The Ronyon's page

I'm not sure Familiars need to be at risk.
Magic items contribute in combat ,but we don't target them with area attacks.

I'm at the age of losing my parents as well.
My father is slipping away into Alzheimer's, my mother is fatigued from caring for/losing him.
Thank you for sharing your stories here.
It's good to see each other as humans, even as we pretend to be other things.

I only know them from class related game material,but to me , Hellknights are just the Church of Policing.
If you expect a bunch of fanatical cops to not be corrupted by power,run them that way.

To me, the controlling nature of most policing and most religion makes a holy order of knights that emulate the lawfulness of hell becoming outright evil after countless millennia seem surprising only in that it took that long for them to fall only this far.

A mount can save you actions, so any of the Archetypes that get you a ridable pet could be decent.
I wonder if there is one that gets you a focus point AND a rideable pet with the dedication.
I'm partial to the Goat because of the climb speed.

The Psychic choice that could work well with the thralls is Infinite Eye and their Amped Guidance and later Glimpse Weakness.
Tangible Dream for Amped Shield feels especially useful to increase your own survival.

A sack full of snakes keeps better and is more compact.
They can go longer without food/water and Consume Flesh needs fresh corpses.
Oil of unlife?
Poison for your claws?
Oh, a pick and a shovel!
Traps for small animals?

"When you cast the spell, you can have up to one thrall created by this spell make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll."
It says one thrall created by this spell, not one thrall created by this casting of the spell.

I think any of the Thralls created from any casting of Create Thrall can be the Thrall that "you can have up to one thrall make a melee unarmed Strike"

As it reads right now I think any necromancer casting Create Thrall could affect any Thrall created by the spell, even if that spell originated from another character entirely.

It's the idea that they are an extension that makes the idea that they can Interact but they can't make me more effect in mundane tasks, that much more annoying.
As soon as you give me 3 sets of manipulative limbs and tell me they can move X weight Y far, you are multiplying what I can reasonably get done.

Phantasmal Minions "can move and use Interact actions to do things such as fetch objects"
That's about what any apprentice in any trade starts out doing.
Add tireless, unpaid and obedient to your will and you can really get things done.

I love me some Minions, but I'm actually not in favor of giving Thralls the ability to perform ANY Interaction.
In my opinion,Phantasmal Minions and Telekinetic Hand cover the fantasy just fine and they come with a price that makes flooding the dungeon, battlefield or cornfield with them cost prohibitive.

Another solution to explain floating undead-piles of bodies.
Imagine a colum of flesh, bones or ectoplasm, extending from the necromancers square.
Kinda Tokyo Ghoul style.

These fountains of necrotic force would hold the Thrall in place.
They can't be attacked anymore than most spell effects, and the disappear when the Thrall does.

No mechanic, just another way to picture Thralls in the air.

Narratively, skeleton archers and flying spirits address this issue.
Zombies could do a dead man's float...

Game mechanics wise,giving out ranged attacks and flight to Thralls gets more and more complicated.
What if Thralls created in the water, or on land, stayed where you put them, while thralls created in the air stayed where you put them until the end of your turn,then went poof?

Alternatively,we could decide that all Thralls stay where you created them,so feel free describe your Thralls as you wish to fit your needs.
Zombies for floating in water or spirits for floating in the air, skeletons for whatever.

I think the action granted from casting of Create Thrall should be usable with any Thrall that you the caster has created.
It's one of the weakest uses of Thralls anyway.

I'm presuming Summoners get flight for their Eidolons at some point?

The extra action is free movement, and that seems very worthwhile.

What about allowing ANY undead you control to count as a Thrall for purposes of spells and class abilities?
Mostly you wouldn't want to sacrifice Summons,Familiars,Companions or some of the creatures created in Rituals, but being able to use the Thrall basic attack would be nice, especially on the Familiar.

Allowing non-Thrall Undead to be used for necromancer focus spells without being destroyed would be an exciting reward for investing in them.

I don’t think I’m understanding people’s issues with Interact actions. Thralls start from a position of “can’t act unless the Necromancer’s effect specifically tells them what to do.” Being able to Interact through a control spell lets them hold and carry items, sure, but it doesn’t let them make attacks with weapons. They also still couldn’t Activate Magic or alchemical items even with only Interact components (Activate is its own activity with Interact as a subordinate action); these are also actions which generally make sense to be too complicated for a thrall to perform. If there are other things people are concerned about, I’m pretty confident that viewing the thralls from this direction of granted actions would assuage the concern.

The only thing I can think that this actually requires in rules text is stating the Bulk limits of thralls; based on being level -1 creatures with no stats, it would be easy to just say encumbered 5, max 10.

With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.

Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.

These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.

Right now you can just add another Thrall anywhere you want one to be, as long as that spot is within 30' feet of you.
Decoupling Thrall movement from the Focus spells will drastically increase their potential range.

IF that is a problem,and I don't know that it is, we could limit the Thralls that can be moved to only those within range of a given casting of Create Thrall.
That would keep the movement range similar to the current Create range.

I'm not convinced Thrall movement is a good idea.
Moving them means resolving how they interact with the terrain and other characters as they move.
Unless said interaction is effectively none existent, it will take up time.

This brings me back to eliminating their ability to force a Tumble Through check.
We could reduce their occupation of a square to nothing more than increased movement cost and the first level of Cover.
We can make the Cover only protect allied and the movement penalty only affect enemies.
We could allow Thralls to be dismissed or moved
We could allow Thralls to share space with other characters, but if we allow them to be dismissed or moved, I don't think that it is a needed adjustment.

I'm really confused.
Why the concern about Thralls taking up space?
Am I wrong in my understanding of how moving through occupied squares works?
Is it because you can move through but not occupy a friendly characters space?

So it does in fact specify that you can command one Thrall to attack once for every casting of Create Thrall,a spell which only takes one action to cast.

"When you cast the spell, you can have up to one thrall created by this spell make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll. "

Are you upset that you can't command more Thralls per action?
You can cast Create Thrall and use a focus spell on the same turn.
That's three actions dedicated to doing damage.
Most focus spells in the game cost a minimum of 2 actions.
Assuming you don't expect that baseline to change, are wanting them to work on a 1-3 action sliding scale,like Harm?
Are you just wanting more damage for your 2 actions?

- There's no way to use TWO Thralls per round, even as a 3-action option.

- You cannot order multiple Thralls to attack. Say what you want about weapons, if I have 3 Thralls, I should be able to make 3 Strikes, one with each.

I'm not understanding this.

I don't see how there can be an excess Thrall problem.
They don't hinder the PCs in any significant way.
The worst they do is provide lesser cover.
I can see making that an ally only benefit.

Moving a single Thrall isn't a big deal, but moving handfuls of Thralls would slow combats down considerably.

I think ttrpgs get the idea of necromancers that raise army's of the dead from HP Lovecraft.
Outside of that genre, I think necromancy refered to talking to dead people.
Necromancers were closer to mediums or shaman than power mad wizards.

The movie versions of Aragorn and Harry Potter both used this version of necromancy.
The dead helped them out of obligation or sympathy to their cause.
Jedi do something similar.
From the very first movie, dead Jedi become more powerful and stick around to assist the living.

All of which is to say I hope to see a necromancer that make arrangements with various Spirits.
They might compel or the spirits might help willingly.
Thralls would manifest bodies and attack enemies.
Most everything else would be spell casting via the spirits, kind of like how witches use their Familiars.
I would like a mechanism for draining life force, but any gain resulting from the transfer could be in temporary hit points.

Each character can be as spooky or mundane as they'd like, again like witches.

In fairness, I don't think it's working.
Any rules change that offends enough people will create a schism,like religion, but with less bloodshed.
Some will cling to the old and others will champion the new.

Unless Paizo somehow forces Mythic onto the organized play space, I suspect it will die on the vine.

The reason I would want to strap on as many bucklers as possible is to have places to mount spell hearts.

Oh gods no!

Avoid Grease 2! Awful!
The original Grease is a classic! Great score, Olivia Newton John, wonderful!
But Grease 2? I mean, I love Michelle Pfeiffer, but the movie is an abomination!
How can you...Huh? ...What?... Ooooohhhh...Never mind.

What are you on about?

"[BOYS (& GIRLS)]
Reproduction (reproduction!)

[FRANCINE]
Put your pollen tube to work

[BOYS (& GIRLS)]
Reproduction (reproduction!)

[GIRL #1]
Make my stamen go berserk

[BOYS]
Reproduction

[GIRL #2]
I don't think they even know what a pistil is

[BOY #3]
I got your pistil right here

[MR. STUART]
Where does the pollen go?"

Should have given the at will vials their own name, or names even.

Not to be snarky,but do we think they will errata?
There are lots of rules questions that they seem to ignore rather than adress.

The strategic lack of specificity on the part of Paizo is staggeringly effective.
Rather than rauling against the company for failing to clarify rules, players do verbal battle in forums across the internet.

This new alchemist has me thinking a new strategy is at play.
One subclass is granted the tools needed to make it play well.
The rest are given crumbs.
The community spends countless hours debating.
Sales are presumably unaffected.

Player Core 2 pg 170 wrote:

Item Delivery:

If your familiar is adjacent to you, you can Command it to deliver an item. Instead of its normal 2 actions, your familiar Interacts to take an item you’re holding of light Bulk or less, then takes one move action, then finally Interacts to pass off the item to another willing creature. It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type of item (such as alchemical elixir). If your familiar doesn’t reach the target this turn, it holds the item until commanded otherwise. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.

I'm not seeing a lot of problems here. You have to be holding the item for the Familiar to take it. The Familiar must take a Move Action. The only form of activation is to administer the Item to another willing creature. This is a really, really specific Activity. Finally, as it specifies "you can Command" and "instead of its normal 2 actions", no interaction with Independent.

I think the problem is the specificity.

Weapons for dirty tricks should include the dueling cape and pocket sand...

All the bestial mutagen AC penalties are gone in PC2.

The numbing tonic is the one you take before soothing. The latter is only later game when you have enough vials, need it, and have combine elixirs feat.

2 temporary hit points/one hit point of healing still doesn't seem like much, especially given what they cost in terms of resources, but I've never played with this setup, so maybe I just don't understand how good it is.

Dropping the AC penalties is great, but also a perfect example of how past conditions set up low expectations-how was that ever viable?

Sticking to PC2 alchemist, there are some obvious equity questions.
Why not action compression for every specialty?
Since Quick Bomber is a thing, why not Quick Quaff For mutagines,Injection for elixirs and Infuse for poisons?

Bombers get to pick a elemental weakness on the fly.
Why not let choose between being tougher, more accurate, or harder hitting when they create viles on the fly?
Too complicated?
Fair enough.
Give them Regurgitate Mutagen as bonus feat instead,seems entirely appropriate.
Or how about we just let Mutaginists ignore the downsides of mutagens their level and lower?
This makes them really stand out while keeping the power of mutagens in the setting at large, under control.
This is true of any buff that applies only to a research field, it keeps the crazy stuff in house.
Let Chirochurgeons use all their actions to heal damage, without a cooldown period, or better still,pile up temp HP on their frontliners.
That sounds like a win for teamwork focused game.

I am by no means sure that changes like these wouldn't break something, but with 3 out of the 4 Research Fields being crap when they are using Quick Alchemy to do their specialized vials, I wish they had been more permissive.
As things stand, every research field seems better off throwing bombs than they are doing their own thing.

I am still excited to build characters with this class and the Archetype, because a free daily supply of alchemical items offers a crazy amount of flexibility.

Zalabim wrote:

The problem with toxicologist is that they didn't make poisoning weapons in combat functional. How is the blowgun poisoner feat supposed to work?

Create poison. Apply poison. Strike. Next turn.

You can poison your ammunitions before the fight. No need to do it during the fight (luckily).

Couldn't any alchemist do that?

What about draining or transferring lifeforce?

The same number that fit into a medium size backpack. None!

Backpacks can carry up to 4 Bulks and Medium creature occupies 6 Bulks. A large creature considers bulk 1 things as light but bulk 2 or more are counted as normal for them. So a bulk 6 creature doesn't fit into a backpack even if it's large because a large creature still considers it as 6 bulk.

Sounds like a 6 bulk that is uh, "divided" into into 1 bulk pieces,will fit into a Large sized backpack with room to spare...

The real question :how many Medium sized creatures can one fit into a Large sized backpack??
Asking for a friend...

Seems like being vague allows each table to decide how things work and believe their ruling to be RAI.
If the designers clarify their intent they open themselves up to criticism of both their explained rulings and their initial phrasing of the rules.
In such an environment, is there any upside in clarifying the published rules?
As it stands,anyone who disagress can argue amongst themselves,but not with the designers.

If this is their reasoning, I cant really fault it.
It resembles centuries of practice in both law and religion,just less bloody.

It's annoying that most of these questions could be cleared up by the company but are not.
Clearly this is a deliberate strategy, and I dont have have enough information to know the why's.

Great character, though the "loyal slave" part honestly gives me the ick.
And yes I am aware he may not technically have been a slave.

I just watched the action packed end of Disney's Robin Hood for the nth time.
Still a classic adventure romp!
I would love to see someone stat out the fox and the bear.
What kind of rogues are they?
Robin is so damn good with the bow,maybe he's a fighter with rogue archetype?

What about Clerics and Druids who go Sentinel?
Is Dex still a good investment?

A player with a bunch of different gambits to use with the spells they have available to them will have more fun and the game master will as well.
Giving NPCs a chance to countering these gambits with skill rolls is better than just disallowing them.
As a player in game where scouting is so fraught, I think I would frequently be baiting guards into ambushes ,or simply away from their posts.
Would the guards then get another roll to figure out it was a feint?
What about burrowing animals?
Would the guards get a skill roll to detect them underground?
If the whole compound is roused 3 nights in a row,is there a penalty imposed due to fatigue?

I dont see ultra wary guards as a reason to not use scouts, I see them as a means to an end.
In a game where your average guard is ready for magical intrusions,a wizard can be even more powerful by becoming the boogyman.
False alarms create complacency, and encourage the enemy to make mistakes.

For example ,if you can capture one of the enemy, you can send an Illusionary Creature back in their place.
Lets assume it is discovered and defeated.
Send another one.
Same result.
Then send back the actual captive and watch them slaughter one of their own.
Even evil creatures should be disconcerted,if not dismayed.
This will be the distraction, so your Familiar/Rogue/strike force can slip past the guardians.

If Invisibility isnt much of a boone to Stealth, then it upgrades Figments into an even better distraction.
The tells that reveal an Invisble character become the Figments that guards should treat like an Invisble character.
Another distraction and this one creates huge savings in the special effects budget.

That collection of spells is super weird and goofy!
Filtering out the rare and uncommon ones calms things down a lot.

Yas, these seem like enough to contribute something at every level.

Sounds like B and Op did not appreciate the influence D was having on the other players.
Given this is group was set up with B's desires in mind, that's fine.

Still, from the information provided nothing D did seems out of line with normal expectations.
Asking that the encounters and rules be adjusted to suit your desired playstyle is very,very meta, and not a norm I am familiar with.
Suggesting character choices that are in line with the expectations of the designers is really not out of the ordinary.

I dont think one nesisarily needs to play a ttrpgame as "intended" to learn it, any more than you must cook exactly to a recipe to learn that.

I do think that playing the rules and encounters as written will help you understand the underlying intentions.

I play a lot of games with kids who barely know the rules.
Letting them play the character they want to play the way they want to play it, wothout pulling punches is a great way to teach through natral consequences.
One player who grew up at my table knows how to optimize and that he prefers a not very challengeing game.
If we are at the same table, one of us is going to be disappointed with the gameplay,but that's ok.

Player B is adult enough to be on this forum, and can decide what they want to learn and how they want to learn it, for themselves.

I hope A,B,C,D and OP can enjoy a game together.

Based on whats been posted,player B is expectingother players and the game rules to change to suit their vision of fun.
There may be more to it, but we are not privy to that.
Meta is part of allmost all TTrpg gameplay.
By asking that the potion rules be changed, player B was asking for the world to change to accomdate the player characters.
What is more meta than that?
If you really dont want meta to enter into the game, will you be ok when another PC steals from your PC becuse "that's just what my character would do"?
What if I show up to a zombi filled dungeoncrawl with a character who is optimized for social interactions and only spells with the Mental tag?
We can play that out strait,no meta, but will it be fun?
Highly doubtful.

The limited range, speed and damage types all conspire to make this Dedication even more niche and less interesting.

I would love to send a swarm of bugs to search a castle ,to have a swarm of ravens that could keep up with an Awakened Wolf,or a swarm of Fireflys that could actually start a fire.

Looking at Bonded Animal , I think it could work to aquire a swarm.
Swarm mind only negates mental effects, and Bonded Animal doesn't have that trait.

Concerning the feat that allows the swarm grant lesser Cover,the swarm is already Large sized,so it should grant normal Cover when positioned in front of (medium, small and tiny) character's.
Charging a feat to get lesser cover while sharing a space with the swarm seems really stingy.

I think I get the idea.
I think a lot of the things people think familiars can do are because of the flavor text/lore from the entire lineage of the game.
The very fact that Earn Income is an game mechanic rather than a thing one role plays should be a clue the clueless , like, myself.

Because of the emphasis on balance in this system , any meaningful action your character can initiate will probably be a class feature with a mechanic that can go with it.
If you want to do something, never look at the common meaning of words used to describe your class feature.
Independent and Skilled mean only what the entries say, not what common usage implies.
In practice,build the best you can, to simulate the character you want to play, but discover the limits of your character at a given table by asking.
Accept "No" gracefully,

I hope that most GMs will allow Players to describe the interaction of Minions with their PCs pretty freely, at least in ways that have no mechanical impact.

Thank you Trip.H
Im working on a Druid build that might use Bolos as a third action, so I was wondering if a dip into one of the Leshy granting Orders made any sense.
It just might, especially with all the other useful things a Familiar could do.

Looking at the weapons available,the Knuckle Duster seems like it might be the best choice.
It has a hilt, plus it's simple, common, and free-hand.
From hand to mouth, with no action cost for drawing the weapon seems about as good as we can get, and it's not bad at all.
You can reverse the transfer when you are ready to get big again, or you could just drop the weapon if you can't spare an action.

As for the legacy/remaster issue that has been sidetracking this thread, why the debate?
It's an angels on the head of a pin argument, good for nothing but amusement of the participants.
If your GM says no,this isn't a tool to use at that table.
That's if they say no to this particular thing or to Legacy as whole or whatever.
Beyond noting the possibility that somebody might object on the basis legacy status, nothing more need be said.
It will happen or it will not.

Great guide!
I do have questions about Independent,Manual Dexterity and Object Retrieval.
How does it work?

I'm guessing it comes down to either drawing an item or placing the item in a hand, once per turn.
I've seen suggestions that a familer can hold two items at a time, but I've not seen the justification for that ruling.

Seems like it'd work. There are a few caveats to keep in mind:

1. Large PCs are Remaster, and the Fanged rune is Legacy. So there are some tables where the fanged rune would not be allowed.

2. Can't talk in animal form. And even if you by some metric could? Can't talk around a weapon in your mouth

3. With the stipulation that if you drop the weapon the transformation is dismissed, while in town, it'd be difficult to use the transformation without guards getting mad at you.

Ultimately, it seems doable, but there are various complications.

Yeah one one of the two Large PCs or the Fanged Rune, not allowed , so be it, it just won't work.

Squeezing a Large humanoid PC into a place sized for Medium creatures is a roleplaying goldmine.
Getting left out of a conflict because you are too damn big to get to the place where it's happening is a freaking nightmare.
If you need to get through a corridor, through a doorway or up a ladder, going from horse size to miniature pony size with an Interact(?) Action seems invaluable.
If you specialize in unarmed attacks, you can stay at the ready with, little or no(?)change in effectiveness.

I'm thinking of a bared teeth grimace as the social equivalent of weilding a weapon in the mouth, and not talking.
Allowing physically forced dropping of the "weapon" is a little weird, but I think a Disarm flavored as "knocking that snarl off yer face" should cover it.

The document works fine on a computer, so I took a look at the Archives.
13 beats all 1st, second and third level creatures, and all but 19 of 4th level creatures.
This makes Assurance:Athletics seem like a really great choice.

About representation, specifically neural diversity, I think show, don't tell makes the best sense.

My family has not a single "neuro-typical" person in it, but long before our individual mental idiosyncrasies were diagnosed and labeled, we knew our own when we saw them.
For a lot of autistic people,the character Bones echos their own lived experiences.
Before that, Spock and Data were also relatable to many on the spectrum.
Right now my kid and I are invested deeply in the characters of the Owlhouse, who embody a huge swath of representation, while being swept up in a story that is both bigger than them and not...
I don't think any of them are assigned any labels but they are diverse, heroic and relatable.

I find the wheelchairs and the support companions to be enticing for any character.
Earlier someone mentioned making accommodations for strength 7 wizard.
In other systems I might have a gaggle of skeletons to crowdsurf me over obstacles.
In pf2e Support Companions make perfect sense in this role.

I guess the question of appropriation comes up.
My character might not "need" a Rootball Companion, but they certainly want one.

The arms and other limbs also offer power not easily found elsewhere.
I need to look and see if one can have more limbs than your ancestry indicates.
I suspect not.
I,ve always wanted to add limbs, rather than replace existing limbs, but the power creep implication are obvious.

The implications of these "technologies" are vast, but they are not likely to be explored, and that's fine.
I honestly find some of the combination weapons more troubling in terms of breaking my immersion, but I simply choose to not use them.