Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grumpus wrote: PlantThings wrote: Purifying Icicle has a fortitude save entry that isn't clear what it applies too.
It stumped us during a game the other day so we just played it like a regular spell attack. Are we missing something here? It reminded me of very similar spells, Searing Light and Chilling Darkness, that I looked back to for clues, but no luck.
It probably should have the ATTACK trait too. Was this (fortitude vs. spell attack) confusion for Purifying Icicle ever answered? I added the spell to a PC in a Malevolence game and the GM decided (after wondering about the discrepancy) to use the spell as a Spell Attack.
During the rest of the week, I forgot about the trouble this spell causes and bought it w/ AcP for a different character I am playing tomorrow in a PFS game.
It would be nice to find out what the correct rules are before I start my game tomorrow evening. Any help is appreciated.
I could not find any Errata for LO:KoL (p. 94 in book).
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Grease is a 1st Rank Spell… however… (errata)
Greetings fellow Pathfinder enthusiasts.
Please know that I apologize in advance if this has been covered already… I have read the 2E Players Core Errata and I have searched the forums and do not see this topic covered anywhere.
In both my Hardcover version and my PDF version (released at the same time so this is to be expected) I have found the same “mistake”
On page 304 Grease is listed (correctly) as a 1st Rank Arcane spell.
On page 305 Grease is listed (in-correctly) as a 3rd Rank Arcane spell
On page 312 Grease is listed (correctly) as a 1st Rank Primal spell.
On page 312 Grease is listed (in=correctly) as a 3rd Rank Primal spell.
Now, clearly, I have figured out that Grease is a 1st Rank spell. I guess my question, if I were to have one, is, “Was there another 3rd Rank spell intended to be in these lists or are these simply erroneous additions?”
Looking forward to any clarification you may have
I have a suggestion/errata that has to do with all Pathfinder 2e products, not only Lost Omens.
Bleeding/persistent damage needs a rework. There is far too much tracking in relation to handling this condition. For example, lets take a player using Hail of Splinters.
They can use it on many enemies. If an enemy crit fails, they take double damage from each rolling of persistent damage. If an enemy fails, they take the full damage, and so on. This means we need to remember the exact state of each specific creature and if they failed, succeeded, or crit failed each turn. Then of course, you need to roll all of those dice each turn and also do a check to succeed from the persistent damage. This gets worse and worse the more creatures are hit by this massive cone.
This is a gigantic slowdown at our table. I feel like it would be better if persistent damages were flat and werent modified by crits, successes, etc.
So in the example of Hail of Splinters, the spell would do 1d4 piercing damage and 2 bleeding damage. Then it would scale by 1d4 piercing and 2 bleed damage every 2 levels. The damage of the bleed damage would occur when the enemy doesn't crit succeed a save.
Hey, I've not made many forum posts in a really long while, so... I hope all is good/this is the right place. (As close as I can tell..)
Regarding the GM Core page 56/57, it made a quick reference to adjusting encounter difficulty if the party had an extra player, and then I paused to look up the reference and.. Then I started to realize, I don't believe PF2 actually covers atypical party sizes! So assuming this is the "bug report" (or errata flag space..)
- page 56 GM Core has the topic on Party Size:
The rules for advancement assume a group of four PCs.
The rules for building encounters (page 57) describe how to
accommodate groups of a different size, but the XP awards
don’t change—always award the amount of XP listed for a
group of four characters. You usually won’t need to make
many adjustments for a differently sized group outside of
encounters. Be careful of providing too many ways to get
accomplishment XP when you have a large group, though.
Since they can pursue multiple accomplishments at once, it
can lead to the PCs leveling up too fast.
- Page 57 GM Core, per the redirected citation Group Parity and Party Level:
It’s recommended that you keep all the player
characters at the same XP total. This makes it much
easier to know what challenges are suitable for your
players. Having characters at different levels can mean
weaker characters die more easily and their players feel
less effective, which in turn makes the game less fun for
those players.
If you choose not to keep the whole group at the
same character level, you’ll need to select a party level
to determine your XP budget for encounters. Choose
the level you think best represents the party’s ability as a
whole. Use the highest level if only one or two characters
are behind, or an average if everyone is at a different level.
If only one character is two or more levels ahead, use a
party level suitable for the lower-level characters, and
adjust the encounters as if there were one additional PC
for every 2 levels the higher-level character has beyond
the rest of the party.
Party members who are behind the party level gain
double the XP other characters do until they reach
the party’s level. When tracking individually, you’ll
need to decide whether party members get XP for
missed sessions.
The *only* reference I see to party level between these two is "... adjust the encounters as if there were one additional PC for every 2 levels the higher-level character has beyond the rest of the party." And now that I've re-read that, I think that's its own errata fix that I think is meant to say "... For every 2 levels *higher* the character is beyond the rest."
For now I'm just borrowing from Starfinder's CRB 388/389 regarding the APL adjustments of -1 for every character below 4 characters and +1 for every character beyond *5* characters.
Nujuju299 wrote: Hey, I've not made many forum posts in a really long while, so... I hope all is good/this is the right place. (As close as I can tell..)
Regarding the GM Core page 56/57, it made a quick reference to adjusting encounter difficulty if the party had an extra player, and then I paused to look up the reference and.. Then I started to realize, I don't believe PF2 actually covers atypical party sizes! So assuming this is the "bug report" (or errata flag space..)
- page 56 GM Core has the topic on Party Size:
The rules for advancement assume a group of four PCs.
The rules for building encounters (page 57) describe how to
accommodate groups of a different size, but the XP awards
don’t change—always award the amount of XP listed for a
group of four characters. You usually won’t need to make
many adjustments for a differently sized group outside of
encounters. Be careful of providing too many ways to get
accomplishment XP when you have a large group, though.
Since they can pursue multiple accomplishments at once, it
can lead to the PCs leveling up too fast.
- Page 57 GM Core, per the redirected citation Group Parity and Party Level:
It’s recommended that you keep all the player
characters at the same XP total. This makes it much
easier to know what challenges are suitable for your
players. Having characters at different levels can mean
weaker characters die more easily and their players feel
less effective, which in turn makes the game less fun for
those players.
If you choose not to keep the whole group at the
same character level, you’ll need to select a party level
to determine your XP budget for encounters. Choose
the level you think best represents the party’s ability as a
whole. Use the highest level if only one or two characters
are behind, or an average if everyone is at a different level.
If only one character is two or more levels ahead, use a
party level suitable for the lower-level characters, and
adjust the encounters as if there were one additional PC
for every 2 levels...
Sorry, looks like there's no edit exactly. I discovered 20 pages later ish what the actual XP budget is. I struggled a bit to understand it but at that point I was awake at some 2-3AM so might just be me.. lol -- Sorry for the inconvenience. :/ I dunno, if anything make a reference to encounter building?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Yeah the trick for more PCs is to give the same xp as you would for a 4 person party, but add enough extra creatures to adjust the xp of the encounter up by the amount on the chart. It does get more complicated when you have more PCs and their levels are not the same.
The amount of XP you award for the encounter doesn't change, regardless of party sizes. ie: a moderate encounter gives every player in it 80 XP regardless of party size.
What you're doing is modifying the encounter for the party size so that it remains a moderate encounter. ie: If it's a bigger party you add more stuff.
The rules around that can be a bit confusing, which is why I suggest using an online calculator too help. There's a couple out there if you google "pf2 encounter builder". You plug in the party size/level, then can add creatures and it'll tell you things like what the encounter difficulty is, so you can tweak it to get it where you want.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
