If I understand your question correctly, this is the official answer:
Resource Rules for family or home groups wrote:
Family members, significant others, or other members of the same household (such as roommates) can share resources if they are playing at the same table, rather than requiring a separate copy of the same book for each person. A group of friends that always plays together at the same table fulfills this requirement, as long as all the necessary materials for each character's options are present. Members playing at separate tables must each supply their own materials as normal.
So if you, the GM, own a book and always play with the same people at a home game, they can use that as a legal source for character building. But if they try to take those characters elsewhere, like a convention or another lodge, each player will need the source.
I think it's fair to assume that there's always a chance that more ancestry feats get added for various ancestries. But as for a focused product that does that explicitly... I probably wouldn't hold out too much hope. Something like Gnoll could maybe show up in the Impossible Lands book.
I think it's best to temper expectations a bit. If you have the flexibility, see if your GM would be okay granting you adopted ancestry and access to some other more generic feats from Human or something.
Y'all, they may not have gotten to everything, but there's a lot of good clarifications in this. I'm thankful we got this and am not really upset about any of it. So thank you to the team.
Big standouts for me are the clarification on Strikes vs. attacks in battle forms and the addition of ranged unarmed strikes for Sneak Attack.
We can argue back and forth until we're blue in the face about whether killing a devil in these particular circumstances was murder or not. You've got more authority in your position in your campaign as the GM than I do as an observer and it's certainly an in-between space.
But the fact that you didn't given your player an opportunity to explain themselves and then clearly let them know does give me pause. Personally, I'd give them a pass on this one with a stern warning -- not because the act itself was okay but because the handling of it was a little off. I'd communicate with the player that you feel this act should have warranted falling and that in the future you'll try to be more upfront when a situation like this occurs.
(Random aside: I'm not making the case that anyone evil deserves to die, but rather that fiends in particular are literally made up of alignment stuff. They are the embodiment of evil in Golarion. So the fact that this is a fiend is what makes this case exceptional to me and which mitigates a lot of the other factors. It's not a random orc/drow/etc who was raised the wrong way or something but who still has the capacity to change. But like I said, this is all besides the real point which is about how you and the player need to resolve this.)
Did you tell the player that their actions would trigger a fall before resolving the outcome? That's honestly my only personal check in a situation like this. If the player declared their intent and you gave them a warning and they decided to go through with it without objection or argument then there's nothing wrong at all with how you played this. If you let the player make the choice thinking it was consistent with their codes and then you make them fall after the fact then I think there's a problem.
I can see how you might consider this murder, but Demons/Devils other fiends are basically made of evil. They aren't really ambiguous. You know what's in their heart because they're made of it. The fact that its assigned task happened to be benign is sort of besides the point. It could just as easily have been called to do something far worse and can / probably will do worse at some point in the future if unbound from it's current situation. That's not even a hypothetical so much as an eventuality. The Oath of good doesn't require you to consider every possible outcome, but this one seems likely.
For a Ritualist, I agree with the others than you'll generally want to pursue some items that permanently boost the skills you need and invest in archetypes or class feats that more generally prepare you for them. Rituals are meant to mostly be team events though so you shouldn't have to be able to do them yourself nor should you expect them to work every time (nothing works like that in 2e).
There are scattered spells that give bonuses to skill checks, but as with items, usually just one skill at a time or for a particular purpose. The main exception being Heroism (a level 3 Occult/Divine spell).
Bullhorn Gives a +1 status bonus to attempts to Coerce or Performance at a large venue
There's also a wide range of spells that don't directly boost a skill, but do so obliquely.
Congrats to the new star, nova, and coin holders.
The bad news: doing so apparently broke AcP entirely in new and exciting ways. We’ve had reports of some people not seeing the grant yet, and other reports of events not awarding AcP for sessions anymore. Obviously, this is a problem, and tech is actively working on fixing it. Please know that fixing this is my highest priority, and I hope to see the issues resolved soon. Thank you all so much for your patience!
For those of us in a bad state (no new AcP, sessions not awarding future AcP) should we hold off making any purchases with existing previously earned AcP? Or will the expected fix account for that?
As an aside, I've been unable to find the rule in the guide that says PCs shall be marked dead when they have an unresolved negative condition, curse, etc. at the end of the scenario. Did that get removed since I last checked (season 1, probably?!), or am I just too blind to find it with the current format?
After the Adventure wrote:
The point brought up by the OP is that if this effect is permanent, it's a permanent negative effect with no tags. In many ways it's worse than death because you can deal with death using a successful use of AcP. But in this case the effect is uncategorized and untagged. It's not a curse, it's not spell. There's effectively no recourse, which is why it's also wildly unlikely that the ability is meant to be interpreted that way.
You may think you're running a monster RAW here, but I'd argue you're imposing as much judgement on the ability by giving it a permanent duration as someone who chooses some other time (a minute, the duration of the frightened condition, etc). You're choosing as a GM to interpret a missing duration on a monster ability as an implicit statement that it's permanent even though that interpretation is obviously problematic.
Those items above are the 5 prohibitions. If you choose to give that ability a reasonable duration, rather than assume it's permanent, you have not changed a major plot point or interaction as there's nothing indicating in the plot that this monsters ability should be a major plot point. You've also not changed the number of monsters. You have not modified the text of the monster ability -- there's no text to modify. It doesn't have a duration. Lacking a duration is different that permanent. Y also have not altered a player characters mechanics or banned a legal character option.
All you did was make a judgement call in the face of ambiguous information. In this case, a permanent negative condition which would result in a dead character with no recourse by the player is pretty clearly an non-ideal outcome. Literally any other reading of that ability is more consistent with the general guidance of how to handle ambiguous rules, which are are encouraged to follow. The core rules include that passage.
I'm gonna bow out here because I can't speak with any more authority on this and short of a VO or campaign clarification here I don't know if I'll be able to convince you, but you did the right thing in the moment by choosing not to punish players for a likely oversight. Maybe I'll be proven wrong here and that it was intentional after all, but even that's okay because the point is that you're doing your best to handle what's always gonna be a little bit of a messy process adjudicating a living game like this.
Relevant to this discussion, in the section on Table Variation in the guide:
Table Variation wrote:
If you're not changing the monster ability, and instead just choosing to read it in a way that addresses obvious ambiguity around it, then I believe you're well within the guidance we're provided.
I think the simplest interpretation here is that the cairn wights ability lasts as long as the frightened condition lasts since it's a condition that decays on its own absent something keeping it in play. In the case of the critical fail effect, you're correct it's redundant unless someone has an ability which may reduce the incoming frightened effect. In that instance, a character who crit fails might only gain frightened 1, but still have -2 to saves vs. drain life.
To your point, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that any scenario author intentionally added an AoE death effect that was permanent and could never be removed should a character fail a single save. That's fundamentally against much of the game's design and skips over other potential conditions which would be more appropriate liked Doomed. It's far outside of a level 4 threat's abilities. So I think you rightfully identified why it would be problematic to run the way you read it the first time and that the text around the ability may be wrong and/or ambiguous (e.g. lacking a duration). I can't speak for campaign leadership, but I believe that you would be encouraged to use your discretion in this case and take the less punitive interpretation. In my experience, no one is going to jump out of a wall if you make a judgement call like that at a table and if you really are worried, talk to your venture officer to get their opinion.
Relevant Rule from the CRB (which we're bound by as much as the Org Play Guidelines):
Ambiguous Rules, Core Rulebook pg. 443 2.0 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.
For what it's worth, the Fey Eidolon probably doesn't need the switch since it's level 1 ability is Fey Gifts granting it all of the enchantment and illusion spells from the arcane list.
I tend to agree with breithauptclan and Captain Morgan that if you swap the Fey bloodline to be occult, you'll need to / probably should rework their spells granted. The Fey and Nymph bloodlines already grant a good number of illusion/enchantment spells which makes them more rounded than other primal casters so I'm not sure how specifically necessary a full swap is, but you can certainly do it.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I was wondering what news was revealed? I was looking on the Twitch and Youtube channels but cannot seem to find any information. Reddit came up empty in my searches as well.
Edit: Oh weird... somehow my response is before your post now? That's neat. Guess I'm a chronomancer.
It can be done untrained and by anyone with the appropriate skill. The cost is the action spent to take the Recall Knowledge action. Keep in mind that doing this untrained my also greatly increase the chance of misidentifying the magic entirely with a critical failure.
Note that if you didn't observe the casting yourself and are just trying to determine the spell from the effects (identifying if a person is charmed but not seeing the charming) then you have to use Identify Magic instead of Identify Spell, which works similarly but is an exploration activity that takes 10 minutes.
Your wizard enemy isn't a player. If you want your PCs to have to wind their way through magical assaults / barriers and waves of attackers, maybe conceptualize the battle into phases a bit like a chase. This would keep them moving and on their toes but minimize how much you have to throw at them all at once. Then when they reach the wizard, the wizard is mechanically level 13 because theys already threw a lot of their magic down range. You could even provide ways for the players to set conditions or damage on the wizard in the final battle based on what they do in earlier phases.
From memory running this for 6 (VTT):
1) I didn't tell them which were easy, medium, or hard. But I did give them general hints like "x seems like a more challenging approach than y" or when they were approaching a check that they'd have difficulty on based on the DC vs. their mod.
2) The lodge entrance is on the right side of the building. The arrow was off a bit on the map. They enter into the room in the top right corner of the building. Muesello's workshop is the left side of the building (which they could enter from using the secret door if they know it).
3) I didn't see any. By not telling them the explicit difficulty, it created some situations where more rolls weren't always better with crit fails. But yes, it's easier with more people. The odd thing I ran into was a situation where they got their clues and the last player crit failed. I deducted their point, but they'd still already found everything. So on one hand, the system encourages everyone to try, but it does seem like something may have been missed?
4) This one was legitimately hard to figure out, especially since they don't actually get a chance to intercept the wagon before it explodes. I told them to situate themselves the way they would knowing an attacking was coming but not from which direction and let them decide exploration activities based on that to see how they'd roll initiative. Two set themselves next to the exploding wagon.
More to the topic: I think building a witch is a lot like building a druid, in that you need to lean into the focus powers and hexes it provides to make it worthwhile. There are a handful of good ones to build around, but that's a little unsatisfying if it doesn't fit your theme. I've wanted to do a primal witch but your options are winter and wild. Winter has a half-decent hex cantrip, but doesn't match my theme whereas Wild is just so situational you basically can't expect to use it.
It really feels like a case where a good look at expanding a few more patron options and a few more lessons would put the class in a decent spot.
Start as Wild or Animal.
Take Adopted Ancestry: Gnome at 5. Take Burrowing Accomplice and ask your GM if it can be a leshy instead of a burrowing creature.
You'll lose Goodberry and the extra focus point, but the rest fits.
1 - Animal
That's probably the cleanest way without making trades. The leshy familiar is largely cosmetic unless you planned to take the leshy familiar abilities (which it didn't sound like you were).
[Edit] Personal opinion: if you want the extra focus point, just talk to your GM. The math on who gets a second is weird and inconsistent. It probably won't break your game to give you a focus point for each focus power you have up to the 3 max. You still can't recover more than 1 at a time until much later level. Taking an entire subclass just for that focus point which otherwise breaks your build is kind of silly.
I want some form of Crafting overhaul/expansion that includes making modifications to what you're making at the cost of increasing the difficulty/cost. Also new weapon traits, and ways of using weapons "wrong" to decent/new effect (hitting with the spine of the katana, poking someone with a halberd's handle.)
Pretty sure that's the Inventor. It may not be how you'd prefer it was implemented but you just described the Inventor Skill feat and weapon innovations.
I think that the interesting thing about the question of what makes an adequate / acceptable soul cage is the psychological and narrative tension that arises from the idea that you're locking an immortal soul into an object with it's own constraints that may outlive your body, but may not exist forever if you don't actively protect and take care of it.
Using Ravingdork's example above, certainly a non-descript coin might let it pass unseen, but at that point you're also out of contact with it. The lich has no control over it any more than anyone else. Coins are often made of soft metals. There's no guarantee someone doesn't accidentally melt it down. So would a lich actually risk it circulating where they can't check on it? And if they did lay a mechanism to track it and check up on it from time to time, there's probably some evidence or note of it in their sanctum so if the players defeat that lich they have a chance to track it down.
Likewise, tossing a soul cage into the ocean might protect it from most prying eyes and access by almost everyone but the salt water, pressure, and time could eventually destroy it. Will it happen in the first hundred years of the lich's life? Probably not, but how much would it suck to suddenly start decaying during execution of some plan because completely unknown forces whittled away your cage.
So I don't think there's a real perfect answer or gotcha here. Even very durable materials can be destroyed with enough time or effort so any attempt to distance and hide it also presents a loss of control that probably isn't acceptable at some point. The spoiler example above shows that even extraordinary lengths taken to create a self-regenerating soul cage result in difficulties like not being able to move it, so now that lich has to spend time and effort periodically traveling back to that place to check on it and can't relocate it if it's discovered.
A Soul Cage doesn't specify what it needs to be made of but does state that if it's destroyed it's a pretty bad deal. It's not explicit, but I don't think there's any reason to believe something like you suggest wouldn't break down easily as it's normal counterpart would. The implication of the examples and the consequences suggests that a soul cage should probably be something inherently durable.
Nothing prohibits the familiar in your tattoo from continuing to provide the passive benefits it provides normally. If it has cantrip connection, you don't suddenly lose that cantrip when it goes inside you. I see no reason the passive magic of the aeon stone to be much different in this case. The Familiar Tattoo bars the familiar from taking equipment with it other than Companion items, but the aeon stone is a core part of the familiar in this case. It's more anatomy than equipment.
Please note that I've assigned no motivations to you and, in fact, asked you directly what your motivations are only after you chose to basically calling Sibelius Eos Owm ignorant for not agreeing with you. I watched this thread until recently because it seemed like a pretty trivial issue to me, something easily fixed at a table. Others appear to agree it's the same. It appears that it is more than that to you.
If your desire is simply to flag the inconsistency, as you state, then you did it! There's now a record. But I wouldn't necessarily keep hope alive that there's going to be a quick or immediate fix here on the forums. If anything, if you do want errata, you'll probably want to focus your attention later when the book has been out for more than a week. I think Paizo employees have indicated they're working on some other older titles for errata first. This would likely fall several months to a year from now where you might be able to exact the change you're hoping for.
It holds exactly as much water as the idea that the singular arrow embedded with a spell can somehow sneak attack a vital point twice. It's also significantly more consistent with much language around combining multiple attacks together. I'm sorry that most of you are so excited about the prospect of big numbers that you're consistently undervaluing how valuable combining a spell's damage (which takes two actions) and a strike into a single MAP-less roll is and feel that it's somehow also warranted to magically apply additional damage twice.
It's also RAW since this group loves pure strict language. Leads to means "to begin a process that causes something to happen" not just "causes." The spell begins a process, the Eldritch Shot, which does result in multiple separate instances of damages. This invokes the clause in Magical Trickster limiting the sneak attack to once per target.
There are and were no spells in the game, to my knowledge, which would cause multiple damage rolls on a single target that could ever trigger that clause, now and especially when the feat was written. So why is it there? I'm really curious -- what do you *think* it's protecting against if not exactly this kind of scenario?
Magical Trickster states "If your single spell leads to multiple separate damage rolls, apply your sneak attack damage only once per target."
Note: it says "leads too" not "causes" or "does".
Eldritch Shot states "You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed both attacks.
Your single spell in Eldritch Shot leads to both a spell damage roll and an arrow damage roll. Two damage rolls. Multiple damage rolls leading from a single spell.
So sure, Magical Trickster can apply to the spell in an Eldritch Shot, and therefore can invoke Sneak Attack, but you're also triggering the multiple separate damage rolls via the way Eldritch Shot works. At which point you can have the Sneak Attack on the spell, but not on the arrow since Magical Trickster only allows you to apply the Sneak Attack once per target.
Gortle, it appears as though you've decided that this inconsistency in handling of incorporeal creatures has broken the game in some irreparable way. Given your adherence to rules text, I can only assume this is the case given that the rules text also advises taking the least problematic interpretation, or making small adjustments to make things work for your table.
With that said, let's say we all agree with you. What are you hoping to accomplish with this post? A paizo employee to drop from the rafters and award you for best rule's reader? The community to rise up in anger because the game can't be played now?
You're talking about defense, but what precisely are we at war about here?
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.
Might be beyond the scope, but it feels like you're building the base functionality so I'll toss this idea:
Add a 'Settlement' option that generates between 1 and N shops with the combined loot available at the upper end of the Settlement Level.
I'm playing Extinction Curse and Book 3 has about a dozen small settlements between levels 1-5. Some of my players ask me what's available in each while traveling. I've been making it up on the fly but I'd have loved a tool to quickly flesh out the available inventory in the settlement which is probably only 1-2 shops for most of these, but could be used for larger places as well.
It's possible that access to the archetype might not be purchasable, but instead a boon from a scenario. We probably won't know for sure either way until it's released but the fact that it isn't up on the site and called out separately leads me to believe it's absence right now is intentional.
It's an archetype that's kind of right on the edge: focusing on using corpses (not just the animate dead spell) and access to specific rituals which aren't used in PFS (create undead).
Telling the fighter to stop fighting because they're making the non-fighter look bad is not likely to go over well. Telling the fighter to apply slow 1 to the boss though might make them look even better though.
My point was more that if this is an arms race, the Fighter is going to win in the white room every time. That's their core. It's a collaborative game, afterall, and it looks like they've got two folks gunning for the same role in the party (primary ranged damage dealer specializing in single shot damage). So if all the problems the party is facing are things that a 'railgun' (Eldritch Archer fighter) can solve with their trick, then the Gunslinger is going to feel bad and really no amount of mechanical fixes are going to solve that underlying problem.
My point isn't to shame the fighter, but to bring them into the discussion. If the fighter is making other party members feel bad, even unintentionally, it's worth having that conversation with the GM and looking for an amenable solution. It might be changing tactics a bit (as you suggest) before insta-gibbing targets, or even just finding ways for the two to coordinate better so they feel like a team. Hell, talking about taking Sniper Duo instead of some of the alchemist feats could work really well and let the Gunslinger feel good when their Fighter partner scores a solid hit.
I want to agree with Pixel Popper mostly. However, have you considered talking to the Fighter/Eldritch Archer about doing something other than nova striking? That's about as optimized for a big hit as you can get.
Your gunslinger seems more like they're trying to play like an alchemist with a gun than a gunslinger who dabbles in alchemy. Perhaps shifting to a support alchemist roll (focused on bombs) and grabbing Gunslinger dedication would reorient a bit. Most of the additional Munitions feats improve the bomb damage, but that's totally wasted on Alchemical Shot since it scales on level, not the bomb. Even the Precious Munitions feat isn't going to compare with a pure physical damage blast from the archer capable of busting through most DR.
If they do want to keep the gunslinger base, then trading out some of those feats for more ways to fire the gun more quickly/consistently is the way to go. Could even use those extra feats to shift into Investigator for DaS to help decide when alchemical shot is worth using vs. a normal shot.
I posted this on your Reddit thread too, but since you've got it going here as well:
Your original idea was to get the elemental bullets and spellcasting of that trailer, and you've pointed to Gunblade which appears to be more physical augmented by magic. Choosing to look at the Gunblade or Piercing Wind sort of emphasizes that for me: you want to be good in melee and ranged, but also have magic.
Based on that, I think Magus may be the wrong base for you since it emphasizes powerful spells vs. spell augmented shots. I think that Gunslinger might be a better base for this, using Wizard or Sorcerer dedication.
Here's a sample build of what it could look like at level 10 (end of Outlaws of Alkenstar).
* You're using your Suli ancestry to, at level 1, be able to fire elemental bullets or elementally empower your blade. At first it's just once per day, but we're going to grow into this theme. At level 9 you'll be able to fire elemental attacks for four rounds just from your ancestry with Tetraelemental Assault. At level 5 you can pick what you want, but I grabbed Elemental Bulwark to represent another magical ability. I left human as base, but you could swap something else in.
* You're using Strength and Dex to take advantage of the Gunblade, choosing to emphasize shoves and strikes. The Gunblade lacks a fatal die, so crits are less important to you and you'll want to offset your melee damage + be good at athletics.
* You grab Wizard and Basic Spellcasting as early as possible to get some magic options. Cantrips aren't terribly important, but we went for Ray of Frost and Electric Arc because you'll be shooting to get a Conducting Rune (7) ASAP.
* Your spell choices are Echoing Weapon (1) and Flame Wisp (2) to give you single spells you can cast to empower your strikes across a whole battle. Time Jump (3) is just fun, but you could upscale one of the other two. But you're also a prepared caster, so try stuff out to see what works for you.
* Risky Reload and Stab and Blast lean into your Cantrip + Gunsword w/ Conducting Rune combo. Cast a cantrip, conduct the energy in, and then use your weapon. This gives you on-demand energy bullets/blade attacks in addition to your ancestry and spells. Several different ways to apply several different elemental effects to your blade and gun by combining cantrips, spells, and ancestry abilities with your 1 action special strikes from Gunslinger.
Note: This all gets way easier if you're doing Free Archetype. You could grab Wizard Dedication on the side and pick up a few extra Gunslinger feats or dip into Witch for even more spellcasting.
Your way selection will probably be based on whether you want to continuously shoot in combat or open with a shot and then close to melee. It'll also matter if you intend to pick up more gunslinger feats, or stick into Magus feats.
Way of Sniper, for instance, is probably not a bad investment if you plan to shoot and then close to melee. You'll draw your weapon immediately and get a damage boost on your first shot, at which point you could jump into melee and start swinging and not worry about reload unless you need it.
If you plan to switch back and forth, Way of the Pistelero's initial deed could help you get the weapon out and let you position.
Reloading and Spellstrike are two damage heavy but action inefficient combat styles and you'll have access to both. Realistically, to blend them effectively, you'll want to look for ways to lean into one or the other. There's no way to recharge your spell strike and reload at the same time so you'll never mirror a Starlit Span Magus with a bow turreting, but that's probably not what you were hoping to do anyway?
Edit: You may want to consider the Runic Impression focus spell at 8 since it'd let you add an elemental property rune to both sides of the gunblade. The extra on demand elemental damage seems reminiscent of what you were hoping for from the Way of the Spellshot.
Don't be afraid of starting with a 16 Str/16 Dex if you really want to switch hit with the gunblade. Or, go 14 Str/18 Dex if you want to use piercing wind and lean into finesse.
You might want to try playing one of these concepts and seeing for yourself how it works rather than listening to people telling you that you can't or shouldn't do a particular combo. Effective is a pretty simple bar and you seem to be confusing it with optimized (which I would argue this edition does not require).
Can you be as good as a fighter at fighting and be as good as a caster at casting at the same time? No, not precisely, but the dirty secret is that while +1 or +2 matters a lot, it's also not the only thing that matters. Trained still does a lot of the work and puts you in the range where things are possible. And Expert is more than passable. But you do need to pick the thing you care about the most and start with that.
If you're trying to blend melee and magic, it's often easier to lean into a stronger melee + weaker spell DCs since a failed strike does nothing whereas a failed save at least does something. In either case you're still going to have combats where you effectively do both just like the fighter who fights really well is going to have some combats where they just roll low and can't succeed even with their edge in rolls.
Edit: Also consider that some of the concepts you're describing are things you'll need to grow into. Most power and action efficiency comes as you climb levels, so distilling down your concepts at level 1 isn't so much saying you can't do a thing, but rather that you're going to need to experience the character learning to do it.
Just what it says in the subject, really. I'm looking at the possibilities of doing silly things with, say, a fire-obsessed goblin druid, but many of the attack spells that I might otherwise be interested in are not fire damage. Are there any ways in PF2 to modify spellcasting so that it uses a different damage type than the printed spell?
Energy Fusion (8) is a sorcerer feat that lets you combine two elemental damaging spells together. It doesn't help a druid, but would let you convert an acid spell into a half acid / half fire spell (as an example).
I agree that starting with Season 1 is generally best but you can start in almost anywhere.
A few of my favorites from season 1:
Make sure to include / weave in the level 1-4 repeatable scenarios both for your players and your sanity as you can break one out as needed and anyone can play it again even if on a new character
You can also consider using the bounties as intros for newer players. A good 'season-agnostic' combo is also doing 2-19 Enter the Pallid Peak and 3-10 Delve the Pallid Depths.
While I've enjoyed the story-arcs of Season 3, they deal with a lot of past society baggage so may not be immediately relevant to some of your newer players, dealing with villains that are not immediately clear especially if you didn't play PF1. A few of the arcs are standouts (enjoying the Sedeq duo immensely). That said, it does have some good on-boarding from the repeatable intros:
Season 2 is also quite good, but has a number of challenging scenarios and is almost an AP in terms of a unified story. If you decide to do a lot of Season 2, run 1-15 The Blooming Catastrophe first.
I have a level 11, a level 8, and a level 7. Those are at that point because of AP and one-shot credits. I'm also capable of understanding that I'm probably far on the outside curve of what most players are experiencing.
*Most* characters will hit an effective soft-cap around level 7. At that point you've dropped out of the 3-6 band where we have the highest scenario density. You can probably take 1-2 others up to 8-9 with the few 5-8s we have. A single 9-12 in a few months isn't changing that. My point isn't to complain about that, it's just to acknowledge that the people most impacted by death are the ones who are much lower level.
At my lodge:* I've seen 5-6 magi. The only one I haven't seen is a staff magus.
* I've seen several summoners.
* I've never seen a flickmace in play, let alone on a champion.
* One of the coolest/most effective martials I've seen is a gymnast wrestler.
When you talk about a 'meta,' do you realize that this isn't a massively multiplayer online game where we're all shifting towards some kind of massive power curve? There's a huge amount of space for build variety outside of some highly optimized circuit.
It makes me really sad to see your statements, especially about not using any of the new spells. While y'all are staring at the ceiling not moving much, you seem to have forgotten that the floor you're standing on is pretty sturdy and also not moving. There's a lot of space between the two you might not be noticing.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
The Character Options page, all Pathfinder Agents have access to the ritual as well as the Raise Dead spell.
I found it right after you posted (cleaned up my edit above to make this thread easier to follow). I didn't think any of the rituals were allowed.
Regardless, I'd hardly call level 9 very accessible given that 7 or so is the effective soft-cap for most characters right now. And by the time you get there most of us have AcP.
As you noted, death at high levels is a thing but death for a new player is pretty rough (as noted in the guide) and that's really the point of this thread. GM's are all but explicitly advised to pull punches to avoid killing a new player.
I think more generally it'd be nice to be able to gift boons somehow.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Luckily at level 9 all PCs gain access to the Resurrect ritual, which I believe any character can use the Learn a Spell action to learn. Players casting Resurrect is currently the cheapest in game method to bring a player back from the dead.
This is news to me. Where do we gain access to Resurrect from?
There's a FAQ on this:
"Can party members help purchase a Second Chance boon?"
Party members may contribute gold to any costs incurred as part of the resurrection ritual. They may also sell the deceased characters’ items to help contribute to the cost if the player consents.
The implications of the above is "No" you can't buy the boon but others can help cover the costs. Since you're the GM, it's even further removed and it sounds like you probably can't do anything.
I don't love that answer, but that's all I could find.
Go to Character Creation, fifth item down.
Frustratingly, there's no way to link directly to that answer as far as I know, nor does the site make it easy to copy and paste the whole text along with the question itself.
Answer To FAQ wrote: