chibikami's page

When the construct traits template was written there was doubtless no way to inflict these status effects without a fortitude save, and so they were naturally immune.
However, with the oracle class there are a number of curses that can inflict the sickened condition on the character without a save if they don't fulfill the conditions of the curse (the Covetous and Hunger curses, for example).

so if I have a sentient/sapient construct (say, a wyrwood for example) who is an oracle with such a curse, are they immune to the sickened effect?

double necromancy
Norgorberites may run into a conflict in part 5
or they may turn it into an advantage

Played an adorable halfling rogue who wanted it all. I wasn't even trying to be the main character, but I seem to have been the only player to have written any sort of backstory or put any real thought into how I'd play it

I appointed myself captain because I'm cute (trademark) and the crew would happily jump at the chance to serve me
this won out over:
guide-built meathead barbarian
alchemist whose player memorized every alchemical item in the game but couldn't craft a decent character
cavalier in entirely the wrong game
and kyton-spawn tiefling rock star bard (played like David Bowie. Only other decent character IMO. Still lacked backstory)

also, we had won over the entire applicable crew of the Wormwood and I had accounted for ~3/4 of it. The other players found themselves lacking grounds to object

Mr Nelson
Might this humble halfling find himself in possession of a copy of the Director's Cut, even in 2021? Let's find out!

Thread necromancy ftw

I have a clever system for aging with the aasimar and tiefling: you reach adulthood as per your parent race. If your parents are basically human you're an adult at 15 + human age dice, if they're halfling you're an adult at 20 + halfing age dice, etc
now here's the trick: you experience aging effects like aasimar and tieflings in the ARG 1st printing; the idea being divine/infernal blood grants you a fraction of your extraplanar progenitor's immortality, but just a fraction. And tieflings are still likely to die violent lives unless they can get a hold on their violent tendencies, etc.

Just thought I'd kick that in, what with it not mattering anymore since we're in an all new edition now and everything

A phase locking weapon interferes with dimensional travel. A creature damaged by a phase locking weapon is affected as though by the dimensional anchor spell for 1 round.

1: Would nets or other weapons that do not do HP damage still apply the dimensional anchor effect?

2: In the case of a net, which continues to apply its entangle effect until the target is free of it, would it continue to apply the dimensional anchor effect each round until the target is freed or would it fade after the first round?

I always wondered why people have to play special snowflake characters. Can you tell me why you thought it was a good idea to play a character of a race that has no strong presence in the location they'll be playing in? (Less than 1% of the population of Korvosa is a kobold or centaur.)

The simple fact that there are centaurs present in Korvosa at all is significant; I've had players want to play one in Rise of the Runelords, at which point I ask them to justify why they're ~360 miles west of their species's closest recorded position in a country where they are technically refugees, not to mention nonchalantly attending a local festival.

As for special snowflakes at all, how many elf4life players have you met? The snowflake is as the snowflake does; if they've got a good backstory and can roleplay without hogging the spotlight too hard, there's nothing wrong characterwise with being an atypical race.

To the best of my knowledge, while 3.5e associates stats with specific slots, PF actually fails to do so and most players and GMs concerned with the matter of what stats go where on the body simply defer to the 3.5e rules.
Can someone cite otherwise?

So I want to make a custom piece for my rogue that uses the body slot, specifically a corset.
This corset would enhance both mental and physical stats a la headbands and belts of various mental and physical superiorities
What descriptive-but-non-legendary name would you give such an item?

Also, I guess this can be a thread for getting item naming suggestions in general.

Should players receive XP based on the level of the encounter, or individually for each monster defeated?

The scenario: Doomsday Dawn's area A2 has 4 level 0 goblins for the level 1 heroes to encounter, but the book lists it as a level 0 encounter. Do the players receive 30 XP for each defeated goblin for a total of 120 XP, or do they receive 30XP for the whole encounter

0. HONEST QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO LIKE 2E
What a devilishly disingenuous way to limit your opinion pool.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
Yes. Very much.
And a loaded question is one that makes assumptions within itself, such as "Hank Pym, do you still beat your wife?"

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
Recent material occasionally feels like it's missing its own point. However, it is rare that, as a GM, I would disallow first-party crunch. I do try to limit player options to what would be available in the game region, though.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
5th edition is a solid return to form for 3e/3.5e purists, while cutting down on bloat (almost too much. There's rather a dearth of material) and reducing the extremity of power level scaling. I like it but it's not without its flaws.
Now let's answer the part that you think is loaded but isn't: It would be inappropriate to make PF2 into a 5e clone

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
Rules clarity (hard math is much easier than abstract terms)
Areas of specialization (current 2e rules make everyone good at all things at high levels and at most a disparity of 5 skill points exists between characters of equal level)
An exhaustive list of creatures affected by Shatter would be nice (the word "crystalline" means more the more you know about atomic bonding structures, but only shows up as a descriptor on 1 monster. In Bestiary 4. Shatter is also listed as an exception to magic immunity on some golems, but they still do not count as crystalline)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
PF2e is supposed to be accessible? It's highly simulationist in some regards and every new build choice feels like I'm chopping off a foot

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
See question 5

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Yes

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
I think what many of us wanted was a more refined 1st edition, not a radical system shift. It honestly feels like Lorraine Williams was involved somehow. Systems are too different, porting characters between editions is broken by incompatibility, etc.
You couldn't just backport Starfinder's rules and ditch the ship combat?

Well, they don't have a -2 penalty to one of their other ability scores, for what that's worth.

The rest of the group and I had actually missed that there were the traditional minuses to racial stats. Not a single one of us realized that there were subtractions to make. We also didn't realize that the Key Ability for each class was a further +2

Here you go

From this post

James Jacobs wrote:

This is a correction we're looking to make that is in many ways long overdue to the world.

Ethnically, Chelaxians are identical to Taldans and really always have been; they've been traditionally treated as their own ethnicity mostly due to the fact that their government is diabolic, which is a weird reason to do that. Especially since that didn't hold true for the nation pre-Age of Lost Omens. (Note that they don't even have their own ethnic language.) So with the new edition, we're adjusting that to include them under the umbrella of the Taldan ethnicity.

Never mind that Chelish and Taldan culture are radically different even before the Age of Lost Omens. Is the only thing binding them the color of their skin (Chelish already tend toward the pale side)?

So my group did a bit of Doomsday Dawn part 1 last night after spending upwards of 3 hours in character generation (unreasonable even for a new system), and I'm going to rant a bit (and I'm going to capitalize game system names for ease of reference):

Including the notes to gain an Ancestry Feat and Background in your class level up chart prompted two players to become confused as to whether they were supposed to pick a second Ancestry Feat and Background.

Switching to Unchained's action economy system is cool (though simply saying how many of my actions are taken by casting a given spell would be better than having a sidebar clumsily explaining that each component takes an action), but:

Adding your character level to absolutely everything serves only to make the wizard replace the fighter. Why make a fighter when I can make a muscle wizard and have him the fighter's equal after 5 levels with a couple weapon and armor proficiencies. At the moment, fighters do not gain additional attacks over time or anything else that makes them a viable threat over a caster class save for attacks of opportunity. And a wise GM mitigates those as much as he can.
Never mind that every skill is now tied intrinsically to your level, making any build a relatively effective face, loremaster, and lockpick all in one. It's trying to be 5e and it's bad at it.

TEML is uncommunicative of its properties.
It does not say -2, +0, +1, +2, or +3, it simply gives us a pip. At first glance this reminded me of WoD, but under analysis it's D&D2e's Weapon Mastery system applied to every skill as well as weapons and armor.
Not only does one not know what value they represent at a glance without reading the rulebook (and it didn't help that the GM miscommunicated their function at first), but the game is actively regressing its systems functions to an age where everyone was expected to memorize a hundred charts. Today's players do not memorize charts.

Action icons are uncommunicative of their properties. I don't want to consult a legend any time two chevrons are connecting in a way I don't quite recognize.

Feat types! There are five goddamn Feat types! FIVE! Not categories, TYPES! Gained at different rates and under different circumstances!

Choosing Class Feats feels more like choosing what you are comfortable with losing. Having a plethora of selections at every Feat level can only exacerbate this, making the player worry about whether they should dip back into a previous level's feat catalogue for a good secondary from that level or to advance ever forward.

Humans are blatantly underpowered compared to literally every other Ancestry. Not only are they at -2 to one ability score, they don't even get their traditional bonus feat. It seems that the only reason to be a human is to spec into something other than human (half-elf/half-orc). And as long as we're making crossbreeding a level 1 feat, I want half-dwarves and three-fourths-lings.

Chelish is no longer considered a viable ethnicity for a character, almost as if we are to automatically assume that anyone from Cheliax is irredeemably evil and not worthy of play. Hmm...

How do I use Combat Maneuvers? Okay, they relocated Grapple to Athletics and breaking it to Acrobatics, but what about the other maneuvers? Where's my CMB and CMD? The simplicity of resolving such maneuvers was, for me, one of three primary draws to Pathfinder over D&D3e/3.5e, the other two being the simplified perception skill and clearly indicated Experience Point gain for each encounter without having to consult a chart. Speaking of which:

The new Experience Point system is TERRIBLE!
Under the PF1 system we had to consult a chart once per level, but now, harkening back to the days of 3e, we must consult a chart every encounter, slowing down the game considerably. Locking it to 1000 XP per level looks like a JRPG (notably the .hack series) and such XP adjustments are best done by a computer.
You could actually put the chart on the character sheet, but that would put the onus on players to figure out how much XP they received. Again, today's players do not memorize charts

And the group couldn't figure out if the goblin fight in Doomsday Dawn A2 was supposed to award 120 XP (30 XP per level 0 creature slain) or just 30 XP for a flat level 0 encounter.

And sideways character sheets are for hipsters! They also make the flap of a binder eat valuable table space. At least PF2 included enough room for spells this time, so there's that.

Campaign backgrounds are basically the same as campaign traits in P1e. Have they never played a Pathfinder AP before? Because those are pretty standard.

Keep in mind that you still get an additional trait to help round out your character in PF1e. "I can't be a friend of the family AND a former circus acrobat?" That's the sort of thinking that might occur

They dont have any specific rules that are native pitborns that calls out constructs, and its not in their flavor writeup.

Flair for Destruction: You have a talent for striking

Blood of Fiends, page 20

Fuzzy-Wuzzy,
with one exception, all the monsters you listed are significantly above the level at which you'd learn Shatter

in any case, it's a matter of concern. While it has great utility use against nonmagical objects (it did break the party out of being sealed in mad scientist tubes), its actual damage rules are lacking for application
Shatter is the SLA of the pitborn variant of tiefling and based on their other abilities they're built around being effective at breaking constructs

I suppose I'm not likely to get the developers to weigh in on this

maybe I'll just use it to sunder robots' leg joints or something

I have seen a little debate about the effectiveness of Shatter in combat but never anything concrete.
The spell does 1d6 sonic damage per caster level (max 10d6 ) against crystalline creatures, but as far as I can tell there is not a single creature with crystalline type, subtype, or quality anywhere throughout the bestiaries. There are barely any with implications of crystal in their name.

I've argued for shatter affecting stone and metal constructs as stone and metal have crystalline atomic bonding structures, and the GM argues RAW in spite of not a single instance of usefulness having shown itself

The construct traits certainly allow for being affected if they're crystalline, as the immunity to fort save effects is negated if the effect affects objects, which Shatter does.

We're in Numeria now, lots of robot constructs, which leads to the question:

Does Shatter work against constructs? Or is this a spell with next to zero applicability?

I'd be interested in trying this out as well

I've read that there are two types of claw attacks in PF:
A singular "claws" attack gets you one attack roll and one damage roll
A "2 claws" attack which gets you two of each.
But which would a catfolk get when they take the cat's claws trait?

The wording in the Advanced Race Guide is as follows:
Cat’s Claws: Some catfolk have stronger and more
developed claws than other members of their race, and
can use them to make attacks. Catfolk with this racial trait
have a pair of claws they can use as natural weapons. These
claws are primary attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage.
This racial trait replaces natural hunter.

Between the use of "pair of claws", "natural weapons" (plural), and "primary attacks" (plural) it seems to indicate that the 2claws attack would be the one to use.
However, as "2 claws" is never directly indicated and there is a lack absolute confirmation after the damage value (the word "each" might be nice), it is still open to interpretation as the singular claws type of attack.

So which is it?