Search Posts
The OP isn't saying that. No matter what, the hit does 9 slashing and 0 fire.
I know that this thread's informal message from the design team isn't polished like the formal errata text is getting workshopped to be,
That is, if you Spellstrike to stab a skeleton with your sword and telekinetic projectile a shard of glass at it, I believe the majority of GMs have always interpreted resistance once to the Strike, then applied resistance once to the spell. But the OP's message seems to describe "combining the two different attacks' damage for resistances and weaknesses", even though Spellstrike doesn't have the combining instructions that Flurry of Blows has. I'm reading that the OP's example would seem to buff Spellstrike to power through the skeleton's resistance (and nerf Spellstrike's previously common interpretation against weaknesses).
Yakman's Google Doc has moved to a new URL! It covers both Pathfinder and Starfinder. Link: [here]
it would seem that the store page is mistitled, as the store page and product description exclusively refer to it as Lost Omens: The Grand Bazaar. (Likewise seeming to mean that the placeholder image is out of date, as the store image displays "The Grand Bazaar" on the mockup cover.) This placeholder image (like the page's title and product description) is still out of date. These also conflict with how the Special Edition seems to correctly use the title "Lost Omens: Grand Bazaar Special Edition" in its store page and image.
Hey, the Player's Guide says that the Sandpoint Cathedral contains not six but seven shrines, including one to Calistria. That seems to contradict the Seven Dooms AP itself, which only lists the established six. Both the Player's Guide and the AP book seem to imply that worship of Calistria is the seventh-most popular religion in town (Calistria is listed among the religions in Sandpoint's settlement statblock). Is this true/mentioned in any other book? I would've been more inclined to expect Calistria to be the opposite of popular, like how Klarn Kleiden shunned Calistria as "a deity not represented in Sandpoint’s charter". I was thinking of Shayliss more as a sort of maverick or outsider in terms of her faith, where it's less likely that this little town has a Calistrian congregation for her to find much community with.
You guys skipped Abadar in the PDF bookmarks. :( And the PDF bookmarks miscategorized the Palatine detective, the Razmiran priest, the Rivethun, and the witch patrons as "subchapters" of the "parent" chapter Oracle Mysteries. https://i.imgur.com/bXJk0OU.png
Is that the PDF that will be available le on the 20th or will that one have additional information?So out of the deities in Inner Sea Faiths, Naderi is the only one unaccounted for. Is she among those deities lost/missing or is she still around via God's & Magic?Nothing says that she is lost, so she is not lost. Also, you'll want to keep an eye out for Divine Mysteries's digital Supplement PDF that Luis says Paizo is planning to release in the coming weeks! Divine Mysteries is the book, available on the 20th. A digital Supplement PDF is a separate PDF, containing content that is not in the book.
So out of the deities in Inner Sea Faiths, Naderi is the only one unaccounted for. Is she among those deities lost/missing or is she still around via God's & Magic? Nothing says that she is lost, so she is not lost. Also, you'll want to keep an eye out for Divine Mysteries's digital Supplement PDF that Luis says Paizo is planning to release in the coming weeks!
You don't need to morally compare me to Asmodeus, man. I wasn't making an "attempt at finding loopholes"; I just thought I was having a conversation with you and explaining the logic that I said led me to make my best-guess interpretation of good-faith intent, as I was trying to support and agree with the exact points you made about valuing the importance of edicts and anathema.
The complete collection of gourd leshy merch! https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Images_of_Jackpot
The gourd leshy illustrated above is also available for purchase here on paizo.com as an adorable plushie: https://paizo.com/products/btq03yle?Pathfinder-Gourd-Leshy-Phunny-Plush-by- Kidrobot and in a Pathfinder Battles miniature set: https://paizo.com/products/btq02ev9?Pathfinder-Battles-Leshy-Window-Boxed-S et and as a replica foam figure planned for 2025 Q3: https://shop.wizkids.com/products/pathfinder-replica-gourd-leshy-foam-figur e
The following leshy illustrated in this scenario's cover art is also available for purchase here on paizo.com as an adorable plushie: https://paizo.com/products/btq03yle?Pathfinder-Gourd-Leshy-Phunny-Plush-by- Kidrobot and in a Pathfinder Battles miniature set: https://paizo.com/products/btq02ev9?Pathfinder-Battles-Leshy-Window-Boxed-S et and as a replica foam figure planned for 2025 Q3: https://shop.wizkids.com/products/pathfinder-replica-gourd-leshy-foam-figur e
When a god forbids some sanctification and a PC still does it - it's incompatibility. [. . .] It clearly is anathema, or there wouldn't be any sense in forbidding sanctifications at all. Oh, well I meant that genuinely in my best-faith understanding of the intent, Gozreh and Pharasma don't "forbid" sanctification--they just don't happen to grant sanctification. Arguably the single thing that Pharasmins are most famous for is hunting undead, so sanctifying yourself as holy to make yourself an avowed undead-slayer actively supports Pharasma's edicts, you know? The point I was trying to explain in my earlier posts is that while Pharasma won't do the sanctifying for you, both common sense and the lore can seem to actually agree that she would take no offense if your character seeks out his own source of holy sanctification. Yes, some given combos are absolutely disallowed by a given deity's anathema; I never meant to suggest otherwise, because specific trumps general and your deity gives you a specific code! At the same time, there exist some individual combos that seem able to be perfect for your individual deity's edicts. But yeah, I hope to convey that I never meant to pull any "gotcha" on a GM or to claim to be the authority for any tables other than my own.
:) By the way, friend, did you happen to read a certain Pathfinder Comic titled Spoiler: ? Wake the Dead
The URL of the store category for Second Edition pawns is https://paizo.com/store/pathfinder/accessories/pawns . For example, Paizo.com's navigation drop-down menus link to that URL from Pathfinder > Accessories > Pawns.
Exciting news! With the release of the Monster Core Pawn Box under Pathfinder Accessories, this comment by Aaron Shanks implies that pawns are in the Pathfinder Accessories subscription going forward. https://paizo.com/products/btq03n0n/discuss?Pathfinder-Monster-Core-Pawn-Bo x#13 I don't know if there's ever been any other announcement or comment in clearer terms.
Hey, I think this comment by Aaron Shanks implies that pawns are coming back, just moved into the Pathfinder Accessories subscription now. https://paizo.com/products/btq03n0n/discuss?Pathfinder-Monster-Core-Pawn-Bo x#13 I don't know if there's ever been any other announcement or comment in clearer terms.
Well, these feats are simply incompatible with these faiths. Ah, I was saying the feats as written are apparently not incompatible with these faiths; the people I've polled in the community interpret the text of Player Core to not state any such disallowance, so RAI may or may not be in line with the seemingly permissive RAW here. That's why I made the post, to just make sure that the dev teams are aware: GMs do not know whether or not to assume that there is an undefined disallowance.
1. In Tian Xia Character Guide's cultivator archetype, two sanctification feats have some potentially funny behavior: Three Pecks of Dew and Ghost-Path Epiphany apparently let characters gain sanctifications that their faiths wouldn't permit. For example, holy/unholy Gozrens and Pharasmins can be seen as slightly odd. Nor do the feats mention disallowing such faiths as unholy Caydenites, Desnans, Erastilians, Sarenites, Shelynites, and Toragdans, which will strike more people as odd. I'm aware that this might all be perfectly intentional, which sounds interesting! It just raises questions that some players will be asking their GMs about, like what if a Gozren/Pharasmin character takes cultivator sanctification at 10th level and then takes Champion Dedication at 12th level:
If the deity lists “none,” you can choose only options that don’t require the holy or unholy trait. Then I'd conclude that RAW the character is holy/unholy, but still isn't allowed to select holy/unholy causes like Grandeur, Redemption, Desecration, and Iniquity. So I'm just interested to see if we might ever get confirmation on whether or not it was specifically intentional for PF2e to allow, say, holy Norgorberites, Kuthonites, and Lamashtans, as the new canon begins to introduce us to the concept of sanctification and flesh out what its lore is.2. On a completely unrelated note, TX Character Guide page 112 seems to introduce the concept of a "magus" to the ORC. But this page doesn't seem to articulate that magus is a "class", or even mention the fact that I need to refer to another book (presumably Secrets of Magic) to learn about it.
On page 72, the spell tempest cloak accidentally says that it creates a "5-foot burst surrounding the target". The AoE needs to be an emanation--probably an aura, to be specific.
If anyone was wondering, by my count: Looking at a quick Ctrl+F, Lost Omens The Mwangi Expanse has 49 "iruxis".
GM Core has 1 "iruxis" (no plural "iruxi").
GM Core has no "kholos", but 3 plural "kholo".
GM Core has 2 plural "tengu".
Ooh, Player Core Chapter 7's list of cleric focus spells forgets to define what an "initial domain spell" or "advanced domain spell" is. Now the cleric and champion feats Domain Initiate, Advanced Domain, Deity's Domain, and Advanced Deity's Domain keep referencing keywords that don't exist in the text, so technically when the cleric and champion feats Advanced Domain and Advanced Deity's Domain tell me to gain Ambition's "advanced domain spell", it doesn't identify which of the Ambition domain spells is the one they mean.
But on a tangential note, there's a problem that I think is more likely to mislead readers about how the mechanics work! Page 370's list of bard focus spells is mistitled "Bard Composition Spells", even though three bard focus spells aren't compositions. Lingering composition, fortissimo composition, and loremaster's etude do not have the [composition] trait; if they did, then it would be impossible for them to spellshape other compositions.
Oh! On Gen Con's website, the "A Drift Through Time" info/tickets page lists "GM(s): Rue Dickey", which seems incorrect
|
