n8_fi's page

Since Pluuna, rune of illumination produces light in an emanation, and since, from the text on emanation areas,

Unless the text states otherwise, the creature creating an emanation effect chooses whether the creature at its center is affected,

the invocation for Pluuna, which effects creatures in the light, does not have to affect the rune-bearer if the Runesmith doesn't want it to.

Now, this is relying on an exact mechanical interpretation of emanations. Light sources typically report the area of the light as a radius so this doesn't typically come up, but if the rune-bearer were in darkness you could potentially decide that it remains in darkness by following the emanation rules specifically. That seems pretty odd when trying to envision it... So does that mean the rune-bearer must be considered to be "in the light"? I could also see an interpretation where they are lit up, but they aren't affected by the invocation since the flash is outward from them rather than something they are looking at.

*Aside: Pluuna's invocation seems really weak? A round of dazzled on foes in a 40' emanation is nice, but it's going to be really hard to not hit your allies with it too.

The more I think about it, the more I am frustrated by this. Runes either have a fixed tradition listed in their traits, or they can be any of the four traditions. Given how the magic traditions overlap, this feels pretty silly.

For example, Atryl, rune of fire, is a primal rune. Why can’t it be an arcane rune? Primal and arcane have equal access to the matter essence and fire spells, but I can’t etch an arcane fire rune?

The solution also seems pretty simple. Just put a “Traditions” entry at the top of each rune, right above the “Usage” entry. Frankly it’s probably easier to quickly read over than checking the traits of each rune anyway.

I think it's strange that a class as ready to be pulled in different flavor directions as the Runesmith doesn't have any subclasses.

There's the obvious divisions based on combat style, even supported by the 1st- and 2nd-level feat options: mauler (Engraving Strike), archer (Remote Detonation), and shield (Fortifying Knock). These might seem too close to the Magus' hybrid studies, which I could see as a reason they weren't divided this way.

But still, it seems like there should be some kind of subclass division here, especially to discourage simple poaching of class identity via multiclassing.

Thoughts? Do you feel such subdivision is missing or unnecessary? Is there some good line to draw them along?

Hi everyone!

I've been working on revising the kingdom rules for almost a year now and literally this week my players are founding their kingdom and I got the rules into a beta state. This revision project was heavily influenced by Vance & Karenshara's work. There may also be a few things that slipped through with my specific game's rule-set which differ from the core PF 2e game.

But more to the point, I'm hoping other people can take a look at what I have here and see what might need a bit more fine-tuning. It's a tremendous amount of text, and much of it is still quite similar to what is presented in the core Kingmaker kingdom and warfare rules, so I also included a changelog to make notes on what has changed and why I changed it to be the way it is in my revision.

Anyway, please check out these Kingdom Rules, Revised.

PS: I honestly don't know what is and isn't fair-use when posting stuff like this online, so if I need to put some kind disclaimer on the PDFs or remove all the images from these versions I printed for my players, anyone who is more knowledgeable please let me know.