Captain Morgan wrote:
I didn't use hero points at all in book one (because I had forgotten about them). The addition of using them in book 2 has already proven to be pretty significant, specifically where a couple of potentially fatal natural 1 rolls for saving throws are concerned. For example, this past Sunday, the party discovered the Elephant People village, and promptly critically failed the attempt to calm the elephants. In the resulting combat, one of the elephants trampled 3/5 of the party. The wizard rolled the 1 for the reflex save, which would have put him unconscious in round one of the fight. At that moment, the rogue player reminded the wizard player of the hero point, which saved the wizard from going down.
Tactically - the Paladin soaks up damage by wading into the middle, while the wizard and cleric both free cast as best they can (though the Cleric acts as our second tank). The rogue does buckets of damage, but always manages to be between the boss and a bad place, and take a licking for it. The bard has negligible combat influence, though numerically his inspiring performances do account for a lot of the party damage.
I think this is some of the issue. In P2e, it's really hard to just go in and tank stuff. Enemies' first attacks in higher challenge fights just hit too easily, and the second attack is often better than 50/50 on hitting, too. It also sets up the "tank" to be hit with the bosses' strong 2- and 3-action attacks.
I would suggest in tough one or two enemy fights that the party needs to do things that eat up the enemies' actions. Something as simple as move in, attack, then move away will force the enemy to use at least one action to get into attack range (assuming it's not ranged focused). Other things like shove effects that force the enemy to close distance have the similar effect. Tripping eats up an action to stand up.
Then, there are lots of spells that eat up actions as an effect. At 4th level, Confusion gives Stunned 1 even on a successful save. Hideous Laughter gives Slowed 1 on a failed save and no reactions on a successful save, and is a sustained spell. Things that cause Sickened are good because they give a penalty to rolls, and the enemy can sacrifice an action (also a good thing) to try to remove the penalty. Lots of debuff spells like Fear and Goblin Pox impose a negative state on the enemy even if they pass their saving throw.
If you can find ways to make the enemy only make a single basic attack action each round (rather than multiple basic or any of the 2- or 3-action attacks), beating the enemy with the favorable action economy of the party becomes a lot easier, even for tougher enemies.
I haven't read the whole thread, so others might have already pointed this out.
Instead of having the campaign solely based on the idea that the players mistakenly help the wrong side, how about developing both sides of the plot quite fully. Have neither side be completely virtuous or sinister. Allow the players a chance to know something about the factions involved. Their actions in the initial encounter can give them an opportunity, conscious or otherwise, of which side they wish to ally with.
That way, the players have more agency. Sure, they may fail all the checks to recognize who any of the people are, noble, soldiers, and wizard alike, but if they do fail all the checks, at least they had the chance to figure it out. From a player standpoint, this would be FAR superior to merely hitting the party with a "gotcha" after defeating the wizard.
Kinds of checks:
After a couple weeks' delay due to life issues, I finally got to run the social events section at the beginning of the book with my group.
The party surprisingly enjoyed the event, and the dance contest ended up being their favorite, with the party deciding to have head-to-head dance-offs between each other for the title of party's best dancer. Probably spent 45 minutes just on this event. The monk was the eventual champion.
I decided to present everything exactly as written in the book, including the romance portion that I previously questioned. My group reacted pretty closely to how I expected. Two of them thought it was weird that a someone would invite strangers into their personal family matters. None were comfortable with getting involved, with one specifically stating that they'd be concerned with messing something up with potentially disastrous social fall-out. The wizard was the only one remotely interested in the story, but mostly because he wanted to watch other people try (his character is terrible at social skills).
Second favorite section was the chili eating contest, which was interestingly won by the sorcerer with a combination of lucky rolls and a high deception ability.
I took the advice to pick rewards for the part of 6th level items appropriate to each individual character, and that went over really well. I super like this aspect of treasure reward design in the new AP's. It's a bit more work for me to try to find things that each individual party member would like, but the excitement they all showed when they got something cool that worked well with their character concept was really gratifying.
I'm still not buying it. It's just way too much of a stretch to me for someone to go from never having seen someone before in their lives to engaging them in arranging a romantic tryst with a family member in less than 24 hours.
And, the timing isn't all that wrong. The party will spend a significant amount of the time between arriving at the town and the feast out on the hunt. The time around the dance contest, talking to the lion, etc. is a couple of hours, at most. And the time during which the party is directly engaging Nketiah in conversation is a fraction of that.
The entire scenario is so achingly cringey to me. I might be projecting a bit, but if I were a player in this AP, I'd totally check out of the game until it was over. Romance between PC's or between PC and NPC can be cringey enough, but facilitating a romance between NPC's....ugh.
Our group just finished Hellknight Hill yesterday and began Cult of Cinders. All they've done is start repairs on the castle, repair the gate, and scouted it with a familiar (I went ahead and had the familiar trigger the Dahak remnant thing even though I wasn't sure if the familiar should, but didn't want to spend time digging around the rules, and it seemed an intelligent use of a familiar).
Next week, we should actually get to the social events with the Ekujae, and I'm having an issue with making the motivations in the Matchmaking section make any sense.
The Ekujae are described as being borderline xenophobic, especially with non-Elves. A few weeks earlier, a group of Cinderclaws attacked and killed several of the elves to activate and use the gate wherein the Ekujae's ancient nemesis is trapped, and today, the party just pooped out of that same gate. The party has the opportunity to speak with Nketiah for maybe 30 minutes of in-universe time before she decides to approach these complete strangers and recruit them to engage in a high-school level plot to encourage a romantic tryst involving her father? Why the heck would she have anywhere near enough trust in these people to involve them in her intimate family matters?
I honestly cannot think of any way that this makes any sense. I also cannot find any way to make it make sense. I'm probably going to go ahead and present it as written, but knowing my party, none of them are going to be interested in getting involved because they're either afraid of messing things up or they think it's a stupid idea in the first place (which I also kind of agree with). The average age of my play group is in the 30's, and this story line seems more appropriate to people who watch the Disney Channel.
Sure, but then do you go into detail about the design and quality of every enemy's weapons, armor, personal effects, etc.? (The OP was asking about descriptions of magical items.)
If every room description is like your second example, that's fine because you've established a standard of expectation for your players. But, I'll assert (based on my 4 decades of gaming experience) that many players will start to tune those descriptions out if they are too long. I'm sure you've experienced the same thing, where players seemingly having no knowledge of things that you just read out to them 60 seconds earlier.
I just wanted to put this out there for commentary.
We are still in the middle of Age of Ashes, but our group is already looking forward to Extinction Curse after I described the basic idea of the party being party of a circus.
Now, the group is kicking around the idea of fashioning the party and circus after the Carnival of Chaos from the old GW game Mordheim.
The worst thing about this is that I'd really like to play in that....
Descriptions tend to make players think things are important, so I'd only describe important things. So give a description of the item is magical, made out of a special material, or is particularly valuable.
I agree with this. It's kind of a play on the idea of Chekhov's gun. Giving more elaborate than usual descriptions of items will make the players assume there is something important about the item. If there is not, in fact, anything important about the item, it will waste the players' time trying to make that determination, and then make characters less interested when you give elaborate descriptions in the future.
You don't think you need to? But you did.
You are the one that differentiated between Shoanti, Varisian, Numerian, Chelish, Mwangi, and Osirion, but then lumped the entire continent of Tian into one.
I just suggested that this was silly. You countered that you didn't want "to narrow it down too much," when you had already done so.
I'm not sure why you're defending your decision to be so narrow and specific for one region, but then poo-pooing a similar degree of granularity for another region.
As for Mwangi, it's a tiny region compared to Tian. Mwangi is roughly 20% of the continent upon which it lies. Tian is the largest continent on Golarion. I'll reiterate that lumping Tian into one cultural group would be like lumping all of the Inner Sea region into one group (including Mwangi, Osirion, Absalom, Cheliax, etc. into one group).
Nice, but totally missing the point.
If we're going to make cultural distinctions in this case between neighboring kingdoms in the Inner Seas region (which is just a part of the continent upon which it is located), it is silly to lump an entire continent (containing multiple different nations) into one single cultural group.
Shoanti and Varisian peoples are no more culturally dissimilar than are the various Tian groups, for example. If we're going to say "Tian" is one single cultural group, we should also say "Inner Sea" is one single cultural group.
Tian Xia isn't just one culture, I don't believe. It's a continent with a bunch of different nations. The Tian aren't a single ethnic group or single culture.
Tian-Shu are somewhat analogous to real world China, so weapons like the Meteor Hammer and Nine Ringed Sword are appropriate there, since they are drawn from Chinese martial arts tradition.
Tian-Min are somewhat analogous to real world Japan, so weapons like the Naginata and Tekko-kagi are appropriate to this group since those weapons are drawn from real world Japanese history.
My point is that it's silly to differentiate between groups like Shoanti and Varisian, or Numerian and Chelish, but then lump an entire continent into one cultural group.
MAP maxes at -10, regardless of how many attacks taken after the second.
"The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll."
And, to extrapolate even farther.
If your character had a modifier of +24, the rolling a 1 would result in a 25 on the check. For a DC 15 skill check, this would normally be a critical success, but the 1 on the roll would reduce it to a normal success.
I have to wonder if you're deliberately ignoring the part about the bow being the backup weapon for the WP, so wouldn't be used against the majority of opponents.
Castilliano has the right of it. The square targeting mechanic is just for game purposes. In a "real world" situation, you'd just fire your weapon in that direction, not at a specific volume of space. Honestly, that makes being blind in the game even worse. In a "real world" situation, if I fired in that direction, and they were fleeing directly away from me, I'd still have a chance to hit them. In the game, if I fire at a specific square, and they've moved one square directly away or directly towards me, I have no chance of hitting them, even though the enemy is still exactly in line with the shot.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, but just want to make sure the OP hasn't missed it (forgive me if I'm being a bit pedantic).
Remember that when blind, assuming no other sense they can use for targeting, all opponents are undetected by the character (the Blind condition says that if vision is your primary sense, you cannot detect enemies).
When targeting an undetected enemy, they can pick a square to target. Then the GM makes a secret DC 11 flat check and makes the attack roll in secret; this is different than targeting a hidden enemy where the player makes the flat check and attack roll. Regardless of the success or failure of the check, the action is carried out, which will increase the MAP of subsequent attacks, use ammunition, expend spell slots, or whatever else is appropriate. If the attack misses, the GM does not inform the player as to why it missed; the player isn't even informed if they are attacking the wrong square.
Now, don't be a jerk and fudge the die rolls because you don't like the player attacking the last place they saw the enemy, but a character attacking in such a situation is going to have a tremendously hard time hitting anything between the negative to hit modifiers for blind/dark and the flat check for targeting an undetected enemy.
But, there really isn't any game terminology. At not point that I have found in a quick skim are the terrain types given a specific game definition. Either it's an oversight, or we're supposed to use the real-world definitions, and there's no way to know without someone from Paizo telling us.
(That is, unless I've missed somewhere that terrain types are given specific game definitions.)
Remember that the Hellknights aren't an evil organization. They do not revere the Evil aspects of Hell and Asmodeus, but the Lawful aspects of both. There are neutral and even good aligned members of the Hellknight order.
They are nothing like Nazis. Hellknights do not engage in genocide, do not believe in a "master race," and do not actively wage wars of aggression against their neighbors. See the below description of Hellknights, cobbled together from a variety of sources:
"Regardless of their severity, Hellknights are not an inherently evil group; they are wholly unconcerned with morality. Although there are numerous evil members—particularly among their upper echelons—the majority of the orders are impartial arbiters and enforcers of order and justice. They see the study of Hell's tenets and even the summoning of devils as tools meant to intimidate and strengthen the individual resolve of the orders' members. Hellknights are taught to replace emotion with steely discipline, and are not interested in methods: only the end results matter.
While Hellknights are widely feared and respected, the common Hellknight joins out of a sense of duty and a wish to be a part of something greater, seeing a world ruled by laws and free of rampaging beasts and cheating thieves as a future well-worth striving toward, even at the sacrifice of freedom. Countries and rulers sometimes invite Hellknights into their lands, leaving the dirty business of harsh law enforcement to an already loathed third party, although convincing Hellknights to leave once they have been welcomed sometimes proves problematic for more freedom-loving societies."
(From the Pathfinder wiki.)
That's fine. There is no penalty in the campaign if they distrust him, and even kill him. Let them do it, and then they can rebuild the castle after taking it from the devil-worshipping cult of the Hellknights.
This is completely unnecessary. Alak has no interest in the castle beyond that stated in his back story. The Hellknight order has washed their hands of the place, and it is specifically stated in the AP module that Alak will make no objection if the party takes over ownership of the place.
Dropping the exact rewards the player needs, specially when its consumables, enough that vendors become a none issue can very easily fall into the grounds of Deus ex Machina. At which point the problem becomes, player agency and the feeling of being railroaded, which is just as bad as poor balance.
And vendors always having exactly what you want to purchase is different, how?
"By default, half-elves and half-orcs descend from humans, but your GM might allow you to be the offspring of an elf, orc, or different ancestry. In these cases, the GM will let you select the half-elf or half-orc heritage as the heritage for this other ancestry. The most likely other parent of a half-elf are gnomes and halflings, and the most likely parents of a half-orc are goblins, halflings, and dwarves."
Begin with this as a base:
Start with a half-orc Dwarf.
Get Toughness, Mountain Stoutness, Orc Ferocity, and Incredible Ferocity.
This gives you a bunch of extra hit points, you can avoid getting knocked out once per hour, and your stabilize on a 6+ if you are knocked out.
My play group took a break over most of the holidays, so we're back working our way through Hellknight Hill.
I'm curious for the other DM's, how many of you had a player walk into the Gelatinous Cube on the second section?
In our group, the players had decided to focus on killing any enemies in the dungeon before searching the place. After defeating the creepy doll and befriending the two dragons (lol), the party door-opener looked into the room with the Cube, and didn't see anything. It was stationary, and his secret check was insufficient to notice the DC 23 to see it. So, they assumed it was empty.
After clearing the rest of the dungeon level, they came back to this room. The bulk of the party was in the creepy doll room doing some healing after the fight with the two wights, and Mr. Door-Opener goes into the Cube room and begins to walk to the other door, again failing the DC 23 perception to notice the unmoving Cube.
So, *bloop* right into the Cube, instantly engulfed as stated by the Bestiary, and promptly failing the Paralysis save.
It was pretty dicey, but I gave the rest of the party in the other room a chance to hear something odd going on, and one of the secret checks turned up a nat-20, so they came to investigate and saved their comrade with some clever actions.
Anyone else have anything interesting with the Cube?
I believe that Ten10's argument is based on the concept of DPR comparisons, as in, what impact does a +1 to hit have on the relative DPR performance of two characters, all other things being identical.
But, I could be misunderstanding Ten10's argument, as I haven't really been paying as close attention as I probably should have.
The chance for one person to roll a 10 on a d20 is 1/20 or 5%.
The chance for two people to roll a 10 on a d20 is:
(1/20)(1/20) = 1/400 = 0.25%.
I'll flesh out my position just a little bit more.
Mos Eisley makes a bit of sense because it's a space port where people from hundreds or thousands of different planets travel. It's not unreasonable that there are hundreds or thousands of different intelligent species going through because they come from so many different worlds that have developed intelligent life.
Golarion however, has dozens of intelligent species on just this one planet, not even addressing the ones that ultimately came from somewhere else. No explanation for how they've all managed to survive to modern times, especially considering the inherent violence of the world. Little explanation is ever given to the relationships between the species. They're all just provided as material to fill new publications, but little thought is given to how it impacts the internal logic of the world. This is the same argument I've made to why I hate the 200+ divinities that existed in PF1 at the end. It's great for providing interesting combinations for people to play, but each addition makes the world as a whole make less sense, unless the players and GM just ignore all the questions raised by the additions.
I have to admit, the fact that you're using "it's a team game" as a justification for an individual player to do whatever he/she wants is kind of funny. Usually, in "team games," individuals make sacrifices of their individual desires for the betterment of the group.
Um...because it's a team game, and the Cleric's decision is making things slightly better for himself while making it simultaneously far worse for the party, thereby increasing the likelihood that the entire party fails?
I had houseruled Knowledge checks in PF1 to give more information, and I made similar houserules for PF2. And my players often use Recall Knowledge as their first action. They like the flavor of their characters winning because they talked to townsfolk, researched details, scouted ahead, and took advantage of their information.
I'm curious if your characters actually role played any of that talking with townsfolk, research, scouting, etc., or if it was stuff you had to create on the fly as a GM whenever a player made a successful skill check. (As a DM, that would be more work than I'd be interested in doing 5-10+ times per game session.)
I ask, because this is how I justified a characters knowledge checks for critters the last time I played a character. The character was a Zon Kuthon worshiping half-orc Inquisitor with an intimidate build; his motivation was that the greatest form of pain was the emotional shame that one would feel from being thoroughly intimidated and made fearful by someone. The character carried around a thick journal with him where he took notes about the creatures and individuals he met, noting down things that the creatures seemed afraid of. Every time we went to a new town or village, I made a point of telling the GM that the character was going to spend time at the watering holes for the local adventurers, guards, military, etc., to talk to the people about the creatures nearby so he could learn about what things those creatures feared or avoided. All of this was done with the intent to justify why the only thing the character was interested in when he made a knowledge check was whether or not it was susceptible to being intimidated; the idea being that the character made the effort to learn about creatures, but only focused on that one aspect.
As a GM, is it wrong to sigh in exasperation when the players you're introducing to Pathfinder 2nd Edition FOR THE FIRST TIME show up with a lizardfolk, a leshay, and a gnelf?
Personally, I have always hated the Mos Eisley Cantina feel of the Pathfinder world. I won't go into my reasoning why, because it's rather long and involved, and relates to philosophies surrounding world building and maintaining in-universe logic, and how that is at loggerheads with a business model that revolves around constant addition of new material.
But, no, I do not think you're "wrong" in any way, but you and your players might not be looking for the same kind of experience from the game.
My party doesn't even bother with Recall Knowledge, and hardly bothered with the previous incarnation in PF1.
They just learn as they go, and remember for the next time they run into the same or similar creatures. Never really caused any problems; nobody died because they didn't know that critter has DR5/silver.
I wouldn't think badger; spiders don't strike me as something that would rage like a badger.
I would think it would need to be something with a single attack, since spiders use their legs for movement and manipulation, not slashing or stabbing.
Snake wouldn't actually be a bad chassis. It's a bit slow with only 20' movement, but it has a climb and swim speed (some spiders can actually walk across water, though it's more of a function of their small size than anything else). The snake's constrict at later levels can be re-skinned as being wrapped in silk. It's support benefit could be described as all it's legs interfering with the target's ability to react.
Edit: To make it more spidery, start with snake, ditch the scent and swim ability, then replace both with either "All Around Vision" (lots of eyes all over its head), or short range "Tremorsense," (spiders are very sensitive to vibrations).
Might also replace the advanced Constrict ability with an appropriate Poison, but would require more work to find a poison that was comparable in effect to the constrict.
Interesting thing from my run-through with my gaming group.
The Half-orc/Goblin Monk in the party has decided that one of his life goals is to destroy the Hellknights after getting through the second floor of the book. He thinks the Hellknights are entirely too cavalier and irresponsible with the way they deal with extraplanar creatures after dealing with the imps (or were they quasits?) on the first floor and then the creepy doll that was left behind. Then, the entire "fight fire with fire" necromantic trap in the crypts just pushed him over the edge.
He has a burning dislike for Hellknights right now. LOL.
In my Age of Ashes campaign, I have to players running Goblins with the Half-Orc addition. Rather than the obvious progenitors, their father is a high level Goblin Bard, and their mother is an Orc with an excessive fondness for troubadours. Part of their back-story for becoming adventurers is the desire to chase down their father and give him a good beating for running off on their mom before they were born.
So far, there hasn't really been anything game-breaking, and the role playing aspect of it has been pretty fun.
Typically isn't there an inch under the doors or anything so the eye can go through doors?
I'd be surprised if there is any door in your home that has one inch between the the door and the floor beneath it when it's closed. I would figure the distance is closer to 1/2 inch. For an external door, even less.
I disagree with your definition of meta-gaming, entirely. Meta-gaming is not "altering your course of action because of out of game knowledge." Meta-gaming is a character making use of knowledge that the character has no way of having.
Examples of meta-gaming:
Your character has never seen a troll before, but you as a player automatically choose to attack it with fire or acid because you (the player) know that stops trolls' regeneration.
Your character has no experience with demons, but you automatically pull out your cold iron dagger you've never attacked anything with before since you (the player) know demons' weakness.
(More extreme) Your character chooses to go out of his/her way to search a particular out-of-the-way location in a dungeon multiple times until successful because you (the player) have run this AP in the past and know there is a juicy piece of treasure there.
Examples of not meta-gaming:
Any time a character chooses to not do something he's bad at and doesn't have a good likelihood of succeeding, such as:
Wizard chooses to not try to climb the outside of a castle wall at first level because his Athletics skill is -1, meaning the best thing that can happen is he/she fails before he gets high enough to cause damage.
Dex based character chooses to not wield the nice 2-hand sword he just found because his Strength is low, and he's not proficient with martial weapons, anyway, so it's unlikely he'll hit with it.
A character with mediocre to bad knowledge skills attempting knowledge checks when the character is fully aware that he/she doesn't really know much about the subject matter.
Most lies are obvious. If the guard says you can't enter or the client tells you you're trying to bluff him, you know your lie failed. The only cases where someone won't tell you is if he tries to deceive you.
I have to disagree with this.
The success of the lie isn't obvious unless the person you're lying to chooses to make it so.
That guard could have just as well let you in, then alerted the people inside to do away with you. Or, maybe that client decides to double cross you because he thinks you're lying to you, and thinks that you're such a bad liar that it should be easy to pull one over on you.
Seriously, in real life, do you really know as soon as you tell a lie whether or not the person believes you? If you lie in a job interview, you don't even really know if they believed you if you eventually get hired. If you lie to your girlfriend, you may not find out until after she's dumped you when you find out she's telling all her friends that you're such a liar.
From a game mechanic standpoint, the reason your checks to lie to someone are to prevent you from metagaming the situation. If you know the person has believed your character, you will have your character behave in a different fashion than you will if you know your character's lie was not believed. This is information your character would not have until such time as the NPC takes an action to reveal it.
Now, if you lie to an NPC and fail, and then that NPC tries to pretend like he believes you, that NPC would need to make their own check to lie successfully.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
I'll expand my position to make more sense.
Usually, when published material add new deities, they do not bother giving any particular explanation for the relationships with the other gods. They might give a brief synopsis about one or to particularly significant relationships, but that's about it.
Pathfinder 1E had over 200 possible deities that could be worshiped, there is significant overlap among them, and almost none of them have any meaningful amount of explanation. They exist, largely, to pad published material and provide some mechanical combinations of favored weapon, alignment, and domains.
Let's look at some of the silly deities and their areas of control; I say, "silly," because, seriously, who would ever worship them:
Nameless: Delusions of Authority (anyone with such a delusion wouldn't think they were delusional, so would not worship this guy, and anyone with real authority wouldn't, either).
Doloras: Pain (poor man's Zon-Kuthon).
Phlegyas: Atheists (seriously).
Nightripper: Botched executions and pits (why?).
I could keep going on. If the deity has an area of control that would actually be something sentient beings would either revere out of admiration or revere out of fear (praying to a god of disease in hopes of avoiding the disease, for example), there are a half dozen or more deities that cover that area.
I mean, I would get the tons of deities if it were a Chinese celestial bureaucracy type thing, but there's no organization to ANY of the published pantheons that have been done by TSR, Wizards, or Paizo. They're completely lacking in any apparent internal logic, and they never provide enough explanation for them to make sense. As I said previously, I'm convinced they're only created to provide mechanical uses, and dang the fallout. There isn't a single published pantheon I've ever seen that I would use in a home campaign.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
My setting has its own 21 gods, and anyone outside that is usually a demigod, but I love Urgathoa and Norgober so much that I wanted them to have a place in my world.
I'm a fan of this kind of thing, too. Ever since the days of TSR, published material always ended up having way too many different divine creatures; it just got to the point of the absurd. Lots of the "gods" were incredibly niche that were only created because of a writer's desire for some unique god for some specific adventure or other publication, and those gods almost never have any sort of internal cohesiveness between them.
To me, I always thought that was immersion crushing when it's supposed to be on a world where gods physically exist. I mean, it makes sense for one god to be worshiped under a variety of different names among different cultures, but it's eye-rolling for every single culture to have it's own God of X.
I agree with this. It's the players who are making the choices to play these characters. It's a cop-out by them to then expect the GM to come up with reasons why the two characters can get along (or at least not kill each other).
Of course, a GM should help, but if the players cannot ultimately come up with something that works for them, they need to consider different character concepts. (Or just accept the unpleasantness that's going to hit the table as a result of their choices.)
Probably the same reasons that real world religions have prohibitions against eating pork, mixing meat with milk, what kind of underwear you use, how you bathe, requirements for getting dunked in a body of water, and a countless list of other things that one might consider beneath the worries of a God.
Those issues ARE important to the deity, and it's not the place of the adherent to question the deity's commands. It could be something cosmically important, or it might just be a test of faith imposed by the supernatural being.
I have to chuckle at people saying it is impossible to fire a bow while prone, as if the bow staff has to be perpendicular to the ground to function.
Let's ignore the entire class of "foot bows" that were designed specifically to be fired while laying on the shooter's back using the feet to brace the bow staff and both hands to draw back the string.
Imagine a right handed bowman. Picture him drawing back the bow as normal, but placing the arrow on the right side of the staff instead of the left. Then imagine that person laying on his left side rather than standing vertically. This would function perfectly well for firing. The mechanics of the bow are completely unaffected by fact that the staff is parallel to the ground, and the arrow is laying on what is now the top of the staff, so it won't fall off.
Also, the bow can be fired from a half-sit-up position with the bow parallel to the ground.
In either of these cases, it is an atypical method of firing the bow, which would sensibly make the shot more difficult than normal (hence a to-hit penalty), but it's kind of silly to say that it's impossible to do.
(For the doubters, just google search "prone archery" to find discussion of the topic. It's something bow hunters use from time to time.)
I have to disagree. PF2e has no system for action stacking and reverse resolution. We only do exactly what we are told to do by the rules.
If you cast Jump, regardless of what your next action is, you fall after completing it, unless that next action specifically provides a protection from from falling.
So, yes, if you Jump, fail to land in an appropriate spot, and then cast Fly, you still fall. But, since you have a Fly speed while under the effects of the Fly spell, you could use a subsequent action to use the Arrest a Fall action.
In addition, I want to point out a key, but honestly insane point about the jump spell. "You must land on a space of solid ground within 30 feet of you, or else you fall after using your next action."
I think, at best, you could use it twice before falling prone. It says "after using your next action." If you next action is casting Jump, you fall prone immediately after completing that action. There's nothing that indicates a second casting of the spell delays the "fall prone" timing of the first casting.