olimar92's page

21 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


This better be a thick book for a $70 price tag. The Monster Core is cheaper.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there.

Phantoms were already a thing in the first place. Souls that have left the River of Souls and wander until they somehow return. They are mostly driven by a powerful emotion, an example is the Eidolon Phantoms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ridge wrote:
Interesting notion, seems like if Urgathoa loses, everyone does.

Which makes no sense. Why would she be a stopper in something she wants?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay this is probably one of the most unbelievable pieces of fiction I've ever read.

Disappointed that Urgathoa is staying around. Although I wanted her gone, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell she would ever be on the chopping block. If there ever was a vote on a place to get rid of, Geb would only get one vote, and that would be from me.

I'm not going to believe the primary Deity that wants Undeath to basically take over the whole of Golarion is someone stopping it from happening. Urgathoa being destroyed causes Undeath to act without anyone causing it? Armies of Undead rising from crypts and battlefields?

This prophecy is false because it makes no damned sense. Why would Urgathoa's destruction force even more Undead to exist?


Well it's nice to see bleed on immunities. Not really, but people ignored what Bleed damage was.

Going to not be surprised if people start arguing over Void not being listed as an immunity for Undead. Same for Vitality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:

I should emphasize. Vesk would be easy to drop into most custom world campaigns. But for example, I currently operate campaigns in the Lost Omens campaign setting in the 4710s. And while I could find an excuse for a Vesk to be there, I can see why other GMs who run Lost Omens might hesitate.

Use stats for bulky Iruxi, don't need to be using the lore of Vesk. Can even go the other way with Starfinder and use Iruxi for more agile Vesk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:
VerBeeker wrote:

Are Vesk playable in Pathfinder?

I remember hearing about “cross-compatibility”

From what I can see, it's perfectly compatible with PF2E. The only thing stopping you from playing it in your PF2E game is your GM saying it'd be anachronistic or otherwise unfitting. Rules wise, it should work.

Other than some possible feats, the Vesk are just bulkier Iruxi.


Herald of the Redeemer Queen wrote:
That said, was hoping that since Androids are being actually created in Starfinder timeline, was hoping to see an option for them to emulate non-human Ancestries, especially non-Medium ones.

For the time being, use Mixed Ancestry and choose Android for it. You lose out on Constructed and Emotionless, but you can use Android Feats on another Ancestry. Talk with GM to use Mixed Ancestry on Android with an added option of being Small in size depending on what Ancestry you chose for the mix.


LiaElf76 wrote:
olimar92 wrote:

Missed the Ki Form for Monk, but it would obviously work like Ki Strike.

Also, the Errata for Secrets of Magic doesn't have Rune Lord. So I'm going to assume that's going to be more of a project.

They’ve already said Rune Lord is unavailable for the time being in the Remaster.

I could guess. Without Schools they need to rework everything to have a specific list, or drop it. The last two Feats of that Archetype are either dead or need a heavy rework, as they are very dependent on the School of a Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ezekieru wrote:
olimar92 wrote:

Missed the Ki Form for Monk, but it would obviously work like Ki Strike.

Also, the Errata for Secrets of Magic doesn't have Rune Lord. So I'm going to assume that's going to be more of a project.

And Sacred Ki should probably do spirit damage, with an option for it to have the Holy or Unholy trait.

Sacred Ki is from Gods and Magic, so it's not going to be in this run. The Feat makes it so you choose an Alignment Damage, based on Deity, and select that when you use Ki Strike on a creature with the opposite alignment you choose. You can also deal it in place of Force Damage in other Ki Spells.

I'm going to assume that the change will Sanctify Ki Strike as Holy or Unholy, your choice, and any other Ki Spell that could reasonably be chosen. Unlike the current Feat, Holy and Unholy aren't types of Damage. So the Monk could just do Holy Bludgeoning Damage if it just Sanctifies the Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Missed the Ki Form for Monk, but it would obviously work like Ki Strike.

Also, the Errata for Secrets of Magic doesn't have Rune Lord. So I'm going to assume that's going to be more of a project.


Not expecting much of a response, but I just want to know exactly how that feature works. Mummy has no Hunger, Ghost has a goal and Lich is just reading.

Do you go by starvation or thirst? Or do you just ignore it because they don't need food? Undead already have the chance of drowning, so I want to be extra clear on this.


Potions have never required a spell for their creation. Healing isn't a Divine only thing, especially with how 2E is with mundane healing.


Mellored wrote:

Seems fine to me.

Not exactly sure how you could set someone on fire is a non-leathal way, but from a balance and game play perspective, it works.

It's easy, you just put them out before they get cooked.


oddly enough, the Enhanced Familiar Feat is a set of class feats. Druid, Sorcerer, Witch and Wizard. Alchemist doesn't have one.

It's strange that the Archetype gives you Enhanced Familiar if you already have a familiar, and Alchemist doesn't have the feat. Because the only classes that could gain the benefit have Familiars, but Alchemist can't get an enhanced version.

Alchemist needs a little boost, and the Enhanced Familiar feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very possible it refers to the Alchemical Familiar. It's close to the description of a Homunculus and even mentions use of your own blood.

There is another Errata planned soon, so maybe the Alchemical Familiar will be noted as a Homunculus.


It seems apparent that everyone rules differently.


Alexander Woods wrote:

Looking through this, I am forced to concede to the idea it auto works if targeting the golem directly. As Effects, as called out and described in the core book on page 453, range, targets, area of affect, attack roll modifiers, etc. are all called out as part of the Effects portion.

Further, it calls out Targets and Areas as seperate components of effects, and Effects make it clear that not everything has all the listed components. Areas specifically state they "spread out from point of origin" and never mention a target. As such, much like tags in this system, I am forced to conclude that AOE effects do NOT have targets. As the golem antimagic specifically calls out "any magic of this type that TARGETS the golem" then fireballs do nothing....

This leads to the situation where a entourage of golems is much more deadly increase than a single one, as you can't just fireball-equivalent into the crowd.

I believe you have misread the section, specifically about targeting. If a spell has an area and doesn't call out specific targets, it is assumed to target all creatures within equally. Fireball still hits a group of Golems and does damage.


thenobledrake wrote:

Golem Antimagic says this: "Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect."

I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"

You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.

And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.

Then why does the stat block even mention Persistent Damage? Unless I've missed something you have to crit to apply that with any spell.

The fact a level 1 Wizard can stand on a pillar and kill a Flesh Golem with no trouble is just ridiculous. I can picture fighting a Golem without Magic, because Alchemy. If you have an Alchemist you can do what ever you want as the Golem has no defense.

I also don't know about you, but a spell's usual effect doesn't happen unless you land a hit. A sword's usual effect is slashing damage, but that only happens on a hit. How can you do something instead if the effect never goes off?


Deriven Firelion wrote:
I require the target be hit. Pretty sure that is the intent.

I feel the same way, but I found the poster of that question to be stubborn. Wanting exact wording to prove them wrong. If Weapon Runes triggered the trait, Martials would be able to kill them no worries.


To elaborate a bit more, I was reading through the Bestiary after finding a post on Reddit. The major point of said post was that the Golem Antimagic trait would trigger no matter what so long as it was the target. Crit fail your attack roll? You still hit the thing. Does the spell require a save of some sort? Doesn't matter.

This is do to the wording of the feature only saying "Any magic of this type that targets the golem". Which the poster believes means that if you were to use Produce Flame and throw the fire at a Flesh Golem it would trigger the Harmed By: damage no matter what.

This only effects the spells that can actually effect the Golem. Meaning a few low level Wizards with the right cantrips can tear down a Golem no matter what. Have a couple slinging the proper cantrip to damage it and another to enact the slow.

Of course I could be entirely wrong and the trait actually does intend for any spell that can harm a Golem to just trigger the effect no matter the action.