The Raven Black's page

I'll bet if a survey was taken, most PF1e players would have a lot of issues playing with PF2e damage calculations -- with the core issue being weapon size.

Having a tiny greataxe and a huge greataxe do the same damage is just unacceptable to PF1e players. Almost always discussions about this with different PF1e players yield utterances of "dumbing it down".

This is the same thing PF1e players said about 5e.

The survey was done. 7 years ago. And you would have lost your bet.

Your experience is not necessarily representative of all PF1e players ever.

And if PF1 is your system of choice, in the words of Jason Bulmahn, that is great too.

Did they do their RK first?

Fail and Crit fail results should be worse than Success, so I guess the Sickened for these do not have a duration either and only the Deafened has one.

Could have been written a bit clearer though.

IMO Sickened here would last as long as it takes to get rid of the condition the usual way.

gurpsgm wrote:

I've been sort of waiting for Paizo to do a third adventure for the Runelords. Well, it's finally here! I haven't seen any of it yet, but if it ties in nicely with "Rise of the Runelords" and "Return of the Runelords," it will make a conclusion to the Runelords saga!!

Technically, it's the fourth, as Shattered Star is kinda the second AP related to the Runelords. :O

Isn't Seven dooms of Sandpoint kind of Runelords-related too ?

Your base goes to 4 instead of 2. That's it. Same as any other class that gets the feat.

You do not get to add twice your bonus familiar abilities for being a Witch.

Just never include them as antagonists. Then you don't need stats.

The problem in PF1 is not the players having the possibility to go away from what is written in the AP.

It is the impossibility of having a underoptimized PC and an overoptimized one having fun adventuring side by side.

And also the GM having to rewrite all encounters in the AP to tailor it to the party's actual power level.

Those 2 things did bring no specific fun to players but made a GM's life much more complicated.

It is a consumable, so "Unless stated otherwise, it’s destroyed after activation."

Activate and Strike IMO. Though the caster and the striker might not need be the same person I think.

Unicore wrote:

I already talked about how many of the out of combat feats fail because they are not designed around the kind of situations in which players would actually use them, but a huge part of that is that because no skill feats are designed to work around social encounters, chases, races, research, infiltrations or investigations. They are instead designed around specific actions/activities that have turned out not to be the way most GMs (and adventure writers) handle those skills in the kinds of tense moments we break out into encounter mode around. When the game was being developed, those skill activities were imagined to be a bigger part of the game than the adventure writers have ended up using and that is a big part of why out of combat skill feat options keep missing the mark.

I agree non-combat skill feats would be much better if they weren't designed around a specific action. For example, if Hobnobber wasn't designed around the Gather Information action, it could be arguably used in checks to Make an Impression or Request if you needed to make those while gathering information.

I also think one of the worst feelings you can have while playing PF2e is when you have a feat like Versatile Performance and you have to make a check that doesn't include Make an Impression, Demoralize, or Impersonate but otherwise uses other actions from Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Deception skills. I mean, c'mon, clearly the intention behind Versatile Performance is to allow bards to use Performance (which otherwise its easily one of the most useless skills) instead of any of the other Charisma-based skills, and that's how I usually see GMs handle this feat in actual play, but if you have a GM that wants to use the feat RAW then the feat is actually useless because you can't even Gather Information, make Requests, Coerce, or Lie which are arguably the most useful actions for these skills.

More versatile uses for skill feats IMO would solve a ton of the problems I have with them.

Performance is very far from being one of the most useless skills for Bards.

No reason to boost it even more for them.

Now, for builds where it does not have a mechanical impact, it is indeed a skill where you do not want to spend your precious skill proficiency raises.

I had hoped we missed something, but it seems no. Thank you.

Berselius wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Well, at the very least, you have at least one wrong, as the remastered dragon closest to green is actually the Horned Dragon, as confirmed by paizo people around it's release in Monster Core.

Oh, and Empyreal have been confirmed NOT being a remastered gold dragon. (And having seen requiem in Monster Core 2, they have nothing to do with old bronze.)
I have also not heard of Dune, Gallant, nor Whimsy, ouside of some people trying to come up with names in Reddit posts.

Thank you for the corrections. ^^

Someone discovered that in a remastered AP, the Blue Dragon is called a Stormcrown Dragon, so there you go :)

BTW, I just read that line...

Quote:

The reward for victory: gold, enough to twist any mortal’s heart into a bigger monster than the one they just slew.

So... are we getting curses related to this? That would be nice :D

I think Blue and Stormcrown might have been about this: "Jerne Stormcrown (? - Summer, 383 AC) was a Knight of Takhisis who was partners with a Blue Dragon named Clamor."

And since this was in Dragonlance, I would be extremely surprised if Paizo used it.

There is no rule text about it: Ask your DM

This is for PFS PCs.

For a Weapon Ikon that applies to an Unarmed Attack, can you choose an Unarmed Attack you get through a stance? What about an attack you get in a Battle Form? What about a permanent Unarmed Attack you get after selecting your Ikon?

For new items, we have ""If you acquire a new item the ikon’s usage could apply to, you can switch your ikon to the new item by spending 1 day of downtime with the new ikon as you saturate the object with your divine energy."

What about new or temporary Unarmed Attacks?

The Raven Black wrote:

Note that Mythic was always intended to be available from low levels, as opposed to Epic, which was 21+.

The idea was to tell different stories than those of everyday's adventurers.

Right, and therein lies the problem: you're not everyday adventurers to begin with. At level 1, you're already above-average, and at high levels you can already do things lower-level "everyday adventurers" can't do. You're already special, and you already become more special as you level up. Mythic doesn't really add to that, and the powers it offers generally lack the narrative scope to tell the kind of grander stories it suggests. If the premise right from the start was that your characters and their actions had far-reaching narrative consequences and were balanced differently from the norm, then it would likely have had a better chance of delivering its intended fantasy.

By "Everyday adventurers", I mean non-Mythic ones, but these go from level 1 to level 20 already.

The crux is how do you tell a Mythic story that will be different from that of high-level "Everyday adventurers" without gating it behind higher-level than 20th, aka Epic?

I mean, I don't think anything this drastic is ever likely to happen for 2e, but I wouldn't put it past 3e or some other future edition. Paizo I think did a fantastic job advancing Pathfinder's design from 1e and making the game leagues more modular, so the above would be a comparatively smaller jump. I also do think Mythic failed in large part because it tried to insert itself in a game that lacked the structure to accommodate it: it failed to set a new tier of power because it could only layer itself onto our existing leveling curve, which was designed to achieve the same thing, and it failed to make Mythic characters feel special because its options were ultimately balanced around the same standard and power level as everything else. Had it been allowed to exist as its own thing, with its own standard of balance, it could have really shined.

Note that Mythic was always intended to be available from low levels, as opposed to Epic, which was 21+.

The idea was to tell different stories than those of everyday's adventurers.

James Jacobs wrote:

Those dragons already did this in the past, so the changes they made are already active and we don't know any different.

So no alternate timelines created by Time Dragons?

Or we are in the alternate timeline but no one noticed.

Things like Hands of the Wildling are still applied to a specific unarmed attack not all unarmed attacks. And whether an unarmed attack that you don't permanently have (like one from a form) can be selected is a point of table variation. I've even seen variation on whether a stance-granted attack is legal.

I don't think it's ideal for a character that will need to deal with different GM's understandings of the rules. I would save that for a game where you always have the same GM and can confirm that they share your reading.

I better understand how GMs might ask for an Ikon to apply only to "always on" Unarmed Attacks now that I found "If you acquire a new item the ikon’s usage could apply to, you can switch your ikon to the new item by spending 1 day of downtime with the new ikon as you saturate the object with your divine energy. "

This text mentions only items, and is clearly there to give Exemplars more flexibility rather than less. But I can totally see some GMs ruling against temporary Unarmed Attacks being Weapon Ikons based on it.

Champion MC Druid it seems to be then.

I have the image of the runes flowing out of the dragon's mouth, attaching themselves to targets in the area and going boom.

Very funny concept.

Typo in the first image : Rune dragon is noted as Primal.

Great looks and concepts for these new dragons.

Thank you, Paizo.

Claxon wrote:

My personal recommendation is keep it in a familiar satchel or other similar place that keeps them out of combat.

What? You want to use your familiar in combat? Than prepare for it to be knocked/unconscious or die.

As a GM, the second your familiar starts augmenting your combat abilities in an offensive way, it paints a target on its back that will likely see it killed. If you want to keep it conscious a while longer, Lifelink can help you do that.

That feels like punishing the witch player. What other class's key abilities do you target to remove for the day?

The Ranger or Druid's Animal Companion ?

And that one is not replaced within one day, but with a full week of downtime.

Maybe it is the other way around. Sakvroth is the name of the Kobolds' language and they have been so successful in spreading and adapting everywhere that it became the common tongue of the upper level of the Darklands.

I think the greatest problem with 3.x was that it mostly rewarded system mastery at the PC building step.

So, if you got it wrong from the start, you stayed on the unfun side till the end.

Things like Hands of the Wildling are still applied to a specific unarmed attack not all unarmed attacks. And whether an unarmed attack that you don't permanently have (like one from a form) can be selected is a point of table variation. I've even seen variation on whether a stance-granted attack is legal.

I don't think it's ideal for a character that will need to deal with different GM's understandings of the rules. I would save that for a game where you always have the same GM and can confirm that they share your reading.

Thank you for the info. This is a great point.

Errenor wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Personally I suspect it's more likely that oozes being included is an error than that thos suddenly allows Precision Damage to work on them.

I don't think creating an item that increases damage against various creatures is an error. And this is the idea of the item, not some additional precision damage.

I didn't say the entire item is in error, only the inclusion of an enemy type that can't take that type of damage.

AFAICT they included all the creature's categories in the item's description. So I think they just missed the Immunity to precision specific to Oozes.

And now we know how Xanderghul returns.

For those who do not know yet but keep guessing, was it in one of the ways proposed by the above posters or was it yet a different thing.

Given that Exemplars abilities all come from items I’d expect considerable table variation on what is and is not allowed. Definitely in the “check with your GM” category

Abilities of Weapon Ikons would work when the Ikon mentions Unarmed Attacks, like Gleaming Blade or Hands of the Wilding do. Those that do not mention Unarmed Attacks but Weapon, like Barrow's Edge, would not.

Body Ikons are not items, so they should work.

Worn Ikons are indeed items but the Immanence fits the "constant abilities of your gear still function" rule and the Transcendence is not activating an item, so does not break the "you can't activate any items." rule.

The Raven Black wrote:

Inspired by this post, I just asked on the Mythic APs product threads for feedback on playing a Mythic caster.

I hope we will get good news this way.

I'd be curious to see how folks respond, for sure. I wish I could find the old thread on here about it, but it's surprisingly hard to find threads on this forum. (The search for "mythic" sorted by date says the newest thing is from 2024, which is pretty clearly wrong.)

And my googling isn't turning it up either. It was a thread somewhere on this forum where someone's group did a bunch of mythic fights and posted the feedback. (It was really ugly for the poor animal companion user.)

James Jacobs gave a very interesting answer to my query here

I was thinking of using either a Champion or an Exemplar for the basis.

Champion's Strikes are Holy and the Smite feat gives a nice status bonus to damage, and of course there is the reaction.

Exemplar's abilities are not spells and can thus be used even in Battle Form.

steelhead wrote:

The perfectly-timed thread as I was just getting ready to ask about how 2E mythic rules have played at tables - although that’s not what I was expecting from the title of this thread.

There was a thread a while ago that did some mythic encounters and saw how they went. You might be able to find it by searching the forum, but I couldn't.

It'd probably best for another thread as it's a topic on its own, but the short answer is "inconsistently". Mythic destinies vary massively in effectiveness (beyond what you'd expect for PF2). The mythic rules in general are not great, have some odd effects on how the game plays, and IMO heavily favour martials over casters. You know how a lot of people say PF2 favors martials over casters in general? Mythic is what it looks like when it's true.

Put it this way: my GM wants to run Revenge of the Runelords sometime. I told him I was excited for that, but if he uses the mythic rules, I'm playing a martial. I don't care if the entire party is all martials, I refuse to play a mythic caster.

Usually I'm the one at the table who will ask what others are playing and then make something complimentary, whatever that happens to be (I play a lot of healers and support/buffers). But not this time. (I also won't take an animal companion because they're awful in mythic, or a Kineticist because mythic forgot that class exists.)

Inspired by this post, I just asked on the Mythic APs product threads for feedback on playing a Mythic caster.

I hope we will get good news this way.

A question to those who read or played this AP's books:

Are Mythic casters enjoyable PCs to play?

A question to those who read or played the whole AP:

Are Mythic casters enjoyable PCs to play?

Some time ago, I decided that my next PFS PC would be that high-powered Wild Shaped Fighter I read about on the boards.

But the errata to Martial Artist made that build moot.

So I plan to rebuild my level 7 Human Fighter MC Druid completely if need be to become the best Untamed Form warrior she can be.

I consider that only Status and Circumstance bonuses can add to the Battle Form's damage.

And I plan to use Form Control to avoid wasting 2 actions changing shape on my first turn.

Which would be the best way to build for this ?

Remaster also provides Object Familiars and for all Patrons now :

Object Familiars
Source Divine Mysteries pg. 296
Some patrons (especially ones like Baba Yaga) send an inanimate object as a familiar to their witch. An object familiar functions the same as a regular familiar, with a few exceptions. First, it has a Speed of 0 feet, and you can't select pet abilities, familiar abilities, or master abilities for it that require movement until it has a Speed. You can grant your object familiar a Speed with the animated familiar ability listed below. You must choose the construct familiar ability for it each day, but the familiar need not have the tough pet ability first. Object familiars are available to all witches.

Animated: With a bit of magic from your patron, your object familiar can move about on its own. It gains a Speed of 25 feet. You can select this ability only for object familiars.

The Raven Black wrote:

My familiar is an object that I give to a frontliner.

Familiar Conduit FTW.

Do you mean an actual “object” or do you just mean the frontliner carries it? How does this “protect” it?

It is a pen. Mightier than the sword.

My PC is a Baba Yaga Witch.

Ash Nazg Durbatulûk wrote:

Virellius wrote:

the one where you're the child of a previous runelords adventurer.

The WHAT!?!? Is that an actual adventure, if so, what is it called????

Clarification: you are not the kid of a Runelord. You are instead the offspring of a PC from one of the previous Runelord-related APs, probably Rise of the Runelords or Shattered Star (seeing as Return of the Runelords took place only seven years ago)

Well, since a bunch of ancient Thassilonians recently came back online, one of them could totally be the actual kid of a bona fide Thassilonian Runelord.

Well we have had a few clarifications in that time to be fair

1) item bonuses to hit with handwraps do count when working out your unarmed attack modifier
2) You can now do all your athletics checks in wild shape.
3) Additional Damage is not Bonus Damage - not that we know what that means because

We still don't have a defined damage equation. In particular these terms show up in rules and we don't know what they are:
a) Unarmed Attack Bonus
b) Damage Instance
c) Additional Damage
d) Extra Damage
e) Damage Bonus

We have to rely on natural langauge and it is just not clear.

Additional damage is always explicit AFAICT. As in, this effect "deals xx additional damage".

It is not Damage bonus, so it does not adjust the special statistics of the battle form, ie you do not add it to the battle form's damage. Which is consistent with the wording of the Dragon Transformation Barbarian feat, which explicitly "adds the extra damage from Rage". Note that extra damage is used here instead of Additional damage.

Damage bonus is always explicit too. We see it all the time. It's just that usually it is worded as a typed bonus to damage rolls, ie circumstance bonus, item bonus, status bonus. For example, Courageous Anthem gives a +1 status bonus to damage rolls. That is a prime example of damage bonus.
And, just like other bonuses, we know only circumstance and status bonuses apply here.

Extra damage is also explicit, as in Sneak Attack. Since it is not a damage bonus, it does not adjust the special statistics of the battle form, same as Additional damage.

Tldr: only circumstance or status bonus to damage adds to a Battle Form's damage.

I feel the Multiclass into Druid has to be updated now that Remaster has changed the Martial Artist.

I think we will need to wait for PF/SF 3 to get this if ever.

Because making the 2 systems compatible was not a design goal of PF2 and it shows.

They were and still are designed to tell completely different stories.

Bluemage81 wrote:

How do you all merge different versions of monsters in Legacy and Remaster? Or do you just stick with one or the other?

Absolutely. I don't care about some being 'old' (unless mechanics is broken now or I don't like it). I will use both kinds of ghouls in the next game in one encounter for example. Because I like all: paralysis, disease and the new curse.

It's a pity they can't turn off their stench. Not very stealthy. Well, they would have to deal with it.

Stinking environments FTW.

I really hoped they would not do 3-4 because getting the Striking Rune at level 4 makes Martials a completely different beast.

Attention of a Cleric

Unimportant details

Surprisingly deep cut

So many good things in just one panel.

My familiar is an object that I give to a frontliner.

Familiar Conduit FTW.

According to Pathfinderwiki, "The Whispering Way is one of the oldest active organizations on Golarion, its origins stretching back to the Age of Darkness."

I thought I read somewhere that it originally came from Eox, but maybe this is because of its similarities with "The Song of Silence, also called the Great Change and the Undying, is the Eoxian art, philosophy, and practice of lichdom, which its undead people consider to be the key of their existence and revere in an almost religious manner. "

Proficiency without level answers the "more abilities but not more power through leveling" I believe.

There's the circuitous route to get the pre-remastered dragon bloodline powers with the pre-remaster Dragon Disciple archetype onto another bloodline. You just need to play the right race, i.e. a Kobold with the correct heritage.

Actually the last point is about getting access to the Uncommon archetype. A PC story steeped in draconic theme might be enough to get access too.

If you really want to get the highest attack bonus AND can convince your GM that an Ape form's Fist attack is in the Brawling group, go Fighter MC Druid.

Otherwise,if you play level 8 and above, go Dragon Barbarian MC Druid. With Form Control as your level 8 feat.

In both cases, take Trick Magic Item for Heroism.

And use scrolls for all the nifty spells you will cast when not polymorphed.

Because of the elven immunity to dnd ghoul's paralysis, I always thought it was a nod to LotR where even the dwarf Gimli has terror paralysing him from entering the subterranean way guarded by undead, whereas the elf Legolas feels no such fright.

I feel this thread belongs to the Pathfinder General board rather than the Lost Omens setting board though.

I had not thought of this, since I play only PFS, but I really like the idea very much.

I am so sick of 1-4s. There is enough level 1-4s which aren't even repeatable to take someone to level 5. The foundation of the level band pyramid is to damn wide! And now they want to waste our time with 1-2s! We don't need these levels. We need more 5-8, 7-10, and 9-12. We need to build the pyramid to be better proportioned.

FWIW, the announced scenarios that follow the 2-levels band are