This is by no means a critical question, but still, fun to speculate:
The adventure features a Skulk or two. Notably one that dreams of getting fleshwarped.
So naturally I wonder what kind of creature that results from fleshwarping a Skulk?
The available write-ups only say Skulks are "humanoid". Unlike many other similar humanoids there is no information about the origin of the race. Are skulks degenerated humans? Some kind of hybrid gone wrong? Humanoids infused with... what? A created slave race? (I personally blame the Aboleths, like always!)
This is important because humans become Grothlut when fleshwarped... but other humanoids notably does not. Even something as minor a difference as drow elf vs surface elf yields drastically different results when fleshwarped.
So what does a Skulk change into, and what is a Skulk? :-)
Extinction Curse: You're working at a circus... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!
Agents of Edgewatch: You're working as members of the city watch... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!
Fists of the Ruby Phoenix: You have signed up for a martial arts tournament... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!
See any similarities...?
Do people really fall for this advertising, where different APs are made out to be... different when in reality they are very much alike.
If every AP were advertised as a semi-railroaded collection of dungeons where every bog-standard hero (from druid to monk, from wizard to barbarian) battles monsters to be neatly awarded one level per dungeon, it would be much closer to the truth.
Do people really like these (very) thinly skinned takes on the same thing over and over? Why do people need to pretend these dungeon collections are more than they are?
For instance, a martial arts tournament that *actually is a martial arts tournament* where a) you are a martial artist that b) participate in a tournament (akak you can win AND lose). Or a circus adventure where it actually matters that you are a circus performer? Or a law enforcement campaign where you actually act like a law enforcement officer and have law enforcey scenarios?
What would be needed to make the teleportation chambers an integral (=useful, purposeful) part of the Vault?
Obviously, you'd drop the requirement to awaken both ends before you can use it.
You probably should then also allow for activating a portal without necessarily using it right away. Make a shimmering portal show you what's at the other side. You should probably allow scrying magic to work through an activated portal.
Example: you activate a portal and you see a small room with a closed door at the other end. If you are able to cast - as an example - Clairvoyance through that door you see, you might be able to cope. (Through the portal and through the door it shows you) After all, you might look at a room two levels lower, where even the "easy" monsters are lethal to your low-level ass...
You need to consider practical things:
a) how long does a portal remain open after you have stepped through?
- can you tell if it is one-way or two-way without having to use it first? (Ideally the room descriptions are consistent: if the portal opens up to a "regular" room, it's one way. If it opens up to a chamber similar to the one you're in now, it's two way)
- can you step back through a two-way portal without having to activate the other end?
- For how long does the portal stay open?
- Is there an emergency shut down (if you're spotted by a dangerous monster it doesn't help if it can follow you back through the portal)
Would it be a good idea (for more daring players)? Or is there a good reason why the AP does not allow you to use the portals to reach places you otherwise haven't visited? (Even if your players aren't newbies, that is. Protecting new players from TPKs is obviously a good call)
Zapp
X-posted from the Book 1 GM thread, since this is a more general topic that applies to all three books.
The default healing potion is severely lacking in several regards:
1) it just provides so very little healing
2) it provides variable healing, so you can't know if it's going to help you
3) it takes an awful long time to adminster: one action to draw, one action to drink, and then likely a third action to reposition your hands on your gear correctly
4) it costs a lot (only 4 consumables for the price of one permanent item)
Of course 1, 2 and 3 mostly revolve around in-combat usage. After a fight, not so much. And 1+4 isn't terribly relevant if you find them as loot. But still, healing potions are borderline useless in any scenario where you have options.
So I created the "Potent potions" variant rule.
[u]Potent Potions[/u]
A) healing consumables restore 10 hit points per item level (no die rolling), ideally rounded up to a multiple of 10
B) if the consumable grants additional bonuses, it's 6 hp per item level
C) you can wear a "potion bandoleer" that allows you to draw and drink/administer a consumable as one single Interact action
Other parameters stay the same.
The end result is that a Minor Healing Potion now heals 10 hp and only requires one, not two, actions to drink. It still costs 4 gp. A Lesser Healing Potion, being level 3, heals 30 hp and so on.
An Elixir of Life provides an additional bonus (a bonus vs poison/disease) so it grants 6 hp/item level. A Moderate Elixir of Life for 150 gp is level 9, and since 9x6=54 I've upped it to a nice round 60 points of healing.
Here's a convenient link to the rules, including a table of all CRB healing potions and elixirs of life. It's from my gaming wiki:
You pour invigorating positive energy into a living ally. If the next action you use is to cast heal to restore Hit Points to a single living creature, the target deals an additional 1d6 positive damage with its melee weapons and unarmed attacks until the end of its next turn. If the heal spell is at least 5th level, this damage increases to 2d6, or 3d6 if the spell is at least 8th level.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1699
If you go by the school that says that the initial sentence is just descriptive fluff, the answer is clearly yes, since "single living creature" can be yourself.
If you go by the school that looks at the entire description, the answer is clearly "no", since you're not your own ally.
So which is it? Is there any official comment from the devs either way? Perhaps this isn't the first ability where different parts of the same description contradict each other, and you can point me towards a good precedent to base my judgement on.
I couldn't find a single google hit where both "Khoumrock Blackthane" and "abomination vaults" were mentioned.
Crazy huh?
Now then, neither the adventure path nor the character guide puts this character in Otari, but bandits of immenwood do.
So I'd like your best ideas on how to reconcile this information! :-)
Did he live in Otari but died recently?
Is he still there but for [INSERT REASON HERE] can't do the heroes job of getting rid of Belcora?
Has he relocated?
Maybe he never did live in Otari?
But if he did live there (and perhaps still do), which tavern does he run that also serves as his lodge? :-)
I would like to know if anyone's compiled the following:
1. A succinct list of every Otari location and the benefits of that location (such as discounts, wares, and what not) - a "cheat sheet" I can hand out so the players don't have to take notes
2. A list of suggested artwork on the prominent Otari residents (the adventure only supplies images for a very few of them)
3. A list of every side quest, its relevant location(s), goal, and involved NPCs.
This information is supplied by the three modules, I know. But not in one easily summarized place.
In particular side quests would be extremely convenient to have in one place so I as the GM can prepare beforehand.
Are there any spells (or other magical effects) that work as a kind of inverted Sanctuary?
Ideally, a spell that creates an aura that forces every creature to make a save each time they want to attack someone else than me (the one emanating the aura).
But anything along the same basic idea would be most appreciated.
I tried searching for various phrases and bits of phrases without any luck.
I am thinking of rules where the outcome is based on the actual reading (=the drawing and position of the cards).
I am aware creatures like the Harrow Doll and Wrin Sivinxi have "harrow-adjacent" rules for various buffs and debuffs. That you get actual game impact is good, but the outcome depends on a random roll or a save or something, and not on the actual reading itself.
I am looking for rules, official or fan-made, where you "need" to make a reading, and where you get a result described using actual PF2 game terminology.
I am aware of this very nice-looking web app:
https://pathfinder-harrow.web.app/
...but what's missing is what exact PF2 bonuses and penalties each reading results in.
I had a look around but couldn't find anything so here I am: have I missed anything? Cheers.
This question was asked at another forum, and I couldn't find any existing discussion, so here goes. Feel free to link to existing threads if I am just bad at the Internet.
Certain feats require you to wield a two-handed weapon. Example: Brutish Shove.
Other feats require you to wield your weapon in two hands. Example: Brutal Finish.
Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional?
You might think that any weapon you wield in two hands count as a two-handed weapon, but it is not that clear-cut. The opposite is true, but that doesn't mean it goes both ways.
That is, there is rules language for two-handed weapons --> weapons wielded in two hands:
"some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait." (actual rule)
but not the reverse, i.e. there is no rule that says something like:
"a weapon counts as a two-handed weapon when you hold it in two hands" (hypothetical rule)
So lets have some specific questions:
Q1) Can you use a club or a bastard sword with Brutish Shove?
Q2) Can you use a club or greatsword with Brutal Finish?
For Q1 I think the RAW answer is "no", but here I am asking you.
For Q2 I hope we all agree the answer is "yes".
Best regards,
Zapp
PS. The Two-hand weapon trait doesn't make the weapon two-handed. It only allows you to wield it with two hands. And a Bastard Sword remains a Hands: 1 weapon.
Now then, my proposed variant for how nonlethal interacts with Knocked-Down:
If you make a lethal attack against a bloodied creature it gains the Vulnerable condition. When a creature is no longer bloodied it automatically loses the Vulnerable condition.
When a non-notable creature with the Vulnerable condition reaches 0 hp from nonlethal damage it makes a flat DC 15 check: success it’s unconscious and stable; failure it is dead.
(This adds to the existing rules which remain as written. So a non-notable creature that reaches 0 hp from nonlethal damage without having the Vulnerable condition is knocked out exactly as per RAW; safely and for one minute or more etc)
This means
1) no need to track separate damage poools! :) The rule might sound complex, but in actual play there shouldn't be any difficulties. Just remember to never make a lethal attack to a Bloodied creature if you want to knock it out alive. Simple.
2) you can’t just use a nonlethal attack at the very end of a combat - you need to inflict roughly as much nonlethal damage as lethal damage to safely knock the creature out without killing it.
This last point deserves an example:
Yes, it means that if a monster has 2 hp more than its Bloodied value, and gets a Critical that brings it down to 4 hp total, then you only need to deal 4 points of nonlethal to avoid killing it. But the more general case is that the monster isn't Bloodied until it is, when it will have slightly less hp than its Bloodied value; meaning the variant accomplishes "you need to inflict roughly as much nonlethal damage as lethal damage" with no extra counting needed!
It doesn't have to be an exact science. It just means the normal case requires heroes to go nonlethal for a significant number of attacks, and seldom just one :)
It also means heroes can recover from making mistakes. If they heal a monster back up over half hp, its Vulnerable condition disappears automatically.
PS. For those of you who doesn't know what Bloodied means:
It's a concept from 4th Edition - Bloodied is a state you're in when you've lost half your hit points. For example, a character with 50 maximum hit points has a Bloodied value of 25, and is Bloodied whenever the character's hit points are equal to or less than 25.
We have used this concept for years while playing 5E and now PF2 because it's a neat way of handling damage reports without feeling overly meta the way exact numbers feel.
I was searching for any official input on the question how persistent damage impacts your ability to knock someone out with nonlethal damage. For instance, you have a Fire rune on your weapon that sets the target on fire on a critical. Or you're a high level Barbarian who always causes foes to start bleeding when you crit 'em.
It's a prerelease thread which is archived (read-only), so when I read the following passage, I had to start a new thread (this thread) to respond.
Quote:
If I bring a character to the table that doesn't like to kill people, in PF1 that is entirely doable. As long as I get one solid hit of nonlethal, it's very likely the opponent will not die during the combat.
In my mind that's hardly better than how PF2 works.
The only way I think it's worth to add more tracking is if the rule is:
"When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless they have taken more nonlethal damage than lethal damage, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more)."
(changes from 2E RAW in bold)
Just managing to get in two or three points of non-lethal should not matter in the slightest. If you want to take someone alive, you should need to suffer the -2 penalty for the majority of the fight.
If that's not to your liking, the RAW rule (where only the final attack matters) is good enough for me.
(In short, the Wendigo's designer has it cast the spell Wind Walk, which just makes no sense rules-wise in combat)
Ride the Wind (reaction):
Requirement: The Wendigo has a creature grabbed.
The wendigo turns itself into wind and attempts to turn a grabbed creature along with it. If the target succeeds at a DC 38 Will save, it prevents itself from being transformed; in this case, the wendigo still transforms, automatically releasing the victim. A creature forced to Ride the Wind along with the wendigo is exposed to wendigo torment.
Ride the Wind transforms the Wendigo (and possibly its target) into a vaguely cloud-like form that is picked up by a wind moving in the direction of the Wendigo's choice. The Wendigo must spend one action each round to maintain the grab or its target returns to normal. The Wendigo can change the wind's direction by using a single action, which has the concentrate trait. The Wendigo can otherwise have the wind carry itself and its target 50 feet for each action spent Sneaking.
While transformed into wind, if the Wendigo takes any hostile action (other than to maintain the grab) the effect ends and both the Wendigo and its target return to normal. While transformed into wind, the Wendigo's target remains Stunned but may attempt a new Will save at the end of each of its turns to return to normal. Targets in wind form are incorporeal and gain resistance all damage 30 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical). Each time the Wendigo takes any damage it must make a DC 38 Will save. Failure means it (and its target) returns to normal.
Creatures returning to normal immediately become corporeal and begin falling unless they have a Fly Speed.
Am I missing something or is their insanely cool ability to whisk away people seriously squandered here?
Correct me if I'm doing this wrong (and I would love to be wrong here):
Round one: moving up to their target (not a problem with Fly Speed 100), attacking and hitting with their claw, and then maintaining that grab.
Player fails to escape the grab.
Round two: casting Wind Walk, the player fails his save, and then windwalking away...
...except how far?
Okay, so Wind Walk has a 10 minute casting time but the stat block sure seems to suggest that's not the case for Wendigos. But read closely - Ride the Wind doesn't cast the spell, it's triggered by the spell's casting.
So what is it? Does the Wendigo spend ten minutes to cast the spell... or does it cast the spell as part of a single reaction? Both options seem equally absurdly powered (underpowered and overpowered respectively).
And Wind Walk only contains a speed rating expressed as miles per hour since it expressly doesn't work during combat.
Sure 20 miles per hour corresponds to a Speed of 200 (though with limits on direction changes etc), which makes sense for a creature that can move that far using two actions each round.
But it would still be nice if the stat block expressly pointed out the differences between Wendigo-walk and regular Wind Walk.
---
In short:
If the Wendigo can Ride the Wind after merely grabbing a creature, the ability feels very powerful and borderline broken - It can start its round by making a Claw attack, and then end that round 200 feet away, all but ensuring the allies of its prey cannot come to its assistance. (This isn't what the rules actually say)
If the Wendigo can Ride the Wind after ten minutes... no, that's just silly. (Still, it's what the RAW tells me)
But even if the Wendigo were to cast Wind Walk using the regular two actions, it would still be kind of slow, since the action economy then all but forces it to grab the target on a previous round before actually making its escape.
---
Actually, to be playable I would think the Wendigo needs a different ability, one that is cast (much) faster but moves (much) slower and generally is geared towards regular encounter mode.
But since I don't want this thread to be moved into Homebrew, I will have to create a different post for this there.
---
Any insight would be welcome. Are there any rules I have misinterpreted or overlooked? Have you GMed a Wendigo fight? Have you survived a Wendigo as a player?
Isn't this a TPK waiting to happen? What am I missing?
The first hero might notice the mirror "isn’t a regular mirror", sure. But let's assume he or she doesn't. Then that hero gets a Reflex save. Again, he or she could succeed, and everything's likely fine.
But now the party is in trouble. It's reasonable to assume the party is moving as a squad, or will move up to attack the evil mirror duplicate. In either case, the mirror has line of sight/effect to more party members.
And there's no Reflex save for subsequent absorptions!
And even if there were, after two failed Reflex saves you're looking at 2 good heroes vs 2 evil heroes. That's an Extreme-level encounter.
Not to mention how frustrating/boring this must be for the absorbed heroes - they can do nothing!
Do you have any advice on how to run a Darkside Mirror?
If you had a player arguing he could simply specify "the king's bedchambers" and listen in to any secret conversations, provided he could get with 500 feet, even though he's never been there and doesn't know where (in the castle) the king sleeps...
...how would you argue - using Pathfinder 2 rules logic - this is neither possible nor intended by the rules?
Certain critical language from the PF1 version was dropped you see:
"You don’t need line of sight or line of effect, but the locale must be known – a place familiar to you, or an obvious one."
was replaced by simply "You create an invisible floating ear at a location within range (even if it's outside your line of sight or line of effect)."
How do I avoid this spell getting abused by it suddenly having a "find the path" like component where you essentially tell the spell where you want to eavesdrop, and the spell goes out and finds that spot for you.
I mean, if the spell doesn't require you to have a clear mental image of the location (and its position relative everything else) then... it doesn't?
Was there perhaps any playtest discussion or devblog where reasons were formulated why the spell's language could be simplified?
How do you avoid disease becoming either trivial or oppressive in your game?
If you have a Cleric or Druid, disease is trivial once play reaches level 5 since unlike poison disease acts so slowly you can simply load Remove Disease in all your top slots and you will sooner or later remove the disease.
If you don't, disease easily becomes a major bummer - especially disease that inflicts cumulative stages of Drained or other conditions that lower your Fortitude save.
Let me leave you with a couple of related notes:
* Every instance of disease in official APs is level appropriate, meaning that Remove Disease in your second highest level slot needs a success on the counteract, while Remove Disease in your highest slot even works on a failure (only critical failure fails).
* Addiction to drugs is mechanically represented as a disease, significantly defanging drugs, since your cleric can keep removing any addictions you develop.
---
I realize one answer could be "don't let the party take days off". If every day is an adventuring day, reserving your top slots for the Remove Disease spell becomes a real cost. But I don't like how Sue the party Cleric needs to pay for Bob the Fighter's mistakes.
What I guess I'm after is a middle road where disease is neither trivial nor completely dangerous. Where the presence or absence of a Cleric doesn't mean the difference between night and day. Where drugs remain dangerous even to adventuring parties.
The way Pathfinder 2 works means you can't solve it the intuitive way - if you increase the level of the disease so the DC increases, you don't just lower the chance of success gradually, you abruptly reduce the chance to rolling a 20 only.
Let me try to ask the question without spoiling anything.
There exists a disease that has this to say about the conditions it imposes on its victims:
"The target can't recover from the disease's drained or sickened condition except by magic."
What does that mean?
Does it mean
a) you can't recover from the disease naturally (moving from stage 3 to stage 2 for instance) but a successful Remove Disease will instantly remove the disease and its conditions?
b) you CAN move "up" stages, but you still suffer from the conditions of the "lower" stage. If you make a successful save during the disease natural course, you can leave, say, stage 3 for stage 2 - but you can't improve to Drained 1 from Drained 2 since you can't "recover except by magic".
c) that after removing the disease with Remove Disease, the conditions remain, and must be individually removed (with Restoration)?
I guess I'm really asking why the conditions are singled out by this sentence. Why not simply say "The target can't recover from the disease except by magic." What would be different if this phrasing was used?
Minor spoilers for part #5, Lord of the Black Sands
Here's how Blightburn Sickness is described by the adventure:
"[the heroes] are forced to experience the lethal blightburn radiation the aeon orbs
no longer repel."
"The rocks surrounding the vault emit a deadly radiation called blightburn sickness."
"[a npc] knows about the highly radioactive blightburn crystals"
"Dangerous green blightburn
crystals twinkle from the cavern’s ceiling like poisonous
stars. They emit a deadly radiation that suffuses the
entire vault; you must be prepared to withstand the
sickness it inflicts."
"In anticipation of the deadly blightburn
sickness, [a npc] provides the heroes with eight vials
of major antiplague. He warns the heroes that eight
vials will almost certainly not be enough, and suggests
they ration it or provide it to the least hardy among
them."
"The most dangerous threat inside the Vault
of Black Sand is the radiation from the crystals
twinkling high above."
Here's the actual game stats for Blightburn Sickness:
Quote:
Creatures native to the Black Desert are immune, as are creatures who are affected by blightburn sickness but recover from it. The target can't recover from the disease's drained or sickened condition except by magic.
Saving Throw DC 32 Fortitude; Onset 1d4 days; Stage 1 drained 1 (1 day); Stage 2 drained 1 and sickened 1 (1 day); Stage 3 drained 2 and sickened 2 (1 week); Stage 4 drained 3 and sickened 3 (1 month); Stage 5 increase drained condition by 1 (1 year)
Now then, my problem is that I feel the mechanics entirely insufficient to warrant the description.
As soon as a hero suffers even stage 1 sickness (no actual effects) a level 8 Cure Disease spell will likely trivialize the sickness, making the entire threat utterly and permanently irrelevant.
This is because "creatures who are affected by blightburn sickness but recover from it [] are immune".
This comes across to me as entirely anticlimactic and insufficient.
I fully understand that it wouldn't be fun to be forced to have several levels of adventure while suffering from lots of Drained or Sickened conditions, but that doesn't mean we should accept this easy nullification of the entire concept.
In the next post I will suggest a replacement mechanic, something with actual narrative power:
Holding your breath is discussed by the CRB in several places.
This is almost never discussed from an action economy viewpoint, except in one instance: inhalation poison (page 550).
"a creature aware of the poison
before entering the cloud can use a single action to hold
its breath"
My question is:
Should we consider this an outlier to be ignored, or are you requiring your players to always spend an action to go from "breathing" to "holding your breath"?
The final scenario, where you only need to spend an action when the reason for holding your breath is because you're about to enter a cloud of inhalation poison, but never for any other reason (such as when you're about to jump into the sea or start burrowing etc) seems deeply unsatisfying.
The simple analysis says that each hero has a ~50% shot at success at a defense activity. So a party with four adventurers is likely to have (initial 2)+(Sea Cave goods 4)+4=10 defense points when the siege starts. The adventurers are likely to start each siege day by all attempting to Rally Willowside, but not every hero can be expected to be Expert in Diplomacy or Intimidation so the average Defense Point increase is likely less than 2.
A summary of Hot Spots (things that decrease Defense Points) per day of siege (until destroyed):
First Day
-2 Willowside Pier
Second Day
-1 Pier Road
-2 Willowside Pier
Third Day
-1 East Road Blockade
-2 Verdant Road Blockade
-2 Willowside Pier
-1 Dinosaur Corrals
Whether the heroes stand a decent chance of defeating the siege is all about their capacity to take on multiple encounters in a single day.
A party without spellcasters, for instance, will probably have an easy time, since all encounters are separate and there is no reason to stop to rest longer than 30-90 minutes each time.
Nevertheless, based on your party's performance so far, you should have a pretty good idea of how many days the party needs to defeat all seven hot spots.
I find this section to have great potential. Squandered potential.
Instead of playing up the mystery, and the fairy spookiness, the trickster nature of their hosts, and making it "socially" dangerous to the heroes, we get:
Enemies in plain sight. Every single last interesting ability of the brughadatch falls foul of the ever-present party pooper called "Incapacitation".
The players aren't likely to look twice at any food offered, since there are clearly unwelcome green toad things starving the guests. Not only are the heroes generally immune to Charm (thanks Incapacitation!) but hostilities are likely to break out immediately.
Basically I look at the stat block on page 78 and think... this creature has very cool abilities... shame the adventurers didn't meet it four levels ago, when those abilities would actually have made a difference!
Now? It will just be a straight-up fight. :-(
Plus: the text says "Brughadatches of all life stages tend to cohabitate, since their abilities naturally synergize and tip the odds of survival in their favor." No two forms of Brugadatch are ever present in the same encounter.
---
So I need to change things. How about this:
Every stage of Brughadatch retains the abilities of its lesser forms. They all have the Churning Frenzy ability. Doblagubs have the spells and abilities of mid-life Brughadatches.
Brughadatches have illusion magic to appear as croupiers, party hosts, and even guests. Something is off, though, and the heroes realize they need to weed out the tricksters from the innocents. Only by interacting with the people at the Hall do heroes get a save to break the illusion, that is, by accepting the offerings they receive. This is the Deceitful Feast ability.
The Brughadatch can't use its melee attacks unless it dismisses its illusion.
Critical Success As Success plus you become immune to Will save penalties from any Deceitful Feast ability of the same level or lower for 24 hours.
Success Any Will save penalties from previous failures disappear. You are unaffected by the food and you see the Brughadatch for what it really is, a green toady trickster (dressed in a ill-fitting suit, dress or costume).
Failure You don't see through the illusion. You take a –1 circumstance penalty to Will saves against any brughadatch spell or ability. The penalty increases with each failed save, to a maximum of –5.
Critical Failure As failure, plus for 1 hour, your attitude become helpful to the brughadatch, and you can’t use hostile actions against it.
The intention is that the heroes enter each room, mingle, one of them do the "will the real Brughadatch please stand up", point it out to their friends, and defeat it. All the other guests (and any critfailing hero) remain blissfully indifferent, ignoring getting splattered with green blood or getting their poker table wrecked.
Then they go to the next room... rinse, repeat. :-)
Heroes critically succeeding can't accrue further Will save penalties (against fellow mid-life Brughadatches; they can still get penalties from a Doblagub). But even a crit success does not mean you auto-penetrate the illusory disguise - you must still make your save, you're just safe from accumulating penalties.
The Doblagubs in area A6 Theater act as director and lead actress. They immediately recruit the heroes as performers in their play (which they should actually be good at!) This time, the "interaction" required to get the shot at revealing the tricksters will be Performance checks (or circus trick checks)!
So the "feast" of Deceitful Feast should be interpreted liberally. There it meant an actual "eating feast" - here it means a "feast for the senses"...
Again there are several innocents present (other actors, theater crew and audience members), so just attacking people you think is an evil frog man in disguise is likely the unpopular choice...
---
I would also love for the disguised Brughadatches to surreptitiously cast Charm at the heroes while these mingle and eat snacks, so that there's a horror element (who's turning our friends into mindlessly smiling guests?!). But for this to not be a stupid idea I need to ditch Incapacitation for that effect. If the hero can just upgrade success into critical success, the Brugadatch will have just exposed itself for no benefit, shortcircuiting their entire moody trickster vibe.
So I'll simply do that. Incapacitation shall not stand in the way of a great encounter (again!). So replace their Charm spells with another innate ability:
Deceitful Charm
To you, the Brughadatch's words are honey and its visage seems bathed in a dreamy haze. You must attempt a Will save, with a +4 circumstance bonus if the Brughadatch or its allies recently threatened you or used hostile actions against you. If the Brughadatch drops its illusion so you see it for what it really is, you get a new save with the +4 modifier. If the Brughadatch use hostile actions against you, the effect ends.
Critical Success You are unaffected and aware the Brughadatch tried to charm you.
Success You are unaffected but think the Brughadatch's ability was something harmless instead of a variant ability of the Charm spell, unless you identify the ability as the spell (usually with Identify Magic).
Failure Your attitude becomes friendly toward the Brughadatch. If you were already friendly, you become helpful. You can’t use hostile actions against the Brughadatch.
Critical Failure Your attitude becomes helpful toward the Brughadatch and you can’t use hostile actions against it.
So we've discussed which ability scores are better than others... and one thing that many of us seem to agree on is that Intelligence is weak.
Specifically because it only gives out more trained skills. You don't get more Expert, Master and Legendary skills. In short, you don't get more skill increases.
So what's a reasonable house rule here? How many extra skill increases should you get? Should you get them already for having Int 12... or should they only be handed out to truly smart characters (Int 18+)?
Okay, so I love the city map of Sandpoint. It is clear, colorful, detailed... it's slightly excaggerated/cartoonish but in a good, bright, cheery way. It's basically great!
Only thing; Sandpoint is a small town. I'm looking for a great map of a slightly larger city.
What would be your top 5 Paizo city maps (given my preferences)? :-)
I'm thinking this might have been discussed previous, so perhaps all that's needed is for you to point me in the direction?
Otherwise, what's the deal with
Quote:
The classic ability scores aren’t of equal value in the rules. Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom tend to be more important unless a character requires a particular ability score from among the other three for a specific purpose. If you’d prefer ability scores to all be of roughly equivalent value in character building, this variant creates six ability scores that are in much closer balance with each other.
Is there a discussion that lays out the arguments for this conclusion. The GMG just says this as if it was an obvious truth. Where I can find the rationale for making these claims?
The Rod of Wonder says "If the rod casts a spell on you, you don’t get a saving throw or other defense against it."
What does it mean not to get a save?
For instance, if I use the rod on you, and you're only 15 feet away. I roll 35 and you become the center of a stinking cloud - and I'm in that cloud too.
Now, the spell specifies a save, but I don't get "a save or other defense". Does that mean I fail the save? Crit fail the save? Succeed at the save?!? Or what?
Thank you
PS. Believe it or not, but I couldn't find prior discussion of this.
Please understand this is a thread that assumes Incapacitation is a problem for YOU. (If you like the trait, please leave the thread. Thank you)
Just removing Incapacitation is rightly not a good enough solution. Here I discuss possible alternative implementations. This particular suggestion is based on the observation that, no, it really doesn't ruin my game if the caster occasionally managed to one-shot a higher-levelled foe. Most higher-levelled foes really aren't worthy of "plot armor". Some are. But not nearly all of them.
1) Add a -1 penalty to your spell save DC for each spell level lower than your highest.
Example: A 10th level caster using a 3rd level slot is using a slot two levels lower than her highest, and therefore gets a -2 penalty to her spell save DC.
2) Add something akin to 5th Editions legendary monster status. That is, the GM is free to decree a particular monster (of any level!) is a legendary monster, and has three legendary saves.
Legendary save: the creature can decide after seeing the results of a saving throw to improve the result one category (turning a failure into a success, for instance). The creature can do this for any spell with a saving throw, not just former Incapacitation spells.
Of course, a smart GM won't "waste" her monster's Legendary Saves on mere damage spells. But that's up to the monster and the GM.
3) Once 1 & 2 are implemented, remove the Incapacitation trait. It no longer does anything.
Please discuss this particular attempt at getting rid of Incapacitation. Or suggest other ways you feel fix the issue without merely making spellcasters significantly stronger.
Please prioritize developing rules variants for the following issues.
Not only does it improve the game for a sizeable portion of your customer base, it acknowledges that these are real issues for many gamers. Just by addressing the issues, you stop the current situation where these issues are silently ignored, as if they aren't a big concern. Thank you.
1) Incapacitation
A rules variant that does away with the incapacitation trait. For some gamers, Incapacitation is fine. For others, it's effectively a hard ban on all spells with the incapacitation trait. Please help this latter category.
2) Cantrips
Currently, Electric Arc is so much better than the spell attack cantrips it isn't even funny. Please supply a rules variant in an offical published book that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic. (The problem is that in order for variety to happen, the options need to be roughly equal)
3) Shields
Some gamers are fine with your current implementation, but others can't stand the notion you would even want to block an attack with your face to save your precious shield. Please supply an rules variant, again in an official published supplement, that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic.
4) Talismans
Again, not a problem for everyone. However, to some of us, talismans (especially low-level items) are a cruel joke. Being asked by the rules devs to spend all that brain power choosing talismans, constantly deciding to use or not use it, remembering which talisman is affixed where... and all for what? the game's smallest, stingiest and most fleeting of bonuses!
The option to consider every talisman vendor trash just to be sold for cash is a real quality-of-life improvement for many of your customers, and it would be real nice indeed if you would supply an official rules variant where talismans weren't such a (pardon the french) pain in the ass.
---
Yes these issues could be considered small. Yes, they are niggles, not show stoppers. Still, they collectively present a black stain on an otherwise excellent rules system for many gamers.
Frankly speaking, they should be fairly quick to solve (=offer variants for). A single dev and maybe an allotment of half a dozen pages, and boom, done. There really is no reason to keep us waiting for years before you come around to fixing them. Please do this, and do it in the next major rules supplement, and you will have significantly upgraded the way your game is considered for some (but not all) of your customers.
So, I reckon there is room for improving casters in PF2. (If you believe casters are just fine, please just move on - this thread's not for you. Thank you)
Here's an idea: wand runes and staff runes, partly to give casters a bit of a boost, but mostly to give casters too something really significant to look forward to buying or looting.
Note: In both cases, the rune effects apply both when the caster is casting a spell from the wand or staff itself, and when the caster is merely wielding the wand or staff while casting that spell normally (using a spell slot). Wielding a wand or staff adds a somatic component to the casting, if not present already.
Wand runes are duplicates of weapon runes, except they are etched onto magic wands, and give their effects to spells with a spell attack roll only. The GM is free to say a particular weapon rune don't exist as a wand rune.
Example: you could now find or buy a +1 striking corrosive wand of acid arrow. The potency rune would give you +1 on your spell attack rolls (whether you cast acid arrow or another spell with a spell attack roll). The striking rune would add one damage die (so one +1d8 acid for acid arrow or +1d4 negative for chill touch etc). Finally the corrosive rune would add +1d6 acid damage (and more on a critical) exactly as the corresponding weapon rune.
Staff runes are special (new) runes that are etched onto magic staves. They give their bonus only to castings of the specific spells of the staff (again, whether you use a staff charge or your own spell slot doesn't matter). Here are three such runes:
Staff Focus rune: gives its bonus to your spell DC.
I'm gonna use the armor resiliency rune as my template, seeing this is kind of its opposite.
Staff Focus (+1) Item 8 340 gp
Staff Focus (+2) Item 14 3440 gp
Staff Focus (+3) Item 20 49,440 gp
Staff Area Striking rune: Adds dice to spell damage if the staff's spell has a burst, cone, emanation, or line.
Positioning this half-way between single-target (wand) striking and the above focus rune (since damage is less unbalancing than higher DC).
Staff Area Striking (+1 dice) Item 6 275 gp
Staff Area Striking (+2 dice) Item 13 3,475 gp
Staff Area Striking (+3 dice) Item 19 44,475 gp
Staff Recapacitation rune:
Yep, this is what you've been fearing ;) - a rune to void the Incapacitation trait from a single casting of a single spell with a spell DC. A recapacitation rune has one charge, recharged daily. The rune tells you the maximum DC the rune can "recapacitate" for you (meaning that if you're wielding a staff with the DC 30 recapacitation rune, even if your spell save DC is 32, the target only needs to save against DC 30).
Staff Recapacitation (DC 16) Item 3 65 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 21) Item 7 380 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 26) Item 11 1,550 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 30) Item 14 5,000 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 36) Item 18 27,000 gp
The rulebook only lists "hirelings". I presume luggage carriers and torchbearers and such.
But what about sturdy NPC guards and other combat-capable individuals?
The rulebook does list the cost of purchasing somebody to cast a level 9 spell, so the concept of high-level NPCs is clearly there.
But what about prices for levelled NPCs? (Guards, thugs, assassins)
For instance, the GMG contains the following Mercenary NPCs:
Bodyguard level 1
Mage for Hire level 3
Bounty Hunter level 4
Monster Hunter level 5
If my party of circus directions would like to hire, say, a band of four Monster Hunters to protect their circus while they are away dungeon-bashing, what would it cost per week?
If no RAW sources (yet) exist, any well-reasoned PF2-aligned suggestions welcome :)
What do you think is the RAI here (rules-as-intended)?
1. Can a Ranger target two different creatures, as long as both are marked (Rangers eventually gain the ability to mark more than one creature)?
2. Is a Ranger required to select target(s) before executing either attack? (Or can they wait until knowing the result of one attack before selecting the target of the second)
3. Assume you hold one dagger in each hand, clearly fulfilling the feat requirement. Can you use Twin Takedown to throw the daggers at your target?
Thought to share my "expanded" Grail. Posted here because this is an AP specific item, and also because this is a GM only post.
In my view the name of the thingy is way cooler than its actual abilities. In short, given how the chance of at least one character participating in this AP being chaotic is close to 100%, this item amounts to three daily level 2 Restorations.
Nothing more, nothing less. No risk, no randomness. To me, that's somewhat of a missed opportunity, partly because of the cool name, partly because this item gets no story powers.
So instead I thought of the AP theme "recruit various people to your circus". Some of the people the players will want to recruit (as opposed to the NPCs specifically marked as recruitable by the adventure) have an evil alignment. In my case, the players made an honest effort of recruiting the carnival barker Ruanna Nyamma (page 17 of #2). It didn't lead to anything (the character rolled a natural 1) but still.
So here is a version of the Grail linked to Nocticula, the redeemer queen (and not coincidentally, a deity circus people might revere). You should easily see why Aroden clergy might find the item heretical and dangerous.
Or do you need to rest for 20 minutes between encounters (on average)? 30 minutes? One hour?
Or maybe do you often go through more encounters without having to stop for a "breather"?
---
If you find that you routinely spend several ten-minute chunks in resting between encounters, do you find that you get any use out of a second (third...) ten minute period?
I'm thinking that many game elements presuppose a 10 minute rest at regular intervals, to regain focus points, repair shields and whatnot.
But do you find a second such period of rest useful to your character? Or do you just take passive guard/scout duty while the healers do their thing, doing nothing much until the party is ready to move on?
I've talked about this previously, but I don't think the visibility was that high inside other threads, so in the hopes of garnering more discussion, here it is again, in a thread of its own.
As you might be aware, there's been discussion re: the fact that the circus can't pay for its own expenses regarding purchasing advertisements to raise Anticipation (each Anticipation point yields 1 gp while costing potentially dozens of gp in adverts), and that there aren't yet any reason for heroes to jack up the Anticipation. (though Paizo has promised there will be)
Now it's clear installment #4, Siege of the Dinosaurs, does not feature any story-based reasons to increase Anticipation either. This means that any such story mechanics won't show up until level 15 at the earliest. For many of you this might come off as too little too late, essentially meaning there's no point in striving for ever-higher Anticipation. And at double-digits, it feels... off... to have the heroes' circus still putter about with Anticipation 20 or thereabouts.
If you're concerned about heroes minmaxing their circus income by sticking to zero advertisements as long as they can, you might want to add minimum Anticipation requirements to the AP where none exist.
If the heroes fail to meet the minimum requirement when the Show is about to begin (I would guess most shows start in the late afternoon), the Show is simply cancelled, counting as a failure. Not enough people show up, so the spectators that do simply leave or even demand their money back. Purchasing "Beer" (the temporary upgrade) should be allowed, as a last desperate resort to fill the tent.
Essentially, the heroes need to put money up front with no assurance of ever getting it back. They do get (some of it) back, but don't tell them that. In order for this not to bleed heroes dry, you need to insert additional loot to the adventure.
Do be aware that adding Anticipation demands does offer a way for Charismatic characters skilled in Society to save a nice chunk of cash through the Promote the Circus activity.
Here are my suggestions:
In part 2, the circus is still new enough that minimum anticipation requirements doesn't feel warranted. And part 4 only features a single circus performance (that gets interrupted to boot). So the best place, in my mind, to add these are in part 3, the Swardlands.
The heroes need to visit four towns, so stipulate they need to pull off a successful show in each town. Then say that these towns aren't easily impressed, and so, there is a minimum Anticipation requirement for a show to count as a success.
It starts at Anticipation 25, and increases by 5 for each successful Show. (If you fail, you basically have to try again. This might even force adventurers to do some adventuring just to cover the advertisement costs)
First performance: Anticipation 25 (+250 gp loot; level ~8)
Second performance: Anticipation 30 (+500 gp loot; level ~9)
Third performance: Anticipation 35 (+800 gp loot; level ~10)
Fourth performance: Anticipation 40 (+1,200 gp loot; level ~11)
As you can see, I've indicated the amount of extra loot/cash I think appropriate to insert into each chapter.
At least this way, the circus rules (and advertisement costs) makes more sense to me. It remains to be seen what, if any, Anticipation requirements installment #5 will impose on the heroes.
Hope to hear your thoughts on this. Do my numbers make sense to you?
What would your best advice be to a GM who wants to run his Extinction Curse as close to the written, default, expected, intended way possible?
As written, there is no settlement at party-level along the path of the story for the heroes from level 7 through level 14. During this time, every settlement is either listed as lower level, or not listed at all (but described like a low level settlement).
How does the RAW expect a GM to handle players wanting to pop over to, say, Absalom, to spend all their money? Perhaps even using transportation magic to make it an easy day trip..?
Is there even an official expectation that if an AP doesn't detail a settlement of a given level, such a settlement is simply not accessible by the heroes, full stop?
Please - I am fully aware I can make my own decision. I need help figuring out what neither the CRB nor the GMG states explicitly: what is the default state? The fall-back option?
The trope of trying to distract/disrupt an evil spellcaster from completing a big bad spell is common in fantasy literature.
Specifically, that there is a chance of making that spellcaster lose her spell.
Now, I'm looking through the rulebook, but all I can find is the section "Disrupted and Lost Spells" on page 303. But it doesn't explain what actions (if any) that have a chance at disrupting the casting.
Question: Is there a mechanism in PF2 which details some kind of die roll to determine if a spellcasting is lost or not (outside of casting while Stupefied).
For instance, causing damage to caster to force some kind of roll or check to keep the spell.
(I realize I'm probably - hopefully - late to the party, so if there's an existing thread or three discussing these issues, feel free to link)
Getting more and more play experience, I must say, there are some balance issues that vex me and my group.
For example: cantrips. A caster is invariably weaker at making attacks, while having a competitive DC.
So why are cantrips that target only one creature and do nothing on a miss not significantly more lethal than Electric Arc, which targets two creatures and deals half damage on a miss/fail? (And why aren't there similar cantrips for other damage types?)
At first blush, it seems a cantrip with no special features (such as splash damage or incredible range) should do double damage if it targets only a single creature, and probably a third helping of damage if a miss does nothing. (A cantrip that requires close combat would probably not be overpowered even if its damage die was a d12!!)
Second, a spell like Fireball. 6d6 at fifth level is ~20 damage. That's only slightly better than what a good whack from a martial deals, given that the Striking rune is the first a player will save up to. Giant Instinct Barbarians aside, the 2d10+6 our Fighter deals with his reach Halberd is probably more representative. If he hits twice (or Power attack etc) that's more than a Fireball against that one target, and his chance of critting is higher too.
But he can do that every round of the day. Given six fights of three rounds each, that's eighteen rounds. The Wizard can do it three times.
In the round where the Barbarian critted twice she dealt over a hundred damage, which even an optimal Fireball will struggle to match.
I understand Paizo didn't follow in 5E's footsteps, but when not even Fireball can impress, and the caster keeps feeling significantly underpowered even at fifth level, we're definitely still in the old days where casters are simply brought along for their future potential, rather than being powerful in their own right during the levels most people play at.
I must say, I'm starting to see WotC's point - okay so cantrips aren't meant to impress, but if you can do something impressive three times a day, I'd prefer it if what you did then actually impressed. In short, where are the "striking runes" for spellcasters?
Or this thought: It seems the design space for a wand (say) that upgrades the damage die of a short-range one-target nothing-on-a-miss cantrip from the d4 to at least a d8 if not a d10 is wide open. (Obviously there would be at least three tiers of such items just like with almost all other items)
Again, there must be existing threads on these subjects, so feel free to not repeat what you said there and instead link me. Thx
Herein I'll summarize my experiences with the various Extinction Curse chapters (referred to by party level)
Level 1: Since Nemmia lurks in the midst of their camp, all or nearly all encounters will take place the very same night the heroes pull off their first circus show. This makes the chapter exceedingly deadly. Be prepared to at least hold off Nemmia for a couple of hours, assuming the Medicine skill can at least patch up the heroes before the final showdown.
Level 2: Much much easier, since the heroes can space out their explorations over several days. Caution: if they don't discover the Lindell Barn fairly soon (and they have no reason to hurry at least initially) you will as the GM have to decide whether the kidnapped family has died of thirst.
Level 3: Taking on the entire Hermitage in a single day is a very tall order, especially with the overpowered Corrupted Retainers. You need to anticipate the heroes withdrawing or hiding to rest for a day. The module has very little advice on how the Corrupted Priests react to a partial invasion, and no advice on potential reinforcements. It is written as if the heroes will free Harlock in a single swoop, but I don't see that happening given the formidable opposition.
Level 4: Again much much easier, since nearly every foe is lower level than the heroes. Also, the monsters aren't given random power-ups. Cavnakash does have the potential for spectacular bursts of damage, but he's only one mob, and since he's clearly the "end level boss", expect heroes to make mincemeat of him going all out. At least the writers makes it clear they expect the heroes to spend the night inside the Tower, given that they have provided a safe room for them to rest in. Still, they didn't need more than the one rest, so I'll probably reuse the "environmental effects" table somewhere else - I only got to roll on it twice.
