Thomas Keller's page

Is this any different from the three books already out?

Making books for a system that they haven't made new material for in three years?

I don't know about unprofitable, but 1e still seems to be fairly popular.

Hey all! The Accessory Perks page has an update in the queue, I've send the text over to the content team. I expect it'll be updated soon, and I'll be sure to post on our Twitter and in the monthly Organized Play update when it is!

Thanks, Alex!

It's unpopular and unprofitable.

What is?

Above Post wrote:

Wearing a pin or any Organized Play accessory during an in-person or online Paizo Organized Play session gives you an in-game bonus. You can view the full details at the Organized Play Perks page. We hope your new pin brings you luck, but if you’re playing a tabletop roleplaying game among friends, then you’re already a winner as far as we’re concerned.

It's up there, 4th paragraph

Where? If you follow the link to the Organized Play Perks page, it only lists the older factions.

Do the current factions have favored skills?

Thomas Keller wrote:

I don't think a lot of 5e players care about rule design!

I don’t think that’s appropriate for the forums here.

It's completely appropriate if that's being argued as a reason to convert APs.

Looking forward to bringing the good new of PF2e to 5e players. Superior adventure writing in a familiar system to pique their curiosity and get them to consider another system--then the superior rule design keeps them hooked!

:)

I don't think a lot of 5e players care about rule design!

And so it begins...

It is when you've been corrected multiple times and keep perpetuating it.

Well, I guess two is a multiple. Regardless, as I said I'd forgotten about that conversation from a year ago. I was wrong in what I said then, but please don't ascribe malice to a faulty memory.

Thomas Keller wrote:

Didn't think he was into second edition at all.

No, you've known; multiple users have informed you of the fact, such as in this post from May 2021, in addition to your own admittals that your understanding is obsolete. Here's just one of his blog posts that dive into things he loves about 2e:

Ryan Costello wrote:

The action economy, obviously, but it really needs to be considered how good that is. There’s a reason 2e works better than 1e with three actions house ruled in. This is the foundation on which a great game was built. It makes thinking about your turn much easier, because you aren’t juggling as much between the concept of what you want to do and the mechanics of making it happen. [...]

Confining characters to three actions at all levels also helps with higher level play. As a fan of martial characters, 1e made any turn that I couldn’t stand still and full attack feel like a punishment. The higher the level, the more you lost not squatting. Being able to move and still attack twice, or more twice as far and still get an attack, adds dynamism and complexity to a martial’s turn.
Moreover, I like 2e spellcasters. The oracle specifically is a class I’ve played in both editions, and while I struggled with the experience in 1e, I love it in 2e. Similarly, the 1e paladin was never a class I paid much attention to, but as you’ll see in the new KD Adventure Series – Trouble In Otari Part 1, the champion’s focus spells give the class a lot of flavourful flexibility. There’s no combat in episode 1, but in later episodes you’ll see me mix up casting and fighting in such a satisfying way.

Now please stop harassing this man with false claims.

I don't really think it's harrassing to forget a post from a year ago.

Didn't think he was into second edition at all.

Wait, is this the Ryan Costello from Know Direction?

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

People are telling me you can't do that. That it's gamebreaking to allow that high of an AC.

+2 item bonus, +3 Dex bonus, plus runes is the same as wearing studded leather. How can that be too high?

It's not. I meant Scales plus runes plus mage armor plus bracers of armor.

No, you can't do that. Item bonuses don't stack unless they specifically say that they do. You can't stack Runes on your explorer's clothes, runes from your bracers, and mage armor.

The new feat says they're cumulative. I don't think Bracers have runes.

Item bonuses only stack if they have text that specifically states that they do. The feat specifies that the item bonus from Scales is cumulative with those other three options. It doesn't say that those three options are cumulative with each other.

I always thought cumulative meant added together. If they only meant you could add one of those, they should have wrote "or" instead of "and".

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

People are telling me you can't do that. That it's gamebreaking to allow that high of an AC.

+2 item bonus, +3 Dex bonus, plus runes is the same as wearing studded leather. How can that be too high?

It's not. I meant Scales plus runes plus mage armor plus bracers of armor.

No, you can't do that. Item bonuses don't stack unless they specifically say that they do. You can't stack Runes on your explorer's clothes, runes from your bracers, and mage armor.

The new feat says they're cumulative. I don't think Bracers have runes.

Thomas Keller wrote:

People are telling me you can't do that. That it's gamebreaking to allow that high of an AC.

That it actually means you can only add the Scales item bonus to one of the listed items.

You can add the +2 item bonus from scales with the highest of the following:

- Potency runes on explorer's clothes
- Mage armor
- Bracers of armor

It says the item bonus from Scales is cumulative with all of those.

Thomas Keller wrote:

People are telling me you can't do that. That it's gamebreaking to allow that high of an AC.

+2 item bonus, +3 Dex bonus, plus runes is the same as wearing studded leather. How can that be too high?

It's not. I meant Scales plus runes plus mage armor plus bracers of armor.

People are telling me you can't do that. That it's gamebreaking to allow that high of an AC.

That it actually means you can only add the Scales item bonus to one of the listed items.

The way it reads, you should be able to add the item bonuses from armor potency runes, mage armor, and bracers of armor with the Scales bonus.

I'm kind of wary about upgrading my weapon when my character reaches 10th level because of this. And if he has to craft it himself, there's just no way. Paying full price from low to standard grade isn't too hateful, but from standard to high grade would definitely hurt.

How is this done in Society play? Do we just pay the difference in cost from, say, low-grade to standard-grade? Or must we craft the weapon ourselves?

For example, a cold iron weapon of one bulk costs 44gp for the low grade version and 968 gp for the standard grade version. Do we just pay 924 gp and get the standard grade version? I've also heard someone say we must craft it ourselves.

Thomas Keller wrote:

Are these real books or the PDF variety?

A PDF doesn't make the book any less real.

No, but it would make it inaccessible for the person I would get it for.

Thomas Keller wrote:

Are these real books or the PDF variety?

The ad copy specifies they are official digital copies, exactly as real as a physical one.

Some people's eyes don't enjoy the PDFs, and everyone doesn't have tablet readers.

Are these real books or the PDF variety?

I'm sorry but the whole respiratory issue is a complete and utterly nonsensical excuse. You'd have to be in such a horrendously bad state that you'd couldn't even attend the convention in normally let alone live a normal life. Same goes for sensory issues.

Grumble.... Grumble....

Sensory issues?

Thomas Keller wrote:

Just to be completely clear, this includes Uncommon spells you get access to through a chronicle boon, correct?

i.e. scrolls

That's what Online Guide Team Lead - JTT was explaining up thread.

Once you gain Access to something Uncommon, you treat it as Common for all purposes.

Including a scroll of an otherwise-Uncommon spell found on a Chronicle.

So then this is incorrect, Hammerjack?

A small price to pay for protecting yourself and others.

Thomas Keller wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

From the FAQ: "Having access to an uncommon or rarer spell means that your character(s) can learn the spell in the same way they learn other spells, provided they meet all prerequisites."

So if your Class requires you to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, like a Wizard or Magus, then you would still need to pay gold and succeed at your check.

If your Class doesn't require you to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, like most Spontaneous casters, then you just go about adding it to your repertoire as usual (which might require Retraining, or simply levelling up and swapping something out).

I applied my Esoteric Spellcaster Boon to a Cleric, which doesn't need to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, so I just started preparing it immediately.

Just to be completely clear, this includes Uncommon spells you get access to through a chronicle boon, correct?

i.e. scrolls

That's what Online Guide Team Lead - JTT was explaining up thread.

Once you gain Access to something Uncommon, you treat it as Common for all purposes.

Including a scroll of an otherwise-Uncommon spell found on a Chronicle.

Okay. We were having a discussion on the OP discord, and folks seemed to think that spontaneous casters had to use Learn a Spell for Uncommon scrolls granted by a chronicle boon. Thanks for the help!

Blake's Tiger wrote:

A spell in your repertoire is clearly not a Skill Training or Feat.

I believe FLite was attributing it to a "selectable class feature," which it certainly is, when he proposed 28 days.

PFS might want to decide how long they want retraining a spell in a spell repertoire to take (7, 28, something in between). 28 days of Downtime is 1.3 levels worth of advancement, which means you can swap out a spell sooner than you can retrain it in PFS, assuming that you only want to swap one at your next level-up.

From the Errata, which does not seem to have made it into the second printing

Page 481: Retraining. It wasn't clear how long it took to retrain spells in a spell repertoire, but it should take just 1 week. Add ". Some, like changing a spell in your spell repertoire, take a week." to retraining class features.

Thank you so much!

From the FAQ: "Having access to an uncommon or rarer spell means that your character(s) can learn the spell in the same way they learn other spells, provided they meet all prerequisites."

So if your Class requires you to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, like a Wizard or Magus, then you would still need to pay gold and succeed at your check.

If your Class doesn't require you to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, like most Spontaneous casters, then you just go about adding it to your repertoire as usual (which might require Retraining, or simply levelling up and swapping something out).

I applied my Esoteric Spellcaster Boon to a Cleric, which doesn't need to use Learn a Spell for Common spells, so I just started preparing it immediately.

Just to be completely clear, this includes Uncommon spells you get access to through a chronicle boon, correct?

i.e. scrolls

Thomas Keller wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

We have an answer.

According to the FAQ, you must have Access before you can use Learn a Spell.

Under the Core Rules, Learn a Spell gives you Access. PFS has reversed that order, for whatever reason.

If you have Access to a spell via a Chronicle, all you have to do is Learn a Spell.

So you do have to Learn a Spell with a chronicle. What about an ACP boon?

Also, is there clarity somewhere on the amount of downtime needed to swap a spell if you have a spell repertoire?

Learning a spell takes almost no functional time; it's an exploration activity and not a downtime activity.

Retraining is generally the same as in the core rulebook. So it's 7 days to retrain a spell in your repertoire.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

Retraining: Using Downtime to retrain character options(Core Rulebook 481) works as written with a few clarifications.

Some items are changeable for free, such as name, gender, appearance, or other cosmetic designators.
Pathfinder training may be changed and costs 14 days.
Changing a selectable class feature, takes 28 days.

Yes, but Learn a Spell costs gold and requires a roll. So it would be good to know if you need to do that for ACP boons like Esoteric Spellcasting.

Also, we really need a clarification on the downtime cost to swap a spell.

We have an answer.

According to the FAQ, you must have Access before you can use Learn a Spell.

Under the Core Rules, Learn a Spell gives you Access. PFS has reversed that order, for whatever reason.

If you have Access to a spell via a Chronicle, all you have to do is Learn a Spell.

So you do have to Learn a Spell with a chronicle. What about an ACP boon?

Also, is there clarity somewhere on the amount of downtime needed to swap a spell if you have a spell repertoire?

So, Uncommon spells can be swapped out just like common spells once you gain access? If you are granted access to an Uncommon scroll via chronicle, do you have to use Learn a Spell to be able to add it to repertoire? Also, where did you come up with the 7 day figure for downtime to swap a spell?

Thanks in advance.

This is just another reminder to myself that there is no point in going on the forums.

I will just reference a Mark Twain quote and call it good.

Have a nice day.

No need to be angry. Looks like you got an answer from Mr. Morgantini.

EXTREMELY NOT HAPPY.

Why?

Everyone going, please be safe.

Yes! Looks like there will still be a large online component!

Best of luck, Mark. I'm sure you'll continue to do great things at Roll for Combat, but we'll miss you being on the Paizo team!

Thomas Keller wrote:

Personally, as a painfully shy person, I'm loving the virtual cons.

I agree with everything Steel_Wind said. That said, I want you and anyone else to know there is definitely space at live PaizoCon for very shy folks. Lots of quiet nooks and crannies, lots of small groups. Not just the giant convention hall (which is really just tons of small groups, but it's different, I know). The slow and quiet interactions with other games just as dedicated yourself is the best thing about PaizoCon.

Thanks for the reply. Usually I have to know a new person for about a month before I say more to them than "Hi". To be able to open up and roleplay, we're talking, at bare minimum, half a year. Not really feasible for a weekend convention. Online, I can usually fake being comfortable, as I'm not actually seeing faces or in the same room.

Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove if you have a potency rune on a weapon?

Personally, as a painfully shy person, I'm loving the virtual cons.

Well, I've asked this question in various places and the answers seem split about 50/50. Time for some clarification, Paizo!

Thomas Keller wrote:

nephandys wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Rules discussion about how many actions it takes to throw a shield aside, I really like this item. Sword and board builds were often really limited in athletics use or weapon options but this really opens it up by letting you shove and trip with your shield hand if you don't want a buckler.

I think it's one of the best things in the book along with the scaling wooden shield for Druids. The Champion player in our game definitely loves the addition.

I agree, provided it works with doubling rings to provide item bonuses for Athletics maneuvers.

RAW it does not work because Shield augmentation adds traits to the Shield bash attack rather than being an attached weapon itself.

And the Shield bash attack is a maneuver. It is not a weapon nor does it make your Shield one.

Since Doubling Rings require weapons, they do not work here. Whereas they work with attached weapons.

Where does it say the traits are added to the Shield Bash attack?

Thomas Keller wrote:

nephandys wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Rules discussion about how many actions it takes to throw a shield aside, I really like this item. Sword and board builds were often really limited in athletics use or weapon options but this really opens it up by letting you shove and trip with your shield hand if you don't want a buckler.

I think it's one of the best things in the book along with the scaling wooden shield for Druids. The Champion player in our game definitely loves the addition.

I agree, provided it works with doubling rings to provide item bonuses for Athletics maneuvers.

I don't think that's necessary because prior to this equipment Athletics maneuvers weren't an option for a 1-H weapon and non-buckler shield user at all. You can use other items to get a bonus to Athletics. Lifting Belt, Armbands of Athleticism, etc.

Yes, but the bonus from doubling rings would scale as your weapon potency runes increase in value.

Ganigumo wrote:

Rules discussion about how many actions it takes to throw a shield aside, I really like this item. Sword and board builds were often really limited in athletics use or weapon options but this really opens it up by letting you shove and trip with your shield hand if you don't want a buckler.

I think it's one of the best things in the book along with the scaling wooden shield for Druids. The Champion player in our game definitely loves the addition.

I agree, provided it works with doubling rings to provide item bonuses for Athletics maneuvers.

Thomas Keller wrote:

A 7-10 scenario?! Time to bring my level 9 barbarian back from sabbatical!

Assuming they survive the very first level 9–12 scenario for PFS in 2nd Edition, which is coming out in May!

(It's not on the list above because it's not a metaplot scenario.)

Hoody Hoo! Hope it's a repeatable!

Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove if you have a potency rune on a weapon?

A 7-10 scenario?! Time to bring my level 9 barbarian back from sabbatical!

How It's Played has a video where he says he got clarification from Paizo that only non damage critical effects take place.
How It's Played

I've also seen other places where developers say the opposite.