Weirdo's page

I have extended range for all elements by now.

I often play melee characters, and would like to try something more ranged focused this time. Plus my strength is bad, so I'd need Weapon Finesse to get a credible to-hit, and there are things I'd rather do with my feats.

Currently looking at taking:

Aether - telekinetic boomerang (lets me throw an empowered pushing blast that I can reuse if I miss, which seems better than trip with 2 burn and my CMB)

Air - Gusting? Might have utility?

Earth - Entangling

Fire - Fan of flames still seems decent, though this might be the one element that wants Draining.

Water - Quenching? Dispel fire magic for potentially no burn with gather power/infusion specialization isn't useless.

Wood - Entangling

I'm making a terrakineticist and noticing that the non-melee level 2 infusion choices are pretty uninspiring for most elements.

The non-melee universal level 2 infusions seem pretty bad. Spindle hits only two squares - Ref negates, and half damage for the physical blast. Focused Blast is really expensive for what it does.

Penetrating infusion (for the energy blast) also seems terribly expensive. 2 burn to ignore 5 points of cold resist?

Air and fire don't have any level 2 infusions aside from Penetrating.

Water gets access to two talents that are each OK, but that they can't actually use until level 7. Entangling infusion doesn't work with cold or water blasts, just ice, so they can take it at 5 but can't use it until level 7. And the slick infusion only works with area effect blasts, which the hydrokineticist doesn't get access to at levels 1 or 3. So if they take Slick infusion at level 5, they can't use it until at least level 7, when they qualify for Impale or Torrent.

Aether and wood each get exactly one level 2 infusion they can actually use: Bowling (trip) and Entangling, respectively. Earth is the winner at this level with access to either.

You could pick another first-level infusion but you've presumably already taken the best two for your element, so the third pick is likely uninspiring.

What are people doing with 5th level aero-, pyro-, and hydro-kineticists if you're not interested in melee?

So, based on this old Kickstarter, that's a system that is conceptually similar to automatic bonus progression, but with thematic packages of bonus progression instead of a one size fits all approach?

That's neat, but the page I was looking for had a more flexible approach. It was somewhat similar to just buying magic items, except that the characters don't actually accumulate wealth.

No luck, I take it?

Hi everyone,

A while ago I came across some homebrew rules about characters donating/destroying wealth to gain magic bonuses that didn't take the form of items. Bookmarked this page:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?vhnnvzxuwxhaa87

...which is now gone. Wayback machine doesn't have it archived. By any chance did someone save these rules?

That would make character building a little more straightforward because the talent selections would be independent of each other.

On the other hand, it seems a bit odd that a terrakinecist could lose a universal talent when moving between terrains, if they didn't pick the universal talent for all elements.

Funny, cause last I checked, Patron Familiar is NOT a Familiar archetype. Thus no stacking occurs. Thus it does in fact work.

That's why I'm saying that Patron Familiar would work with an Improved Familiar (assuming the familiar had an animal type to speak with), but Patron Familiar wouldn't allow you to stack Improved Familiar with an archetype that modified Speak with Animals of Kind.

Patron familiar isn't an archetype and works whether or not you have Speak with Animals of Kind. That's why it says "If it would normally gain this ability at 7th level..."

But Patron Familiar doesn't undo the fact that Improved Familiar is treated like an archetype that removes Speak with Animals of Kind.

Note opening of OP:

There's a few posts that indicate a belief that the use of the 'patron familiar' option from the familiar folio in conjunction with the 'improved familiar' feat would circumvent the loss of the ability to "Speak with animals of its kind" that is necessary for most familiar archetypes.

My read is that the Animal Speaker ability would grant the Improved Familiar the ability to speak with animals of its kind (if it is a kind of animal) at 1st level, since this happens even if the familiar wouldn't get the ability at 7th level. This wouldn't enable the Improved Familiar to take a familiar archetype that requires the Speak With Animals familiar ability - and you don't get the 7th level upgrade to speak with all animals since the familiar wouldn't normally get Speak With Animals.

Improved Familiar removes Speak with Animals, Animal Speaker gives you a new instance. Animal Speaker doesn't alter the original instance, but it doesn't undo the fact that Improved Familiar removed that instance.

(As a GM I might allow the archetype on a case by case basis if I felt it wasn't overpowered, but certainly no pairing Protector with anything that has regeneration...)

Wanting to check my interpretation here.

Whenever a terrakineticist gains a wild talent that isn’t a universal talent, she chooses one wild talent of the appropriate level from each of the six elements (aether, air, fire, earth, water, and wood). She can use wild talents of the same element that she chose in this way to meet prerequisites for these wild talents. Instead of gaining one kineticist blast, a terrakineticist chooses one simple blast from each element that has more than one simple blast.

Reading 1: If at any level I choose to gain a universal wild talent, I then don't pick different talents for each element. So at level 1, I can pick a universal infusion such as kinetic blade, OR I can pick one non-universal talent for each element (for example, pushing for aether/air/earth/water/wood and burning for fire), but I can't take kinetic blade for earth, burning for fire, and extended range for all other elements.

Reading 2: Any time I gain a talent that isn't specifically required to be a universal talent, I can pick a different talent for each element. In this case, could take both burning (for fire) and kinetic blade (other elements) at level 1, but since for example the 7th level talent is specifically universal for a terrakineticist I pick only the one talent at that level.

But since no one ever actually *sees* this extraplanar mother figure, there's no guarantee she's not just insane, and projecting her insanity in the form of the familiar. Now, since it can't store spells, this raises a whole new list of questions. Namely, where is she getting her magic from, if the thing she's playing fetch with and tying little bows on is just a figment of her imagination?

There's a lot of room to develop that kind of opportunity, so I think that's where we'll take it. Thanks again for the suggestion!

Are you looking for further suggestions for where she's mechanically getting the spells from, or is that a plot hook you and the GM are setting up as part of character development?

Not all GMs enjoy using the witch's familiar a liability, and if you don't abuse the fact that the figment is indestructable (ie don't send it into risky situations) being lenient about the mechanics in favor of story is just fine.

Especially since if the GM wants they can cause story complications for your character with this setup. :)

Thanks a bunch for the detailed suggestions - I've needed to take a bit of time to digest.

I'm not worried about my players turning a skill encounter into a combat. My group tends towards a low-combat playstyle, and will usually try talking to things that look like they are remotely willing to talk before rolling initiative (and sometimes after - I've had them talk two opponents into surrendering in the adventure so far). I'm worried that the upcoming scenario is going to feel too combat-heavy to them compared to our usual play, so I'm trying to find encounters that are intended to have solutions other than "fight." If they do decide to fight anyway... not the end of the world, though I might cut sessions a bit short if the amount of combat is starting to wear on me.

As per the specific suggestions, I like the idea of having collapsing ruins reveal things about the environment such as hidden rooms, and the block-moving challenge sounds interesting if I can figure out how to set it up (I might lift a setup from Undertale...)

I love the idea of using Desna-themed demiplanes to mix up the environment without actually leaving the site. This could potentially be paired with ghosts or other reflections of the place's history that the group would find informative.

Having elements related to song may be neat depending on group composition, and having poetic riddles will be fun regardless.

The setup of reassembling the Desnan traveller sounds really neat, though I'm not sure I want to expand the module quite that much (I'm running a module to minimize my prep work). If I don't use that now though, I'll probably pull it out for a future quest!

The ritual has already begun and the forces defiling the temple wield massive amounts of demonic energy that physically repel the PCs; entering other sub-levels of the ruins however to unlock reserves of Desnan power can have one of 2 different effects, based on you, the GM: either the PCs unlock these vaults that weaken the barriers enough for the PCs to smash through them, or Desnan Travel magic flings them beyond the barriers so they can continue their progress through the main module areas

To clarify: the party is protecting a good-aligned ritual on the site from demons that are trying to disrupt it. The ritual energy could absolutely still unlock various things about the site and its history that could interest and challenge the PCs.

Yeah, the fixed site is a big part of the challenge here.

I was thinking I might disrupt the environment halfway through in some way which would give a mini-exploration activity. Maybe the ruins could cave in revealing a new room, or the ritual could have a magical effect on the environment that could be interacted with.

Demon in disguise is a good idea - even if it doesn't end in a chase having an extra social encounter will make my group happy.

I'm running a published scenario that has a section which feels a bit like a combat slog. I'd like to add some noncombat content but am not sure how to do so within the constraints of the scenario. The PCs are in the Worldwound, trying to prevent demons from dusrupting a ritual taking place under a ruined church of Desna. I'm thinking I could add some ghosts or other supernatural entities for them to talk to but am looking for ideas for skill based challenges, puzzles, or exploration elements to add. Not sure of player builds yet, though one is a paladin.

(This is in the pathfinder playtest, but I thought folks in the general forums could provide some good ideas, and I'm not worried about messing with the playtest now that the surveys are closed.)

I agree that paladin isn't the only way to do this character; there's nothing wrong with playing a LG barbarian or alchemist/Master Chymist who acts like a paladin. I'm currently playing a bloodrager with a page-long code of conduct.

Unlike some other posters I don't think you couldn't do it as a paladin. You'd just need to make sure your GM is on board with the concept - and to be safe I'd check with all the other players at the table. It would probably go over just fine at most of the tables I've personally played at.

There are several archetypes, a Prestige Class, and an entire base class themed around this concept, and they're all terrible.

Which base class? The standard vigilante isn't supposed to have their identities alignments more than a step apart, which isn't the same thing as "opposing their moral conduct." And I don't think the vigilante is terrible, either.

Any clarification?

Confusing may have been the wrong word - perhaps he used the term "complicated." I believe the root of the complaint was that before casting two spells, you would have to check the specific components involved (which normally isn't important unless you're restrained or silenced), and if you wanted to prepare a single-action spell you would be advised to consider which of your other spells it could be cast alongside based on their components. This made decision-making unnecessarily complicated.

Glad to hear that this isn't the case, thanks.

One of my players told me he found spellcasting too confusing because you weren't allowed to use the same spellcasting action (eg somatic, verbal) twice in a turn and had to keep track. I don't remember this rule and can't find it - neither can he.

Pretty sure he misinterpreted something, but if it does exist I'd like to know.

The write-up for Mabar suggests the PCs can give him a weapon. Should I assume he is Trained in all simple and martial weapons, or only the scimitar and shortbow (the weapons included in the bestiary entry)?

I think you could add extra limitations to Natural Spell to make it balanced. For example, you might have to pick a specific number of spells to be able to cast in wild shape (eg you could Heal while wildshaped, but not act as a fully functional caster). It could also be a metamagic effect, requiring extra actions and leaving you unable to use other metamagic at the same time.

Weirdo wrote:

Thanks for weighing in! Request on format of any future update documents if you're still here.

Could we have some version of the document that separates updates by date? I've been adding annotations to my pdf and I expect it will become increasingly time consuming to go through the list checking which ones are actually new and which are from a previous set of updates.

I started doing the same thing with 1.2. They do have the grey background for new updates, but they don't include them in the big updates in the front of the document for some reason. It does make it a bit confusing. Especially the death and dying section in 1.3, where I think it mostly stays the same, but the Wounded condition is new, but doesn't have the grey background.

It would be nice if Paizo could provide an annotated (or even better, fully updated) PDF so that we don't have to all do it ourselves. It's getting more and more complicated with each update.

My 1.2 document didn't have the grey, but I see it in 1.3 - great!

A corrected pdf to download would be fantastic, but I still appreciate having my attention drawn to the new material.

It does take a fair amount of time to add changes, and it's making it harder to use the hardcover rulebook one of my players bought as an actual reference.

The clean answer is to use the same one so you can report that one. The best answer, if feasible, is to update and then report the one that was most impactful (if you can figure that out). For example, if you just ran a few easy intro fights in the older update but then all the impactful fights where the characters actually went to 0 were under the new update with a different death and dying, the new one would make most sense. If you do a partial split and can't really decide, you could also potentially report that you used an update but didn't know which one.

Thanks for weighing in! Request on format of any future update documents if you're still here.

Could we have some version of the document that separates updates by date? I've been adding annotations to my pdf and I expect it will become increasingly time consuming to go through the list checking which ones are actually new and which are from a previous set of updates.

Well that's DEFINITELY going in our playtest feedback.

We wanted so badly to love these. It wasn't until he saw the bulk of the Snare Kit that the player gave up.

Had a ranger really want to make snares but gave up on the concept after realizing:

- Snares are fairly expensive for their effects, given that they already require a skill feat to make and 1 minute to set up before use (at 10gp, a 4th level snare is 1/3 the liquid assets of a 4th level character, and even a 1st level snare is as expensive as a minor healing potion)

- Snares incentivize investing in Crafting skill increases, but if you want a discount from crafting you have to spend days of downtime making them.

- A Snare Kit is required to set up snares, and is 8 bulk, possibly more than the rest of a character's gear combined.

Is this all correct? Has anyone found snares to actually be worth it?

Might bias the playtest if your data collection excludes slower groups. Frequency of games and length of games could correlate with things like older demographics, and slower progress through encounters could correlate with playstyle differences like more cautious play or a more completionist outlook. Both of those things could result in very different playstyle experiences.

I mean, if there's a set timeline there's not much to fix about it now, but it does make me feel like some of what was said about still valuing feedback from groups that are running behind the schedule isn't accurate in practice.

We'll be keeping those surveys open until the end of the year, and the results will be checked regularly as we continue to analyze the data.

Wait, only until the end of the year? Between meeting only roughly every other week and taking longer to go through chapters, my group is just about to start In Pale Mountain's Shadow. At that rate we'll be lucky to finish Chapter 3 before the surveys close. :(

These do seem like they could use some fine-tuning.

Yes, I've been assuming that NPCs don't act as though enemies can take AoO unless (1) they see them take an AoO or (2) they crit succeed a knowledge check - which most NPCs won't try unless they are trained and have no other meaningful actions. (Having them act as if an opponent can AoO when there is no cost is a good idea, though.)

We have already had one spellcaster lose a spell as a result of a surprise AoO.

Are surveys linked to a Paizo account? They're not hosted on Paizo and don't ask for a Paizo ID (again, not all my players have one).

If they're getting IP addresses there's a chance people will fill out the surveys from different locations, or have a dynamic IP address shift during the playtest.

As a third issue, having to find and open a separate survey adds friction for players who are not already motivated to provide detailed feedback but who might do so if the questions are at the end of a survey they are already filling out.

Is there a benefit fo having the Open Survey separate from the GM and Player surveys?

Uh... have you tried the Open Response Survey?

Thanks, I didn't realize that's what that was for.

However, it only solves my issue 1 (having a place to give free-form feedback that isn't the forums), not issue 2 (separating the more freeform feedback from the structured feedback might make it more difficult to identify reasons for outlier responses, if Paizo is inclined to go through surveys in that depth).

It's not mandatory that everyone take a campaign background though.

I have someone with the hunter background and there is no problem.

This is true for most campaigns, but it is mandatory for the playtest.

BACKGROUNDS

Each player must choose a background from those listed on page 3 of this adventure; these backgrounds are designed not only to tie the primary characters to NPCs and themes found in “The Lost Star,” but to focus their strengths in specific areas of use for “The Lost Star,” “The Mirrored Moon,” and “When the Stars Go Dark.”

Also, even if it's not mandatory, it's often nice to be able to tie your character into a campaign, so considering whether a list of backgrounds is biased for particular types of characters (eg scholars) is at least worth being aware of so you don't do it by accident.

EDIT: Incidentally, the Osirionologist wizard will not be continuing the playtest so we're now down to a party of 6 with 4 sharing the same 2 backgrounds.

Yup, those would be great. A trinket that adds elemental damage to a single attack would also be neat. I would normally homebrew one or both, but I'm trying to playtest as-written.

Thanks - I'm running this next so will read this once I have a look at the adventure as written.

I had different players rotate through this one session to session.

Overall comments:

• The barbarian and monk felt like they wanted more interesting actions to take, though the more accessible combat maneuver rules helped somewhat once we gave those a second look between sessions.
  
• Third actions seemed to matter more for characters that had more options, such as spellcasters or Drakus. Mooks with just attacks tended to end up spending these on mostly pointless third attacks.
  
• Identifying magic items is hard.
  
• Monk seemed a little weak in general compared to the barbarian.
  
• Alchemist also seems a little underwhelming. He did fairly well in most of the encounters but never really shone mechanically compared to other classes. In particular:
  
• Thievery is really difficult, at least at level one! The alchemist had 16 Dex and was trained in Thievery for a +4. The easiest lock required three successes at DC 15 (which the alchemist eventually made) and the other two required three successes at DC 20 and 22. Add high "break DCs" and the biggest frustration in this dungeon crawl was possibly opening the locks.
  
• Healing without a cleric is difficult, thanks largely to resonance limits and the fact that non-alchemists have to spend resonance to use an alchemist's stuff.
  

Session 1: Goblin alchemist, half-elf barbarian (wild), elven cleric (Erastil)

A1 (Sewer Ooze): Opened with the special attack to no effect, did a little damage, and died entertainingly.

A2 (goblins): 3 goblins for 3 players. I had these guys alerted to the players by the noise from the ooze, so there was a brief taunting match through the hall followed by the goblins charging through the passage into A1. The barbarian was heavily injured due to crits and the alchemist somewhat injured, but the barbarian tore through them pretty quickly with some help from alchemist.

A5 (Mind Fungus): barbarian tripped this one and crit failed vs the spores. The party retreated.

A3 (centipedes): I used 4 half-elite centipedes for 3 players instead of 6. Barbarian charged in and got almost killed in the first two rounds for her trouble. Had to re-check rules for multiple doses of poison, which got a little confusing. Retreated and we got into a mostly ineffective swinging match between the centipedes and the tanky support cleric who was blocking the passage. Out of healing and alchemical supplies, the group then decided to rest.

Session 2: Goblin alchemist, half-elf barbarian (wild), elven cleric (Erastil), human paladin, dwarven monk.

A6 (fountain): I slightly beefed up the quasits for 5 players. The cleric picked up the idol, releasing the quasits. They did a bit of damage, mostly to the cleric. The paladin did quite well here and enjoyed retributive strike. The party spent a large amount of time trying to open the locked door, and the alchemist broke his tools before giving up.

A7 (goblin headquarters): Added two extra goblin warriors for 5 players. This one was pretty entertaining and felt well-balanced between PCs. The party surprised the goblins so they didn't have weapons drawn and only caught two PCs in the rock trap. We had our first KO when the barbarian rushed in, got surrounded, retreated into the hallway, and got stabbed by a fleeing goblin. This was probably the alchemist's best encounter with a good use of bombs and a crit bite attack on the pyro. Party captured the commando, found the secret door, and went home to rest.

Session 3: Goblin alchemist, half-elf barbarian (wild), dwarven monk, dwarven druid, human wizard.

A12 (Drakus' lair): party failed to open the locked chest, but triggered the trap and failed save vs poison.

A10 (befouled shrine): I used the rat for the 5-party adjustment. Found the stealth rules particularly confusing here. Since the party made a lot of noise literally throwing the chest around I assumed Drakus wouldn't be surprised, but he botched his Stealth check (10 total) so I ruled he would be Seen by all the players at the beginning of combat, despite rolling stealth for initiative. This time the monk closed first and got beat on pretty bad. He did take out the rat, but was completely unable to affect Drakus with his bludgeoning weakness, and Drakus knocked him out - the subsequent action to blood drain was mechanically unimportant but a really fun moment. Druid ate the night's only AoO trying to heal the monk. Wizard was the MVP here between a summoned dog and a high roll with a three-action cast Magic Missile that finished the fight with both barbarian and druid down to single-digit HP. Alchemist unfortunately felt a bit lost, unable to realistically hit Drakus with weapons but feeling inhibited from using splash weapons in close quarters with multiple melee party members swarming Drakus.

A11 (sanctum): party pretty quickly figured out how to purify the shrine here and had a nice moment with the bowl.

Party opted not to try and take out the skeletons since they were low on HP and out of all but one non-cantrip spell. Since I wanted to move on but didn't want them to feel they hadn't completed the dungeon, I ruled that they could assume their characters went back later, killed the skeletons, and found the body of the pathfinder.

I expect you're planning on using the forums for this, but

1) Not all playtesters necessarily have Paizo accounts or will post on forums, but may want to make additional comments about their playtest experience.

2) Some survey responses might be misrepresentative without context. For example, I answered "seven characters" for The Lost Star, but we completed the adventure in three sessions with a slightly different set of 3/5/5 characters each session. The survey also doesn't ask about adjustments made to the encounters for multiple opponents, so you might get the impression that I ran 7 characters at a time without adjusting encounters and found them all fairly challenging, when in fact we had no more than 5 characters at a time with 25% more monsters. Even if I do post these details on the forums it might make it harder to analyze the survey data if you can't easily check for context for any outlier survey responses.

One of my players would like a flaming sword for their ranger for "In Pale Mountain's Shadow." Magic weapons aren't available to 4th level characters, but is there a way to get a similar effect, possibly with a consumable item?

That sounds like a reasonable reading of the rules. So far, the party has been doing a day of full bed rest per adventuring day anyway. It may become more onerous with different adventure design.

Update: we did Chapter One over three sessions and another player joined in for the last session. In our party of seven we now have two Mind Quake Survivors (Monk and Cleric), two Pathfinder Hopefuls (Barbarian and Druid), one Osirionologist (Wizard), one Family Friend (Paladin) and a Goblin Renegade (Alchemist).

That's for ending an affliction, not for removing conditions applied by an infliction. Relevant text:

Stages

An affliction typically has multiple stages, each of which lists an effect followed by an interval in parentheses. When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage.

At the end of a stage’s interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. On a success, you reduce the stage by 1 and take the effects of that stage again. On a critical success, you reduce the stage by 2. If the affliction’s stage is ever reduced to lower than stage 1, the affliction ends and you don’t need to attempt further saves unless you’re exposed to the affliction again.

On a failure, the stage increases by 1, and on a critical failure its stage increases by 2. If a failure or critical failure would increase the stage beyond the highest listed stage, the affliction instead repeats the effects of the highest stage.

Conditions from Afflictions

An affliction might give you conditions with a longer or shorter duration than the affliction. For instance, if an affliction causes you to be drained but has a maximum duration of 5 minutes, you remain drained even after the affliction ends, as is normal for the drained condition.

Alternatively, you might succeed at the flat check to remove persistent damage you took from an ongoing affliction, but you would still need to attempt saves to remove the affliction itself, and failing one might give you new persistent damage.

You're right, that is the interval.

Had some centipedes inflict the sluggish condition on a PC, and realized I have no idea how long it takes that to go away naturally - sluggish doesn't specify (unlike, for example, sick) and if there are general rules for removing conditions I haven't found them. All I know is that it doesn't automatically end when the PC makes a save against poison.

Any help?

EDIT: Oh, I found a note in the affliction saying sluggish (1 round) - that means that the condition lasts 1 round from when it was acquired?

Wowie wrote:

Back on the topic of class kits, basically whenever I build a new character I just buy whatever their corresponding class kit is as a starting point. Or at least that's what I do in PF1 and other systems. The main thing I like about kits isn't even the money, it's that it makes building a character so much faster and simpler it's not even funny. I feel like for most given PF2 characters, picking out gear is half of character creation.

A comprehensive "class" kit would be nice. But their price was really just the price of all the items in it with a small discount.

I understand you all want to start with everything in your possession but the new system is very much designed so that items matter no matter how small they are. Choices matter on what to get and take with you. Gold and Silver matter you most likely won't get to the point of being able to walk into a town and just throw money around for whatever you want.

The reasoning behind the class kit is different from the desire for a free tool kit. As the bolded comment from Wowie indicates, it's less about getting a discount on the items and more about having a quick and easy way to pick up miscellaneous gear that is relevant to your character, including basic adventuring stuff as well as possibly writing implements, divine foci, component pouches, or alchemical gear.

Well, that's why death insurance would either be very expensive (not just to cover expenses of resurrection but to compensate for the lost service) or require performing service to the church while still living.

I will probably house-rule this if it's not officially implemented. We have two characters trained in Medicine but neither could afford a medical kit!

At the start of H's turn we had a conundrum. He was Stabilized by my druid, but also in a damage area. Both the Fort save for being unconscious at 1 hp and the trap damage occur at start of turn... so would he make his Dying save first (he's unconscious at 1 hp), become conscious, then take damage from the trap and drop again? Or would he take damage first, drop back to 0 hp and make a Fort save to become stabilized at 1 HP? I ruled the first option so he just dropped back to 0 again.

In case you didn't find this, you did end up doing it correctly. P 304 in the Rulebook:

Step 1: Start Your Turn

Many things happen automatically at the start of your turn, and it’s also a common point for tracking the passage of time for effects that last multiple rounds. Take the following steps, plus do anything else that is specified to happen at the start of your turn, in any order you choose.

• If you created an effect that lasts for a certain number of rounds, you reduce the number of rounds remaining. ...
• You can use free actions or reactions that have a trigger of “Your turn begins” or something similar.
• If you’re dying or unconscious, attempt your recovery saving throw (see page 295).

Step 3: End Your Turn

Once you’ve done all the things you want to do with your actions, you reach the end of your turn. Take the following steps, plus resolve anything else specified to happen at the end of your turn, in any order you choose. You then pass play to the next character in the initiative order.
• End any effects that last until the end of your turn. ...
• If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. You also attempt any saves for your afflictions at this time. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity.
• You can use free actions or reactions that have a trigger of “Your turn ends” or something similar.

I am highly amused by Schrodinger's Rat, and also curious about how Drakus' Sneak Attack is supposed to work.

Two players?

You basically want to cut the XP budget for encounters in half, since you have a half-sized party. (Note that the XP adjustment table says to adjust by 1/4 of the total XP value of the encounter for every PC added or subtracted from the 4-person party.)

If it's all the same type of enemy, that means half the number. This makes the first set of goblins, the centipedes, and the quasits easy for you.

If it's a mixed set of enemies, try to remove enemies until you hit close to the right number, and then give one or more enemies the weak or elite template until you hit the right number. Personally, I also used a "half elite" template when adding the elite template would put things over.

For the solo encounters, yeah, it looks like you need to hit them with the Weak template twice (or as close as you can manage for the hazards).

Note the rat is an error.

Just letting you know that I had multiple players choose the "Mind Quake Survivor" background because there were only two options that didn't suggest the character was a scholar, aristocrat, or goblin.

Not a huge problem with the Playtest but a bit disappointing and I hope that future campaign backgrounds will keep that in mind.

Huh, yeah, that seems like a possible typo.

I adjusted the encounters in The Lost Star as best as I could based on the given guidelines. I think not adjusting the numbers is more likely to give a skewed idea of how tough the encounters are than adjusting them imperfectly.