Search Posts
Can vouch that Asmodeus is safe. No fake out. A contract made you tell that. ;-)
Organizational question: Have you planned a time slot of answering live questions from the audience?
Having seen the rough outline for stuff I think people will be very excited for what we are unveiling. From the Office of Expectation Management, its certainly a tease/hype stream [...] Regarding tease and hype - any tease about a PF2e remaster version of WotR?
I want to second (or third) the interest in learning about behind-the-scenes considerations for which god was picked (and for those who weren't!)--even if it's not an appropriate time to reveal that now, then whenever that time comes. That, and any other pertinent general behind-the-scenes thoughts about the set up of this whole event, its fallout, and if relevant, the Exemplar class. I concur. [...] What are you excited for? As with all behind-the-scenes comment, I'd be really interested if people from the team would share a bit of the development process. In this case, from the initial 2022 thoughts of divine death, up to making of War of Immortals. Parts of the when, why, how, that allows to understand the history and context, especially regarding earthly aspects. Would be highly appreciated, because most of that can seriously come only come from people actually involved. Sure, the community will most probably fill in any gaps, anyway. (And regarding in-world details, that can actually be fun, IMHO.) I'd just worry, what happened if everything was relinquished to forum speculations. If it doesn't fit into April 16th stream, I'd happily hear about at another occasion and/or read here in the forum, too.
Why would Lamashtu writing the prophecies correspond with her being the one to actually die? Note that I do believe that there are multifarious "lamashtan" clues, but I did not explicitly state that it must be her who will die, yet. I'm currently considering, indeed. Weighing this and that, thinking aloud.
...okay yeah that is indeed a good argument. Can't decide what that would MEAN though. Maybe it's a teasers that her ultimate brood is ready. And (Fate's Chain Theory) that actions to prevent it - e.g. by slaying her - will only hasten its birth. While simultaneously "those who lie down in front of the hooves [...] deserve to be trampled"? Believing to trace something (plus biological biases) can be a terrible thing... After warming up above finding I now start reading hidden meanings into single words like "deliver" ...
Addition: The "Divine Name Count", a.k.a. "Lamashtu Zero" ;-), could even get Yvali's "mulling over [...] the naming of the Godsrain" and her "Defenestration remark" -- i.e. "asked me to limit the word to once per page at most" -- some unexpected turn and hidden subtext. Admittedly, this may be far-fetched. But aren't prophecies usually? ;-)
Lamashtu is the mother of monsters and several have been mentioned in the prophecies. So maybe she will not be the one dying, nor the one killing, but maybe a strong participant in the War. I hope that I'm not obtrusive if I second your remark concerning Lamashtu. There is Monsters and much more, IMHO ... (Compare my recent message in LO-Subforum: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs44znp?Deciphering-the-Godsrain-Prophecies#14)
While my original theory (Deeplink) is not refuted yet, I'd like to highlight something different, now. (For the records, I'm pretty sure others community members have mentioned it much earlier.) If I connect the (explicitly stated) Lamashtu info from G&M and PC1 - especially Areas of Concern and Edicts - to the "Godsrain Prophecies", I find a lot of connections. "reveal the corruption and flaws in all things"
Then multiple occurrences of divine aberrance, weird monsters lurking and/or killing gods, plus framing comments about divine fear and nightmares (IIRC) - that's literally Lamashtu's Areas of Concern. (Update and Cross-Check: I see this degree of congruence for none of the other core 20. Norgorber might come out as second, but I'd miss some more "greed, murder, poison", here.) If one follows this idea, one might even say that the whole "Godsrain Prophecies" is deeply saturated with Lamashtu motives. Is this intended to "indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings"? Plus: The name of Lamashtu - in contrast to other core 20 - never appears. This all feels suspicious. Do you see what I mean? Or am I just caught by confirmation bias and/or another monstrous red herring? If you find this to be relevant evidence - what do we make of it?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Besides, there are many which I agree with. (BTW: Thanks to all of you friendly speculators and guessers. Having fun to read and learning lots of nerd-knowledge.) BTW: Something that makes interpreting the "Godsrein Prophecies" even harder is Yivali's latest "dismiss (or at least deemphasize)". So effectively, by altering the way to read the stories from week to week, the hype-engine turned higher - even when the mathematical options narrowed down a little bit. I am still wondering whether Rovagug was just too useful alive as the big, world-devastating nuclear threat that looms over (or inside) creation. Changing this could be truly gigantic and change the course of an arbitrarily big amount of cosmic stories. Would that be fitting for these products - or be a bit too big? On the other hand, it might somehow be "mitigated" and fine-tuned. For instance by splitting Rovagug into multiple entities, similar to existing spawn. These might even have divine potential on their own and be more practical than the extremely overpowered worldbreaker as a whole. Plus, the dark tapestry and their powers, which I suspect to be the main source of evil anyway, might add all sorts of new world ending threats into the future mix. Points that still give me pause for thought are investigating further, suspected clues in the story and some meta-gaming considerations (like the old alignment grid, player options etc.). Actually the latter might make a killed Rovagug more likely. Though regarding story elements, perceived clues, etc. I still tend to a Gorum- or Goszreh-Rain. (Then again, Yvalis "name-dropping cue" could be a big, fat Red Herring. ;-) Or totally be revised by new Yrali-findings that "Rova-Gug" had new meanings in some pre Azlant-language. Stuff like "Divine Rein - Shaking World" or the like ;-)) (NOTE: To not mislead anyone willingly myself: That last (language) bit is utterly made up by me and not based on any actual clue I read in the "Godsrain Prophcies.")
I forgot to add: A Gorum-Rain could also be a "fitting starter" for a War of Immortals... (Maybe even a better one than a dose of Father Skinsaw.) In my initial guess I just thought that Gorum was already nihilistic and dark enough for the "Dark Tapestry" to live on. But we'll see... (Unfortunately I still can't say that my mercurial Lady (see some further posts above) is safe. But I'll mourn her in the fullness of time.)
My completely personal thesis as of now. (Maybe not overly smart to do it one day before the next "prophecy". But I am ready to be proven wrong and have the prophecy and anyone correct my daring guess. For today I try to make it rather short [Update: I failed]. If there is interest (and more time) I could try to explain more details of why I came to my conclusions.) Big bad opposite side of the war:
One common theme of the "Godsrain Prophecies" is their uncomfortable and disturbing loss of meaning, purpose, or any higher truth. Instead, what we (or the inner gods) held dear - whatever it is (whether Asmodeus Order, Cayden's Legend of the Drunken Brave, Urgathoa's hunger, ...) becomes bland, corrupted, disfigured, unmade - sometimes even their death not overly important. Godsrain Author:
The Killer(s):
Yet, If I had to put my money on someone specific and a particular complication here, I'd say: A corrupted Achaekek. With GMS allowing a chance to prevent greater harm, wanting her brother to be saved, but not be killed. Further Survivors:
The (first?) Divine Victim:
Today my first guess would be: The first strike goes against Gozreh - to cause global disruption and diminish divine control of nature. If I had to make a counter-intuitive bet, it would be Norgorber, particularly Father Skinsaw. Resulting in loss of divine control over "Murder". (Could even allow that other aspects somehow keep existing.)
PS:
They say that prophecy was a sword without hilt. ;-) How could I impartially convey it, without getting bloody hands?
3.) Apart from the departing core deity and newly entering Arazni, is leaving the core 20 while staying alive an option? (Be warned: A single "yes" could bring the speculations already distributed over 7+ weeks and 1000+ messages to an even more extreme level. I'm not sure if it was good if a certain someone was dancing even more... ;-) Maybe also a frightening perspective...)
Questions to the blogging insiders: 1.)
Or are they meant also to include further hidden hints, maybe a pattern that would allow to somehow correctly conclude the death in a logical manner? (Besides just the fact that they marked some divinities safe, directly, already.) 2.)
In this context I'd like to honor Igor Grechanyi's spectacular illustration -- s. https://cdn.paizo.com/image/content/Blog/10220_rovagug.jpg -- that obviously deals with some phase of the fight against Rovagug. (Detail: I remember them saying, that the "rocks" on the ground were actually mountains...) It might give some hint, how closely our Savored Sting flirted with the Worldbreaker. Or it might not. I can't say how accurately, how "Canon", this is meant to be. Or whether there is an in-Universe-equivalent to Igors illustration. And - if you ask me - it doesn't have to be. Artistic freedom is a wonderful thing. On Earth and Golarion as well. Anyway, no matter how toe-to-toe or cheek by jowl -- in my world, I am convinced that the Rough Beast was quite affected by the Unquenchable Fire when Creation came to its cataclysmic conclusion. To round this up, I might add: Above illustration gives me some fiery vibe for what waits just beyond the horizon, too. Allow me to add: May the Fire still burn after the next War of Immortals! (PS: Though I still see eerie indicators that keep me dread My Lady's demise. May I be wrong. At least her ally for ages seems safe, for now. Though some terrible madness seems to stay behind the stars, still. Sipping slowly. Dripping in through dreams I can't shake off. War awaits. And I don't know what to do. Besides clinging to pictures of past glory. And gore.)
Base cleanse affliction reduces the stage of an affliction, but cannot reduce it below 1 (so cannot remove it entirely), and does not attempt to counteract afflictions. Higher rank cleanse afflictions attempt to counteract afflictions in addition to reducing the stage. Ah, I now understand my mistake. When I read the sentence... Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting. ... my brain seemed to have put the emphasis on the final phrase "with each casting". I assumed the "with each casting" was the one and decisive difference to the function of the base version described before. (Complementary to this overemphasized "with each casting", the "counteract" part went in the background, mentally.) This is why I had thought that all versions of the spells worked by counteracting and got confused about the seemingly incompatible heightening descriptions. Thx, Red Metal for helping me out. May I suggest a slightly changed wording that will probably prevent errors like mine: (italics for recommended clarification) "Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract and do so with each casting.
Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column - Confusing description of Cleanse Affliction I don't understand the exact effect of Cleanse Affliction, particularly when reading it's heightened versions: First, Cleanse Affliction 2 addresses curse, disease, or poison.
(italics mine) Then, Cleanse Affliction 3 addresses "disease or poison", only. Lastly, Cleanse Affliction 4 addresses "curse, disease, or poison" again. I believe it is intended, that the higher the Cleanse Affliction rank, the more types of afflictions it can counteract. Hence, from context I assume that Cleanse Affliction 2 is meant to address only poisons, isn't it? I can't say for sure. The way the main description text is worded in conjunction with the heightened 3rd text - and how my brain processes spell descriptions - don't seem quite compatible.
Addition to YuriP's (afaik correct) deliberations: For Ganzis a feat exists that is mechanically equivalent to the typical "[Ancestry] Lore" feats whilst at the same time not following their typical "convention": Creative Prodigy. Mechanically equivalent - because it's a lvl 1 ancestry feat that gives two (non-lore) skill trainings plus a lore skill.
Not following typical convention - because the lore skill included is Art Lore not a Ganzi Lore, and the feat name differs from the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore" naming convention likewise.
Unsurprisingly, we had similar feedback internally. Don't worry! The core deities will have their stat blocks in Divine Mysteries so you won't have to flip back to Player Core. Thanks Luis for the quick reply. And I can only concur with cori: That's wonderful news. Very much looking forward to Divine Mysteries. (Albeit with a little fear that the path of some clerics, especially my own ;-), might be shattered by the impending death of one or more deities. But that is a fear for another thread. :-) There is no perfection without change.)
Then I have not expressed myself clearly enough, I'm sorry. My request centers around the consolidated statistics blocks. That is, I kindly request that the new book contains the (Quote:) "mechanical information required to play a champion, cleric, or worshipper of one of the 20 core deities". To be more explicit: This should somehow include (repeat) the statistics from PC1:
Additionally, all further "information useful for understanding those gods" remain highly welcome. For instance the following fields from G&M:
I'd like give feedback regarding "good old" Gods&Magic that will also be relevant for anounced Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries: In short:
In bit more detail:
However, I regularly need to know the other, basic statistics and mechanical details like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, Font, ... Domains, Favored Weapon as well. For the "Other Deities" from Gods&Magic and newer deity-containing-LO-books these basic statistics and mechanical details are in the respective book. But for the "Core Deities" of all they are not. Consequently, for the "20 deities who are most influential in the Inner Sea region" - which also tend to be the ones I refer most often - the way of retrieving all their relevant information is the most inconvenient one. Effectively, I have to open Gods&Magic and PC1 or Gods&Magic plus a web resource in parallel and consolidate the info on my own. I can guess why it was originally styled that way in Gods&Magic: Aiming for modularization/better maintainability by implementing the concept of Single Source of Truth (SSOT). SSOT could work fine when having tool support (like a document management system or an integrated development environment) and clickable-hyperlinks. It doesn't quite work for me for lore-centered books, where my brain usually likes to find all relevant information easily accessible, ideally at first glance in a self-contained way. (Not always possible, but definitely possible for the deities sections.) If SSOT was and still is a requirement, I could think of ways to implement it while still providing all info for a Deity in Divine Mysteries. An example method would be to explicitly state that for certain stats (like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, ...) PC1 is the authoritative source and that they are only copied&pasted to Divine Mysteries for convenience. This could be emphasized by graphical elements like different background color and/or via side-bars. However implemented, having all info in one place would be a significant usability improvement to me. Thank you for your time to read and hopefully consider this.
Lost Omens: Character Guide and Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility I wasn't entirely sure what was the best place to put Lost Omens-Books elements that probably need remaster compatibility errata, too. For example, I've stumbled over non-core "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats. For now, I've put them in the Lost Omens-Errata-thread (see https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43f59&page=7?Official-Lost-Omens-clarifica tion-errata-and#345) If remaster compatibility errata candidates should rather be put in the thread at hand, just give me a note and I will do for any future findings.
Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility
Analog to Character Guide (see my post above) Examples Feats:
Somewhat similar but mechanically different is Azarketis' Ancestral Insight (AG, pg. 13). This might require additional consideration if and how a remaster compatibility update would be proper. I searched for "Lore"-Feats, but again, these lists do not claim to be exhaustive. Particularly if feats don't follow the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore-Naming Convention" (as Creative Prodigy did) I might have missed them.
Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43). Examples for these from Character Guide, not necessarily an exhaustive list, were
Right, making them all Manipulate caused severe power changes. Most probably undesired ones. You mentioned an example; I found others in the meantime. Often spells that are particularly interesting to be cast in the front line / closely engaged. Some reaction spells come into my mind like Blood Vendetta.
(Admittedly, skimming through Focus Spells, there was precedence for such awkwardness, e.g. Retributive Pain or Sudden Shift being Manipulate Spells. I start to realize this now, as Manipulate and provoking reactions has become so transparent. But this is probably out of scope of the thread at hand, so let's get back.) Consequently, making all spells Manipulate to align the paragraph about gestures with the trait, again, wouldn't work. Leaving us with the already mentioned "small (non-manipulate) gesture"-compromise. Only other way I could see would be to alter or soften the blanket require Gesture/Incantation wording. Which required either house-ruling, errata (if all gestures wasn't intended), or "just" a different understanding that I have. Don't know.
Something I find worth emphasizing: Actions, even single actions, take time in the game world and the concept of (re-)actions occurring in the middle of other actions exists - particularly in the context of triggered free actions and reactions. Preface:
However, this case of simultaneous actions and how to deal with a situation when a reaction could decisively change the triggering actions effect is probably the very exception. Probably the actual challenge. (Otherwise, I misunderstood what was currently being discussed.) This is were I found the sidebar and quote handy, that was already mentioned at the start of this thread; excerpt copied for convenience:
I take above case of a lever someone is about to pull as example. That means pulling the lever is trigger for reactions and we define that the order to deal with all effects would make an important difference for the overall outcome. Let's indeed say, the lever person is clearly about to be taken down by a (non-critical) reactive strike. Is lever pulled or not pulled when they go down? My way of handling this: Unless an explicit way to handle the details is already given (like in case of Stand up from prone vs Stand Still reaction), I'd probably invent something on the fly. For this, I'd tend to move away from conceiving actions as digital but rather make them analog events. This would better reflect the simultaneity and something being disturbed while it is happening. If somehow acceptable for plot, that the lever can be pulled halfway, I'd go with this. In my POV that gave the original effort and trigger some credit (particularly when there was no explicit Disrupt rule invoked), while still honoring the reactive striker hitting in-midst of the action. It also minimizes weird timing effects of retroactively having to declare the trigger be unpulled or the like. This has caveats, though. IMHO, it works the better, the more there is actually some relevant "analog" effect. For instance:
It works less, the more inherently digital something is. If the trigger was about some strange magical effect or some technical stuff like radioactive emission of an elementary particle - note: approaching Schroedinger's Cat territory here - and just can't be meaningfully conceived as happening in partial, my "analog" method will probably fail. Final emergency solutions:
TL;DR
Agreed, the question of having the Manipulate trait seems to be the mechanically more important, by far. Plus - after looking at spells again - the vast majority I looked up so far have the trait. Still I'm wondering if gestures should actually be introduced mandatorily for spells that only had Verbal but no Somatic components in CRB, e.g. most classical bard composition cantrips (inspire courage, inspire defense, now anthems) or several reaction spells, as well. I note that it could be a compromise to treat Non-manipulate spells as having somewhat "smaller" gestures, now (by RAI?). Additional remarks:
For instance, there's now new text in the reaction rules clarifying what happens if multiple actions would happen at once.Ooh! Where's that at? I guess it's PC1, pg. 415, right sidebar: Simultaneous Actions.
Advice 1) There is also monk class feat, Flurry of Maneuvers (s. CRB, pg. 160; https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=444), that allows to mix strikes (which can be special unarmed strikes, such as the ones from stances, as long as they are generally compatible with flurry of blows ability) with athletics attacks (which can be your grapples).Additional note: Several actions besides strikes, especially the athletics-based offensive combat maneuvers and Escape as well are called attacks. "Attack" is the broader term and among other things will usually imply that it is subject to Multiple Attack Penalty (MAP). So any combination of Strikes and Grapples by default contributes to MAP. I want to point out: There is another more narrow term, effectively being a subset included in the term attack: "Attack Role", meaning just (weapon or unarmed) Strike or Spell Attack. (Try to ignore that a dice is often used for many athletics actions as well …)
I note this because it comes up at some times and still causes confusion at some places in the rules, where not completely exact. Unfortunately, flurry of maneuvers is one of this places, which (somewhat colloquially) talks about replacing the "attacks" from Flurry of Blows, although it would be more precise to say that Flurry of Blow's attack rolls (i.e. their subordinate strike actions) can be replaced. Advice 2)
Forum Organizational Advice 3) There is a whole subforum dedicated to Advice on PF2e character creation, playing etc. See: https://paizo.com/community/forums/pathfinder/second/advice. Opening/Moving the thread there could be helpful.
Indeed. (Usually) concentrating and manipulating (=gesturing?) on their spell for ca. 4 to 6 seconds - even if done subtly - does IMO pose a very plausible trigger for opponents who know what to look for and are trained to make use of it in an encounter, in other words: our reactive strikers. Regarding the invisible caster scenario: Note that whoever fights them can by default still attempt to locate them by other senses. If I had to fight the invisible wannabe subtle, my no. 1 attempt was to focus on the sound they make when moving around. I guess in rules terms, that means: That invisible one will probably keep a hidden condition towards anyone w/o non-vision based precise senses; but unless the invisible take effort to hide and sneak, it won't become better, though. (Pls correct me if I am wrong.) So, I concur with answers above: Wanting to be subtle in a fight does not entitle one to be unmolested by any entities waiting for the right (attack of) opportunity. ;-)
Another mafia murder example: Gentle landing (see PC1, pg. 333; formerly known as Feather Fall) … Gestures or no gestures? ;-)
As I notice that the alphabetically first spell in PC1 without Manipulate is Air Bubble (s. PC1, pg. 314; cp. legacy link) - there is a mechanical impact, which can decide over life and death: What if one's hands or "gesture-capable appendages" ;-) are tied? You know, the cliche mafia murder scenario (assuming they completely tied but did not gag us): Do we get an Air Bubble of additional time?
Maybe the strict mechanical aspect is indeed limited. Regarding my imagination, it does however make a difference, if certain spells can be cast without gesturing - which I think of remaining in place relatively still and (by-default) just speaking incantations and manifesting the spell - or if the magical gestures are always there. Though I might need to spend another look which spells fall into that Non-Manipulate (and non gesture?) range.
Addition: There might also be additional implications if one adds the Subtle trait into the mix. For instance, see this sibling thread for further details: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wzs?How-would-you-handle-the-Subtle-trait
As you discuss Subtle trait and gestures (btw, thx for opening, SuperBidi!), I'd like to add a reference to a related question about Manipulate and gestures, in general. See sibling thread: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x06?Post-Somatic-Does-Manipulate-decide-over Update: Added cross-link.
Briefly:
More Details / background of the question + Remaster feedback: We noticed that spell components got a remaster (in Player Core 1 (PC1)). Apparently it affected several aspects.
2) However, in the course of this, a change was introduced, that confuses us. In legacy, despite above-mentioned "nesting"-hassle, there seemed to be a clear designation: If a spell had somatic components, it implied gestures; I think it was a 1:1 relation. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.)
I'm wondering because there is two aspects in remaster which apparently point towards different directions: a) We now got the Manipulate trait in the spell descriptions. (Again: Good to see at first glance.) I'll cite for convenience:
(italics mine) And, like somatic components in legacy, most spells indeed have that trait. At first glance it much seems as if manipulate simply replaced somatic as the indicator for having gestures.However, I am not longer sure because … b) In the section about Casting Spells we found more about the former components, incl. gestures, in the first paragraph:
(italics mine) Is this blanket form meant to be understood strictly, which would mean _every_ spell requiring gestures? Or is it rather meant to be understood in a more colloquial way, ala "usually requires"? Reason for asking is not only the Somatic-to-Manipulate simplification (see above, "a"). There is also something about the context in this paragraph that increases our confusion. I assume it's this mentioning necessities of gestures and incantations - with going into details about what happens when unable to speak incantations (only). (My mind probably liked symmetry and implicitly questioned: Is something missing or something extra, here?) Do you know what I mean? Please get me right: I generally find that spellcasting rules got more accessible and funny. And the explicitly stated "freedom of flavoring your character's magic" (later in the Casting Spells section) really matches our imagination, too. I'm just slightly confused about the gestures. Are they ruled by Manipulate (yes/no) - and if not a Manipulate spell it's freestyle - or was there actually an intended change so that every spell (now) require gestures, without exception?
Spoiler tags recommended.
Agree. I guess for reasonable GMs and working collaboration among players that will yield practical results. I'm annoyed too because I like rules clarity AND plausible, atmospheric worlds. Whereas a rule that - in other group configurations - allowed to present a weird, old-school-video-game-like world of unassailable, quasi-adamant objects is not in accordance with that preferences. PS:
I don't read it as requiring the choice when you take the feat or even per day. Such feats say so and add that it can't be retrained or only changed by retraining. I read it as being chosen whenever you want to use 10 minutes switching a memorized spell, as many times per day you want to spend 10 minutes doing so Generally: You have a point referring to feats that explicitly state when a choice gets "locked-in" and needs retraining to be changed. On the other hand, concerning rule interpretation, I fell flat on my face a couple of times before, so I've become really cautious up to paranoid. (Especially when I see some forum users obviously deep in PF2e rules pose differing interpretations. (Tensely looking around.))Firstly, I really like clarity. In this course, I really want to see that potential, important limitations are presented in a way as unambiguously as possible, instead of relying on exegesis of single words and grammar. Besides this, I generally like feats that open up a wide variety of options. That holds even more if they have several built-in restrictions already, like 10 minutes additional prep time, or the inherent slot and creature-based power limitation. A class feat that requires you to know that you will need a Summon in 10 Minutes already isn't what many "character optimizers" usually call a power house ... ;-) Specifically concerning Rites of Convocation (existing in APG already: Deeplink):
Frankly, after having another look and comparing class feats, especially the mechanically similar Druid's Elemental Summons (PC1, pg. 129, right column, existing in CRB already: Deeplink), I see that interpretation threatened. Have a look. Effectively, the free interpretation would result in a feat that for Arcane or Primal witches did everything of Elemental Summons - because you could choose Summon Elemental as in the Druid Feat - plus more. Now I'm not saying that should be forbidden, unwanted or undeserved. It might even be the intention, that they wanted to allow Witches these options and designed a feat that was probably better than the Druid class's counterpart. To knowledgeably decide if class options really are invalid or "Imba" requires more than me just randomly picking two abilities and pointing out which was better. And I'm not even saying Rites of Convocation, even in its most liberal interpretation, actually would be Imba. I'm just noting my observation, which is based on past experience: When encountering equal level class feats, A and B, and feat A could do the same as the feat B plus more, it usually got the "too good to be true"-vibe (smell, accusation, however you want to call it) pretty quickly... Sometimes rightfully from my POV - in case I found A really overpowered; in other cases I wondered whether it was actually feat B being underpowered and really needed a buff instead to become (more) attractive. Anyway, I'm not the authority for other people's games and let's never forget Rule 1. I'm just interested in
TL;DR
Picture is indeed neither in (legacy) Core Rulebook nor in (remaster) Player Core 1, but it's in GM Core, pg. 44.
First, in general I really like the theme of the intellectual, versatile person with knowledge as a weapon that analyzes fights and anticipates maneuvrers in their head. In this regard, the Devise a Stratagem (DaS)-mechanics per se looks and feels right to me. For compatibility I also guess that disrupting changes would be out of scope of remaster. Some tweaks however, seemed appropriate to me. For instance:
A) This would make a significant positive difference. It would also mitigate the problem described by Ectar:
I can confirm the awkwardness of the "If you're aware that the creature you choose is the subject of a lead"-clause in DaS. What if the investigator just suspected but it wasn't definite enough to claim "aware the creature was [it]" - particularly with the limited possibilities during encounter mode (during or at the verge of combat). Wasn't acting upon reasonable suspicion one of the funny aspects of being an investigator? B) Above being said, an additional or complementary solution was indeed to broaden the scope of what can be a lead, so that it can be more than just "typically a single creature, item, or small location (such as a room or corridor)" without requiring explicit GM call. If desired, this could also allow some scaling mechanics: More experienced investigators could have it easier to pursue more extended leads (or larger collections of leads). Regarding Ectars example such mechanics could result in extending the lead from just "the described cloaked figure" to something like "all humanoids at the location that could fit the witness description". Some guards would probably be needed to prevent scope creep and exploitation. (An example for exploitation: Deliberately defining a too broad scope although investigator knows it had nothing to do with the case. Maybe it was worries about this that lead to Pursue a Lead in its today form.) I admit, scope manipulation won't be a no-brainer. As of now, I still think an improvement can be designed without introducing exploits around every corner. The least I'd expect was a "GM can always veto"-clause to keep scope extension in check. Some concrete references and handrails while still facilitating a relatively free collaboration process (cp. new Recall Knowledge handling) could do the trick for a (hypothetical) scope extension rule.
RoE, pg. 97: Consistency / Remaster Compatibility Candidate - Subtle Trait for "Tremor Signs"? Now that Spell "Message" (Player Core 1, pg. 343) got the Subtle trait, I suspect that the same could be intended for "Tremor Signs" (Rage of Elements, pg. 97) as well. At least it seemed inconsistent to me, if you sent acoustical messages over 120 up to 500 ft discreetly, but a 120 ft, morse-like transmission, which per se appears to be a rather discreet effect, was accompanied with incantations, audio-visual manifestations, ...
I'd indeed say that generally allowing matters to be settled without unending grudge was an important factor for general elven well-being and decisively contributed to the relative peace and prosperity of Kyonin. Except maybe the Imvrildarai and the ongoing war against Treerazer and its demons. Then again, a demon lord that had turned one's former home into an abyssal nightmare - and continues to do so - is difficult to settle ... As a devotee and from both a theological and a game-theoretic perspective I'd reiterate: It seems a rather smart deterrence to me, to both
Regarding RK'ing a creature (strange animal(?)) on opponent's side: I'd find that quite plausible. Regarding Final Sacrifing kidnapped familiars: Depends on two important points: 1) When and how they will return, and what happens, if they are not .. erhm ... "freed". Witch familiar has higher cost of kidnapped familiar, while having mechanically less cost of a familiar dying. Since this thread was significantly affected by the "Are Ongoing Misery Familiar's Imba"-discussion, I presume this is about Witch familiars at this point. 2) Relation to the familiar. In case of a close emotional tie, one might not want to violently explode that being... From an emotional perspective it seems rather cruel to me. One might of course argue that getting into captivity could yield even greater agony. The latter might well be conceivable if the captors were some fiendish beings about to take that tiny creature into an abyssal realm or the like. On the other hand: I wouldn't personally like such "euthanasia" arguments to become commonplace. Plus, a story revolving around freeing the familiar could be an interesting story, too, IMO. [More Off-Topic]
... Very fundamental RPG-issue indeed. Influence of mental stats and how they should be acted out at the table ones requires discussion. The comparison to more physical attributes is a useful reference point, IMO. (Like analogy of requiring players to bench press during the session to demonstrate their characters' abilities ... ;-)) However, since we usually act via our "player's stats" at the table - and preferences differ to which extent player decisions should define character decisions or vice versa - it might be difficult to portray a solution that really suits everyone.
GM Core, pg. 302, left column - Bad reference in Philosopher's Extractor Activate—Accelerated Synthesis (3 action activity) (manipulate) Frequency once per minute; Effect You use the extractor to produce an alchemical item of your level or lower whose formula you know. The extractor can create 56 levels’ worth of items per day in this way. For example, the extractor could create two true elixirs of life (19th level) and two moderate elixirs of life (9th level), or eight comprehension elixirs (7th level), and so on. (italics mine.) I couldn't find any comprehension elixir neither in Player Core 1 nor GM Core. Note: This reference could be partially healed if comprehension elixir is re-introduced by Player Core 2. However, if customer only have PC1 and GMC, they might not know.
Do stylistic things count? For instance, images getting captions. (Makes the art more accessible to me; I can discern at first glance, which of the 7 to 10 spells of a double page is actually depicted.)
[keftiu, Ninja'ed me. :-)] I'd say thats pretty true in the calistrian way - and the interpretation what is "appropriately" allows for a nice diversity (and division ;-)) of that church. As an addition concerning "long term revenge". It may exist, if that shall be your way. Yet, even (and perhaps especially!) a revenge whose end is not in sight, asks for more than exclusive pursuit. For instance, we could think about the temple of Imvrildara and the sect of the Imvrildarai. They have been fighting for centuries to millennia against Treerazer and the demons, which devastated part of the elven homeland on Golarion. I guess that can be considered vengeance the very long run. But even they and their rather extreme dedication to vengeance and fighting - and maybe (pity) somewhat lacking approach to lust (symbolized by the tower of lust still in ruins?) - can only exist over long time if they do something more than just hunt and fight. And if it's just practicing alternative tactics, improving deceit, obtaining records and resources (whether scripture or alchemy) - caring for themselves and their monastry is a necessity if they want to stay able to pay back, ultimately.
Interesting philosophical and theological question. My interpretation of the calistrian way of how to tackle that balance would basically be like: "Don't let even your vengeance lead you away from your own path." (Whatever this may be in your personal context.)Effectively: You may stick to your vengeance, but why making it all your life?! There are some key phrases in Gods&Magic or older lore text that, IMO, bolster this interpretation. For instance:
But what to do -- and that's the additional complication you interestingly brought up -- when you indeed want a long term vengeance actually be that path? (In the sense of "defining topic of your being".) My assumption how she could answer it would be something like:
More:
You bring up an interesting question. Do spontaneous casters that don't use spellbooks (so no Arcane Evolution Sorcerors and no Esoteric Polymath-Bards) have to spent money for learning common spells? (I thought the answer was "No", but that doesn't have to mean anything.) You're right, there is this retraining cost; I forgot. I also forgot about Magus. Shame on me. (Really like the concept of books&swords magic/fighting-hybrid.)
See what you mean. Admittedly, as a witch, I am envious of the my Wisdom-caster buddies' free choice; as a cleric I am happy. Apart from that, anathema forwards and backwards, there has always been more to me, to truly be a devotee of deity or the forces of nature. Including components that pose restrictions. Though restrictions can all-in-all be pretty atmospheric and engaging to have in the game - and ideally fun for the whole group. (That's the best way for an RPG, IMHO.) Maybe this has been more of a character role-playing issue, all the time. This reverence and (attempting to) live the ideals of your faith. Etc. Yet, to me these classes always felt remarkably different, at least to some extend. Among this a strong principle of give-and-take. It expects the more from one, the more one has been given. (Example: "You have been allowed to pray for any of these abilities without further studies? - You will take that offer as a burden to fulfil your duty and serve your call.") Idk, if it's understandable what I write and comes across what i mean.
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
