Remaster: It's the Little Things in Life

[Ravingdork]

I've never mentioned types, one way or the other.

I assume the batch rule of "must be the same type" still applies.

For example, if you wanted to make two 5th rank scrolls of fireball and two 5th ranks scrolls of lightning bolt, those would count as two batches of two, not a single batch of four.

I'm starting to see how the developers can come away with differing interpretations on how Wounded works after reaching unanimous agreement. XD

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

So... in what way is this a change from pre-Remaster?

[Ravingdork]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

So... in what way is this a change from pre-Remaster?

I suppose it's not, but by the time I checked the original text, it was too late to edit my original post.

Also, in pre-Remaster, I had a bunch of people telling me that batching things really didn't save you much time at all, so there's that I guess.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Ravingdork wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

So... in what way is this a change from pre-Remaster?

I suppose it's not, but by the time I checked the original text, it was too late to edit my original post.

Okay then! :-)

Ravingdork wrote:

Also, in pre-Remaster, I had a bunch of people telling me that batching things really didn't save you much time at all, so there's that I guess.

Weird, I found it straightforward. Oh, well.

[Finoan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

So... in what way is this a change from pre-Remaster?

I suppose it's not, but by the time I checked the original text, it was too late to edit my original post.

Also, in pre-Remaster, I had a bunch of people telling me that batching things really didn't save you much time at all, so there's that I guess.

OK. That was my first thought too. I was looking at that trying to figure out how that was different than the wording of crafting consumables that I am used to.

Pre-Remaster, crafting 4 consumables separately takes at least 16 days. Crafting a batch of 4 of the same consumable takes as little as 4 days. So there is time savings there. But not cost savings.

[Ravingdork]

Finoan wrote:

Pre-Remaster, crafting 4 consumables separately takes at least 16 days. Crafting a batch of 4 of the same consumable takes as little as 4 days. So there is time savings there. But not cost savings.

And now in Remaster, a batch can be done in as little as 1 day, though as before there's no cost savings beyond the extra days spent reducing the costs.

EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear, my interpretation is that each day spent reducing the costs would do so for all items in a batch, not for one item at a time.

[MaxAstro]

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear, my interpretation is that each day spent reducing the costs would do so for all items in a batch, not for one item at a time.

I'm with you up to this point - I don't see where the rules indicate this.

Rather, the cost of crafting the batch would be treated as the total crafting cost, and reduced in the same way that total crafting cost normally is, wouldn't it?

[Finoan]

MaxAstro wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear, my interpretation is that each day spent reducing the costs would do so for all items in a batch, not for one item at a time.

I'm with you up to this point - I don't see where the rules indicate this.

Rather, the cost of crafting the batch would be treated as the total crafting cost, and reduced in the same way that total crafting cost normally is, wouldn't it?

Yeah, same. I'm not entirely sure how to parse what Ravingdork is putting forward.

But how I would run it is that the cost of the individual consumables in the batch is added together to get the base cost of the crafting operation. Then the crafting is done using that base cost and time as normal for crafting anything else. When the crafting is done, then the entire batch is finished.

So no, you don't get a 4x multiplier on additional time spent. The additional time spent crafting applies to the base cost of the batch as a whole, not to all of the individual items each all at the same time.

[Perpdepog]

That's how I assumed it worked; you count your crafting time as if you're making a consumable that costs four times as much as typical. You still work to reduce the overall cost, and have to stop when you reach half of that total price for four consumables as per usual.

[Ravingdork]

According to that interpretation, there's no worthwhile benefit to batch crafting. Falls into "too bad to be true" territory for my taste.

(This is what I was talking about, Fuzzy-Wuzzy; my interpretation doesn't appear to be the prevailing one.)

[Perpdepog]

Ravingdork wrote:

According to that interpretation, there's no worthwhile benefit to batch crafting. Falls into "too bad to be true" territory for my taste.

(This is what I was talking about, Fuzzy-Wuzzy; my interpretation doesn't appear to be the prevailing one.)

In what way is it too bad to be true? You're saving the extra setup days you'd otherwise need to craft each individual item, at minimum. You can also argue that the fewer crafting checks introduces fewer failure points into the process, though it does also mean if your singular crafting check doesn't work out then your whole batch is scuppered, so that's a bit of a wash.

[Ravingdork]

Perpdepog wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

According to that interpretation, there's no worthwhile benefit to batch crafting. Falls into "too bad to be true" territory for my taste.

(This is what I was talking about, Fuzzy-Wuzzy; my interpretation doesn't appear to be the prevailing one.)

In what way is it too bad to be true? You're saving the extra setup days you'd otherwise need to craft each individual item, at minimum. You can also argue that the fewer crafting checks introduces fewer failure points into the process, though it does also mean if your singular crafting check doesn't work out then your whole batch is scuppered, so that's a bit of a wash.

How can you honestly say you're crafting them all "at once," when you're clearly making them consecutively? Batch crafting should not take nearly four times as long as a single item; that shouldn't need any more explaining.

If it only saved you the prep days, the batch crafting rules would have been worded totally differently.

[Shisumo]

Making four items would take a minimum of four days and only at full price. A 5th level crafter making four lesser acid flasks individually works four days and pays 12 gp. A 5th level crafter making a batch of four lesser acid flasks gets a crit success (on an 11+), works the same four days, and pays 6 gp.

[Squiggit]

Ravingdork wrote:

According to that interpretation, there's no worthwhile benefit to batch crafting.

I mean, the benefit is you're crafting in batches. That's the whole point of batch crafting.

I don't see why you'd assume batch crafting would also quadruple the rate at which you generate wealth with crafting, or that it would somehow be useless if not given that benefit.

As far as reasonability tests go, "crafting this item gives me four times more gold value than normal" should set off some obvious red flags.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Batching saves you time, and time is money.

If I have a week of downtime, and I make a batch of something, it takes me a day minimum and N gold pieces to finish. Now I have six days of downtime to screw around with. If instead I make a single one of the thing, and then another, etc, it takes me four days minimum and the same N gold to finish---but now I only have three days to screw around.

If my screwing around is no more profitable than crafting was, it's a wash. But if I can find a higher-level job for the rest of the week, I make a very real profit by having batched, proportional to the increase in screw-around time. With this example, batching nets me three days at some better job.

That's my understanding. Not sure who I'm agreeing with or not here....

[Ravingdork]

Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why you'd assume batch crafting would also quadruple the rate at which you generate wealth with crafting, or that it would somehow be useless if not given that benefit.

I just assumed that's why there are prep days at all, to balance this against every other method of earning income in the game, which has no downtime at all (pun unintended).

If you force players to Craft items in succession, then slap a "batch" label on it, you're 1) not fooling anyone, and 2) leaving no reason to Craft over using the other earn income options.

[Spamotron]

Ravingdork wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why you'd assume batch crafting would also quadruple the rate at which you generate wealth with crafting, or that it would somehow be useless if not given that benefit.

I just assumed that's why there are prep days at all, to balance this against every other method of earning income in the game, which has no downtime at all (pun unintended).

If you force players to Craft items in succession, then slap a "batch" label on it, you're 1) not fooling anyone, and 2) leaving no reason to Craft over using the other earn income options.

I know you're the thread creator but I really think you should split this off into its own thread in Rules Discussion. This has already dominated basically an entire pages worth of posts in the thread and I don't think you want it going on in here for pages more.

[Ravingdork]

Spamotron wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why you'd assume batch crafting would also quadruple the rate at which you generate wealth with crafting, or that it would somehow be useless if not given that benefit.

I just assumed that's why there are prep days at all, to balance this against every other method of earning income in the game, which has no downtime at all (pun unintended).

If you force players to Craft items in succession, then slap a "batch" label on it, you're 1) not fooling anyone, and 2) leaving no reason to Craft over using the other earn income options.

I know you're the thread creator but I really think you should split this off into its own thread in Rules Discussion. This has already dominated basically an entire pages worth of posts in the thread and I don't think you want it going on in here for pages more.

But everyone disagrees with me there! :P

EDIT: Alright, I did it. Feel free to post and repost there.

[Ravingdork]

Just realized that they clarified that TITAN SLINGER applies to the SLING WEAPON GROUP in Remaster, and not just normal slings.

1d12 sling staves and 1d8 bolas here I come!

Big win for the little guy.

[aobst128]

I like that the khakkara has the monk trait now. A second d10 option outside of dragon stance is nice.

[calnivo]

Do stylistic things count? For instance, images getting captions. (Makes the art more accessible to me; I can discern at first glance, which of the 7 to 10 spells of a double page is actually depicted.)

[Perpdepog]

calnivo wrote:

Do stylistic things count? For instance, images getting captions. (Makes the art more accessible to me; I can discern at first glance, which of the 7 to 10 spells of a double page is actually depicted.)

I think they started doing that back in Treasure Vault? By and large Paizo has been getting really good at captioning their pages.

[Ravingdork]

calnivo wrote:

Do stylistic things count? For instance, images getting captions. (Makes the art more accessible to me; I can discern at first glance, which of the 7 to 10 spells of a double page is actually depicted.)

Yes of course!

Why, had you and Perpdepog not brought it up, I would not have realized that Paizo had begun captioning their images.

[aobst128]

The standard spear also has the monk trait now which is nifty. Now shooting stars monks can invest in a melee weapon with their throwers bandoliers.

[shroudb]

the new Focused item for witches (at least I think it's new?).

Not only do you get to pick a classy witch's hat, but you can also tie a cute little bow to your cat and give it Tough for free!

[Ravingdork]

Remaster finally answers the question of whether or not a spontaneous caster can use their higher level slots to cast lower level spells! Huzzah!

Player Core 298 wrote:

As a spontaneous caster, you can also choose to cast a lower-rank spell using a higher-rank spell slot without heightening it or knowing it at a higher rank. This casts the spell at the rank you know the spell, not the rank of the higher slot. The spell doesn’t have any heightened effects, so it’s usually not a very efficient use of your magic outside of highly specific circumstances. For instance, if your party was having trouble with an invisible enemy, and you had revealing light in your repertoire but had already spent all of your 2nd-rank spell slots, it might be worth it to use a 3rd-rank spell slot to cast the spell, even though it’d have no heightened benefit.

Over the years, I encountered a number of people who said "no way" to that. Now we know. :D

(Thank you Eoran for pointing it out to me.)

[Ravingdork]

Innate Spells, Player Core 299 wrote:

When you gain an innate spell, you become trained in the spell attack modifier and spell DC statistics. At 12th level, these proficiencies increase to expert. Unless noted otherwise, Charisma is your spellcasting attribute modifier for innate spells.

Woot! Innate spells are no longer limited to Trained!

[YuriP]

The remaster is currently full of little good details!

I still waiting the AoN update to read all it better by myself.

[Ravingdork]

YuriP wrote:

The remaster is currently full of little good details!

I still waiting the AoN update to read all it better by myself.

Indeed! This thread has basically become the "little things you might have missed" for the Remaster. :D

[Ravingdork]

A minor find, and not necessarily a benefit, but it appears the hardness of Thin Stone went up from 4 to 5 in the Remaster.

See the Materials rules for more info.

EDIT: The Remaster text also clarifies that low-grade, standard-grade, and high-grade COMMON materials also exist in the game world, but that they are so cheap and easy to obtain that their value is subsumed into the magical item in question. This explains why you can have a 20th-level magical item made of common material, but must have high-grade pure adamantine to make the same item out of adamantine.

Theoretically, someone could make a low-grade wooden weapon that couldn't accept higher level runes, but there's little to no point in doing so.

Furthermore, the Remaster rules state that you can upgrade material quality simply by paying the difference and providing the appropriate materials. No more having to start over from scratch when your magic item reaches its special material's level cap.

[YuriP]

This similar to an AoA quest deals with lower quality items.

Spoiler:

In the Fires of the Haunted City a dwarf follower of Droskar called Brigven earn money selling low-quality weapons as high quality ones but due this prevents the addition of runes so to he's victims don't notice, he makes an agreement with they when they need to add a rune to their items they need to give the item to him to him be able to add the rune by hisself without cost but when they done this he's simply switch the bad quality item to a high quality one that he was stealing from the guild.

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

A minor find, and not necessarily a benefit, but it appears the hardness of Thin Stone went up from 4 to 5 in the Remaster.

See the Materials rules for more info.

EDIT: The Remaster text also clarifies that low-grade, standard-grade, and high-grade COMMON materials also exist in the game world, but that they are so cheap and easy to obtain that their value is subsumed into the magical item in question. This explains why you can have a 20th-level magical item made of common material, but must have high-grade pure adamantine to make the same item out of adamantine.

Theoretically, someone could make a low-grade wooden weapon that couldn't accept higher level runes, but there's little to no point in doing so.

Furthermore, the Remaster rules state that you can upgrade material quality simply by paying the difference and providing the appropriate materials. No more having to start over from scratch when your magic item reaches its special material's level cap.

Pretty sure everything but the stone part was already in the rules.

[Ravingdork]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Pretty sure everything but the stone part was already in the rules.

Well, I checked all the general rules on Special Materials on Archives of Nethys before posting. I found no mention of being able to upgrade the material of an item; nor did I see any explanation as to why Common Materials could accept high level runes and magic, but many Special Materials couldn't.

[thenobledrake]

It was the rules implicitly because there was nothing saying that upgrading an item rules didn't apply in the case of material grades and the "obvious" case that there was no special material mentioned for standard material weapons to have higher level runes.

But now those details are explicitly part of the rules instead of someone potentially misunderstanding the unmentioned details and thinking you would have to have a precious material on any magical item because there's no mention of standard materials maximum rune levels (assuming 0, rather than 20, for the unspecified limit).

[Perpdepog]

Ravingdork wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Pretty sure everything but the stone part was already in the rules.

Well, I checked all the general rules on Special Materials on Archives of Nethys before posting. I found no mention of being able to upgrade the material of an item; nor did I see any explanation as to why Common Materials could accept high level runes and magic, but many Special Materials couldn't.

You may want to check again.

Crafting with Precious Materials, p. 578 wrote:

Only an expert crafter can create a low-grade item, only a master can create a standard-grade item, and only a legendary crafter can create a high-grade item. In addition, to Craft with a precious material, your character level must be equal to or greater than that of the material.

Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.

Emphasis mine. Also, here's the AoN page, with the info under the same name as my quote.

[Ravingdork]

Well, 2/3 ain't bad, I guess.

Thanks everyone! :)

[Gisher]

Ravingdork wrote:

Just found out that the Monk trait has been added to the staff, the spear, and the khakkara!

So many hidden gems throughout!

Hmm. Now that the staff is a monk weapon I wonder how good the Monk archetype would be for a Twisted Tree Magus.

[Perpdepog]

Gisher wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Just found out that the Monk trait has been added to the staff, the spear, and the khakkara!

So many hidden gems throughout!

Hmm. Now that the staff is a monk weapon I wonder how good the Monk archetype would be for a Twisted Tree Magus.

Would they even synergize? I guess if you leaned on arcane cascade more heavily than most sound like they do you could get some benefits out of FoB. I think the main benefit would be getting more options for focus spells, personally.

[pH unbalanced]

Gisher wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Just found out that the Monk trait has been added to the staff, the spear, and the khakkara!

So many hidden gems throughout!

Hmm. Now that the staff is a monk weapon I wonder how good the Monk archetype would be for a Twisted Tree Magus.

My favorite PF1 character was a multi-classed Monk/Staff Magus, so I'll definitely have to give this a try now. (Though I was also eyeing Twisted Tree Magus/Staff Acrobat for the same feel.)

[The Raven Black]

Monk MC Druid for Shillelagh goodness.

[Ravingdork]

The tarrasque is no longer immune to disintegrate.

[Dubious Scholar]

Ravingdork wrote:

The tarrasque is no longer immune to disintegrate.

Other ways to permanently kill the Tarrasque:

Finger of Death (bypasses Carapace, can damage and cause instant death on success)
All Shall End in Flames (likewise)

[Bluemagetim]

Take that Rovagug!

[PossibleCabbage]

Good thing Tarrasque is stuck in its cave (unless a GM wants to bring it out) and the next Spawn of Rovagug we see is going to be a new one.

Tarrasque is safe in its cave, safe from disintegrate.

[YuriP]

Aren't beam a synonymous to ray in this case?

[Ravingdork]

YuriP wrote:

Aren't beam a synonymous to ray in this case?

Immunities generally rely on traits and game terminology, not plain English though.

If it were intended to be the plain English version of "ray" then that opens a big 'ol can of worms in terms of GM adjudication as to what "ray" could cover.

For example, one could interpret almost any ranged attack or line as being a "ray."

A more direct answer to your question:

"Rays" and "beams" are terms often used interchangeably in everyday language, especially in the context of light or other forms of radiation. However, they can have distinct meanings depending on the context:

Rays: A ray is typically used to describe a straight line that represents the path along which light or radiation travels. It's a concept used in physics, particularly in ray optics, to illustrate the propagation of light. Rays are idealized lines; they don't have width and are used to model the movement of light in geometric optics.

Beams: A beam generally refers to a stream of particles or waves that are moving along the same path. In the context of light, a beam is a collection of rays that emanate from a source and move in the same general direction. Beams can have a specific shape and size, such as laser beams, which are highly directional and focused.

In technical or scientific contexts, the distinction is more pronounced, where "ray" is often used to describe a theoretical or idealized concept, and "beam" is used to describe a more tangible or practical manifestation of light or other particles.

[shroudb]

Ravingdork wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Aren't beam a synonymous to ray in this case?

Immunities generally rely on traits and game terminology, not plain English though.

If it were intended to be the plain English version of "ray" then that opens a big 'ol can of worms in terms of GM adjudication as to what "ray" could cover.

For example, one could interpret almost any ranged attack or line as being a "ray."

thing is, in pf2 there's no terminology for "ray" either. It's not defined anywhere as a "game term" from what I know.

[Dubious Scholar]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Good thing Tarrasque is stuck in its cave (unless a GM wants to bring it out) and the next Spawn of Rovagug we see is going to be a new one.

Tarrasque is safe in its cave, safe from disintegrate.

Well, these spells (and impulse) work equally well against all printed Spawn of Rovagug, it's a blind spot in the rule about them coming back from instant death effects that there's death effects that can instant kill on success.

[dirkdragonslayer]

Ravingdork wrote:

What little things with potentially big ramifications have you noticed in the Remaster that might otherwise fly under most people's radar?

The changes to Druid's speak with animals/plants. Wild Empathy used to be phrased like you can't really talk with animals, you just perform rudimentary gestures for simple things, you couldn't ask questions like the spell versions. If you wanted more, you needed to cast a spell like Speak with Animals or pick up multiple feats with Green Empathy (level 6)/Green Tongue (level 11).

But now Voice of Nature (replaced Wild Empathy) gives you permanent speak with animals or speak with plants from level 1. Those feats are now phrased just like the Speak with Animals/Plants spells except; no spell slot to spend, no time limit, no double feat tax and waiting until level 11 to ask a tree a question.

For me it fits the fantasy of a druid a little bit better, from session 1 I can talk to rats and ask for a little information instead of waiting until higher levels and spending (and maybe wasting) a precious spell slot.

[Fumarole]

Ravingdork wrote:

The tarrasque is no longer immune to disintegrate.

Are we sure about this? The tarrasque's remastered stablock (which we do not have, as far as I know) could indicate otherwise.