|
calnivo's page
166 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.
|


I'd like give feedback regarding "good old" Gods&Magic that will also be relevant for anounced Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries:
In short:
Would it be possible to design the future sections on all deities - particularly those of the core deities - in such a way, so that all relevant stat block info can be retrieved there without having to consult Player Core 1 (formerly CRB) in parallel?
In bit more detail:
I frequently look up details about deities in Gods&Magic. I really love that some (in this case: the core) deities got extended statistics, like:
Realm, Allies, Enemies, ..., to Sacred Animal/Colors etc. Very much contributes to more dense lore and atmosphere.
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.

Briefly:
I'm a bit confused: Is the Manipulate trait - having or not having it - the decisive factor whether a spell requires gestures? Or does every spell require them, without exception?
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.
1) My favourite: In Legacy (CRB), there are nested layers of components / traits / rules. Most prominent example: "Somatic" components implying "Manipulate" -> triggering Reactions. We had to look up in critical moments, sometimes more than once. This was changed, luckily. The components in their previous form are gone; there is just the traits any more. Removing that layer of complexity will surely be making our game easier. Also the handling and wording of those item component sometimes needed (once called "focus component") was greatly simplified.
(See the legacy section on spell components CRB, pg. 303, Deeplink: AoN).
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.)
Now - with spell components being folded into traits - does this 1:1 relation still hold?
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: Player Core 1, pg. 458 wrote: manipulate (trait)
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.
(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: Player Core 1, pg. 299 wrote: Casting Spells
The casting of a spell can range from a simple word of magical might that creates a fleeting effect to a complex process taking hours to cast and producing a long-term impact. Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters. If your character has a long- term disability that prevents or complicates them from speaking (as described in GM Core), work with the GM to determine an analogous way they cast their spells, such as tapping in code on their staff or whistling.
(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?

Hello,
in remaster, by default, Learning spells has the following rule:
Player Core 1, pg. 231, left column (top quarter) wrote: To learn the spell, you must do the following:
• Spend 1 hour per spell rank, during which you must remain in conversation with a person who knows the spell or have the magical writing in your possession.
Witch class, ability familiar, has the following rule:
Player Core 1, pg. 181 wrote: It can learn any spell on your tradition’s spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.
(Italics mine.)
1) How long does the latter method take in total? Is it:
a) 1 hour, which the consumption of the scroll/writing takes
b) 1 hour per spell rank, which is how long Learn a Spell takes by default
c) 1 hour + 1 hour per spell rank, which is both above combined
d) Something else?
To add a bit more of a challenge, let them take feat Magical Shorthand:
Player Core 1, pg. 258, right column wrote: Learning spells comes easily to you. When you succeed at Learning a Spell, it takes 10 minutes regardless of the spell’s rank.
2) How long does it take now?
a) 10 Minutes, assuming Magical Shorthand overrules
b) 1 hour
c) 1 hour + 10 minutes
d) Something else?
A sibling thread initiated a discussion about (remaster) Cantrip balancing (Deeplink to what I believe was the beginning of that topic). It encompassed both the question of offensive Cantrip vs (other) offensive Cantrip, as well as Cantrip vs. Weapon.
This is a spin-off thread, dedicated to the topic.
Own Motivation: Recycling part of my comment from above thread:
Calnivo wrote: 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 [...]
Hello everybody,
can Striking Runes be added as first fundamental rune of a weapon, i.e. without a prior (+1/+2/+3) Weapon Potency Rune? I don't see a ban, but I can't remember any example weapons like that either. The latter makes me suspicious... Maybe I am rule blind here and/or looked at the wrong places, again.
So if anyone knows, I'd be happy for a reference.
Enlighted Ones,
Rumors circulate about changes to the mechanics of how covert casting works. Pre-remaster this was usually implemented by some metamagic class feats, particularly Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell (also cp. the remarks in section Casting Spells). Now, there seem to be remaster-changes. In this course, I've read about a new trait(?): "Subtle".
Are you users with access to the new rules willing to share a bit more on that matter?
For instance:
- Do Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell still exist? How do they work in Remaster?
- Do you still need skill checks? If yes, which?
- And what's the deal with "Subtle"?
That would greatly help to shed some early light on shady casting.
(A topic some undercover caster - in a tricky scenario in which getting recognized at the wrong places by the wrong persons could threaten more than one life - is eager to learn about.)
Thanks in advance.

Intro:
The Eidolon class feature is a long entry (might be the longest I know) and partially confusing to me. (But I'll get to that later.) Its description starts on Secrets of Magic (SoM), page 52, at the top of right column, and runs all the way to the bottom of page 53, left column, ending with the paragraph: Secrets of Magic pg. 53 1.1 wrote: "Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means [...] For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies. " The whole class feature entry also contains 3 distinct actions/activities: "Manifest Eidolon", "Act Together", "Share Senses". At least I strongly presume they are part of the feature itself, since Summoner's class chapter doesn't list them somewhere else. The table of class features just says "Eidolon".
Now when I read the Summoner Dedication entry at SoM, page 76 - and particularly after I read FlurryofBlunders's interpretation and Guide from 2023-03-24 - I am somewhat irritated.
Important NOTE:
If possible, please look into SoM book/pdf, first and not into Archives of Nethys (AoN) only. The summoner may be one case (of relatively few I encountered) where I'd say that AoN might actually worsen the comprehension, up to mislead readers. IMO, that happens because AoN changed the Summoner Dedication entry (pg. 76) by removing the Eidolon's reference to book page 52, which was replaced by a hyperlink to a different rule section. Just compare book/pdf with the respective AoN-pages. On top of that, AoN copied the Manifest Eidolon-action into the summoner dedication page, which again does not reflect SoM, page 76.
Most probably this was made for good intentions to help convenience of readers and/or by some automated parsing mechanism. However, all-in-all with these differences, AoN actively promotes a certain interpretation that might not accurately reflect the book/pdf.
Consideration on Class Features and Eidolon:
In general I'd say, that if you get a certain class feature, you get everything included unless explicitly ruled otherwise. However, the wording of the Summoner Dedication is put in a way, I find particularly unfortunate. I can narrow down the problem onto the following two sentences, particularly one phrase inside:
Secrets of Magic pg. 76 1.1 wrote: "You gain an eidolon (page 52) as well as the Manifest Eidolon action. Due to your tenuous link, you can’t gain or use tandem actions." Central Question: What does this mean? Particularly, what is the nature of the phrase "as well as the Manifest Eidolon activity"?
- Is this phrase a mere hint for convenience, a reminder that the Eidolon feature is based on one central action, in this case "Manifest ..."? Although it is redundant then, because Eidolon Class Feature on page 52 contains that action, already.
- Or is the phrase meant as hard rule statement that implicitly - by mentioning only one of the 3 Eidolon actions - is meant to rule out the other Eidolon Ability actions? Although it doesn't really say that, and naively by RAW I wouldn't know why Share Senses should be arbitrarily removed from the middle of the Eidolon Ability entry.
Depending on the answer, we now have the following situation concerning the feature's actions:
- Manifest Eidolon is by all means included.
- Act Together is forbidden as it's an explicitly forbidden tandem action.
- Shared Senses is ...?
Personal Opinion: I'd currently tend to include Share Senses. Both for role playing potential and remaining utility value, and because I think that the Multiclass Eidolon is already badly restricted through shared action pool w/o tandem actions. This action restriction seems so worse that many users (incl. me) consider it more of a burden than a benefit in encounters. Consequently, the real usefulness would be outside encounters. Then again being restricted to 100 ft. radius by default puts further limitations on the entity. So I think Share Senses is rather fine for Multiclass Summoners without game breaking.
Still I am irritated that I have this bad feeling of not really knowing what was intended by the developers. Did I miss something? Was this ever clarified? If not, maybe - if someone knows - might I kindly ask for a hint about the designers' intentions? Any contribution that helps to get insight into the matter is ofc welcome, likewise.

Hello everyone,
I try to understand if general feat "Ride" applies to Skill Feat "Express Rider" (Move Trait) checks.
Details on Feat Ride:
Core Rulebook pg. 255 4.0 wrote: Benefits: Automatically succeed at commanding your mount to move (URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?Traits=78&q=name%3Aride&type=eqs&a mp;include-traits=general )
Core Rulebook pg. 266 4.0 wrote: When you Command an Animal you’re mounted on to take a move action (such as Stride), you automatically succeed instead of needing to attempt a check. (URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=835 )
.
Details on Feat Express Rider:
Advanced Player's Guide pg. 206 2.0 wrote: Express Rider
[Traits:] Exploration General Move Skill
[...] you can attempt a Nature check to Command an Animal to increase your mount's travel speed.
(Italics mine, URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2126 )
.
Details on Trait Move:
Core Rulebook pg. 634 4.0 wrote: An action with this trait involves moving from one space to another. (URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=114)
.
Details on Trait Exploration:
Core Rulebook pg. 631 4.0 wrote: An activity with this trait takes more than a turn to use, [...] (URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=66 )
.
Details on Activities:
Core Rulebook pg. 461 4.0 wrote: An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action.
An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s required actions. (See Subordinate Actions on page 462.)[...]
(URL: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=388 )
.
Personal comment:
- Even when I naively cling to the letters as written (RAW), I am unsure: Do Express Rider's traits mean that its checks are for (subordinate) Move Actions as part of an "Express Rider" Move Exploration Activity??
- Then again, when I try to guess their intention (RAI), I'm not entirely sure, either: At first glance, Ride's auto-success at commanding a mount seems almost perfectly made for commanding a mount to ride faster. But I've already encountered so many rule pitfalls and been wrong so many times ...
How would you handle it?

Hello everybody,
most of my group and I are relatively new to PF2e and despite searching older threads and spending some time, we still try to understand the function and intention of the tower shield.
The tower shield has a special paragraph in the shield rules: See CRB p. 277 or https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=212, third paragraph.
My particular problem comes from the following wording "until the shield is no longer raised", - probably in combination with my understanding (maybe just my interpretation, my mental image?) of someone trying to continuously keep their shield guard up.
* My naive interpretation (1) was: As long as you spend the (single) Action to keep your shield raised ('Raise a Shield'), you effectively extend the Shield Bonus incl. special Tower Shield cover bonus into the next round. Sort of interpreting a repeated 'Raise a Shield' as sufficient to fulfil the condition to have the shield raised.
* However, there is also another interpretation (2) : That insists that (except, maybe, with Fighter 12 Feat "Paragon's Guard", but that is another story ...) there never can be a thing like 'extending' one's shield raise (even if always your first action), and your Tower Shield Cover has to fall every round and needing to be reinitiated with a second action on top of 'Raise a Shield'.
Do you understand my confusion? Has there ever been any sort of official clarification on that matter? How do you rule it?
Personal comment:
Obviously the first interpretation would improve the tower shield significantly compared to the second one.
* Someone said it would be extremely powerful then. I don't want to categorically reject this view. Effectively carrying around your own +4 circ. AC for one action each round _is_ powerful, IMHO, no question.
(BTW, I still do not understand if the Bonus is meant to be greater cover or just something strikingly similar, but again, another story... :-|)
* On the other hand, tower shields seem to be very bulky, penalizing items, that have definite weaknesses compared to e.g. Sturdy Shields' blocking robustness. And, as long there are sufficiently robust objects around in the environment, greater cover for +4 circ AC in one action could be in reach for other characters, too.
So I am somewhat lost.
(I generally hope that my usual approach of interpreting rpg rules will not prove just too categorically incompatible with PF2 rules. In any case, I thank you in advance for any hint and support!)

Hello everyone,
friends and I are currently looking for a PF2e stand-alone adventure preferably starting at about character level 6, 7, or 8. (I will probably GM.) Native Roll20-Support would be definite advantage but no absolute must.
I've looked around at paizo.com and R20-website, but haven't found some obvious candidate. (If we don't find something more fitting soon, we might settle with "Shadows at Sundown". But this would be Lvl 11 - which is actually bit higher then most of our group prefer).
Does anyone have Suggestions?
Some criteria / background info:
- Ideally for 4 Characters. Will be created from scratch.
- We have several years of general RPG-Experience, although we are still learning some intricate details auf PF2... (and sometimes fight with complexity)
- We have two other groups (GMed by different people, Campaigns based on AoA and AoE-Adventure Paths, probably about 1/3 progress), partially paused for organizational reasons. The Stand-Alone Adventure is intended to bridge the gap until we can continue with the big campaign. Optionally might go on for longer if people like.
If you need additional information, just ask. :-)
Hello everybody!
I am relatively new to PF2e and currently exploring the vast material. In this regard, I was wondering about rulebooks' illustrations. I like many of them, yet I am unsure of the relation between illustrations and texts.
More specifically:
* Are the illustrations in the rule books (partially available via AoN, too, AFAIK) intended to interpret the rule texts?
* How authoritative are they? Are they supposed to actually represent characters, scenes, spells etc. in accordance with the rules as intended by Paizo?
Learning more about this would probably help our group to understand the sources better. Maybe even resolve some situations where we apparently do not understand texts sufficiently enough, yet.
If this relation has already been officially clarified and explained elsewhere, I kindly ask for a reference.

Hello everyone,
I'm relatively new to PF2e and currently read descriptions of polymorph spells. Comparing them I've stumbled about a small but maybe important difference:
(Italics added).
Now I am confused.
Does the latter really mean that you have to make a binding decision at the first casting time of the spell, and afterwards you can only assume the exact same form at subsequent castings?
If Yes:
- How permanent is that choice? Until the characters death? Until retraining? (And then retraining what, exactly? - A choice within a spell? Are there precedents for something like this? Would it be like retraining repertoire spells?)
- It would definitely reduce the usability of these (by default usually just 1 min long) spells. Intuitively this interpretation feels wrong to me. (But who am I to criticise.)
On the other hand and if No:
- What is the word "first" supposed to mean there?
Thanks in advance for any help and additional thanks for all the community support in general. It helps me a lot to get into this game, which (honestly) appeared pretty scary at first. (Keyword: 600+ pages CRB :-))
|