glass's page

Having finally got AoN to load so I can see what they currently do, I think I mostly agree.

I do think it would be nice if the number of feats in that archetype has some influence, but I obviously we don't want the barbarian archetype to end up with more HP than a actual barbarian, and there is also the issue of different martially-flavoured archetypes on the same character. So I am not sure how to implement that cleanly and fairly.

Aaaargh. Making a spelling error, copying-&-pasting it a bunch oftimes, and spotting it after the Edit window closes is not my idea of a good time. I meant "worn" not "warn". And someone introduces some other kind of wand... in the footnotes.

Anyway, moving on. Defining categories of feats by name is kinda "low tech". A more PF2 approach would be to give the approriate feats a Resonate keyword and refer to that, and that would also give me more flexibility in naming that. So pretend I did that in the above post.

_
Resonant Revitalisation† (Feat 1)
[Archetype][Resonate]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication

As a Free Action you may spend Resonance Point on a magical or alchemical†† Healing Consumable that you have in hand. If you do so, and then use the Consumable before the end of your turn (or start using it, if it would take longer than a turn), the amount of hit points restored is increased: Any die rolls are maximised, and static values or modifiers are doubled. Additionally, if the item is alchemical, it also counts as magical if it is beneficial to do so.

Note that, unlike most other items you could spend Resonance Points on, Comsuambles do not need to be Invested.†††

_
Aeon Resonance†††† (Feat 6)
[Archetype][Resonate]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication

As a Free Action, you may spend a Resonance Point on an Aeon Stone which is Invested and orbiting you. If you do so, you gain the benefit of its resonant power for the next five minutes (or until it ceases to orbit).

Okay, time to start figuring out some specifics:

_
Resonator Dedication (Feat 1*)
[Archetype][Dedication]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Trained in Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion; Int or Cha +1**

You gain a pool of Resonance Points which can be used to activate Resonate Feats (Feats from this Archetype whose names begin "Resonate"). The number of points in your pool is 12 plus the higher of your Intelligence or Charisma, and gains two additional points for each other Feat you have from this Archetype. You refill the pool back up to its maximum number of points during your daily preparations.

Additionally, you gain one Resonate Feat of your choice, for which you meet the prerequisites.

You may take a second Dedication*** Feat before taking two feats from this Archetype provided the second Archetype is a Class Archetype for a spellcasting class, or is an Archetype which grants spellcasting. If you do so, you must have two additional feats from Resonator, and typically also from the other Archetype, before you can take a third Dedication.

_
Resonate Blasting Rod (Feat 1)
[Archetype]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication

You may Invest one or more Blasting Rods as part of your daily preparations (even though Blasting Rods are not warn). You may make an attack with an Invested Blasting Rod that is held in your hand. The cost is one Resonance Point, unless the Blasting Rod's level is higher than your level, in which case the cost is equal to the difference in levels.

_
Resonate Wand (Feat 1)
[Archetype]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication, ability to cast spells from spell slots

You may Invest one or more Daily**** Wands as part of your daily preparations (even though Wands are not warn). When you have a wand Invested in this way, instead of activating it once per day (or twice by damaging the wand), you activate the wand by spending Resonance Points. There is no limit to how many times you can activate the wand other than the number of points you are willing and able to spend, and you never risk damaging the wand. The cost is one Resonance Point, unless the wand's level is higher than your level, in which case the cost is equal to the difference in levels.

Aside from the Resonance Point cost and number of uses per day, the wand functions as normal.

If anyone else uses a wand you have Invested, it counts as the second daily use (regardless of whether or how many times you have actually used it), and therefore they must roll to see if the wand is broken or destroyed.

_
Resonate Staff (Feat 4)
[Archetype]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication, ability to cast spells from spell slots

When you prepare a Staff as part of your daily preparations, you may also Invest it (even though Staves are not warn). When you have a Staff Invested in this way and Cast a Spell from it, you may spend Resonance Points on the activation in one of two ways:
-If the spell uses charges, it uses a number of charges equal to one third of the spell's Rank (rounded up), rather than equal to the Rank.
-If the spell has an attack roll, you may apply any Weapon Potency Runes on the Staff to the Attack roll (but not any other Runes).
In either case, the cost is one Resonance Point, unless the wand's level is higher than your level, in which case the cost is equal to the difference in levels.

Aside from applying one of the above-described benefits, the Staff functions as normal.

_
Extra Resonance (Feat 6)
[Archetype]
Archetype: Resonator
Prerequisites: Resonator Dedication, Int +1, Cha +1

You add both your Intelligence and Charisma to your Resonance Pool, rather than one or the other (this is in addition to the two extra points you gain because this is a Resonator Archetype feat).

_
Extra Feats: Trick Magic Item, Incredible Investiture

I had another idea, which keeps the wands themselves as they are in PF2, but adds other ways to improve them that are optionally bought into by specific characters. Maybe that will be better received than this idea has been: Behold, the Resonator Archetype.

(Well, a very sketchy first outline of the Resonator Archetype at this point.)

I recently started a couple of threads about making wands in PF2 a bit less rubbish, by changing wands themselves (or more precisely, adding a new kind of wand). The response was...not overwhelmingly positive. Anyway, I had another idea, this time tackling things from the character side rather than the wand side.

Early in the PF2 playtest period, there a concept called Resonance. It was an interesting idea as originally billed, but it could not survive its initial implementation (which was frankly terrible, and did basically none of the things it was supposed to do). It was replaced by the less-ambitious but better-implemented Investment mechanic.

My thought was, what if Resonance was an optional resource you bought into, rather a fundamental mechanic (the good version of Resonance that possibly only existed inside my head). Specifically, you'd have a pool of points refreshed daily, and which you could spend to get more or better use out of wands and other magic items. To use your Resonance on an item, you would need to Invest it, using up one of your ten (even if it was an item that did not normally require Investment).

In the hands of such a character, and Invested wand would cost a Resonance point for each use, but they could keep using it as long as they had points to spend (with no risk of breaking it). If anyone else tried to use the same wand, it would function normally, and doing so would break the Investment for the day. I would like to say that it would also work with other categories of magic items, but I don't have any concrete plans for that (just some tentative ideas for staves and comsumables, which I need to ponder a bit more).

This would probably be a bit much for a single feat, so I am thinking the best way to implement it would be an Archetype, called Resonator. The Dedication would give you the pool and allow you to use it with one category of item. Other feats would expand the pool and open it up to other categories of items.

Since that is not a huge number of feats, I would probably include the existing Incredible Investiture and maybe Trick Magic Item as Archetype feats too.

Obviously, the exact number of points in the pool would be critical. It needs to high enough to be worthwhile, without being so high as to render such items effectively at-will. It should probably scale up a little with level, but not massively (maybe with an Attribute or two).

There should probably also be some restriction on using Resonance on an item that is higher level than you. Maybe you just can't, or maybe you can but it costs extra points based on the level difference.

So, what do you think? Anyone have any ideas about non-wand effects? Any other categories of items which particularly need help?

(Also, is there any precedent for a non-Skill General feat in an Archetype?)

So why can I put fundamental runes on Staves but not Property runes for anyways? What is with that odd restriction for anyways they are already simple staff weapons. Is there a reason why you cannot do this or am I just over thinking such a thing anyways?

I just noticed that yesterday, and I thought it was odd too. It's not like staves are all that great apart from their ability to be used as weapons.

If it was just about shifting it into something else while (as some have speculated) then specifically disallow that.

I would address it to the shifting property description itself. Add something like: "If the weapon has other magical properties or abilities unrelated to its being a weapon, those properties are suppressed while it is not in its natural form (for example, a staff of...)".

Hi Teridax, thanks for responding, and humouring my madness...

The main risk I'd see with a wand having 30 charges and being able to recharge 4 a day is that this could make wand balance quite variable depending on available downtime: with sufficient downtime, you might as well cast that wand spell at-will, and even with no downtime that's 4 free casts of a spell per day.

Sorry I was not clear: That four wands, not four charges. The idea was that you can add as many charges as you like to a Chargeable Wand in that time, as long as you pay for them (up to the max, of course).

They're not free, but at higher levels they are deliberately fairly cheap.

Given that staves can do the same for lower-rank spells, perhaps that could be fine, though I'd probably get annoyed as a GM if a high-level party each got a wand of quandary or the like to casually poof monsters out of existence every fight without dipping into their spell slots.

I need to take another look at the higher level spells! I had not seen quandary - that's pretty cool, and I agree it was bad to have it spammed. Although 32 gp per cast is not nothing, is is massively less than the 1300 gp you'd pay for an 8th-level scroll.

OTOH, I am loathe to abandon the linear charge pricing that works so well with heal and sooth (and direct damage attack spells like fireball, AFIACT).

Maybe I should take a leaf out of PF1's book, and limit it to spells whose base levels are 4 or less. That would include heal and magic missile, while preventing quandary. Now I'm off to have another read through the spell lists....

Anyway, upthread I mentioned the idea of rechargeable wands but sorta brushed past it. That probably deserves it own thread, but I mention it here because part of the idea is that PF1-style charged wands might be convertible to make them rechargeable (possibly by sacrificing some of the charges). Although the differing spell lists would still be an issue.

Threads are up for Chargeable Wands in PF1 and PF2 in their respective Homebrew forums.

So how does making wands rechargeable help? It kinda brings back the PF1 "happy-stick dance" without the elements that made that annoying (ie, the supremacy of low-level wands even at the very highest levels, leading to huge numbers of charges being used). What I am currently thinking is this:

Chargeable wands are "spells in a stick" like PF1 wands were, except that a fully charged wand only has 30 charges. Actually casting a spell from one works like a standard wand, except there is no daily restrictions (there may be a once-per-round restriction). They cost quite a lot up front, but the a significantly less to add charges. Restoring any number of charges takes two hours (you can do four per day if you have nothing better to do).

My grasp on how to price them is less solid than in the PF1 version of this thread, largely because the relationship between rank and wand cost is not obvious to me. But I am leaning towards having the upfront cost the same as a standard magic wand. The cost to recharge would be linear with spell rank (maybe 4 gp per rank - same as a scroll at Rank 1). Because the HP restored per spell rank is linear (at least for heal and soothe), that conveniently keeps the cost per hp consistent across all versions (ignoring the upfront cost).

To charge the wand, you would probably need Magical Crafting, and would definitely need to match the spells level and provide a casting of the spell (from a slot). To make the thing in the first place, you would need all that plus an appropriate formula (and more time/castings, of course).

So what do you think? Any suggestions on price. Any flaws with my cunning plan that I have missed? Anyone want to weigh in on the costs? Any thoughts on a better name for the standard PF2 spell wand than "magic wand" (to differentiate it from this, and in general)?

EDIT: I meant to say, although I have focused on spells which restore hp, I was intending this option to apply to any wands. Are there any spells which would be particularly broken under than paradigm? I guess it would cut across the extremely restricted spells slots that PF2 caster have, but I am not sure how much of a problem I consider that to be!

I came here to make a similar comment: Apparently, there is one more post in the comment thread for the Vorpal Dragon post since I last looked at it (but presumably posted before the upgrade).

The comment thread still shows up in PF2 General, but if you click either the main thread link or the "1 new" it takes you to the blog post itself (which as the OP notes, no longer seems to be connected to its comment thread).

Apologies for the double post, but I just noticed Azothath's last paragraph. I tried to edit a response into my previous post, but the window close just before I could submit.

You should review Full Attack actions as there are several options. This is about one of those, thus debunking 'whenever' in general context.

Once again you include a cryptic final paragraph, and once again I skipped over it initially. And once again, now that I have actually read it, I have no idea what you are getting at. There are "several options" for what?

Debate may not be your forte.

That certainly appears to be the case for one of us!

I have laid out a clear argument for why I think the extra attack from blessing of fervour can be taken at any point during a full attack. You have responded with an unsupported statement that I am "incorrect" and cryptic insinuations that I do not know I am talking about, but no actual counter-arguments.

I won't speak on behalf of exequiel759, as I think they're more than capable of stating their position, but I personally believe it is valid to want Vancian spellcasting to no longer be the default mode of spellcasting, even if it is equally valid to still want Vancian spellcasting as an option and thus not see it excluded.

They did not ask for it to be "not the default" (it already isn't), they asked for it to be "removed":

[...]so I feel vancian should be tweaked or removed in a future edition to streamline it a bit.

That or offer an alternative for those that don't like vancian like I do.

Admittedly they said "tweaked or removed", but given Flexible Spellcaster was deemed inadequate I am confident that "tweaked" was a redundant synonym for "removed" in this case.

They did go on to say "or offer an alternative" but there are already many alternatives (probably more than actually-vancian classes by this point), and they are apparently not good enough.

-----------------

The following (approximately) was an edit to my previous post, but it got eaten. Trying again:

Re wands: IMNSHO, wands are terrible in PF2, with the specific and weird exception of spell you usually only want once per day anyway (like the few remaining all-day buffs). EDIT: I have toyed with the idea of adding back PF1-style 50-charge wands, but that might be a bit of an overcorrection.

Re "Ivory Tower" design: ISTM that, in the article, Monte was using the term to refer to the intersect between not providing much in the way of guidance alongside the rules, and deliberately designing in imbalance. Although ISTM that common usage these days is more about the latter (even though the term itself is more suggestive of the former).

Anyway, whatever you call it, deliberately designing in imbalance is a bad idea, because it will always be on top of the imbalance you design in accidentally. When they were designing in 3e, they thought that if they aimed for say a 20% imbalance, they would end up with 20% imbalance. But instead they ended up with 20000%.

If you want 20% imbalance in a system as complicated as D&D or Pathfinder, you have to fight tooth and nail to get eliminate as much imbalance as possible.

Everyone wants [vancian magic to be killed off], though.

I promise you, "everyone" does not want that. For example, I don't.

Presumably someone thinks this is actually a good idea. Since it's definitely not better for small conventions, process of elimination means there must be a benefit at large ones, right?

The benefits are pretty obvious: The scenarios are easier to write because there is less/no need for multiple statblocks fr the same encounter (and probably a little easier to read for the same reason). And there will never be a situation where a level 1 character gets stuck with a bunch of level 4s and cannot really contribute much.

It's just that that last situation is being traded for the table not firing at all.

Hence my "let's wait and see" stance.

Your stance has not been "wait & see". You have been actively defending the decision to the point of making up reasons it will be okay that directly contradict the announcement. And here's the thing: A couple of months of no tables firing could easily kill off a small lodge - by the time they can say "I told you so" it will be much too late.

If the PFS leadership has further information that will cast this announcement in a different light, then by all means they can provide it. Unless and until they do, I am going to assume that they meant exactly what they said. Unless we kick up enough of a fuss that they change direction, what they have announced is what is going to happen, and a lot of lodges will be gone.

I am not sure it is possible to kick up enough fuss to make the PFS leadership take note (they didn't re clerics of gorum, or oracles), but assuming everything is going to be fine based on nothing is not doing anyone (including the PFS leadership) any favours.

Let's have a little dream and imagine there is a level 7-8 scenario with additional rules to include a level 9 PC.

Why are we dreaming about a 3-level band when they have explicitly announced that it will be a 2-level band.

Something I do not understand : why do people think the 2-levels band will be better for big conventions than the current system ?

I don't think anyone thinks it will be better for big conventions; only that it will not be worse, or at least not as much worse as it will be for smaller cons and game days.

Personally, I will take "legible" over "beautiful" every day of the week.

glass wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

But the thing is, when someone tells you they're reading and having internal discussions about it, you still don't believe them.

Has anyone said that? If so, please link it so I can decide how much I actually believe it. If not, why bring it up?

???

It's the seventh post above yours (by James Jacobs)...

Our favourite dinosaur is of course great. But the post you refer to says nothing about PFS, which is not surprising because AFAIK he is not part of the PFS team. Which makes the reference to it rather unsatisfying, when it comes in response to my saying this:

Nobody is asking for a "debate" - only that PFS team acknowledge that the changes are unpopular (and preferably reverse them).

EDIT: I get that we are on Paizo's own forums, and there are some passionate fans of the company here. But trying to shut down criticism does not help Paizo - if anything, it hurts them.

But the thing is, when someone tells you they're reading and having internal discussions about it, you still don't believe them.

Has anyone said that? If so, please link it so I can decide how much I actually believe it. If not, why bring it up?

Paizo learned long ago, the hard way, not to come and debate with irate posters.

Nobody is asking for a "debate" - only that PFS team acknowledge that the changes are unpopular (and preferably reverse them).

Also, characterising people who are unhappy with the announced changes as "irate" when it has been remarkably calm considering is not cool.

glass wrote:

Souls At War wrote:

Some of us already pointed out it should help with internal consistency

People have claimed that, but I am not sure I buy it. How should it help?

ISTM, consistency or lack thereof in APs has more to do with how they are written and edited than how they are published.

Because spreading them out over 6 or 3 months means that the individual chapters are all in various stages of development at any given time. With publishing as a single volume, all individual parts will need to be in roughly the same stage of development so that the lead person can edit the whole thing at once instead of in pieces spread out over time.

-Skeld

Yes, but publishing them over 3 or 6 months does not force them to spread the writing over 3 or 6 months. They could theoretically write it in exactly the same way they will be going forward, and then just hold onto the later parts for longer.

Although admittedly, it is psychologically easier to get something done in a certain time frame if you have a genuine hard deadline. Plus there is the longer period between paying the writer and selling the product, which I had not considered before. So, fair enough.

Some of us already pointed out it should help with internal consistency

People have claimed that, but I am not sure I buy it. How should it help?

ISTM, consistency or lack thereof in APs has more to do with how they are written and edited than how they are published.

Planescape doesn't have Time elementals.

"Chronomancer", a non-Planescape D&D supplement, does.

Chronomancer had time dimensionals, like Pathfinder apparently does.

Dragon78 wrote:

I still think cantrips should do more damage. Instead of 1d3 to 1d6, it would be 1d6 to 1d10. Also wish all spells(and SP/SU abilities) that do HP damage or heal HP damage would get the casting stat mod added to damage done/healed.

I get wanting that, but you also have to understand that the cantrips had already been infinitely buffed, as they used to have the same kinds of limit per day as all other spells.

Regardless of whether they were even worse in 3.5, PF1 attack cantrips are still a terrible use of a standard action at all but the lowest levels. And yet they still take up character sheet space and mental bandwidth.

The AP part...feels a bit weird, but makes sense.

The PFS part...ick. I sometimes wonder about getting back into PFS, but every time I do Paizo manages to dissuade me almost immediately.

(If anyone is curious, the last time was was the Clerics-of-Gorum debacle.)

Xenocrat wrote:

Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.

I just wish we had called it something else like "mark" instead. As in "you have decided to pay specific attention to that enemy." I hate, hate, hate the idea of "you can draw enemy aggro with an ability that controls them" in a game like this.

Mark would have been a better name, but I understand why they kept clear of that - given the Guardian already sounds very much like the 4e Fighter, giving its signature ability a name associated with 4e would have been something they wanted to avoid (both for legal reasons, and because a lot of PF fans hated 4e).

You don't have to be in the bounded caster "camp" to understand or appreciate that clearly others find value in it and can accurately self identify that they would enjoy it more than the current available options.

Great post! I don't have a strong opinion on this specific case (partly because I don't know what "bounded caster"* means). But I am strongly of the opinion that people get to want what they want, and other people do not get to tell them they are wrong to want it (within reason of course - we are talking about elfgame content not human-rights violations).

And yet, people on the Internet will tell other people that they should not want what they want all the time. Less often in real life, but still too often IMNSHO. Wrongbadfun must be policed!

(* Although I am now wondering if it is another term for "wave caster")

I don't want to massively derail here, but could you all expand just a little on the problems of D&D 5.5? What do you mean by "lowest common denominator"? Is 5.5 the same as the rather poorly named D&D One I've been hearing about?

Without getting into the edition warring: Yes, "5.5" and "D&D One" both refer to the same (current) edition of D&D, also known as "5.24" (with the original 5e edition being retroactively dubbed 5.14).

"D&D One" was WotC's code name used during development, and the other two names are community applied. AIUI the finished version is officially just 5e, as WotC are trying to pretend it is not a new edition (it totally is, of course).

I cannot speak in detail about 5.5 because it is the first edition since I started in the late 80s where I have not even bought the PHB (partly because I do not like what D&D has become, and partly because I do not like what WotC/Hasbro have become). But my impressions is that compared with 5.0, it contains a huge volume of small changes with really fixing anything significant.

If it's the same spreadsheet I used early on, then it was written when pathfinder was still mostly 3.5

I wonder if it is actually the same one.

How can I describe it? It uses a lot of very tiny cells and merges them a lot, which makes it kinda hard to edit (which has not stopped me hacking it a fair amount over the years). The font is generally Goudy Old Style, except for the character's name which is Freestyle Script. Labels like "BAB" are white text on black (I would comment on the other colours, but I think I have changed some of them over the years).

A friend emailed it to me, sufficiently long enough ago that I have forgotten exactly how long. Possibly during the playtest era. I don't know where they got it from.

Now I am wondering: Can anyone remember if they Alpha or Beta of PF1 still doubled the ACP for Swim?

Thanks folks. I've been doing that wrong for nearly sixteen years. Although TBF I do not think I have ever had a heavily armoured character need to make a swim check, so it hasn't made that much difference.

In my defence, part of the reason I thought that was that the Excel character sheet I have been using doubles the ACP, so whoever created that sheet made the mistake first.

I have, for the last decade plus, been convinced that the ACP was doubled for the Swim skill. But I just went looking for it and I cannot find it.

So, as the title says, did I imagine it?

(And if not, where is the rule?)

If you weren't considering Tyrant's Grasp, definitely do that one. Just make sure you play Carrion Crown first.

I liked the idea of Tyrant's Grasp when I first heard about it, but then I heard some things that put me off. Nothing concrete (since I try to avoid spoilers), but the impression that I got by nerd-cultural osmosis that it has a downer ending: More like a WFRP adventure than what I would normally expect from Pathfinder.

Without going into details, is that impression broadly correct? And if so, how easy is it to tweak it to be less Warhammer-ish?

(There is also the factor that there are already 8.5 APs still to play mentioned in my post, which could easily keep me going for the next two decades.)

If you do play Wrath of the Righteous, take your time with it and if you do use the Mythic Rules, definitely consider using Mythic Solutions to tone down the Mythic stuff a bit.

Yeah, if I do ever end up doing WotR, I would definitely look at tweaking the mythic rules. Whether I would go with exactly Legendary's tweaks or not I would decide nearer the time.

But if I had to pick one reason, I would have to go with the all the PF1 APs I have not played or run yet.

To expand a little, we are currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne and Savaged Tide*, and have Strange Aeons and Return of the Runelords lined up to go after (technically we started the latter a while back, but we decided we had too many things on the go and parked it until after CotCT). We have already completed Age of Worms*, Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, and the original unnamed 3.0 Adventure Path (sometimes called the "Sunless Citadel" AP).

Beyond that, there are a bunch of PF1 APs that I would love to play/run/both one day: Carrion Crown, Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous, Mummy's Mask, Iron Gods, and Ruins of Azlant.

While some of the PF2 APs look fun (including Abomination Vaults, which I am running currently, and Quest for the Frozen Flame and Stolen Fate which I picked up in the recent Humble Bundle), none of them grab me in the same way the best of PF1 do. With the possible exception of Strength of Thousands. EDIT: Part of it might be that I like full-length APs, and Paizo pretty much abandoned them at about the time they might otherwise have been hitting their stride. Even the upcoming fourth Runelords AP is apparently going to be half length.

(* 3.5 AP but played in PF1, converting on the fly. After the first chapter, in the case of AoW.)

Although I do play and run other systems (including PF2), there are a number of reasons why PF1 remains my primary system: It is partly historical accident and inertia, partly that I now know the system really well, and partly that I have a lot of material for it (including all my 3.x stuff with minimal tweaking, and a decent amount of homebrew).

But if I had to pick one reason, I would have to go with the all the PF1 APs I have not played or run yet.

Last month we wrapped up the Path of Ashardalon (the original 3.0 Adventure Path, although converted to PF1, mostly on the fly).

We started it at the end of March 2022, so it has been taken just over three years. We were interleaving it with Savage Tide, although we focused on PoA a bit more towards the end to get it done. We still have a fair way to go with Savage Tide: We have rotated back to and will be focusing on it for a bit.

We will also be rotating back to CotCT (from the out-of-scope AbV) soon in my other session, so get to take a break from GMing and play for a bit!

I support Paizo's decision to not grandfather in characters that new players are absolutely gated out from.

That excuse would hold more water if every other class in the game (apart from a subset of clerics), which is equally unavailable to new players, was not being grandfathered in. And honestly, if new players having all the options of older players was the real concern, they should leave the old options available for everyone. I understand why they do not want to do that, but pulling the rug from under existing players is not the way to fix it.

And pulling said rug from under a small (but not that small) subset of existing players is IMNSHO worse than pulling it from everyone.

And I say all that as (effectively) a new player myself. Although I played a lot of PFS1 back in the day, I have played two whole sessions of PFS2, both with pregens, and have no instantiated PFS2 characters to lose.

And I am a little sad that I did not get an old-school* wizard played before the cutoff, but I didn't and that's on me. Other people losing out do not make me feel better about that, they make me feel worse! Both because I have basic empathy, and because if I do get back into PFS** it could affect me next time!

_
* Pun very much intended. Always intend you puns!
** Which I have been wanting to do lately, although stuff like this is giving me pause.

There was a generic supplement put out by Wizards of the Coast called Primal Order that had a system for deities. This was a long time ago before they acquired the rights to D&D. It was not game specific and could work with any game system. They had rules for adapting it to most of the game systems that were out at the time.

More recently (but still a long time ago), and more-directly compatible, there was also the 3e Deities and Demigods. That (with tweaks) is probably what I would use if I was going to deify PCs in a game.

Back in the day we had a D&D system colloquially known as BECMI, that is Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal. Yes, there were actual rules on how to become Immortal (god) and god-level play. Paths to Immortality summarized here.

AIUI, the BECMI stuff was highly inconsistent as to whether immortals the local name for gods, or a separate thing distinct from them (IIRC one of the adventures even had immortals getting into trouble for impersonating gods IIRC).

Also, seems odd to complicate the PFS1 system of leveling after 3 scenarios by adding an XP award when it all comes out to the same effect. 3 sessions = a level is simple and straightforward.

There are several things in PFS1 that give fractional XP, so they multiplied all the numbers so everything in PFS2 is a natural number. I really don't think that made things less straight-forward.

I'm with you on missing the PDF though.

Maybe there will be errata to corral it some.

I have not been paying attention to recent errata: Is "corral it some" something we can expect from errata these days? If so, that would be a welcome change from the PF1 days, when the approach to errata was more "nuke the site from orbit".

Summoning the Oliphaunt is... probably not a good idea. Be careful what you wish for. :-)

It does say "a manifestation of..." which doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, but its not the actual Oliphaunt itself AFAICT.

William Ronald wrote:

So, will the mythic rules be used at all in Pathfinder Society? I imagine that we will hear soon about what will be sanctioned from the book.

Unlikely, though there might be specific scenarios that allow PCs to dabble in mythic in a limited, controlled manner - there was a two-parter module for 1e PFS that did something along those lines, if I recall...

Three-parter: Destiny of the Sands. IIRC, you only got to be Mythic for the last part.

That kind of thing (except hopefully more than once) is the only way Mythic-in-PFS can really work IMNSHO. Well, unless Mythic ends up so popular that they do a whole parallel campaign for it, but that seems...unlikely.

glass wrote:

(the other is Abomination Vaults, but obviously that is outside the scope of this thread.

I was going to ask "how come?" and then realized this is supposed to be for PF1 campaigns.

Meanwhile I've been posting about using a non-Pathfinder system, but using PF1 PFS scenarios to create the campaign soooo.... I'm just gonna keep posting my updates every once in awhile anyways :)

I think if you're using PF1 adventures with a different system (or vice versa), that's close enough for government work. Whereas AbV is neither designed for PF1 nor being run with it.

I, at least, would be like to keep hearing about what you're doing....

On Sundays, we finished "Deep Horizon" a couple of weeks ago and agreed to continue on to "Lord of the Iron Fortress" in that campaign, rather than rotating back to Savage Tide.

On Thursdays, we rotated back to Curse of the Crimson Throne a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, two of the players (a couple) who had been sharing a single PC for a while decided they wanted to go back to having one each. But in the meantime, another player joined, so now we have seven PCs (plus an Eidolon and a Cohort). Things are getting a bit crowded!

I cannot remember if I mentioned that we were starting Return of the Runelord, but having done so we have mostly decided to park it until we were done with CotCT. So we only have two campaigns in rotation in Thursday rather than three, and so can spend a little longer on each (the other is Abomination Vaults, but obviously that is outside the scope of this thread.

I honestly don't get what makes this ambiguous. A combat maneuver requires an attack roll. An attack roll succeeds on a natural 20. Where is the grey area?

My thoughts exactly.

Of thing mentioned already, I am currently running "The Sunless Citadel" and its sequels (up to "Deep Horizon" so far) - although I would barely count it as a conversion. For stuff I cannot pull from the Bestiary, I mostly just use the 3.0 stats as they, and work out CMB/D if they are required. Sometimes I give them an extra feat or two, but I don't always bother.

I have not run The Enemy Within or Night Below yet, but I have both and would like to run them one day in a more recent system (possibly PF1). Since the level ranges about work out, I am toying with the idea of making a campaign of Night Below and The Rod of Seven Parts back to back.

The two Giff races (Githyanki,Githzerai) are really more about backstory than anything else.

I know this was a while ago, but AFAICT nobody else picked up on it: Githyanki and githzerai are gith not Giff.

Giff are something else entirely (firearm-obsessed hippo people from Spelljammer).

I had a few ideas for my previous rolls but obviously nothing quite came together. Plus it is about time this thread got a bump, so lets roll some more.

Lets see if this works....
1d100 ⇒ 36 Samsaran
1d100 ⇒ 21 Changeling (hag kin)
1d100 ⇒ 92 Construct based (make your own)
1d100 ⇒ 77 Flumph
1d100 ⇒ 11 Drow

Bonus sixth roll:

1d100 ⇒ 50 Faun

EDIT: Not sure if I'll do anything with those any more than the last set, but they do look quite interesting. If I do, I'll probably sub the faun in for the drow since they are the least interesting roll (not to mention the other issues with drow).

Unless I am misunderstanding, Snake Style only triggers if they miss you. Otherwise, you just gave them free damage for no gain. So for this to be viable, you need to make your opponents miss most of the time - how are you planning to ensure that?

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).

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.

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.