coyotegospel's page

If these price adjustments mean they are able to retain the wonderful staff (and hopefully increase their compensation in these inflationary times), then take my money Paizo.

(I subscribe to many lines so you already are, but the sentiment stands just the same)

I believe, with Paizo’s strong relationship with freelance authors, the company is better positioned than most to identify and promote new talent. I trust in that.

This is a bummer, but I agree with Aaron. Ron moving on will leave big shoes to fill, but Paizo hasn't missed a beat when filling big shoes in the past.

Best of luck Ron!

+1 to all the praise for the Suggested Character Options table! Would love to see this become a new fixture of the Player's Guides!

Any ideas or recomendations on running the AP with milestone advancements rather than handing out XP?

Milestone advancement works well in any AP (IMO) because the authors clearly define what levels they expect the PCs to be at at the front of each book. It also saves the GM from having to throw in extra encounters if the PCs fall short on XP relative to what the adventure as written is expecting them to have.

As a player I have always preferred the feeling of "reward" that comes from getting XP at the end of a session, as a GM I find it to be one less thing to have to worry about.

So whatever works best at your table is the best way to go!

Samsaran.
Also, would love to see what a Centaur ancestry would look like in 2E

What previous editions called Divine has been divided based on its focus : tangible for Primal, intangible for Divine.

The same has been done to what previous editions called Arcane : focus on tangible for Arcane, on intangible for Occult.

It is good that the first divide makes obvious sense to you, but really it's just the same in both cases.

Excellently succinct explanation here, IMO!

Having worked with Mike at Alliance a number of years ago that makes me feel incredibly old, I can say with confidence that he is a great guy and will be a great addition to the team. Congrats Mike!

As Cori Marie mentioned, the pawn collections are never out until after the full adventure path has been released. They definitely never come out around the time of books 3 or 4. I wouldn't expect them until February or March (my guess would be Feb)

As a point of reference, the FotRP pawns came out at the same time as SoT book 2 (so 2 months after the last book of that AP).

Hope that helps!

This is a major bummer. Sara Marie was a fantastic part of the Paizo team.

Echoing what others have said: everyone having to pay for the app feels like too much. What about if the app & player version were free, but the GM login was a paid add-on?

I fully support everyone having their own opinion on this, but just wanted to share mine (and in no way does that imply that I feel mine is more correct than anyone else's).

In a world where subscription-based apps are increasingly becoming the norm, I fully support a one-time fee of $2.99 per user for everyone at my table to be able to use this in perpetuity.

If they were only charging the GM, I suspect that this would not generate enough revenues to justify spending the time making the app more robust in the future.

Thank you Diego. As far as I can tell, my subscription order with Alien Archive 4 has not shipped yet. Is it possible to have that removed from the order?

Not sure if this is doable because the order generated between the time I posted this and now.

Thanks for your help either way!

Thank you!

Shipping Update:

Hi folks, thanks so much for your patience this month. I wanted to drop in for a correction and an update on shipping. Street date for our July subscriptions is actually Thursday, July 30, which aligns with the start of GenCon. I'm so sorry for the confusion! Additionally, shipping is taking longer than estimated, and the Warehouse Team has let us know that most folks should expect their shipping confirmation on Friday, July 31.

Bummer.

BUT, we appreciate the hard work of the CS and warehouse teams! Thank you for doing your best as always!

"Furthermore, Paizo will donate a portion of proceeds from all volumes of the Agents of Edgewatch Adventure Path sold through the end of 2021 to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund."

Why so vague on the percentage? Is is 1%?, 0.5? 10%?

I imagine they are still crunching the numbers and figuring out what the can do that is both responsible for the company and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and are not ready to announce a number at this point.

Also, it is their right to not announce a number. Even 0.5% is better than 0%

At the end of the day, I (personally) appreciate the even-tempered response to a complicated (though some would argue non-issue) by Mr. Mona. Your mileage may vary if it wasn't enough for you. if not announcing the exact percentage of donations was not enough for you, you are entitled to that opinion.

The only thing I hope does not happen is for people who feel that the response was not enough to equate it to no response at all. And comparing this response to a "leader" who consistantly deals in falsehoods feels, at best, like bait. At worse, like a massively false equivalency.

A little late to the party, but hopefully helpful for those still in Book 1. I wrote up some text for the deed to the Citadel. I couldn't find anything anyone had done already, so I figured it might be a bit of a time saver for someone down the road. Feel free to modify dates, names, etc. and use however you want.

This is great! I’m running my group through the final session of book 1 tomorrow and was planning to write something in the morning. Instead, I’ll borrow this :)

Continued thanks to all for the inspiration and insight on here!

Well, I think you could cast the Harmonized composition second, since it does allow for a second composition. The problem is that the non-harmonized composition would still end when you cast a Harmonized one since the rule about not ending when casting another composition specifically refers to Harmonized.

Ah, right. That is the little detail I was missing.

At my table I would likely allow it, but now I have come around to the fact that RAW everything I said previously was nonsense.

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

You can perform multiple compositions simultaneously. If your next action is to cast a composition, it becomes a harmonized composition. Unlike a normal composition, a harmonized composition doesn’t end if you cast another composition, and you can cast another composition on the same turn as a harmonized one. Casting another harmonized composition ends any harmonized composition you have in effect.

I think reversing the order doesn't work. A harmonized composition doesn't end when you use another composition, but this doesn't say that the harmonized composition doesn't cause a pre-existing composition to end.

Yup, that's how I read it too.

I certainly see how it would be interpreted that way (and I tend to agree that is probably the correct interpretation), but I see some wiggle room, if you don't mind indulging me for a moment.:

"Unlike a normal composition, a harmonized composition doesn’t end if you cast another composition, and you can cast another composition on the same turn as a harmonized one."

Parsing this a little bit we know that Harmonize does 2 things:
1) It does not end if you cast another composition after it
2) It allows you to cast more than 1 composition on the same turn as a harmonized one.

Here is where it gets tricky to me. Harmonize essentially overrules 2 rules of Compositions:
1) "If you cast a new composition spell, any ongoing effects from your previous composition spell end immediately."
2) "You can cast only one composition spell each turn"

So again, it may be reading between the lines a bit, but if a Harmonize lets you break both of those rules, I don't see why a Harmonized composition would have to be the first one cast in the turn, as the ability allows you to cast a second composition on your turn.

In other words, once a PC takes the action to Harmonize it "unlocks" the ability for a second composition thus allowing you to take your next action to cast said composition.

Either way, the wording could definitely be tighter to ensure there was no room for interpretation.

That said, you can cast a Harmonized composition and then use Lingering Composition to cast a second composition on the same turn which would linger. Only problem would be when your next turn came around if you wanted to recast your harmonized composition you would lose the lingering one. So in reality, they don't work all that well together. You might as well just Harmonize and then cast a second composition if you are really wanting both to stay up.

I think the key in this scenario would be to do it the other way around.

Next turn, your lingering composition is still active and you simply Harmonize with it again with a second composition.

Thank you Sam!

I decided to have these shipped now rather than wait so I already placed a second order.

Removing them my Sidecart would be appreciated.

Thank you!

I'm really hoping that this set gets the Battle Card treatment that B1 got

Already announced for September!

Bestiary 2 Battle Cards

This set is looking great! Not a fan of the change to clear bases in the future, however. I would much rather have base consistency among my PF minis past, present, and future.

I know Mark explained the plan for future sets in his comment above, but has there been a reason articulated for said change?

Thanks all!

Here is a folder that contains contents of what the PCs find after defeating Voz. A few recent journal entries, scraps of research on Alsetta's Ring, her notes on the occult ritual performed in the basement of the citadel, and most importantly, a letter to her from Laslunn.

Hoping my players find this more interesting than just giving them a summary of the information they find.

Dates on the journal are pretty specific to my campaign, but hopefully folks find some of these other bits useful!

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZAVzHEEjgKwLcGyw6-U-4satyBpMh19j?us p=sharing

I took my own stab at an annotated history of Breachill by Voz, although purely in text form.

** spoiler omitted **...

Inspired by FedoraFerret's great work here, I took this and turned this into something that could be shared as a physical prop. Then COVID-19 happened so I turned it into a digital handout.

My players just got to this point on Sunday and loved this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1msmK_eCYX7kzoX9rF0T99VHkZjDFpZOT/view

Currently putting together some handouts for Voz's journal and research found after confronting her and can share that if anyone is interested!

I'm really wanting to make relatively complex things like a Flurry of Blows attack routine that takes into account iterative attack penalties and stances, or a Recovery Check that dynamically compares the flat check result against the Recovery Check DC (10 + dying value) and then adjusts your dying value by -1, -2, +1, or +2 dying value depending on whether you made a critical success, success, failure, or critical failure, respectively.

I am still wrapping my head around macros myself so I can't give you the best answer, but here is one I wrote for a player's Flurry of Blows, taking into account MAP on the 2nd attack.

&{template:default} {{name=Flurry of Blows}} {{1st attack=[[1d20+8]]}} {{1st damage=[[1d6+2]]}} {{2nd attack=[[1d20+8-4]]}} {{2nd damage=[[1d6+2]]}}

End result looks like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ol1uyeqp5x98etb/Screen%20Shot%202020-03-30%20at%2 04.01.57%20PM.png?dl=0

While I, for one, have been irritated with the number of emails I've received from businesses and restaurants I've patronized once, this isn't even remotely in the same category.

I think I speak for most everyone on here to say that an update like this about the health and safety of Paizo and the Paizo team is extremely important to all of us.

Thank you Lisa and everyone at Paizo for doing the best work you can through this difficult time. Thank you for the update, and thank you for the countless hours of distraction and entertainment that Paizo's products have brought us before and will continue to bring us in the road ahead!!

So those of us who have been waiting a month or more for these orders who still don't have shipping info and no idea when it will ship have to continue to wait with no recourse when a few days ago you said today was the shipping deadline. But you come in here with veiled insults that most of the non-shipments are payment releated and yet that isn't the case for anyone here begging for help and answers in this thread

I realize people are frustrated. I am still waiting for my order to ship as well. But there was definitely no "veiled insults". Sara Marie just pointed out that of the remaining orders, a large chunk haven't shipped due to payment issues. It was an update on the process, as folks have been asking for.

Yours is one of the ones that doesn't have a payment issue. So is mine. Is it a bummer? Sure it is. But accusing someone who is doing their job of making "veiled insults" isn't helping anyone.

Trying to clarify something on Afflictions. It's pretty clear how Onset, Stages and Intervals work.

However, I'm a little unclear about intervals of 1 round. Does that mean that they advance on the very next round, or that there is a 1 round "break" between stages? Let me give an example and two scenarios.

Example Affliction
Onset 1 minute; Maximum Duration 1 minute; Stage 1 some damage and effects (1 round); Stage 2 some damage and effects (1 round); Stage 3 some damage and effects (1 round)

So obviously, there is no effect for a 1 minute because of the onset. But once the effects begin, how should this play out:

Scenario A
Rd 1 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 1 of affliction
Rd 2 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 2 of affliction
Rd 3 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 3 of affliction
Etc.

-or-

Scenario B
Rd 1 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 1 of affliction
Rd 2 - No effect
Rd 3 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 2 of affliction
Rd 4 - No effect
Rd 5 - PC fails save and therefore takes effects of Stage 3 of affliction
Etc.

Without a clear-cut answer, I could see an argument either way and am curious about others' interpretations. Thanks!

Please look at Mystic Strike (p156 CRB) ability before you make the house rule. The rules intend that you would have to use handwraps.

It's an expected item pickup intended to fill in some of the needed gaps for a monk. Of course (as I always say) feel free to run your table how you like, but planning for them to acquire the item largely removes the need for a house rule.

Oh, I quite agree that the rules intend you have to use handwraps if you wanted to, say, add runes to your unarmed strikes. And as a result, it is very much an expected item pickup.

But as per the other comments, having handwraps do not, in fact, make them a weapon RAW.

I can't see any scenario in which considering a monk's unarmed strikes to be a weapon, would, in any meaningful way would unbalance things at my table.

That said, I am very open to other input and if anyone sees where that could potentially cause an issue, hit me! (pun intended)

Good points all around.

For the time being, I think I plan to house rule it that at my table a monk's (and only a monk's) unarmed attacks count as weapons.

Clearly RAI a monk's unarmed strikes are intended to be their main attack. So it seems silly to me that RAW they can't utilize them as weapons.

I hadn't even considered Oils. But in my opinion, a monk should be able to utilize those as well.

It seems quite clear that the design intent of Doubling Rings is so that a character who fights with two weapons isn't penalized into having to upgrade both weapons as they progress by, essentially, letting the 2nd weapon "share" the runes of the first.

I have a monk PC who fights with a temple sword and makes additional attacks with his fist as it is agile. I wanted to get some thoughts on whether doubling rings would allow him to share his weapon rune properties on his unarmed attacks without having to separately buy handwraps of mighty blows for those secondary attacks.

I'm torn.

On one hand, the doubling rings specifically state (emphasis mine):

"the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any MELEE WEAPON you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring."

-and-
"The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you CEASE WIELDING A MELEE WEAPON in one of your hands."

On the other hand, the Monk's Powerful Fist states (again, emphasis mine):

"You know how to wield your fists as DEADLY WEAPONS."

Flavor-wise, I think everyone would agree that a monk's fists are weapons. But per the text of Powerful Fist I'm inclined to say the doubling rings would apply to the monk's fists from a RAW perspective as well.

But I'm curious to get other's opinions.

Well... that *is* a sever encounter.

Fair point! I suppose I am only surprised because I’m still getting a grasp on just how severe *severe* means.

As per the subject, after running two PFS scenarios for my group to get used to 2nd edition, today we dove into Age of Ashes, and I have to say I *really* like 2nd edition!

That said, things did not go great for my players due to some extraordinarily poor dice rolling on their part.

Overall, even though it didn't go swimmingly for the PCs the players enjoyed themselves and left with a positive impression about 2nd edition and excitement about getting deeper into AoA.

Granted it's only one session, but as far as I'm concerned, 2E and AoA look like another Critical Hit from the Paizo team! (For my table at least)

I didn't make the word up, but I say it as:

all-TARE-ee-in

Humbled to have the mighty James Jacobs weigh in on my dumb question!

all-TARE-ee-in it is! :)

I keep going back in forth in my head about whether or I not I think this should be pronounced:

ol-tuh-rain (like All Terrain)

-OR-

ol-tear-ee-un

How is everyone else pronouncing this?

But you cannot get rid of them because they are the intended counter to swingy critical ranges unbalancing the game. These are my simple changes to make them fit the narrative and not your playtimes.

Hero points are reset only after downtime. Makes sense as you stopped being a hero during downtime. If PCs want to blow their unused one crafting/working that is fine.

Good feedback all around, but I particularly like this idea!

With Hero Points being awarded and discarded at the start (and end respectively) of each session, I was curious if anyone has altered this paradigm for shorter or longer play sessions?

For example, if a group is planning on a marathon 12 hour game session, I wonder if handing out 1 hero point at the start of the session puts them at a disadvantage over a group that plays a 4 hour session. Obviously the longer session gives PCs more opportunities to earn additional hero points, but the baseline "automatic" hero point handout changes considerably with the PCs in a group playing 4 hour sessions having a minimum of 3 times as many hero points over the course of that block of time.

On the opposite side, my group typically plays 2 hour sessions and I worry that that a "Get out of death free" card every single session will take a lot of the threat out of the game as there's only so many combats you could get into in 2 hours.

Just generally curious if anyone has made adjustments and if so how that went?

That said, my eyes just bugged out of my head as I look at my order history. I know there was talk about shipping being higher on Legendary Adventures but I was NOT expecting a $70 shipping charge for a booster brick.

This destroys my budget. REALLY displeased by this. I would have purchased this elsewhere if I had realized that.

I'm also in the same "no email, but is showing in order history" boat

Thanks for the explanation Diego. That was not my understanding based on what I had heard from others, but now I know and I appreciate the clarification.

Thank you

I wish that were it, but I had already done that. Thanks though!

I know the CS team has been quite busy, but I posted 2 weeks ago with no response. Hopefully, this will actually be noticed.

When my August subscription order spawned, I realized how close it was to qualifying for free shipping so I placed an order (7945991) to ship with that subscription order but quickly realized it would not put the order over the $100 threshold. So I placed a second order (8086994) and asked that the first order be canceled.

2 weeks later, the first order has not been canceled and the second order did not ship with my subscription, with both still sitting in my sidecart.

In addition, because of my subscriptions, I am supposed to receive the PFS scenarios, and I don't have access to those either.

Please help!

Please cancel this order if possible.

I was attempting to get my subscription order up over $100 to take advantage of the shipping discount and this didn't quite get it done so I placed an order for a different item afterwards to accomplish said task.

Thank you!

Interesting -- I actually suggested to my GM that he consider introducing PF2 style hero points into our PF1 game.

I recently did this and am quite happy with the results.

My issue with hero points in PF1 (and I suspect this was why the devs changed it) is that no one used a hero point unless they had 3. Everyone saved them to protect themselves from dying.

What I love about the 2E system is that it's the opposite. It disincentives you from hoarding them.

"Oh, didn't use those for re-rolls? Well now you're on the precipice of dying so its going to cost you all of your Hero Points.

In addition, I'm playing with 2 players new to PF and the simplification of what Hero Points did was appreciated by them. (They couldn't keep up with +8 before a roll, but +4 after a roll. etc etc)

Think of it like this:

The MAP for a regular weapon is -5 per additional attack: 0 – 5 – 5 = –10
The MAP for an agile weapon is -4 per additional attack: 0 – 4 – 4 = –8

Does that help?

Actually it does. Even though I understood in my head how it gets to the disparity between the -10 and the -8, seeing it written out was the "aha!" moment.

Move along folks. Nothing more to see here....

I think the disconnect for me is that because the penalty on the 3rd attack is 2 less it feels as if the third attack is more effective than the 2nd attack compared to a character with a non-agile weapon.

Not saying this is a problem at all. Or that I disagree with how the rule works. I suppose I was just wondering if anyone else had to stop and scratch their head for a moment at this.

Agile weapons:

The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn.

All things being equal - while welding an agile weapon, a character has a 5% greater chance to hit with a second attack than a character wielding a non-agile weapon. This makes sense. It is agile after all, so it should be easier to attack multiple times with.

However, on a third attack a character has a 10% greater chance to hit than a character wielding a non-agile weapon. This seems odd to me. It feels like agile weapons should just have a penalty of 1 less on any attack after the first (ie: -4 and then -9).

Anyone else?

Thank you Sam!