The elf will run her her fingers through the kitsune's fur How soft and luxurious she says and then turns her attention to the Gorumite. Perhaps we can discuss theology over a cup or two? Or I can show you my martial skill.
She will get the 2 potions of lesser healing.
As Atae reaches out and touches Yako Zenko, he will freeze up, shocked beyond words, like a deer caught in modern headlights. Afterwards it will take several minutes to recompose himself. It must be a cultural thing... She doesn't know the taboo on touching beyond what is necessary to render medical aid... She doesn't mean anything by it... Deep breaths... Deep breaths... you're here to make a good impression...
Oh, speaking of Mastermind related things. Unfortunately for the Mastermind or Thief wanting to multi-class into investigator. They can't gain the Lie Detector in the Advanced Deductions. Lie Detector requires one of two specific Investigator Methodologies. Which the dedication feat does not provide.
I'm afraid they don't suggest that. Trying again at higher DC is what you can do normally, but you've failed, you're done.
Quote:
Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject.
Ah, I had missed the line about failing it being the end of it.
I do still scoff at the free action to recall knowledge with Assurance because of the important caveat that if Assurance fails, as it will in many cases, you've exhausted your ability to try recalling knowledge about that target.
The "exhausted ability to try" bit depends on the ability for recall knowledge. The rules suggest it could be re-tried at a higher DC. If not, then there is little value in the Mastermind either (as mentioned in the guide.) And, I was merely arguing that, in the case of Mastermind, it is closer to the orange definition. "ORANGE: This option will have good utility for some strategies or styles." Utility as an archer, in the case of enemy horde of lower, individually, cr targets. Free action to increase odds of pincushioning targets each round.
Not going to terribly hurt if the OP disagrees however.
further I have to add, for a specifically Mastermind, the Assured Information is not a terrible use of a feat. free-action flat-footed-until-start-of-next-turn is not something to scoff at whilly-nilly. Sure it will primarily only have value against on-level or weaker enemies, and takes some feat sinks for it. However, I would definitely say it has it's value for a character that is going to be wanting to Recall Knowledge a lot anyway. Not to mention, all the skill feats you get as a Rogue means you can fit it in easier than other classes. As such, for a Mastermind, I would argue it's a orange instead of red.
I need to point out a problem with your guide. For Kobold feat, Grovel is mentioned as great for Archer or Eldritch Trickster. This is, sadly, incorrect. Because while Grovel let's you feint from a distance. Feint itself specifies it only leaves a target flat-footed against "your next melee attack", inside it's own rules. Thus it will not net any benefit for ranged attacks or for eldritch trickster. In fact, it makes Grovel a pretty odd feat, as it doesn't really do anything unless you can't get to melee this turn and want to fish for a crit-feint, or if their Perception is a lot higher than their Will. (Ironically, knowing that info is more of a Mastermind's area of expertise, and works better for them.) I suppose it also means if you don't have a flank buddy, you can attenmpt to flat-foot feint them BEFORE getting into melee. possibly saving a suicide walk.
I suspect it is much the case I am in. Plenty of interest in playing, not many to run. (to the point I am running 3 separate 2e APs at the same time right now... but would love to finally get to play in one. XD)
My Mitey Kobold Dragons disagree with the idea that the Eidolon is not enough to be a dragon. Frankly, their are multiple creatures with the Dragon trait in PF2e that aren't your full, fancy, Chromatic-level Dragons (this includes Metallics, etc.) The Dragon Eidolon fits well within that power range.
What I'm saying isn't attacking 3x. But rather having features that in order to utilize will require all 3 of your actions so they try to bandage this by giving you economy fixers. Resulting in you still being action locked. Something both the new classes struggle with more than even previous new classes.
Most of the casters from the core book, and just about anyone with an Animal Companion, or using the Summon spells. Will tell you that there are plenty of times they wish they had a good third action to use (for those without 1 action spells) or that they don't have enough actions to do all they want, (for those spending actions on summons and/or Animal Companions.) Especially if they both cast spells AND have an Animal Companion/summon (looks directly at Druids.)
Frankly, these "bandages" as you describe them, I see as very powerful and helpful boons that make me wish for such on those core classes you speak of.
I agree with QuidEst. Further, I have seldom seen a use for a third attack action, outside of crit-fishing. It has been generally more useful to simply step, or stride, with the third action. Even on my martial characters.
Except, the pandemic may easily play a part. Additional guidelines and all. (Also, I, too, am pending and wishing I weren't. As I have a game tomorrow night, where my players were hoping to finally not be using the playtest. But oh well.)
Is there anywhere that lists the gear you find in this book? I think it would be useful as i'm not sure it has all been noted down as my players picked it up..
There really isn't, because it is already noted in the various sections of the book itself. There's also the entire possibility your party DOESN'T find certain loot. (there are plenty of "perception to find x" loot spots in the upper levels of the citadel alone... I would even argue the majority of loot not on things they fight, falls into that category.)
As such, I have found it easiest to make a google excel sheet. and just copy paste loot into it when they find it. (as in, when loot is found. I don't even read it off, i just drop it into the sheet, and the players enjoy discussing the findings while i copy any additional lines. our group also puts in values so they can quickly estimate sell values, and per-person shares of the sales.)
That's the only way I could see, also. It seems like a terrible way to build a fortress, having to go outside and climb a wall and then climb a watchtower to keep an eye on things. I was sure I was missing something. I guess boggards aren't particularly good architects.
Perhaps, unlisted, there is a drop-down/pull-up rope/chain ladder in the upper levels. It's pretty cheap and easy to make, and relatively defensible, and easily hidden when un-needed.
Another take-away from this situation. Is that PF2 is different enough from 1, that I would really treat any GM to it, as though a new GM, and be willing to give some leeway. There's lots of little things everyone is going to miss when just starting it.
Lore (INSERT HERE) represents a knowledge set for doing the job, which is experience at doing it. There are few jobs I can think of that, after accounting for experience, don't benefit from Intelligence (quickly and keenly being able to bring up the right answer, or quote the right page from the manual/rulebook of said job,) or Charisma (no matter how good you are at something, if you can't make friends with the boss. You aren't keeping your job. Whereas making friends can often get you a second chance even when screwing up.)
My Father-in-Law is a miner by trade. Copper mine. Getting up there in years. He may be stronger and more stamina than most people I know, including adults half his age. But he has always made sure to memorize the rulebooks, and any new changes. Because it was those guys who DIDN'T who would do something wrong and get fired, regardless of their natural strength and resilience. Not kidding here. Every slight change made to those books he would religiously memorize, even if the change went against all the experience that 30+ years on the job has provided. Because that knowledge is what keeps people employed.
Just a real-world example, of a career people think is all about Strength and Con. It's his brains that he finds most important for that job. My 2 coppers, take 'em or leave 'em.
With both of these characters having Attack of Opportunity (or equivalent), moving away from them is very punishing, costing as much as a third of my hit points.
The AoOs only trigger if they Stride away. However, if they Step, they are fine. As Step specifically calls out that it does NOT trigger any reactions related to movement. So Step at an angle for 5 feet of movement, and one of the character's loses an action to get back into combat with them, also possibly makes flanking impossible if they Step to a corner or the like.
While I could continue much of this discussion that is currently happening. I am pretty sure most of it is no longer discussing snowball vs chilling spray... Perhaps a new thread to compare 1st level spells in general, is in order?
In the "useful first level combat spells" I also add, IMHO, Shattering Gem. You can drop it on an ally, like the 2-hander martial. This gives them an effective shield block, that doesn't use up their reaction, and damages the attacker in many cases. But then, I don't mind being a support rather than blaster.
Fun fact. Take notice of the phrase "weild". This means if the character is using a two-handed large weapon, and has gauntlets equipped for instance, they can take an action to take their hand off the weapon. They stop wielding it, thus stop being clumsy, and can engage in one-handed fisty-cuffs.
I think that after the initial grab you do need to roll athletics to maintain the grab. You could drop the grapple and hit it again, but if the creature is flying that might not be a good option.
The text for the Grab ability is "Grab [one-action] Requirements The monster’s last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action." (bolding mine.)
This tells me, that if a creature used the Grab action on the previous turn, it can use the action again to automatically maintain the grab until the end of its next turn.
The simplest solution. for the key NPC. Give them resolve points. so they stabilize. (NPCs usually just die, cus no RP)... Unless the party has REALLY embraced the dark side, at least one of them should decide tieing them up and interrogating, rather than killing a now defenseless person, is the better choice. (Especially since unlike most NPCs, this one had resolve points to not be dead.)
Then what's the point of going to a game store if home games offer the same AcP?
For some, it's because they don't have a local group of friends to play at home. (Or, as is my case, said group of friends play different systems and show no interest in Pathfinder or Starfinder.) In which case, going to a store can means groups of people get together to play, even when they can't in any other fashion. Also, it means playing in the store brings in more business to the store. Which is a Good Thing (tm) in my book. Supporting one's FLGS that is.
So, I ran it, and literally copied all the relevant data, and weather details, to a seperate two-sided print out for me. It helped tremendously.
Beyond that, it was a blast to run, and fun to play. As for the difficulty of it, we ran subtier 1-2, but had two level 3 characters. (The other three were two level 2s and a level 1). Even as such, low subtier the Average DCs were only passed about 80%, and the Hard DCs were passed roughly 30% of the time by the PCs. (Ended with almost exactly the reqs for the secondary... they had two more findings than the reqs, but otherwise favor and recordings matched exactly.) So, from our table stabd-point, the skill checks were perfect, challenging, but enough to complete the scenario.
The combats, both of them, dropped at least one individual, though no deaths. (Different individuals each time. We also skipped the optional due to time. Doing so had us ending at 3 hours and 56 minutes of our 4 hour slot.) So I say solidly tough, considering the level arrangement at our table.
The one thing that really came of note, was the attempt at pulling characters out of the vehicle with the solarion ability... the vehicle gives cover, which means, theoretically, it should prevent anyone from being able to pulled over the edge, due to how it works.
I decided, since it was specifically called out in the text, to still run it that they could. However it was a point of contention among my players, and wanted to bring it up here. It wasn't a huge deal, as only two characters ever got pulled out. One was in the water, but the vanguard character pulled him back out in the next initiative step, as he was at the ship edge. The second time it pulled the pilot of the PC'S craft... into the pilot seat of the NPC's craft. (The party killed the pilot the initiative step prior.) And said character used the vessel to trigger OP-attacks against the solarion, by driving along side the pc vessel.
If you don't like min-maxers don't play with them.
Unfortunately. that statement is as useful as us replying "if you don't like lack of dex-to-damage. Just over-rule it." Clearly it is an option, and one you took. But it is also an option you knew about from the beginning, before even starting this thread, and did not change your desire to comment on how you wished things were different.
AKA. It is more useful to stick to explanations of why you like/don't like how things are. Rather than simply saying "If you don't like X. don't play with it."
Random idea for future class inspired by the fears in this thread: Dual-list casters... As in, for instance, making witches pick two separate lists, to draw spells from. However, make them always have to pick half their spells from one list, and half from the other.
I suspect this extra flexibility in spells, (since spells normally appear in more than one list, you can get a much more tailored personal list this way,) I would probably reduce the number of known spells to just the two-per-level. (keep the same number of slots to work with.) But this would allow a few more casting class options that still maintain a different thematic flavor. (I'd even go so far as to do something like Witches always have occult as one of the lists... So you have another class built, say "shaman", that dual-lists, but one always has to be primal. Yes they'd overlap in the occult-primal option. But hopefully hexes [or the equivalent] and the class specific feats add just enough flavor to separate them then. Forcing one of the lists to always be the one type even allows for flavor of, say, giving an occasional extra spell/focus-spell based on that specific list that they MUST take. (aka, an occult power/spell extra every now and then for witches.). To add to said flavor)
So, just finished running this for my group, and I have to say... It was fun but rough. "Close call" was the catchphrase of the adventure.
** spoiler omitted **...
"close call" sounds like an exciting time!! Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, my players and I had a blast with this adventure. I will say, though, that my players are the type that like a good hard challenge. "My job as a GM is not to kill my players, but to horribly maim them" is a catchphrase of my group as a whole. No matter what system we are playing.
So, anyone who is not a fan of getting by, by the seat of their pants... Plaguestone may not be for you.
So, just finished running this for my group, and I have to say... It was fun but rough. "Close call" was the catchphrase of the adventure.
spoiler:
The alchemists and their persistent damage were rough. However, the two "failure" points that happened for us? My group were melee heavy, (an animal barbarian, a Liberator champion, a dual-wielding ranger, and a divine Sorcerer), and thus they got into a habit of bum-rushing "high-value" targets to remove them before said targets could get back. This did not work well for the group when they charged up to surround the poor bastard. (Didn't help that they all rolled poorly on their to-hit rolls.) Followed by the "Too Many limbs" action. Getting off four attacks, at a -2, was rough on the melee heavy party. (didn't help both the jaws and the claw crit in the first round, on the same target... poor poor Champion.) Attack number 5 was, obviously, an utter failure most of the time. But when surrounded, had nothing better to do.
My players made the assumption the too many limbs attack was a per-day move, or one with a cool-down, until it was way too late to matter. When the Amalgam was finally dead, everyone but the sorcerer were sitting at "one hit from game over"... Except the Champion... he bravely sacrificed himself by LOH the barbarian instead of himself, who was also 1 hit from death. (This was, in my opinion, a very fateful choice)
The remaining group managed to roll very well in the BBEG battle, and found it much more agreeable, even with their smaller party, interestingly enough.
For the final showdown in town, however, they elected to chase on the trail, but failed the survival check... (I note there is no additional negative on the final fight for not finding the trail.) At which point they ran back to the town without resting. 90 feet means, with three move actions a turn, they had to physically try and stop it... Sorcerer was out of pretty much anything but cantrips, Ranger had only 1 hp left after the final fight, and they elected to book it instead of treat-wounds fun-times... And the Barbarian, being fatigued, Could. Not. Rage. He never anticipated this happening in a major fight, and they'd left most of the loot behind in expectations to go back and loot it later. He only had a few back-up javelins on him.
The Drudge smashed the ranger aside quickly. The barbarian failed to hit with the javs, and fell shortly afterward. The Sorcerer? After ranger down, barbarian down, and champion dead. She turned tail and booked it. Town exploded, and only the poor poor Sorcerer, and a certain NPC ranger, lived to tell the tale... They jointly decided the tale would be about their "Close Call" with death, and how their lost friends and companions would be remembered
It matters if you chose an Advanced weapon in Unconventional Weaponry, are playing a class that doesn't become proficient with martial, and took the general feat Weapon Proficiency to become proficient in martial.
Without Unconventional Expetise, that weapon your burned 2 feats to become trained in, would never become more than trained. With Expertise, it now increases to expert when your other weapon types do. (And to Master if they ever go to Master, legendary if any class other fighter ever goes legendary, and doesn't give proficiency with all martial weapons)
It's a niche case, but it exists, and helps future proof.
(I can see some future Elven weapon with Finesse showing up as advanced that a rogue wants, as an example future proofing.)
So, I guess, at this point my question is answered. I am not misreading anything, it IS as written.
However, there is clearly different interpretations of what is written, as shown by the helpful, but opposing, views put forward by Claxon and Slamy... as such, I think this needs an official dev response on intent... is there a way to flag this for a faq?
Unfortunately the rules we're written a bit inconsistently.
I think the intent is if you wield weapons for a size category larger than you, you take a penalty. But its not written that way.
So you're right that a small creature weirdly could wield a medium weapon at no penalty.
But it seems like a Giant Instinct Barbarian that does so suddenly takes the penalty, or at least they have to if they want the damage bonus.
Sadly it's not even a "if they want the damage bonus" the next sentence of the titan mauler says "You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon"
Fun that it specifies wielding the weapon. This means a two handed greatsword, when you let go with one hand, you suddenly stop being clumsy. But the moment you hold it like you should, you are clumsy again XD
Mechanically all the benefit comes from wielding a weapon sized for a creature one size greater than yourself.
So a small sized barbarian with Giant Instinct with a medium weapon benefits in the same way as a medium sized barbarian with giant instinct with a large weapon.
They're exactly as effective.
Mechanically, medium weapons are not listed as providing Clumsy 1 for small creatures.
all from the page on item sizes.
"Creatures of sizes other than Small or Medium need items appropriate to their size"
"In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit."
in the instinct ability
"You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size (page 295). When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6, but you have the clumsy 1 condition (page 618) because of the weapon’s unwieldy size."
RAW, a normal small creature wielding a medium weapon incurs no negatives. The Titan mauler suddenly does.
However, whether this counts as truly debuffing small creatures due to the admittedly cheaper cost and bulk of thd weapon, is up for debate.
It seems to me there is no differences between small and medium weapons any more...damage and bulk are the same.
I think Titan Mauler just removes the penalties and gives you access to the weapon..
Core Rule Book page 295 wrote:
In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit.
So small weapons appear to be a thing of the past..even the bulk is same between small and medium weapons...same page shows the bulk conversions by size.
So a large weapon is one size larger then both small and medium weapons I guess
Well that seems to be my take
Titan Mauler ability still gives the Clumsy 1 trait (I didn't copy the last sentences of the ability, but it mentions that there.) So that part is actually identical to the Size charts portion. As for small weapons being a thing of the past, while stats, cost, and bulk are identical. That doesn't change the description of the ability being "one size category larger." Where-as there is a distinction made in size between Small and Medium characters. Therefore, the small and medium weapons exist, but have no mechanical difference.
Which, looking at it further, actually means the Titan Mauler instinct mechanically nerfs the small barbarian, as they now get the Clumsy 1 trait even when wielding their selected Medium weapon. Due to how the ability is written.
"You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size (page 295). When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6, but you have the clumsy 1 condition (page 618) because of the weapon’s unwieldy size. You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon."
I am following up on this thread, as I have realized that Small characters are teh only size-category that not benefit from the Giant Instinct. Every other size category, including Medium, is given access to the weapon size they are allotted by the Instinct Ability. Small characters, however, are NOT given that access.
I am really starting to wonder if this was intentional, or an attempt to save space in writing text, gone horribly awry.
I agree that I see many pro's to how it is laid out. However, it also does have the issue that if you don't know what segment something is in. it can massively extend the time it takes to find it. Further, the individual segments are not always intuitive. (There have been multiple occasions I expected something to be in section X but was actually in Z)
To be fair, how is that different than it was with the printed guide? Not everything was located in the obviously place. I recall more than once having a hard time finding what I was looking for. Knowing where to find the info is a learning curve regardless of if it’s in print or online. The bottom line is the leadership think this will improve the experience for most users, especially new players. Like anything some people are going to disagree, but you cannot please all the people all the time. I expect to see some tweaks to the arrangement and some improvements to the interface buttons, but if someone has the idea that they should just back to a PDF hosted on Paizo.com as a solution, they are going to be disappointed.
You are correct that there are plenty of issues on the previous layout, and that the same issue would exist in a printed version in any form. I have not disputed that.
I was simply trying to note I wish the entire text was available, in a single source (even a rich text format) so I can find info faster when internet is available. (which, has been made by others. I don't deny that. I was simply trying to offer constructive criticism of splitting it into the equivalent of a paizo product "single file per chapter" download. There are reasons to have a full version as well. Further, I have had to answer more questions to new users in this format than the old. For those new players were unable to find the data, even when at home with full internet access. Because they did not search the correct section. As such, I am presenting some data that the format may not be meeting the expected goals.)
Goodberry is an emergency health item... that if not needed, reduces ration count for the day by one.
As for the role of the Leaf Druid... it's for those who want a Leshy Familiar *points at self*... Then again, i want to be a leshy leaf druid with a leshy familiar.... With the goal of making the first Leshy Civilization.
"Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield’s Hardness. You and the shield each take any remaining damage, possibly breaking or destroying the shield."
Aka, the shield reduces the incoming damage by its hardness. The remaining damage is applied to both the shield AND to you. If this goes past it's BT it breaks. if it drops to 0 it is destroyed and you need a new shield.
The shield another, called Shield Warden, is described as such (bolding mine)
"You use your shield to protect your allies. When you have a shield raised, you can use your Shield Block reaction when an attack is made against an ally adjacent to you. If you do, the shield prevents that ally from taking damage instead of preventing you from taking damage, following the normal rules for Shield Block."
This means the hardness reduces incoming damage to your ally. then the shield and the ally both take the remaining damage.
The remaining damage is NOT halved, or splitt in any way, between shield and target. If the shield has hardness 5, the attack does 50. Both the shield and you take 45 damage.
Ehh; it's no worse than PF1; with the caveat that the change to Harsk threw me for a loop. And the dragon on the cover of PF1 CRB has the upper jaw (I went back and checked after I saw a panel where WAR said the design of the dragon hadn't changed); its just at an angle where its more noticable now.
It's not just the angle. Figuring in perspective, it's upper jaw actually got worse. But yes, first edition wasn't great cover art either, I don't disagree. However I was hoping for improvement, and it got worse, in my oppinion, instead.
Personally, the art ranges from great to bleh. Ironically, the bit of art I dislike most, is the front cover of the core book. Which is a bad thing when trying to sell the product. If I didn't already know alot about the game, that cover would make me leave the book on the shelf.
The dragon looks like the moment it closes its mouth, it is going to have the world's largest underbite. (Like, a small creature could crawl back out of the mouth due to the gap between top and bottom jaw.) The rogue looks flat and her silhouette is completely off-target to the rest of the art. Like she wasn't originally in the art, but then, last minute, someone decided to copy-paste another image of her from somewhere onto the previously completed art, because they decided they needed another character. (Which, with the prevalence of 1 enemy, 2 iconics artwork in the book. Lends additional style credence to this.)
1) I actually think they got rid of the distinction between small and medium weapons. I haven't been able to find anything and there is some text I came across implying it.
2) Even if they are still separate, "access" just means the GM has to let you purchase it. It isn't like you get it for free, and most GMs are going to let you get the large weapon regardless of your size if you have that instinct.
Yes, I couldn't find a distinction in weapons either. However the description mentions one size larger, and we know there IS a size distinction between Medium and Small as described in the ability to move through occupied squares.
As for the latter, you are correct. I bring this all up mostly for two reasons, and see if this is accidental or not. Firstly, for most players, nowhere does it describe what is, or isn't, available size access. If they are all supposed to be available, then there is no point in the text of the instinct ability. If there is supposed to be a limit, then the information is contained only in a single class ability.
The second part is for Organized Play, where, as written, access to said weapon, which has different Bulk and Cost, is going to be on a per-GM choice, without being a single mechanical reason to not openly allow it.
