Can you point out to me where it says that?
It's unfortunately not in the main blood magic entry, though it should be if it's intended. It's only in the blood magic entry in the Key Terms section right above the main blood magic entry.
Search Posts
One player in a game I was in was worried about the alignment removal because they were a hallowed necromancer, which they thought was highly alignment involved. It only had one alignment related prerequisite which was easily translated to the new holy/unholy system. Turns out, they were actually more concerned about the presence of edicts and anathemas, which all remained intact. That's about it in my experience. Most people were relieved about the removal for one reason or another. The rest seemed indifferent.
They have it set up as 3 known, 4 slot, right? Yup, and then the granted spells, though marked as revelation spells, appear at the appropriate levels.
It’s also dubious if you could keep the blood magic effect gained through Extend Blood Magic’s casting assuming you keep the extended one. There is now a line that suggests you can only have one blood magic active on yourself at a time. I’d ask your GM how they’d rule that for you.
edit: actually scratch that. They would need to errata Nudge the Scales too if their intent was to cause an undead/dhampir to not be harmed by vitality damage. Because Nudge the Scales only says you're healed by vitality healing effects, not unharmed by vitality damage. At least aligning with void straight up gives you the void healing ability, which includes immunity to void damage. But still no immunity to Bones' curse Ideally, Nudge the Scales should just say you either lose or gain the void healing ability to save up on word count since having no void healing implies you heal with vitality anyway. Although, yes, I’m sure this is what they intended with Nudge. Void healing should really just have a line on how it changes targeting or not. It needed it yesterday when it was still negative healing. Maybe then we can productively begin to figure out what is intended by the Bones curse.
Preremaster, triple 1-action Harm seemed pretty popular among undead sorcerers. Always paired with the damage bonus blood magic effect for the best bang for the spell slot, the blood magic duration stacking wasn’t an issue. The temp HP blood magic effect overrided itself with temp HP’s own rules anyway. Now that they can get other blood magic effects, they’ve got a bunch of other options to weave in. Although, as a touch range gimmick, triple Harm with Explosion of Power will be an obvious blast.
But yes, a lot of the multiclass archetypes got nerfed. Oracle is one of the better ones now as its ability to use Cursebound abilities is exactly the same as a full Oracle until level 11, and some of those level 1 Cursebound feats could easily be worth picking up (Nudge the Scales is a really solid third action twice a combat). Oracle multiclass coming from one of the worst to what it is now is so wild. I don’t know if it’s on the level of Psychic just yet, but just surface level, it looks really good. Like that cursebound until level 11 observation I didn’t even realize. What’s an important feature are not even really able to poach? The domains, I think? That’s not like missing out on Unleash Psyche or Sorcerous Potency.
There's literally nothing on this in the 'Reading a Bloodline Entry' section. That is actually really frustrating. It only appears on the Blood Magic entry in the Key Terms sidebar, which is just above the Blood Magic entry in the Reading Bloodline Entry on the same page. For a seemingly important mechanical consideration, you’d think it would appear in both. Anyway, reading the entry under Key Terms, it reads to me as a limitation specific to when you “trigger” a blood magic effect. To me, in context with the first sentence, the word “benefit” seems to be used to imply the act of gaining or generating the blood magic effect as opposed to simply being affected by a blood magic effect.
Thankfully, this was one of the few clarifications addressed for Pathfinder Society. The swashbuckler’s You’re Next feat (page 164) is a reaction, not an action.
They use focus points. I noticed this bug in pathbuilder the other day too. It’s simply confusing the Granted Spells as Revelation Spells. Where it says Revelation Spells in your spell list/spell slot page, it’s supposed to say Granted Spells.
It has big implications when it comes to spells, which are particular with their targeting. Everything else should work as expected. Items and non-spell abilities and attacks that deal void or vitality mostly don’t have strict targeting requirements, so they will threaten your weakness appropriately. Gaining a weakness from a damage type that mostly can’t target you in the first place reads a bit too good to be true, so I can see the intention to not have it work that way. However, it also seems out of place from the other curses where it not only grants weaknesses but also completely removes an immunity you have by simply going to Cursebound 1. That reads a bit too bad to be true.
Okay6, so which Curse is the least Painful to use now? How do you read the Bones curse when it says "You can be hurt by both vitality and void damage even if one or the other normally has no effect on you."? I've been assuming it does not mess with targeting, i.e., Vitality Lash still can't target you if you're living, no Void Warp if you're undead, so it doesn't sound too bad. Reading it again though, I don't think I'm confident in my assumption anymore and it could be a more debilitating curse than I thought.
Why would Blood Rising would need a nerf/errata? The fact you can buff yourself and trigger Blood Magic with a magic of the same Tradition is very cool and a reaction, I don't really see it myself. Does anyone else? I think it's just supposed to be limited to enemies targeting you. It reads that way to me at least. Getting blood magic from cantrips also seems unintentional, but we'll see. On pg. 139, one of the results of Meddling Futures is inconsistent with the rest. Result 2 Adept states you get the bonus only if you're cursebound 3. The other results provide their bonus "if you are at least cursebound 3." Pretty minor.
All the domains with asterisks are the ones that will be reprinted in Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries, so it seems we'll have to wait to see all their changes.
Was there any clarification if it's intended to actually use the inhaled trait mechanic of spitting out a lingering 2x2 cloud at a 5ft range? It seems that the trait's mechanic was a rather obscure / unknown detail of the spell, but I used the "makes a cloud" version in Gatewalkers with no balance issues. I actually had to drop it off my cantrips, as even that version could not really compete against the likes of Gouging Claw or Shield. No more Inhaled trait for Puff of Poison thankfully. The last change I noticed is that it has a range of 10 ft now.
I know Enervation got changed to a 60 ft range 10 ft burst spell from a 30 ft line. It also had a name change that I remember can’t right now. Edit: It’s called Whispers of the Void now.
At the moment, I think it’s the only spell that does not have either the concentrate or manipulate traits.Also ranger's Gravity weapon and Heal Companion. Nice catch. I completely skipped focus spells.
Blood Vendetta is interesting. At the moment, I think it’s the only spell that does not have either the concentrate or manipulate traits. It only has the curse trait so it’s not subtle either. Does that mean it requires no incantation or gestures but it will still have obvious sensory manifestations like all spells?
No longer being minor cursed for the rest of the day is such a huge deal more several mysteries by itself. It also tackles that oddity of being locked to one revelation focus spell per encounter after the fact no matter how many focus points you have left because of the curse limits. It made the focus point perks seem artificial until major curse access. I am interested to see if the Psychic’s class feature to recover 2 focus points early on will remain as is or not. At the very least, for sure that Psychic focus point recovery ‘exploit’ will no longer be relevant with the new changes.
With the new streamlined focus point changes, the Oracle's perk of improved focus point recovery becomes largely ineffectual. Without that perk to balance the curse mechanic, it inadvertently makes the Oracle the most limited in casting focus spells than any other spellcaster with no further adjustments. How do you think the Oracle's focus point features will change and adapt in the remaster? I really had no clue how to even guess how they would approach this so I never gave it too much thought. That is until looking through the Oracle playtest. I came across an interesting quirk Oracles used to have and made me mull over this topic. Oracles did not have a focus pool at all and simply advanced their curse to use a focus spell. I could see this being revisited for the remaster and incorporating it with the current focus point mechanics. So imagine, the Oracle will now have the gimmick of being able to use focus spells in two ways. Either they pay in advancing their curse or spending a focus point, instead of paying both like they currently do. What I personally like about this the most is having more control on when you advance your curse, literally "focusing" to repress the curse when using a focus point. On the other hand, this is could be a huge amount of extra focus spells Oracles could cast per combat that could step on the Psychic's shoes a bit, so that may not be okay if nothing else changes. Also, maybe not? Especially if many of the curses stay as punishing as they are, this might be what it takes to make those curses worth the price.
Act Together doesn't play well with rules regarding 'last action used' or 'next action is'. Those rules for things like Knockdown and Metamagic weren't written with Summoner in mind - mostly because the Summoner class hadn't been written yet. Oh yeah, metamagic is interesting too. If it was read as literally as possible, this would result in the opposite sequence compared to push/knockdown/grab. The metamagic action has to be within the Act Together and be used before the separate Cast a Spell. So if the GM wants to be an antagonist of the players, then they could indeed rule that the Eidolon's 'last action used' was Act Together, not Strike. Or even that you have to have the Eidolon use their half of Act Together first before the Summoner can take their half - otherwise the 'last action used' was the Summoner's action, not the Eidolon's Strike. And if you try to rearrange your action usage to avoid that by having Act Together be the Summoner's action and the Eidolon's Strike and then have the Eidolon use Knockdown, then the GM can still rule that the 'last action used' was Act Together. Thankfully the order of actions can't be GM bullied in this context. The Knockdown action specifically call for the monster's (eidolon's in this case) last action and doesn't care about anybody else's. Whatever the order, the summoner and eidolon would each have their own individual 'last action used.' The summoner performs and spends the actions for Act Together, and then you both perform the subordinate actions in tandem, so you could do it the latter way if you want because the eidolon's last action would have been Strike I think I need a refresher on subordinate actions. I thought that meant the activity that contains them gets their traits but does not assimilate their identity. For example, Sudden Charge is technically not considered a Stride or Strike despite having the traits and properties of both, is it?
Push, Knockdown, and Grab from the respective eidolon feats all require the eidolon's last action to be a successful Strike. If I were to use this sequence with Act Together, I think I would have to strictly do it this way. 1st action: Eidolon Strike
I wouldn't be able to do it the other way where we Act Together with the Strike and then Push because Act Together becomes the eidolon's last action instead of a Strike. Is that right?
Nice catch. I didn't even notice Detect Metal was a cantrip so that is extra unusual. Looking through the other elemental lords, Kelizandri is probably the better example then. Grants Fear as a 1st level spell, another all-tradition spell. Curiously, he debuted in Gods and Magic so it seems this isn't a new oddity.
What do those actually do? The two metal elemental lords in Rage of Elements both grant Detect Metal. It's an all-tradition spell already so shouldn't it already be in your spell list as a Cleric?
I guess this could be relevant for things that activate from an initiative roll like if the eidolon had Battle Cry for example. We've always just treated it as being shared though.
Minotaurs AND Airships!? I’m sure I’ve had a dream about this before. It’s a dream come true! I’m very excited.
I enjoyed taking this survey. I was worried that it would be overwhelming, but dividing the changes into categories helped keep them digestable. Same. I was so relieved to see the organized categories. My eyes and attention span thank you, YuriP.
- Allow eidolons to wear and use tools to enable certain skill actions.
Bards getting different starting composition cantrips based on their Muse is an idea I’ve heard more of lately. I don’t know how I feel about it overall, but I enjoy the thought of Inspire Courage being the Warrior muse’s signature cantrip. The different cantrips would just become low level feats any other muse can still take on their own.
I almost want to outright give the Oracle focus point auto-upgrades to every focus point class. Then to compensate for the Psychic and Oracle, they get a class feature that allows combat refocus and a few exclusive feats that upgardes that ability or simply upgrades focus point use in some way beyond that new baseline. I don’t mind spending feats on focus point related abilities for the focus point focused classes. It already feels nice that way for Psychics, which already has a good one with Strain Mind. Although, the class getting taxed with the universal 18th level refocus feat is still an odd outlier.
Agreed. It all falls on what easier refocus actually means and results in. I could see it clue in more on the psychic refocus trick being intended or not, even if the psychic texts remain unchanged.
I know Psychics aren't part of any of this but with the rework on refocusing, I wonder if their odd refocus trick will inadvertently be addressed.
Ah, I'm glad it's known. I haven't played an overly reach-based character yet so I've managed to avoid all of this.
When something calls for your reach and you have multiple things with different reach values, what is actually your reach? The plant eidolon made me ponder on this. Its ability growing vines says
All your eidolon's melee unarmed attacks gain the reach trait. Its other ability field of roots says All enemies within your eidolon's reach take damage of the same type and amount as your eidolon's most damaging Strike, depending on their Reflex saves. When field of roots is referring to the eidolon's reach, is there a difference between the eidolon's reach and the eidolon's reach with it's melee unarmed attacks? Hypothetically, if eidolons could use weapons, would that also be a separate instance of its reach, or is it all interchangeable when something asks for your reach?
I've had enough different people argue and ask about things like Malignant Sustenance if it can target Dhampir's in the first place or not to consider it confusing. I just rule Negative Healing as if it says to also treat the living with Negative Healing as undead even for targeting purposes AKA what Gortle said. It doesn't say it but it's the simplest and probably the most intended way of interpreting it.
Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work. I haven't GM'd in a bit so I don't remember exactly how I tackled this but I think that's is how I did it. Probably not entirely rules accurate but it's the only way it's ever been the most functional and the least confusing in my experience as both a GM or player. I think how exactly I did is that anything with negative healing that's also living is simply targetable as undead and prioritized as so if at all possible. So things like Heal and Harm that can target both, has targets you as undead. Effects that exclusively target the living work on you normally, while effects that exclusively target the undead will work on you as if you're undead. Of course the most important part is that these ONLY apply if the effect in question involves positive and negative healing and damage AKA if it interacts in any way with the Negative Healing ability. I'm sure there are effects that exclusively target undead with no relation to Negative Healing that could be problematic if it worked on a technically living creature. Although I think this is where a living creature with Negative Healing AND has the undead trait would be relevant? So not the Dhampir but the Undead Eidolon qualifies for such effects. This subject is so consistently confusing, a clarification on all of it would be so relieving. This is probably the only rule that renews my confusion whenever I come back to it and have to reprocess how I understand it, lol.
Yeah, broader clarifications are more likely than balance changes although, balance was a major factor with the last batch of errata so it's on the table. For balance I'd like to see change is animal barbarians. Deer and frog get extra benefits at 7th level and the other animals get nothing. Always bugged me. I do hope so but I'm biased because clarifications are my personal top priority. I still want to know for sure if eidolons can actually use mundane tools or not, for example. Even the recently addressed Soothe brought up the still ongoing battle between the undead trait and the healing trait. I'm so anxious on closing the books that one. Anything to boost consistency on such rulings across games is appreciated since I do bounce between different tables more than ever.
For a different example, Lifelink Surge also specifies the eidolon gaining the fast healing. You make a quick gesture, tracing the link between yourself and your eidolon and drawing on your connection to slowly strengthen your shared life force. Your eidolon gains fast healing 4 for 4 rounds. As a slight tangent, what happens if both the summoner and eidolon has fast healing? Do you only take the higher value like with aoes? Does it have any impact if the fast healing values or source are the same or different?
But I hardly see how the Eidolon could get temp hps, so it's fine. The Undead eidolon's second ability allows it access to temp hp pretty consistently. It was actually what prompted my question since the ability specifically says the eidolon is the one that gains temp hp. I don't think it ever came up the with the last Summoner I played so I found it interesting.
It does seem annoying if it isn’t shared. Keeping track of temp hp for both and then calculating damage separately seems like a nightmare and deviates from the linked hp design.
You share regular hit points but does that extend to temporary hit points? Let’s say only your eidolon has temporary hit points, but you, the summoner, gets hit. Do you decrease your hit points directly or treat your eidolon’s temp hp as your own?
I just realized the Undead Eidolon’s Drain Life isn’t restricted to melee Strikes. I might actually try one out with this Ranged Combatant playstyle.
I'm actually working on two ancestries right now, because I've got to have beefolk and mothfolk in my game, non-negotiable. There's something about unconventional creatures with great potential to be fuzzy that just instantly captures me. Mothfolk have always been in my radar but beefolk are suddenly in range too.
Infinite Eye's unique cantrips are all single actions too. I haven't played one but I really like how that offers better turn flexibility and spell options I wouldn't feel too bad risking during your stupefied turns.
Heightened Fear is something I always look forward to as a support role at low levels. The multiple targets makes it a lot more consistently relevant and efficient compared to it's single target version
Strain Mind is an option though not exactly equivalent to a direct refocus improvement. It's hourly and it comes at a cost. I do agree the initial refocus description could use more clarity considering how it deviates from other refocus rules. In my experience, it has not been consistently ruled across different tables.
I'm always in favor for more accessible rules clarifications. Anything that can help us avoid threads that accrue hundreds of posts that ultimately and unfortunately fails to answer anything in the end. There was at least one or two battle medicine threads did this and it was a nightmare to go through when I was a new player looking for answers. Never again.
We still don't have insectoid ancestries, right? Other than some Sprite heritages of course but you're also stuck at tiny.
I think it should probably say "in the area when the spell is cast." That's what what I think it intends to do, at least. Most other spells that create a lingering "zone" are often more specific like specifying what happens when leaving, entering, or how you're affected while inside the area. To Calm Emotions' credit at being suspicious, I can't think of another comparable spell off the top of my head that affects an area but the effects are what is sustained instead of the area.
I have seen both a Oscillating Wave and The Silent Whisper in action. I think Oscillating Wave does more damage. Silent Whisper has a nice base cantrip with Forbidden Thought, but it only works once per target per battle. Shatter Mind is nice too. I can vouch for Silent Whisper. One basically changed how our GM built encounters. Amped Shatter Mind is a beast of a spell: good damage, huge aoe, debuffs on fail and party safe. We weren’t exactly shocked with the sudden surge of mindless and/or high will save enemies and anti-cone enemy formations shortly after back to back unleashed + amped Shatter Minds became a staple. The Psychic isn’t even mad because they didn’t intend to build a dedicated blaster in the first place.
|