A big issue is that most actions require the firearm to be loaded, then leave you with an unloaded gun at the start of your turn.
Risky Reload lets you reload and strike, but you have to fire the reloaded round, so you can't use it to be ready for a Reaction outside your turn. Maybe changing this to allow reloading and striking in any order?
Hum, let's see.
This seems to be ruined by reloading. Firearm damage doesn't scale with level, and even increased chance of crits is lost when by default you can only make 1-2 attacks per round because of the need to reload. The fact that if your final action isn't to reload then you can't use any reactions is the icing on the cake.
Also, "the previous day" isn't really suitable for non-magical items.
Blast Lock: Aargh! Will you please stop creating class feats that just provide rules for doing things without any explanation for why others cannot do them. This feat implies that any Gunslinger who doesn't choose this feat can't shoot a lock open.
Looney Tunes: "Rebounding Assault": you throw a sword at the opponent then shoot the sword so it bounces back to you. "Black Powder Boost": you run and shoot your gun behind you to speed yourself forward with the recoil. "Deflecting Shot": you shoot someone else's bullet out of the air. "Redirecting shot": you shoot your ally's bullet back onto course! I can't see how these can work without screwing up any serious feel in a battle, especially when juxtaposed with guns, which are classically seen as scary exploding death sticks by fantasy characters.
For instance, as a paladin, if an evil king asked you if you’re hiding refugees so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet against lying is less important than preventing harm to innocents.
This turns out not to be true, though. While the Paladin tenet "you must act with honor.." is the third most important, the general tenet "Do not perform acts that are anathema.." is the single most important one.
A Lawful Good champion must follow Erastil, Iomedae, or Torag, all of whom have anathema against telling lies in some form (although Iomedae calls this "dishonour yourself")
So in fact, a Paladin who lies about hiding refugees is not violating the Paladin code, but they are violating the first tenet of Good by performing Anathema to their deity, which is certainly not OK.
(This has some other weird effects as well, such as followers of Cayden Cailean technically being required to prioritise not wasting alcohol over preventing harm to innocents!)
- Battledancer: fascinating performance gives 1 hour immunity.
So it seems that Battledancer and Braggart are very seriously limited compared to the others, since they can basically only gain panache a number of times in an encounter equal to the number of targets. Braggart gets an advance that can remove this, but it's only undoing a disadvantage.
Also, do you have to use these abilities on the same enemy you target? It seems a bit strange to gain Panache against the boss by taunting his minion who's 30 feet away.
"This brand can’t be hidden, but it is visible only to followers of your faith, who see it as clearly as a lit torch."
"A torch sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius (and Dim Light to the next 20 feet)."
This seems to imply:
That's exactly the thing, though. A feat is not just a handy way of providing rules for a particular activity. If they want to do that, that's cool, they can do that, and PF2e even gives a nice way to do it - a standard action.
A feat implies that a PC must take it and give up something else in order to do it, and that those PCs who don't take it can't do it. (It's by no means a Pathfinder unique problem. Even some of those indie games "with GM resolution" make this mistake.)
I mean, these aren't too bad, but it's the fear that it trends towards the D&D 3.5e thing where you needed a feat to throw sand in an opponent's eyes while fighting in the desert. Again the motivation was probably the same - rules for doing a nifty and relevant thing that for some reason were presented as a feat, thus making it a gated build choice.
The problem with No Cause for Alarm isn't that it's narrow, it's that the dissonance of the Frightened condition means that now there are two kinds of fear, one which you can just calm people down from by talking to them in the normal way and the other which has a status effect and can only removed if you have a feat to let you to.. talk to them.
Recently I learned about a nifty tool called TiddlyWiki which builds local single-file wikis with database features.
I wondered about using this to create a PF2 reference document that could not only act as a traditional AoN style reference but also deal with some automatic reference resolution and indexing, and it turns out it works great.
You can see the development here https://github.com/hyphz/PF2TiddlyWiki/ or the preview version here https://github.com/hyphz/PF2TiddlyWiki/releases/tag/Preview . Currently I have most of the general feats, but only the Alchemist class and a subsection of spells.
Is this an interesting thing to continue developing and is anyone interested in helping transcribe? (Because I'm trying to also break up the text blocks and link intelligently, simply scraping AoN doesn't provide content alone without inspecting it as well.)
Well, that's where it gets confusing. Doublespeak doesn't say "you can say any old ****"; as written, you can't even say "We'll agree that when I shout 'spoon' I'm going to throw a fireball" because that is disguising your meaning by relying on shared experience.
I don't know about monetization. What it seems is that there is a temptation to use a Feat to provide a rules description of how to resolve a particalar thing.
So, looking through some sections in the APG, they're reflecting trends in development that seem to be very negative - and undoing a number of the improvements in Pathfinder 2e compared to 1e and 3.5e D&D.
Feat Creep! Some of the APs were already pushing this, with PCs being unable to learn an organization's internal language unless they took a Feat, no matter how much time they spent with them. Now, without a feat, they cannot speak in innuendo (Doublespeak), estimate the numbers of objects (Eye for Numbers), read upside down (Glean Contents), take extra time to search as they travel (Thorough Search), consult with an underground guild they are a member of (Underground Network), or calm people down (No Cause for Alarm), even if they are legendary in the related skills.
Yes, there's cause for alarm.. On the topic of that feat.. what the heck is the deal here? It's harder to use on targets with a better will DC. Plus, it contains a big abstraction break. One of the problems with the Frightened condition is that a character who is frightened doesn't necessarily have it (you don't gain Frightened if you're on 2HP and a dragon is bearing down on you), so the use of this feat implies that there are two kinds of fear; regular fear that someone can be talked down from without a feat, and the actual Frightened condition which does require a feat. This is really awkward to visualise.
Weak Feats Concealing Legerdemain - who's really going to train Thievery but not Stealth?
.. Oh, and class features too You have to be a member of a particular class to give someone a bonus by sharing information with them (Clue In)..
"If you’re a Bard Casting a Spell from the Occult tradition while holding a musical instrument, you can play that instrument to replace any material, somatic, or verbal components the spell requires by using the instrument as a Focus component instead. Cast a Spell gains the Auditory trait if you make this substitution."
The Auditory trait states:
"An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it."
It is unusual for Cast a Spell to gain the Auditory trait, only for the spell itself to gain the Auditory trait.
It is obvious that the Bard must be able to produce the sound (of the instrument) in order to cast a spell. But does this also imply that the spell does not work on a creature that can't hear it?
Page 304: Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
Does this imply that a character who is Controlled can choose to refuse these spells, even if they cannot choose their actions? (Because "Controlled" is just part of "their character's condition")
Page 353: The action to resist a Moon Frenzy has the Rage trait. An action with the Rage trait can normally only be used when raging. The text above says that the user cannot use any Concentrate action unless it also has Rage, but it does not explicitly say that the target counts as raging and can use Rage actions. Do they? (Ie, can a Barbarian use their other actions with the Rage trait while in Moon Frenzy?)
The trick is that Sneak is usually used for movement, but the text on spells doesn't say the trigger has to relate to movement. It just says that a Sneak check fools an Auditory sensor, which isn't how the move works at any other time.
Also, is there any answer on Alarm? It seems a bit problematic otherwise, because although Alarm might not be that dangerous, someone can potentially avoid any possibility of a spell being stealthed by casting Alarm, specifying the auditory option, then casting their actual spell with the trigger of "when the Alarm bell rings".
Per page 305, it is possible to hide from a spell's trigger that uses visual detection, and a "Stealth check to Sneak" can fool an auditory sensor.
This begs a ton of questions, I'm afraid:
* Does this apply only to spells, or to any triggered effect - in particular, Readied actions?
* When "Sneaking" to fool an auditory sensor, does this refer to the usual Sneak performed as part of a move action, or is it a special case of Sneaking used to specifically hide ambient sound (eg, breathing) that might trigger the spell?
* The spell "Alarm" refers to detecting creatures in the area, but does not have the Auditory or Visual traits nor describe this as a trigger. Does this mean it cannot be snuck past? Are characters aware of which spells this applies to?
The Veil spell has the following text for Heightening:
"The spell also disguises the targets’ voices and scents; it gains the auditory trait."
This seems to be a mistake, because gaining the Auditory trait actually has the effect of making the spell ineffective against those who cannot hear. (n other words, an observer who could see the target but not hear them would be immune to a heightened Veil with the Auditory trait, but not to a non-heightened one with only the Visual trait.
In addition, it does retain the Visual trait, meaning that someone who can only hear the target speak but not see them instantly detects that the voice is not who it sounds like.
This is obviously a mistake arising from the fact that PF2 has no way of creating an "or" relationship between traits instead of an "and" relationship. Perhaps it should be worded as ".. it loses the Visual trait"?
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I'm interested by the claim it doesn't. The idea is that if the PCs are levelling more slowly, they will eventually be facing encounters meant for PCs of higher level (this is assuming they're playing APs) which will be harder, to counter the substantial advantage of having more PCs and more actions per round.
Because the interaction of those PCs with the others was much more complex than could be resolved by that. Simply adding extra mooks tended to just result in the party tank going down more often rather than the extra PCs being affected.
I did, but we're playing the AoA AP. It's the designers giving those combinations of elemental resistances.
Yea, this is a pretty bizarre thing to say. But it's also true as far as I can tell, unfortunately.
Let me begin by saying that I actually love the PF2e system. But I'm increasingly feeling that it's a good system that just doesn't allow for people being people.
First of all, we lost two players who could only attend intermittently. We had a group of four and then these extra two players who couldn't always come, and in most previous systems that wasn't a problem, because we'd just divide XP and gold by 6 instead of 4 in the sessions where they arrived to compensate. This would make the party relatively weaker to compensate for the extra PCs making encounters easier.
In PF2e, however, I either have to use the 1000 xp rule or milestone levelling, and so every encounter has to be rescaled if there are more players. So rather than prepare two versions of every encounter I had to beg those two players to try and tell me when they were coming. This came to a head when they unexpectedly arrived when I'd only prepped encounters for the group of 4, and so I gave them NPCs to play instead. Needless to say they weren't very happy at the surprise welcome and decided the game was no longer worth the trip. 2 down.
Now we are getting into very high level play, and our main party damage dealer has a ton of elemental damage runes on his picks and repeatedly uses them in combinations intended to fish for critical hits. Unfortunately, enemies also tend to have complex elemental resistances and immunities too. The game slowed down dramatically due to us having to calculate the damage ultimately dealt by every one of the 4+ elemental components of every one of his 6+ attacks per round, and when I asked if he could set up a Roll20 macro to speed things up, he instead quit the game saying he wasn't expected to be a programmer and he wasn't necessarily enjoying just ending every encounter anyway.
So we're now approximating the loss of half the players because of PF2e's relative lack of tolerance for social error or circumstances. Maybe it's just like communism - one of those good ideas that fails when exposed to real people.
Hmm. Fair enough. I'd assumed that "ignoring it" meant, as you said, that you can behave as if the wall wasn't there.
This does seem to make Prismatic Wall a rather weak spell for its level, though. A level 5 wall of stone is more flexibly placeable (although 10' less tall), also blocks everything both ways, can't be passed through at all (rather than being able to be passed through with some damage and save) and can't be dispelled.
Yea, it takes either a Level 10 Dispel Magic or the series of other spells.
(I notice that very few NPCs or monsters have this capability, potentially making it a fast win for PCs in certain battles.)
But there's still the big question of whether or not your own spells, missiles, etc. pass through the wall because you can "ignore its effects".
Both regarding Prismatic Wall, on p360.
"The wall as a whole is immune to counteracting effects of the wall’s level or lower; each color must be counteracted by its specific spell, as described in chromatic wall."
Does the semicolon indicate a counterpoint, that is, that the wall as a whole can be countered by a Dispel Magic of higher level than the wall? Or does it indicate that (unlike Chromatic Wall) each of the spells cast to dispel colors of the wall must be higher level than the wall?
"You can pass through the wall and ignore its effects."
Is "blocking stuff" one of its effects for this purpose, ie, it does not block your spells?
This makes sense in the fiction, but makes the encounter a bit difficult to deal with, since it becomes two powerful NPCs largely fighting each other.
In addition, it states that when Mengkare does allow the PCs to state their cases, he starts at doubt 0 and the arguments about Emaliza and the Orb are unavailable. There are only 8 other arguments listed so the PCs cannot actually convince Mengkare not to fight unless they roll a crit on every one.
Plus, there's the issue of them doing what my PCs seem to have actually managed to do, which is to just do a runner with the Anima Invocation!
Yea, I realized this shortly after posting. In fact it's almost the other way around; the main citadel floor, with the "1 square to 20 feet" ratio, seems way too big! Mengkare, being Gargantuan, only occupies a single square; you could fit 4 dragons through the main door!
I have run into a bit more of a problem, though. The text states that if Emaliza is present when Mengkare is encountered, she will attempt to control him each round with the orb, and he will try to "destroy her before the orb incapacitates him" and that for each shard the PCs have brought with them it gains +1 to its save DC.
The base save DC for the orb is DC 30 Will with a -4 penalty to the Save roll for Gold dragons. But Mengkare's Will save is +42 - +38 against the orb with the penalty. This means that if the PCs did not bring any shards then Mengkare cannot fail unless he rolls a 1 and cannot not crit unless he rolls a 2. If the PCs did bring all the possible shards from the archive to Emaliza (the book does not mention also bringing Kyrion's Shard) then Mengkare has to roll 1-4 to fail. Since Emaliza only gets 3 shots with the orb, this makes it very likely that all three will fail.
So the orb has almost no chance of actually incapacitating Mengkare, and even if it does, she can only incapacitate him for 10 minutes before she's fatigued, and during that time she has to spend an action each round sustaining the activation, meaning that she can cast a spell or move but not both.
In other words, what's almost certainly going to happen is that she hits the dragon with the orb once, it fails, and then she grins sheepishly as Mengkare shreds her. If she does successfully incapacitate Mengkare then she has to fight the PCs with no short-time buffs and no access to some of her best spells, which isn't going to go well. Oh, and if she persuades the PCs to attack the dragon, then their hostile action breaks the stun and see above.
Is this really intended or is Emaliza's use of the orb supposed to be fiated into something a lot more threatening than it would be as written?
Several monsters are listed as having "Motion sense", including an extremely dangerous encounter on the Age of Ashes Adventure Path.
But the only description of motion sense is a single line on page 254 of the Bestiary, under the "Sewer Ooze", which is the first creature with this ability.
It does not even mention whether or not Motion Sense is an imprecise, precise or vague sense. There is no default given in the main rulebook and the sense doesn't have (imprecise) after it. For monsters with no vision this is potentially a big deal - if they have only imprecise senses then everything they do has a 50% miss chance due to Hidden status, which dramatically changes their balance.
Plus, we don't know what motions it can sense. Is it just Move actions, or can it sense lips moving to speak, chests moving to breathe, heartbeats? All make a massive difference to strategy.
And another surprise discovery.
Dear lord. With illusory disguise at will she can be a right PITA to the PCs once she's on to them, and with level 9 elevated Charm at DC 40 it's even worse. The first time the PCs confronted her in the salt warehouse, she simply charmed them all in one spell and they gave up their suspicions of her. I assumed that she wouldn't be able to interfere with the Council of Guilds, but still, she can do a ton of damage behind the scenes by throwing DC 40 Suggestions at other locals and guild masters. Has anyone done much with her?
So, things I've encountered so far.
1. It is not clear if flying is on the list of "enchantments that would make a contest unsporting" in the gladiator arena. I initially assumed it would be, since gladiator matches aren't supposed to have people flying around (and having it would make the Solfugid fight trivial) but Bshek has a Potion of Flying. I assumed she wouldn't use it, or would only use it to cheat in case of last resort, but it seems a bit awkward.
2. Page 39, Mekrem's asset went to the "Auctioneer's Guild". There is no Auctioneer's Guild listed earlier in the chapter and since the point of this section in the adventure is to influence the guilds this seems a significant omission. I eventually fudged it that the auction house was actually run by the Barrister's Guild, but I'm surprised this slipped through.
3. There are no details on how the slaves are transported in secret from the Red Pyramid to the Manor which created a problem with the PCs originally decided to intercept the convoy.
4. In the Heist section, there is no description of what happen if the PCs fail many of the obstacles. Like, for Do I know you? and they miss the Overcome roll, what actually happens? Do they just get a series of trials to talk to this one person?
5. Diviner On Duty: the overcome for this seems a bit bizarre. Why is the security diviner somewhere in the manor where she can be fed random food by strangers? But more importantly, what does she actually do if she sees through a scheme?
6. At 25 Awareness, with the bit about "waves of guards in pursuit of the PCs", but with things like Elemental Form and a Bag of Holding with breathing aids, area effect spells, and a ludicrously minmaxed pick fighter, waves of relatively mundane or underspecced mage guards were seen as no threat. The PCs ultimately just sacked the entire manor after they were discovered.
And done. Veshumerix is also a bit underwhelming. Not sure why the dragon encounter has to be on the other side of some stone walls which the dragon can't fit through (other than possibly at difficult / greater difficult terrain) but which contain obvious arrow slits.
Also, the "lack of spells for monsters" thing is very awkward when the dragon can't - say - threaten to go and scorch Kovlar if the PCs don't stop shooting it, without leaving its hoard undefended.
The description of regeneration includes the statement that "[the creature's] dying condition never increases beyond dying 3 as long as its regeneration is active".
This is a bit unusual since normally, a monster would not go through the Dying process at all, just dying at 0 HP.
In a recent session I assumed that regenerating monsters did go through the same process, which resulted in a bit of confusion; a PC downed a monster and made it Dying 1. In its turn it regenerated which gave it hit points so it was no longer dying. The next round, it was downed again (to Dying 2/Wounded 1) and then hit with a magic effect to shut down its regeneration, which killed it because of Wounded 1.
However, the next one was downed directly and became Dying 1. The caster immediately hit it with its weak element again and assumed this would kill the enemy immediately but because it wasn't wounded this time, it actually just made it Dying 2 and not able to regenerate for a round. So in order to actually kill it, two other PCs had to hit it that round to take it through Dying 3-4 before the end of the round when the regeneration block would shut off and it would return to having hit points! This made a fairly big difference to the action economy. Is it correct?
This is true for *prerequisites*, as the text states that "if you cease to meet the prerequisites for an ability due to retraining, you can't use that ability."
But that doesn't help with this issue, because the skill bonus choices from a Dedication feat are not described as having prerequisites.
Also, the choice of the word "abilities" is awkward as many choices are not abilities. For example, by RAW a character could take Alchemist Dedication and Basic Concoction, then retrain Alchemist Dedication but keep their Alchemist feat. Although Basic Concoction has a prerequisite, the Alchemist feat they took does not; and Basic Concoction's text "You gain an Alchemist feat" isn't an ability but a one-off event that already happened in the past. That's probably too pedantic, but it reflects a potential problem and implies that Dedication feats might not have been thought through with respect to retraining (and a number of other subsystems too)
This doesn't sound like a reasonable interpretation, but again, what's needed is some official clarification. As written it is possible to use retraining to build characters that could not have been built by the standard process, which does make a certain amount of sense in-character, in that a person who decides to focus their practice on one thing instead of another is not the same person as someone who focused on the second thing to begin with.
Just did the fight with Embermead, but it was a bit of a damp squib.
The text states that the door to area 12 is iron and barricaded with "a ton of rubble". One of our PCs, however, simply used the high-grade adamantine pick from the earlier mine area to smash through the door and then dig through the rubble at high speed. This did alert Embermead who cast several buffs on herself, then threw a Blade Barrier between herself and the approaching party.
Unfortunately things then broke down as the fighter PC who had done the digging simply backed off, leaving Embermead there, and just waited. Since she has nothing to do in the room she's in, they could just wait for her to either leave and walk into the party's attacks after her buffs ran out, or stay there and starve, or move around in the temple for no real reason.
It's unfortunate that mos tmajor encounters in AoA have avoided this problem so far by including something that the main enemy was doing or that needed to be stopped to require the PCs to act, but it doesn't seem to be present here and that's a bit of a problem.
He actually took Thievery as a trained skill at character generation at level 1. Thus, he was retraining that choice, not the one made at Rogue Dedication.
I completely understand the viewpoint of posters here, but it does not seem to have support in the book. It says only that you cannot make a choice you could not have made at the time of the original selection; not that all your future choices are then reconsidered in the light of the new choice. Although that makes sense, it is not what the authors wrote, and that's why I'm asking of clarification of what they meant.
It's also worth noting that this rule potentially allows a very large number of retrainings to be accomplished in a single session by retraining an item that is a key prerequisite and requires many others part of the character to be reselected, thus bypassing the time requirement for retraining each part.
The text of the Invisible condition reads: "you can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic".
However, the earlier section on senses notes that some creatures may have precise senses other than sight, such as hearing. The "special senses" section does not list precise hearing as a special sense, but does list scent.
Does this imply that a creature with precise hearing cannot observe an invisible creature, but a creature with precise scent can do so because they are using a "special ability"?
The text of retraining says: "you generally can't make choices you couldn't make when you selected the original option".
Our Fighter player initially chose Stealth, Thievery, Athletics and Acrobatics as his Trained skills. He later took Rogue Dedication. Rogue Dedication makes you trained in Stealth and Thievery, or if you already are trained in both - which he was - it gives you two free trained skills. He chose Deception and Diplomacy.
He now wishes to retrain his Thievery skill to Arcana.
Per RAW, he is not making any choice that he could not have made when he was choosing his initial Fighter skills. Nor is he retraining any choice that he made at the time he took Rogue Dedication.
So, is this legal?
I placed this order a month or so back for the Gods & Magic supplement, and it was accepted and delivered, no problem.
However, whenever I try to add anything else to my cart, instead of creating a new order, it gets added to order 12580595! This causes errors adding to cart, and if it does get to the point where I can submit an order, it simply re-opens 12580595, wrongly associates it with the payment I made for Gods & Magic, and then freezes with the order in eternal "Pending" status and no ability to submit it.