Shisumo's page

I am having the same issue attempting to purchase the PDF of Battlecry! I can add the hardcover to my cart without issue but the PDF takes me to a "you are not authorized to be here" page.

I guess not angry enough to want to stop it from happening then.

The consensus that appears to be emerging is "Yeah, that didn't happen in our Golarion, one of our PCs wandered through, wiped out all the Hellknights single-handed, and went on about their day" so... yeah, I guess we won't be running that adventure, if home play would otherwise be an option.

Shisumo wrote:

This would be a substantially more compelling argument if there weren't an entire rest of the planet they could have picked to set this scenario at where this problem didn't arise.

Well by your logic not the whole planet, because anywhere that has already been featured wouldn't be suitable.

That would still leave pretty much the whole damn planet.

More relevantly, even most other APs don't specifically give the PCs a base to operate from in the first book and then devote significant page count in the later books to downtime activities the PCs can take to rebuild, personalize, and fortify their base to make it even more their own. Most of the first half of the AP contains substantial "give the players and their characters a sense of ownership over this space" content that few other APs can match. Seeing all that work ignored and getting frustrated about it is not an unreasonable reaction.

there’s absolutely no way for Paizo to account for what hundreds of different groups might have done.

This would be a substantially more compelling argument if there weren't an entire rest of the planet they could have picked to set this scenario at where this problem didn't arise.

I just shared this blog with the group I ran AOA for and every single one of them got angry about it.

I only have one thing I would like from this book and that's a way to be a rondelero duelist in 2E without either a) being just kinda bad at it or b) being a fighter.

alas, my beloved Kroina, still not mentioned in 2E...

My least favorite companion is Daeran. By far.

It took me many tries and reloads, but I was finally able to defeat the Other in Act 2 by telling D. I knew his dark secret. After I won the fight, I got teleported back to camp and Daeran exploded. It was almost better than beating Deskari.

God I hate that smug bastard.

I want to be loyal to my girl Arue, I do, but damn flirting with Daeran is so much fun. Surely a succubus can get behind a little polyamory, right?

a security robot of some kind

It was an elite Observer-Class security robot, for the record.

In Pathfinder, Hardness 6 isn't that big a deal because most of your martials will be rolling a minimum of 1d6+3 (1d8+4 or higher being more realistic) for damage, meaning most non-crits have a decent chance of doing at least a little damage. In SF, though, only melee specialists - and that's probably just gonna be your solarian, if you have one - get static bonuses to damage, meaning the majority of the party is going to be limited to a flat 1d4, 1d6, or 1d8 damage. That's a huge problem when you have to deal at least 7 damage to do anything at all.

Personally, I think the technomancer is going to be a class archetype for any caster class, one that gives you a spell cache and some tech-related Focus Spells and feats; the arcane-focused technomancer would then be just a wizard with the technomancer archetype.

I however wish the Solarian could choose Dex or Str as their Key-ability score. That'd make the Solar Flare a little bit more interesting to use if you ask me but that's just because i like having 18 in my primary attack stat since I often find Barbarians hitting more often then my Thaumaturge even if it is 1 point of difference. There's been so many times that +1 has made such a difference.

This makes me wonder if the Solar Flare is ignorable since you don't need dex....we will see.

It's still just a playtest - if enough people agree with you (I might well be one of them), it could still happen.

Glaz Nixbrix of Punks in a Powderkeg is a transman.

Fun fact: since the class always makes sure you are trained in Acrobatics at 1st level, if you have a +7 Dex at 20th level and make no other effort to increase your Acrobatics score in any way, you will still only crit fail - and thus, fail to acquire panache - an Acrobatics check against a level 20 DC (that is, DC 40) on a natural 1.

No, you really don't need auto-scaling Acrobatics on this class.

EDIT: to be clear, I would love to see auto-scaling, I just disagree that it's necessary for builds that want to do something else with their skill-ups.

Prisms cast rainbows, and this month above all, when I read things like

their struggles, from the personal queries of identity and belonging to the endless communal work toward justice and liberation

I am reminded at once of the long road it has been since Stonewall - not to mention all the individual roads walked before then - and how far we yet have to go. I too have been this traveler, weary and facing despair.

But reading this did, at least, help me remember that there are so many of us out there on the same road, and it was a good thing to remember. Maybe Shelyn's onto something there.

Shisumo wrote:

shroudb wrote:

And since all impulses gain the Traits of your Aura, they are immune to Extract since Extract as well will have the Fire trait.

This is not actually the case. An impulse only gains the traits of your aura "if an impulse allows you to choose an element," which Extract Elements does not.

EDIT: Not that this helps against wisps, since their immunity doesn't come from an elemental trait either.

You cut the trait text in half here it is complete:

Quote:

The primary magical actions kineticists use are called impulses. You can use an impulse only if your kinetic aura is active and channeling that element, and only if you have a hand free to shape the elemental flow. The impulse trait means the action has the concentrate trait unless another ability changes this. If an impulse allows you to choose an element, you can choose any element you're channeling, and the impulse gains that element's trait.

In order to use an impulse, any impulse, it has to be an Impulse of one of the elements of your Aura. For the Impulses that are usable by all the elements (Blast, Kinesis, Extract) you are free to choose which Element you are using and the Impulse gets that Trait.

But the Impulse itself IS of the element of your Aura or else you cannot use it at all.

---

Which means, that by RAW, Fire Elementals are Immune to Fire Extract, which is obviously not the intent of Extract.

You do not choose an element for Extract Elements and it does not have an elemental trait.

Compare the text of EE with Base Kinesis or Elemental Blast, both of which have the phrase "Choose one of your kinetic elements," a phrase that does not appear in Extract Elements. If you want to argue that this means you can't use Extract Elements at all, that's your choice, but Extract Elements can be used on creatures immune to an element because EE does not have an elemental trait and you don't choose one so the "if an impulse allows you to choose an element" clause doesn't activate.

And since all impulses gain the Traits of your Aura, they are immune to Extract since Extract as well will have the Fire trait.

This is not actually the case. An impulse only gains the traits of your aura "[i]f an impulse allows you to choose an element," which Extract Elements does not.

EDIT: Not that this helps against wisps, since their immunity doesn't come from an elemental trait either.

Just to be thorough, "affected by the aura" does mean a little bit more than just "within 30 feet." Creatures immune to mental or emotional effects or that are blind are not affected by the aura even if they are within 30 feet.

It could definitely use some clarification, but for abilities without the Banner trait, I would say that it being Worn is good enough; it's still visible, so it meets that requirement.

Obviously, for things that actually have the Banner trait, Worn isn't good enough, you have to be holding/wielding it, as per the trait's text.

Qlippoth still exist? I thought they are created by D&D. Turns out they are purely Paizo's creation?

No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qlippoth

Anyone else find it odd that none of the Campaign Backgrounds give training in the skill needed for the corresponding skill feat?

Honestly, I think the model for how the swashbuckler should handle panache is the magus. There are lots of really good reasons to compare recharging spellstrike and gaining panache and, while the action economy can be kind of tricky sometimes, the magus's version of the system works pretty well, all in all. If all it takes is spending an action to get panache, and each subclass gets a different kind of action they can combine with getting panache, then you've solved most of the inherent problems with how panache is gained and used.

I still make them roll a new RK on all monsters, even ones they've met. However if it's one they've been successful against with RK in the past I have a lower DC for them to meet as a "reminder" DC. If they meet that (which generally only requires the D20 to get a 5 or better before modifiers) then I remind them they've faced X before and they know it does Y and Z. If they roll high enough they uncover any additional info they may have missed in the past, if any.

I like this and am gonna steal it. Thanks!

Honestly, all I want from the new ruffian is Str +4 at chargen and a main-hand flail, particularly now that Disarm is pretty damn good. You know how many agile or finesse weapons there are with both Disarm and Trip? 7, only 1 of which is common and it's a d4 nonlethal weapon. Without the die cap, I could possibly use a bladed scarf or a spiked chain, but those are two-handed weapons and that would lock me out of an off-hand agile attack. As things stand now, though, I've got d6 lethal damage, both traits I want, and I can follow up a successful trip with an agile strike to increase my chances of actually getting those sneak attack dice to roll.

All in all, I'm pretty happy.

Imma make The Hunter from Marvel's Midnight Suns as a nephilim exemplar dual-wielder, probably with an infernal sorcerer multiclass.

Making four items would take a minimum of four days and only at full price. A 5th level crafter making four lesser acid flasks individually works four days and pays 12 gp. A 5th level crafter making a batch of four lesser acid flasks gets a crit success (on an 11+), works the same four days, and pays 6 gp.

From a mechanical perspective, I'm frustrated that schools are really limited scope wise and no consideration was done for letting them have usable level 1 and 2 spells, which is going to make 1-5 play even more of a pain. No, I don't care they let the GM add more spells, the RAW schools should be usable and good out of the box. That's like saying Swashbucklers are fixed because technically the GM can give them panche whenever.

From a flavour perspective, I'm unhappy the schools are a permanent fixed decision from chargen. That was OK in the original when each school was sweeping and huge and could take your entire life to explore but new schools are, like, tiny. Do you need to commit your entire life to figure out how to shapeshift yourself and nothing else?

For solutions, I have two ideas. The safe one is to imitate Druid orders: level 2 feat to add a new school worth of spells to your school slot list, level 4 to grab the focus spell. The risky one is to let wizards add new spells to their school list in-game via Learn a Spell or similar, perhaps mandating the new spell shares a trait with a spell on the list already (excluding purely mechanical traits like incapacitation and attack)

I am here for the School Explorer (Transfer Student?) feat.

The greatpick wouldn't be a big deal - fatal breaks the sneak attack restriction. Ruffians want things with deadly, not fatal.

Because it's not evil? It's unholy, i.e., that which is opposed to holiness. Or, potentially, that which is opposed by holiness.

Holy and Unholy are traits.

Not really? Because you have to remember different parts of the world have different rarities. Its up to your GM to decide whether its different rarity in your part of the of the world, but I can't imagine a GM deciding that a katana is still uncommon in Minkai.

No, that's exactly the problem. I didn't say "gain access to," I said "become proficient with." A weapon that is uncommon where you are (for this example, Absalom) that is common in another culture (in this example, Minkai) is the only valid choice for the feat (except for ancestry traits, which I am not talking about here) - and the feat allows a character with simple weapon proficiency (like a sorcerer) to treat a martial weapon (like a katana) as a simple weapon. So a sorcerer from Absalom can use Unconventional Weaponry to become proficient with a katana but a sorcerer from Minkai cannot.

The changes to Martial Weapon Proficiency have reduced the impact of this distinction, but Unconventional Weaponry is an ancestry feat, which everyone gets at 1st level, and Martial Weapon Proficiency is a general feat, which aren't available until 3rd. You can take General Training or Versatile Heritage to get around that, but that either means you can't use General Training for something else later or you have to give up your heritage choice, both of which are higher opportunity costs than just taking a single ancestry feat and being done with it.

Riddlyn wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

The Expertise feat is *also* rolled into the base feat now.

Out of curiosity did they do something similar to unconventional weaponry?

Yes

Unconventional Weaponry wrote:

You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of proficiency, you treat it as a simple weapon.
If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can instead choose an uncommon advanced weapon that has an ancestry’s trait or is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon and have familiarity with that weapon. For the purpose of proficiency, you treat it as a martial weapon.

Which means, although the opportunity cost has gotten smaller, it's still easier for a sorcerer from Absalom to become proficient with a katana than a sorcerer from Minkai. Sigh.

Has anyone talked about Crafting in the remaster yet?

It feels the remaster was super rushed

That's because it was, for reasons entirely out of Paizo's control.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

MadamReshi wrote:

While it does me going down once is okay if you get stabilised (and are facing enemies who won't just finish you off and you aren't hit by persistent damage), dying potentially instantly on one failed recovery roll once when you have Wounded 1 is extremely punishing. Essentially, if you get revived, you HAVE to run - which is kind of a problem for Martials in particular, who have to spend an action to get up, *and* an action to grab their weapon, and then have to Stride - or Step, if they're in range of an enemy (because while only 1/4 enemies have Attack of Opportunity, how can you ever truly know unless you've moved out of range before?) You'd need to be heal substantially and protected for that to work.

Oh, it's far too late for stepping to help at that point. Stand is a move action.

Now, kip up can save you, but that doesn't become available until level 7.

Alternatively, wait and see if your friends can lure/push the enemy away from you so you can safely stand and retreat, either to safety or just enough to get more healing/participate from range.

An excellent point. We have the Reposition maneuver now, after all.

You generally cannot sustain more than once per round unless the spell says so.

The RAW does not support that idea in any way. Other rules interactions restrict the value of sustaining a lot of effects more than once, but nothing whatsoever actually prevents you from doing so.

This one even specifies that you only get the benefit the first time you sustain each round which I suspect is the new standard for the Remaster.

This is the exact kind of rules interaction that provides a limit, and it's not new for the Remaster, there are several spells in the original core that contain the same wording.

It occurs to me that "precog" as a concept, rather than as a bunch of class mechanics, is definitely in the same general ballpark as "psychic," which makes me wonder if the witchwarper subclasses will determine casting list and possibly casting stat in ways reminiscent of the sorcerer and psychic subclasses.

The truth is, when dealing with taking immortals out, there's almost literally no rush. Inevitable (as a species name or a regular concept) doesn't imply a specific timetable - in some ways, it's the opposite. When it comes to making sure that immortals actually die, they either a) will be there when you're ready to deal with them or b) won't because the matter will have taken care of itself while you've been working on other projects. So it's fine either way. Everything will get sorted out in the end.

I'd give the wizard the 1E version of arcane bond back. That 1/day "pull anything from your entire spellbook" ability did so much to make wizards feel like the ultimate toolbox casters.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Blave wrote:

There's at least 6 new schools that have been shown or mentioned, plus the universalist one. If there's only two more unannounced, we'd already be back to where we started.

What's the list? I only know about Boundaries, Ars Grammatica, Battle Magic, and Civic Engineering (plus Universalist).

We've also heard of Mentalism and Protean Form I believe. They were name dropped sometime a month back and are in the first couple pages of this thread alongside Battle and Civic

Mentalism is in the preview doc.

... am I the only one the hates the idea of Shelyn and Zon-kuton merging? Those two are interesting because she is a goddess of love who loves her brother dispite his flaws, while he is a god of harm that for all his evil does not go out of his way to start conflict.

The two merging would be the equivalent of removing the Ying-Yang. Yeah okay, but why?

It doesn't actually have to be a merge, though. Either one could take some of the other's name and portfolio in the event that one of them were to die. It wouldn't even be particularly out of character for them. (Shelyn's pain is the loss of her brother forever, beyond the redemption she hoped he would one day find, and now the Eternal Thorn's grief is as endless as the art she continually manifests as an expression of it...)

As long as they didn't significantly change staff nexus, I plan to just eat any spell slots I can't fill with something I care about to get more uses of something I do.

I think Technomancer has a great chance of making it in! I think its important to keep a spellcaster that's tuned into technology, and I can think of half a dozen ways to make them distinct from wizards off the top of my head. While I didn't personally care for their mechanical incarnation in SF1, I would hate to see them drop off for PF2.

Conversely, "tech-focused caster" feels like it would be an excellent archetype...

I think from a logistical perspective, this was not just inevitable, but necessary to move forward as a company.

From a legal one, too. Paizo needs to shed the OGL as quickly as possible and simply does not have the time to spin up an entirely new system from scratch. Even if they had wanted to keep the game lines separate, WotC forced their hand on this too.

Okay, genuine question re: wizard flexibility. Does this feature ever actually come up in play? I'm being serious here - I don't think I've ever really seen it be an actual thing at the table. Every prepared caster I've ever played and every prepared caster I've ever played alongside used basically the same prepared spell list every day, with very occasional swap outs of one or maybe two spells on extremely specific occasions, like needing a given specific-use spell (stone to flesh, for example) that they had to wait until a new set of preparations to cast - but then they just went right back to what they had before. Even that is less common the more your group invests in scrolls, in my experience. I mean, as a theoretical white-room construct, sure, the loss of the potential spells for your school slot is a nerf, but as a practical matter? I highly doubt it's going to prove to be at my tables, at least.

You know, I really do wonder if what we're seeing here is an artifact of the Preview doc being largely focused on making Rage of Elements playable on release. Specifically the idea that monster cantrip use is problematic because monster stat mods aren't balanced against PC mods and the stat block doesn't actually say what to use in the first place.

It would make a great deal of sense if the baseline spells were printed as XdX damage but then caster classes had a core class feature that was something to the effect of, "You may reduce the number of dice on any damaging cantrip you cast by one to instead add your key attribute modifier to the total damage" - that would provide parity with existing characters but resolve the weirdness around the monsters...

I'll wait until I actually play with it to make any final decisions, but if I turn out to find it more annoying than it's worth, then I will be houseruling 1-to-1 attribute boosts with a cap of +4 until 10th level, when you key attribute can go to +5, 15th level when any attribute can go to +5, and 20th level, when your key attribute can go to +6.

As a note I absolutely love this kind of design. A hostile location that leans on time pressure to make choices that allow faster exploration/healing to be meaningful.

But is there actually any time pressure? There's no indication that the clock is anything other than a decoration, an artificial tension source that doesn't actually come from anything. Aslynn never shows up no matter how long the PCs take or what they do, nor is there any indication what would happen if she did put in an appearance. Isn't that a problem?

This may or may not help, but for those who are saying "Paizo's lore is different enough that it wouldn't run afoul of the OGL thing," consider the following thought experiment. (This actually works as a decent rule of thumb for "maybe we have a problem" when it comes to pretty much anything involving copyright, plagiarism, etc.) Imagine the thing you're talking about didn't exist. Instead, someone has come to you with their "new idea" and begins to explain it to you.

How likely are you to go, "But that's just [IP of some other company]?"

So if someone came along and said, "I'm going to introduce a variant ancestry of elves for Golarion. They are dark-skinned (and are called "dark elves" as part of that), live exclusively underground, have darkvision, many of them are evil (they worship chaotic and evil deities as part of that), they organize themselves into scheming political factions that are ruled matriarchally, favor the use of poison and hand crossbows, and have a tradition of warping humanoids into monstrous abominations, some of which are spider/drow centaur-kinda things called 'driders,'" at what point in there, if any, would you have said, "But that's just D&D drow with some tweaks here and there?"

And how far back up the chain of those descriptors would you have to go before "this is clearly not D&D drow" would seem reasonable to say?

Playtest kineticist had options to use Str on attacks (via the brutal tag); has there been something said at some point about that going away?

I see the new schools of magic as your major in universities. Not as the universities themselves.

A center of magical learning might support only one school of magic (maybe even one they created) like the Kung-fu schools in many movies.

A bigger one might support several, akin to the Shaolin temple providing training in different styles.

I think the comparison to martial arts is a particularly apt metaphor.

Martial arts can be defined as "the formal study of personal combat," just as wizardry can be defined as "the formal study of arcane magic." Within that overarching definition, though, there are literally hundreds of subdivisions. Some are based on philosophies, some based on the weapons a particular group of people had readily available, some based purely on ruthless efficiency in making people unalive. Those subdivisions can be quite small or quite widespread, they can be localized into one particular institution or organization or they can be taught the world over, and they can be learned through formal instruction or self-taught via documentation and practice.