cavernshark's page

** Pathfinder Society GM. 648 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
2/5

The current situation also is forcing a lot of people into online games, which may be harder to audit since you're probably interacting with folks you don't know as much. "Local" VOs and GMs takes on a whole new meaning in this context.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
So what is wrong with just asking the players what Lore they have when it comes time for a secret check?

That's the big (for me, at least) distinguishing difference between Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2. The point of secret checks is that they happen behind the scenes, and players aren't supposed to know they're being rolled.

Example 1 of many: Exploration Mode in a cave complex. Players tell the GM what rolls they're doing. But GM is secretly rolling Stealth for everyone, regardless, because that determines whether the dragon wakes up.

I don't think the point of secret checks is just to keep players from knowing they are happening. They are to prevent players from metagaming the outcomes. For recall knowledge in particular which is still an active thing a PC needs to do. Some sense motive/perception checks might be a little more sensitive because the presence of the roll itself gives some parts away, but it's not hard to know your 4-6 perception mods.


Hey all, sorry for the quiet on my front. I'm going to go ahead and drop from this to free up the slot for someone else. Thank you.

2/5

If you want them to support PF2, just push through and make games. Make sure to flag it as PF2. I'm sure they are watching / monitoring. If enough people start playing there, they will start supporting it.

It's a two-sided market problem. You've got to be there for them to want to sell to you there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just here to stir the pot and point out that a wizard with 14 charisma could put two feats into Bard Dedication and get Bardic Lore by level 4, thereby having an infinite number of lore skills with a high +int modifier.


So, this isn't a rules official clarification, but the Pathfinder Society ruled that it uses Charisma when they sanctioned it for organized play.

Pathfinder Society Character Options - Lost Omens Character Guide Rulings and Clarifications wrote:
The key spellcasting ability for the spells granted by Invoke the Crimson Oath (page 95) is Charisma.

Source


Hello, Drew here checking in as requested. I am not new to 2nd edition but this is my first PbP so please bear with me while I figure everything out. :)

This will be my third 2E character. It's currently a GM/Pregen blob but I'll be fleshing it out for this. I will submit my info above as soon as I've locked that in and got my character sheet loaded appropriately here.

2/5

The number of a PFS scenario just says the order it was published, not necessarily the order it needs to be played. Generally they are standalone stories, but there's a meta narrative that links them together, some more closely than others. Continuations of particular plot points can sometimes be several sessions apart, some even years apart.


daedel, el azote wrote:
Need some clarification on this. If you double hit points recovered after the 1-hour period, how do you take into account continual recovery? you double after 10-min period? or you still have to go the full hour and then double Up the total amount?

You don't. Continual Recovery has no effect in this case. If you attempt to treat wounds, you've spent 10 minutes. If you succeed, you can continue that same treatment for the full hour to double the hit points. If you fail, you don't need to wait the hour, you can try again in another 10 minutes.

Essentially, if you've chosen to extend the treat wounds attempt over the hour to double the output, you cannot begin a new attempt on the same PC, nor can you attempt to treat another player during that time without Ward Medic.

This does mean, you could attempt to triple the healing you'd deliver over an hour with Continual Recovery by attempting 6 heal checks instead of doing the extended hour. It will likely result in close to 6x hp over the hour, but you'd roll each separately and there's some chance of failure without Assurance and you'll be unlikely to hit the expert or above DCs with Assurance. So you might want to try for a hard DC every 10 minutes and if you crit succeed on the harder DC, do something like extend that result.

Extended attempt, with or without continual recovery
Min 1-10: First treat wounds
Min 11-60: Extended treatment to double HP from first treat wounds

6 attempts with continual recovery
Min 1-10: First treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)
Min 11-20: Second treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)
Min 21-30: Third treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)
Min 31-40: Fourth treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)
Min 41-50: Fifth treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)
Min 51-60: Sixth treat wounds, concurrent immunity (10 minutes)

Edit: updated because I realized the 10 minutes of immunity is concurrent with the time spent treating wounds.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's great to hear how so many of you have an easy breezy time with explaining this to new players. But fundamentally, for every easy explanation you have, there's other GMs seeing new player eyes gloss over. The system, as designed will generate on average between 1.5-3.4 gold for a player by level 3, or 10-16 gold by level 4, depending on their earn income skill modifier (0-4).

So in their first 6 scenarios, we could have just as easily given them an extra minor alchemical item. Except we already do that with Pathfinder training. It's unnecessary for new players. At best it's neutral for a players first few levels, and at worst it's an complexity which may discourage new players for incredibly marginal gains.

I'm not suggesting the OP team should drop everything to revise this given the host of other priorities, but revising the downtime distribution / use in Society should be something they do. I'm sure the current system looked good on paper, but I don't think it's actually adding anything positive right now to early PFS play in practice.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Perhaps learn them better yourself, so that you can confidently and concisely explain them to new players?

There's nothing conceptually difficult to explain, and there are easy handouts available for determining DCs and amounts earned/saved.

Sure. After a four hour session when they're learning the game rules, I'll have them fill out a chronicle for the first time. Then I'll give them a second handout to explain how this works. Then they'll ask questions like "what's the point of crafting?", "should I use my downtime to earn income or try to craft something?" This all is before we get into the variable amounts of downtime they need to use depending on whether the new player is a Field Commissioned agent or not... which if we're being honest is probably the same session we're explaining these rules. Of course I'm not going to recommend a new player take Field Commissioned agent, but that's also definitely not going to stop some of them from taking it anyway.

Since I obviously don't understand the rules well enough, I'll just send them to this thread to make sure it's crystal clear. After I give them a link to the Guide for Organized Play section downtime rules, of course.

We're setting up new players for a lame ending to a scenario when a bunch of accountants break out earnings tables to cross reference for really marginal changes to player wealth. It feels bad if you ignore it and it feels bad if you master it. And I think it feels really bad for new players who are confused by it despite any number of handouts we give them. It would be a much better situation if we could tell players "You've earned 8 days of downtime. Don't worry about it too much now, but you can use it for some specific uses later."

2/5

Nefreet wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
I just feel the need to point out that this entire system (converting downtime into earned income or crafting) feels needlessly complicated for incredibly marginal benefits and I hate having to explain it to new players. I like downtime for things like retraining ... the rest feels unnecessary.
That's really more of an issue with the Core rules, then. Not Society. Right? Society just dictates how many days of Downtime you receive depending on the adventure completed.

Yes, and no. The rules in core make more sense when you don't have default assumptions of item availability. Our campaign says what we can and cannot do with those downtime days and says we lose them between sessions. Nothing says the campaign has to let us earn income.

I'm not convinced we couldn't do away with earn income and just tack some small fixed amount to every chronicle based on character level. Let downtime accumulate for the handful of other things we might use it for, or let players use it in bulk to craft between sessions later so there's less pressure to introduce cumbersome rule sets before they really help the player.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just feel the need to point out that this entire system (converting downtime into earned income or crafting) feels needlessly complicated for incredibly marginal benefits and I hate having to explain it to new players. I like downtime for things like retraining ... the rest feels unnecessary.


I disagree with Ravingdork, and offer counter-evidence:

Skill Actions wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 233

The actions you can perform with a given skill are sorted into those you can use untrained and those that require you to be trained in the skill, as shown on Table 4–1: Skills, Key Abilities, and Actions (page 235). The untrained and trained actions of each skill appear in separate sections within the skill’s description.

Anyone can use a skill’s untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill. A circumstance, condition, or effect might bar you from a skill action regardless of your proficiency rank, and sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a barbarian untrained in Arcana could identify a construct with a lucky roll using Arcana to Recall Knowledge, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge to determine the spells used to create such a construct is beyond the scope of the barbarian’s anecdotal knowledge. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank.

The core rulebook delineates a binary category for skill actions: untrained or trained. Some trained actions may require a higher proficiency level, but they are fundamentally still trained skill actions even if they require expert, master, or legendary proficiency. This is an unfortunate overloading of the term trained, both to denote the categories of skill actions and also that trained is the minimum proficiency level to do those actions.

The fact that the Chirugeon Research Field says "As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better" even suggests this is the case. There'd be no need for the clause "or better" if it wasn't possible.

[edit: Ninja'd by Themetricsystem -- but I agree with TMS's take.]


Moine wrote:

If an Ability references the "Trained Uses" of a Skill: does this interact with Skill Feat Actions that Require "Trained" (or Better) in that Skill?

For Example:
Alchemist's Research Field Chirurgeon states that "As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses.". does this allow you to use the Craft Check in place of the Medicine Check in Battle Medicine's use?

For Reference, Battle Medicine States: "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day.".

The confusion here stems from the fact that it has you attempt a medicine check with the same DC as treat wounds and not actually using the Treat Wounds application of the Medicine Skill.

A use of a skill is either trained or untrained. Regardless of whether Battle Medicine is its own unique action or is a derivative of Treat wounds is kind of irrelevant. It is a use of the medicine skill. Battle Medicine is only available to users trained in Medicine, so you can infer this is a trained use, but it really shouldn't matter. Battle Medicine's unique use (whether you see it as a part of Treat Actions or not) simply isn't on the general list of medicine skills because it's gated behind a skill feat.

The Streetwise feat likewise makes Gather Information, usually a use of the Diplomacy skill, a use of Society skill.

2/5

On the topic of familiar attack rolls, I agree that by default they do not have natural attacks nor do they do any damage with them. The language about them making attack rolls almost certainly is there related to selected familiar abilities.

For instance, spell delivery allows the familiar to deliver a touch range spell. Often this will be harmless to a friendly target, but it can be against a hostile target. Most touch spells are delivered automatically, and so would not require an attack, but some like Shocking Grasp require a melee spell attack roll. The familiar would use your level as its attack modifier instead of your spell attack proficiency in this case.

I think only Spell Delivery gives it any real potential for an attack currently, but I can imagine we'll see future abilities that might require attack rolls.

2/5

I personally haven't seen a tile generated map that wasn't ludicrously easy to draw, so that's what I've been doing. They seem like a lot more trouble than they're worth.


Don't forget that Magical Shorthand can allow you to attempt it after a week instead of a full level. This may work depending on the campaign and if you can afford a week.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Actually just double checked, and there's a PF2 book where some enemies are playing cards and take a -4 to the check. Remember, initiative doesn't have critical success or failure conditions, so the double value of most bonuses or penalties doesn't really apply. In fact, given the tight math and lack of surprise round, one could argue that a large penalty is even more important to demonstrate this lack of preparedness.

There's also a PFS scenario where the PCs take a -4 to initiative because they're busy trying (and failing) to negotiate with some locals when the combat begins. It resulted in my wizard having a 0 initiative. In the same scenario, there's a less strict but continuous -2 initiative penalty possible for a single PC.

These seem to be derived from the Special Circumstances rules. [Edit: Except Zapp's example above which is obviously a lot :) ]

Special Circumstances wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 492
The player characters in your group will at times attempt tasks that should be easier or harder than the rules or adventure would otherwise lead you to expect, such as a PC Gathering Information in their hometown. In these cases, you can just apply a circumstance bonus or penalty. Usually, this is +1 or –1 for a minor but significant circumstance, but you can adjust this bonus or penalty to +2 or –2 for a major circumstance. The maximum bonus or penalty, +4 or –4, should apply only if someone has an overwhelming advantage or is trying something extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.

You can also add traits to actions. Let’s say that during a fight, Seelah dips her sword into a brazier of hot coals before swinging it at an enemy with a weakness to fire. You could add the fire trait to this attack. A PC getting an advantage in this way should usually have to use an action to do so, so Seelah would get the benefit for one attack, but to do it again she’d need to bury her sword in the coals once more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:

On a tight timeline, hoping someone reads this post very soon. I'm playing a caster (Bard) I have a scroll of Heightened Ventriloquism, are there any good uses for this spell or is it something to just sell?

http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=356

You want to convince someone you're still in a room when you've actually left out the window some time ago? Essentially creating an alibi if you know you're being followed / observed. Kind of niche though and may not be useful in every campaign.


Another option for defense is minimizing the number strikes opponents get against you. Retraining a cantrip or picking up additional cantrips to learn tanglefoot might be a valuable strategy to support a primarily ranged team doing a little more skirmishing. It will last 2 rounds at level 3, letting Sam maintain it on two opponents and still leaving a stride or strike available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

May I suggest simply reworking the character to be a level 3 sorcerer with a rogue dedication, relying on the background to give the character the farmer / rogue flavor? This would result in a similar level 3 character except you could focus class feats on picking up the mechanical bits of rogue you like rather than trying to use every feat to get sorcerer powers. My personal opinion is that when a party member leaves the group, a little more aggressive "retraining" by remaining party members is reasonable as long as it's basically a thematic rework. I had it happen a few times in a 1E campaign I ran.

In this case, nothing need really change with what you've told us of Sam's story nor even much of his class progression. You'll lose a little HP being a sorcerer instead of a rogue, but gain access to blood magic and some spells to make up the difference.

Level 1: Sorcerer (red dragon), pick up the attack cantrips + dragon claws - elemental damage on the claws is basically the equivalent of sneak attack; pick a handful of other utility spells to make up for lack of skills (featherfall to replace cat fall, ant haul to boost carrying capacity, jump to get into weird places, etc).
Level 2: Rogue Dedication (light armor + a skill feat)
Level 3: Level 2 spells, focus on defensive options like false life, mirror image, blur - maybe even summon animal to represent Sam's mastery of goats -- maybe take Shield Block if you'd prefer to have a physical shield to use after the shield cantrip.

In the future:
Level 4: Basic Trickery (Nimble Dodge or Mobility)
Level 5: Boost dex and strength a bit to get into better armor
Level 6: Advanced Bloodline: Dragon Breath, or Sneak Attack from Rogue
Level 8: Advanced Trickery (Mobility or Magical Trickster if you took Sneak Attack)
Level 10: Dragon wings


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing about this discussion is that we aren't actually quoting the relevant rules that deal with this.

The GM Has the Final Say wrote:
If you’re ever uncertain how to apply a rule, the GM decides. Of course, Pathfinder is a game, so when adjudicating the rules, the GM is encouraged to listen to everyone’s point of view and make a decision that is both fair and fun
Ambiguous Rules wrote:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed

If it's problematic to assume a player has to command a familiar every round over and over to get their familiar to follow them while they do a regular search activity, it's probably not necessary.

If it's problematic to let a familiar take the scout exploration activity in addition to whatever the master is doing, don't do it. If it isn't problematic, and your GM is on board, you can do it.

We don't need a magic list of rules to determine what a familiar's base instincts are. That's up to the GM. A player may be able to suggest things to the GM based upon how the familiar has acted previously and things the player has discussed with the GM, but it's still the GM's call. It's collaborative storytelling. I don't need the familiar's intelligence score to determine most of this.

Pet rocks aren't going to scout unless the GM is okay with it. I wouldn't allow it, but sure, have fun. If your owl is going to fly ahead at night, I'm okay giving you a bonus exploration activity. If your snail is going to scout ahead, I'm not going to give you a bonus activity or I'm going to reduce your party speed to a crawl. If I think it's problematic to give you an extra exploration activity at all, I won't allow it. But honestly, it seems like a pretty minor bonus to let a player have some fun and use a class feature.

Your mileage may very, but these rules reductions to absurdity are pretty useless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna point out that there's a gnome ancestry feat that specifically covers jury-rigging a weapon to do outlandish things. It's existence might be a fairly good baseline for the expected power level of being able to modify a weapon on the fly. This feat could be taken after Adopted Ancestry. Alternately, you could let the player qualify for this feat, or some home-brewed version, after the Inventor feat, only allowing them to do use it on "weapons" they invent.

Inventive Offensive wrote:

Inventive Offensive

Source Lost Omens Character Guide pg. 32
Prerequisites trained in Crafting
You can jury-rig your weapons to perform in unexpected ways. When you use this ability, add one of the following weapon traits to a melee weapon you wield: deadly d6, disarm, nonlethal, shove, trip, versatile B, versatile P, or versatile S. You cannot add a trait that the weapon already has. The weapon retains this trait until you a successfully hit and deal damage with the weapon. The weapon retains this trait only while you wield it, and you can have only one weapon modified in this way at any time.

If you have expert proficiency in Crafting, you can use this feat as a 2-action activity. If you have legendary proficiency in Crafting, you can apply two weapon traits from the list when using this feat.


Prethen wrote:
One of my newest character builds is a Universalist Wizard with the Familiar Attunement thesis. He will have a tiny owl as his familiar. Is it within the realm of expectation that I can use that familiar to scout ahead and report back to me as to what it sees?

While it isn't explicitly in the rules, if I was your GM, I'd probably give you the benefit of an extra exploration activity in areas where your familiar blends in. For your owl example, it flying around outside would automatically count the scouting exploration activity, maybe while you did repeat a spell (detect magic) or whatever else you want. It would abstract the advantage you get from combat with a bonus to initiative rather than needing to deal with the nuances of whether your feathered friend gets wrecked before you can show up. I probably wouldn't give that extra bonus in a dungeon, though, as others point out unless the creature could reasonably sneak ahead such. If you tried it in a dungeon, I'd probably say it flies ahead and then comes right back saying "no way, that's a dumb idea, I'm definitely getting caught."


Castilliano wrote:
Stances might help with this too, so that the Magus could power up their weapons while in a specific stance. I think PF2 principles won't allow for Spellstrike to stack w/ PF1 Magus weapon buffing, so maybe have a Spellstrike Stance for those times as well as Fiery Blade Stance, etc.

Ninja'd by 7 minutes.


I've been speculating that a possible compromise would be for Magus to lay on top of caster classes and giving them a focus power that places them into something like "Spell Combat Stance". Effects could be something "You use your spell attack proficiency instead of your weapon proficiency for melee Strikes as long as you have one hand free." Subsequent feats could build on this stance allowing you to place property runes on the weapon for the duration of the stance. It solves the proficiency problem by letting the player focus only on spell proficiency instead of splitting between the two at the cost of being unable to really rely on focus powers outside of the stance until much later levels.

Spell Strike could be something like a reverse Bespell Weapon, where instead of adding spell damage to a weapon strike, you add weapon damage dice onto the effects of a spell which includes a spell attack role (maybe limiting it to cantrips only, or even fixing it at something like 1d6 of the type the weapon would deal normally). This would probably be limited it to only spells/cantrips with a spell attack role built in, or allowing the user to add a spell attack role to those which were previously auto-touch.

2/5

This blog details which books outside of the Core Rulebook are sanctioned. It's a temporary home for that info while they work out a more permanent one. So for your last question, there are several uncommon options in the Lost Omens Character guide which might be available for your characters (albeit maybe not at level 1 :) )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Temperans wrote:

How many actions do familiar get when not commanded? Can they use anything at thier disposal? Can they use reactions? Do the act during their master's turn or roll initiative? How smart are they when it comes to defending themselves or running away? Is the no item bonus limit a thing only when commanded or in general?

There are too many questions to the "take actions to defend themselves".

I agree that there should be more defined guidelines, because players might meta-game "defending themselves and avoiding obvious harm" to affect NPCs that the players aren't aware of (or are supposed to be aware of). Conversely, a GM could say a Raven familiar flying above a river of lava isn't in a situation of "obvious harm" or in a situation where they are "defending themselves" from the apparent hazard.

Players can't metagame it. The familiar is an NPC. When not commanded, the PC doesn't get to say what the familiar does. The assumption on total player control over a familiar or AC is a courtesy and convenience but if a player abuses it the GM can reassert.


Temperans wrote:

How many actions do familiar get when not commanded? Can they use anything at thier disposal? Can they use reactions? Do the act during their master's turn or roll initiative? How smart are they when it comes to defending themselves or running away? Is the no item bonus limit a thing only when commanded or in general?

There are too many questions to the "take actions to defend themselves".

Also if the rule is that you can be inside a bag with a less than or equal to 1-ft hole. Is that limit based on the number of holes or per hole? If its per hole, than a sack with 5 1-ft holes for limbs and a sipper to get inside is the ultimate defensive armor. Literally impossible for you to be harmed. Its even easier for small races which can have even smaller hole. Heck you could in theory get a mount, attach the bag securely to it, and now you only need 3 wholes for the arms and eyes and you are immune to every spell.

Or how about a bag shaped like a body so that you can still move and grasp things? Are Astronauts and Hasmat suit users the best people to fight spells?

You sound super fun to have at a table. If the PC doesn't command the familiar, the GM decides what it does. It's effectively an NPC. It probably still only gets its 2 actions. But, in the spirit of good faith, if a PC tells its familiar to generally hide in a bag and take cover when combat breaks out, a GM probably should allow it. Anything deviating woulc be at the GMs discretion. This really isn't super complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
That sounds hella' complicated.

You're trying to do Mounted Combat. I don't know what in the last 10+ years of Pathfinder gave you the impression that even a streamlined version wasn't going to have some wonk to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we're talking rules, it's worth pointing out that Familiars don't need to be commanded every round to do things like hide in bags, take cover, or literally flee the combat until it's safe. The defacto assumption is they're using their actions to not get murdered unless you tell them to do something else.

Minion Traint wrote:

Minion Source Core Rulebook pg. 634

Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

You can definitely sit your familiar down for a conversation and tell it generally what it should do to protect itself if combat breaks out.


Ravingdork wrote:

Is there much point in even attempting mounted combat without an animal companion and/or the Ride feat? Seems like it will just totally mess up any smooth three action tactics you might otherwise have had, since you have to spend actions to command the beast, wait for it to take its turn, and then in the next round you might be in a position to do what you want, provided the battlefield circumstances haven't totally changed by then (unlikely). It just seems fundamentally incompatible with the three action and initiative systems.

Also, under the Ride fear, what does "Any animal you’re mounted on acts on your turn, like a minion" mean precisely? Is my mount suddenly limited to two actions rather then three?

Minion Trait wrote:

Minion Source Core Rulebook pg. 634

Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

It's in the Minion trait. Under normal circumstances, commanding a non-companion animal would take 1 command an animal action to give the mount a single action (probably stride, but could be step or whatever). You'd have to spend two command an animal actions to stride twice.

With the ride feat, your mount now acts like a minion which breaks it from the 1 to 1 trade. On your turn you can issue a single command an animal action and it is at that moment when it gets 2 actions. You would still end up having your two remaining actions. Since mounts have higher speed than you probably, this means if you intended to stride even once in combat, commanding your animal will net you substantially farther movement for no net loss of actions.


Seisho wrote:

I think the problem with splinter faith is that some people want to start in a splinter faith and not be human at the samt time

partially because retraining takes a while the character does not have
I can get behind that idea

That seems like exactly the kind of thing a reasonable GM who was on board with the idea of a splinter faith could authorize. "You get Splinter Faith as a bonus feat at 1st level or you get it in place of Domain Initiate." Fairly campaign specific and not necessary as a general rule which already allows for it with a substantial investment in downtime otherwise given how much power it unlocks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
I don't understand why it's shocking that a class feature as extensible as the familiar wouldn't also require some investment on the part of the player.
There's a difference between "spending all of your resources improving a feature" and "spending all of your resources to HAVE a feature."
I can't speak to a game where you only get a single class feat ever. Sounds kind of a lame house rule, personally, but I hope you have fun with it.
I mean technically it costs more than one feat to maximize a familiar and I think he's questioning the value you get from that investment.

There are no familiar abilities currently in existence than cannot be picked up with the single 1st level feat, so technically, it costs exactly 1 feat to have any feature on that list.

If you want more, then yes, you have to take more feats. But at that point we're back to making comparisons to animal companions. Bottom line is that where investing in the AC gives combat power, investing in the familiar gives versatility. It's a depth vs. breadth design.


Draco18s wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
I don't understand why it's shocking that a class feature as extensible as the familiar wouldn't also require some investment on the part of the player.
There's a difference between "spending all of your resources improving a feature" and "spending all of your resources to HAVE a feature."

I can't speak to a game where you only get a single class feat ever. Sounds kind of a lame house rule, personally, but I hope you have fun with it.

2/5

Gary Bush wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Would it be acceptable to use a proxy in place of the official Boon sheet until the AcPs align and I can finally print Boon?
wow, I don't see anything going wrong with that policy.

I guess you didn't have enough AcP to get the boon to unlock that Uncommon option. :(


When I ran Giantslayer, my party decided at some point that when faced with a choice of which direction they'd go they would always go left. Through some weird hack of map design, that method resulted in them bypassing huge sections of dungeons in a few books, notably book 5. At first it was disheartening, but it ultimately wasn't a big deal because most of the fights they skipped really were just there to exhaust them. I just shifted some threats into other areas to get a few stronger more interesting combats instead of a bunch of weak ones. It also made planning my sessions a lot easier.

The only other thing I could suggest that others haven't yet is to plan for your boss to be in several places and then pick the one that works for you when the time comes. If they look like they're beelining straight for the top of the tower, maybe the top of the tower isn't where the BBEG is hanging out that day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
So, in other words, to get the "base built-ins" from PF1 you need to spend 4 of your available 2 familiar powers in PF2. Plus 1 for a movement mode, if your familiar had it, plus 1 for a vision mode, if your familiar had it.

Yes. Exactly how a druid needs to take multiple feats to keep an animal companion up to snuff or to empower wild shape with lots of additional forms. Or how a cleric needs to invest a lot of feats to maximize harming with font energy. Or how a sorcerer needs to invest multiple feats to maximize damaging spells.

I don't understand why it's shocking that a class feature as extensible as the familiar wouldn't also require some investment on the part of the player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
Did you even play the game? Familiars had their uses but would clearly never replace a party member. No amount of extra gold and achetype combinations can make a familiar as powerful as a PC.

Despite your attacking me directly, yes, I've played 1e and most of my PCs have used familiars extensively. I've played:

A transmutation wizard with a songbird familiar (level 8)
A grenadier alchemist with a protector (later converted to normal after errata) tumor familiar (level 10)
An eyebiter mesmerist with a sage eyeball familiar (level 13)
An enchantment wizard with an imp "familiar" via Diabolist class (level 16)
An amnesiac psychic with an improved pipefox familiar (level 11)

If you quell your forum rage for a minute, you'll note that I didn't say they'd replace a party member, but that they act like a second party member for the PC. They add an extra standard, move, and swift action for a player. In the case when you're dealing with improved familiars, those standard actions can be used to activate magic items freeing up other choices for the main character. That is huge.

FlashRebel wrote:
Is that a joke? 2E familiars don't even have the most basic features 1E familiars had, some didn't even make it as optional familiar abilities.

This is the list of powers a 1e familiar has in the core rulebook:

alertness, improved evasion, share spells, empathic link, deliver touch spells, speak with master, speak with animals of its kind, spell resistance, scry on familiar. You got those powers regardless of whether you could use them or not or would use them or not. As with every class, it appears in 2E they've instead opted to let you buy into the powers you want and need.

alertness = cut passive bonus
improved evasion = damage avoidance
share spells = no 2e version, probably intentional to avoid shenanigans
empathic link = base power
deliver touch spells = spell delivery
speak with master = speech
speak with animals of its kind = kinspeech
spell resistance = doesn't exist, but life link is available
scry on familiar = no 2e version, probably intentional due to downplaying divination magic

Aside from the above list, a 1e familiar was going to give you the equivalent of a skill focus feat (+3 to a skill) or an improved save feat (+2 to a save, usually superior). In 2e, you're getting bonus cantrips, bonus spells, extra reagents,

So no, a 2e familiar isn't going to have all of those powers but it can have most of them at various times. The same can be said of a 1e druid vs. a 2e druid, though. And when you remove passive bonuses, the comparison between 1e and 2e looks even better.

Bottom line, a 1e familiar gave you extra actions and the equivalent of a passive bonus feat. It scaled up in power regardless of whether you used it or not. In 2e, you're still getting extra actions and the equivalent of a feat with the option to buy in as much or as little as you want. And you're less constrained to a handful of "optimal" familiar types. And your familiar has some of the capability baked into 1e improved familiars right from the start thanks to manual dexterity.

I'm not arguing 2e familiars are perfect, but it's utterly ridiculous to take a hardline stance and say they're useless. And it's even weirder to not expect more familiar abilities to be published over time the same way more familiar abilities were published over time in 1e. We've already seen they can expand on the designs of a class across multiple books (e.g. hellknight armigers, fighters, champions have all had additions tacked onto their base lists) in the same way casters get their spell lists expanded over time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wojorider wrote:


"You and all allies in the area gain a +1 status bonus to AC and saving throws, as well as resistance equal to half the spell’s level to physical damage."

With rounding am I reading that this correctly? cantrip does NOTHING for physical damage resistance UNTIL you cast it at level 2 ie when your character is at level 3 its cast at level 2. so 1/2 of 2 is 1.

The earliest you can get inspire defense is level 4, when it would give you 1 resistance as you noted. There's no circumstance currently where that formula results in less than 1. At character level 7, it would be giving you 2 resistance and at 11 you'd be getting 3.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you're also failing to appreciate that, unlike say Dangerous Sorcery or Reach Spell, the familiar feat is only going to get more powerful over time. Frankly, the familiars here are already more flexible and impactful to alchemist and caster characters than many 1E familiars were before we had familiar archetypes, improved familiars, etc.

The APG play test made a note that there will probably be even more familiar abilities released in the APG. Other books can do the same. And frankly, they absolutely shouldn't be like the familiars of 1E which became a little too much like a second party member in sheer terms of what it let another player do.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It really seems like it should not require handholding for the GM to figure out something like "teleporting, or being able to divine the truth really wrecks the plot here" since we've already been doing this sort of thing, just with magical solutions to countermand the obvious magical silver bullets, rather than "you don't have access to teleport."

It's really important to remember that not everyone has the experience to know this upfront, nor is it handholding to help them figure it out -- especially with the launch of a new edition where they're going to hopefully be bringing in a lot of new players. It has nothing to do with how smart the GM might be. It's pretty easy for a GM who is doing a lot of prep and thinking through encounters to miss how these spell can hamper plot development.


Atalius wrote:
What would happen if you cast Command vs a Prone enemy, and you Commanded it to Flee. Would the enemy first Stand up then begin to Flee, or would the enemy crawl away fleeing.

Whichever the GM wants to do with that NPC. Either action would be a reasonable interpretation of fulfilling the fleeing condition, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like this spell specifically because it encourages creative combos.

Grease round one, see who falls down, and agitate those. Pair with team members to AOO or trip. Also just generally cast it on a baddy who is up on your front line trying to full attack -- now they've got to move away or take the damage. It's going to slow them down a little.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of how you're using it now, in my experience the Alchemical Familiar was one of the more popular alchemist discoveries in PF1. I suspect that was included here so that anyone looking to recreate their PF1 alchemist saw something similar.

I agree with the general sentiment that the alchemist 1st level feats are mostly "eh."


Captain Morgan wrote:
Leaving a skill at trained is pretty much just as likely to succeed at on level DC at 20 as level 1, adjusting for increased ability scores and maybe an item bonus.

This looks true on first glance, but it doesn't hold up at all to scrutiny. Most skill checks are based on the level of the threat or they used simple DCs based on proficiency. A level 1 character against a level 1 threat probably should have about the same chance of success as a level 20 character against a level 20 threat. But luckily for that level 20, there aren't a lot of level 20 cliffs rolling around Golarion to my knowledge. And even better is that the rules for simple DCs mean a level 20 character trained in athletics probably isn't going to fail at climbing a basic wall.

So we are vastly overstating how *necessary* it might be for characters to have more than trained in most skills. Honestly I think they struck a pretty good balance. Two rogues might be equally trained in almost all skills, but even those rogues could end up focusing very differently in specializations.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Leaving a skill at trained is pretty much just as likely to succeed at on level DC at 20 as level 1, adjusting for increased ability scores and maybe an item bonus.

This looks true on first glance, but it doesn't hold up at all to scrutiny. Most skill checks are based on the level of the threat or they used simple DCs based on proficiency. A level 1 character against a level 1 threat probably should have about the same chance of success as a level 20 character against a level 20 threat. But luckily for that level 20, there aren't a lot of level 20 cliffs rolling around Golarion to my knowledge. And even better is that the rules for simple DCs mean a level 20 character trained in athletics probably isn't going to fail at climbing a basic wall.

So we are vastly overstating how *necessary* it might be for characters to have more than trained in most skills. Honestly I think they struck a pretty good balance. Two rogues might be equally trained in almost all skills, but even those rogues could end up focusing very differently in specializations.


This seems a little extreme. Most character backgrounds represent what the character did, not what they're doing now. In this specific example, you could also take a more specific Lore (e.g Gold Mining, Gem Mining) as your new speciality to recognize your continued study.

In non society play, I can't imagine any GM wouldn't let you pick an existing more to auto-advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My players have used hero points to do this dozens of times. Not once has this come up at my table. I'm sure many others have had similar experience. It's a non-issue for anyone not overthinking it.

1 to 50 of 648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>