morphail's page

I was having trouble visualizing the weapon proficiency progressions for the various classes, so I made up some tables. I thought I'd share them in case they can help others.

I made sure to include special cases like the Fighter's Chosen Weapon Group and the Deity's Favored Weapon options for clerics. I based the Unarmed Strike rules on the statements developers have made regarding the upcoming errata. There is some guessing involved so those might need some changes in the future.

Please let me know if you notice any errors or omissions. Enjoy!

wow thanks!

Data Lore wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And not have Common depending on their Intelligence score/their choices?

If a GM and the group is okay with that then go for it, but the game goes with the assumption that everyone can speak with each other.

Thats not what Im saying. I wouldn't have Dwarves or Elves choose between Common and thier ancestral tongues either.

Well there's only 1 Dwarven and Elven but 11 human ethnicities.

If you're setting the game somewhere where Taldane is not the Common language than I'd switch that.

As for why they didn't have go Common + Ethnicity + Int for human languages is because Common is a human ethnicity language (Taldane), so for people playing characters from the major areas of Avistan (Cheliax, Taldor, Andoran, Nirmanthas, Molthune, Galt, etc etc) they'd still not have an "ethnicity" language.

But that's exactly what happens in the real world... Most people in the western world speak at least two languages, their mother language and Common (aka English). The exception being many people in English speaking countries (especially the US) speak only Common.

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I can see 0-level PCs working really well in 2nd edition. Choose ancestry and background, skip class, and go. When you hit 1,000 XP, you become 1st level.

And an NPC child then is just Ancestry (with the 2+INT skills) without even the Background. :)

I'd do a children campaign as complete untrained slowly gaining the 2+int training, then background when they get a job...

In pf2e, we are getting rid of ECL CR and so on in favor of just 1 concept -level, which goes from 0 (or even negatives) to 20 and above. That means (I hope) that more powerful is ALWAYS represented as higher in level. So, if on golarion kobolds are a "weak ancestry" that means most kobold NPCs/monsters are level 0. If your PC kobold is level 1, it must be just as powerful as a level 1 human. In story, that means it is a unique and powerful individual (not to mention level 17 kobolds and so on). For that to happen you need to balance a level 1 kobold rogue around a level 1 human rogue. One way to make this reflected in the rules is having "weak" races lose ancestry features (ability modifiers, heritage and such) in favor of one extra class feat, but I would be careful about doing that.

Now the drow noble at level 1 should be just as powerful as a kobold of level1. As this is a "powerful ancestry " most noc drow are high level creatures. So your 1st level PC is a weak/young individual that will only become an average member of its ancestry after reaching higher levels and gaining some drow ancestry feats.
In this specific case it's very easy to do, you have elves as 1st level well balanced ancestry, all you need is adding specific Drow Noble ancestry feats and your done. (And racial Paragon general feat should help getting more Drowish at lower levels)

Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.

Quote:

Reach Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has a range, increase that spell's range by 30 feet. As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet.

Widen Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a longer cone or line.

Conceal Spell, Feat 2, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers' Perception DCs. If the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers' Perception DC. If you succeed at that check (or checks) against an observer's DC, that observer doesn't notice you're casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby. This ability hides only the spell's spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.

Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you

...

They've changed the (kind of silly) playtest version that had a "free action" that read "you add an action". I like the result very much as that is something I specifically requested.

As I understand it, I n terms of number of actions, widen, reach and conceal metamagic cost you an extra action while Silent spell,, (for which you have invested 2 class feats) allows you to replace one action and so does not increase the total. That's a good thing I think.

I hope that both crit failure on a natural 1 and crit success on a nat 20 go away. A level 1 goblin should not have a 5% chance of landing a crit on a level 20 fighter.

I'd prefer natural 1 and natural 20 to change the result by 1 degree instead. So if you'd normally succeed on a 1, it's a regular failure instead; if you'd normally crit fail even on a 20, a 20 is a regular failure instead.

Or just get rid of the natural 1/20 altogether and do nothing else. The +10 -10 mechanism is simple and elegant. I really don't see the point of making the exception for naturals anymore.

Lem looks like The Storyteller from the Jim Henson show. Which is very appropriate as a bard!

I would love to get my hands on that arcane lite list, if you were so kind to link or share.

Happily!

Arcane
level 1
air bubble
alarm*
ant haul*
burning hands
color spray
feather fall
fllet step
floating disk
grease
gust of wind
illusory disguise
illusory object
item façade
jump
lock
longstrider
mage armor
magic aura
magic missile
magic weapon
mending
negate aroma
shocking grasp
ventriloquism

level 2
acid arrow
blur
comprehnd languge
continual flame
darkness
darkvision
endure elements
enlarge
flaming sphere
glitterdust
illusiory creature
invisibility
kncok
magic mouth
mirrot image
obscuring mist
resist energy
see invisibilty
shrink
spider climb
telekinetic maneuver
water breathing
water walk
web*

level 3
clairaudience
dispel magic
earthbind
fireball
ghostly weapon
haste
hypnotic pattern*
invisibility sphere
levitate
lightning bolt
locate
meld into stone
mind reading*
nondetection
secret page
shrink item
slow
stinking cloud
wall of wind

level 4
blink
clairboyance
detect scrying
dimension door
dimensional anchor
fire shield
fly
gaseous form*
globe of invunerability
hallucinatory terrain
private sanctum
resilient sphere
rope trick
shape stone
solid fog
spell immunity
telepathy*
veil
wall of fire
weapon storm

level 5
black tentacles(?)
chromatic wall
cloak of colors
cone of cold
control water
drop dead
elemental form*
false vision
illiusiory scene
mind probe*
passwall
prying eye
sending
shadow siphon
shadow walk
telekinetic haul
telepathic bond
tongues
wall of ice
wall of stone

level 6
chain lightning
collective transposition
disintegrate
flesh to stone
repulsion*
scrying
spellwrack
teleport
true seeing*
vibrant pattern
wall of force

level 7
contingency
dimensional locl
energy aegis
fiery body
magnificient mansion
plane shift
prismatic spray
project image
reverse gravity
spell turning

level 8
antimagic field
disappearance
discern location
earthquake
horrid wilting*
maze
mind blank
polar ray
prismatic wall
unrelenting observation

level9
disjunction
foresight
implosion
meteor swarm
replendent mansion
weird

I had lots of other ideas about weapon traits, mainly a heavier emphasis on weapon groups with all martials, and linking what traits you get to the level of proficiency you have.

For example untrained in Daggers and Knives can't throw them, can't finesse them while at the hands of an Expert you can throw them and backstab while Master in Daggers and Knives get all these things, and the "Master's Critical Specialization trait " (which is simply called Bleed).

Same with Brawling group- if you are untrained, your hands are not dangerous 1d4 agile-finesse killing machines. If you are Black Widow (or a monk)- they are.

I had a similar idea in this thread:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42f4z?Weapon-traits

I love weapon traits. They make for interesting gameplay and help with simulating melee combat.
Therefore I think weapon traits should have a bigger impact on the game. Weapons that allow disarm/trip and so on are great because they give more options for strategy (I'm ignoring if these are powerful/useful strategies for now) . They make the weapon shine in doing whatever it's designed to do. We need more of these.

Examples I think should be added are:
Armour penetration. Weapons such as (war) hammers and picks were specifically designed to overcome heavy armour. A trait such as "penetrating" could allow a two action attack against a target in medium, heavy or construct armour. This attack targets TAC instead of AC. GM can decide that additional monsters are considered "armoured" such as giant beetles or earth elementals.
This trait makes hammers and picks very powerful against specific enemies (reduced in power because of action economy). If this trait seems too powerful, it can be dealt with the same way as Forceful, Agile and Reach are treated- having smaller damage die. This way a sword (d8, versatile) is better when fighting lightly armoured people (and most monsters) while the new warhammer (d6, penetrating, shove) is better against heavily armoured enemies.

For flails you can go another route. Flails (arguably) are used to overcome shields. So a simple way is to give flails some form of advantage against raised shields (or even against cover). But I thought of something more fun with the shield mechanic:
New athletics maneuver called "depress shield" has the attack trait and requires an empty hand: target enemy with raised shield reflex DC. On a success the shield is no longer raised- the target loses its bonus to ac and can't take the shield block action until it raises its shield again. On a critical the target can't raise the shield until the end of its next turn.
Now flails can have a trait that allows them to use this maneuver without an empty hand and gain item bonuses (just like trip and disarm maneuvers).

Like these ideas? Have other ideas for interesting weapon traits? What traits in the playtest are uninteresting or not useful?

I still think Weapon Proficiency as a feat needs changed, but it would require reworking weapon proficiency as a concept. One axiom I'm going to assert is that given an infinite number of feats, a character who begins proficient in no weapons or armor should be able to recreate the starting proficiencies of any class. The current feat fails that because it makes you jump to "All martial", when classes can start with individual martial weapons.

What I would do is have proficiency be on a per-group basis, where you pick some number of groups to be trained in for every class, the fighter class abilities to advance proficiency let you raise so many groups by one step, and, pertinent to this thread, the Weapon Proficiency feat reads along the lines of:

Select one weapon group you are either Trained or Untrained in. If you are Untrained, raise your proficiency to Trained. If you are Trained, raise your proficiency to Expert.

I would have liked a much more thorough change to the weapon proficiency system. "All Martial " is a bit boring. I think that proficiency should be weapon group based. for examples that barbarians are trained with 2+int weapon groups plus the brawling group, rangers are experts with 1 weapon group (not including brawling, pole arms and flails maybe), fighters are experts with more weapon groups and not limited in their choices, and so on.

About Natural Healer, maybe make the bonus from foraging an item bonus instead of a circumstance bonus. This way people can Aid ("help me look for a root the color of blood, our friend is dying!") or inspire competence and so on.
It will also mean that it Does Not stack with bonuses from alchemical and magical medicines (so you don't forage for leaves if you have a Doctor's Marvelous Medicine, and real physicians and natural healers don't get along...)

DM_Blake wrote:

Yeah, acid needs a time limit.

When Ash cut into the facehugger in the first Alien movie, the molecular acid started melting through the deck plating. The crew was afraid it would melt all the way down through the hull. It didn't. It ran out of, uh, meltiness after a couple of decks.

Why?

IIRC, acid exchanges some of its basic elements (protons, I think?) with the molecules of whatever it's dissolving. The protons leave the acid to bond with the other stuff which causes it to dissolve. Or something like that. Ask a chemist.

But this means that the acid has a finite amount of protons to donate before it runs out.

Or to put it another way, matter is not being created or destroyed. It's just being changed to some new state, and this applies both to the stuff that is being dissolved AND to the acid.

That can't go on forever. Stopping it is not just a matter of wiping it off - it will stop on its own. How much of you is left when it stops is a matter of how much of you was there to begin with and how much acid was used.

But, real world chemistry isn't needed to make in-game acids plausible. It should just have a fixed number of rounds that it can do damage. Arguably, less damage each round as the acid gets weaker, but mechanically that seems too much to track. Something like 4 or 5 rounds would work nicely.

Side note, my ranger nearly lost his cuddly bear companion to that same Pale Mountain's Shadow (PMS) acid monster. One hit, then lots of failed flat checks got him down to the point that another failed check would have killed him. Luckily, I finally made the check.

Pretty sure Acid doesn't interact with protons, it'd be nuclear at that point and would produce isotopes rather than ions, It does however create an electron flow when it interacts with metals, thus allowing acid batteries to produce energy.

DM Blake got it right. (Most) Acids react by "donating" their available protons (aka hydrogen ions). Its confusing to call then protons but a hydrogen atom with one less electron IS just a proton. No need for nuclear shenanigans. Pretty sure that's off topic though... I agree that persistent damage can benefit from a max duration.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel.

Hi James!
I really like the new elements added to Cheliax with the last few products.
I know that delving deep into Chlaxian politics is something that is too much for published items (they should be about adventurers after all), but the bits about Cheliax hierarchy of noble titles got me thinking:

1. It is mentioned that the noble titles are administrative ones. I assume Cheliax is post-feudal? As in the nobles don't OWN all of the land in their fief?

2. The Cheliax book says archduchies are *divided* to duchies, which are divided to lesser units until we get to baronies. So the whole country is composed of small (administrative) units, which are then grouped together to larger units? This sounds more like the modern US (states,counties,townships) than a feudal or absolute monarchy. If counts and dukes don't have their own undivided lands, what do they get from their title? For instance a mine in a village might belong to the baron, but is that mine also somehow owned by the count, duke and so on?
3. If the middle nobility doesn't own rights to any property, do they each take a share of the taxes until finally the money gets to Her Infernal Majesty? Doesn't that make her dangerously angry?

3. All villages and towns described in Golarion so far (I think) had either a council or an overlord, who was named "Lord Mayor".
Are the rulers of towns and villages in Cheliax actually barons? (So "the lord mayor Archbaron Morphail") or are they separate people ("Lord mayor Vizini, appointed by Archbaron Morphail").

4. What about cities? We know that cities have "Lord Mayors" and that some of them are also capitals of archduchies. What is the relation between the lord mayor and the archduke?

5. Some middle and lesser nobles have property and interests within cities. We know 8 noble familis live in Kintargo and that their scions are barons and counts. Do they have baronies and counties in rural lands and just choose to stay mostly in town?

6. Where are the higher ups in Ravounel's nobility? Where are the duchies and their capitals? There should be at least one duke in the area, and he/she outranks Paracount Thrune (although Brzailai is part of the royal house, so I can see why they might want to lay low...).

7. On a similar note, count Jeggare (from stories by Dave Gross) has his headquarters and castle in Egorian. Does he also have a county somewhere?

I think answering even one or two of these questions could help me figure out the rest...
Thanks a lot!

If you insist on attractiveness being connected to game stats, very attractive person will have ALL of his ability scores on the high end. Most people will search for "the perfect person" (with high scores in everything)but will settle for lower scores according to what they value more important:

Str: a person with bigger muscles or that looks physically capable is attractive. It is usually more important in male objects of attraction.

Dex: a person who looks like he is in control of his body is attractive. This person is nimble, can probably dance well jump high and so on.

Con: a person who looks healthy is attractive. Health is perhaps one of the most evolutionary driven criteria for the way we chose partners. If str/dex can be overlooked in a female, no one ignores con. Does she have "child bearing hips?" is a mans most primitive observation of a potential woman partner. We also look for symmetry in someones face and body (good genes) and good complexion (not sickly). If I had to chose the most important factor in physical attractiveness, it would be constitution.

Int: an in intelligent person is attractive. A person who can understand many things, can provide a better income and solve problems is a desirable mate. True, some people may not think this to be the most important bit, but most people will find an intelligent person more attractive than a stupid one.

Wis: a wise person is attractive. The person who is profound, logical and "get's me" is desirable person. The Wis-Int division is an old debate in D&D but if Int is "booksmart" and Wis is "people smart" it is obvious both variably important for attractiveness according to taste...

Cha: a charismatic person is attractive. The one who always says the right thing, who makes me feed special, who is full of positive energy - that's an attractive person. I think it is sort of agreed that good looks doesn't equal Charisma in the game and that was also the assumption by the OP.