to hours to...? It's absolutely in a weird spot, but I think it isn't terribly flawed. Some edges just don't align as neatly into the puzzle as well as other modes of the game - especially from game to game.

For myself, it feels as though someone at Paizo enjoyed how Burning Wheel's instincts cut out a lot of the chaff of the game and focused on that. But, like you said, then then wound up with certain activities that ended up being more useful or classes that leaned towards those more heavily. It's nice then that you're not locked in to your activity like you would be if it was a Burning Wheel character's Instinct - so when the Defending frontliner decides that he'd like to Track, it's a smooth transition.

Yes, Repeat a Spell is a weird one, but it does encompass more that just Detect Magic - it's just that it's hard to put a finger one what other spells you'd like to repeat. It all sort of reminds me of the days playing in college and having someone say "We move through in single file with Chuck in front looking for traps, Steve casting detect magic every 30 feet, and Jen holding the torch for them." It's somewhat anachronistic to how games are played nowadays, but I like having those options there.

I dislike the idea of being punished when you use Stealth for Initiative (which requires Avoid Notice) by not being able to do anything else narrative-wise.

I wanted to circle back on this one to say that examples like I gave have been rare in my experience. I don't know of any GMs that use Exploration activities as a "gotcha!" They just allow us to translate what is happening narratively to what's occuring mechanically.

That said, rogues tend to be in a tough spot when it comes to Exploration just because they're tasked with so much. While running PFS, I had a player using an eldritch trickster rogue who entered an old crypt and said that he was, "Sneaking along, searching for traps, and detecting magic" all the while. And I can understand wanting to do all of that! It doesn't feel like a big ask, but there are a few things to consider beyond the narrative-stretching ability to do so much at once. Something that PF2 really seemed to try to do is remove a "one-stop shop" solution across the board. If my example rogue was able to Scout, Detect Magic, Search, and Avoid Notice, the rest of the party has less of an active role to play during these sessions. It's also opened up some design space with feats like Trapfinding or Wary Skulker.

That doesn't mean our rogue couldn't enter a room sneakily, breathe a sigh of relief, and then get to work detecting magic and looking for traps. It just allows concrete rules for GMs and PCs to point to when Exploration mode butts up against Encounter mode or the natural challenges of the adventure.

EDIT: In this example, however, while our rogue is doing all of this, what is the rest of their party doing? It feels more interactive for the whole table to get involved and make choices about their character rather than wait idly with passive Exploration activities like Defend.

The art in Pathfinder books (both in 1E and 2E) is obviously very nice. Still, it has a certain... flavour. Not sure how to describe it best: exaggerated? Cartoony? Comic-booky?

Pulp!

I can't speak to how Paizo does its art direction, but Wayne Reynolds has certainly helped shape the look and feel of Pathfinder since the beginning. He's also, to my mind, the artist with the most fingerprints over the original Eberron setting - a genuinely pulpy setting.

While pulp as a genre began when describing cheap and low-quality stories, it was quickly the birthplace of some of the greatest adventures! Conan, Lovecraft, Tarzan! I could be reading too much into art, but Reynolds' style has always sort of brought me into that world. Tales of derring-do, but also of dark and terrible secrets not meant for man. Obviously you tell the stories you want to tell, but the artwork of Pathfinder tends to put me in a place of pulp fantasy - the kind where the villain would jab a finger at the heroes hissing, "I had not believed you to live after my trap, but I much prefer to do this with my own hands!" before launching a sizzling lightning bolt at the party.

I actually understand where you're coming from, as I had a similar issue myself. As someone who does a lot of Play-By-Post, Exploration Mode has been very helpful for getting my team's "default actions" out of the way and moving the story along without bogging down the exploration. I think that's pretty universal around most tables.

When we get to what I consider the "granular" activities (like Investigate), I see those as being things that you change on the fly for certain situations, but we don't consciously think of as changing. The member of the party is Scouting when they stumble upon some older ruins. The GM describes the room and the scout then asks to check out the murals. Their activity has changed to Investigate, but it's quick, right? Not something we think of as shifting. If suddenly a horde of rats strike out from the shadows, we wouldn't consider the scout as giving that Scouting bonus any more as they're preoccupied with Investigating.

I only bring up the PbP as I have more trouble getting to those granular moments without significantly slowing down an already slow format of play. Because of that, I have to rethink how those activities get used to keep the pace of my games snappy while also being fair to my players.

It looks like you're overcomplicating a straightforward process:

A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one.

The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size.

You're focusing on an undefined word such as "normal" that doesn't exist in the game, but does exist as an adjective that helps to separate weapon dice with the rune and weapon dice without the rune. You would be rolling the (2d10+STR Mod) x 2 + 1d10.

That's what I'm getting at, while there is an elegance to solving the problems in that way, that would be RAI, not RAW. I would not expect every GM to state with certainty that the "1" in the damage column for blowguns means that it counts as a damage dice when it is asking me to take extra logical steps to come to a conclusion.

In the end, while it may make sense, I would hardly say that the rules as written support it. However, the intention may very well. I know that as a long time PFS GM, I often have players cite the Paizo forums when it comes to rule disputes and RAW is a very loaded term. This is easily an issue that can be interpreted from many different angles and there isn't enough clarity to say that the rules clearly state anything in one direction or the other.

You're saying that the weapon's damage die is 1. That I understand, but am I to interpret that as 1 of any die or of 1d1? If my PFS Cleric of Picoperi who takes the Deadly Simplicity feat, how does my blowgun's damage dice change? If the RAW states, as you say, that its weapon dice is simply 1, then shouldn't I be able to refer to the rules to adjudicate this without interpretation?

There is no need to attack other posters in general, but if you are responding to my posts, it's rather distracting for you to hold this conversation with me as the middle man. I have said my piece on this. I own both the book and PDF but linked it to make it easier to access for others in the thread.

Rules As Written has a very different meaning than you are implying. You are asking for us to interpret rules in a way that makes things easier to understand. I think it's fine to do so, but this falls under RAI, not RAW.

Demonskunk wrote:

But what I don't understand is: What is the other half of the shield's HP bar for?

Broken = Unconscious. Out of the fight.

Spend 10 minutes to repair it. Down to 1 action if your legendary crafter with quick repair feat.
You really want to have someone with Crafting if your using shield.

Destroyed = Dead. Not coming back.

This is a fantastic answer. You could block a potentially deadly attack but lose your shield for good in the process. Not a huge loss with a normal off-the-rack shield, but it ends up being a tough choice if you can't get a new shield before the next encounter or if your shield is magical and harder to come by.

But when a shield is Broken it can't be raised and can't be used to block with, so it's essentially just a useless hunk of wood at that point until repaired. I think?

Correct, like I said, that is the trade-off that you make for blocking an attack that you know will break your shield. Late into a fight, it may be an option with few consequences to block that attack that could down you. However, having your shield break in the first round could be tough, but may be necessary if that damage coming in would put you in a worse position.

When you use a shield, you have to balance your priorities in an encounter. These are decision points that shield-users have to keep in mind rather than just trying to Shield Block every attack.

On shields: Why does a shield Break at 1/2 HP and then become completely useless? Why does it have all that extra HP? Just to resist becoming completely destroyed?

I can't speak to your build much as it seems like a very personal thing. I can, however, speak on shields! Shields break because damage reduction is incredibly powerful and getting it does not come easily. It's important to remember that "broken" does not mean "destroyed" and both of these conditions typically only occur when you choose. So when you Shield Block an attack that will break or destroy your shield, you are making a judgement call, "I currently value taking less damage now than I do taking more potential damage later." Shields have this associated cost to them for the damage reduction trade-off and their ability to boost AC beyond normal bounds. A shield should not be used to get to normal AC much in the same way as it shouldn't be considered reliable damage reduction. The opportunity cost to do so is too low, so reliable access to either of these things is gated off (through action economy, feats, or shield HP - which can be mitigated through runes, magic items, and feats).

Also, I would suggest viewing AC as less of a "they will miss me" and instead think of it as "they will not crit me." The opponents willhit you, AC and damage reduction just mitigates the damage taken, statistically.

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die."

I wanted to link the sidebar you're referring to and provide some context to this as to why I still would say that this is not RAW and is certainly open to GM interpretation.

You're saying that under the "Damage" heading for weapons, what follows is its damage die. It would then stand to reason that since "1" is in the blowgun's Damage heading, that its damage die is 1. However, this still exists as an anomaly in the system as if we're taking that idea at face value, someone needs to define what that damage dice actually is.

Further down, damage dice are defined as the dice from 1d4 through to 1d12. This even makes certain not to include 1d20 or 2d6 as damage dice because of how they would interact strangely with the rules. I would say that "1 damage equals 1 damage dice" is incompatible with the idea that "The rules support this."

Now, I fully agree that peopel can and should rule as they want at their tables, but I strongly oppose the idea that "1 damage is 1 damage dice is a statement supported by RAW." It is, to the best of my reading, RAI.

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

Unfortunately, stating that damage (i.e. 1=1) equates to weapon die does not mean that it is RAW. That would then mean that any other case of flat damage would also mean that they function in a nebulous realm of dice. Darksol may be acidic in their responses, but you cannot in good faith call this RAW. The blowgun exists as an anomaly in the ruleset when viewed through this lens.

Or to put it simply, the old feats and legacy content are not gone if it goes by another name. There's the Remastered "Slip Sideways" which has the Nephelim trait and requires a lineage feat. Then there's "Fiend's Door" which as the Tiefling trait. As your character is a Tiefling, you still would have the "Fiend's Door" feat. There is no conversion needed in this situation.

I want to stress that the problem has been that simple weapons are not meant to be main weapons. Simple weapon-classes really use them as ways to engage their schtick or when they don't want to use other resources. The heavy crossbow, as a simple weapon, was difficult to use as a main weapon and had no martial counterpart until the arbalest. That said, I still enjoyed a gravity weapon, Running Reload, Precision ranger before the Remaster.

I would say that there are builds that work well with a single attack a round. As a matter of fact - and SuperBidi can feel free to correct me - but I feel like you gamble more with multiple attacks if you aren't built for doing so.

EDIT: Misread what you said, but gonna keep that up there. Something also to keep in mind that while the debate of "is deadly better than backstabber" there are a lot of different ways to make a character. A ranger may not consistently land crits in the same way as a crossbow gunslinger, but could also have a build based around Hiding and Striking out from cover. Or even rogues looking to have a solid weapon to Strike from hiding with before leaping into flanking. There are so many aspects to consider that comparing things one to one and trying to ascribe value to them is really going to vary from player to player and character to character.

To say nothing of more niche situations like having the piercing damage needed against an enemy or when having the range/defense to reload while other options are less effective.

I mean, the big difference is that the heavy crossbow is a simple weapon. As someone who has used one, it's not something I'd use on a martial character. It's a "fire once and drop" weapon at low-levels for simple weapon-locked classes. What they did with the arbalest is given martial crossbow users an option for the "heavy duty" crossbow while keeping the heavy crossbow for the simple weapon users.

Something important to remember with shields is that they allow you to "break the rules." They allow you to raise your AC above what is normally allowed without having to jump through hoops (like Taking Cover). There are very, very, very few ways to raise your AC in PF2. The reason, typically, you grab a shield is to break these constraints.

The damage reduction is another low cost "rules break." Having the ability to shrug off 5 damage with damage redutcion does not come easily. The cost, however, is that you will need to Repair the shield afterwards and that it can no longer be used in the combat. This is replicated in the shield spell (and in my experience, too many casters forget about the granted reaction).

It sounds like you're making a "tanky Meld into Eidolon" sort of summoner, which isn't a bad idea. However, relying solely on shields does not make you tanky so much as it gives you an extra layer of protection. Given that most combats will be around 3 rounds, having your shield break in the second or thrid round isn't as bad as it sounds. Just have at least one person in the party invest in Crafting to Repair the shield after the battle. Until then you have a combat trick to gain damage reduction (assuming you have shield block). The bigger hurdle is what Gisher has asked - how are you getting up to that +5 combined item/Dex bonus to get up to the "AC cap" (or how many feats are you investing to get heavy armor?)

So there's a lot to unpack here and I know we've gone through quite a bit, but there are a few things we should look at.

Recently, my friends and I played a new adventure called "March of the Dead."

As Unicore has said, jumping in to a game at higher levels may work in some systems, but PF2 tends to do front-load a lot of its learning. Level 3 may not seem like "high level," but you're already dealing with rank 2 spellcasting, somewhat established character builds (as in, "my character wants to do this routine, even if it won't help in this situation"), and is actually a fairly awkward spot for magic items. This is pre-striking runes, which means that damage comes from smart play.

There's also just... so many variables to deal with when it comes to the adventure you chose. Where did they choose their Holdout? How were their fortifications? What did they do with the two hours between each wave? A group being given an Extreme encounter looks to be a group dealing with the consequences of their own actions (or inaction).

As the GM, I gave the players two level 8 magical items and two level 5 magical items, and even then, the damage caused by the players was barely enough to defeat the enemies.

From what it sounds like, you gave the players +1 striking flaming longswords which should be simply amazing at level 3. Were the PCs playing classes that couldn't utilize them well? Like a two-handed weapon fighter, a rogue, or an investigator? Each martial has ways to increase their damage and sometimes those end up being a bit based on the weapon weilded.

Moreover, many of the feats chosen by my players were simply unable to be utilized in combat.

Unless you're talking about skill or general feats, I'm not sure what these feats could be that you're talking about. I can think of very few class feats (especially on martials) that can't be used in combat. This circles back somewhat to my question of "were the longswords given the PCs that couldn't make use of them?"

The battles often consisted of the players moving and attacking, followed by the monsters' turn where the players would be left near death. The cleric would then spend their actions to heal the players. If it weren't for the wand I provided for the wizard player, they would have been unable to deal even one-seventh of the monster's hit points in damage within a single round.

I mean, as has been stated here and everywhere since the Playtest, these are just bad tactics, which is often why people will recommend starting at level 1 and the Beginner Box is so widely praised. Zombies, especially, are not creatures you want to end your turn next to. Not to mention, the slowed condition that each of the opponents in the wave encounter have drastically reduces their threat. Your players could have simply walked up, attacked, and walked away. The threat of the zombies is that they have so many hit points, but it's also balanced out by their low mobility, low AC, and lack of overwhelming damage. Are you allowing the PCs to crit their opponents if they beat their AC by 10? Even the shambler troop can be easily crit, they just can't pass through multiple thresholds. I can't help but feel like something was missed during these encounters.

Not that I know of. That said, monks and archetype monks landing firmly in the realm of wuxia feels right to me. I don't think I could even be mad about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon action at the table.

Lores are in an interesting space in that they are as powerful as the GM allows them to be. The general guidance given is that Lores tend to use an easy DC for Recall Knowledge (which is a DC based on the level of the creature - 2). Very specific Lore (such as Vampire Lore when identifying vampires) would be a very easy DC for Recall Knowledge (level-based DC - 5).

Now, the question here becomes "Is Necromancy Lore the study of undead or is it the study of necromantic magic?" Likewise for Boneyard Lore. As a GM, I think I would allow it in place of a Religion check to Recall Knowledge on certain undead, but not with any easy or very easy modifiers. But that's entirely my call and other GMs may not rule the same way.

Now as to "What sort of questions as examples might be appropriate topics for _____ Lore?" I'm not sure that we approach Lores in the same way. Typically, in my games, Lores are ways to uncover more information, though the prompt typically comes from the GM and less so the player. For instance, when running a game, a PC may discover some unearthed graves and make a hard Perception check or an on-level Nature check to notice claw marks come from within the hole. However, a PC with Necromancy Lore might be able to go against an easy or even very easy DC to deduce that necromantic magic was used to animate the dead. With lower DCs comes a higher chance to get a critical success and allow me, as a GM, to give out more information to someone using their Lores.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, it is less "I'd like to use Undead Lore to discover what monster is rampaging through the countryside," from the player and more "You notice something familiar about the attack. You can roll a Medicine check on the wound or an Undead Lore check."

When writing games for my players, I tend to look at their Lores and throw in a few situations to make them stand out. Someone with Boneyard Lore might notice that a psychopomp following their tracks or understand the proper rites to for a fallen ally. PCs with Undead Lore might pick up on the fact that a well-armed fortress lacks any food to feed its soldiers, or that the dead creature before them will rise as a wight soon enough. Finally, for Necromancy Lore, they may notice that the reagents used in the bandit's hideout match those used in a ritual to animate the dead, or perhaps they would know that an unholy desecration has taken place over a site, empowering the undead.

EDIT: I should stress that the way I see it, Lores are not a secret knowledge that only that character knows. Any other PC could know the answers or notice these things, it's just that someone with the appropriate Lore would have an easier time of doing so.

So I’m definitely not Mathmuse or the OP, but I have some thoughts I can share as someone who likes to convert adventures. To the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a solid conversion guide for PF2, so you’ll need to come up with a system of your own. I can share a lot of what I’ve learned and hope that it helps in any way.

The first big recommendation is to know both systems quite well. It also helps to have some experience with the adventure that you’re converting so that you can capture the “vibe” that the original was going for. Doing one-to-one conversions can end up making encounters that were once pushovers into horrible fights or make dangerous hazards into mere speed bumps. When it comes to PF2, you should be very used to the Encounter Design rules as well as how they play at the table. Throwing Severe and Extreme encounters at a group just because the original adventure was “difficult” can be quite frustrating.

Now to get a bit more nitty-gritty. When I do conversion, the first thing I do is read through the original adventure and take notes on everything that needs to be replaced - skill checks, encounters, treasure, and any important bits that are very system-dependent. I personally put these into a big Google Doc and work through them one by one. When it comes to skill checks, I tend to stick to the Level-Based DCs and just move them around with easy and hard modifiers. That isn’t to say that I don’t stray from this - DCs can get to be a bit more art than science and it’s important to utilize the four degrees of success to keep the story progressing further. This means you may need to create some elements from whole cloth to really get the most out of the system - this includes “failing forward” to progress the adventure, while still discouraging failure.

Monster and encounter design is probably the easiest. Often you can get away with one-to-one conversions if the systems aren’t too different (I tend to look at a lot of 3.5e material, myself), but you should make sure that the aim of the encounter remains the same. If an encounter relied on ghouls paralyzing opponents, that may not function the same way in PF2 in the case of the Remaster (or even before it, given the incapacitation trait). Sometimes you can nudge numbers with the weak or elite variants of creatures as well. When you run into something that doesn’t convert easily, you’ll have to build one from scratch. Personally, I recommend using Monster Tool and then tweaking the numbers to fit the concept. Once you’re done, add up all the XP to make sure that the PCs should be of an appropriate level when you want them to be. I play with milestone leveling and still do this step just to make certain that the number of encounters and events feels right.

Treasure is an awful slog. There’s no two-ways about it. What I’ve done is just scrap all of the treasure and start over from the beginning rather than try to create a system of conversion. I try and gauge the size of the “treasure lots” and parcel them out with the Treasure By Level table (another good reason to count XP). Just try to match things up as best as you can and make a good case for keeping most of what’s found generally intact. You may need to go and make some items as well. (And I use Template Tool for that).

So once you have your checklist of items to run through, just slowly go through them item by item and clean things up once you’re all finished. I recommend saving the treasure for last just so that you have a good measure of where the PCs will be in the game and so that you can also have some of your NPC opponents holding treasure as well.

All that said, best of luck with converting!

I typically tend to stay away from a question once answered, but I think that the interpretation of "doubling rings or runic weapon can awaken dormant property runes" to have some flawed logic. As you said:

These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.

While these effects temporarily create or replicate runes, they do not etch them. Etching a rune is a very specific process with rules.

If I have doubling rings on my character can I have non-fundamental runes on the off hand weapon without having the fundamental ones first or do I need to invest in powering up the off hand weapon as well ?

Matt

You can indeed have property runes on the off-hand weapon, however, to do so, you will still need potency runes in order to do so.

The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune. A +1 weapon can have one property rune, but it could hold another if the +1 weapon potency rune were upgraded to a +2 weapon potency rune. Since the striking and resilient runes are fundamental runes, they don't count against this limit. A shield can't have property runes, only a reinforcing rune.

So while you may want to save money through keeping property runes only on your off-hand, you will still need to invest in at least getting the potency rune to do so.

I believe that you would add no bonus damage. An Acid Flask only deals 1 acid damage (and persistent damage and splash damage). Lacking any weapon damage dice, I don't think it would add any damage.

It's important to note that using Healer's Tools still requires at least 1 free hand.

So this is an interesting one in that there isn't really any solid rules for "a caster automatically disbelieves their own illusions" (that I know of). However, it does feel like common sense, but you should expect some table variance.

The answer to your first question would be "Yes" to both parts of the question. Whether the seeker makes a Will save to disbelieve after interacting with the illusion or a Seek check to find the hiding target, they would be observed. The only difference in those two scenarios being that if the hider used the Hide action again, anyone who still believes the illusion would need to find them once more.

As for the answer to the second question - as I stated up top, there are not hard rules for it, but it makes sense to me that a spellcaster would disbelieve their own illusions. If that's the case, then the spellcaster certainly would see someone using the illusion to Hide. However, if that isn't the case, then I suppose a GM could rule that the caster would need to Seek to find their opponent (or... make a Will save against their own spell? Which, yes, feel very odd).

You're pretty much on the right trail with adamantine - armors, especially at higher levels, can be made from a number of materials which can vary the Hardness. Here's a full listing.

While Hardness may not often come into play when it comes to the game, materials certainly should as they are required for magic items of a certain level. I really only bring this up because it's one of those rules that I often forget, especially after spending several sessions in the lower tiers of PFS play.

I imagine there would be some table variation on this one as the answer isn't exactly clearcut. However, here is how I view it.

Double Slice would essentially count as both damage types (in this case, slashing and bludgeoning), however I would definitely say that only the largest resistance applies, especially when you consider:

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value, as described in weakness.

Sounds great! Hope to hear how things go several months down the line or whathaveyou!

Alrighty - let's see. First, super glad to hear that "morally dubious" was part of the goal! It sounds like the artifacts aren't really things that the PCs will interact with too much, which does mean that a lot of the design of the artifact doesn't matter as much. But, to sum up, let me take a swing at the goal of the Heart and the Shards:

The Heart of the Nation essentially belongs to the ruler of the nation and compels their people to love them. It also acts as a line of communication between their vassals through the dream council. The Shards act as a minor form of the Heart, compeling others to love them.

I think I'm alright with the Heart having a massive, city-wide charm, if only because it's an interesting plot point and the PCs won't really be interacting with it (unless they have a "Would you kindly...?" moment with the holder of the Heart as a grand reveal, which I am all for). The issue to me comes with the Shards - I just feel like charming part is fairly well covered with the bonus to Charisma checks and their own super charm sort of steps on the toes of what the Heart does as both an item and a plot point? Again, I'm not 100% sure of which direction you'd like to go with the campaign, but it seems like you'd like the Shards to be powerful enough to fight over and not just because of the status (and presumably lordship) it would impart.

My proposal might be a little unusual, but we're spitballing here! Here's a few thoughts:

1. Instead lower the charm range its normal 30 ft and make it unlimited casting as well. Drop it to a 4th level charm so it's single target stil. This means that it's not so effective as to neuter entire invading forces (and defending forces) as a time, but morally wrong as you have a ruler who could essentially just ensorcell politcal rivals and members of the court. Probably good to almost make wielders immune to the charm effects of other Shards.

2. Scrap the charm entirely and instead make the Shard incredibly defensive - something like a permanent sanctuary or animus mine in effect. The idea that the holder of a Shard is untouchable unless approached by someone more powerful or the Shardbearer breaks out into violence is an interesting story.

3. Change out the charm into different enchantments: command, suggestion, telepathic demand, or even crusade make for some interesting choices. The idea here is that the Shardbearer abuses their station to truly control the minds of their people.

I mean, these are just ideas - I feel like a mile-wide charm with an essentially impossible DC doesn't provide much for the PCs to work with, especially if they get caught in it. Then there's a weird "you should roleplay not liking this guy, but not enough to kill him," thing that sort of happens.

Typically when it comes to "campaign-defining artifacts" I would say that it really only should do what you need it to do. Like, need a Macguffin that will end the world? Boom, an artifact that calls forth earthquakes exists and now it must be destroyed.

But looking at this, I can't exactly wrap my head around what its purpose is. Like, okay, the holder of the Heart of the Nation can essentially use it to influence people easily, moreso for those in the land. I think I like that, but I would use that more for "Make An Impression" specifically than a flat bonus to everything. That or just have people of the nation treat you as one step more friendly. I enjoy the calling of the council as well!

But then we get to the Ruler's Charisma/Lord's Charisma. These feel... huh. These feel very weird. Mechanics aside for a moment, this is a mile-wide, target as many people as I'd like with, essentially, a form of mind control? If the point of the artifact is that it's an evil thing and shouldn't fall into the hands of wicked rulers, then yeah, I'm all for this. This feels like "Lord Rulerman holds the Heart and none can hate him. His uses his power to massage his ego and drive his citizens to death through overwork/whathaveyou." I think that's a pretty decent idea, actually, but not sure if that's what you're going for. I mean, it also just works on everyone regardless of their nationality and within a mile and lasts for a full day. It's pretty darn strong, which makes sense for a level 25 artifact, but morally very dubious and potentially too powerful in an unfun way.

Then we get the the shards. So when it comes to these things, I don't assume that they'll be in the hands of level 18th or 19th level characters, but something that's a part of the campaign fairly early. I probably need more information on it, but wouldn't the goal of these to be put into the hands of those loyal to the holder of the Heart? And my assumption is these are the PCs? This feels... way too powerful and, like I said, not really interactive. "We're going to storm this fort? Give me an hour and charm everyone within. At most they'll be Unfriendly and we'll just talk our way through until they give in."

Out of curiosity, what role do these items play in your campaign?

This feels like a pretty huge undertaking and one that I would approach with care if you're really serious about it. I believe you're looking to convert the setting into a home game, right? I say that mostly because going from a 4X game to a TTRPG are going to have some pretty dramatic differences.

Now, as someone who hasn't played Endless Legend, my first question would be "How much can you reskin?" Save yourself some effort and use existing material and call it something else. Race of stone people who are hardy and stubborn - perfect, dwarves fit the bill. Horrible devil creatures who are super diplomatic - toss together some Nephlelim, Ifritkin, and Halfling Ancestry Feats.

My next question is also a bit obvious - why do you want to do this? Like, if you really enjoy the world, you should certainly have your vision of what it should look like at your table. Make a list of the things you want to see incorporated into PF2 and think about the best way to execute that. As a sidebar, make sure you have a group that is also interested in this idea. It sure sucks to but months of work into something only to have people say, "I wish we could just play in Golarion."

Alright, onto the specifics. I don't know what Dust is, but from a cursory glance, it's like a unit of currency? Or maybe it's like spice from Dune, so I'd use rules for Drugs to create something. Not exactly sure what role you want it to fill in your world.

Creating ancestries, I won't lie, is difficult. I'd start with reskinning before sitting down and creating lists of what each ancestry should excel at and then modeling 20 some odd ancestry feats for that.

As for Heroes, I'm... assuming those would just be the PCs? Unless I'm missing something.

I think the first place I'd point you is the Homebrew forum where this is more commonly discussed. That said, it's not a very frequented part of the boards and you might not get what you're looking for.

I believe that there are Discords that are devoted to homebrew and conversion, but I don't know many details about them. There is, of course, the Homebrew Reddit which is likely to have answers more in line with what you're looking for.

While it's certainly a stab in the dark, I imagine that the Rise of the Runelords AP has gotten the most play (which would then put Burnt Offerings up there as the top book). I think that I've run it about four times in just PF1 play alone, and I don't think that I represent some of the more extreme numbers in that regard.

I want to throw an honorary "just maybe" to Dragon's Demand because it feels like such a classic fantasy adventure to introduce to a group of players the first time, but likely didn't get near that level of play.

Throwing my hat into the ring here again. I think that Antagonize is a good "ceiling" to look at when it comes to wanting to introduce something like this into your games. It incentivizes the opponent to attack you while also lending aid to allies. But it is also a class feat on a class that may not want to get smacked in the face often.

This is the design space that feels more appropriate to me. No one is losing agency and the ability itself plays well with the rest of the system. Now, taking these ideas and putting them into a widely available skill/general feat? Little bit trickier. We've shown in-thread that we can't quite get a consensus on what such a skill would be - Intimidation, Deception, Diplomacy. The one constant is Charisma, which... I can already see the threads of people complaining about making their Fighters or Champions extra MAD to pick up this hypothetical ability.

For people who really want this, my advice would be to put something down and work through the pain points. I don't know that we need much more than what we have right now, however. And I don't think that we're ever going to see something like a "hard taunt" that some people are asking for.

Again, stressing, I am wildly against this idea. However, I encourage people to prove me wrong!

Snip

I mean, I think this shows that we have different approaches to game design philosophy and that the design staff seems to differ as well.

Yes we do want everyone to attack us that is literally the point of the thread. I'll let you think about how that might be a good thing. Correct it doesnt exist in the game, this is more like a request for a feature. It would have to be balanced.

No it shouldn't take over player agency - well no more than confusion or dominate does. It probably should just be a chance of mandating an action. But like Create a Diversions, repeated checks should have a penalty. If we can have feats like Evangelize and Disturbing Knowledge then I think we can have a Taunt.

At the moment I just roleplay it with a diplomacy check. An actual mechanism would be nice.

I would aggressively oppose a feature like this, especially with verbiage like "mandating an action." If you have ideas for how to make something like this, go nuts, but here are the hurdles that stand in your way (to my knowledge):

• By virtue of the ask, it would need to be manageable for people to acquire early enough to make it a "mechanic." I would say accessible between levels 1 and 4. I think that's safe to assume that's what people are looking for.

• Like other PF2 mechanics and options, it should never be "the best option at all times," but situationally dependent. Bon Mot is good, but it doesn't get used in every combat. Raising A Shield is good, but there are times when it isn't worth the action.

• It can't be worded in an abusive way. That's the loosest way to put it, but you have to avoid cheesy behavior. A "taunt" mechanic that says, "On a success, the target must spend their turn attempting to Strike you," ignores players using this ability from across chasms or from behind their party of Attack of Opportunity companions.

• It can't be redundant. "A frenzied opponent takes a -1 status penalty to all attacks on targets that don't include you," is somewhat invalidated by frightened doing the same thing, but better.

• It has to be fair and understandable in-world. More looseness, but you can't have something just lock an opponent out from acting because you've been screaming at them to come at you.

This isn't a Homebrew thread, but let me just give you my two-cents on what this hypothetical ability looks like from my point of view and I'll add in why I still don't think it's healthy for the game.

Taunt (One-Action)
Feat 1
Traits: Auditory, Concentrate, Emotion, General, Incapacitate, Linguistic, Mental, Skill
Prerequisites: Trained in Intimidation

You challenge an opponent to fight you. Make an Intimidation check against an adjacent foe against their Will DC. Regardless of your result, the target is temporarily immune to your attempts to Taunt it for 10 minutes.

Critical Success: As a success, and the target must spend their next turn attempting to target you with a hostile action. This effect lasts only while the target remains adjacent to you.
Success: The target takes a -2 status penalty to attack rolls that do not include you until the end of their next turn.

So this is a quick and dirty concept that, to me, checks all of the boxes laid out above. But there are still some problems. What does the inclusion of this to the game say about my actions as a GM? If my PCs have this and fail, but the opponent was going to attack them anyway, what was the point of having the action at all? Does adding this ability make combat more dynamic or more static? In a group without the Taunt ability, should GMs purposely ignore the already established means of controlling an enemy? I mean, the mechanic exists now and the group chooses to ignore it, so should it be handled as though it is required? Is it required? Are the traditional ways of keeping an opponent's attention invalidated now due to this skill feat's existence? Is this even worth a skill feat?

Ruzza wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?

Demoralize

that's atotally different effect.

Then we're in the realm of homebrew.

Like, if I have a player who says "I taunt the opponent and I use an action to do so," I'd be confused. The GM is in the position to adjudicate rules on the fly, not create them on the fly. If a player wants to have a mechanical taunt, then that's something they and the GM should work together on outside of the game. You could create a thread in the Homebrew forums for just such a thing.

Taunt is something that gets someone riled up/upset with you/wanting to hurt you for what you said. It seems within the bounds of what this game allows already but isnt quite captured by existing skill actions.

EDIT: I know you are coming in fresh to PF2 and you have a lot of questions about the design space, but one of the first starting points of questioning a mechanic's omission is to say "Why isn't this in the game?" It's been more than 3 years since the launch and there has been no shortage of people asking for "taunt mechanics." Why hasn't someone just done the deed and said, "Intimidation versus Will DC, boom that opponent has to attack you now," while slapping on the Auditory traits and calling it a day? It's without a doubt the easiest thing to implement, so why hasn't it been done?

It very likely stems from all of the issues I stated up top along with a myriad number more. Translating the mechanics from video games that were translating their mechanics from role-playing games may not have the desired effect that many are looking for.

If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?

Demoralize

I could say the same thing about instant death effects - that they should be reserved for magic. Yet Scare to Death exists and is fairly reasonably balanced and narratively justified.

While there's little more I have to say on "taunting," I should note the difference in the "fantasy" of taunt mechanics and the balancing act of mechanics. Scare To Death is a pretty good example of why people looking for a "taunt" will be dissatisfied. Scare To Death requires being level 15, has the incapacitation trait, and only functions when both you score a critical success against a target and it critically fails its Fortitude save. Getting Scare To Death for the ability to kill opponents with a glance is really not the best choice.

Now, I do somewhat agree with you, because Scare To Death (and others, like Implausible Infiltration) feel very much in the realm of "magic should do this." But they're also very much set aside for the highest levels of play - at which point, I don't get so up in arms. If people are looking for a "taunt," I would assume they want that to be something they can do from level 1. The idea is that it's a function of the gameplay, right? Like "I have a character who Strides, Raises Shield, and Taunts," like in an MMO.

This seems to be something I always end up commenting on because of how staunchly opposed I am to "taunt" as a mechanic in TTRPGs. When there are two camps split between Gameplay and Versimilitude, I often find myself on the side of gameplay first and versimilitude second, but I make an exception for "taunting" and direct video game mechanics like that applied in a game that should (abstractly) represent a real world.

I feel like the idea of compelling someone to act against their will should be reserved for magic. Shouting at someone to make them angry enough to fight you sort of strips free will from the character. The intelligent wizard BBEG rushing in to swing his staff at the armored fighter doesn't tell a compelling story to me so much as it tells a goofy "I can't believe this happened" sort of tale.

And to also touch on the gameplay aspect of it, I hate the idea of saying "I am going to be the tank, my role is to get hit," and then they're forced into a gameplay loop box that's better fit to video games with less decision points. I don't want to be at the table hearing, "Come on, you have to taunt the enemy so we can do our routines." It also takes the fun away from me - the GM. A lot of people seem to forget that we GMs are playing the game, too, and aren't just an automated interface to game. I'm alright with my group stunning and controlling my creatures and opponents through spells and gameplay, but it feels worse to have that autonomy stripped away (on regular basis, I should add; I'm assuming people want "taunting" as a go-to mechanic in stead of a limited resource).

On the other hand, I love when players force the enemy to deal with them through tactical play. The champion who grabs a reach weapon and Attack Of Opportunity presents a threat to overcome - but not impossible. A monk who Readies actions to Trip anyone who gets near the spellcasting wizard works in some situations, but not all. The barbarian spending their time using Athletics maneuvers to keep enemies corraled while their team handles them changes the dynamics of encounters. A singular action that takes all of that texture and play from the game feels like, honestly, a horrible idea.

snip

Do you take any sort of realism into account here or is it just RAW says (by a very loose interpretation) one can so thus it's okay? Could a Huge Giant Take Cover behind a 2 foot high wall, or do we need to invoke GM interpretation here? Can I strap a board to my back and Take Cover instead of using a shield and thus keep my hands free? At what point in three-dimensional space should a ranged attacker firing against a prone target Taking Cover have to contend with the bonus - are we talking a 45 degree angle here or directly above only?

Like, at some point, the GM needs to step in and adjudicate. You can certainly say "Well, RAW says I can pretty much always Take Cover," but that's only one (in my opinion, very charitable) reading. I wouldn't say it unbalances the game, but it does change how encounters are handled and even how they're designed in APs. I mean, look at Abomination Vaults. Why ever buy a shield for non-Shield Blocking classes? You're surrounded by walls in 5-foot hallways.

It seems like it makes way more problems than it solves to read the rules in this way.

While this is true, we need to remember that most of the cover rules rely on GM adjudication.

To me, this is pretty much the whole of the discussion. If I say "I spend an action to press against the wall and Take Cover," and my GM says "Absolutely not. What are you talking about?" then that's really it. Judging from the responses to the OP, it seems that a large majority of GMs would rule that way.

However, if you're the GM, feel free to Calvinball the rules - it is your game after all. If your players are enjoying that, then who's to stop you?

Are you guys absolutely sure? I mean is this ACTUALLY how it's supposed to be played (option 2) and option 1 has no variation?

Yes.

How then do you tell the difference between a "rider" and a status?

What you're defining as a "rider" does not exist and conditions do exist.

Or do riders even exist at all, and do they need to be ruled for other than what is directly written on the ability?

The ability does exactly what the ability says. Creating new rules is something of your own creation. Feel free to do so, but your group may object to playing fast and loose with the rules.

There was a similar thread to this awhile back, and I may be echoing the sentiments from there, but I believe it boiled down to this: "You can't expect PF2 to play like PF1."

What I mean is, PF2 looks to reward "wide" play - giving players a plethora of options that can be very situationally useful. This means that you won't always get the "most efficent" use out of your choices. You may have feats that don't get used as often as others or have class features that you never touch.

In PF1, it was common to trade away everything that didn't contribute to the one thing you did to the best of your ability. We had alternate racial traits to winnow away the "useless" skill feats, favored classes, and fairly set feat progression. That's not to say that these were bad, but just that you shouldn't expect that same mentality in PF2.

I think the first thing you have to do is separate two pieces of media from each other by quite a fair margin to give either one of them a fair shake. I think it would be pretty disingenuous to compare Alkenstar and the Mana Wastes to League of Legend's (or, more accurately, Arcane's) Piltover. While there are some surface-level similarities, like reconciling tech's existance in fantasy worlds, they have very different worlds they inhabit, roles to play, and history.

Alkenstar has to reside in a something of a living shared world which makes it somewhat difficult to throw a lot of rules out the window on a system-wide scale. Now, that's not to say that you can't just do your own thing in home games, but as more math-inclined people than I have pointed out, revolvers in PF2 would either unbalance things or be so weak as to not fulfill that fantasy that those clamoring for them would want.

Also, are automaton's not to your liking when it comes to "warforged-esque" ancestry? It always felt like a bit of a bone thrown to the warforged crowd.

Like, I suppose what I'm saying is, a lot of what your asking is just a difference in perspective. If you want to tell a story of Alkenstar where there's neon lights and mutagenic drugs running rampant, your world can have that. You can even just take Outlaws of Alkenstar and tell the story in that way. But it does seem that's not where the writers are heading with the area.

My Organized Play groups are slowly moving over to Remaster with a lot of character conversions taking place. Now, Pathfinder Training being removed was actually pretty freeing for many players, but we did run into a small problem.

Before the Remaster guidelines were covered, I had a player who was Retraining his character from a Generalist to a Pathfinder Field Comission Agent, but wasn't able to finish it in one scenario. He's still 6 days out from finishing the training, but now we're confused as to if it's still possible to do so as he'd like to have the extra days going forward.

I know it's quite the edge case with someone Retraining their Pathfinder Training and then getting "stuck" midway through. Is there any advice for what we can do?

Captivated is not a status, it's a word - one that happens to be a synonym for fascinated. You're getting caught up in semantics.

So, in essence, "Option 2" but you're also missing out that a PC that succeeds against Captivating Song is immune to all Captivating Songs for 24 hours. The odds of a group not having someone succeed (and thus able to assist their allies in breaking free) is pretty low, I would say.

Is it strong? Sure. Poorly balanced or written? I would disagree.