So someone decided they did not like alignment and convinced everyone else to leave it out of the game.
Well, not quite. It was more legal reasons than anything else. But close enough.
Reading through the rest of the OP, it feels like you are already answering your own questions. You just don't like the answer.
Indi523 wrote:
What is a Cinder dragon, what make it tick. What is the culture of Cinder dragons? Are they selfish, kind hearted, stern but fair, reckless and passionate. ... what drives them. Sometimes the description on monsters for whatever reason is light on these aspects meaning I guess I have to fill that in.
Yes. That is the point. You get to fill in the culture and motivations of each creature that you put in there as an NPC with screen time.
If the PCs don't ever interact with the Cinder Dragon other than to roll initiative and kill it, does it matter what their culture or motivations are?
Indi523 wrote:
Culture matters especially in fantasy because it is about the great conflict Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos.
Well, not necessarily. The great conflict between Good and Evil is a common trope, but is hardly mandatory.
Indi523 wrote:
Alignment was a shorthand that helped to flesh all of that out.
Cinder Dragons are CE, Ok the are cruel and selfish like a red dragon, LE ok then they are ordered and believe in discipline and conquest, N, they are balanced and react as mother nature, their personality dormant until they erupt.
Sure, I agree that alignment did not force a creature to be one way or another
This seems contradictory. You want alignment as a shorthand for the creature's personality, but also need to mention that alignment doesn't really indicate a creature's personality.
So, I'm not entirely sure that you actually understand what you really want.
-----
Essentially, removing alignment is cutting out an unnecessary and confusing indicator that doesn't really indicate anything.
It also has the effect that we no longer subconsciously try to shoehorn every enemy of the same type to be clones of each other. While most people would at least cautiously, and maybe grudgingly, agree that alignment was not an inviolable creature stat, it still caused a lot of subconscious racism by proxy... and comics mocking that. Goblins were evil and were remorselessly attacked on sight. As were Kobolds, Drow, Troglodytes, ... simply because that was their race.
I don't think Pathfinder2e or tabletop gaming in general is worse because of the removal of alignment and having to at least consider some sort of morality of your own choices based on something other than easily visible physical characteristics of the creature in front of you. It is a life lesson that is best shown rather than told. And a TTRPG game is a place to learn such lessons with no legal consequences if you get it wrong a few times.
You have to have the Blood Magic feature first to use feats that give an alternate Blood Magic option.
You've just invented that. Where's this coming from? Why?
HammerJack quoted his rules source.
Let me see if I can explain it a bit more clearly.
Blood Magic is a class feature that a base class Sorcerer gets at 1st level.
Blood Magic wrote:
Whenever you cast a bloodline spell using a Focus Point or a sorcerous gift spell using a spell slot, you choose one blood magic effect you know to benefit from. You begin play with the benefit listed in your bloodline and can gain others through sorcerer feats.
It is one that you don't gain from the archetype.
Without that class feature, you can know as many Blood Magic effects as you want. Knowing the effect doesn't give you the ability to use them when you cast a Sorcerer spell.
So while you are technically correct that you can take the feat to learn the Blood Magic effect, that still doesn't give you the Blood Magic class feature that lets you use it.
It is much like the Psychic archetype. The dedication does not give you the Unleash Psyche class feature, and no archetype feat grants it. So you can technically take the Psi Burst feat, but will not be able to use it since the action has the Psyche trait.
Yes, the ruling that Primary Target uses no additional ammunition for any weapon is for framing the extra damage as just a mechanics thing.
Mechanically, the player rolls to hit like they would for a Strike and if successful they deal extra damage to that primary target.
Narratively, the character uses their weapons training and experience to make sure that they hit this primary target extra hard with their area weapon. They don't shoot the weapon at that primary target additional times (or somehow manage to throw the same grenade at someone a second time).
Frightful Presence (and most Creature Abilities) are intended for combat.
If you are talking to a Dragon for more than a minute, then as the GM, feel free to fudge the rules of these combat abilities a bit to make them make more narrative sense.
The Aura Creature Ability rules mentions that it can be ruled to not affect allies. It even uses Frightful Presence as the example.
So extrapolating from that, I could rule that during a social encounter, even if not considered an ally, the Frightful Presence is not causing fear to the point of game mechanical impact. It doesn't require a save and doesn't cause the Frightened condition. It just causes a narrative 'sense of unease and awe' that can be role-played as the players see fit.
OK, first - basic PF1 => PF2 paradigm/meta changes.
For player tactics:
* Blitz attacking (attack, attack, attack, the only defense is dead enemies) is a bad plan. Spend some actions on defense.
* Yes, only making one attack in a round is still a good and productive round. Your first attack is your best attack anyway.
* Battles are won by the group, not by individuals. Focus on party tactics and powerful combos, not on individual power.
* For many enemies, attacking their stats is a good plan. Debuffs can become rather important.
* Similarly, buffs for your allies is also important. The most universally available and constantly repeatable buff is Aid.
For GM:
* Level is the most important stat. It overrides pretty much every other consideration of encounter balance. Don't send over-leveled enemies at the party.
* It is more fun and engaging to have lower level enemies that are 'fighting to win' than to have higher level enemies that you have to 'hold back' with in order to avoid TPK.
* Yes, it is expected that the party is at full HP before every fight. Attrition isn't supposed to be an encounter balance consideration. Only spell slots and n/day abilities suffer attrition.
Next, for this particular group of PCs.
Lay on Hands is pretty good for in-combat healing. It would be better if there were more options, but you don't need a dedicated healer. Like Losonti mentioned, Monk with Battle Medicine is pretty nice. Combo that with Robust Health (once you are high enough level) if going that route.
What you do need to do is work on taking less damage. The Champion is the king of damage mitigation. Between Shield Block and Champion Reaction, they should be able to prevent a good chunk of damage each round. Make sure that the party (at least the Monk) stays near the Champion so that the Reaction can work.
If it is at all possible, make the enemy spend actions on Stride rather than spending your own actions on Stride. A Champion and Monk aren't the greatest ranged damage dealers, but if the enemy is even worse at it, then use the ranged options anyway and force the enemies to come to you. Especially with a Gunslinger as backup. Enemies probably don't want to get into a ranged combat battle with a Gunslinger. So if the party can shave off half the enemy's HP while they are closing the distance to you, all the better.
Enemies sometimes have a weakness that can be exploited. Whether that is a particular damage type that they have a literal weakness to, or a lack of some combat options (like having no ranged attack at all) that you can take advantage of. Also, enemies usually have some sort of special abilities, reactions, or unique attacks that they will make use of that you will need to be aware of to try and mitigate or avoid. This often makes battles feel more like a puzzle to solve rather than a nail that you hit with the same hammer as last time. That is at least the intent. So you are going to want to research your enemies. If your characters know that you are going to be facing fey, ghosts, and phantasms, then they should spend some time in town researching the basics of those types of creatures in general. And then when combat breaks out, it is often a good idea to spend an action or three on Recall Knowledge to find out any special things about these particular enemies that you are facing. It is certainly better action use than making a 3rd attack at -10 penalty.
You have studied the delicate balance of life and death to such a point that you can dance between them with ease. Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality. For instance, if the creature were immune to void and had no resistance or immunity to vitality damage, it would take vitality damage from the spell or ability. Resistance or immunity to both (or to all damage) applies as normal.
Only affects Void and Vitality damage. It does not modify how Void or Vitality healing effects work.
So you could still restore HP on an Undead ally with the Harm spell - and probably on a Dhampir ally too unless your GM is trolling you with a strict RAW reading (at which point both Heal and Harm do nothing to a Dhampir).
So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it.
I think that also causes a lot of confusion. Mostly when trying to talk about these types of spells in general rather than for a specific class.
If B is of type A, and C is of type B, then C is also of type A. That is the transitive property, which is used in math and logical reasoning.
Composition Spells wrote:
Composition spells are a type of focus spell.
Composition Cantrips wrote:
Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points
So according to what the book calls them, Composition spells are a type of Focus Spell, and Composition Cantrips are a type of Composition spells. So Composition Cantrips are a type of Focus Spell. They just don't cost Focus Points to cast.
So while calling them a Focus Spell Cantrip may be a bit more accurate, calling them a Focus Cantrip is pretty much equivalent. It is a generalization of Composition Cantrip, Hex Cantrip, and any future Focus Spells that have the Cantrip trait - so that we can talk about these spells as a category rather than having to list out each class's specific name for them.
You either have spells so high level few will see them or spells that aren't so good.
The example that I listed is at level 9. When you first get the Dancing Invocation ability and when you can first cast Invoke Spirits.
Even if there is only one spell that combos into an overpowered scenario, then that is a balance problem.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Liturgist is the only powerful practice. If you don't take it, you won't even be close to the power casters.
A 'must pick' is still a balance problem.
Yes, a different balance problem than what we are discussing previously. But it is one of the other major balance problems that I have with this Liturgist ability.
Is there a reason you couldn't burn two focus points to cast Earth's Bile twice, then each round thereafter sustain both?
There is.
Vessel Spells wrote:
Because vessel spells are a manifestation of a specific apparition, an animist can't cast or Sustain a specific vessel spell in the same round they have already cast or Sustained it (for example, an animist who has cast earth's bile during their turn can't then cast or Sustain another instance of earth's bile during that same turn).
-----
WatersLethe wrote:
Does that mean you could:
1a: Earth's Bile
1a: Circle of Spirits
1a: River Carving Mountains
1a: Elf Step
- Step, Sustain Earth's Bile for damage
- Step, Sustain River Carving Mountains
- Stride
2a: Cast a regular spell
Yes, that works.
In fact, you forgot the subordinate action Stride that also happens when you first cast River Carving Mountains in your first turn.
The current RAW is yes, Dancing Invocation modifies all Step, Leap, and Tumble Through actions so that they also sustain one active Apparition spell or Vessel spell. This means that using Elf Step would sustain two of them.
I think this ability is quite a bit too powerful, and this type of interaction in one of the several reasons why.
For Vessel Spells, there is a limit of only casting or sustaining one instance of any spell each round, and only once each round. You can't cast multiple of the same Vessel focus spell, and you can't sustain the same spell more than once per round.
Apparition spells have no such restriction. They cost a spell slot, but you can cast them without other restrictions than their spell slot cost and action cost. Being able to sustain them easier makes a character with Dancing Invocation much more powerful than one without it. Being able to sustain more than one of them with one action is even worse.
There are many Apparition spells that have a sustained duration. More than a few that might be useful in combat.
Any two of these could be sustained with Elf Step and Dancing Invocation. Or sustain one of them along with a Vessel spell.
A Witness to Ancient Battles Animist at level 9+ can sustain both Embodiment of battle, Invoke Spirits, and move 10 feet without provoking reactions. For one action.
Figment can be sustained because it lists its duration as 'sustained'.
Menacing Lament instead lists the duration at a fixed '1 round'. It cannot be Sustained.
Glamorize also has a fixed duration. Its duration is '1 hour'. It can be Sustained, but not to extend the duration. It can be Sustained for the special effect listed in the spell that the Sustain action causes.
Sprite and Gnome with Fey-Touched heritage are both explicitly Fey creatures.
There are several other ancestries that could easily be considered Fey if the table desires. Kitsune and Tanuki being the ones that come to my mind first.
Edit: And Yaksha are an interesting case. They are explicitly originally from the First World (same as Gnomes), but they also appear to be explicitly not Fey.
Am I correct in assuming that a Kineticist without an actual reach weapon in his hands, will not be considered threatening unless he's adjacent to the opponent, even with Weapon infusion?
Yes. You have that correct.
Weapon Infusion can add the Reach trait to one particular Elemental Blast casting, but that doesn't persist permanently.
It is much like the Extending Rune. You don't keep the melee reach that you gain for more than the action that it modifies.
Please cite text that would indicate this containerization. You really, really, really cannot poof-invent things like that when dealing with game systems like this.
Certainly.
Subordinate Actions wrote:
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.
That is the rule. That is the containerization. An activity contains its subordinate actions and using the activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions: not its first one; and not its last one.
That is the entire rule. The rest of that paragraph is an example. Examples are not a replacement of the rule. An example is not an exhaustive exemplification of the rule for all cases.
Nothing in that rule designates any distinction between forward-looking and backward-looking abilities. A 'if your next action is...' ability encounters this rule when looking at activities in the exact same manner than a 'if your previous action was...' ability does.
You are the one making the logic mistake. You are elevating an example to be the rule.
Yes. And I am not certain if there are any spears that both qualify for the Staff Acrobat archetype requirements and have the Thrown trait or not.
I don't think the Longspear itself has the Thrown trait. But I also am a bit busy and haven't checked if other spears that have Thrown trait could also qualify for Staff Acrobat.
But the Staff Acrobat ability only lets you use the normal melee Trip action. Not Ranged Trip.
Most of us will extrapolate from the clarifications for durations of effects caused by afflictions to also apply to durations of effects caused by spells. Because both have nearly the same rules concept - that conditions caused may or may not persist beyond the affliction/spell duration. NorrKnekten just quoted the one for spells, and the one for afflictions is similar.
Page 458 (Clarification): If an affliction makes me enfeebled 1 without listing a duration and the affliction ends, am I enfeebled forever?
The rules on Conditions from Afflictions note that a condition can last for a longer duration that the affliction that caused it, using drained as an example. There are three categories of effects from afflictions here.
1 Immediate effects like damage happen as soon as you reach the stage.
2 Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration. This includes conditions like drained, frightened, persistent damage, and sickened.
3 Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them—such as clumsy or paralyzed—last as long as the stage of the affliction on which they appear. This also applies to effects that are ongoing but specific to the affliction rather than being defined conditions, such as a penalty to certain rolls.
Applying that to this spell means that the deafened effect would end with the spell's duration since deafened does not have a natural way of auto-removal. The Sickened condition would remain beyond the duration of the spell because it does have a natural way of auto-removal (Retching).
Among PF1e players, the biggest probably single turn off that prevents us from playing PF2e, and we want to, is the very unrealistic decision to NOT have weapon size affect damage.
For us, this taints PF2e because this major point of believability has been shattered
Like... seriously?
Maybe among a small group of players. But I certainly haven't seen that be the single biggest turn-off. That doesn't even break the top 10.
1) Lack of math boosting build options like Vital Strike, Power Attack, and Iron Will.
2) Lack of combinatorial and stacking build options that allow overpowering roll bonuses.
3) Enemies having enough HP that a blitz attack doesn't drop them in one turn.
4) Enemies having high enough bonuses that they can hit PCs.
5) The existence of Skill feats.
6) Debilitating effects of spells relegated to critical success effects.
7) The Incapacitation trait.
8) Lack of Sunder maneuver.
9) Familiars.
10) Shield mechanics.
Somewhere significantly below those is "medium characters don't do more damage with the same weapon than small characters do."
The pattern that I see is that weapons start with one upgrade slot and gain an upgrade slot with each increase in damage dice count.
As for upgrading a level 0 non-archaic weapon, it would follow the normal rules for upgrading an analog or tech weapon. The GM would need to determine the cost of each tier of improvement using other similar weapons as guidelines or the standard cost by item level table.
Yeah. The rules for Ikons are pretty clear that there are some that work for unarmed attacks. Much less clear is if they work for temporary unarmed attacks like those from a Stance. Nothing says that they don't, but nothing says that they do either.
For PFS, I have heard that they will first want questions like this sent to the community for volunteer rules lawyers to look at before making a PFS campaign ruling on. And, well, now you have that.
To explain how I balance my encounters; I tend to only use creatures and hazards in the range of PL+2 to PL-2 when possible. The party have only ever faced Extreme encounters twice, both of which they went into with an in-game day of preparation and knowledge gathering in advance, and both of which they were allowed to prebuff as much as they wanted before the fight commenced. Every other combat encounter I have ever run has been Severe at worst, and never more difficult than Moderate if the fight was against things with a lot of resistances and/or immunities.
No, that is pretty much right. That is what I would recommend for encounter design.
Three full casters, a Rogue, and a gish Kineticist is an interesting choice for a party. I'm with cavernshark on this one - this is a skirmisher party. They aren't going to like fights that force the toe-to-toe combat style.
So I'm thinking that this is a case where the play experience would be improved with changes to party tactics and maybe encounter setup (rather than encounter math balance).
Characters should be leaning into ranged damage options, mobility and movement types, and evasive/defensive abilities. Battles should feature varied terrain and options for mobile characters to get good defensive positions.
Oh, also be aware of the action economy and mechanics of Hide, Sneak, Strike, and Fly.
When you Strike, regardless of what feats you have or if you have cover or concealment or neither, you will become Observed after the Strike action. You have to spend an action on Hide to become Hidden and then Sneak to become Undetected.
You also have to spend an action on Fly to remain airborne and not fall, though many GMs are going to allow Sneak with a Fly action to count. I find it hard to rule otherwise. Sneak uses Stride or Fly as a subordinate action, and using Fly as a subordinate action would still have all of the normal effects and traits of the Fly action - such as keeping you airborne.
So a round consisting of Strike, Hide, Sneak(Fly) would work fine.
A round consisting of Strike, Fly, Hide would also work decently well, but enemies are going to know what square you are in even though they can't see you there (which makes for a rather bizarre narrative description, but that is how the mechanics of stealth work).
However, a round consisting of Strike, Strike, Hide and you are going to fall out of the air.
And a round consisting of Strike, Strike, Fly and you are going to be observed at the end of your turn even with Legendary Sneak and Shooter's Camouflage.
Neither of those feats are affected by using Fly as your movement type. The Sneak action allows using a Fly speed to Sneak with as long as you have that as an actual movement Speed.
For Shooter's Camouflage the restriction is that you are in the proper terrain. If you are flying in a location that is not the proper terrain, then you are not going to benefit from the feat. The question would be in a scenario where the ground is the proper terrain, but you are flying so high that the terrain you are in is no longer part of that terrain.
So for example, if you have Camouflage for Urban terrain, but you are flying well above the height of the houses and buildings in the vicinity, then I could see ruling that you are in a Sky terrain instead of the Urban terrain.
Legendary Sneak has no restriction like that. You are simply allowed to Hide and Sneak without any cover or concealment. That includes places like the middle of an empty room, An open space directly in front of your opponent, or being 35 feet in the air over an empty field.
Like Squiggit says, it doesn't make any logical sense. It is a superhero fantasy ability.
Until they errata it, I will be allowing this item's precision damage to affect oozes despite their immunity to precision, citing specific over general as my justification. As with the bane rune, this still won't allow other damage types the target is immune to to affect it, such as slashing vs a string ooze
That seems like a good way to handle it. I think there are some plants and fungus immune to precision as well, so I think I'll add a line that 'creatures immune to precision are not immune to the precision damage from this item.'
The only legacy creatures that I can think of off-hand that I don't like and would prefer only the Remaster versions of is Golems.
Golem Antimagic was both hard to adjudicate and was brutal to spellcasters.
In a fight with a Golem, it is easily possible for a spellcaster to be completely unable to contribute any damage or debuffs to the battle. Buff and support casters were still viable, but that is all unless you are really lucky (or metagaming) on your spell traits and damage types.
And depending on how the GM rules on various wordings, the game play could be completely different. On one hand, the players could cheese throwing bottles of mundane water at a golem to trigger Golem Antimagic damage. On the other hand, the party could have the martial's weapons also get their fundamental rune damage negated.
The Bastions that replace Golems are a lot easier to understand and play with.
I have had opportunity to use Phase Familiar once. It was pre-Remaster, so Phase Familiar was the only option at the time. The party blundered into a trap that sprayed AoE fire damage across the entire party. My familiar was a Poppet familiar and so had fire weakness and would have been 1-shot from the damage dealt if not for Phase Familiar.
-----
The difficulty with giving advice on this is that it is heavily dependent on both your character build and what you are doing with your familiar - and your GM. A familiar that is ending up adjacent to enemies due to using Spell Delivery or a Witch special ability that requires adjacent range is going to need more protection than a familiar that only needs to be within 30 feet for their Witch special ability or can even do their entire job from within a Pet Cache pocket dimension.
To clarify for other Aeon Stones, the reason that Dusty Rose Prism is at-will is because the spell is a Cantrip.
Polished Pebble has a resonant power that allows you to cast Grease. Grease is not a Cantrip, so it is not cast at-will. The rule text for the ability specifies that the spell is cast as an innate spell with a limit of 1 per day.
Regarding taking Basic Kata twice (or any of the other initial feat gaining archetype feats), I wouldn't allow it. The Advanced version is a strict upgrade. Everything that Basic Kata can do, Advanced Kata can do also. So just take Advanced Kata.
The only scenario where that is not available is an edge case if you are playing with Free Archetype and are allowed to fill your standard class feats with archetype feats also (which is standard, though not universally allowed). You could take both your level 4 free archetype feat and your level 4 class feat as Basic Kata to buy your way out of the archetype two levels earlier. IMHO, that doesn't feel balanced right. If you can't normally buy your way out of the archetype that early, then you can't try to loophole your way out of it early either.
-----
As for taking Qi Spell twice, I also think that this is an oversight. It isn't technically available to take twice for different spells, but I would allow it anyway.
Nymph's Grace has the Visual trait, which means that the enemies have to be able to see you in order to be affected. Time Jump prevents enemies from being aware of your presence at all while you are moving. That would include being unable to see you.
I have to assume that we are only talking about the mandatory anathema and edicts from classes and class choices. Not the voluntary anathema and edicts chosen by a player for their particular character.
I don't generally see a problem with the anathema and edicts. Yes, it does limit some character concepts - but they are usually ones that don't make much sense anyway.
Players don't generally pick Druid as their class if the intent of the character is to despoil nature and pollute the air and water.
Why, exactly, are you playing a Cleric of Urgathoa in a campaign in Geb that involves fighting against the undead? Why not a Cleric of a different Deity?
The only ones that I can think of that I do find a bit too much is a too-strict interpretation of Untamed Order Druid (which is rare because of the note in the anathema itself) and the Legacy version of Superstition Instinct Barbarian that prevented being a willing target of spells from your party members (that part was toned down to only cause Frightened 1 in the Remastered version rather than violate Anathema).
So, no. I don't see any good reason to make these be optional. You certainly can ignore them anyway. But any player that comes to me asking to have the class anathema removed is going to be seriously questioned on what the character concept is that is needing that.
I also interpret that item's description to mean that all benefits of the activated ammunition only apply when the target is wearing or is made of metal.
Yes, I can see the error in the phrasing of the description that allows a loophole to argue that only the attack roll bonus is dependent on the metallic traits of the target and the damage dice increase is always available.
I don't allow rules lawyering of that level in games that I run.
I think that the first question that you have to ask is: Are the players helping the GM tell an interesting story, or are the players trying to beat the GM at a game?
That will go a long way towards deciding which way to run any challenge - both combat challenges and skill challenges.
I don't really like playing with people who are playing the game competitively and trying to 'mechanically win'. So I assume that my players are not doing so, and will usually give a standard DC and a set of recommended skills (Lore gets a reduced DC if it is an appropriate Lore). I also generally try to include at least one of: perception, saving throw, attack, or armor bonus (AC converted back to a bonus value) because that ensures that every character has some option to participate in the challenge with a roll that they are at least trained in.
And that is in addition to inviting additional skill options if they can come up with valid narrative reasons for using them.
The reason for this is because the skill challenges are mathematically designed for optimal play. The DC and number of successes needed in the allotted number of actions provided doesn't account for making checks with untrained skills or spending actions on Recall Knowledge to investigate what would be effective.
Now, if you do have a different group of players than I do and need to play your cards closer to the vest, there are some options available for that. As is mentioned earlier in this thread, you can certainly keep a fixed set of skills available (allowing additions for particularly good ideas that you hadn't thought of previously). You can also either require Recall Knowledge actions spent, or allow one Recall Knowledge check as a free action in order to gain information on what skills are available to be used.
However... If you do these, make sure that your math checks out. Pathfinder2e does not natively or intuitively support this style of competitive play. It is very easy for a GM to 'win' against the players. Which results in a very much not fun game to play and a story that ends well before the planned conclusion.
For example:
The party is four level 6 characters. Characters will therefore have mostly trained skills with a couple of skills at expert proficiency. They have gotten their first attribute boosts beyond first level, so many attributes are going to be at +2 or higher, though none will be above +4. There are likely still a couple of attributes at +0 or +1. So bonus values are going to be between +8 for trained but unoptimized skills and +14 for a fully optimized expert proficiency skill with maximum attribute synergy.
If I set the DC to be around 24, require 8 successes, and the challenge runs over the course of 4 rounds where each character gets one attempt per round: I am setting up a 50% overall success scenario. The entire party will have 16 attempts in total and will need to succeed at half of them in order to get the 8 points needed. They also only have an approximately a 50% success rate if they are using fully optimal skills for every attempt.
That is probably too much for me even using my relaxed way of running things. Some characters don't have any fully optimized skills (looking at you Kineticist) and some may not be able to justify using them for every skill challenge (a Sorcerer fully optimized in Diplomacy isn't going to be able to talk the cliff into letting them climb it easier).
So for my way of running things, I would do something like lower the number of successes needed or lower the DC in order to tip the probabilities in the party's favor so that they have a more than 50% chance of succeeding. Maybe make a tiered outcome - a low bar to meet that will allow the campaign to proceed with some narrative setbacks, and a higher bar that will allow the party to fully succeed with no setbacks.
If you are also going to add in requirements for Recall Knowledge actions to find out which skills are available, or find out which skills have a lower DC, then you are going to need to adjust things even more - adjust the overall typical DC or the number of successes needed. Otherwise you are cutting into the action count available.
With no other changes to the example: If everyone has to spend one action on Recall Knowledge, that means that effectively the party only has 12 actions remaining to get the 8 successes required. The probability of overall success dropped from 50% to about 20%. And that is assuming that everyone is using fully optimized skills and that all of the characters succeed at their Recall Knowledge checks. The probability of overall success will be even lower if those two assumptions are not met.
But they don't need to use Recall Knowledge if I hint at what the effective skills are:
Well, now we are getting to the rant part of this.
There is an entire category of disabled people whose disability literally distills down to "I can't 'read your mind' or 'pick up on your hints' effectively". So you are making some massive assumptions about your own ability to give hints and other people's ability to recognize and understand those hints that you are giving.
You are mechanically punishing a player for having a disability that prevents reading your hints. Their character has to spend actions doing Recall Knowledge while the other player's characters don't - those other players can just 'pick up on your hints' and 'magically know' (a.k.a metagame) what the right skills to use are.
A similar and perhaps worse effect happens if your list of appropriate and effective skills is fixed and you are resistant to allowing players to try and justify using skills that they are good at. This not only lowers the probability of overall success, but it does so unfairly. Some characters are going to be hit harder by this than others. Which means that some players are going to feel that their characters are ineffective compared to the other characters in the party.
In the Monster Core entry for Skeleton Guard it states, "Most skeletons have one of these abilities. If you give a skeleton more, you might want to increase its level and adjust its statistics."
My question is regarding the adjust its statistics part of the rule. To me, it seems clear that the intent is to increase the creatures level because a second (or more) ability increases its lethality. Wouldn't increasing its statistics compound this effect? Or is said compounding the intent?
Yes. The intent is that higher level adventurer parties can handle creatures with more abilities.
A level -1 Skeleton Guard with one of those abilities is suitable for a level 1 party to encounter. Because it is a level -1 creature.
Putting a second skeleton ability on the level -1 Skeleton Guard is not necessarily a good idea. It would make it more challenging than expected for a level -1 creature that a level 1 party is facing.
You could create a level 4 Skeleton Guard and give it two skeleton abilities. It would be suitable for a level 4 to level 6 party at that point. Like other level 4 creatures are.
The Parry trait does not allow using Shield Block. So generally there is not a way for enemies to damage the item. There may be creatures with specific abilities that allow them to damage attended items.
If the item does need to have HP stats, the GM would need to adjudicate the numbers themselves using the guidelines from Material Statistics.
Recall Knowledge doesn't have a specified skill that is usable for all targets or information. Instead it has a variety of skills, including Lore subtypes, that are chosen based on the circumstances.
Abilities that allow using a single skill for Recall Knowledge checks are rather valuable. See Thaumaturge: Esoteric Lore and Bard: Bardic Lore.
Since Infosphere Director doesn't specify a skill to use, I would think it uses the standard method of selecting the appropriate skill as is normal for Recall Knowledge.
The benefit of the 1-action version of the ability is that you get additional information (the weakness or resistance) in addition to being able to ask a question as normal for a successful Recall Knowledge.
Even when you aren't Investigating in exploration mode, you get a check to Recall Knowledge about incorporeal undead and haunts active in the area.
How I would run it, it would be like one part of the Rogue feat Trap Finder
Trap Finder wrote:
Even if you aren’t Searching, you get a check to find traps that normally require you to be Searching. You still need to meet any other requirements to find the trap.
You are considered to always be searching for haunts or incorporeal undead. Even if you are doing an Exploration activity other than Investigate.
I'm not your GM, so I don't know or understand what they are ruling the ability to mean.
One question, when im Cursebound 2 that means I have both the first curse and the second correct?
Assuming that you are meaning the stage levels of the Curse. Yes. They are cumulative.
Oracle: Curse wrote:
Your oracular curse lists the specific effects of being cursebound, which are cumulative as your curse progresses.
Meaning that if you are Cursebound 2 you have the effects of both the Cursebound 1 stage and the Cursebound 2 stage.
Many of the Curses have redundancies (redundant Conditions or typed penalties) and the rules for redundancies still apply. So Ash Curse giving Fire Weakness 2 at Cursebound 1 and Fire Weakness 5+level at Cursebound 5 would not stack (redundant Conditions), and Bones Curse giving -1 Status penalty to Fortitude saves at Cursebound 2 and a -2 Status penalty to fortitude saves at Cursebound 4 also do not stack (penalties of the same type).
Tempest Curse giving Electricity Weakness 2 at Cursebound 1 and a -2 circumstance penalty to ranged attacks at Cursebound 2 would both take effect.
Run it the way that actually makes sense for a combat ability used against an opponent.
Ask those players arguing that they can forgo their Fortitude save and therefore suffer no effects if they also think it is fair if that same idea is applied to the PC's abilities. An enemy simply doesn't roll a save against Thrash and so therefore doesn't take any damage.
Because it really only causes problems on the rules forum. Essentially we are quibbling over edge cases.
In an actual game, the players are going to create a ruling that makes sense and allows the character to be playable and fun and run with that. And pretty much any ruling that they come up with is going to be reasonably balanced.
Our homebrew is to use the PC rules for dying on familiars and companions (dying 1, wounded 1, recovery checks, etc.).
I'm curious why this is being called a homebrew.
Getting Knocked Out wrote:
Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don't automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death.
Does star finder have rules for letting PCs carry other characters while flying or using special movement speeds? It doesn’t feel like PF should allow this unless maybe the rest of the party is tiny?
I don't think either game has rules preventing using a fly speed or other movement types to carry other characters.
There are rules for using a PC as a mount, but those only restrict how many actions you get.
There are bulk limits, but being Encumbered only lowers your speeds by 10 feet (to a minimum of 5 feet). It doesn't prevent you from using the movement speed.
What Starfinder does have is guidelines on cross compatibility.
Even though the rules are compatible, some options from Starfinder aren't a great fit for a Pathfinder game, and the reverse is true as well. For example, it's much easier to get darkvision and flight in Starfinder than in Pathfinder. If you find this interferes with your campaign, you could restrict access to any equipment, feats, or spells from Starfinder that grant darkvision, or limit ancestries and equipment that grant flight at 1st level.
Undying Familiar isn't a advantage for the witch - it is a necessity for the class to function.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Thank you, lol. That was my exact thought too.
QuidEst wrote:
I know this is already several layers of hypothetical, but "respawn familiar on refocus" feels like it's pushing a little too hard on "You should be spamming Final Sacrifice with your top two ranks of spells". At least, it would if it's at-will.
I'm thinking that is a problem with Final Sacrifice. That spell has some flaws in it.
My favorite fix for the spell is to have it only target Minions created by a summoning spell. For a future-proofed wording, have the targeting line be 'a Minion created by an effect with a Sustained duration'.
As long as the effects are different, the overlapping area will have both effects.
There will only be non-stacking in cases where:
* The effects are causing Redundant Conditions.
* The effects are causing bonuses of the same type.
* The effects attempt to counteract each other (and the caster of at least one of the effects chooses to have them attempt the counteract).
* If the GM determines that the effects are Duplicate Effects even though they are from different sources. (Instantaneous effects should not be considered duplicates because they affect the target at different times.)
