The.Vortex 525's page

While thinking about building a melee soldier, I stumbled upon an interaction of two rules that I am not sure about how to handle:

The "boost 1dX" trait allows to spend an action to add damage dice to the next attack made with a weapon.
Using a melee soldier and Whirling Swipe, I can Area Attack with for example a Painglaive and get a Primary Attack melee strike with that weapon as well.
To which of those does the boost apply?

Possible lines of thought I had:

1: To the primary target attack - it is the first attack to resolve after the boost
2: To the area attack - it is the action with the attack trait that you "activated" after the boost
3: Both, since the free strike is part of the area attack action

I think it would be 1, which then leads to a rather interesting choice: Do I want to do more area damage by skipping my primary target free strike? Or do I want to make that strike for maximum damage against that single target?

I am currently reading the adventure as my first stop to preparing it for the coming weekend. I found a couple of things that stood out as weird / problematic:

Event 1 (the Chase Scene):

- The bonus from "Help from Shipyard workers" is untyped in the sidebar. In Handout #1 it is a circumstance bonus, but only if you get it for ALL obstacles. I guess it is meant to be a circumstance bonus all the time? That would also unfortunately make the possible bonus for creative solutions pointless.
- The scaling for higher subtier is only mentioned in passing at the beginning of the chase. Easy to overlook, so take note, GMs :)
- While at the topic of scaling: There is no scaling for either challenge points or number of players. So a group of four level 1 characters have the same DCs and number of obstacle points needed as a party of 6 level 2 characters. That seems like an oversight!

Conclusion / Reporting:

- Isn't Reporting Condition D superflous? If B and C are checked, D is automatic. Maybe it makes it easier for the devs to track? And it is just one more click, so not really an issue, just something I noticed.

The Human / Shirren Racial Feat Unconventional Weaponry gives access to uncommon weapons that are common for other ancestries or cultures - yet in current Starfinder no such weapons even exist!

The feat is basically a reprint from Pathfinder 2e, where a lot of racial weapons, as well as regional ones, are of uncommon rarity. Starfinder 2e has gotten rid of the uncommon rarity for those, yet the feat has not been changed. So as of right now, if you don't allow PF2e options (like organized play, which currently doesn't allow the use of those), is the feat utterly pointless? Is it just there for things to come out in the future or should it be changed to reflect the change in rarities for ancestry-specific weapons?

Hello everyone,

Ever since the playtest, I was kind of fascinated by the idea of the Aeon Rifle. Aeon and Caster are traits that are really cool and can give a character a lot of damage flexibility. In the playtest, we assumed that it would be uncommon (rarities didn't exist in the playtest) and I made a Starlit Span Magus with Unconventional Weaponry to test crossplay. It worked great and the character was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately, with the full rules out now, the Aeon Rifle is NOT uncommon. So right now there doesn't see to be a way to get full proficiency with it? Well, there isn't a class that can fully utilize it right now, anyways, so maybe we will get an Atzlanti Archetype in the future that fixes the issue. But right now, has anyone got any cool or good options to make use of the weapon?

Right now, the best I could come up with, was going either Witchwarper (Analystics?) or Mystic (Rhythm), being human and taking the Weapon Proficiency Feat twice at first level (once from the ancestry feat, once from the heritage). It works, but feels like too much work / investment somehow. Maybe it is fitting that this option is (at level 1) limited to humans, seeing as how the Azlanti view other races.

(I only have the premium module, so some or all of the issues I found might only be different in the PDF)

I am currently prepping this to run it tomorrow and found a few things worth mentioning:

1. The first skill challenge (Presentation) doesn't account for number of players at all! So a group of 4 players has 16 actions, while one of 6 players will have 24 - but the number of successes needed is the same.
This might be less of an issue if the secondary success condition didn't consist ENTIRELY of this skill challenge.
This seems like an obvious mistake to me, so may it would be OK here to give smaller groups more rounds? 6 rounds for 4, 5 rounds for 5 and 4 rounds for 6 characters? That way, groups of all sizes have (almost) the same number of rolls to accumulate points (24/25/24).

2. The second skill challenge (Investigation) also doesn't account for the number of players when it comes to the number of successes needed. But since this one only affects initiative a tiny bit, it doesn't matter as much. Also, the thresholds are easier (8/13 instead of 10/15)
Another thing about this one: It is indicated that the players can start whereever they like. But then it lists the different challenges as rounds? This feels like a leftover of a previous version where this was a more formal type of challenge.

3. Najid's "Fennic Scream" ability has two failure effects in both subtiers. Which one is the correct one? Stunned 2 or Stunned for one round?

4. Content wise, I have two issues with this adventure:
a)It feels kind of bad that this is a scientific symposium, but there is almost NO INFO AT ALL about the subject that is being discussed at the symposium. There is a short sentence about what the Pathfinder Society is presenting, but nothing at all about the results of the other factions! We have had adventures recently that were almost pure lore dumps. This one is lacking lore. Badly.
b) The Pathfinder Society are NOT the last group on the list of presenters. There are three groups that are supposed to present their findings after the players. Since the proceedings are interrupted, it makes sense that they don't do that right away. But the conclusion makes it sound like they don't present their findings later, either.

Those two points in conjunction strongly suggest that the whole theme of the adventure is pure window dressing and not meant to really do anything and thus wasn't spared too much thought.

5. On a more general note: The adventure could have used another round of proof reading! It is riddled with errors and weird sentences.

(Why is there no thread for this already? It is out a month now, has 7 reviews, and quite a few problems - has nobody noticed? Or did nobody care? I am confused)

I played this last week and then prepared and GMed it on sunday. Both in High Tier. Here are a few points that remain unclear / feel weird:

- What is the point of having multiple keys of the same color? Are the keys supposed to be single use?
- And while we are at it: What is the point of even having keys of different colors (other than the teleportation circle later on)? From what I can see, it doesn't matter at all if you use the green or red portals. And even if you could use purple, it wouldn't make a difference, either

- How is the encounter against the aquatic enemies supposed to work? The Megalodon is too large to fit through any of the wells in the room. Both my GM and me just handwaved it, but technically, that enemy just doesn't work here

- What is up with some of the DCs in this adventure? If you fail some saves, you are pulled under water and the escape DC is 36! That is a VERY HARD DC for Level 9. But at least in that case you had to fail some saved to get there. Unlike the final encounter, which starts with a DC 35 save for everyone. That is INSANE! Most people at that level will have somewhere around +16-+18 for the save - minute chances of success, and high chances of critical failure. In both runs, we had people go down to that damage

- Are you supposed to be able to disable or even "reverse the polarity" of the focus before combat starts? If so, it would probably trivialize the final encounter. But it would also mean that the final encounter wouldn't actually really happen the way it is described, so it probably shouldn't be allowed.

- During the chase: One penalty (Exit's this way) sound like it auto-clears the obstacle if the group didn't pass on their own. The others don't. And since you have 10 rounds, it wouldn't make sense for all of them to clear that obstacle for you. But is it correct that that particular obstacle is automatically cleared with some minor damage?

- Missing scaling on subsystems - Research as well as chase seem to be lacking any scaling, either for player number or for CP. So a group of 4 will have a MUCH harder time here. That is what scaling should prevent, so the lack of it is kind of weird.

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?

I am currently working on a script that automatically logs into the Paizo website and gets your characters and sessions from there, so you can export them, have an easier time finding out what you played, etc.
Now I am not 100% sure if that is allowed. The community use policy is no real help here, since it only covers using published material, etc. - it doesn't say anything about automation.
Has anyone got a clue as to wether using such a script is OK or not? It is basically just opening a normal but script-controlled browser, logging in, and opening a few pages from the "My Orgranized Play" section of the site, so it shouldn't put much strain on the servers, etc.

The Alicorn Lance (AoN Link) is a specific magic weapon that uses the Lance as a base.

Lance has "Hands: 2", while the Alicorn Lance says: "Usage: held in 1 hand"

Can I use the Alicorn Lance as a lance while not mounted and using only one hand? Or is the usage only relevant for its special two action ability, which kind of summons a mount for that action, thus allowing me to use the lance in its jousting configuration for that specific action?

Being able to ALWAYS use it with just one hand would maybe make the weapon too good - d8, reach, deadly, decent crit effect. But on the other hand, if I can ONLY use it in one hand while mounted or using that special ability (once per hour, unfortunately), it wouldn't really make any sense to use it one handed in the first place (unless mounted of course). Having a weapon that you effectively can only use once per hour sounds like a bad idea.

I played this yesterday and am currently prepping this adventure. Some things came up during the discussion with the GM yesterday, and my own research in the adventure couldn't find any solutions, so here we go:

- The adventure mentions that the time the group takes to find Deskaris Gullet would influence the final part - the premium module even has a token to track the number of days. Yet the rest of the adventure doesn't mention it at all. Something seems to have gotten lost here!

- The fact that the treasure bundles are linked to more or less random spots on the hexploration map is BAD! By visiting two marked spots and fullfilling the challenges there, we had a pretty good idea where the Gullet was. So if we didn't stray from that very reasonable path, we would have lost not only 1 TB but FOUR! I remember a post saying that 8 TB is the expected result, with 10 meaning you did exceptionally well - reality aside that in most cases, 10 is the expected amount unless you screw up: In this case you get LESS TB for being fast / doing well!

- The effects of the ritual: During combat in G2, the ritual does damage every other turn. What happens AFTER that encounter?
If the damage doesn't stop: The adventure becomes MUCH more deadly since there is no way to heal up and even reaching the final chamber might take enough time to down characters. At the very least, the group will start the final combat on rather low health if the damage continues.
If the damage stops: Why does the end of the encounter change the effects of the ritual? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense!

- The final chase has two issues:
1. Are the automatic chase points from the leopards in addition to a roll or do they substitute a roll?
2. What happens if the chase is lost? Nothing? Some irrelevant damage? TPK? - Winning the chase isn't listed in any success conditions, either

I really like the premium modules for FoundryVTT. They make the life of GMs so much easier. One thing I would like to have, though - especially for the modules for Pathfinder Society Scenarios and the included scaling macro, would be to have that macro use default token settings and especially the PF2e Workbench NPC mystification settings!

Different tables have different views on how tokens should be configured, so I am not asking for my preferences to be used as the default, but for a way to accomodate everyone by utilizing the options already in place for the system.

In the Default Token Settings you can set the visibility of a tokens name on the map, visibility of HP bars, append a random number oder prepend a random word. Very nice options that I would love to use. And with a modules like Token Mold I can kind of do that already. But it would be nice not to have to use yet another module. Token Mold also uses its own settings instead of the default.

For NPC mystification I haven't found a viable way to use it with the Premium Modules yet. It is such a cool feature. Replace creature names with size and type, and reveal the actual name once the creature has been identified.
Unlike Token Molds settings, though, the scaling macro completely ignores NPC mystification - even if it is set to "always".

Does anyone have an idea how I can force the mysticifaction to be used by the scaling macros?

Hello everyone,

After I received an email telling me about the remastering of G&G, I am a bit confused about what that actually means:

1. Is there a list of changes somewhere? I was hoping the FAQ and Errata page would have those, but it doesn't.

2. The new rules are probably considered as Erata for the old ones? The Official FAQ and Errata site doesn't have it listed yet. So does that mean those rules are not in effect right now? Or are we in some kind of in-between phase where both versions are viable?

3. Since the PDF only dropped now, it is too late to use the free remaster rebuild for characters. Can I replace features that were significantly changed without purchasing a rebuilt for a character? Or do I have to use retraining?

I am pretty sure that it shouldn't work, but can't really find a rule to prevent it, so I am looking for other opinions / guidance here:

Can one weapon represent multiple Ikons of an Exemplar? For example can a Shortbow be both an "Unfailing Bow" and a "Starshot"?

Of course when shifting Immanence, you have to select which of those is currently active and wouldn't be able to activate both effects at once, but you could use it to gain more flexibility. Starshot's abilites are only usefull if you have multiple enemies / a swarm, while Unfailing Bow is better against a single enemy (and doesn't hurt your friends with that pesky splash damage, either).

I am just prepping the scenario and while reading the gauntlet entries, I am a bit surprised that the actual classes of characters make a difference for some of them. I don't think that has ever happened before and I really hope that it will not happen often (or at all) after this. There are just too many classes to really do something like this fairly.

I have a rules question to that section, too: Does a multiclass archetype suffice to be considered a bard, rogue or whatever?

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!

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.

If I drop a weapon attached to a weapon harness, can I use Quick Draw to get it into my hand and attack again?

The weapon harness states: If the weapon would be knocked from your grasp or you would drop it, the weapon dangles from the bracer by its harness rather than falling to the ground. You can regain control of the weapon in the normal time it takes you to draw it.

Unfortunately the description only talks about the time it takes, not the specific action. Looking into Quick Draw, it just mentions that you interact to draw. Looking further into Interact, under Draw we find:

Draw, put away, or swap an item. You must be [...] wearing it to draw it.

Is that requirement still fullfilled with Weapon Harness? Am I wearing that weapon? Or is the action to regain control a special kind of action or maybe the "change your grip" option of Interact?

I wish the item would just say "same kind of action" instead of "normal time".

Relevant rules:

Quick Draw
Weapon Harness
Interact

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 :(

The first encounter in Shards of Glass scales up the area damage from 1d4 to 2d6 fpr 5 players. Since there are two of those exploding plants, that increases the area damage (which will most likely hit everyone with its insane radius of 60 feet) from 2d4 to 4d6. How is that OK for a level 1 adventure? A high roll on damage will take out multiple characters at once. The rest will scramble to save them, letting the single true enemy live long enough to to his display again, for another burst of 4d6 - very high TPK potential!

Also: The amount of Survey Points needed has no scaling at all. Which feels weird since more players equal more rolls. The same issue for Event 2. It has a success condition of 4 successes. That can easily be changed to "a number of ideas equal to the number of players", but the adventure as written has a fixed number there.

While we are talking about survey pointa: The description before Event 1 mentions that the amount of points achieved will be important for Event 2 - but Event 2 makes no mention of those points at all.

I am currently preparing to run this scenario. The first encounter seems to have two contradictory instructions:

However, their resolve is shaken, and Jamimpi will surrender if reduced to low enough health (see Creatures below). A critical success adds 10 to this HP threshold.

and

If any PC critically succeeded on the above Request or Coerce checks while trying to get them to stand down, Jamimpi surrenders when reduced to 20 Hit Points (30 for levels 11–12) [...]. Otherwise Jamimpi fights to the death, believing it is the only way to protect Csilla from herself.

Which one would be the correct one to use? I can't follow both instructions.

Later on, there is another contradiction, though a less severe one:

If the group obtains a number of these equal to the number of PCs, they trigger the Gug Guardians encounter

and

This combat is triggered by either accumulating 5 Observance Points, or[...]

Also, the Observance Points are called Oberservation Points just above the first of the two listed passages on page 10.

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?

Hello,

Unleash Psyche has the requirement "You're in an encounter" (among other things). But since it lasts 2 rounds am I correct to assume that it doesn't automatically end when the last enemy falls? That is especially important for the Emotional Acceptance subconcious mind, because that way you can spend the remaining Psyche turn healing your friends a bit.
If it automatically ends with the encounter, groups would need to keep one poor enemy alive but restrained or at least delay their turns to prolong the encounter, which just feels weird.

I am really not a big fan of Unleash Psyche only working in encounters! Especially for Gathered Lore. The ability to always assist with Occultism would be really cool - if it wasn't limited to encounters. When was the last time anyone assisted inside of an encounter?

Hello,

Unleash Psyche has the requirement "You're in an encounter" (among other things). But since it lasts 2 rounds am I correct to assume that it doesn't automatically end when the last enemy falls? That is especially important for the Emotional Acceptance subconcious mind, because that way you can spend the remaining Psyche turn healing your friends a bit.
If it automatically ends with the encounter, groups would need to keep one poor enemy alive but restrained or at least delay their turns to prolong the encounter, which just feels weird.

I am really not a big fan of Unleash Psyche only working in encounters! Especially for Gathered Lore. The ability to always assist with Occultism would be really cool - if it wasn't limited to encounters. When was the last time anyone assisted inside of an encounter?

Hello,

Until recently I always thought that you could not make melee strikes with thrown weapons listed as Ranged Weapons (Javelin, Dart, Chakram, etc.).
But then I built a Thaumaturge with a Chakram (AoO-like reaction with a thrown weapon was something interesting enough to try out) and Foundry VTT listed a melee attack with the Chakram. I was confused and thought it must be an error in the Foundry ruleset - but the GM of the table (an experienced Society GM, like myself) was adamant that ALL thrown weapons could be used to make melee attacks.

I am coming here in the hopes that someone can shed some light on the situation and quote a rule that proves either him or me wrong once and for all :)

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?

Hello Paizo Customer Service,

A few weeks back my wallet was stolen, which lead to me having to change all my credit card numbers. Unfortunately I had the wrong (old) one at hand when I changed them for Order 36704388 after being informed that the payment didn't go through (which is correct, that number has been disabled).
Now I cannot find a way to correct the information and use the new CC number that is already in my payment methods here. What can I do?

Hello there,

I am currently building a Sprite Fey Summoner for Strength of Thousands and have two rules questions:

1. Sprite and Fey Eidolon both give me Sylvan as a language. Am I out of luck here or can I select another language instead, like it is with skills most of the time?

2. The Eidolon gets 2 cantrips right away, which lead to me looking into Eidolon spellcasting a bit. The rules state that it uses my proficiency and spell attack rolls. But there is no mention about anything else. So it uses its own Charisma modifier for things like the damage on the Gale Blast Cantrip? That would be a pity. It seems like it was tailor made for something like a Fey Eidolon.

Hello Customer Service,

Unfortunately there seems to have been an issue with my credit card payment for order 36604479. I looked at the info after I got that message and there was no fault. I also tried to reinitiate the payment, but so far nothing happened.
I have used the very same credit card for a purchase I did later, so the info is obviously correct.

Can you please look into it? I am supposed to run one of those adventures on saturday...

I am prepping the scenario for the weekend and have found only minor things, though wanted to list them here for others:

1. The Anatomical Model in Subtier 1-2 has two different ACs listed for when the construct armor breaks. The statblock says 13, the construct armor description says 12.
Judging from the Elite version that appears on the same page, 13 should be the correct value (4 lower than the base value)

2. The Scholar of Sorts' Text Passage ability isn't really easy to understand / use:
They use one action to enter a text, which then teleports them to another text. Now they are inside that text, presumably without any chance for the players to know, which one it is. But then what? Do they wait for the PCs to enter the correct room and then spring from the book? The text also states that they can use this ability to gain a tactical advantage, but a passage before says they are "ignoring the nuances of tactical decision-making". So it won't ever use the ability in combat? Then why even have it listed? It is not like the players are likely to ever see it being used.

Hello Customer Service,

I finally wanted to place a larger order and redeem my gift certificates I received for GMing at PaizoCon, now that the APG is finally not a preorder anymore (which are excluded for the vouchers).
Unfortunately, the system doesn't recognize the two codes I have gotten. Neither when trying to enter them in step two of ordering (payment method), nor when I try to enter them directly under "My Gift Certificates".

What can I do to use those vouchers ASAP? I would especially like urgent access to the APG, since I will be GMing at GenCon this weekend and chances are that players might be using the new classes / ancestries, for which I am currently not prepared :(

Hello Customer Service,

I recently received my subscription order for PFS2 scenarios (Order #23384688) and was a bit surprised: Due to the current 25% discount on all PDFs, it would have been cheaper for me to cancel the subscription and buy the PDFs seperately.

Yes, it is less than 1 USD, but the money isn't really what I am complaining about. It is just that I think not using the current discount for PDF only subscription sends the wrong message to your loyal GMs, who are the only people who will probably have those subscriptions anyways.

Hello there,

The title already says pretty much everything about my question:

Picks have a crit spec effect that adds two damage per weapon damage die. Is that damage added before or after doubling the damage due to inflicting a crit?

On a related note: Does the additional die caused by the fatal property that all picks have count as a weapon damage die?

To give an example:

A light pick with a striking rune inflicts a critical hit. The normal 2d4 weapon damage dice become 2d8 due to fatal, are then doubles, and another d8 is added due to fatal as well. Disregarding other bonuses to damage, do we end up with:

A: 2*2d8+1d8+4 (only the original dice count, damage added after doubling)
B: 2*2d8+1d8+6 (the original dice and the fatal die count, damage added after dounling)
C: 2*2d8+1d8+8 (only the original dice count, damage added before doubling)
D: 2*2d8+1d8+10 (all dice count, damage addded before doubling)

Hello,

I received a confirmation that as part of my subscription, I purchased the two new PFS scenarios (1-16 and 1-17). And when I click on them in the store, it says "Note: You purchased this product today. View order."

Yet neither can I find them for download in my digital library, not are they listed as "in your downloads" on the product page itself.

How can I get access to the adventures?

I am a bit confused about two passages in the rulebook that seem to contradict each other:

The example for gaining multiple focus points on page 302 states:

"For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1."

But when I look at the Healing Touch feat at page 223, there is this caveat:

"If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by praying or serving your deity. (For more on devotion spells, see page 107.)"

In my mind those two seem to contradict each other. One says you only get a focus point IF YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE ONE, the other says you get a second point.

Which one is correct? And what about other powers that are worded in the same way?

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?

Hello everyone,

after reading the rulebook, I am not quite sure what equipment is available for purchase for newly generated characters. Only the equipment in chapter 6, or everything in the book that is common equipment, which would include potions, scrolls and elixirs?

Hello fellow Pathfinders,

Another question regarding the playtest:

Do scrolls use the attributes of the person casting the scroll or, like they did in PF1, the mininum attribute required for such a scroll? There is a maximum Spell Roll and DC listed for scrolls, but not one for attributes.