Sibelius Eos Owm's page

But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does.

I really don't have a horse in the numbers race here, but I wanted to say, rounding the average damage up to 2-8 on a flurry is putting a lot of faith that an MAP-5 attack is going to hit every round. +1-4 is the average damage increase per successful strike, irrespective of how many strikes are attempted per round, and so probably wouldn't be seen to stack additively with more MAP strikes. It seems like a rough eyeball of 2-6 per flurry is a bit closer accurate.

Either way, I'm not fussed whether monks get to wield greatclubs and greatswords (albiet, the only difference I'm seeing between a khakkara and a greatclub is the former can alternate between 1h and 2h damage freely while the latter has backswing). I just think that the 'kensei' type concept of an unarmoured blade-or-other-weapon master seems too cool to leave on the table when monk is already 90% of the way there. It really seems like we should be able to pull it off--even if it's capped to d8/d10 weapons.

"Like most senses, doesn't penetrate through solid objects"

WELL, if that didn't just answer a months-old thread about whether lifesense could penetrate walls. Would be great if this line appeared in the detection rules but it doesn't seem to? Funny, because of the traditional senses, only sight is traditionally blocked by solid objects--hearing is muffled by barriers, but any player who has listened at a door knows it can still penetrate.

In any case, how you describe Sense Evil is more or less how it actually works now but flipped to holy/unholy. Champions currently detect evil as a vague sense i.e. 'smell'. Soulsight is more akin to hearing than it is to smell--excepting of course comparing it to the Scent ability of, say, a wolf.

That nitpick aside, I could easily see Sense Evil becoming an imprecise sense with a radius. Given that there exists an 8th level feat in the game which arguably has greater utility (detects virtually all non-mindless creatures and haunts, not just holy/unholy) it seems highly plausible.

Giving them all martial weapons would hurt its identity more than anything imo.

If you mean the identity of monk as the class that's mainly good at punching things, I'm with you--albeit only in so far as granting martial weapons as a baseline. I want any monk who decides to spec into them to be good with weapons as they are with punches.

If you mean martial weapons coverage would hurt the identity of the monk as the "exotic" weapons wielder, yes, but nothing of value would be lost. I find it more than a little obnoxious that monks remain the only class with an arbitrary, bespoke weapon group, and not only that, this list is almost entirely comprised of east Asian weapons. Why should a monk be able to flurry with a bo, but not a staff? Why a temple sword and not a long sword? Why a sai and not a dagger? Kama but not sickle? I could go on.

Further, if monks only wield these weapons to retain its identity as the "east Asian class"... what happens when you play in Tian Xia these weapons are just common weapons in the region? Likewise, if you're in Ustalav fighting an initiate of Urgathoa, it would a bit weird if they pulled out a set of nunchaku instead of something more grounded in the history of their own monastery, which so far as I know had no meaningful connection to Tian Xia.

Don't get me wrong, I love Monks and I love martial arts and I love east Asian weapons. I just think the game would be better served if we acknowledged that it's a little weird how certain martial artists have to conform to a real-world stereotype of what weapons it's appropriate for them to wield that is so clearly drawn along cultural inspiration lines and not along any other practical consideration (whether that's "only staves and knives" or "anything d8 and lower")

I'm inclined to think that, technically no elemental blast cast from the bonfire can trigger the fire junction since that attack is just a ranged wood blast that happens to be on fire, and happens to originate from a different location than usual. While the bonfire itself definitely is a fire impulse, it doesn't seem like anything says that the wood blast launched from the bonfire gains the trait--albeit it probably should considering it will deal fire damage on arrival.

Of course, I have a feeling the discussion of what is or isn't technically correct may be about to get quite contentious and I'm not about to defend this reading considering that I would probably allow the bonfire bonus to go up to d8 for the fire junction, albeit at the stated maximum of one impulse junction per round.

Arachnofiend wrote:

How bad can a Fighter with a permanent +2 to attack rolls really be?

Really bad once you realize the +2 doesn't apply to Untamed Form attacks unless you also have Martial Artist Dedication.

I suspect Arachnofiend refers to the +2 status bonus from Untamed Form, not the Fighter's heightened proficiency. On the other hand, it's fair to point out that, while the unarmed attacks granted by Untamed Form could very easily be in the Brawling group (and thus subject to the Fighter's weapon mastery feature), technically it doesn't seem like they do, leaving them at their baseline unarmed proficiency (Expert until 13, Master until 19)...

Neat

Pronate11 wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

The new mythic destinies effectively seem to be turning you into something else.

I am not sure how you are getting that based off of two names with no other

context.

Apocalypse Rider is literally the new name for the Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the remaster, which implies that at the very least you are becoming a pseudo-Horseman if you have that mythic destiny. I also earlier mentioned how I think Eternal Legend is likely referencing Gorum and / or Elysium, which if happened to be true, would turn you into a sort of celestial being.

Still, a pretty substantial leap of logic based on really only one confirmed connection and no knowledge of the other 7 destinies. What I said I feared but didn't really expect seems to be what you believe has already happened. It may be worth waiting for more evidence before placing bets

I was thinking about the unintended consequence of the living bonfire getting to apply two uses of the fire junction until I realized that living bonfire only works on a basic wood blast impulse, and so could never benefit from the fire junction, leaving the living bonfire as the only thing that can be affected by the junction.

Still a little hazy whether the bonfires bonus effect should benefit from the fire junction tho'

I think the big missed opportunity is for the school curriculae to get you a few spells from beyond the arcane tradition, or maybe just unique arcane spells that are unique to that school. "The secrets of our school" is a big theme for wizards.

Also, consider that other classes do LOTS of borrowing from other traditions. Sorcerer bloodline spells, with lessons, psychic conscious minds, cleric deity spells, oracle mystery and divine access..

The only caster classes that stick closely to their own spell list are the wizard, magus (wizard that goes to the gym) and bard.

During the 2e playtest teaser, I expected wizards to be given some kind of poaching ability according to their chosen school, but that didn't end up being the direction things went. I can understand it would have been a challenge to both balance and futureproof (pick one) but it would have been most interesting.

Narratively we've been given to understand the reason why the arcane list is so large is because of wizards who took the time to recreate other traditions' magic using their own techniques, which is fine enough justification for wizard poaching, but it seems the wizardly work also democratised those spells for every Arcane caster, even those who didn't get their knowledge through study

I'm quite sure the idea of what an angel is will survive if they don't specifically serve an over-deity. Certainly no worse off than the abuses the word 'demon' has suffered over the years. Like, demons and daemons are two separate things in Pathfinder and they're both evil. I can't get worked up over angels not having a Big God to serve--they still have the messenger ability to speak any language last I heard (they do, right?) and that's angelos enough for me. I mean, it would be impractical for an entire species to hold public office, yet archons are right there...

(I have to say, my own reservations stated above, with the Runelords of Thassilon in this setting's history, there are way more than enough mythic-tier archmages to make the lack of some kind of archmage-type destiny a glaring oversight, should it come to pass that the only destinies are to become angels and demons and nothing for temporally-focused folk.)

The Sense feats can probably stay as is, but maybe give it a precise sense for the niche.

You probably mean imprecise sense--giving the paladin the ability to see unholy creatures directly even if they're invisible or hiding is probably a bit too strong of a buff. Even just being able to know immediately where they are is a pretty potent ability, but as you say, the niche is a lot smaller now.

--

In general I think I personally hope for more of a smite anything Champion. On the one hand, I'm more than a little fond of the feel of being able to 'turn off' a blade of justice by converting the entire attack to harmless 'good' damage when you realize you've made a mistake, but on the other hand I feel like part of being a Champion is not swinging the smite down on anyone until you know they've earned it. Besides which, I don't think "steamrolls certain encounters with extremely good niche abilities but reverts to baseline for everything else" is a really healthy expression... and especially not if we have non-sanctified champions hanging around, which the Guardian makes me rather nervous about suddenly...

We already have a skald, its called warrior muse bard. The bard was as much of a caster than a skald was in PF1e, so if the bard is a full caster here, and I don't know why skald should be a bounded caster. Could there be a bard class archetype similar to the new cleric one they announced that makes it into a bounded caster? Sure, but technically we already have the closest equivalent.

This is absolutely true, but I'm not sure it is necessarily correct. 1e Bards and Skalds were both 6-rank spellcasters, yes, and when 2e came around and the options were either full-on spellcasting or martial with a few focus spells (bounded spellcasting not being invented for another year or two), most certainly they got upgraded to full casters. The thing is, in this process, they lost some of the martial effectiveness they used to enjoy.

In this light, think it's fair to take a 1e warrior-poet class that was functionally 'like a Bard, but with better weapons and armour proficiencies' and suggest that maybe it would be fitting for the ratio of spells to swords to fall a little more on the side of 'swords' than it did for the Bard, which by the current class calculus unavoidably means shedding some power in spells.

Incidentally, I am thrilled by the hints of upcoming class archetypes which propose to take spellcasters who can already fight a little and allowing them to push for a bit more martial effectiveness. My only regret is that they didn't save the name "Warpriest" back for this eventuality, and have named the 'spellcaster that can wear armour' something else. A Shelynite who has trained in the use of the glaive and armour much less fits the feel of "Warpriest" than a character who has traded their divine powers for combat readiness.

(Lowkey hope that the Battle Harbinger doesn't stop at just adding +1 proficiency tier in weapons and substituting in bounded casting and calling it a day without throwing in any thematic utility for combat clerkin' that the robes-and-staves priest doesn't already have)

A school devoted to using calculations and arcane formulae to try and divine the future.

This is a neat idea, but how do you see this idea represented? Saying 'uses calculations and formulae to divine the future' is a neat flavour, but it seems like the practical effect would be a curriculum with, like, the three Arcane prediction spells on it and then maybe some math-related spells thrown in for theme. I like the idea, but the how they do it (calculations/formulae) part of the concept doesn't have as much mechanical impact as the what they do (predict the future), and the question that Arcane Schools first and foremost propose to answer is the latter; "What does this particular wizard do?"

(now, naturally they'd have a cool focus spell that allows them to narratively calculate the trajectory of something to twist fate in their favoure, but what else does somebody who uses formulas to predict the future do with their magic?)

Becoming Holy Sanctified means dedicating yourself to benevolence and Virtue, and opposing unholy things, generally, but there isn't really anything in the way of actual mechanical definitions for how a holy or unholy character must act. One may well imagine that basic tenets of holy sanctification echo the "do not murder, do not harm innocents" of the tenets of good, but I think the specifics are mostly left up to role-playing considerations. Like, even if it's not specifically against Iomedae's anathema to murder somebody, it's unlikely it would be something she's cool with. Holy just means on top of that you're also devoted to the war of good vs evil

Pronate11 wrote:

I'm just going to say, they revealed a living sword deity, and it looks oddly close to Gorum's sword....

Isn't Gorum's sword broken and its blade protruding from the forehead of Szuriel's mount ?

Grace of the Flame, the Red Horse, has been depicted with a blade for a horn since at least as far back as 2017. It's possible this is a different blade, but I'm not sure how likely Gorum's giant great sword is for fitting on an extra large horse.

...

On that note, even if Zjar Tovan has no personal connection to Gorum, introducing a living weapon god of battle while killing the living armour god of battle is a pretty clever way for at least some of Gorum's followers to carry on through the fallout of the Godsrain.

3rd edition's Draconomicon was a pretty stellar piece of work that really felt like you were holding a bestiary of dragons replete with anatomical diagrams, ecology notes, and identification. It may have been over a decade ago I first read it, but at the time it had made me fall back in love with dragons.

Golarion is not a world that has quite as much to do with the affairs of dragons overall, but I wouldn't necessarily say no to a Paizo-quality take on dragons, especially with the remaster's big shakeup of dragons leaving a lot of room to reupholster the canon with a fresh canvas.

One thing I've said before that I especially like with the mythological inconsistencies is that you're not bound to pick only one myth that's "true". Like, Windsong talks like each of the first gods sprang fully formed, but it's not important to the myth to highlight how exactly each appeared, so maybe Asmodeus' account us accurate about each of them forming out of motes of light, and at one point Sarenrae was both one of the first eight but the first eight were also just a bunch of demigods for the first thousand years while they grew in power.

Meanwhile, that Asmodeus formed in tandem with Hell doesn't necessarily preclude the story that he much later 'discovered' Hell filled with asura and conquered it for his own devices one day while having a disagreement with his brother that even later capitulated into him taking a host of angels with him to become the first devils.

Evan Tarlton wrote:

Sarenrae starting as an angel was from Asmodeus. The Windsong Testaments have her as one of the first nine gods. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgzu

Gotta wonder if we are dealing with contradictory mythology here or just the fallen angel dude being an unreliable narrator.

Personally I like to think it's both. At least half of the in-setting myths about the gods are probably more metaphorically true Tham literally true, I feel, but also I extremely wouldn't put it past Asmodeus to lie about or simply overlook anything about the early days that didn't directly relate to himself or his brother. He remembers Sarenrae as just some angel at his brother's shoulder, sweet talking him with sentiments of free will and rights. It doesn't matter that she might technically be their elder (by like 10 cosmic minutes) and is just as powerful as either of them.

I would expect to see feats along thr lines of, "If you have a Primal bloodline, when you rage unleash a burst of flames" or "If you have an Arcane bloodline, once per turn recall knowledge for free when you hit something"

From a preview I heard that TXWG includes a set of core assumptions--a sort of recalibration for those whose default instincts are more based in Western cultures and fantasy tropes.

1. Celestials Are Not Always Good
2. Appearances Are Deceiving
3. Dragons Are Not Monsters
4. Spirits Are Not Abstract
5. The Dead Are Never Truly Gone

I was wondering what people thought about these? Suffice to say, reading into possible implications of these has my brain a little bit on fire right now. While I gather that the meta explanation for this list is "This is the Fantasy Asia continent, it would be weird if we didn't have Asian Fantasy tropes" but casting rationality aside, the in-world explanations, if there even are any, could offer ripe ground for baseless speculation.

I don't have the full context of what each bullet is supposed to mean (perhaps someone blessed in the pdf department will deign to share) but so far I have gathered...
- "Celestial" may mean a creature from heaven, but they're not flawless beings, and even celestials can be people, too.
- So many creatures on this continent shapeshift.
- You don't go around slaying treasure-hoarding dragons on this continent. Those dragons are sages and advisors.
- Spirits are commonplace and tend to have specific and tangible forms in Tian Xia.
- This is only an educated guess, but I suspect #5 is about the comparative prevalence of reincarnation and Sangpotshi.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

On the one hand, if the destinies are not directly named after powerful immortals like archdevils and the like, it feels really strange that one of them just so happened to fit the description of Apocalypse Rider, so I can't imagine what else is out there... But on the other, it may also just be that, despite using demigods as loose concepts, the archetypes don't really have anything to do with emulating angels/devils/etc. so much as is based around a core concept that the associated creature adequately represents as a mythic symbol. In this way, perhaps Apocalypse Rider refers to any kind of mythic figure appropriate to an end-times style myth, etc. and not because they're specifically empowered by or interested in emulating daemons.

Quick reminder. The first dragon announced in Monster Core was the Diabolic dragon.

But it turned out that not every single dragon in Monster Core was related to a plane. Much to my dismay, there are still no abyssal or abaddonian dragons.

So I doubt it's just a laundry list of the Outer Sphere. But I'm guessing "Apocalypse Rider" is pretty much "you are now a Horseperson of the Apocalypse", or at least Szuriel's trainee. So some of the options are related. If I had to bet I'd say 2 of them are, one focused on the empyreal realms plus apocalypse rider, and then you have other random stuff like "archmage" and "really good fighter" and "really good plant dude".

You are, of course, right; my skepticism is leaping at shadows and only showing me the "Worst Version" it can imagine, and not what I actually hope/expect to happen (although didn't we already know dragons were coming in four tradition-oriented pairs when Diabolic was released?).

Even so, I have to say I also hope they don't just go for the generic "this is a really good fighter" or "mages look here" archetypes. I feel like it would just be retreading 1e's archetype ground if we got a repeat of "Good Warrior" "Good Arcane" "Good Divine" "Good Skills" categories that they quite intentionally dumped when Owlcat made the Wrath of the Righteous game. Maybe some mythic destinies will naturally suit some classes better than others, but I kind of hope that they won't all be "Be More Good At The Thing You Were Already Doing" for each class (not the least of which reason being there's a lot more classes than destinies, and I'm not certain Druids, primal Witches, and primal Sorcerers necessarily have enough in common all to be served by a "Primal Bestboy" destiny.

I'll grant, there may be some Fey Eldest destiny that naturally suits primal casters who like fae, but even in that case I would hope to see more robust themes, so that each class has more than one fit that works for them.

My first thought is to take the description, "undying Eternal Legend" and read into it the common myth of heroes who search for or attain immortality (especially through their legacy). This archetype could serve a legendary warrior like Gilgamesh just as easily as an alchemist trying to recreate an elixir of life or a bard who lives as long as their songs are sung.

(Actually, side thought: What if Eternal Legend is the archetype they added because the idea of the Exemplar epithets were so popular in the playtest?)

I want to believe that they cannot possibly have just created a mythic destiny for each of the major immortal families by plane/alignment because it seems like there's no way you could tell all the stories you want out of mythic with just those archetypes, and I can't believe Paizo would finally roll out Mythic only to phone-in such a half-baked concept, but I'm not going to lie, having a destiny as specific-sounding as "Apocalypse Rider" out of nine total is doing me a heckin' concern, for all my faith.

On the one hand, if the destinies are not directly named after powerful immortals like archdevils and the like, it feels really strange that one of them just so happened to fit the description of Apocalypse Rider, so I can't imagine what else is out there... But on the other, it may also just be that, despite using demigods as loose concepts, the archetypes don't really have anything to do with emulating angels/devils/etc. so much as is based around a core concept that the associated creature adequately represents as a mythic symbol. In this way, perhaps Apocalypse Rider refers to any kind of mythic figure appropriate to an end-times style myth, etc. and not because they're specifically empowered by or interested in emulating daemons.

Palantine Investigator: no clue someone help

Only thing I can say is the Palatines were said to gain access to divine magic through unique means, so kind of assuming a divine metjodology... Does anyone suppose this is also part of the Inquisitor olive branch alongside the avenger?

I still have no idea when and how Arazni has become a deity. In Tyrant's Grasp, Arazni was not even a demigod, just a powerful mythic character. Now, Tar-Baphon is still a mortal (albeit very powerful), yet Arazni has become a full-fledged deity? Did she touch the Starstone?

Arazni was Iomedae's goddess and Aroden's herald until she died.

Either way, knowing that cover is explicitly intended to buff your initiative when rolling Stealth, I kind of wish the Avoid Notice section called out this common use case benefit with an in-text reminder of the effects of cover on Stealth rolls. Seems like it would be a useful place to have such information to help as a reference in play.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I feel like granting martial proficiency as a default without further buffing their default fist attack would turn them into a class that can punch as a backup option, rather than a class that does punch and can sword.

The unarmed attacks you can pick up in class are categorically better than any comparable weapon by a meaningful margin, and powerful fist out the gate is already comparable to a martial weapon while also sporting the free-hand trait (and the monk's upgraded version of non-lethal).

I don't really like this "should punch but can sword" mentality because it suggests that one sort of style must be treated as second class, as something only begrudgingly allowed. But the class could just support a variety of options with somewhat comparable measure instead.

You may have misread my meaning. I do not think the monk should punch. I like that it does punch, and that punching is not inherently inferior to picking up a weapon. IN fact, the bulk of my post is about how I want punching and swords to be equally viable options for monks to invest in. The segment you quote has nothing to do with the stance strikes being superior to the monastic weapons, but rather than the default fist attack is a solid default option and not second best to anything else that all monks have for free.

I know that not everyone has the time to read every word that falls out of my keyboard, so let me restate more concisely: I want to be able to make a sword-wielding 'kensai' monk, or a staff-carrying mendicant, and have that be just as good as having a stance, and I don't want default proficiencies to push all monks to use a weapons unless they spend a feat on a stance. No-Feat punching should be good enough to be worth using in the presence of No-Feat weapons (which it is right now); Monastic-Feat weapons should be good enough to be worth using in the presence of Stance-Feat punching (which it isn't yet).

keftiu wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

keftiu wrote:

ornathopter wrote:

Yes! Do we think the Commander will be a sort of Warlord type, iterating on some of the ideas they had with the Envoy? And Guardian - the name makes me think it's a defensive type, but that's so open ended, and really it doesn't HAVE to be that.

I'm hoping for a Warlord from the Commander, a proper aggro-drawing tank in the Guardian, and for this mystery book to basically just have the stealth subtitle of "Hey, 4e Actually Had Some Good Ideas" :p

Cole Deschain wrote:

Your heresy has been noted ;)

Why are you excommunicating her?! She's RIGHT!!! :P

I'm seemingly getting two of my 4e favorites here: a Warlord class and a big metaplot event driven by divine murder!

Folks, I am feasting. If only the Godsrain mutated those it touched...

... Isn't that the Examplers?

Yes, but I'll note that keftiu's choice of the word 'mutated' probably wasn't incidental. Nahoa is big and burly, but well within expectations for a buff fantasy human with demon blood.

I'm fine with this if Gorum's church's reaction isn't despair or "time to find new god" but "Time for glorious final battle!" as they become empowered by god giblets raining down

I don't know. I think it would be okay if some Gorumites find the loss too great to bear. Certainly, a joining the righteous war to end all righteous wars would be the most fitting (and I mean, Aroden's church did that, too, at least those who were already within distance of the Worldwound), but it strikes me that Gorum's faith might have an inordinately high proportion of, "I have nothing and need nothing so long as I have a sword in my hand and Gorum to witness the glory of my next victory."

Losing something when you through you had nothing else to lose might fairly cause some BSoD, is what I'm saying--even if the general reaction of his followers is as you say.

Oh! Also, his pettiness about always being the tallest being in the room is kinda cute for a big grumpy war god.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall any day Balumbdar and Gorum have to be in the same room at the same time, or otherwise cross paths.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Hey, has anything been done lately with that destructive metaphysical phenomenon that occurs when planar substrate becomes damaged? 'Cause I forgot it existed until like 2 days ago, but the smoke leaking out of Gorum's breastplate kind of reminds me of Blackfire.

Was Blackfire anywhere in 2e?

Nowhere that I can see, but it has earned a mention as recently as 2018's Plane-Hopper's Handbook, so it doesn't seem like a thing the developers have forgotten about. On the other hand, it's possible that we lost it in The Divorce, and it's worth noting that the Riftwardens, sworn foes of the Blackfire Adepts, don't seem to have come up lately, either.

* Monks are now trained in martial weapons. If bards can, why monks wouldn't.

Forgive me, I don't want to go around picking on others' ideas about how they would make the class cool to them, but in this case you did specifically ask. For me, the answer is simple: I like that monks are the punching class, and I dislike that my 5e monk never got to put down their staff because using it was always stronger than actually using the punches I made them to do. I feel like granting martial proficiency as a default without further buffing their default fist attack would turn them into a class that can punch as a backup option, rather than a class that does punch and can sword.

In short, I like that right now all monks come pre-loaded with punching being their default best option with weapons secondary, and can take a feat to choose better punches or a feat to take better weapons. I just would like it if the feat to take better weapons didn't feel inherently weaker than any of the feats to take better punches.

I think that if Monastic Weaponry gave the martial monk weapons some sort of buff to compensate for costing a feat you'd wrap right back around to the unarmed stances being hard to justify over using a bo staff.

Well, if you feel that right now taking a feat to use the bo staff is roughly equal in power to the unarmed stances, I suppose I have absolutely no argument against that. My problem is I don't think I've ever seen that position fielded. Rather, I've heard much more about how Monastic Weapons is considered a waste because picking up any of these weapons at the cost of a feat is almost always strictly worse than taking a stance, with perhaps one or two weapon exceptions.

If I have understood the community incorrectly, then I would happily retract my complaint. I generally much prefer playing monks who punch (claw/kick/bite/etc), but I do also love the image of an unarmoured warrior disciple and I wouldn't mind if that option was considered somewhat more equal to the aforementioned stance strikes. I don't imagine it would take very much.

---

My complaint about the monk trait creating an arbitrary bespoke weapon list stands, however.

If capping the damage is the primary concern, we can say d8 weapons or lower. If we want to cleave to a certain aesthetic, limiting the monk to clubs, knives, and the brawling weapon group cuts almost nothing out of their repertoire, but already adds back in such aesthetic choices as canes, fighting sticks, rungu, claw blades, and really most of the new knives. ...And obviously, my comments above would suggest an interest in the sword group, but I'm throwing a bone to the idea of limited monk weapons just to illustrate how pointless the monk trait feels to me.

Hey, has anything been done lately with that destructive metaphysical phenomenon that occurs when planar substrate becomes damaged? 'Cause I forgot it existed until like 2 days ago, but the smoke leaking out of Gorum's breastplate kind of reminds me of Blackfire.

There's a lot going on, but to answer this it's a part of the things Luis Loza revealed. The Reddit thread on the topic lies ~ here ~

I'm actually pretty fond of the idea that monks by default don't have much in the way of weapon training... certainly not a random selection of weapons which may not be appropriate for a standard brawler. My preference would be if Monsastic Weapons was more worth it to get... proficiency plus something to make those weapons actually come alive in the hands of a monk.

Necroing just a bit here because I was just noticing what many people on the first page have said about the monk trait surviving into the remaster. I lowkey hope PC2 hits us with some errata to rid the trait in favour of some other way of classifying which weapons monks should be good with. Right now it seems perfectly arbitrary that a Vudran Monk may become trained to flurry with the Temple Sword, but an Iomedaean Monk may not defend their monastery with a different d8 blade weapon more suited to their faith--and I don't particularly feel the answer is adding another monk feat to open deity favored weapons to Monastic Weapons.

It's not terribly often I feel the need to give my Monks a weapon, but it is very often I'm trying to read clusters of traits on weapons and seeing the monk trait taking up space when it feels like there are several better ways to delineate weapons for Monks, like how Rogues use the agile and finesse traits rather than a 'rogue' weapon trait.

Anyway, back to designing the Samsaran mendicant Monk who travels with a khakkara that appeared in my head yesterday and has been jingling their staff in the corner of my mind all day now.

I can't preclude the possibility, though it feels like "one is going to die... others might shift around!" would have been a part of the teasers before now, and not a buried lede that goes unmentioned until late in the game... but then again could be they have all kinds of teasers awaiting us after the official dead god reveal stream. For example, we know that the Prismatic Ray will be changing in some way... who could say with certainty this isn't because one of the members is losing Core 20 status despite being supremely popular and relevant deities each?

(actually, on that note... do we know that the change coming to the Prismatic Ray is to it's members? Surely an ORC-minded name change would be too obvious, wouldn't it?)

Oh no Shelyn's gonna die isn't she? /hj... >.>;

Dyvynarth wrote:

Personally, I'm really hoping Torag, Callistria, and Gorum survive this, as the best representatives of dwarven, elven, and orcish cultures in the 20

Gorum's an Orc?

That's news to me.

Certainly not, but I suppose it is fair to say he does represent orc culture to an extent--setting aside the popularity of Rovagug in Belkzen.

Although for that matter, to an extent Torag isn't a dwarf and Calistria not an elf. Though they may take those forms, it would seem these gods predate those mortal species... at least if Torag creating dwarves is taken as truth. Calistria is less certain just because there's no proof that elves didn't exist back before the War in Heaven, so theoretically it's possible she's not older than them.

Desna is, though.

Iomedae dying and not getting to interact with Arazni feels like such a writing fumble that I honestly can’t see them doing it.

There is such a more interesting story to be told between those two of their still alive, and hell, maybe even having to fight in the same side.

If Iomedae dies, I believe the story will in part be about their last interaction--such as the somewhere suggested "Iomedae dies saving Arazni"--which kicks off the war and brings closure to that particular hanging plot thread and positions Arazni in the place she's needed to take up a Core 20 mantle... such as for example inheriting from the Inheritor who inherited from her. Arazni's not taking the dead deity's place, but that doesn't mean she couldn't keep her own current place as patron of knights and carry forward in Iomedae's legacy without trying to step into that place.

(Even so, I wouldn't mind seeing Iomedae survive to carry on the narrative potential of their story into the Remaster)

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Also how would you even remove this bonus? They roll stealth for initiative, they have a bonus for stealth, and you would remove it why? *puzzled look*

I would not remove it, of course, nor dud I say I would. Why would you imagine my speculation motivated by mean-spirited desires to tear every small bonus from my players? This seems hardly in common with the actual content of my post.

I don't imagine that. I was just confused how this could even work, that's all. I also tried to be as amicable as I could, but seems failed at it. Well, the post was a quibble...

No, yeah, that's fair. I read too deep into the tone I read in my head.

--

As for the preceding discussion, I think I miscommunicated. The scenario I outlined is not Cover (Stealth Init) vs No Cover (Perception Init) but rather

<Plausibly Had Cover for Entire Time Up to Initiative Roll> (Stealth+2) which I now imagine to be the default especially any time you start in the hall when the battle is joined, and

<Broke Cover But Still Finished Movement Behind Cover Before Initiative> (Stealth+0) which may be a plausible explanation for how a character ended up starting in a position already inside the room but is still hidden from the enemy

5. Using stealth to initiative, including cover. GM Core explicitly calls out cover bonuses apply to initiative...

Oh my, and I was just in that section last night. I might have seen it myself if not for my eyes!

Now the only situation I can imagine where you would not start an encounter with +2 to +4 initiative is if you were relying on Convealment to sneak, or else your last implied movement before the roll is made would have taken you out if cover for that action (since you need to remain behind cover for the whole duration of a Sneak to gain it's benefit to the Stealth roll--something normally trivial to achieve when you haven't even entered a room yet!)

Also how would you even remove this bonus? They roll stealth for initiative, they have a bonus for stealth, and you would remove it why? *puzzled look*

I would not remove it, of course, nor dud I say I would. Why would you imagine my speculation motivated by mean-spirited desires to tear every small bonus from my players? This seems hardly in common with the actual content of my post.

Add that if the ambush begins from behind standard or greater cover, technically they do already bring +2 to +4 circumstance bonus to the table--although I don't know if it was ever intended for this bonus to apply to initiative rolls and not just the Hide/Sneak portion of the Stealth roll. That said, this sounds like a good argument in favour of an initiative bonus for a well-placed ambush. Should you fail that roll and your opponents still outdraw you at that point, I suppose it's only appropriate to say they had the quicker reaction time. I think I like this.

PF2's initiative procedures aren't terribly satisfying in the rare occasion where one party launches an attack from a position that you would imagine they could not possibly be noticed from, but I have to say I still don't miss surprise rounds and the endless jockeying for an ambush, or simply to be the first to announce their attack in hopes the other is caught off-guard.

Oh nice, and Ascalaphus rides in with the appropriate citations and explanations. That's gonna save me some time.

This is definitely one of those "Good for players, good for monsters" kinds of things, because frankly players are rarely going to be in a situation where they can meaningfully ambush a foe, while monsters very often are set up for precisely this purpose. In fact, some monsters make such efficient ambush predators that even in 2e some of them still have a way to lash out in situations where Initiative may not have been rolled yet, such as the mimic's Object Lesson reaction or the Aquatic Ambush ability.

On the other hand, I there there is a case for allowing a rare break from operating procedure. Simply being the first to attack from hiding isn't enough--it has to be truly special circumstances that would be difficult to reproduce (certainly more difficult than setting up a standard ambush). For example, in an adventure I was running, the party were descending underwater in a cramped bathysphere with a single window for visibility. Even if the surrounding water weren't turning dark with the depth, it would have been all but impossible for them to see a black dragon out in those waters, lurking some 100' away casting Darkness on their location.

Because the darkness was not a direct attack, and because it would have strained credulity for any party member to possibly have detected the dragon before the next turn where it swam up and tried knocking around the bathysphere as some atmospheric harassment to set up for the fight, I ruled that it could cast the whole spell as a way to announce its presence to the party.

It's worth adding, for the regular ambush situation, even in the (relatively rare) situation that your ambush is successful (i.e. you rolled Stealth high enough to remain undetected) but your enemies reacted more quickly, they still have to spend Seek actions to detect your location, and may not correctly guess where they should be looking in the first place!

Seeing as Willowshore was a logging town in the middle of a forest, I don't see infinite wood being as immediately plot busting as infinite food... it does say ordinary example of wood, not one crafted into a specific functional shape (albeit shingles aren't a very complex shape to carve anyway)

As it turns out, what size category a creature belongs in has more to do with vibes than the linear distance between the top of their head to the bottom of their feet... or similar support structure

Would it be fair to say, then, that your core concern is more to do with whether the smiting of (all) evil needs to be elevated to the top-level of an anathema, when deities like Pharasma leave the destruction of undead as a mere edict (and not, 'fail to destroy the undead'). After all, even when we agree that Sarenrae wants you to smite any kind of evil, by making it a matter of anathema we ensure that her followers technically risk their divine connection any time they don't strike when they walk down the street and see one of the dozens of 'small' evils in an average city street. Lawfully-minded Sarenites compelled to chase pickpockets through alleys while Chaotically-minded Sarenites show up at your landlord's doorstep, encouraging them to reconsider their latest rent hike.

And I suppose it's fair to ask, does striking down all evil need to be a top-level decree? Or should that level of vigilance be reserved only for the supernatural evil, while the mundane and banal evils are merely an edict or a matter for general doctrine? I'll admit, this anathema (particularly the wording) was one that came up a couple times in the Edict/Anathema Incompatibility Thread a while back.

Even so, outside of the 'fail to...' phrasing, I don't really have trouble with this anathema compelling vigilance against both mortal and supernatural evils alike. This of course is because any situation I can imagine coming up where I might ask "do I really have to smite a person for tax evasion?" I can always answer by saying "I don't think that's the kind of evil Sarenrae is talking about". If I didn't have that luxury (say, perhaps, if I played at Society games) I could see being a little more worried about what other GMs interpret as a failure to strike down evil, but that's not a problem that's new as of the Remaster so at worst it's not something I consider newly untenable--as someone suggested upstream, dropping evil as a mechanical term doesn't introduce any problems with character understanding of evil that didn't exist before, just the stakes riding on the interpretation.

In any case, talking about appropriateness--how I read this anathema is kind of a response to the idea that evil flourishes when good does nothing. This is Sarenrae "the Good God"'s way of saying, "Don't be the person who does nothing. Goodness is a garden that's actively maintained." It strikes me as appropriate for her general vibe, especially with the reminder that she's also not a war goddess, and imho strike down doesn't mean kill out of hand.

I want to second (or third) the interest in learning about behind-the-scenes considerations for which god was picked (and for those who weren't!)--even if it's not an appropriate time to reveal that now, then whenever that time comes. That, and any other pertinent general behind-the-scenes thoughts about the set up of this whole event, its fallout, and if relevant, the Exemplar class.

An interesting little detail I spotted in the section on Quain: one NPC is a half-tengu, and mechanically she's a beastkin elf! This has some intriguing implications for inter-ancestral couples and PC-making in the future...especially with Howl of the Wild coming out next month!

I kind of love the wilder implications of this. After all, might we not then make a half-iruxi who takes after her scaled parent and is mechanically an apekin [human] lizardfolk. The sky is the limit!

It very clearly states anything beyond 30 feet is hidden from you. Hidden is a clearly defined condition. Which means you need a DC 11 or better to target them with other than area spells including allies beyond 30 feet. It also means you are offguard to targets beyond 30 feet. They can freely use stealth against you to become undetected.

It's a bad condition to give everyone beyond 30 feet unless you play in a game with a very kind DM.

Oh, undeniably. I cannot and don't mean to dispute that having Hidden enemies is detrimental to our poor Oracle' survival. It's not the mechanical penalties so much that I speak to. Rather, you had described these sight limitations as "cannot see" and "blindness" beyond 30', which is functionally true for the level of your argument, but not strictly accurate, and might confuse somebody who wasn't aware the distinction (which, again, I'm sure you were).

For those who may have been confused by the levels of detection, I merely wish to clarify that the curse does not actually render you literally blinded. What specifically it does is render your vision an imprecise sense beyond 30'.

Because vision is normally precise, it is most often true that a creature which is Hidden to you is one you cannot see (but could hear, perhaps). However, imprecise vision is still vision, meaning that you can indeed see creatures at least well enough to pinpoint their location, which is why I refer to them as blurs. You cannot see them well for sure, but same as you could recognise your friend's voice using your other imprecise sense, or the sound of paw pads on stone compared to booted feet, it would be fair to suggest you may be able glean enough context clues to have a reasonable guess what a blob is in some circumstances... just as it's fair to say you sometimes won't know for sure.

Or at least, when I pass my cat in the pitch dark of the hallway in the middle of the night, I don't mistake her for my brother. In the right circumstances, I certainly may, but if I can at least sometimes identify creatures by sound alone, I think it's fair the same happen for other imprecise senses.

As for terrain features... it's true, imprecise senses do not automatically allow you to detect walls with the same level of mechanical specificity as creatures, but given how one can sometimes glean a sense of their surroundings by changes in the way sounds reflected off them, I shouldn't think imprecise sight would be much worse at determining vague generalities.

TL;DR - Your impaired vision does leave you virtually blinded to threats outside of 30', such as being unable to detect when they are about to attack, but I wanted to be clear for the sake of posterity that imprecise sight is not the same thing as no sight, and you do in fact still see beyond that range, however poorly. This is not a statement about the mechanical validity of the curse, but rather a point of clarity about levels of detection for those who missed the distinction.

I'm sure Mr Firelion is more than well aware of the distinction, but should anybody get the wrong impression, the moderate curse only reduces your vision beyond 30 to an imprecise sense, so you can still see creatures (and plausibly the general outline of terrain features) in the distance, you just can't make them out well enough to strike with accuracy. You might have to pretend you don't know what exactly a monster is unless the blur you're looking at used to be an elf a minute ago, or if there's one large blur and a bunch of medium ones and you can hear a horse whinnying.

Still think all this is a big fake-out and Asmodeus is the dead god walking (due to the continued shedding of connections back to D&D content).

But I am greatly ignorant about many things.

Aside from what Jon just said, the most relevant piece of information you were missing is that the dead deity ball has been rolling since before the OGL mess.