pjrogers's page

So, Terry Pratchett writes some of the best fantasy books ever written, many of them focusing on the city and guard of Ankh-Morpork (the Discworld's Absalom). One of these novels, Night Watch, has opposition to torture as a major theme.

In return, Paizo names the murderous sadistic villain of Book 1 of the AP after him (and no one can tell me that they didn't know what they were doing when they used this name). It may not be a big thing, but it comes as across as really tacky and petty.

The Lost Omens World Guide says the Worldwound was closed in 4718 AR. I was under the impression that this happened earlier, sometime between 4713 and 4715 AR.

It now looks like the campaign to close the Worldwound, the combined efforts of the heroes of Wrath of the Righteous and the 5th Crusade, took five years from 4713 to 4718. It also appears that the first major event in this campaign was the failed demon attack on Nerosyan, shown in the PFS Special - Siege of the Diamond City. Is this more-or-less correct?

I'm prepping to run What the Helms Hide tonight, and something just occurred to me.

In What the Helms Hide, Helven's Decemvirate Helm is described as "a triple-flanded helm without eyeholes," and it can be used to channel negative energy.

In the two Passing the Torch scenarios, Vahlo's helm is described as "triple-spired," and based on the images that are available, it could very well be lacking eyeholes. It also channels negative energy.

Are these two the same helm? Where the Helms Hide takes place approximately 300 years ago, while Vahlo has been active as a member of the Decemvirate for the past 200 years, so there is no problem with both of them wearing the same helm at the same time.

Is there anything preventing the stacking of the skill feat Powerful Leap and the monk feat Dancing Leaf?

Now that Calisro Benary is a faction leader and appears to be based in Absalom, do we have any sense who is the new captain of the Grinning Pixie/VC of the lodge the ship represents? I'm updating the background of some older scenarios to the new canon and timeline, and this would be useful information if it exists.

I apologize if this has been announced or discussed elsewhere, but has there been word on whether or not there will be any PFS 1e at GenCon this year? I did a quick search of this forum and couldn't find anything. I'm asking because the answer will probably affect my decision about whether to attend or not.

Thanks in advance for any information on this topic.

Let’s try this again. I do have certain thoughts about the appropriateness of “caste” as a concept in an American RPG, but I’d like to keep that particular discussion out of this thread. I’ve removed my general comments on “caste” which derailed the discussion I had hoped for the first time around.

My goal here is to enhance my understanding of the current state of canon concerning the Pahmet, the Ouat, and Tar Kuata. This is part of the creation of the background of my first PF 2e character, a Pahmet dwarf who trained as an Ouat monk at the Tar Kuata monastery in southern Osirion. The following reflects what I think I know about this material, and I’d appreciate any corrections, additions, or other thoughts as needed.

As I understand it, Tar Kuata is a monastery of Irori with people of various ancestries, though probably mainly individuals from Garund, both north and south of the Barrier Wall. BTW, is the Barrier Wall the new, official name of the Brazen Peaks, or are the Brazen Peaks just the more eastern portion of the Barrier Wall? I think the latter is the most likely interpretation.

In a couple of 1st edition sources, the overall leader of Tar Kuata is said to be a Garundi human, while the leader of the Ouat monks who reside there is a dwarven woman named Menka Helg. It seems that everyone at Tar Kuata is a follower of Irori, but only dwarves can be Ouat. In theory, you could have a non-Ouat dwarven follower of Irori in Tar Kuata or elsewhere in Golarion.

What seems to really distinguish the Ouat is not only are they followers of Irori, but they actively and explicitly reject traditional Dwarven culture. Their shaving of their heads is given as one example of this. FWIW, I would think that they’d also shave their beards if they really wanted to go all in on rejecting traditional Dwarven culture. It would seem that most Ouat are Pahmet dwarves, but I don’t see any reason that a non-Pahmet dwarf couldn’t travel to Tar Kuata and join the Ouat order.

The Lost Omens Character Guide continues the practice of referring to the Ouat as a “caste.” This is something that I believe goes back to an early reference to the Ouat which described them as pariahs who do jobs other dwarves don’t want to do. However, most of this has been retconned away. “Caste” seems to have stuck around, and I don’t think its best way to describe the Ouat in their current form. “Caste” implies something that one is born into. With their martial training and discipline and very specific spiritual and ethical values, the Ouat seem to be more an order that a dwarf chooses to join rather than an identity that one is born into. So, I think “Ouat order” is a much better term than “Ouat caste.”

So, this is where I currently am with my understanding of this topic. As I noted above, I’d appreciate any and all comments, thoughts, corrections, additions, etc.

As I’m working on the background of my first PF 2e character, a Pahmet dwarf who trained as an Ouat monk at the Tar Kuata monastery in southern Osirion, I’m trying to understand how the various background material on the Pahmet, the Ouat, and Tar Kuata all currently work. I think the following are all correct, but I’d appreciate corrections or other thoughts as needed.

Tar Kuata is a monastery of Irori with people of various ancestries, though probably mainly individuals from Garund, both north and south of the Barrier Wall. BTW, is the Barrier Wall the new, official name of the Brazen Peaks, or are the Brazen Peaks just the more eastern portion of the Barrier Wall? I think the later is the most likely interpretation.

In a couple of 1st edition sources, the overall leader of Tar Kuata is said to be a Garundi human, while the leader of the Ouat monks who reside there is a dwarven woman named Menka Helg. Everyone at Tar Kuata is a follower of Irori, but only dwarves can be Ouat. In theory, you could have a non-Ouat dwarven follower of Irori in Tar Kuata or elsewhere in Golarion.

What seems to really distinguish the Ouat is not only are they followers of Irori, but they actively and explicitly reject traditional Dwarven culture. Their shaving of their heads is given as one example of this. FWIW, I would think that they’d also shave their beards if they really wanted to go all in on rejecting traditional Dwarven culture. It would seem that most Ouat are Pahmet dwarves, but I don’t see any reason that a non-Pahmet dwarf couldn’t travel to Tar Kuata and join the Ouat order.

The Lost Omens Character Guide continues the problematic practice of referring to the Ouat as a caste. This is something that I believe goes back to an unfortunate early reference to the Ouat which described them as pariahs who do jobs other dwarves don’t want to do. Fortunately, most of this has been retconned away. However, “caste” seems to have stuck around, and I don’t think it’s an appropriate word at all. First, “caste” implies something that one is born into. I don’t see any evidence that one is born into the Ouat. Instead, it seems to be a choice. So, I think “Ouat order” is a much better term than “Ouat caste.” Second, as I understand it, “caste” is a very, very politically loaded term with many negative cultural and social implications in South Asia. I think Paizo should be extremely wary of using the word “caste” in any of its campaign material because of its political, social, and culture history and its current (mis)uses. In fact, Paizo might want to seriously consider removing the word all together.

So this is where I currently am with my understanding of this topic. As usual, I’d appreciate any and all comments, thoughts, corrections, additions, etc.

It doesn't appear that a 2nd ed organized play character can learn Ancient Osiriani, correct? I can't find anyway to do this, but I just want to confirm that I'm not missing anything.

Is Ancient Osiriani still a language option in 2nd edition as a language distinct from Osiriani? There's a reference to it under the new Living Monolith, but it doesn't seem to anywhere else in the 2nd ed rules or campaign setting material?

I’m a little confused about Fame, Reputation, and Factions. Here’s what I think is going on:

We can have Reputation with one or more Factions. Reputation never decreases.

We have Fame which is our total Reputation earned minus any Fame spent on boons. We don’t have separate Fame pools for each faction.

So, my #2001 PC starts her PFS career by spending 0 Fame to become a Grand Archive Champion. She then does two adventures on behalf of the Grand Archive, earning a total of 8 Reputation in that faction and providing 8 Fame to potentially spend.

She spends 2 Fame to get a Wayfinder after her first adventure and 4 Fame to become a Horizon Hunters Champion after her second adventure so she can earn Reputation with them on her next adventure.

At the start of her third adventure, she will have 2 Fame, 8 Reputation with the Grand Archive, and the Horizon Hunters Champion Faction Boon in her Faction boon slot.

Does all of the sound correct?

Are creature types and subtypes still a thing in 2E? If so, where are they indicated in the various Bestiary entries?

Is there anyway to add a 2nd or additional people to a private message? I didn't see anything like a CC or a way to manually enter aliases but I wasn't sure if I overlooked something.

I ran this twice at GenCon, and I’m curious how folks handled or plan on handling the character of GM Torch.

I had a little trouble with what I saw as an overly sympathetic portrayal of GM Torch in this scenario. After some thought, I played him as a very obsessive fanatic, able to rationalize any action as justified by his pursuit of Vahlo and willing to sacrifice others’ lives for his obsession. Then with Vahlo’s death, GM Torch comes more than a little adrift mentally as the one thing that has given him purpose for all these years is gone.

This had an effect on the encounter with Zurnzal as the PCs didn’t have too much trouble realizing that Zurnzal thought Torch and this raid on the Grand Lodge were nuts while Vahlo was on the loose and the Whispering Tyrant was besieging the city. In both games I ran, the PCs saw that Zurnzal didn’t want to be there and let him go in return for his information on Vahlo and Torch.

I’d appreciate others’ thoughts and approaches to this (or any other) element of the scenario.

I searched around a bit and couldn't fit answers for these (and maybe there aren't any at the moment).

1) Are/will there be Pahmet dwarves and Ouat monks in second edition? I very much hope so as this is the background of my first second edition character which I'm currently creating.

2) Have the Osiriani gods (Ra and company) made it into second edition?

I've got a couple of Gen Con tickets that I'd like to trade:

1) #10-20: Countdown to Round Mountain (Levels 7-11) on Thursday evening at 8 pm. I'd like to trade this for a ticket to #10-16: What the Helms Hide (Levels 1-5), #10-17: On Sevenfinger's Sails (Levels 7-11), or PFS #10-18: The Daughter's Due (Levels 5-9)?

2) #10-98: Siege of Gallowspire (Levels 15-16, Soldier) on Saturday evening at 8 pm. I'd like to trade that for level 15-16 Champion ticket.

If you'd like to do one or both of these trades, please send me a private message.

The description of the spell Suffocation says the following:

"If the target fails, he immediately begins to suffocate. On the target’s next turn, he falls unconscious and is reduced to 0 hit points."

My question is, does this happen at the start of the target's next turn? I think so, because if the target succeeds, they are staggered and that is in effect at the start of their next turn. It thus makes sense to me, that on a failed saving throw, the resulting condition would also be in effect at the start of the target's next turn.

I encountered this yesterday as a GM, and I have a thought that I'd like to raise here. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the feat Escape Artist works for a rider and his/her mount. However, there's another aspect of the feat that doesn't seem to have been discussed, can one move in any direction one desires while using this feat or is one limited to "escap[ing]" and "tactical withdraws," language drawn directly from the title and description of the feat.

After looking at the feat and reading the discussion here, I don't have any problems with this being used by a mount and rider. However, I don't think one could use the feat while charging (clearly not a "tactical withdrawal"). Further, I think that someone using this feat should designate an enemy that they're "escap[ing]" from and must end their move further away from that enemy than they were when they started.

Thoughts on this interpretation and restrictions?

Do familiars need to have the Extra Item feat for slotless magic items such as Ioun Stones? If so, would they need one such feat for each slotless item?

A question about the defensive benefits of bucklers which are described as follows This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn. You can’t make a shield bash with a buckler.

If one is fighting with a two-handed weapon while wearing a buckler, would you get non-AC bonus benefits such as any fortification with which the buckler has been enchanted? The answer would seem to be "yes," but I couldn't confirm this with a search of the Rules Forum, and I'd like to be sure.

I have a question about the degree to which the curse limits one's communications.

The curse description is as follows:

"In times of stress or unease, you cannot speak—only growl and snarl like an animal. This ability works similarly to the tongues curse, but whenever you are in combat, you cannot speak at all. This does not interfere with spellcasting but does apply to spells that are language dependent. A character under the effects of speak with animals can understand you, and you can communicate with such characters normally. You can speak with animals when in this condition."

Note that is says that it is "similar to the tongues curse," which reads as follows:

"Whenever you are in combat, you can only speak and understand the selected language."

So, here's my question - unlike the tongues curse, the lycanthropy curse does not explicitly say one can not understand others during times of stress and combat, only that others can not understand the oracle's growls, etc (unless using speak with animals). Plus, the lycanthropy says it is similar (but not necessarily identical) to the tongues curse. This would seem to indicate that while under the effect of the lycanthropy curse, the oracle can understand what others are saying but can not speak back to them.

Thoughts on this interpretation?

FWIW, I think this distinction makes sense because it's easier to overcome the tongues curse. Other party members can learn the language in question, while overcoming the lycanthropy curse requires a speak with animals spell or ability.

Is there a nice quick and dirty summary of all the attribute combinations available for 1st level characters? I tried to search for such an overview but wasn't able to find anything.

Is the following possible for a human character to have the following initial attribute distribution?
Str 10
Dex 16
Con 10
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 18

Additional Resources says the following:

"Contents in this book will appear in an upcoming update of the Pathfinder Reference Document, at which point the versions in this book will replace any earlier versions (see the list below); at that time, characters are expected to update to use the new rules or rebuild as laid out in Chapter 2 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide. Modified gear—including ioun stones whose resonance powers changed—can be sold back at its full market price. Further updates and allowances specific to a particular character option may appear in the Pathfinder Society General Discussion forum on paizo.com. Until then, both versions of the character option are legal for play.

The following character options have received updates since they appeared in earlier publications, and characters must use these updated versions (pending the Pathfinder Rules Document update): brand of conformity, brand of hobbling, brand of tracking, Eagle Knight dress uniform, enlightened bloodrager, golden eagle epaulets, Golden Legionnaire, hellknight barding, lore warden, mammoth hide, Mounted Blade, Pathfinder savant, Qadiran horselord, Ritual Mask, shackle, Steel Falcon, talonstrike sword, Tribal Hunter, Tribal Scars, and wayfinder resonance. Earlier sources in which these rules originally appeared remain a legal source for accessing these updated character options."

However as near as I can tell, the PRD has not been updated, so none of the changes mentioned above have officially taken place, correct?

A last minute thing has arisen, and I won't be able to attend GenCon. The last email I got from the GenCon leads said that they would be hard to reach by email after this morning. What's the best way to contact them at this point?

This question came up at a game yesterday. Our PCs entered a room where there were four creatures native to ethereal plane who were in fact ethereal. The creatures saw us from the ethereal plane and were able to get a surprise round on us which they used to planewalk to the material plane.

My wizard had See Invisibility up which says that one can “see any objects or beings that are … ethereal.” However, the GM ruled that I could not see the creatures we encountered before they planewalked to the material plane because they were “ethereal creatures” rather than “objects or beings that are … ethereal.” I didn’t understand the distinction and thought his ruling was incorrect. However, I hate slowing down a game by arguing over rules interpretations and said ‘that’s fine, it’s your table, and I’ll go with your interpretation.’

However, I would like to raise the issue here. Does the distinction between an “ethereal creature” and a “being that [is] … ethereal” make sense? Should my wizard PC with See Invisibility have been able to see the creatures when we entered the room in the situation described above?

So, I have a druid with a lion animal companion, and I will shortly be turning 9th level. This means that my lion will get multiattack as a feat. This leads to a couple of questions:

1) According to this oft referenced 2012 post by Sean Reynolds, multiattack gives all animals companions an extra attack at -5. So, my lion would in theory have two bite attacks, one at +12 and the other at +7. Is this widely accepted in PFS, or should I expect the dreaded “table variation?”

2)Alternatively, PFS now allows animal companion feats to be retrained. Is there any reason I couldn’t/shouldn’t retrain multiattack into something more useful and less likely to cause controversy?

I have a question about combining regular iterative attacks with natural weapons and/or improved unarmed unarmed strike attacks.

Case one – my half-orc bloodrager who has the tusked trait. As a full round attack, she can make her usual set of iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon and an additional bit/tusked natural attack as a secondary attack (-5 to hit and half strength bonus), correct? I’m 99% sure that this is OK.

Case two is trickier – another half-orc who is a druid with one level of brawler. When not wild-shaped, can he make his usual set of iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon and an additional improved unarmed strike as a secondary attack similar to how case one users her tusked bit? I’ve poked about a bit in the forums, and it’s not totally clear to me.

One of the 3/21 additions to the Organized Play FAQ states:

"Can I buy armor and weapons of size Tiny and smaller?

Yes. In organized play, such armor and weapons have the same price as Small armor and weapons of their type, including the cost for special materials."

Can I now buy a tiny

Apologies if this has been announced, and I've missed it. Is each of the factions getting a 7-11 "capstone" scenario similar to Salvation of the Sages and Lion's Justice? I see there's a 7-11 Liberty's Edge scenario scheduled for May. Can we expect something similar for the Silver Crusade?

I have two questions that I almost hesitate to ask because I don’t think there are any agreed upon answers to them, and the best I’m likely to get is the dreaded “table variation” (If there are definitive, FAQ-style answers that I’ve overlooked, learning about them would be great.). Anyhows, I’ve started my first summoner (unchained) for Society play, and she has an biped Azata as an eidolon. I’m posting my first question here and am still working on my second question which I hope to post later.

Question the first, what happens to her gear when she is summoned/dismissed/etc? The closest thing to an official answer is the James Jacobs post linked to in this 2016 thread requesting a FAQ. Jacobs says “Those items go with the eidolon, and come back the next time it's summoned.”

I think that makes very good sense, particularly if you look at the various summonable azata. They all arrive with one or more weapons. A couple of them cast spells and don’t have the eschew materials feat, so they presumably arrive with spell components, and the Paizo pictures of all of them show clothing in one form or another.

The most common argument against allowing eidolons to be summon/dismissed with gear appears to be that players will abuse this by giving important items to eidolons and then dismissing them so the items can be smuggled, can’t be stolen from the party, etc. I think the box, “Eidolons and Alignment,” on p. 35 of Pathfinder Unchained takes care of this as it allows the GM to have the eidolon tell the summoner that he/she won’t do such things.

So, in the end, how common am I to encounter GMs in Society play who don’t allow eidolons to be summoned/dismissed with gear and weapons? In the case of my Azata, she is currently carrying a nodachi, a heavy flail, a compound longbow with a selection of arrows, and three potions/oils for her own use.

There was some talk of this back in October and November (see this post).

I'm asking because I'm dying to retrain my bloodrager (aka "Paladin of Calistria") and get her a bloodline emissary viper familiar in place of her 1st level bloodline power. I think a gold-ringed cat snake would make an amazing looking familiar for a follower of Calistria.

I’m not totally certain how the catfolk weapon claw blades work and specifically how they interact with the Brawler class and the catfolk feat Claw Pounce. As I understand it, claw blades do two things:

1) Change a catfolks cat’s claws from a natural to a light slashing weapon.

2) Count as cat’s claws for feats such as Claw Pounce.

It’s not clear what weapon group claw blades belong to, though it would seem to make the most sense for them to be in the close weapons group.

If my understanding of how claw blades work is correct and if they are considered to be close weapons, then I think the following is a possible. A 10th level catfolk brawler wearing a set of claw blades could charge and then make a full attack with them. This could be a brawler’s flurry of four attacks whch can be done with close weapons at that level and one additional natural weapons secondary attack with the other paw that does not have claw blades on it.

Does this sound right, and if not, what am I missing.

This second question came out of discussions rather than play last night. I'm working on my first druid character and am trying to understand the relationship between wild shape, natural attacks, and the Dragon Style feat.

I would like to be able to use Dragon Style while wild shaped (as a big cat since I'm a lion shaman). I'm primarily interested in the charge advantages gained by the feat and less interested in the strength bonus addition gained with my first attack on a charge round.

Can I pick up the Dragon Style feat without first getting Feral Combat Training and its prerequisite Weapon Focus (natural weapon being used), if I don't use the strength bonus portion of the feat while wild shaped and thus using natural weapons?

Does it matter whether or not I enter the Dragon Style stance before or after I wild shape? I wouldn't have natural attacks before I wild shape so perhaps if I only use the feat while non-wild shaped, I don't need to pick up Feral Combat Training? Then once the stance has been activated, I could wild shape and use Dragon Style's charge benefits. I'm personally a little dubious about this argument but thought I should ask it anyway.

A couple of questions came up at our PFS game last night. This is the first of them.

One of the characters was an arcanist with dimensional slide. If the arcanist begins next to an enemy and uses the first five feet of her move action to activate dimensional slide and to move a point 100 feet from said enemy, is she subject to an attack of opportunity from the enemy she started adjacent to?

The rules say that movement by dimensional slide does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but it also says that dimensional slide can be used for a move or withdraw action. Giving this choice suggests that using to dimensional slide to move away from an enemy as part of a move action might provoke an attack of opportunity, otherwise why would withdraw be given as an option.

Also our GM felt that the arcanist first had to move 5 ft before activating dimensional slide and this initial 5 feet of movement would trigger an attack of opportunity. The rest of us didn't see that in the rules but it was a GM ruling so we accepted it and moved on. Was our GM correct in this case?

I understand that this is a follow-up #6-05: Slave Ships of Absalom. Is there any follow-up scenario for #6-11 and/or with Muhlia al'Jakri?

This time, I'm thinking about retraining my 10th level tattooed elemental (air) bloodline sorcerer. The first part, dropping the tattooed archetype, seems fairly straightforward. The archetype has five class features and the rules say...

"To abandon an archetype, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you already have from that archetype. At the end of the retraining, you lose the archetype's class features and gain the standard class features for the class."

So that would be 25 days/prestige.

Now here's the tricky bit. I'd like to add/change the following features:

1) Bloodline familiar in place of her 1st-level bloodline power.

2) Bloodline mutation Intensity in place of her 7th-level bloodline feat.

3) Bloodline mutation Piercing in place of her 9th-level bloodline power.

Which of the following is correct (or is there a third answer which I've missed):

1) Doing the above is essentially gaining a new archetype, and I follow these rules ...

"To gain an archetype that replaces standard class abilities you already have, you must spend 5 days for every alternate class feature you would add, subtract, or replace by taking that archetype. At the end of the training period, you lose the standard class features and replace them with the archetype's alternate class features (if any)."

... and spend 15 days/prestige to add these three "alternate class features."

2) What I'm proposing is not allowed because it involves retraining things that didn't exist when the Ultimate Campaign retraining rules were written, and I need to wait on the promised FAQ to see if what I'd like to do will be possible. This is the problem I faced when I asked about retraining one of my bloodrager's class features.

I don’t think this question has ever been fully resolved. In PFS, is it possible for a bloodrager to retrain their bloodline powers, and if so, how? I can imagine the following scenarios…

1) Sorry, but bloodragers are not listed in the section Class Feature on pp. 189-90 of Ultimate Campaign, so they may not retrain any of their class features such as bloodline powers.

2) You use the generic rule at the start of the Class Feature section that says “It takes 5 days to retrain one class feature,” and bloodrager bloodline powers are considered to be class features for this purpose.

3) Bloodragers are a hybrid class, so they can use the rules for either barbarians or sorcerers.

a) Following the barbarian rules, a bloodrager can retrain a bloodline power in the same way that a barbarian retrains a rage power.

b) Following the sorcerer rules, a bloodrager could do the following – retrain from the unmodified Arcane Bloodline to the Arcane Bloodline with his/her 1st bloodline power, Disruptive Bloodrage, for the Bloodline Familiar option. Since only one bloodline power is changing, this would take 5 days (5 prestige in PFS).

And it's very possible that I'm totally overlooking another option.

First, this is NOT a request to make the feat Wasp Familiar legal for PFS play. I totally understand and am fine with the decision not making this feat PFS legal.

However, has there ever been any thought to making the wasp and improved wasp described in the feat legal options as familiars and improved familiars in PFS? So, a NC, Calistria-worshiping wizard who selects a familiar as her/his arcane bond would have the option of selecting a wasp in addition to all the usual suspects - toad, bat, koala, etc. And a similar PC selecting the Improved Familiar feat could take the improved wasp rather than what's currently on offer - imps, sprites, etc.

I don't think doing this would produce any power creep or imbalance issues, or otherwise result in every min-maxer in the game rushing to the closest temple of Calistria in order to convert.

Is the following item "limit 1?"

There is no text to that effect on the sheet, but I'd like to make sure before I get a second one.

I've put together a new warpriest and done my most radical stat dumping to date. Not only does the poor guy worship Pazuzu, he has an Int and Cha of 7.

I'm trying to figure out what's the best way to RP such a character. My initial thought is that even if I, the player, have a good idea about how to deal with a situation and/or interact with a NPC, I should just bit my tongue because my PC wouldn't be likely to come up with many clever plans or eloquent speeches.

I'm curious how others RP characters with such low mental stats. To what degree is it OK to play stupid, or at least not play smart, or is that just another way to annoy the other players at the table?

A few RP questions:

1) Do catfolk not take baths and showers? Interestingly leopards swim.

2) Instead or in addition, do they groom themselves (and perhaps each other in a more adult game)? Example of leopard grooming itself and leopards grooming each other.

3) Could a monster keep a catfolk at bay with a water pistol?

4) Or is there so much variation among catfolk that it's impossible to assert any general patterns of behavior?

I have a cleric who took one level of fighter (no archetype) who would like to retrain that level to barbarian (armored hulk). Which of the following is correct.

1) It's a straight class level retraining with synergy so it costs 5 days/PP (plus the gold of course).

2) It's a two-step process where I train from fighter (no archetype) to barbarian (no archetype) for a cost of 5 days/PP, then I train from barbarian (no archetype) to barbarian (armored hulk) using the archetype retraining rules. This involves adding the alternative class feature of heavy armor proficiency and replacing fast movement with indomitable stance for a cost of 10 days/PP for the two alternate class feat. So, my total retraining cost to go from fighter (no archetype) to barbarian (armored hulk) would be 15 days/PP.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

I just finished uploading a bunch of maps, handouts, etc that I've created over the last few months for:
Captives of Toil
Faithless and Forgotten 1, 2, and 3
Forged in Flame 1 and 2
From the Tome of Righteous Repose
Golemworks Incident
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid
Ungrounded but Unbroken

Most of these are flavor/fluff items like contract props for Forged in Flame 1 and maps showing overland travel routes to dungeon locations in From the Tome of Righteous Repose.

Do all dragons of a particular type have the same alignment? The Bestiary indicates that the answer to this is No as it reads, "chromatic dragons are almost universally evil ... metallic dragons are generally good." The "almost" and "generally" would seem to give some space for a non-evil chromatic dragon or a non-good metallic one, the later being more likely than the former.

Does this reading of the Bestiary make sense, and would a dragon with an unusual alignment be a legitimate possibility?

I'm assuming that the

Is this correct?

Also, I'm not sure what it means when it says

Would someone be so kind as to explain this to me?

I'm running

I gather optional encounters were not yet a thing during season

I searched to see if this had been already discussed and didn't seem to find anything exactly on point. I guess it's partly a question of how much flexibility I have as a GM to make sure that a scenario is finished in the time available.