| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestions for next Errata: Review the suggestions from thread https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5n02x?Spring-Errata-2025-suggestions.
Player Core p. 456, Trait Extradimensional says An extradimensional effect placed inside another extradimensional space ceases to function until it is removed. I understand why extradimensional containers (e.g. the omnipresent Spacious Pouches) inside extradimensional containers are undesirable in terms of balance and risk of absurd item compression effects (e.g. the fantasy analogon of zip-bomb-attacks). However, is it really intended that extradimensional containers cease to function when carried into an extradimensional structure (e.g. a Gourd Home) or a spell-created, structure-like place, e.g. a Planar Palace or teleported to a Quandary?
Meta-Question: Assuming that some of the issues mentioned in the thread at hand won't make it into actual Spring Errata 2025 - how do you want us to deal with those? My thoughts:
What could really help for this: Some sort of structured way to submit, classify and track errata/clarification request input, similar to issue tracking tools (cp. public bugtracking sites) in software engineering. I know this has been proposed by community members in some other thread. I endorse the idea and ask Paizo to consider such options, for their own benefit while simultaneously improving the community interaction incl. community-based product improvement.
I beg your pardon for recycling older, not yet addressed errata request posts, which I consider still valid. * Player Core 1, page 230 (bottom), General Skill Action "Learn a Spell (Trained)", whose description IMHO has a bad example (bard) and one instance of bad grammar:
* Player Core 1, page 252, Feat "Armor Proficiency", whose description does not honor that it can be multiple proficiencies that scale at Level 13:
* GM Core, page 225: Remainder of CRB's legacy crafting rules ("have the formula") / Inconsistency GMC vs. PC 1: See https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wcu&page=3?Pathfinder-Remaster-Errata-Su bmission#138
Source: Player Core 1, page 274
In Detail: Section Shield Description for Buckler is clear regarding the buckler's main mechanical advantage, unconditionally: "You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that's not a weapon in that hand." However, a paragraph at the top of the same page
See the following quote:
Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free [sic!] (or, at the GM's discretion, if it's holding a simple, lightweight object that's not a weapon). Italics mine - and I don't understand it. (1) The part with "at the GM's discretion" is a condition that does not match the Buckler description and could rob the buckler of it's main feature, if GM doesn't like it.(2) And specifically mentioning being able to Raise a shield with a free hand is confusing to me - as this is exactly how every other shield would work anyway, isn't it?: Grabbing a shield/buckler with a free hand to raise it - thereby occupying the hand with the shield/buckler - that's not what makes a buckler special. The speciality would be raising a shield with a hand that is not free because it already holds mentioned light object. Or am I now lost in English language? Anyway, the following change would clear up both issues, completely, IMHO: Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if
Player Core 1, p. 339, Spell "Invisibility", Description: Description's second sentence is potentially more confusing than helpful. In case of the caster being observed while casting Invisibility, the phrase "This makes it [Invisibility Target], undetected to all creatures" directly contradicts the definition of Invisible (Player Core 1, p. 444) and probably the Stealth (esp. Sneak) rules (Player Core 1, p. 245) as well. Suggested Correction 1:
OR
I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details". Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well? Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
Meta request regarding the thread at hand: I really value all of your input. In the same way let us value OP magnuskn's opening of his thread. Let us focus on our actual errata/clarification requests to rule developers in this thread. Let us outsource any discussions, exchange over details, back and forth, contradiction (unless absolutely necessary to grasp the original request / correct a factually wrong input), etc. to dedicated sibling threads. Put the respective links here, put detail discussion there. The cleaner this thread, the more useful it can be for rule developers (who still will make their own, informed and authoritative judgment anyway), and the higher the chance, a particular matter gets their attention at all. I understand that there is a plethora of subjects for a discussion. Let us give everything its appropriate space.
Player Core 2, there is some "disharmony" between Alchemist (main-class) and Alchemist Multiclass Archetype rules. While they are technically correct (not obviously erroneous or incomplete), they nonetheless appear to me somewhat inconsistent. As if rules from different development stages and/or different developers were put together while still needing a final balancing pass. In detail: Nr 1:
(There have been speculation that this feat was put into place when multiclass quick alchemy had allowed to regain versatile vials like main-class quick alchemy still can. That would have made the versatile vial way more useful. Then Quick Alchemy for multiclass was degraded, but the effect on "voluminous vials"-feat not reevaluated. I can understand these speculations.) Nr 2:
Nr 3:
Speaking of Calistrian domains, is it actually intended that the "Retributive Pain" (s. Player Core 1, p. 378) and "Sudden Shift" (s. Player Core 1, p. 379) reaction spells have the Manipulate trait and thus provoke reactions on their part? (I'm aware the issue existed in Legacy as well.) Casting them may actually make matters worse and defeat the original purpose of the reactions. (Besides being awkward, if our great avenger attempts to react to an enemies attack and calls in even more damage to self...) Compare Blood Vendetta for a more practical and forgiving implementation of a revenge reaction.
Player Core 1, page 378, Spell "Charming Touch": Should this get the Subtle Trait? I'm asking this especially in comparison to how "Charm" was remastered. Legacy Charm was a somatic and verbal spell, that became Subtle in remaster. (Useful!) Charming Touch, that was only somatic, but not verbal in Legacy -- and was thus less conspicuous than Legacy Charm -- is now the noisy and conspicious cast. Seems like an oversight and currently somewhat imbalanced to me. (Especially when keeping in mind that Charming Touch has only 1/6 up to 1/144 the duration of Charm, which I don't want to criticize as the former is a focus spell.)
GM Core, page 49, Section "Buying and Selling Items", paragraph "Magical markets are rare or nonexistent" needs better adjustment to remastered crafting rules. It should reflect the relaxed need for formulas. Specifically the following sentence should be corrected:
In remaster Formulas are usually no longer the limiting factor (for common items); downtime still is. Hence, suggestion 1 for possible correction:
Suggestion 2 might also mention uncommon items -- e.g.
The latter might require too much space. Anyway, you'll know, what fits best.
Can vouch that Asmodeus is safe. No fake out. A contract made you tell that. ;-)
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.
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.")
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...)
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.)
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.
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.)
1. Not so much yet. Might try in the future 2. Similar for me to. Serves from time to time either to get some "good enough" image versions - although I again and gain found my self triggering "rerolls" for so long time that one could think of it rather as a sort of mini game by itself. Or a secondary hobby - AI art whisperer. (rolling eyes) 3. Tried very few times to get a rule answer via AI. Went back to HI way, rather quickly. And back to guys like you. Reasons: It seems to be that AI class now gets feat Confabulator for free, at first level. They use it all the time. ;-) BTW: I find confabulation a more fitting term than hallucination. One might argue that biological brains do that stuff as well. But there is still something there, apparently, that allows us to meaningfully grasp concepts and their relation to ourself and the perspective of others, as well as second-guessing ourself better than the new (albeit pretty impressive) systems.
Indeed. I wish they had stuck with the off-guard/slow-route from the (now errata'd) short description. That additional debuff with daze could have facilitated interesting group combos. All the more, since I remember relatively few-spells causing off-guard to others, by heart. I particularly like such abilities that incentivize coordination among characters and thus cooperative play in general. Strengthens the narrative of a group of people sticking together against the odds.
Short: Yes. If confronted with a question where GM wants to let dice decide whether NPCs know the answer - why not? (Liked the question, btw.) Actually NPC Recall Knowledge feels not totally common situation, but this could be because (as a player) you don't necessarily get the info when GMs do it for NPCs. So might be under-reported.
Older threads that could lead you to additional regional maps of Casmaron:
I've stumbled about an Iobara map in the past, though I haven't checked it's authenticity and location. Apart from that: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Distant Shores (PF1e) is supposed to have more details of city Ular Kel in Casmaron. Haven't double-checked, so I mainly rely on what linked page says. Hope that helps you a little bit.
Here are higher-resolution versions of the world map and continental maps, incl. Casmaron:
Deeplink to Casmaron: https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/024/205/341/large/rob-mc caleb-globe-3.jpg It's from Rob McCaleb, cartograph and freelance contributor for above world maps. I presume, these can be counted as official maps.
(Message in Thread "p")
- A version with "o" in URL before the question mark:
If this is a real, global phenomenon, not just an individual issue for my browser, I recommend consolidation.
On Counterspell:
Admittedly, this counteracting might require some suspicion up front and very precise timing. However if you are already in confrontation with someone you believe could be a caster and you notice them taking that extra moment of concentration (actually an extra action, always remember) I consider that suspicion for very plausible, up to granted. Now we might argue about the timing. Still, in this case I'd argue from a game balance perspective, and I'd also compare the countless other effects (reactions etc.) that one can apply at just the right moment, as well. On Subtle, in general:
Considering "checks & balances":
I reiterate that detection, dispelling (persisting effects), or just mundane means of discovering what happened, are further aspects that can keep overly bold "subtle casters" in check. Though I'd not totally object, if there was (or maybe already is?) some additional high-ranking(?) tool to detect traces (auras? residual energies?) of spellcasting, incl. subtle casting, if one needs another countermeasure and/or investigation tool. Note however that every hurdle of hidden casting quickly tends to make it unreasonably risky or even deadly (depending on the story). You can find more personal, detailed arguments in older post of mine: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf2&page=2?Remaster-Covert-casting-mecha nics#63. (If you like Wall of Text, though I still think it had good reasons.) TL;DR
While we are at Ceremonial Knive ... Player Core 1, page 188, right column - Inconsistency
(Italics mine.) I guess, the first sentence was intended to start "You prepare a special knife" (present form)? The present perfect form confused me - and still does. It sounds as if taking the feat resulted in a one-time event, which is now completed although effecting the present. However, the next sentences tell, that the knife is prepared daily, which poses a contrast to the first sentence. Unless everything was more complicated. (I hope not, but maybe I'll create a spin-off thread about Ceremonial Knive...)
[Off-Topic] Addition: If vengeance means ensuring atonement a Redeemer of Calistria is closer than one might think at first glance. Actually, it's also a beautiful topic for Syncretism and a joint faith of Calistria and Nocticula. Who could be suited better to join, than the former Demon Lord of Lust and Darkness, now the Redeemer Queen?
And I was thinking that Calistria was the goddess of the revenge. [Offtopic] What I like about Calistria: Despite her outward appearance and areas of concern officially being Lust, Trickery, Revenge - pointedly underpinned by her symbol and (shall we say?) often eye-catching presentation - there is a somewhat hidden meta-theme about her. It's easy to miss, e.g. when just skimming over the books or AoN, but her Gods&Magic article (+plus older lore texts) tell: I'd say, it's about self-assured versatility, bolstered by sensuality both as means and ends. Calistria doesn't forget and she will pay back - and the division of her church fundamentally revolves around the decisive question how hefty that pay back has to be (ranging from benevolent to absurdly cruel) - but she doesn't even her vengeance lead herself away from her own path - whatever that may be in the respective period of time. Or era, when talking about goddesses. (BTW: That contrasts Arazni's steely acrimony.) And now we're going from Offtopic to
"become too consumed by love or a need for revenge" from the lips of a goddess that put revenge on her coat of arms ... makes me wonder whether that was a trick as well. A deterrence maybe, in the most plausible way. The yellow and black warning colors of a wasp. Unspokenly signalling: "Don't get in my way! (Unless you feed my needs... I might even share with you then ...)" All in all a fantastic trope, if you ask me, that gives her a uniqueness beyond identity. (Of which I dearly hope, she survives some rumored death as a god, glooming on the horizon...). A real identity, hidden beneath artificial appearance. Easy to miss, when one gets caught by boobs and capers, gets twisted around fingers of truth and contradictions. Until savoring the sting of that lustily layered, profound personality and her (quoting G&M) "[capriciousness as] a model for maintaining perspective and composure over a [...]long lifespan". Or maybe I am just fully devoted to her. ;-) "Come Sweetheart! Want to risk a closer look?!"
[...] I would also say that the big winners of the remaster are the utility cantrips that got buffed or merged, which suggests to me that the truly weak cantrips of the game pre-remaster were those that did no damage -- [...] For the records a small interjection: I love utility cantrips. Having them on hand at-will is one of the key factors that allowed me to actually feel as a Caster. Knowing that even in dire circumstances, even if everything ran out, I (or better: the whole group) could still rely on some of my favorite magic effects, is absolutely vital to me. (Multiclass Bard and new Figment - here we are! Yes!)
I find the discussion about cantrip balancing interesting and insightful. Intending to facilitate more targeted discussion, may I kindly suggest outsourcing it to a dedicated thread? For instance, something like "Cantrip Balancing after Remaster (vs. Cantrip / vs. Weapons)"? (Update: Spawned new thread: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wqd?Offensive-Cantrip-Balancing-in-Remaster) I consider it an important topic - particularly for adventures with long adventuring days and scarce resources - so I'd like it to get the attention it IMHO deserves, while on the same hand allowing other aspects to be found easier in the thread at hand.
Question: As I simply didn't understand the "It doesn’t have or use its own attribute modifiers" sentence (p. 259). What are the intended consequences? Can it do anything that requires attributes? If yes - how? Eventually questions arise: How does a familar relate to the world? For instance and as mentioned above. Can it carry something? Use mundane items? Administer a potion to a dying comrade? ... Is it a: Please work with your GM first? for all this?
Question: Are familiars meant to be sapient beings (unless player and GM agree on something else, ofc)? By-default? Or just when having Speech ability, or ...? Personal Opinion behind spoiler tags to not overly polute the thread with my personal opinion / Lobbying. Click for our balancing approach::
After thorough discussion, we found a way to make sense of all the gaps and open points in CRB/APG familiar rules and achieve balance: The more mental capability a familiar had, the more agency, and the more of an own character it has. Which means it will be considered more of an an NSC (although one closely related to the PC) and less of a stupid class feature, which serves without question. This posed an IMO effective compromise for Exploration Mode: It allowed familiars to be generally capable to do countless useful, flavourful things - while on the same hand give the GM leverage to prevent a familiar dominating the groups action all the time. (Allowing it to do as it pleased simultaneously posed an effective anti-overshadowing-player-characters measure.)
Meta-Question: Considering the many open questions - something I'd like to ask the developers: Was this intended? Do you understand familiars and their nature to be so self-evident that you found it just needed no more in-depth explanations? Or was it deliberately left vague to stimulate collaboration within groups to shape their personal, favorite familiar concepts and rules? In case of the latter, I kindly my add: I would be happy for a short statement, even if just a single sentence, to convey this.
Unicore, I welcome your questions and concerns. It helps to anticipate potential exploits and handle side-effects that might have been unintended. Or - to cite a condition: "Unnoticed" ;-) Personal foreword / anecdote to explain my view: I play as sly undercover agent (cleric (of a certain trickery goddess)/bard/rogue) in an urban campaign, with observation, intrigue, and often being observed by powerful organized crime etc. I'd say that better covert casting (than in CRB) was needed dearly. This is particularly true because of skill requirements. Naturally, in that role I already added some skill training/increase to Deception, Stealth and Perform respectively. However, I found maximizing these skills just to have a reasonable chance to get away with a covert spell to be really, really daunting. Especially when being aware that one single skill-failure in the situations, in which I most badly needed covert casting, could ruin everything (from identity to life of self, relatives etc.). Tactics that can't effort a single mistake are fragile ones, per se. That's OK. I don't want to complain about that principle; I just think secretive tactics should remain a viable, interesting option. Once your secret (caster) identity is discovered it's obvious that this has serious consequences. Must have consequences, for a plausible world. I just remind us all, how fragile it is compared to tactics like martial violence, which so often is presented a very accessible or even the default option. It has been so easy to take the "away with your deceptive approach, just beat'em up"-path. Fail a strike one time? No worries, the next could do! Fail to uphold your secret identity - failed for good! All in all and as a consequence, I almost never cast at all when observed. 8-| Not even the spells that seemed to be meant to be discreet (or "Subtle", as it's now called ;-)), like Charming Touch. Personally, I think it was a pity, since it rendered interesting options mechanically - and as ultimate consequence: plotwise - impractical. Side-Note to all that now stumble across Charming Touch: Charming Touch did not get Subtle trait (yet?), which I presume to be an oversight when remastering a spell that was probably much less famous and less used than Charm. Compare my remark on Charm vs Charming Touch in the errata thread (Deeplink). Back to one specific point regarding your concerns of the stealth-without-actual-stealth invisible caster:
[...] conceal spell, invisibility and translocate would allow a caster to basically move around without ever requiring an active stealth check. [...] While I believe that omitting incantations is a needed option and would make a caster significantly more stealthy, I doubt that the hypothetic example caster would get away with just translocating around and no one noticing. Unless they isn't capable of actual stealth and/or deception, they will tell their presence one or the other way. Something I always remind players that rely very much on Invisibility of: Manipulating light and visibility does not remove one from all other senses, especially hearing, scent. I guess you brought up Translocate as a means to avoid walking around and consequently as a way to remove noise. Sure, it sounds like a solid tactics, but I wouldn't overly rely on it. Does relying on Invisibility+Translocate to change places without actual Stealth skill really guarantee that no one hears? I wouldn't rule so. Reasons: One can easily make sound without ever leaving the place one stands upon: Sounds of clothing and equipment slightly jingling. Sound of winds around body parts or fast moving objects - like weapons/staves. Sounds of weight shift on creaky wooden floor. Even rapid breathing in the stressful situations characters often be. Not to speak of scent and all other ways to pinpoint invisible creatures. Plus, as already noted: Active spells can normally be detected no matter how sneaky they were once cast. Unless, again, one takes additional means of protection (more, higher spells or certain feats) on top. Hence, personally I've been more afraid of impractically weak covert casting than of too robust one. So I guess, I might become rather happy than worried in the remaster, in this regard, though I admittedly need to get into exact details of mentioned concerns more thoroughly. That being said and no matter my personal casting preferences, I really like that you and others scrutinize the new options and point out potential loopholes, side-effects, indirect consequences maybe not considered when remastering the mechanics, yet, etc. IMHO that vigilance and effort is vital to achieve a better, "battle-hardened" (and sometimes, just sometimes "Subtle" ;-)) system...
The example of Melodious (Request) + Charm is also a bad combination because the free request happens as part of activating the feat, which means you'd be making it before you cast the spell. Can someone quote the text of Spellshape as successor of Metamagic trait? I'm asking because Metamagic had the following clause: Any additional effects added by a metamagic action are part of the spell’s effect, not of the metamagic action itself.
Thanks to all for the answers about subtle so far; really helps to understand what is about to be changed. Organizational note: The thread at hand was spawned from remaster wizard thread (s. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sieh&page=6?Player-Core-Previ ew-The-Wizard-Remastered#262). Apparently there is more debate on "Subtle" and impact on remaster wizards going on, there. That's fine. I don't want to restrict anyone posting there; I just thought it is helpful to have a dedicated thread focusing on covert casting, in general, instead of having it all conflated with general wizard remaster. Particularly since these feat choices - at least when in CRB/APG - have also been in witch or bard class, respectively. BTW: Does that still hold for remaster, as well?
(Italics mine.) I see where you are coming from, though I'd respectfully question your word "intentionally". (Note: I've simply not come across a source for that alleged intention, yet. Please tell me if there is one. I missed many important parts of PF2e during my reading.) Anyway, in absolute terms, Alchemists won't become better, if cantrips were worse. Actually, I'd say alchemy and casting both do need a reliable, ideally attrition-free while still capable feature, especially for long adventuring days. Background: I've seen many multi-difficult-encounter days in adventure paths... All too quickly cantrips and perpetual infusions became the last weapon of choice... (Or were right from the start when one anticipated the day wrongly.) Hence, I'd rather suggest buffing perpetual infusions (and making them come online earlier, or even from the start). In general, I'd definitely support your position of buffing alchemy, though.
[...] Additionally, the initial dedication states, "Your familiar gains the normal number of abilities for a familiar instead of those a witch familiar normally gets." This indicates to me that there is difference in base quality between a standard and witch familiar. [...] One just has to put the emphasis on different words to suggest a somewhat different intention of the sentence: "Your familiar gains the normal number of abilities for a familiar instead of those a witch familiar normally gets." (emphasis mine) ;-) Besides that sort of "Exegesis", I endorse the practicality aspect mentioned by you and several others, too.
Thanks for all previews and reviews and the effort that went into all these contributions! Special thanks magnuskn for the initiative! It helps everyone (incl. me) that don't have the books/pdfs yet some (additional) participation!
In General: I think also that there is rule wording that says that spells damaging items is left up to the GM. [...] Found one in paragraph on Areas: Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects. Seems somewhat logical to me, that this holds for single target spells analogously, but don't know of an explicit rule or quote. Unfortunately, there is this oddity that very many spells as well as strikes only mention targeting creatures. (Which is not in accordance to my imagination and counter-intuitive too, IMHO.) I hope this gets somehow fixed in the remaster. But who knows...? If nothing helps, ofc there is always the First Rule, anyway. Specifically:
Example for the latter: If you levitated an object with Levitate spell as high as possible until the duration ran out, I can easily imagine (depending on the nature of the item) that this could eventually result in massive damage... Example Spells I found (not necessarily an exhaustive list), ordered by rank and alphabetically:
Gisher, thank you very much for these guides. I find them very comprehensive and they helped me to get into the PF rules much easier. Just one point in the "Archetype Spellcasting Progressions" that looks different to current rules: Summoner Multiclass Spellcasting: Your guide associates the cantrips with the Summoner Dedication feat. However, in the books (cp. https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=96), the cantrips are part of "Basic Summoner Spellcasting".
In June 2022 this has officially been answered by CRB Errata, see https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq > Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (3rd Printing): Pages 316, 317, 318, 330, 332, 335, 347, 353, 354, 358: In aerial form, animal form, avatar, dinosaur form, dragon form, elemental form, insect form, monstrosity form, nature incarnate, plant form, change "only attacks you can use" to "only attacks you can Strike with." You can still use non-Strike attacks like Grapple and Trip as normal. Note that as of 2023-05-05 certain spells in other rulebooks (e.g. Ooze Form from Secrets of Magic) still contain the old, incorrect wording. My view: This is because they did not receive an equivalent amount of errata, yet, and it's not Rules-as-intended. PS: Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.
In January 2023 this has officially been confirmed by CRB Clarification, see https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq> Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing):
[italics added] PS: Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Immunity against Crit vs. Critical Effects, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well. PPS: Potentially interesting follow-up discussion: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43rot?Critical-Hits-and-Critical-Immune-Clarif ication
In January 2023 this has officially been answered by CRB Clarification, see https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq> Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing):
[italics added] PS: Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Immunity against Crit vs. Critical Effects, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well. |