The.Vortex's page

I played this yesterday and prepared it to be run in a week this morning. Looking at the skill section and then the treasure bundle allocation, something definitely doesn't make sense here.

The tresure bundles state:

Aiding the Populace: 1 Treasure Bundle for each task completed, up to 6 Treasure Bundles.

But the Aiding the Populace tasks CANNOT all be completed. Two of them are open ended! And two tasks list treasures, one of which is just gold (which is useless for the rest of the adventure) but doesn't seem to be taken into account for the treasure bundles at all!

The closest I could get to the written TB allocation would be that you would have to reach the listed threasholds for things to happen in every single challenge. So you would need: (group size: n)

Task 1: n points
Task 2: n points (possibly without doing any lethal damage)
Task 3: n points
Task 4: 3 points (non-scaling - why?) (possibly with at least one person needing to be there every single round)
Task 5: floor(n/2) points, but only with certain skills, or a perception success in round 3 (WTF? Doing perception here in other rounds doesn't do ANYTHING?!)
Task 6: 3 points (non-scaling - why?)

For a total of floor(3.5*n/2)+6 points needed
A party of 4 would need 20 points, a party of 5 23 and a party of 6 27 points. From a total of 12, 15 or 18 turns. That means, you need between 1.5 and 1.67 points per turn, perfectly distributed and sometimes taking special considerations into account to reach the full rewards. Most of them against a standard DC for that level - which, at this level - starts to become pretty hard unless you have good attributes, proficiency and a skill item for a skill. While reaching that MIGHT be possible, it is EXTREMELY unlikely, bordering on impossible.

I would suggest to completely disregard the Treasure Bundles for this section and instead give out 2 per round the characters are helping - no matter how succesfull or not. Or maybe just give out the 6 regardless of what they do?

Another weird issue, though far less severe, are the success conditions. This is the first time I can think of, where reaching the secondary condition is kind of automatic, as is the faction mission, while the primary success condition can be failed despite completing the adventure.
I appreciate what the writers did here by swapping them around to emphasize that helping the populace was the primary goal, but unless you explicitly state that to the players in the conclusion / aftermath, it will have no effect whatsoever.

As much as I'd love to turn on the ability for people to write reviews for whatever products they'd like, the current system has been damaged by bots, international spammers, and those who hate particular product lines or editions. Paizo just doesn't have the resources to police a vast catalog constantly under assault by bad actors.

We know you're not the bad actors, but to start we need to leave the baseline as "only verified purchasers." In the future, feature gods willing, perhaps we can change that to unlock as you move up reward tiers. One more item for new feature requests...

-Jim

Maybe you are policing them quite well curently, but looking at the reviews of PFS scenarios for the last two seasons, I cannot see any indication of troll reviews there. So I don't see a valid reason to change the current system. And it is frankly baffling to me that you want to restrict the reviews of ADVENTURES to the people that bought them. That would mean that players cannot review and adventure they just played. That removes 80% or so of possible valid reviewers!

If you absolutely MUST restrict those reviews (again: currently I see no indication that such a restriction is even needed), how about allowing people who have the adventure reported as played or GMed at least? That would also prevent most, if not all, trolls from doing so, but still allow people who demonstrably have experienced the product to voice their opinions about it?

Please don't lock it away under some rewards tier, either. That, too, would remove a lot of players from the pool of possible reviewers!

The.Vortex wrote:

A question about the review rewards: I am an avid player and GM of the Society Scenarios, but have switched to using the Foundry VTT Premium Modules, which already include everything I need to GM. But that technically means that I do not own the scenarios themselves. So I WON'T get gold for leaving reviews? I would definitely NOT like that!

While you might not be able to review the scenario itself, you will be able to review the Foundry modules built from the scenarios. That will also grant the 5 gold.

If you purchased a bundle product (that contains the Foundry version and the PDF), you should be able to review both products. A product needs to show up in your purchase history to write a review for it.

-Jim

That does make it sound as if it will in the future be IMPOSSIBLE to write reviews for products you don't own? So far I thought I just wouldn't get gold for it. If it is as you say, I sincerely ask you to reconsider! That would prevent players from reviewing scenarios they have played, which would be a very bad idea. It should NOT be only the GMs that are able to write reviews.

Also, back to my main point: The Foundry Module is one for a complete season. It does NOT make sense to write reviews for the individual scenarios in the review section of a bundle of 20 or so scenarios!

A question about the review rewards: I am an avid player and GM of the Society Scenarios, but have switched to using the Foundry VTT Premium Modules, which already include everything I need to GM. But that technically means that I do not own the scenarios themselves. So I WON'T get gold for leaving reviews? I would definitely NOT like that!

The.Vortex wrote:

(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:

Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?

I wonder how much is an overreaction to Cha being historically the most common "dump stat" (outside of a few classes/"builds" that required/focused on Cha) before PF2...

However, in PF2 it seems that Int is now the most common "dump stat" if not required by the class. It also seems that the Cha-focused classes got a bunch more and/or better goodies than the Int-focused ones.

Absolutely. Especially in PFS, where social skills come up quite regularly, while the Int-based skills are rarely as important. And even if they are: It is way more important to have one person with the skill maxed then, while situations where everyone needs to roll Diplomacy against a lower DC are more common.

My solution to make rituals easier, while using a only slightly modified system, would be to shift the effects of secondary casters by one degree:

Critical Success: IMPROVE the degree of success of the main roll by one
Success: Circumstance Bonus of +2 to the main roll
Failure: Nothing
Crit Failure: Circumstance Penalty of -4 for the main roll

That way, the secondary casters don't feel like they are most likely a burden on the already tough main check, but have a good chance of actually HELPING, sometimes even in a very significant way.

We just finished book 3 yesterday and I have to say that I hugely enjoy many aspects of this Adventure Path. But for the love of all the gods of Golarion: Who thought it was a good idea to use rituals as a roadblock multiple times in this AP?!

The very first of the roadblocks (earlier adventure, not getting into spoilers here) we needed 8 tries to finally finish the ritual. EVERYONE was complaining about that broken system at the end. But it worked out and just took us a lot of time. No real harm done, I guess?

The second time (end of chapter two of book three) we had to do a ritual again. We got flashbacks to the first ritual and where dreading a similar situation. First attempt failed, but this one at least had a fail forward mechanic. Yay!

But then came the end of the book. We had the almost perfect group for the ritual. Primary and Secondary casters where Masters in the relevant skill, everyone had the maxium attribute of +4 (Level 9), non-lore-skills had items with a +1 - the primary caster could have gotten a +2 item, which would have been the only thing we could do to improve our chances. But not by much.
We tried. And (critically) failed. Time and again. The GM handed out extra Hero Points to improve our chances. We tried to find spells or items that could help us, but there just isn't anything in the system that CAN help with a 5 day ritual. It all came down to rolling dice and hoping. But we failed and failed and failed. This wasn't fun for anyone.
In the end the GM had to pull the "deus ex machina" the adventure offers as a solution to the problem. Usually most of the players would have voted against using such a crutch, but in this case, the rules for rituals are just SO STUPID and the fact that this ritual is there as a roadblock felt so bad that we decided to take the only out the adventure gave us. Otherwise it would have soured our opinion of the whole AP more than it already has.

Who designed the ritual system and ever thought it would be a good idea? Why does this otherwise stellar AP use it as a hard roardblock multiple times?

As a maths nerd I did some calculations and found out that our chance of success or critical success as about 35% per try. So even with our almost perfect stats and the maximum of 4 tries before time runs out, there was about an 18% chance of failing every single one of those. That means that about 1 in 5 groups WILL fail this. And other than the deus ex machina solution, that means the AP stops there. Can that really intended?

(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:

Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?

I was hoping for less war and more archeology / exploration / etc. - the things that made me love the Pathfinder Society in the past

We want gamers worldwide playing Pathfinder and Starfinder and we understand that shipping costs are a barrier to that.

-Jim

One way to get around that would be to FINALLY give us "Digital only" or "PDF only" subscriptions! It gets around shipping costs completely and there are a lot of people who don't want or need the physical books anymore. They are your loyal customers, too! I hope, the new Plus system will acknowledge that in some way, since Advantage never did :(

Since said forum is read-only, I will cast a Resurrection Ritual on this thread...

It has now officially been more than three months since the post about the Foundry VTT premium module has been updated. So, our only official channel for information on how to handle unclear points in recent scenarios (and yes, there definitely have been such points! Look at the threads for 6-09 and 6-10) had been dead silent.
Please, give us more guidance! Putting everything on the shoulders of your GMs is not the way to go! I cannot run adventures "as written" if the "as written" in ambigous!

There's a handout as part of the scenario that lists what abilities you get. That is not on the list.

"Any mythic abilities or properties noted in the full ruleset and not listed below do not apply to this temporary state."

Doesn't that also mean that players will have Hero Points AND Mythic Points in this specific case? The handout doesn't say they lose their hero points, so the "replace hero points" property of Mythic points does not apply?

That would make a pretty significant difference for the difficulty of the adventure!

Isn't three levels more like a module and not an adventure path?

Kinda curious if Strength of Thousands dropped too since it was also widely considered one of the best, but like AV I've seen criticisms of it come up more recently.

We recently finished SoT after three or so years. Would you have asked me in the first year, probably even in the second, I would have agrees that it was the best AP I had ever played. But unfortunately, the quality went downhill HARD near the end. The final two books felt like something completely different. And not in a good way.

I am coming from the other end and mostly agree with what the OP said. I utterly dislike the idea of playing a Necromancer. But mechanically this class sounds FUN! I just wish it wasn't named Necromancer and had more options that are less gore-y. Traps, exploding constructs, etc, would fit the mechanics almost perfectly and I really wish they used those mechanics for a more general class.

I was informed that the PFS FAQ acutally has an entry for this:

[NEW - Mar '24] What information should GMs give players during an Influence encounter?

While GMs are empowered to run influence encounters as best fits their table, we recommend using the following guidelines:

- Players (and by extension, PCs) should be aware of the Discovery skills (but not their DCs) at the start of the encounter.

- Players should not be told which skills are Influence skills until they are successfully Discovered.

- Players should never be told the DCs of any Discovery or Influence skills.

So, it is indeed the second interpretation

Hello fellow Pathfinders,

After a recent discussion about the influence subsystem I discovered that there are apparently two ways of reading the rules regarding the influence skills and the corresponding Dicover action.

The relevant rules texts (copied from Archives of Nethys)

Success [...] You learn which skill that can Influence the NPC has the lowest DC (skipping any skills that you already know), [...]

Influence Skills The skills the PCs can use to Influence the NPC are listed here with their DCs, in order from the lowest DC (the skill that works best) to the highest DC. If a skill isn't listed but a player gives a strong narrative explanation for using it, you can add it as an appropriate DC (usually the highest listed DC). Diplomacy should usually be on this list, but should rarely be the best skill to Influence an NPC, in order to encourage and reward using Discover to learn and cater to an NPC's interests.

The two different ways of reading this seem to be:

1. The players already know which skills can be used to influence the NPC, just not which of those is easiest or hardest. Using discover lets you kind of rank them by difficulty.

2. The players have no idea which skills can be used. Using discovery tells them the next easiest skill they have not yet found out.

I feel like 1 might give the players to much information from the start, while 2 can be overly harsh - especially if the NPCs have many obscure lore skills as the easiest ones.

Unfortunately, GM Core and Gamemastery Guide use the same language, so looking at both versions didn't help.

The main confusion stems from the Discover action:

"You learn which skill that can Influence the NPC has the lowest DC" - This sounds like you are already supposed to know which skills can be used overall, just not how their DCs are ranked (interpretation 1).

"(skipping any skills that you already know)" - This on the other hand seems to indicate, that you DON'T know the skills before you discover them (starting with the easiest one) (interpretation 2).

Since english is not my first language, that confusion might stem from lack of understanding. Or maybe the text is ambiguous?

How do you use the system? Version 1 or 2? Or do you have a completely different way of interpreting it?

PS: The influence subsystem is used quite frequently in the Pathfinder Society scenarios, and most GMs and players here HATE it. That might be because we have been using the second interpretation since the first one seems to be much easier - but it might also be too easy then. Since I am looking for how to run it in organized play, house rules and similar suggestions wouldn't help me all that much, either :)

Can you please finally give us PDF only subscriptions (other than for Society Scenarios)? For your international customers, the shipping fees are just insane. Also: I don't need any physical books anymore!

I like the new language for the most part, and also think that most seasoned GMs will already have used many of the new rules like fixing obvious errors all along.

Nevertheless I still think that we need a place where those and even more importantly less obvious errors and their fixes are listed. As has been mentioned many times in this thread: It isn't always clear, what really is intended and what is a mistake in the adventure. So getting some clarity on that is what I would much prefer to losening the rules and losing the consistency of the adventures.

Hello everyone,

Today I just want to state something that has been bothering me for a while now. Just so that I know that I have said it and thus there is the (probably small) chance for the Org Play team to see it and maybe think about it.

I started playing participating in Paizo Organized Play back in 2017, after having played Pathfinder locally with multiple groups since its inception and playtest. The first few adventure, as well as how the Society was described and received in the world of Golarion in all that time has more than likely heavily colored my perception of it as an entity.

Back in First Edition, at for a time in second edition as well, the Pathfinder Society was concerned with Archeology and Exploration. Not without reason they were seen as Tomb Raiders by some. There even were Factions like the Scarab Sages, that specifically focused on things like that. And I really enjoyed that.

But there came a point, where the scenarios became less and less concerned with themes like that. I honestly can't remember the last time I acutally GMed or played a scenario that, from the onset, had the exploration of ancient ruins as its theme. And I think that is a shame.

More often then not nowadays, adventures are either rooted in some stuff about big NPCs (which I mostly don't give a rats a$$ about, like the whole stories about The Waterfall or the hag a few seasons back) and less about exploration and discovery. There have even been adventures like A Lie told to Strangers where, after hearing the introduction, my only thought was: "Yes, there is probably a bad thing happening there. But WHY IN THE WORLD does the Pathfinder Society care about that? We are not investigators and prosecutors, we are explorers!"

Looking at the current faction descriptions in the PFS Guide, it feels like the Grand Archive is the correct faction for the type of adventure I am looking for. There was exactly ONE scenario in Season 5 with Grand Archive Tag - and that one had you work at the whim of a poisoner to get new supplies.
Looking at Season 4, Seeking the Heart of Calamity and the following adventures in that storyline might be the closest to the type of adventures I am looking for in the last two years.

I just hope that we can maybe change direction again at some point and get more adventures that feel like we are part of a society of explorers and archeologists, and more storylines that revolve less around some big NPCs that you probably only care about if you played the PFS1 storylines that introduced them way back when.

TL;DR: Please bring back more exploration, archeology and actual trailblazing / pathfinding to the Pathfinder Society!

PS: Maybe it is just me and most other players enjoy the newer style of stories more than I do. That is fine, too. I am not trying to force my style onto anyone. I just wanted to have at least said something.

I DMed this yesterday for a group with 32 ACP. Fortunately enough we had a Gunslinger, a Bow Ranger and multiple casters, one of them a Bard with Force Barrage. But we also had some people who simply couldn't participate in the final fight at all. I didn't realise it before running, but that fight has some serious issues:

1. The final enemy is flying 10 feet above the water and is throwing knives or his cantrip. So there is bascially no chance to ever get into melee with it without using a reach weapon. And even with a reach weapon, you have to be either on one of the piers and very close to the Phantom, or use one of the Effervescant Ampules provided by the adventure. Unfortunately, those are Talismans, so you need 10 minutes to affix them. You get them before the Bear Dance, and after that there isn't really all that much time to take breaks, so I deem it unlikely that many groups will have had the time to even affix them.

2. The enemy is basically the same in low tier. That means 4 Level 3 characters can encounter a flying incorporeal enemy with ranged attacks, who specifically has the tactic to stay out of melee. It has a resistance of 6 against nonmagical attacks - so unless you have a true ranged character or spells, even your ranged backup weapons will have a hard time damaging it

3. The CP adjustments are pretty much useless! Since it is almost impossible to ever be able to reach the creature in melee (see 1), there isn't much point in trying to run around the map and catch it. And since the enemy has ranged, but with very limited range, it won't move out of range of the low range options the group might be using, either. All that combines into a situation, where all the additional hazards will be placed in positions where they are more than likely never triggered. The two hazards that are always present are in the two spots where it is likely that someone will get close enough to trigger them eventually, but additional ones have to be placed "spread as evenly as possible", which means they are placed somewhere, where no player character will ever be.

In combination, all those effects make for one potentially nasty, potentially boring for a lot of players, and pretty much unscaling fight.

One solution that would at least give players some option for melee, would be to have the phantom fly only 5 feet above the water. That way it would still be in range for normal melee attacks if it gets to close to a pier of the Ampules are actually used. But that would only take care of part of the issues.

I have now played and then DMed this scenario and honestly have to say: This is one of the worst scenarios I have ever had the displeasure to experience! Many of those gripes stem from serious issues in editing, design, etc.

Where to begin?

1. The map of the mansion does NOT fit the description AT ALL!
Map: You start in a storage room. A door leads out of it into a wide open room with sofas but not tables. Just one example from early on in the scenario:
Description: You start in a storage room. There are some barrels that hide you from a room empty but for a couple of tables.
Where are the barrels? Is the northern wall of the storage room supposed to be barrels?

All over the map there are doors that lead to areas without any description or which, when used, would completely circumvent some areas like B2. Some descriptions mention things you could not possibly see from the entrance of the area. And then at some point the description tells you that you moved up a level. But there are no stairs and you are still on the same map.

All of this requires a lot of hand waving and mental gymnastics and acceptance from the player side.

2. The transition from B2 to B3 / B4 - The hazard in B2 makes it very likely, almost a certainty, that not all characters arrive in B3 at the same time. Yet once you arrive in B3, there is some kind of teleportation to B4. Does that teleportation wait for all characters to arrive in B3? Or are we supposed to start the B4 description / hazard as soon as the first character reaches B3? Potentially we have to run two hazards at the same time with a split party. I did NOT want that, so the teleporting winds were nice enough to wait for everyone.

3. Secondary Success Conditions - Those are completely missing. I just assumed that you automatically get them. But that would make basically all the investigation, skill checks to understand things, some of the puzzles, etc. utterly meaningless. Well, except for treasure bundles, which for area B6 just state "for retreaving clues from Nazreiha's library" - Do you need all clues from there? Are two enough? (One would be a clue, not clues, so that would not suffice)

4. A4 Trap effects - How long does the blindness from failing the save last? Why is it correct that on a crit failure you fall prone, but are not blinded? Arguably that would make a normal failure worse than a crit failure

5. Blood-Gorged Dandasuka ability Bloody Mist - Is the fort save against the damage a basic safe? Since the blindness is listed after the safe it seems like the safe does only affect the damage - you are blinded without any way to avoid that. The ability also has no trait, which feels weird. It seems like a kind of visual effect and ranged attack

6. The story behind the adventure doesn't make a whole lot of sense - First of all: You are breaking into the home of someone to gather information. So far, so good. But while there, you steal their stuff (Cabinet in the library - those are NOT clues) and murder their guests. Yes, they are Rakshasa. But that alone is not enough reason to attack and kill them. Some of them (the first encounter in the mansion) even ignore you until you attack. AITA here?
Then in the end you find out that Nazreiha knew you were coming. Doesn't that make all the evidence you gathered suspect at least? Why would she leave incriminating evidence behind at all? The only reason I can think of is to mislead the Pathfinder Society. But in the conclusion everyone seems to think that the evidence is totally valid. Why?

Overall a desastrous finale to an already rather weak season. I really hope the quality of PFS scenarios improves moving forward :(

As a suggestion how to introduce proficiency into area weapons: Why not go with how "Professional" and "Thought" already work - kinda.

"Tha maximum proficiency bonus your class DC can use for the save DC of area attacks is equal to your proficiency bonus for attacks with the weapon."

No, you are completely correct. The ending is weird and needs something where the players are actually DOING things to activate / stabilize the tower. To have it end with a more or less random fight and then some short bit of text (that isn't even marked as read out loud) feels off.

Would it be possible for there to be a boon added to do retraining but no gear changes? The current retrain boons seem excessive, if not punitive, to a character who does not want to change gear. Alternatively, could the existing rebuild boons have language added that the wealth is not changed if no gear is being changed? I think that having easier access to these things would be beneficial both to players wanting to have old characters take advantage of new boosts, as well as old and new PC's who may just want to make non-gear changes that would take a long time to complete via retraining.

As someone who rarely sees ANY consumable items that were actually paid for with coins being used at all, I second something like this. Even better would be a much less severe reduction of funds.

The amped versions of the Oscillating Wave Psychic (https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3) spells both convert the damage to a d10. One of them lists (in parenthesis) that this conversion removes the attribute modifier from the damage. The other doesn't.

My impression would be that both remove it and that the text in parenthesis is just for clarification. But I have seen people that say it stays there for ray of frost.
Which interpretation is correct here?

I would even allow it to work if the only implement you're holding was the weapon itself.

Interesting. I would never have even doubted it worked with just the weapon implement until I saw your comment. After reading it again, I am pretty sure it works with just the weapon implement. It would be utterly weird if a weapon implement user had to wait for their second implement at level 5 to use one of the main offensive tools of the class. But yes, I can see the argument that with a thrown (returning) weapon implement, you are technically not holding at least one implement the moment the weapon strikes.

Spike, Cactus Leshy Barber (because of the horrible pun. Barbs! Harhar!)
Level 5 Dual Gate (Water / Earth) Kineticist. Flexible Blasts, Tidal Wave, Stone Shield, Water Dance, Return to the Sea

Attributes: 14/18/18/8/18/10

The character was specifically built for PFS2-06: The Crashing Wave

Since I know a lot of fights would be under water, I basically HAD to take the level 4 feat Return to the Sea if I wanted to use ranged attacks, since the underwater combat rules have no exception for attacks with the Water trait, so all ranged blasts, being bludgeoning, would have been impossible otherwise.

Due to Leshy Lore as an ancestry feat I had a decent amount of skills, despite having Int 8. Athletics and Nature both came in handy, as of course Medicine did.
The Spine attack of Cactus Heritage was meant as a way to fight in melee without any AoO and uses the same proficiency and items as the blasts, so it seemed a very good fit.

Overall I had a few moments to shine. Biggest ones were a Tidal Wave that was able to damage three enemies for a decent amount (about 80% of an attack of someone of comparable level) on two different occasions, as well as moving Seelah into position to flank the BBEG with Water Dance, which would have taken her more than 3 actions on her own.
In combat I tried to focus on smaller enemies since the to hit and damage were very much sub-par, and the horrible rules for creating playtest characters lead to me having the worst AC in the group (other than the level 3 character) due to not having an armor rune.

Saves and Perception were all very good at +13, HP pretty decent as well. So other than the missing rune, the character was very well of defensively and had some nice utility value. It just wasn't the thing I think of first when I think of the 1st Ed. Kinetcist: An amazing single target / burst damage dealer

Scroll Thaumaturgy: It allows you to use your class DC for the Spell DC. So far, so good. But what about spells with a spell attack roll? Since the Thaumaturge is not proficient in the magical schools, does that mean any spell with a spell attack roll is bascially useless since they won't ever hit anything? I think most likely, there is just a sentence missing, allowing to use the same proficiency for spell attacks as well.

I for one am quite glad that a lot of the options from the book will not be playable in the society. I like some black and white in fantasy, and undead have always been one of the last bastions of truly evil things that are universally abhored. It always irked me that we have people summoning undead in society play regularly, and many of my more good-aligned or pharasma adjacen characters have to be bent to play with those. A new wave of even more sinister undead type characters is something I can very much live without.

"Imma go munch the evil merc bodies y'all laid out rq, anyone want anything?"
"Okay, you eat your fill and are sated... For now'

I don't see how the above is much different than many neutral players' behavior in Society. Not that I have an issue with it, it's a breath of fresh air tbqh.

I have never witnessed anything from a neutral aligned character that even comes CLOSE to cannibalism (is it still cannibalism if it is a different species?). Yes, the society has some less than nice people in it, but eating sentient creatures is something I will never be comfortable with, so I am glad that we won't have that at our tables in the near future.

The Precog has a Temporal Anomalie called Future Training, which grants proficiency in weapon categories like Advanced Melee, Heavy, etc.
Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about Weapon Specialization. And, unlike for example the Nanocyte, who's Weapon Spec entry states

You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for each weapon type this class grants you proficiency with, including any weapons for which you gained proficiency through a nanocyte knack.

the Precog's just reads

You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for each weapon type with which this class grants you proficiency.

Is there a general rule somewhere that lets class abilities count for the class granting the proficiency or is the Precog out of luck here and doesn't gain the Weapon Specialization for those weapons?

Welp wasn't expecting an automaton :O

Guns & Gears just came out and is now society legal. So I expect the next couple of adventures to use stuff from there to increase people's awareness / interest in the new stuff. Basic marketing strategy :)

Since it is impossible to leave reviews for this until August 2022 (why?), I will leave my points here after having run it yesterday (and keeping spoilers out of it):

It is definitely worse than last year's special!

Parts 1+2 (which really could have been one part since there is no real distinction between the parts / missions): Nothing really interesting happens most of the time, there are not many missions that are anything but combat, no indication / handout that tells groups which ones to do other than randomly, etc.
Part 3: This is almost a complete waste of time - Talking to the new NPC is nice, but all the skill checks in the end don't really amount to anything - and they don't even matter! There are no consequences for not making the rolls at all.
Part 4 finally had some player agency, in the choices they made for the waves. But the fact that the final battle can be cut short but other teams being faster was kind of a bummer.

Overall, I think if a player doesn't know Starfinder and thus doesn't get any of the references, this is a VERY mediocre experience.

Rating: 3/5

Smart Guns as well, there are Manufacturers in the Armory Book that specifically makes guns that use either biometric or psionic safeties to prevent anyone other than the person coded to the gun from firing it. Given, those these are technically biotech and psitech, but some of the options do already exist in other sources.

Smartgun, at least in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, is not a biometric lock but a targeting system with IFF capabilities and that compares where you are aiming and where you are looking to improve your gun / eye coordination.

I just realised that there is likely a mistakte in the types of damage for the low tier leaded skeletons. According to the adventure, the hammer does slashin damage, while the claws do bludgeoning.
It won't make much of a difference in most groups, so not a big issue overall.

The only pity is that it is a 1-4 scenario. Many characters that had extensive dealings with datch, and thus would be the ones where she would have the most interesting impact, are past that level range

That's a known issue. 8 is the max the system can handle right now :(

Exactly.

Plus, he is an elf wizard, so a few hit point may be all he has!
CON8, level 9 wizard 5+3*9 = 32hp.

So, he could easily take himself out with his own fireball!

That calculation seems off for both PF1 and PF2:

PF1:

(4-1)*8+(6-1) = 29 (without taking favored class into account)

PF2:

6 (Ancestry) + 9*(6-1) (class) = 51

I guess you counted level 1 twice for first edition? Seems like the most likely culprit here.
That would take his HP to an even more impressively low number, though.

I just DMed this one and encountered a few more things that were weird in this one:

The Swords Trial:

- What about spells? Are you allowed to use them, which still do lethal damage? Do you have to take the penalty for nonlethal? Do you have to just not use spells that don't have an attack roll but deal damage?

- One of the optional encounters is against animated objects - which are IMMUNE to nonlethal damage. How are the players intended to handle those whith weapons that automatically do nonlethal if the hit would kill an opponent?

The Scrolls Trial:

- This is ANOTHER adventure that has the characters make a deal with a devil. The adventure does not list a default way of getting the amulet from the imp without either making a deal or (pretending to) offer them something for later. Why does that keep happening?! Especially after the Dean specifically said that they serve "unwise spellcasters", making it clear that entering a deal with them is unwise

- ALL of the recall knowledge checks are Religion only. Why not vary a bit here?

The Spells Trial:

- We did the Pool of Pain and one player asked about the weight of the gold bar. 1 bulk, as written in the adventure. They then went on and just used telekinetic projectile on it, which, unlike mage hand, has a limit of 1 bulk instead of L bulk. Cudos to the player for finding that, but it seems like a cantrip should NOT be able to completely solve this puzzle (hence the specific mention of mage hand not working).

The Caryg Manor

- I totally agree that the betrayal at the end was really forced and felt unnecessary.

- With six players, a bodyguard is added to the encounter. Great choice, I loved the increase to AC without the Elite Template! please use that option more often :)
But: the encounter lacks any information about the morale of the bodyguard. Doe they keep fighting after Caryg goes down? Do they surrender / flee at some point?

Overall a great idea for an introductory adventure, just a feww too many issues exist, sometimes well hidden, within its pages.

For the level 7+ PF2 - if they're already down to 3 players of an expected 4, isn't that hardmode enough? Why penalize them further with the CP boost?

Because without that, two level 9 characters and on level 10 in a 7-10 adventure would only have 14 CP, which would be low tier. That probably would be more like easy mode instead of hard mode.

Hopefully we get some Tier 5-7s soon. My -2001 won't be able to play that Quest...

There is a 5-8 announced for may:

Mistress of the Maze

How about a gnome bard that wants to find the worst possible music in existence. And his buffs are due to his allies just wanting him to shut up faster?

Hi Endzeitgeist,

Thanks for the reply. Most of the information really helps to prepare the adventure. I would like to contest your answer to the mishaps a bit, though. Probably also something you didn't intend happened in editing it seems:

When using the infiltrate option, a player HAS TO roll for any of the remaining challenges when it is their turn. And the only way to get rid of a critical failure is by using an edge point, which you can gain (for the group) by doing another skill challenge before the dance starts. And that challenge ALSO has the mishaps on critical failure.
Also, there is no warning for the players that such drastic things might happen. And as I said: some of the results pretty much destroy certain characters abilities to participate in the final combat of the adventure.

PS: I just noticed a section that states that the mishap results last until the end of the adventure, right in the sidebar. So that point of mine has just been an oversight on my part.

Hello,

After having played multiple of the playtest adventures that contained locks to pick, I am wondering what the intent behind the new lockpicking is.

The DCs to pick a lock were, in many cases, so high that a maxed out Rogue had to roll a 13+. Three times. No only is the chance to do that in a single round only 6.4%, but there is also a chance of 38.6% that you critically fail at least once. That not only will increase the time to open the lock, but only require a spare lockpick. So, for every two locks you will be opening, you will on average need one additional pick. Not only is that pretty expensive at low levels, but also makes the rogue feel incompetent.
Please, at least change the critical failure to negate one success OR destroy your pick. And/Or lower the DCs of locks to be more in line with the new and much lower skill values of characters.

Yes, I am aware that the new language tries to be more exact then we are used to, and that is a good thing. At least up to a point. If you cross that point, though, it makes rules quite hard to read and understand. To illustrate my point of view, I want to have a closer look at Furious Focus:

(1 Action), Attack, Fighter, Press
Requirements You are wielding a melee weapon without the agile trait.
Make a Strike. The Strike gains the following failure effect.
Failure This attack does not count toward your multiple attack penalty.

On first glance, this sounds pretty straight forward. But then you notice that this level 1 feat of the fighter, which used to be the go to class for new players, since it was the easiest to play, references a whole slew of other things:

Press Actions with this trait allow you to follow up earlier attacks. An action with the press trait can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. Effects on a failure can be gained only if the action took a –4 multiple attack penalty or worse. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure.
If your press action succeeds or critically succeeds, but it deals no damage and causes no other effects (typically due to
resistance), you can choose to apply the failure effect instead.

non-agile Your weapon has to be one that DOESN'T have a specific trait. Which is weird, since weapon traits tend to be a good thing that allow you to do more things

Multiple Attack Penalty and the Strike Action play a role as well.

So, to fully understand that simple level 1 feat, you have to know a whole bunch of stuff. And most of it is just limiting a feat that, at first glance, seemed nice. But once you put it all down in writing, it becomes:

All of strikes with a non-agile melee weapon, that suffer at least a -4 penalty from earlier attacks, do not increase your multiple attack for subsequent attacks if they miss, or miss and don't inflict damage, but not if they critically miss. This is incompatible with anything other then basic attacks.

Quite a lot of stuff to consider, and overall the whole feat just sounds way less interesting if you include all the caveats that are otherwise a bit obscured.

Please, make the rules more accessible to people that don't enjoy reading legal documents :)

I know that one of the goals of PF2 is to be more streamlined and less complicated then PF1. But on some fronts I think things went a bit too far. One of those is the flat-footed condition.

I like that it now is a static penalty, and not depending on stats and gear of the penalized creature. Especially for GMs that is a huge boon.

But why does basically everything make you flat-footed? Prone, Flanked, Stunning Fist and Daze are all low level options of controlling the enemy. And now they are all incompatible with one another. It is of no use to flank an enemy if that enemy was already knocked down by an ally or dazed by the mage. That sometimes doesn't leave too much room for any tactics.

A related topic is the utter lack of more types of bonuses and penalties. I concur that 10 or more types like in PF1 was overkill. But just three? That is just not enough to be interesting anymore.

Hello,

After playing PF Playtest a couple of times, as well as discussing it with multiple people, I noticed one thing that bothered a lot of them. All of them are quite familiar with Pathfinder in its current incarnation, and so they well know which feat or spell does what, and when it is usefull or not.
The problem now is that the Playtest reused a lot of the old names for things, but made their use vastly different. To name just a few examples:

Power Attack - In PF1 this was a must have basically for melee characters, and the lower the enemies AC was, the more useful Power Attack became.
Now in PF Playtest, it is Fighter only, and is more usefull if you opponent has a HIGHER AC, since the additional attack at -5 you are forfeiting would have a better chance of still hitting and inflicting more damage then the bonus PA is giving you.

Furious Focus - In PF1 this helped you on your first attack when using Power Attack and a Two-Heanded Weapon.
In PF Playtest, FF CANNOT be used on your first attack, is mostly incompatible with Power Attack, and works with any non-agile weapon

Can you please find new names for those new abilities, so that we can avoid confusion with the earlier stuff?

Name: Ebonephas, The Iolite Sage (Gemstone Properties)
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Race: Wayang
Class: Alchemist (Crypt Breaker) 8, Investigator (Psychic Detective) 1
Description: Unlike most of his people, Ebonephas has always been equaly curious and good-natured. Due to his upbringing near a valley full of Kobolds, he was fascinated by the pranks of his neighbours, as well as the traps they crafted. Dealing with those traps regularly, as well as his ability to operate well in the darkness brought him to the attention of another Cryptbreaker from the Pathfinder Society, and that human took him under his wing and introduced him into the Pathfinder Society.
While travelling for them from one tomb or dungeon to the next, with occasional trips to more well lit regions, he came into contact with the recently rediscovered Sage Jewels of the Scarab Sages.
Fascinated by the stories and knowledge contained in those, he made it his personal mission to find out everything he could. And so he set out to find more jewels. He met Tahonikepsu when rediscovering the Sanctum of the Sages, and although he voted to his friend Amenopheus to become leader of the newly evolving faction, he accepted her as leader and helped her gain access to the library of the sanctum. Over the following years, he met most of the other prominent members of the Scarab Sages, and so he was a natural fit when a team of Pathfinders had to be found to cleanse the jewels from an ancient evil burried within.
After succeeding at that milestone for his faction and himself, he was honored to use the flawed jewel he had once helped create in the Sanctum of the Sages to create an new Sage Jewel. Like himself, his jewel is of a grayish coloration, and is of a stone best known for revealing what is hard to see, and to find solutions that noone else would think of.
Still young, Ebonephas is eager to prove the other sages right for chosing him to become a member of their honored ranks, and has vowed to acquire as much knowledge as possible to fill his newly created jewel.

The section about returning that starts on page 21 ends on page 22 with "granting each PC the Seasoned Explorer boon" - Yet there is no boon of that name on the chronicle sheet. Instead there is the Remnant of the First World boon there, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the shards mentioned in the section.
Is there a boon missing from the sheet or was it just renamed at some point and the connection between the shards and the effect on your items just isn't clearly stated?

Damn, all this because Paizo removed one line which they probably thought was common sense.

What is the "common sense" you are talking about? I have heard rumors about something like that, but never found it anywhere NEAR an RPG Rulebook ;)