glass's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 1,010 posts (1,011 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,010 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Beep beep tick tock wrote:
I disagree with the consensus here. You guys have a good grip on the wording of the spell but you all need to double check the wording of a monks unarmed strike. Specifically "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon..." the key word being "a". "A monk's unarmed strike" "a manufactured weapon" "a natural weapon" if it was considered multiple weapons it called strikes and weapons. If a monk hits you once with the leg, fist, knee, elbow, or head what do call it? An unarmed strike. All with the same attack and damage and damage type. If you have a humanoid creature like a doppelganger, it says it attacks with its fists specifically and it is listed as a slam attack, not an unarmed attack. As well as all kinds of hints that unarmed attacks are just different i.e. a natural weapon can't hold something and be used but an unarmed attack can. And if a creature has 2 claws it lists 2 claws. It doesn't count every thing a monk can strike with.

Who are you disagreeing with? You seem to be saying that a monk's unarmed strike is a single weapon in games terms even if it encompasses attacks with multiple body parts...which is correct but not news to anyone in the thread AFAICT. Am I misunderstanding you?


Firehand wrote:

So, if I have a Crit range of 18-20 and the AC of the target is

a 19 and I roll a 18 and then confirm with another 18 is this a critical hit?

When you say "I roll an 18," do you mean a natural 18 (with at least a +1 bonus to make it a hit) or a total of 18? "I rolled an X" usually means the latter unless your specify "natural" or "on the die".

A natural roll in the threat range which misses is just a miss. It is not a threat, so you do not roll to confirm.

The exception being a natural 20, which (barring external factors like Miss Chance) is always a hit and so always a threat. Although obviously, if you are relying on a natural 20 to hit your chances of confirming are not great.

When you do roll to confirm, the natural die roll only matters if it is a 1 or 20 (and then, only if the combination of attack bonus and AC is extreme that a 1 is an arithmetic hit or a 20 is an arithmentic miss). Threat range is not a factor once your get to the confirmation roll.

I am not sure I understood exactly what your question was, but does that answer it?


Magic breaks physics as we understand it in the real world, as do colossal dragons flying (or walking for that matter).

The physics of Golarion are different, and magic and airborne/ambulatory dragons are are part of that. It is possible to break the physical rules of one setting (or the real world) in another setting, but it is definitionally impossible to break a setting's own physical rules.


Azothath wrote:
glass wrote:
Azothath wrote:
note - in RL there are only (fungus & mold) spores in outer space as it is far too cold for any terrestrial leafy plant or multicellular organism to survive let alone the higher amount of solar and cosmic radiation.
I agree with the consensus on the main topic, but just a note on this: In real life, space is not actually cold. ...
average temperate in deep space is about 3°Kelvin (rather cold at -270°C) for the 3 hydrogen molecules per cubic meter.

The hydrogen atoms may be cold, but three hydrogen atoms in a cubic metre is not a meaningful amount of stuff (a cubic metre of gas would normally have trillions) so how hot or cold they are is negligible.

Also, not sure what you mean by "radiant conduction" - radiation and conduction are different things, and hydrogen is back at conduction even if there is a meaningful amount of it....


Azothath wrote:
note - in RL there are only (fungus & mold) spores in outer space as it is far too cold for any terrestrial leafy plant or multicellular organism to survive let alone the higher amount of solar and cosmic radiation.

I agree with the consensus on the main topic, but just a note on this: In real life, space is not actually cold. In one sense, being mostly vacuum, it does not have a temperature; it is kinda a non-ability (although of course radiant heat, from suns and other celestial bodies, is still a thing).

But even if you are a long way from anything that might be heating you up, you only lose heat by radiating it away (as compared with in atmosphere where you can lose heat by radiation and convection). For that reason, vacuum is a pretty good insulator (which is why it is used in flasks to keep drinks warm).

One slightly grizzly exception:
If you get suddenly exposed to hard vaccuum, your eyes and the inside of your mouth/nose/lungs will probably freeze. That is because, with the sudden drop in pressure, the water in those places will boil. Boiling requires energy, and there is nowhere for that energy to come from except by lowering the temperature of adjacent tissues.

This is probably the source of the "space is cold" myth, but it is purely a result of sudden exposure and has nothing to do with space's steady-state characteristics. The affected areas will thaw again eventually as the rest of your body warms them up again, although you'll be long dead by that point of course.


Both my weekly games have paused a little early for Christmas, and will be back in the new year.

When we return, I will continue to run PoA/The Sunless Citadel AP (converted to PF1 on the fly), with brand new PCs. Unfortunately, the last session of 2023 ended with a TPK.

We will also have one more session of Shattered Star, which should wrap up the campaign, and then we will rotate back to Curse of the Crimson Throne - I am a player in those two.


I would say there is some confusion - does the specified five ft per level in addition to the usual restriction on incoporeals, or does it replace it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Grandfather wrote:
This would fall under the purview of the OGL 1.1 :)

I do not believe there is any such thing (there might have been a draft 1.1 during the OGL debacle, but it was not promulgated for actual use and even if it had been you probably wouldn't want to).

The Grandfather wrote:
And as I understand it not even Paizo are going to use the ORC license.

They are absolutely using ORC going forward, but they are not releasing PF1 stuff under it (largely because they cannot - too reliant on OGL content).

IANAL, TINLA.


Add me to the list of "yes, NPCs can use RK". If the GM has a question as to whether the NPC in question knows some potentially-useful fact, how else should they determine it.

If it was not otherwise obvious that the cat was the source of the effect (and I am not familiar enough with PF2 witches to have any opinion on that question) then that is exactly the kind of circumstance where it can be used.


Maverick898 wrote:
Well before designing the adventure I built the map of Saltwind with a few locations of note.

That's a nice looking map. What did you use to create it?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I might be interested in your project, but I am very much not interested in sitting through videos. If you want me to check out your game, provide feedback, maybe eventually buy it etc, give me something I can read.

I doubt I am alone in that respect.


Short answer: You provoke once.

Slightly longer answer: RAW says (more or less) "you provoke once" but does not really elaborate on what that actually means. Normally, you would provoke for leaving any of the three threatened spaces, so if it not for all three, which is it?

Therefore, I generally think of its being "you provoke for each space you leave, but each opponent can only take advantage of one of those provocations (even if they would otherwise be able to take more than one AoO)". Which I don't think is strictly RAW, but it is my best guess for RAI, and the only way I can see it actually working without holes.


Matthew Downie wrote:
glass wrote:
IMC the manifestation and the components all contribute to identifying spells. Spells without verbal or somatic get -2. Spells with no verbal and no somatic (including SLAs) get -5.
The (house?) rule I've never been able to decide on is how it works identifying a spell in the dark. If there are visual manifestations, and these are usually described as glowing sigils or magic sparkles, do those provide enough of a flicker of light to be seen and identified?

It's never come up at my table that I can recall, and not specifically addressed in our HR document but my mental model for spell manifestations is basically Highlander (minus the windows smashing and sprinklers going off - usually). So that would include an element that would give off light and be visible in the dark.

OTOH, I would not make it a pure light show, so not more visible in the dark. And like starlight, not bright enough to see anything by other than itself.


Finoan wrote:

While the title of the rule may be the Ambiguous Rules rule, that second sentence also covers unambiguous cases that have problems.

Such as being unable to swing a +1 Ghost Touch greatsword at a ghost.

How does this one work (or rather not work)?


TxSam88 wrote:
this is a Rules forum, so all opinions need to be set aside. RAW - you must see a spell to identify it. Full stop.

That is true, but since the RAW is pretty clearly "you need to be able to see, full stop" that did not take very long. And while it is clear, it is also pretty unsatisfactory. So it is neither surprising nor unreasonable that people started talking about their house rules. Speaking of which....

IMC the manifestation and the components all contribute to identifying spells. Spells without verbal or somatic get -2. Spells with no verbal and no somatic (including SLAs) get -5.

My HR doc does not address not being able to see the manifestation either (it will soon), but I think that is probably going to be worth another -5 or so.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
glass wrote:
2. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the prestige paladin can be entered at 5th level and is 15 levels long, making the last level 19th. ISTM that it would be neater to either delay entry to 6th or make it 16 levels long so you don't "run out" of levels before 20th.
In my defense, I've never actually played to 20th level in any edition, so that level is not really on my radar most times. As noted in Chapter 1, under these rules, at 20th level you're as much if not more a plot device than a character.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Plus you can just take a level in one of your non-prestige classes anyway.

Yeah, wasn't saying it was a major issue - just thought it could be a bit neater.


Trip.H wrote:
Basically, the issue you are describing is just the fundamental design of a class with a limited resource. I'm not being condescending at all, but this is not an issue with the character / system, this is an issue of you not investing in "what do I do when I'm out of spells."

If only having two or three spells per day is "the fundamental design of a class with a limited resource", why do high-level casters have 20 or 30?

Trip.H wrote:
Cantrips are really good in this game.

Of the cantrips my party have, Lightning Arc is decent (I'm not sure I would go as far as "really good"). Telekinetic Projectile and Phase Bolt are abject (and my impression is that those are more typical).


Ravingdork wrote:
Isn't the official rule 10% of the rune's value to transfer? I don't think it matters if you do it yourself, or hire someone to do it; it's 10%.

The official rule is 10% for materials (or 0% if a runestone is involved). The only official rule I can find for labour is the one Dark_Schneider mentions...

Dark_Schneider wrote:

I think the cost is not high:

hireling
What I’d do is hireling a skilled NPC, who has +4 to the skill, and apply the cost (5 sp) for each roll required to succeed on the check.

Which is unfortunately terrible. Even a basic +1 weapon rune is DC 16, which means the most likely result is nothing happens and they waste a day and 5 sp - in this case they're probably going to get it in a day or two, but the DCs are only ever going to go upwards.

ETA:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Applying and Transferring Runes

The Society has a specialist at the Grand Lodge who can apply or swap out runes for agents of the Pathfinder Society in good standing. This service is free, and requires no check, but is only available before the briefing or once the adventure is complete unless stated in the adventure. Only the service of transfering the rune is free however. Characters must still pay the 10% materials cost and provide any required runestones.

(bolding mine) That also seems to imply that the lack of material cost to transfer from a runestone does not apply in PFS2. Is that correct?


My issue with PF2 and casters seems to be a bit different from most other people's, and it revolves around spell-slot progression. I am two levels in to running Abomination Vaults, with a Sorcerer and Bard in the party, and they're pretty great on the turns where they cast slotted spells.

Unfortunately, that is two slots per day at first level (and three at second)...maybe ten percent of the turns during an adventuring day. The rest of the time they are relying on cantrips (which are mostly terrible, except the Lightning Arc and Inspire Courage).

In PF1, casters started with a fairly small number of spell slots but eventually scaled up to so many that the spells per day limitation was basically nmon-existent*. The devs obviously recongnised the latter, but their solution was to keep the scaling proportionately the same (more or less) but significantly cut down the slots at lower levels. What I think they should have done is be more generous with slots at the lowest levels but scaled up much more slowly.

(* Admittedly, once you have 6th-, 7th-, or 8th-level slots, all those first-level slots are not worth much. But that's its own issue.)


Captain Morgan wrote:
The cost of transferring a rune from one weapon to another is 10% of the rune's value. That is the cost to do it yourself. The rules don't account for how much an NPC should charge for their time, unless this was added in the remaster.

I know, hence why I like the idea of making the labour cost the same as the supplies - keeps things simple!


Thanks everyone!

breithauptclan wrote:

Previous thread on similar subject.

tl;dr: Abomination Vaults was written before the requirement of Magical Crafting was added to the game rules. The GM can and should give the ability to transfer runes to some of the NPCs.

Thank you for reminding me about the AP-specific subforum. I need to have another nose around there before we rotate back to Abomination Vaults - we have a few APs on the go at once so the GMs get a break and the players don't get bored, and rotate by character level so I've got a bit of time before it is my turn again.

I did not realise the requirement was added in the errata. That does make things make a little more sense. It is on my to so list to properly stat up a couple of people around town that the PCs have struck up relationships with - I'll make sure they have (the equivalent of) the feat. I might give it to Wryn as well....

breithauptclan wrote:

I don't think it is balanced to have excessive added costs for rune transfer above what the rune transfer rules list. Not unless the GM is adjusting the amount of income the PCs are getting to compensate.

If it is intended for rune transfer to be very expensive and be a significant portion of the character's wealth expenditure, the rules would call that out.

I certainly don't want to make the cost too "significant", but by the same token I don't want it to be zero (both for reasons of verisimilitude and to not devalue the feat even further). I think I will go with 10%.


Wow, long thread. But I am glad I decided to wade through it! I have downloaded the docs and am having a poke through now. I have only just started looking, but this is a truely impressive body of work! I am unlikely ever to use it as written: I have my own, somewhat less elaborate houserules for PF1 that I am broadly happy with. And if I was going to go as far as you have gone, I would want to go further. Plus which, I get the impression you are a lumper whereas I am a splitter (insert Monty Python joke here), so some of your choices are bound to not be to my taste. But I love reading good game design even if I do not actually use it, and this definitely qualifies, so I am looking forward to going through it.

A couple of things that have jumped out at me so far as I have bounced around:

1. I like that (not so) iterative attacks only take the -5 once now, rather than cumulatively. Saves wasting table time on attacks that are individually pretty unlikely to hit, but which in the aggregate still add a non-trivial amount of damage so cannot be skipped.

2. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the prestige paladin can be entered at 5th level and is 15 levels long, making the last level 19th. ISTM that it would be neater to either delay entry to 6th or make it 16 levels long so you don't "run out" of levels before 20th.

3. In the Introduction, the text under "Fewer Timmy Cards" is worthy stuff, but doesn't really have anything to do with "Timmy" as I understand the term.

4. The superscript AA reference is overloaded - Adventurer's Armoury and Animal Archives.

5. The class Synergy stuff is a bit wordy, but given that I have read the thread and seen all the "But what if you stack A, B, & C?" I understand how it ended up that way.

6. You don't get XP for killing monsters in Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter).

7. Theurgy is great! I might have done some of the specifics a little differently, but I really like the overall principles (and you have playtest data and I do not; if I did I might agree with you on the specifics too).

8. Definitely agree on Mage Armour being Abjuration, and "Healing" being Necromancy!


shroudb wrote:
It is your game, if the current npcs are not high level enough to do the tranfer, just have a higher level npc move to the town to offer said service (at a price according to his level of)

"A price appropriate to his level" is what I was asking for help determining!


Hi all,

I am running Abomination Vaults, and in the last chapter the PCs found a couple of runestones with useful runes on. Obviously, they wanted to transfer them onto their actual equipment, but AIUI the PCs need the Magic Crafting feat to transfer runs and none of them have it. After a bit of digging the only official option we could find for outside help was hiring a "skilled labourer" on a day rate and hoping they made their check, but even at low levels that was a long shot and it will quickly become impossible as item levels increase and labourer levels do not.

Is there a better official option that we have missed? Or failing that, how would people go costing a more appropriate/useful transfer service if one does not already exist? How have people tackled this in their own games?

Or does everyone just assume that the group will take Magical Crafting and make it moot? That would certainly make my life easier, but nobody seems keen so far!


Thanks folks. I was 90% sure that was the case, but that 10% kept nagging at me!


By which I mean, if you take a second dedication feat, that doesn't prevent you from taking further feats from your first archetype, right? I cannot find anything that stops you, but I might have missed something.

For example, one of my players has recently taken the Medic dedication. Which has a couple of level 4 feats, 1 at 6 and one at 8. Then a big gap until 1 at 16. Since we are using the Free Archetype variant, the PC would be basically forced to take a new Dedication at 10th level at the latest (and in practice, they might well do so earlier). Having done so, can they still take Resuscitate at 16th level if they want to?

It probably doesn't actually matter for this particular PC: We are doing Abomination Vaults so he is not going to make 16th level unless we take the same characters into another AP afterwards, but it got me thinking.


Melkiador wrote:
Quote:
The pit’s coarse stone walls
So, you could always use earth glide to enter the wall and swim up that way, along the wall

It doesn't specify how thick those walls are, so it's a GM call if you fit within them while earth gliding.


LTTP, so not sure if you're still planning on doing this or how far you've got. But IIRC...

Spoiler:
The PCs potentially end up with a second part if the Rod of Seven Parts by the end. I cannot remember under exactly what circumstances - I think possibly Tenser/Manzorian just hands it to the PCs if they do something else he approves of, but it is over a decade since I ran AoW.


Fascinating thread - not sure it really needed to be brought back to life after 11 years but I'm kinda glad it was. I wonder how many of the people who posted in it first time around are still about, and if they still agree with their younger selves.

Anyway, put me down as agreeing with "drinking blood is not inherently evil", "drinking blood is fine for a Paladin (providing no other factor makes it evil beyond the blood-drinking itself)", and "some people have really weird ideas about paladins".


There are a lot of 5e-isms in the OP!

If it is supposed to be 5e stats, then that is fine but it does not belong in a PF1 forum (you'll get more and better feedback if you post it somewhere 5e is actually on-topic).

If it is supposed to be PF1 stats, then it is fine to take inspiration from 5e (but maybe a little bit less) but at the minimum you need to use PF1 terminology (Reflex save rather than Dexterity save, spell out what you mean by "Advantage" rather than using the undefined keyword).


Orikkro wrote:
Any adventure path that has featured Devils, Demons, Daemons, will have to be adjusted as by their very nature alignment damage is a big part of them. I will not list APs by name as that will spoil things but a number of the 2E adventure paths feature one of the above significantly at some point in them.

True, but if old-style Demons, Devils, or Daemons are a big part of the AP, you should probably just use old-style Demons, Devils, or Daemons complete with alignment. It's not like Paizo is going to send the Pinkertons round to take away our old Bestiaries....

Orikkro wrote:
Then spells, creatures, and items that first appeared in an adventure path will need to be looked at. As most of those will not be in Core 1 or 2. Just like Magus, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic, Tharmaturge, and Summoner won't be receiving a remaster as of yet.

They won't be receiving a remaster ever, nor should they need one if Paizo's done their job correctly.

Whether they have remains to be seen (all the signs were pointing towards "yes", but I must admit the Light spell issue has me worried).


I think it is completely clear that if you cast Memory of Function on a damaged-but-not-dead Inevitable, they get healed. So the question becomes, "is having counted as a Construct while alive good enough MoF?" And I think that the answer has to be "yes". Because if it isn't, then having counted as a Construct while alive by virtue of actually having been a Construct would not work either and that part of the spell would be pointless!

In conclusion, IMNSHO, yes it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mostly seems OK. However there are two things I do not like:

The inconsistency in casting times being after the title or in the middle of the title line.

That one is a minor annoyance, but the other is much worse: Light being a completely different spell from CRB light, but overloading the name. The name clash is an incompatibility, of the sort that very quickly adds up to a .5 edition (and .5 editions are always a terrible idea). We can hope it is an isolated incident, but Paizo choosing to showcase that kind of own-goal does not inspire confidence, sadly.

(There is also the inconsistency of Waking Nightmare having a Saving Throw entry rather than Defence, but I assume that's a typo.)


Twiggies wrote:
To be honest, I have no idea if I need to use the OGL, I assumed based on sheet builders like Pathbuilder and Wanderer's Guide that I need to follow at least some aspects of it to not get into trouble if I want to share the spreadsheet. I am very dumb and unsure of how this stuff works lol

My understanding is that using "at least some aspects of the OGL" is the absolute last thing you want to do. It is a package deal - you either use it fully and correctly, or ignore it and rely on normal copyright law stuff like fair use.

Again, IANAL, so I cannot tell you which you need to do in this case.


I may be misreading, but themetricsystem seem to be answering on the unstated assumption that your sheet will use the OGL (although they appear to be confusing IP with PI). Which may be the route you go down, but then you need to make sure you include a properly completed copy of the licence in your spreadsheet (including all your sources, and all your sources' sources, in section 15). You would also need to comply with the rules and restrictions that the OGL imposes, the most significant in this case being no mentioning of trademarks (like, for example, "Pathfinder"). So you would probably also need to use and comply with the Compatibility Licence.

I did briefly wonder if you would be better off looking at the Community Use Policy, but that does not appear to help in your case.

(IANAL, TINLA)


Reza la Canaille wrote:
What would you guys put in lieu of the Vancian magic dinosaur? Really I'm not opposed to it, big advocate of "Unlimited magic all the time" and all, but I'm not sure how I would do it.

The simplest ways would be to make all the currently vancian classes work like they had a mandatory Flexible Spellcasting arcehtype (ie the 5e model) or convert every class to Repertoire/Spontaneous.

The former would not be my preference (I actually like vancian magic), but I could live with it. The latter would be a deal breaker for me.


breithauptclan wrote:
So what, exactly, are you proposing for how to apply Flexible Spellcasting to archetype spellcasters?

I wasn't really proposing anything in particular, just thinking out loud.

I was not thinking of messing with the archetypes' number of slots in either direction. As you note, applying table 5-1 directly would mean increasing them, which would be broken in multiple ways (not to mention ridiculous). But OTOH, they don't really get enough spell slots to subtract from (they'd end up with zero in a lot of cases).

I guess I was wondering whether the pretty severe reductions to main-class slots and the delaying the archetype by three feats was already enough of a cost for applying it to the archetype casting too.

But having looked it up, it is only actually a one-feat delay, as the Flexible Spellcaster Dedication feat lacks the usual text about two more feats before another dedication (or indeed, any more feats to take). Which does rather shift things in a more broken direction, especially when using the Free Archetype variant (which I am).


Claxon wrote:
glass wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options.
That is not what "splatbook" means. It means, "book that is (or is planned to be) part of a series where each volume focuses on a different specific instance (or subset of instances) of a common concept." Comes from "splat" being a slightly obscure term for asterisk, in the wildcard sense.
I think you're overly focused on the letter of my description without looking for the intent. Splat is essentially anything that isn't core.

Responding to the words you chose to use in your post because I cannot read your mind is not being "overly focused". You said that splatbook mean softback - I knew this to be nonsense, so I felt I had a duty to point that out to you and (more importantly) to anyone else reading the thread.

If your "intent" was to say something other than what you actually said, that's on you not me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Return of the Runelords spoilers...

** spoiler omitted **...

Aaargh! I really want to click on that link, but I am starting Return of the Runelords as a player in a couple of months (after my players wrap up the next level of Abomination Vaults), so I mustn't!

In all seriousness, thank you using spoiler blocks for what must, to you, be fairly old hat. It is really appreciated!


CorvusMask wrote:
Sidenote, I think issue with "mythic" monster math is that if it keeps steadily increasing at same pace according with the formula, like it does even in levels 21-25, pcs might be outclassed even with "mythic profiency. So assuming math continues same, it might imply level 25 characters might need proficiency equivalent of "12 + level" unless there is alternate ways to deal with even higher numbers :'D Like how classes that get legendary save proficiency have ability that crit fails turn to fails and failures still halve damage while success is crit. Assuming there aren't items with even higher bonuses, which I see as kinda unlikely.

One possibility I am wondering about is if Mythic ranks/tiers/whatever* will count as "levels" for proficiencies. If they give hit points too, that would bridge the gap to level 30ish creatures. EDIT: Looked at that way, it would kinda be like PF1(etc) multi-classing, but just for this not for classes in general).

(* Probably not "ranks", because PF2R seem to define "rank" as "something that generally goes up with levels but necessarily automatically and not on the same numerical scale" - see proficiency ranks and now spell ranks.)


Andostre wrote:
By the way, I had to look up what you meant by "B1." I think you're referring to Crypt of the Everflame, but I rarely see anyone refer to specific adventures by that coding ever since Paizo stopped using it.

From context, I am pretty sure they meant the first Bestiary.

Claxon wrote:
Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options.

That is not what "splatbook" means. It means, "book that is (or is planned to be) part of a series where each volume focuses on a different specific instance (or subset of instances) of a common concept." Comes from "splat" being a slightly obscure term for asterisk, in the wildcard sense.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The OP is quoted the 1st edition rules for a witch’s familiar learning spells from another familiar.

Not sure why you feel the need to hammer the "glass was wrong" button quite so hard (complete with bolding), but the the OP did not quote anything. I admitted I was wrong about the specific instance of Feral Speech, but I do not believe I was wrong about the OP being confused (in presentation, if not in their own mind).

They did talk about PF1-exclusive things (Spellcraft checks), but they also talked about PF2-exclusive things ("the arcane spell list").


Derklord wrote:
glass wrote:
The OP mentions "tradition" and "Arcane" spells lists, and Feral Speech in PF1 would not help you talk to a familiar anyway.
You linked a trait, but the OP was talking about the Wizard Arcane Discovery. It grants a permanent Speak with Animals effect, and thus does indeed let the Wizard speak with other familiars.

Fair point about the Arcane Discovery, but the point regarding "tradition" and "Arcane spell list" stands.


One other point that I wanted to make, having finally read the whole thread: Obviously, the legal advice Paizo received while looking at this was private, so we will never know for sure, but I would be very surprised if it was a clear cut, "A, B, & C are fine and you can keep them, X, Y, & Z have to go". I suspect there was an element of "D, E, & F are individually fine, but you need to ditch X% of them to be safe".

Regarding golems, AIUI the social-justice issues and the legal issues both come down to their bearing very little resemblance to folkloric golems. I suspect that PF2R will include something called a golem that is much truer to its roots in Jewish mysticism, and an entirely different kind of creature with a different name which is more like traditional D&D monsters (but not too much like them).

EDIT: One other thing I meant to say: Remember that creatures not showing up in Monster Core will not be "gone" - they will still be in the extant Bestiaries and on AoN.

Paizo's not going to come round your house and confiscate your red dragons and iron golems (a comment that is less hyperbolic than it used to be)!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

That's a trademark case. If Gygax trademarked the Owlbear's design, then the person who made the mini has no hold.

That,s like if you talked to your friend about making a video game where you fling squirrels with a slingshot, and your friend trademark that idea using birds instead ^^;

IANAL, TINLA, but that is not how any of this works. You cannot trademark a design, and you cannot trademark an idea. You cannot trademark anything really, because it is not a verb, but that's not really the point - the point is that trademark law protects mark that you use to trade, not designs or ideas (which would be copyright and patent respectively).


I'm not the OP, and I agree with both of the previous posters as to the RAW. But now I am wondering: If I houseruled it to (optionally) also apply to casting archetypes if you took it for your main class, how badly would that break things?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think it's conceivable to add "Mythic" as the sixth proficiency tier. That seems like something you could balance around.

I would not be surprised if the Mythic proficiency rank is a thing, there are some caveats: If you can, like in PF1, be Mythic from first level I seriously doubt you get to skip all the way to better-than-Legendary a dozen levels before Legendary would be come online normally.

A likely scenario, to my mind, is that a relevant subset of proficiencies (determined by Mythic Path or equivalent, and possibly modified by feats) get a flat +1, so you get Mythic proficiency when you would otherwise have got Legendary (and Legendary when you could have been Master and so on down).

Rysky wrote:
"Oh you get more HP, more to hit, a 4th action each round"... yay? That's not mythic or legendary or compelling, it's a level up by another name.

I feel like whatever they do with Mythic, when looked at from a one-sentence overview POV, "a level up by another name" is going to be an apt description. Because anything does not broadly fit that description is either going to be broken as all get out, or is not going to help you take down those Level 30 demon lords etc.


Zaister wrote:
ElementalofCuteness wrote:
How do you feel about the fact Spellcasters are now just trained in Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC?
What is that supposed to mean?

I think it means that casters proficiencies are no longer split into different traditions. EDIT: Or what Blave said....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To add to what has already been said, ORC is a thing for publishers to worry about - what licence something is released under is largely irrelevant to home games.

So if Paizo keep their promise that all the old PF2 stuff will remain playable with PF2R with some translation of terminology (and I don't see any reason at this stage to think they won't) then you can just keep using the extant version.


zimmerwald1915 wrote:
glass wrote:
Number 200 is not divisible by three - it would be chapter 2 (or maybe 5 )of the individual AP, which would be an odd place to stop!
Divisibility by 3 is no longer a concern, Season of Ghosts is four books long.

Well OK then, I did not know that.

That obviously changes the arithmetic considerably.

1 to 50 of 1,010 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>