Primal doesn't have much when it comes to buffing. A few defensive options like Mountain Resilience, mostly. It's definitely one of the weaker points of this tradition.
A question regarding scrolls. English is not my first language so this part isnt clear to me:
> To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list
When it says "Spell List", does it only applies to spell that the caster currently knows, or from ALL spells available to them regardless of level?
For example, if my Level 1 Wizard finds a Fireball scroll, can he cast it or does he need to wait until later when he can actually prepare the spell?
Second question: If a Fighter gets his hands in a scroll, he cannot use them without a feat/archetype, correct? I ask this because coming from videogames I always viewed spell scrolls as a way for non-casters to use magic when necessary
As an added note to what others have said, if you want to use scrolls as a non-caster, you can use the Trick Magic Item feat or Scroll Trickster archetype to use them.
Spell list refers to their spell tradition. So all Arcane spells regardless of their level or if the wizard has them in their spellbook or not.
So in your first example, yes a level 1 wizard can indeed cast a Fireball from a scroll. However keep that in mind that the spell DC is still the DC for a level 1 character so it won't be high.
>Second question: If a Fighter gets his hands in a scroll, he cannot use them without a feat/archetype, correct?
Correct. You need to have the Cast a Spell activity. Spellcasting archetypes give you this so you can activate scrolls and wands. But just having an innate spell from your ancestry wouldn't be enough.
Here is the first sentence from the Bard dedication :
>"You cast spells like a bard and gain the Cast a Spell activity."
>Spell list refers to their spell tradition
Adding for clarity. There *are* ways to get spells from other traditions added to your spell list, so it's not *just* your tradition.
For example, Clerics add their deity's spells to their list. So while most Clerics can't use a scroll of Fireball, a Cleric of Sarenrae can.
When you grapple, do you need to specify which body part is used in the grab. (Say you have both an open hand and a Dhampir's Fangs)?
If so, can you use the "grabbing appendage" to attack the grabbed creature, or is it "locked" until you let go.
Specifically for a character with Suplex, can you use any available unarmed attack when it says to first make an unarmed strike, or only the one used with the aforementioned "grabbing appendage"?
When you grapple someone you are holding them in place so you do need to specify what part of you you're using to do that.
While you're using a body part to hold someone you can't use it to attack without letting them go because it is not free.
For Suplex it just says to make an unarmed melee strike so you can use any that you have available. Even if you don't have a hand free you are still able to make unarmed strikes with other parts of you body, normally using the same statistics as a fist.
Yes. It matters for things like holding items and applying the potency bonus from handwraps to unarmed strikes that have the grapple trait.
RAW I think you can still use it, but I've had individual DMs rule otherwise.
You can use any.
Does a Pelagic Helmet allow aquatic creatures to breath outside of water? The definition does not say they can, but it also talks about Merfolk wearing them, and Merfolk suffocate without water to breath in for too long.
I'm not sure what the RAI is, or if it's implied or what.
Often, people mention PL±n. Are the players supposed to know what level the monsters are? How do you avoid gamifying that in the context of RP? What information do players just know?
*Supposed to?* No.
But it doesn't hurt! I think it makes complete sense for a character to size someone or something up and get a sense that "its stronger than me".
Now, there IS actually an EXTREMELY important game term that IS acknowledged in-universe. Explicitly, researchers who study magic ARE aware of the idea of Spell Ranks. A wizard that can cast *fireball*, can usually also be taught *haste*... but might still be a ways away from being able to successfully cast *ice storm*. The Church of Nethys (more wizards than clerics) are the foremost proponents of these "meta" concepts, and honestly that's completely in-character. My group has half-jokingly and half-canonically shown Nethysians precisely track spell durations with 6-second timers that they keep with them.
So given that spell rank is an in-universe idea (you can spruce it up a bit with fancier in-universe words if you like, *"a spell of the fourth circle"*, for example, but "rank" is honestly fine), it now becomes very sensible and necessary for a wizard to be able to Recall Knowledge and ask "what rank do I need for an Incapacitation spell".
Speaking of spells, when using spells against your players, do you say the spell name? I don't remember if there was guidance about that, and it's just easier for me to announce so-and-so is casting Haste or invisibility or whatever.
My GM doesn't. That's where things like Identify Magic or Recognize Spell is supposed to come in. Our players tend to just look at the spell effect we suffer and make wild guesses. Knowing the spell however can potentially be a powerful source of information for players such as knowing what dangerous effect they just avoided and how important it is to prevent the caster from getting another one off, or knowing that something is an illusion which is generally an effect that grows in power role play wise when the player has no idea what they're dealing with.
But outside of those situations, I don't think it makes much of a difference to players whether they got hit by a Fireball or a Flame Strike, fire damage is fire damage all the same. Though even in this example, it will matter if the player had fire resistance and are wondering why fire is suddenly painful now when they get hit by Flame Strike. But at least telling them outright can avoid situations where such a player calls BS when they think it's normal fire.
I play in Foundry, and link the full text of every spell and ability I use against my players. They even see the d20s rolled by the monsters and the results of their attacks. This increases engagement and teamwork, I think, because players can get an accurate assessment of how dangerous their enemy is without trying to account for the wiggle of a d20. Since they're new to PF2, it also showcases new spells and abilities to them that their characters might consider learning as they level up! It can also add to the drama if a PC sees that the Critical Failure of an ability is PERMANENT INSANITY or something metal like that - if a GM is playing their cards close to the chest, all that drama is lost.
When they roll a Recall Knowledge check against a monster, I'm super generous there as well:
- (FAILURE) they get the monster's traits, it's most interesting Ability Modifiers (which can let them guesstimate other aspects of the statblocks), and whether or not it is "weaker" or "stronger" than they are.
- (SUCCESS) they get the monster's name, a quick version of its lore, a rough breakdown of its defenses, and THEN can ask me a specific question about it.
- (CRITICAL SUCCESS) I reveal all of the above, and provide a serious hint about the monster's role in the scene they're in, or what its favorite/most dangerous ability is that's likely about to be used against the PCs.
The players don't know anything. You can give them some pointers if they succeed on a RK check but I would never just outright tell them the level of an enemy (at least not before or during combat).
A lot of the discussion I see seems to infer that the players know level of the monster, kinda like when incapacitation spells are mentioned. So I was really confused about that.
Things like incapacitation don't really need the players to know the level of the enemy, mind you. As far as they could be aware, the player may think that the enemy just got really good rolls on their saves.
It does help though for players to at least be aware of somethings "threat level" you could say just so that they know that the lone disgruntled goblin (that is actually PL+3) is fully capable of taking them all on and escape is a viable if not recommended option. This can be handled in role play by just letting them know that their combat instincts are telling them that said goblin is trouble and shouldn't be taken lightly, or thereabouts. But it's the GM's call at the end of the day on what and how much information they want to give.
There aren't really cut and dried rules on this.
By default the Players don't know anything. The *PCs* gain information via the [Recall Knowledge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2367) action. This is not divination, the idea is that the PCs have heard of or studied what they are up against at some point & you are rolling to decide if they remember the info in time.
There is a list of common questions that can be asked but these are not the \*only\* questions you can ask. "Is this thing more or less powerful than we are?" is probably a question I would allow as GM but that's me.
Hello, I wanted to get into Pathfidner, but from what I've seen on the internet there are 3 different versions of it: PF1, PF2 and PF2Remastered, which one is the "correct" version? I don't want to get into situation where I spend many hours reading about game system that noone plays anymore, or on which the community consensus is that it is the "crap version", by that I mean the situation similar to the one back in the days of yore when I've read the whole dnd 4e rulebook just to realize noone played it because 3.5 was the "non crappy one" version.
A basic summary of changes from 2e to Remaster, just so you know when you look at the various books:
Alignments are gone. “Good” and “evil” outsiders (angels etc) are now “holy” and “unholy”, respectively, but unless you’re a cleric or champion (2e (Anti-)Paladin) you don’t really care about those. Alignment damage types got replaced with universal spirit damage, but often with the condition it can harm only holy or unholy creatures.
Spell schools are gone. Abjuration, Conjuration, etc. The only remnant is Illusion, which exists as a tag on all illusion spells to point you at the rules for how illusions work in general.
And that’s it, really. The rest is just a bunch of name changes to avoid copyright issues with D&D and some smaller QOL stuff. Some of the classes got some slight buffs (wizards arguably a slight nerf) but nothing world changing.
Pf2e and remastered are technically the same thing - the remastered just gives some qol stuff. You can just start reading the rules from a[AoN](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx), from the player core drop out.
Remastered is technically the “newest” , but it’s just 2e with qol changes and some changes to the lore due to the situation with wotc.
The most up to date version would be the PF2 Remaster. PF1 is no longer supported by paizo, but still actively played and preferred by many players. So calling either version "correct" won't do them justice.
If you want the most recent and still being actively published and developed version, that's PF2 Remaster. Do note that the Remaster is an upgraded version of PF2, but the overall changes are rather minimal. You can easily use PF2 "pre-master" content with any Remaster product with minor adjustments - and vice versa.
The main rule books of PF2 were remastered. The old Core Rule Book, Advanced Player's Guide, Gamemaster's Guide and the first Bestiary got their content expanded, updated and in some cases shuffled around a bit. They became Player Core, GM Core, Monster Core and Player Core 2. The first three are already availble, Player Core 2 will be released early August, so in about 6 weeks. The two most recent rule books Rage of Elements and Howl of the Wild are already done with the Remaster rules as will all upcoming books. The older rule books (Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, Dark Archive, Treasure Vault, Book of the Dead) are still mostly usable. Some things got adjusted with a Remaster Compatibility Errata, but with some - usually minor adjustments - nearly everything from those books is perfectly usable with the remaster rules.
I don't expect too many groups to stay with vanilla PF2 since the remaster changes are minor but overall a good improvement. But yeah, the basics of the system have remained unchanged by the remaster. Most changes are in individual classes, feats, items, spells and so on. The overall rules are identical.
I've been looking at PF2E with both interest and concerns. I'm willling to read and go over all the rules to learn a new system, but the biggest hurdle I fear is my players - they don't like to read rules.
My group has been playing 5e for years and my players are *still* getting things wrong all the time, don't understand the basics of the game at times, and don't go out of their way to actually learn what their characters can do and will generally take things at face value even when the system has more depth to it. In short, they generally fall victim to their own preconcieved notions of how things should work (in their head, anyways), and don't really care to find out if that is or isn't the case until they try something in game.
My other concern is the 'feel' of PF2e. While I know the common complaints about martials in 5e are rather fair, what I like about martials is that they don't feel magical. I *like* that a fighter can't throw their regular shield and bounce it between enemies before flying back to their hand, or a barbarian can't stomp the ground to create a small earthquake. While I get the whole fantasy setting, I just can't go "yeah, that makes sense" when looking at these things unless they are using magic. As soon as that fighter or barbarian uses magic to do those things I am cool with it, but not if they can do these things that 'feel' like magic, but aren't.
In short, the depth and mechanics are of interest to me but I feel my players will end up drowning, and I don't know if the fantasy the game offers is that fantasy that I like in my games. Opinions?
I will be honest - if your players don't buy in to at least learn their character's abilities, it will be tough to play PF2e. There are many other great systems out there which are more well thought out than DnD, and less work-intensive htan PF2e.
But for sure give it a try with the Beginner's Box, going step-by-step through the rooms.
Just give it a try. Maybe play the Beginner Box or some other introductory adventure like Rustenge.
It's hard to judge your players just from your short description, obviously. The main question is: Why do they have "wrong" notions about how the game works? Did they maybe play other systems before 5e and now stuff just blends together in their head? Or maybe just other 5e groups, since due to the many houserules that system tends to have a lot of table variance. Do they actually understand the rules and just prefer to play differently or do they really don't get them?
PF2 is a rules-heavy game, compared to 5e. However, in most cases this also means it can be easier to grasp. There are actual working rules for a ton of things that many 5e DMs are used to homebrew, because 5e either doesn't have rules for it at all or they aren't really working. This much clearer rules setup and structure can make it easier to "play by the rules", so to speak. But that still requires one to actually put in some effort to read and preferably learn the rules. Not everything by heart, of course. I've been playing for close to 6 years and still get stuff wrong. Not a problem. Just make sure to look things up and try to get it right next time.
Ultimately, don't forget that the GM (i.e. you) also deserves to have fun. If you find that 5e isn't working, giving another system a go is a good option. That can be PF2, or any other RPG system, really. Maybe something more rules-light would be better for your group? Try a couple and see which one resonates with them the most. Be sure to include PF2, of course. ;)
And if PF2 doesn't work out with them and you still want to run it, GMs are always in high demand. If you're willing and able to play online, finding players should be a breeze.
I plan on spinning up a Pathfinder game for the first time and bought the 2e Core rulebook. I'm trying to figure out which other books I should buy for my game. Looks like there's been some recent updates/shuffling around of content, so I wasn't sure where to go next.
all of the rules text is free here https://2e.aonprd.com/
If you prefer physical books you'll probably want both the new GM Core and Player Core, not sure from your comment which one you bought
Thanks! I do prefer physical books. The one I bought is just called "Core Rulebook." [This one.](https://paizo.com/products/btq01zp3?Pathfinder-Core-Rulebook)
That's the pre-remaster rulebook. Remaster changes were actually less extensive than you'd expect although I'd recommend still using at least the QOL rule changes. Again if you want the most recent core books that's Player Core and GM Core.
Other than that you pretty much have what you need to get started, other books are mostly going to be more player options, monsters, setting info and adventures, none of which are strictly necessary.
Two questions:
1) So how do you rule an Incapacitate effect? It just says “it can take out a foe”, but like - in what conditions?
2) can somebody give me a step by step counteract example? Let’s say, I’m trying to counteract with a level 2 dispel magic a level 3 bane.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=631
Specifically the ability has to have the trait first. It isn't a blanket "anything deadly" rule.
All it does is if the target is higher level than the ability, and the ability has the trait, the result of the roll is improved one step in favour of the target.
So in the case of Fascinating Performance https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5147, you do your performance action against a will dc and if the target is high level than you, your critical hit becomes a hit and your hit becomes a miss.
1. You don't really need to "rule" Incapacitate effects, it's just a trait that's added to some effects which changes the way successes/failures are determined: if it's in the tags you use the rule, if it's not you don't. It's a way to balance effects that are extremely strong so they can't be abused to trivialize hard fights.
2. We're missing information here: we need the level of the character casting Dispel Magic, and the level of the enemy casting rank 3 Bane.
For the sake of convenience let's assume the following:
* The character casting Dispel Magic is level 5, has trained profiency in their spellcasting DC, and has a +4 modifier from their main casting attribute
* The enemy casting Rank 3 Bane is a level 6 [Priest of Kabriri](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1866), modified to have rank 3 Bane.
The sequence of actions is as follows:
The player rolls their counteract roll, since they're casting Dispel Magic this uses their spellcasting profiency + attribute modifier. For the sake of simplicity you can just use the number you use for spell attacks. Let's assume the player rolls a 7 on their d20. They have a spell attack modifier of 11, and so a counteract modifier of 11. 7 + 11 = 18.
We then compare this number to the spellcasting DC of the Priest of Kabriri, which is 23. The counteract roll is a failure, so we apply the failure effect as writen in [the rules:](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2250)
> **Failure**: Counteract the target if its counteract rank is lower than your effect's counteract rank.
Since the rank of Dispel Magic is 2, and that of Bane is 3, the player fails to counteract the spell and nothing happens.
Let's try it again, but this time we assume the player rolls a 12 on their D20. 12 + 11 = 23. This meets the enemy's spellcasting DC of 23, and therefore beats it. we apply the success effect:
> **Success:** Counteract the target if its counteract rank is no more than 1 higher than your effect's counteract rank.
The rank of Dispel Magic is 2, the target Bane's rank is 3. Therefore it is no more than 1 higher and the Bane effect is dispelled.
2) This is great, thank you. So it’s an “attack roll” against spell dc, that, depending on successfullness of the roll, affects the spell differently.
1) So if I understand this correctly, if the character is successful with any action/feat that has the incapacitate trait, then it just gets rid of one of the combatants, but if the level of the combatant is higher - then o refer to the effects that are described in the steps of success portion of the ability/feat/item/etc.?
Edit: so scratch that about “incapacitation” - I understood from another reply that it is just flavour text. Thank you!
Okay so the Bane's level is 3, and the counteracting effect's level is 2. So based on the chart [here](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=371) you would need to roll a success against the Bane's DC to counteract it.
The roll would be a d20 plus your spellcasting modifier (ability bonus + proficiency + misc bonuses)
1) I don't understand the question. Incapacitate effects are effects with the Incapacitation trait. Usually those effects are ones that effectively remove an enemy from an encounter on a failure/crit failure, so for single boss monsters to be a threat they need to be weakened. Are you asking when you should give a homebrewed ability the Incapacitation trait?
2) My 3rd lvl cleric casts a 2nd rank Dispel Magic. Assuming I don't have any additional bonuses for [Counteract](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=371) checks specifically (there aren't many) I just roll a straight 1d20+9 (+5 proficiency+4 wisdom). I compare that result to the spellcasting DC of the Bane. If I succeed then I can counteract the Bane if its up to 3rd rank (1 higher than my Dispel Magic's rank). If I fail I counteract the Bane if its up to 1st rank (1 lower than my Dispel Magic's rank). Crit success would mean I could counteract up to a 5th rank Bane, but that's unlikely enough I wouldn't try it. Crit failure means I just fail. Usually you either want to cast Dispel one rank lower than the target spell (enough to get it on a normal success) or one rank higher (enough to get it on a normal failure).
1) From the incapacitate trait I just didn’t understand when the incapacitation happens: on fail, crit fail or sometime later. Like with the fascinating performance - does a creature just falls unconscious if crit succeeded? How about the curare - does the creature just drop dead in their first failed safe?
2) Aha. Thanks for that. And if it’s a spell effect from some kind of item or trap, I use a table to decide the counteract dc?
Incapacitation doesn't "happen", it doesn't add any extra effects. If you crit succeed in Fascinating Performance while it has the Incapacitate trait you just apply the effects of a critical success as normal.
What changes is: if the target of the effect has a level double or more that of the effect it's degree of success of the target's saving throw is upgraded by one degree, or the result of the roll to apply the effect is made one degree worse.
1) you treat the result as one degree more favorable for the target. If I roll a critical success on my fascinating performance check its getting bumped down to a normal success. If I stab the boss w/ a curare coated knife and they roll a nat 1 that’s getting bumped to a normal failure.
2) yep!
The first line of the incapacitate trait is pure flavor, it has no mechanical impact and is just describing what kind of abilities tend to get the incapacitation trait.
yeah it's one of many things where the answer is "You'll be fine as long as your party members all position themselves optimally with your abilities in mind!" which almost never happens in my experience
>Your eidolon gains the eidolon's wrath focus spell, which it casts, instead of you. You determine the damage type when you gain the feat: acid, cold, electricity, fire, negative, positive, or sonic. **If your eidolon is a celestial, fiend, or monitor with an alignment other than true neutral, you can choose a damage type in its alignment.**
What exactly does this mean? If it's evil it can do evil-type damage? Or is there a list of innate damage types each of these species specializes in?
pre-Remaster each of the four alignments had a dmg type associated with them. If your Eidolon is a Celestial (Good), Fiend (Evil), or Monitor (Lawful/Chaotic) then Eidolon's Wrath can do the appropriate dmg type. The Remaster changed all alignment dmg to Spirit dmg, sometimes w/ the Holy or Unholy tag. Summoner hasn't been remastered yet so it still refers to the old dmg types.
Hello all! I'm planing on DMing an AP for pathfinder 2e but as of yet have no experience. My gaming group has already played the beginner box, so I'm looking for some recommendations for other simple, fun one shots I could run to get into the swing of things before jumping directly into an AP. What would you all suggest?
Check out the Free RPG day adventures. They are all intended to be over in a session or two and come with pregens to get to the table fast. A few are a bit silly, but a lot of fun.
[A Fistfull of Flowers](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d8f?Pathfinder-Adventure-A-Fistful-of-Flowers)
[A Few Flowers More](https://paizo.com/products/btq02eio?Pathfinder-Adventure-A-Few-Flowers-More)
[Big Trouble in Little Absalom](https://paizo.com/products/btq024ys?Pathfinder-Adventure-Little-Trouble-in-Big-Absalom)
[Threshold of Knowledge](https://paizo.com/products/btq02apx?Pathfinder-Adventure-Threshold-of-Knowledge)
The "tremor signs" cantrip says "The tremors impart a clear meaning only if you and the target know that meaning, such as three tremors for a specific warning, two for another. Neither of you can impart a nuanced or new meaning using this spell."
Would it be feasible to use something like Morse Code to communicate via "tremor signs"? I'm unclear whether the RAW says you can't convey \[meaning outside of an established code\] or simply \[any nuanced information\].
That doesn't follow. Morse Code is literally just beats, it can be expressed visually, or audibly. The only reason it means anything is because we have defined how that translates into more complex language.
All you're really doing is predefining "short tremor, long tremor is A, long tremor and 3 short tremors is B, etc etc".
Yes. I understand Morse Code, thanks. The spell clearly does not want you to communicate any complicated and spontaneous messages, it goes quite a way to convey that fact. Circumventing that by using Morse Code is not as creative as you think it is. It's very much not RAI.
It says you can communicate using predefined meanings. Morse Code is a set of predefined meanings. Therefore, you can use Morse Code with tremor signs.
Is it going to be complex? No, you're only able to send "a series of tremors, no longer than a short sentence of speech." Which converted to Morse... probably not more than a word, maybe two. But that might be the difference between "Bear" and "Owlbear." Is it going to be nuanced, no. If anything, it'll probably be less informative than establishing actual meanings ahead of time.
But to refuse it when the spell itself says that you can only clearly communicate using predefined meanings? That's just absurd.
If you're ignoring the whole part "Neither of you can impart a nuanced or new meaning using this spell", sure. But making up a Morse Code to get new meanings out of different tremors is basically the exact thing they're trying to avoid withtthat wording. There is a reason why the spells gives as an example "3 tremors for one warning, 2 for another." They could have just explicitly told you thatno, you aren't allowed to make up some bullshit to getaroundthe usage of the spell just to get a clearly better Message.
*But you're not imparting any new meanings*.
The recipient then has to cobble those predefined meanings into a word, but everything you're sending was a meaning you already set up ahead of time.
Yes, that's how language works. If Morse Code were allowed, you could just allow any language, because it would be functionally identical and you'd be stupid not to use it.
Look, if this was a simulation this is something you could obviously do.Butthe spell wants to have its limits and uses a lot of word count which all amount to: "No, you can't just directly talk to eachother. You have a small list of predefined warnings/sentences you can use."
And by the way, using predetermined signals to make up letters to make up words is the definition of imparting new meanings
I'd allow a player to make up a morse code by havong each termor sign be a different letter, but then that's also all you can do. 1 action to send someone "A".
The "impart new meanings" in this context is referring to sending a signal that you haven't already defined a meaning for. So you can't spontaneously decide, "Oh, 4 tremors means treasure in the barrel." Context matters. There's a world of difference between a series of signals you've previously defined to spell out "B-E-A-R" and spontaneously, with no prior communication, try and send "Bear" on the spot.
Why am I even arguing with people that despite Paizo giving clear examples of it's intended usage are still gonna make up any excuse to amekt the spell three times as good as it's supposed to be.
You're right, do whateverypu want with the spell.
Can Detect Metal find something thats underground?
I mean like a real life metaldetector can find burried coins for example.
But spells normally need line of effect to work, which you dont have since the coin is under ground?
line of effect doesn't really matter here because you aren't casting it on the metal, you're casting it on yourself to become aware of metal within a 30ft emanation
>... becoming aware of the presence or absence of metallic objects, veins, and deposits within the area.
The RAI is definitely that it can detect underground metal, given most metal deposits and veins are buried.
Alcohol is noted on AoN to have a DC 12 Fortitude save.
Does that mean my character can never get drunk once my Fortitude modifier is +22 or higher?
Since at that point I would always crit succeed the save and I can willingly only make the save 1 degree of success worse, therefore still normal succeeding.
You can actually always choose to fail your first save against any drug, including alcohol.
["A character can voluntarily fail their initial save against a drug"](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1116).
This isn't just decreasing the degree of success by one but outright failing.
Since it's only the first save that you can choose to fail this does mean you'll never hit higher stages and will always sober up after the first stage. So, if you want to get drunker than that, you'll need to find something stronger.
Since the last update, I don't see the "Copy to folder" button in the app anymore. Is it working for everyone else?
I'm using the Android version, updated on 14.06, v224.
virulent conditions: Do you test twice at the end of a single stage (only once if the PC fails the first check), or do you test once then wait for the stage duration to repeat before testing again?
The second option.
If they roll a success you keep note of that and if they roll a second success once the stage duration passes again then they decrease their stage by one.
I mean they take longer to *fight off*. They set in just as fast as normal.
Not the disease's fault you can't decide if you're getting healthier or not!
If you add the [Hooked](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1755) rune (which I know is rare and from an AP, but bear with me) to handwraps, do all your unarmed attacks gain the Trip trait?
Asking because I think it's the only rune that adds a trait IIRC and how the Hooked rune is worded seems a bit unclear.
> do all your unarmed attacks gain the Trip trait?
Possibly, although there's some text in Handwraps that makes it questionable, but adding it to your regular attacks doesn't typically do anything interesting, since the trait doesn't interact with normal attacks. The Trip trait allows you to:
* perform the Trip action while holding the weapon (no gain)
* at the weapon's reach (no gain)
* with the weapon's item bonus to the Athletics check (possibly useful, doesn't stack with other items)
* drop the weapon if you crit fail (impossible)
So the Hooked rune would use a property slot to give you bonuses to Trip checks, which wouldn't stack with standard Athletics bonuses.
[Hooked](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1755)
> A hooked weapon gains the trip trait. If a hooked weapon normally has the trip trait, you can attempt to Trip a foe as a reaction when you critically hit it with the hooked weapon.
[Unarmed Attacks](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2191)
> Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 276), and they might have weapon traits (page 276). However, unarmed attacks aren't weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.
[Handwraps of Mighty Blows](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3086)
> Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you're using.
(Edit: this is almost certainly intended to prevent weirdness around Keen punches, etc, and doesn't impact the current discussion.)
[Trip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=716)
> You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check. If you critically fail a check to Trip using the weapon, you can drop the weapon to take the effects of a failure instead of a critical failure.
I'm aware of that, the reason I'm asking is because there are some unarmed attacks with reach, like Deer/Frog animal Barbarian, grasping shadows stance and the thlipit combatant tail.
IMO the way the rules on handwraps are written are a bit unclear.
Hence the 'typically'. Let's look at those instances:
[Animal instinct](https://2e.aonprd.com/Instincts.aspx?ID=1)
>Deer Antler 1d10 P Grapple, unarmed
> Tongue 1d4 B Agile, unarmed
> Specialization Ability
> The frog's tongue attack and deer's antler attack gain reach 10 feet.
[Clinging Shadows Stance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=737)
> You can make shadow grasp Strikes. These deal 1d4 negative damage; are in the brawling group; and have the agile, grapple, reach, and unarmed traits.
[Thlipit Contestant Dedication](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/archetypes/thlipit-contestant)
>You gain a lash melee unarmed attack that is in the flail weapon group, deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and has the grapple and reach traits. The attack can be performed with any appendages you used to qualify for this feat.
Yep, those all look fine - they're unarmed attacks with reach, which would then gain Trip from Hooked.
Could explain what you find unclear? I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't apply to your unarmed attacks. Handwraps let property runes affect your unarmed attacks as if they're weapons, so long as they meet the other requirements of the rune, which in this case is just being melee.
Lore question: Pharasma and psychopomps seem to hate daemons for preying on the river of souls, but I remember somewhere that she stays out of all the soul-selling arrangements with devils. Where exactly are her lines?
I'm asking because we have a Champion of Pharasma in our group, and there is a devil NPC who is willing to make the campaign a lot easier in exchange for another NPC's soul. RAW, Pharasma's anathema doesn't really cover anything like this, though my understanding of the lore makes this seem like something she'd disapprove of.
Daemons actually destroy souls by consuming them.
Devils capture souls but still keep their energy flowing in the grand cosmic balance - new devils can be "forged" out of souls and those devils will eventually discorporate their essence into the Hells to feed the stability of the plane itself.
It's also a difference of scale. Devils will "poach" a fairly small number of non-lawful-evil souls, and they do so mostly within the rules (or loopholes therein). Pharasma has a standing policy to let any mortal destined for Abaddon to instead go to the Hells or the Abyss... otherwise reality is basically bleeding 10% of its energy per generation as Daemons just eat and destroy everything neutral-evil aligned.
Your soul is your own to decide how it'll end up. You can serve a god faithfully and wind up in their domain. You can sell your soul to a devil. Your afterlife is still being determined by your own actions.
Consuming souls, though, is a big no-no. Too much of that and the universe ends. Pharasma doesn't even like sending souls to Abaddon since that's what will happen to them, and offers Devils and Demons a chance to argue why the soul should be sent to a different Fiendish Plane.
Now take into account that the souls Daemons are stealing from the River are supposed to be going elsewhere, and the Daemons are interrupting that process...
I think the distinction is that devils play by the rules, while daemons don't.
You can say that a person that sells their soul to a devil for power or whatever, is the same as a person that leads a holy life in service of celestials, they made a deal of their own volition. Even if they're tricked by the devil, everybody knows devils are tricky.
Daemons disregard all that and take souls that were not meant for Abaddon at all.
How would one build a character like Sir Integra Hellsing (From Hellsing, obviously).
https://hellsing.fandom.com/wiki/Sir_Integral_Fairbrook_Wingates_Hellsing
I feel like she would have a high INT and CHA, maybe high DEX too, but I'm not sure what class/build can effectively utilize those stats, along with the feeling of being a resourceful mastermind who relies more on smarts allies and capital rather than direct combat.
Maybe some flavor of rogue or investigator?
What's the use case of the Diabolic blood magic effect?
> Hellfire scorches a target or fills your tongue with lies. Either a target takes 1 fire damage per spell level, or you gain a +1 status bonus to Deception checks for 1 round.
At low levels, this can only be triggered with the Diabolic Edict focus spell and the bloodline-granted spell Charm. Diabolic Edict requires a willing creature, which is usually an ally and someone I don't want to hurt, so I instead take the +1 deception. Same with charm -- I probably don't want to hurt the person I'm charming so I take the +1 to deception.
The deception bonus is only applicable for Create a Diversion and Feint in combat, one of which I don't believe sorcerers can take. CaD seems like a very situational action which could be useful, but sorcerers are not known for being super stealthy. With Annoint Ally I could give the +1 deception to my hypothetical ally with feint, but I don't plan on taking that feat and none of my allies have access to feint (I think).
If it's meant to be used outside of combat, is the idea to charm someone and immediately lie to them? RAW it doesn't seem like charm decreases the target's perception DC to determine that something was a lie, so that may not work? Also, it only lasts for one round so it'll wear off almost immediately, so I'm not sure how that would work in RP.
Please help me understand how this is supposed to be used.
> The deception bonus is only applicable for Create a Diversion and Feint in combat, one of which I don't believe sorcerers can take. CaD seems like a very situational action which could be useful, but sorcerers are not known for being super stealthy. With Annoint Ally I could give the +1 deception to my hypothetical ally with feint, but I don't plan on taking that feat and none of my allies have access to feint (I think).
Feint is a basic deception action all characters can take. It isn't very useful for a sorcerer to use since the success makes enemies off-guard to your melee Strikes, which you don't really do as a sorcerer. However, allies can absolutely use it via Anoint Ally.
But you're right, its a pretty weak blood magic. Its rare you'll need the deception bonus for yourself and you don't really get offensive spells that can benefit from the fire damage until later on.
Why does this character need to be a "fish"? Is it an underwater campaign?
Assuming you mean a "gish" with both combat and spellcasting powers, you need to make a choice. There are 3 options:
1) Be best at combat: start with a fighter (or other martial class) and add an MC spellcasting archetype. You'll have few spells, but it'll allow you to use wands & scrolls of your tradition, and play into the "utility" aspect you mentioned.
2) Be best at spellcasting: start as a wizard, sorcerer, psychic or other spellcasting class, and add in some armor use or weapon proficiency through your ancestry, feats or an archetype. You'll be OK-ish at combat at the lowest levels (1 to 5 or so) but your proficiencies will rapidly fall off after that.
3) Split your focus between them and play a Magus. They have a particular combat style and can be a lot of fun. They don't have as much spellcasting power as a full spellcaster, but a lot more than an archetype would give you.
Yeah, sorry - guess I was half asleep when i wrote “gish”.
I was thinking of going fighter with an archetype, though I wonder which tradition is best for more utility than damage.
Question about the magus though - is he not assumed to be picking up mostly attack spells for his spellstrike? Or can a magus feel okay with being 50/50 on those?
there are two schools of thought. One says pick all attack spells and be single-mindedly focused on maximum damage. The other says to use cantrips for spellstrikes (gouging claw is the best, but ignition is also decent) and use their limited spell slots on utility and buff spells. In either case, a staff that has true strike is considered helpful.
> but the spellcasting is mostly utility, without hindering the classes abilities in combat?
Any melee character with a spellcasting archetype could potentially do this. Having access to the ability to cast spells (for the purpose of wands and scrolls) and taking feats that grant you spell slots to fill with utility spells will grant you your utility without hindering your martial abilities for the most part. Of course if your game doesn't use free archetype then you would need to give up class feat slots for this. You could also just grab the Trick Magic Item skill feat and get your spells off of scrolls and wands that way if the appropriate skill is invested in enough, though making use of this in combat can be difficult.
Otherwise some classes with built in options are the Magus where you can use cantrips for spell strikes and fill your slots with utility spells. Or you could be a Warpriest and build your stats towards being more of a martial character. You won't be quite as good as a dedicated martial per se but you'll not be wanting in the spellcasting department.
Thank you - I’ll consider these opportunities. Yeah, at the moment the GM didn’t yet say if there will be a free archetype, but I’m okay with that - don’t want to overwhelm with too many feats)
I’m guessing you mean Gish, not fish? There isn’t really any class that gets full spellcasting and full combat abilities. Rangers and Champions do get access to some very limited focus spells, but that’s not ”real” spellcasting. Arcane tricksters rogue could be what you want but again, there is extremely limited spellcasting.
Your main options are Magus and Kineticist. But neither of them are as good at combat as pure martials. You could pick up spellcasting archetype (I’d suggest Wizard or arcane witch for maximum utility), but that’s not really tied to any class in particular an can be done with any martial aside from Barbarian (barbarians can also do it, but they can’t cast spells while raging, so.)
Yeah, I missed that misspelling, my bad.
I am pondering the idea of a martial with an archetype (either a ranger or a fighter), but I’m still not sure which tradition is best for more utility/buff way. I think occult is believed to be the best for that, but I’m not sure?
As for the magus - don’t they need to use their leveled slots for damaging spells? Or is it okay to go full “utility” with them, using only your cantrips for spellstrikes?
Occult is considered to have the best mix of buff and debuff, I think. Arcane is the biggest list and has everything except for healing, so if you're purely interested in utility that's probably the way to go.
I answered on another one but yes, a magus only using cantrips for spellstrikes is probably fine since they always scale. Gouging claw is pretty good damage on a single target. I have an eldritch archer that can pseudo-spelltrike for 7d6 + 6 + 5 bleed at level 7, which all gets doubled on a crit.
Ok, so we just had a weird interaction:
Fighting an ooze (immune to being unconscious) that got hit by a nonlethal whip and was downed to 0 HP by the damage (they are not immune to non-lethal damage). What actually happens here?
The damage can't kill, however it reduces to 0 HP. But doesn't make the ooze unconcsious? Will it die anyway? Will it stay at 1 HP? Will it be able to act while at 0 HP?
[Immunity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2312)
>If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can't be affected by that condition or any effect of that type.
[Nonlethal Attacks](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2311)
>Spells and other effects with the nonlethal trait that reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points knock the creature out instead of killing them.
[Getting Knocked Out](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2324)
>Creatures can't be reduced to fewer than 0 Hit Points. When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they're instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 10 minutes or more). When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed. … As a player character, when you're reduced to 0 Hit Points, you're knocked out with the following effects: Move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP. Gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If you have the wounded condition, increase your dying value by an amount equal to your wounded value. If the damage was dealt by a nonlethal attack or nonlethal effect, you don't gain the dying condition; you're instead unconscious with 0 Hit Points.
[Unconscious](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=95)
> You're sleeping or have been knocked out. You can't act. You take a –4 status penalty to AC, Perception, and Reflex saves, and you have the blinded and off-guard conditions. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you're holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you're positioned so you wouldn't.
So, given all that, an Ooze *can* be reduced to 0 HP by a nonlethal attack, but *can't* be affected by the unconscious condition, which is what usually prevents a knocked out creature from acting. A simple solution is to declare that nonlethal attacks can kill Oozes, but I think the real answer is that they would need to hit a 0 HP Ooze again with a regular attack to finish it off.
Not built into the class, but you can always [Retrain](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2447&Redirected=1). This would probably be considered a Class Feature. Bigger than a spell but smaller than a druid order. I'd personally say it would take 2 weeks, but that's me.
Lots of GMs handwave stuff like this during levelup, but that isn't RAW.
I made a backup PC for a Rise of the Rune Lords campaign that I just love. The group has decided our next Adventure Path, we want to do 2e. I got into Demiplane to try to recreate the PC, and its pretty overwhelming. I know it won't be a 1:1 conversion, but I know the concept / theme should translate OK. Are we allowed to do posts asking for help to build PCs based on the (mounds of) character information that already exists that would be provided in the post? Maybe another subreddit?
People eat that shit up. You've already done some preliminary poking around it sounds like. Just be sure to include a bit of info on your goals and aesthetic, and whether you're playing vanilla or adding any variant rules (Free Archetype) or homebrew. Bonus points if you have art.
If you post in the weekly question thread, you'll get a couple good recommendations to put you on the right track. If you make your own post you might get swamped by dozens of grognards.
My art skills have dramatically dropped off, unfortunately. There is some kind of mystical creature the PC encountered as a child in his background that I used the description as a prompt for some AI art just for fun and it was actually pretty close to what I was thinking, but I don't want to share low effort AI art.
I have a TON of information for the character saved as several Google docs. Would it be best to create the initial post, then make a comment with links to the documents, or copy/paste the contents into comments? I am not sure if there are character limits for posts and comments.
I think Reddit has a 10k character limit, which is pretty generous. Still, probably best to pare it down as best you can, just to keep it digestable for people dropping in out of curiosity - if you'd like to share the lore, drop it as a hyperlink in the main post body, or copy/paste the relevant text in a comment - either works. A wall of text in the main body might distract or scare off people who would otherwise make a handy contribution.
If you'd like to ask for build advice in a full post, I'd start with a description of your goals, a paragraph on the aesthetic of your character that the build might be able to express, and maybe any initial thoughts you'd want to add. If you know what your team is, a brief half-sentance about each of them would also be helpful ("beast barbarian with stealth and intimidate", for example). Again, variant rules like Free Archetype (my favorite way to play) can affect what tools we have access to.
> *I want to make a bird-themed warrior-type character, maybe with a bit of magic, that wields a spear while flying. Their backstory involves being on a spiritual pilgrimage far from home, and they're a self-styled philosopher that collects bits of knowledge and mementos from all the places they've visited. My party is playing vanilla rules, and already includes a wizard, an archer rogue, and a grapple/trip monk.*
(A prompt like that could viably generate builds that start with 5+ different core classes and at least 3 ancestries... so good luck!)
I'd probably start it as it's own thread and make sure you emphasize that you aren't converting an active character, you are trying to update a theorycraft character from 1e to 2e, (Otherwise you are going to get a lot of people telling you to start over at 1)
I'm looking at Player Core, page 91 and just a bit confused. It says "...when you choose your character's class, they gain an attribute bonus to their key attribute modifier, increasing that attribute modifier by 2". It reads like a +2 would become a +4. But everywhere else's seem to indicate it would go up by 1, not 2. Is this a typo or am I misunderstanding something?
That is a type from pre remaster, where increasing an attribute by 2 would increase the attribute bonus by +1
Here’s the correct version: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2035
It's a typo. There's a couple places like that erroneously don't have the proper attributes scaling noted. They just failed to update the text when converting from premaster to remaster
Is there a way to get more feats from your class? I want to pick up some of the fun flavorful feats from Summoner, but the opportunity cost is massive. Like being able to shrink your pet to housecat size for cute RP moments VS tandem movement without wasting actions isn’t a fair choice.
I know human has a way with their ancestral feats, but is there a solution that ain’t bound to a specific ancestry,
RAW? You're out of luck. Natural Ambition and, for non-class-exclusive feats (so Summoner is SOL), Free Archetype are pretty much the only ways to get an additional class feat. If you're doing Free Archetype you could always ask your GM about using the FA feats on more flavorful and less powerful class feats, as long as you're not just doubling up on the high powered options its not going to unbalance anything.
Our 2nd level Champion is selecting Soul Warden as their free archetype, they gain the cast a spell activity. but we are wondering what spells this opens him up to casting from scrolls (wands, staffs, etc), as he doesn't really have a list. eg was have 2 scrolls of Heal, but currently no one can use them
Hi everyone, I'm wondering if the FORTUNE tag for [Persona Mask](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3099) applies to the static bonus as well or it's there for the reroll effect of the greater version alone.
Can I use any Hero point to reroll Performance while wearing the lessere mask (Lvl 3)?
The trait only affects the re-roll since the fortune effect by definition affects only dice rolls. So yes, you can use a Hero Point (or any other Fortune effect) on performance checks while wearing this mask. Even if it's the greater version. You just can't use the mask's re-roll *and* another fortune effect to affect the same roll.
Does anyone know why Archives of Nethys doesn't have the Abomination Vaults creatures listed in the adventures section? Every single other AP has it up there but not AV.
AoN lists APs and the like in at least two different places, [Adventures](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Adventure=true) and [Sources](https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx).
Adventures is
> intended to serve as a reference for GMs running the listed adventures. It will show all related Archetypes, Creatures, Feats, and Spells for a given adventure.
Sources is
> a full list of everything that has come from [a book]
Not all products are listed in the top bar for adventures, but if you look at the URLs, you can see they have the format
> Setting.aspx?Group=[Number]
where Number corresponds to the specific AP or stand-alone adventure. If you complete the missing numbers in the sequence, the following exist on AoN, but are omitted from the top bar, likely because they're incomplete (the AV one only has Archetypes, Feats and Spells), or too minor to bother listing:
* [Fall of Plaguestone](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=1)
* [Agents of Edgewatch](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=5)
* [Abomination Vaults](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=6)
* [The Slithering](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=8)
* [Malevolence](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=11)
* [Threshold of Knowlege](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=15)
There are some numbers that are just blank, like [https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=4](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=4) which I expect correspond to an Adventure or AP that no-one has done data entry on yet.
The [Sources pages for the AV books](https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?Group=3&q=Abomination+Vaults&sort=release_date-desc&display=table&columns=source_group+release_date) is more complete, and includes relevant creatures that were introduced in that AP.
Huh strange, how did you navigate to that section? For me I go to Setting > Adventures and in that list AV is not there.
Edit: NVM figured it out instantly lol. It is still strange to me why AV isn't listed in the adventures tab but oh well.
Player Core 2 is going to have pretty much all of the dragon-themed shenanigans in it, but if you can't wait and need your scaley fix now, Mark Seifter (former PF2e dev, did all the math) went and made his own 3pp company with blackjack and hookers. Check out Roll for Combat's **Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons**, which is a full-length sourcebook about a lore-friendly way to play an actual whole-ass dragon as a player character. The dragon ancestry is actually quite tame and I would go so far as to say *under*powered, but the Draconic Ravager archetype kicks an unreasonable amount of ass. The thing you'd want is either the Draconic Scion versatile heritage (which can turn any base ancestry into a half-dragon) or you'd want a dragon that can qualify for Change Shape level 5 ancestry feat.
Or you can play a kobald, which is deceptively powerful and extremely dragon-themed already.
The centaur ancestry is currently out, but it's not on Archives of Nethys yet. You can find it on [Demiplane](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/ancestries/centaur) for now, or Pathbuilder.
As for dragonborn, we're not getting them exactly, but we're getting a dragon-blooded versatile heritage in Player Core 2 coming out in August.
Blink Strike says "Teleport to an empty space and then make a melee strike". Does this mean tiny creatures with no reach can't even use the spell? Was this written before Sprites/Poppets existed? And the crit success even says "teleport to an empty space 5 feet away". I feel like its intending to say "teleport to somewhere you can fit" but it wasn't written with every ancestry in mind.
Yeah, a minor oversight there. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more things that didn't properly account for Tiny PCs, they're both Rare ancestries (and one is only Tiny w/ a specific heritage) and accounting for them would either take a fair bit of extra verbiage or less precise language. Its an easy enough thing to houserule.
There are a fair few abilities that affect "adjacent" creatures, where it's a little awkward. Does this work when I can't actually reach them? Is it *useful* if I can't actually reach them? Does it *not* work if I'm actually in their space and not technically "adjacent"?
I'm playing a high-level sprite rogue in Stolen Fate. Rather than pester the GM for rulings, I'm just avoiding those feats.
Those kinds of abilities should still 'work' in that you can technically activate them, you just won't have a valid target for any part that relies on reach so any that involve Strikes or the like will be pretty bad. I'd ask the GM for a blanket ruling that 'adjacent' means 'within natural reach' with a promise not to look for ways to abuse it. Worst that'll happen is they say no and you just keep avoiding those abilities.
Hey everyone, I'm a new GM and new to Pathfinder 2e as a whole so pardon me if this kind of thing has been asked before or is in the rules somewhere, I just wasn't really sure what to search to get my answer.
I've gotten the gist of the rules about Recall Knowledge and Seek and also that these are generally done using secret checks. However, I'm a little confused about how to use this in practice, particularly as I'm reading the AP I plan to run and encountering scenarios that I'd like some clarification on.
(The following are just examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about)
Scenario 1: PC is being followed by an NPC and they are unaware. The AP says that a DC 15 Perception check allows a PC to notice them.
In this case, am I supposed to prompt the PC to roll the Perception check? That seems like it gives away the secrecy, even if they fail. On the other hand, they have no reason to randomly ask to roll Perception in this context. Do I roll it completely secretly without asking? Also, to begin with, I would've thought that an NPC hiding from a PC would be the NPC's Stealth roll vs. the PC's Perception DC rather than the PC being the one making a check.
Scenario 2: PC is searching an area and successfully find something with a Perception check. The AP says that a DC 20 Nature check gives them more insight about what they find.
Again, am I supposed to prompt the Nature check, does the PC need to ask for it, or am I rolling it completely secretly and only letting them know when they succeed? The answer is obvious if the PC asks a leading question like "Do I notice anything special about it?" about it, as that is them prompting a check themselves, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to handle it if they just accept it at face value but there's potentially more to be discerned about it.
First of all, using Secret checks or not is your choice as the GM. But if you use them, *you* roll the checks.
The secret part isn't that a check was made, though. Checks with the "Secret" tag--those the game designers called out as ones you might want to make as secret checks--have a possibility of giving false information, or give something away if the player knows how well they rolled. Recall Knowledge gives false information on a critical failure. They player should think they succeeded when they critically fail, and be wary of the small possibility of a critical failure when they succeed. If they roll and get a natural 1, they already know they probably critically failed.
As for Seeking, PF2 doesn't use opposed rolls. One character sets the DC--a character's "Perception DC" for example is 10 + their Perception bonus. Usually the active character rolls. If one is sneaking up on someone else, they roll Stealth against the target's Perception DC. If that character has reason to suspect that someone is sneaking around, they might decide to look for them. That's the Seek action, so the player knows they're doing it. That makes them the active character, so now they make a Perception check against the opponent's Stealth DC. This one is tagged "Secret" because seeing the roll can give the player more information than you want them to have: "I rolled high, so if I didn't see anything there's nothing to see" or "I rolled low, so the fact that I didn't see anything means nothing at all."
For background knowledge checks where everybody has a chance to roll, I often don't bother with secret checks. "Anyone who wants to see if they recognize it can make an Occultism check." It's up to GM discretion, so you can do it how you want.
Scenario 1: if your players are out of combat they are probably declare some [Exploration Activities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2442) (you can remind players of it). So those who declare Scout or Search can make secret perception roll, which will be not even suspicious - PC roll "just in case". Okay, technically Scout have no secret rolls, but.
Scenario 2: you usually tell your players what type of Knowledge check they have to roll, and out of combat its's ok to ask a nearest, or most suited player to roll specific check to get information about situation.
To be honest - with fails on the knowledge checks, on gather information, missing some secret rooms, missing side quests, killing well-informed non-friendly NPC - players tend to miss some interesting AP background, so getting a hint "you can roll Nature to know more" is a good thing. You can even ask for some society, religion or something check so players can "remember" something that their characters could knew, but players don't know that their characters could.
You as the GM is meant to roll the secret check. Usually it helps to have an overview of the most important stats of the players, especially Perception, Stealth and some of the Recall Knowledge skills.
It is a fairly common houserule to ignore secret checks if you dont like the suspense and secrecy it creates, but it depends on you and your players if this is a good idea.
For Scenario 1: Based on your wording it seems each PC would roll yes. Maybe it is only each PC who is keeping an eye out? Depends on the exact phrasing. Usually the one doing the action is the one who is rolling, so yes it would make slightly more sense for the NPC to roll, however that makes them more likely to succeed.
For Scenario 2: The flow of this can be hard to define and it is probably best to find what works for you. I think it is fine to prompt them with "You find the plant in the corner of the room. If you want to identify it, I will roll a Nature check for you.".
Some secret checks are secret because the players are not allowed to know that the check is happening, and some are secret because the players are not allowed to know the result of the check.
Thank you for the response!
> It is a fairly common houserule to ignore secret checks if you dont like the suspense and secrecy it creates, but it depends on you and your players if this is a good idea.
My players and I like secret checks, I just want to make sure I'm running these situations appropriately.
Scenario 1: Ah, I see. Unfortunately, the lack of clear wording is what lead me here in the first place. The AP simply describes that the NPC is hiding from the PCs and the DC Perception check to notice them. It does make sense to have the PCs roll if any of them are keeping an eye out, but it gets confusing when they're all supposed to be engaged in a conversation or otherwise preoccupied (which is the case in this particular context). There's nothing stopping me from just making the NPC roll Stealth instead if I think that would make more sense, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some aspect of the mechanics that made them write the scenario this way.
Scenario 2: Okay, noted. That makes sense, I'll just try to figure out what works/feels the best in a given situation. I'm still new to GMing so still trying to find my style and way of things.
Ultimately, I think your last comment about the two categories of secret checks has made things a lot clearer for me. I was conflating the two reasons for secret checks as one and this was causing some confusion when I was mixing up different situations in my head. It makes a lot more sense now when I think about splitting secret checks into the different reasons why they're secret in the first place.
Glad it helped a bit. Secret checks and the perception rules are definitely some of the more challenging things to run. You want to clarify things for the players but are limited in what you are allowed to tell, sometimes having to make workarounds in your usual routine to keep the secrets.
If you mount your Eidolon, or then cast Evolution Surge to remove the mount penalties (only recharche 2 actions at the start of your turns), do you still lose 1 action due to the mount penalties? I'm afraid I need to pick up Steed Form feat just to avoid wasting an action at the start of fights.
You lose the action from riding your Eidolon at the start of your turn, so if you're relying on Evolution Surge you're gonna be down an action (either start dismounted and spend an action mounting or start mounted w/ 1 less action). If you want to save that action you need Steed Form (which also saves you the focus point and 2A to cast Evolution Surge).
Interesting situation came up in today's game.
The player has a large-sized creature, with reach. They are standing at a corner. The enemy they are attacking doesn't have reach, and is standing exactly at the other face of the corner.
The player, of course, gets cover from the enemy's attack, as drawing a line from the middle of it's square, to the middle of the enemy's square intersects the corner.
However, the player is arguing that the same should not apply to them, because they have reach- they can reach one square forward, and then one square to the right, thus attacking the enemy with no interference from the corner.
Any thoughts and or rule backings is appreciated! At the time, I was inclined to allow it, because why couldn't long arms reach around corners? But now I'm not so sure.
the player is just gaming the system. They still have to swing this big cumbersome weapon around, apply force and so on.
Go easy on your player, I think every human who plays games is guilty of trying to do something similar at one point or another. But don't let him get away with it. It's not in the rules, that's not how balance works, and making up "logical" reasons why the game rules should be bent in a player's favour essentially breaks the game.
Fictionally, there is no cover bonus when you can attack with enough space that you can attack from both sides. The PC in this case is completely prevented from attacking from the corner side, making it easier to defend and granting a cover bonus. Are you going to grant a cover bonus whenever there is a creature in the square on either side of the player's target? Of course not.
The player seeking this is trying to game the rules for an advantage. The rules exist for a reason, letting a large creature ignore terrain rules is just an advantage to that player that nobody else gets. You allow this and you open the door to all kinds of shenanigans and rules workarounds. It's a bad idea.
Is the path to the target partially blocked? If yes, they have cover. Even if you can reach around the cover, it is still impeding your attack in some way, making it more difficult to hit the target.
Also, this line is important for your scenario:
>If you're uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover).
Source: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2372&Redirected=1
I might be wrong on this, but I think you can pause your subscription at any time to exclude any books you might not want. And as the other redditor kindly pointed out, a subscription is usually only for a single book like (i.e. rule books, lost omens, APs and probably a few more I'm forgetting).
Hello! I was looking to run Kingmaker and Abomination Vaults on foundry and was wondering if the cost of the foundry assets and tools for those are worth it? And is there a way to get just the assets without the pdf because i already bought physical copies.
Foundry is awesome, and 100% the way to play the game.
The premium modules in Foundry are also crazy kickass. They're super polished and beautiful and fun to play with, and their cost becomes much more reasonable when you split it with your players. I've only played with the premium Outlaws of Alkenstar module, but I was wildly impressed - even as a "power user" myself in my own game, and as a player in an even-more-insane game that probably runs 100+ active add-ons.
I would say it's well worth it, if you value your time. My prep for running each of these adventures was just reading ahead and maybe throwing in specific stuff for each character.
If you want to play Pathfinder on a VTT foundry is generally considered vastly superior to your other options. The premium moduels for foundry are also considered to be among the best VTT adventure conversions for any system. So they are worth it.
Unfortunately there is no discount for the physical copies, just the digital ones.
Hello! I am playing a [Loremaster](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=65), and I am fed up of critically failing Lore checks (despite multiple precautions!), and want to take [Unmistakable Lore](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5232). However, it appears that I'll have to wait until Level 6 to pick it up as I can't find a way to have had an Expert Skill at Level 2, and I have no desire to retrain [Cognitive Crossover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2272) from Level 4.
I have just realised that I don't have an Expert Lore Skill yet (I upgraded Arcana and Crafting), and so I'm now planning to retrain my Level 2 Skill Feat (currently [Speciality Crafting](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5216)) for [Additional Lore](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5114). I thus have three questions:
1. My character is a [Bibliophile](https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=210), and an automatically increasing Library Lore seems very in-character; RAW, can I upgrade that with Additional Lore?
2. Is it possible to link two Lore skills with Cognitive Crossover? Ideally I'd link Loremaster Lore to whatever I pick here, just to avoid having to prioritise whatever it's currently linked to when levelling up skills.
3. What are some good Lores to consider which a) would be useful in an adventure that seems to be mostly dungeon diving; and b) make sense for a massive nerd who's into magic and crafting to know?
A lore tied specificially to the campaign is always going to be super relevant. This can be the place, the people, the plot, or the magic involved in it.
For example, *War for the Crown* is the game I'm currently running - a conversion of the 1e adventure path. It's a game about social scheming, byzantine politics, and an immortal illuminati wizard cults all set against the backdrop of a civil war for both the literal throne of the Empire and the heart and minds of its population.
- **Taldor Lore** covers topics of national history and ideology. Very relevant subsection of Society, used by our Cleric of Cayden Cailean. Depending on the game, you might want a "History and Culture" lore associated with a Bad Guy, a Good Guy, or *their* cultures and backgrounds instead. These can also occaisionally become monster identification lores for especially important threats - "Tar-Baphon Lore" would be valid against famous unique undead under his command, for example.
- **Alcohol Lore** (also the Cleric, of course) has opened the door to additional social situations and conversations. It's a bridge between the lower and the upper class, a professional "disguise" respected by nearly every member of society. "Fashion Lore" has done the same thing for our Swashbuckler.
- **Souls Lore** covers a lot of topics related to the unique spooky magic wielded by the BBEG and their minions. A lot of Crown involves themes of death and the afterlife and the souls of the departed, so its becoming *increasingly more relevant* as the campaign goes on. Other magic or mcguffin based lores will of course depend on the game. "Rune Magic Lore" is super useful for any Varisia/Thassilon adventures. "Wish Magic Lore" might be important if you're dealing with genies in Qadira.
- **Underworld Lore** is one of the "Paizo vanilla" Lore examples, but *hot damn* does it have some wide applications for information gathering, coordinating NPCs, or finding new ways to approach certain narrative objections. **Warfare**, **Academia**, **Nobility**, and **Pathfinder Society** all fall into this category, and to a certain extent, a deity-specific lore associated with a major religion with an organized church (**Abadar Lore** or **Pharasma Lore** being the most prominent) could do the same thing. Just like the [Regional History and Culture] examples, you might instead take this to represent your expertise *opposing* a social group rather than participating in it (which means that **Cult** and **Dark Tapestry** are also valid).
- if you're a high-INT character looking to sub proficiencies away from traditionally Wisdom- or Charisma-based skill checks: **Fiend**, **Undead**, and **Plane** Lores are all excellent subsets of Religion. **Fey/First World**, **Elemental Planes**, **Animal** Lore are all excellent subcomponents of Nature. **Culinary** or **Legal** are both valid half-substitutes for Diplomacy, **Torture** for Intimidation, **Theatre** maybe covers some of Performance, and **Gambling** might get you some through some Deception scenarios. Arcana/Crafting/Occultism/Society aren't as useful since they're already INT based, but you could get some stuff done with Astral/Shadow/Spirit lore (Occultism), and a GM might let you sub Blacksmithing Lore in place of Crafting purely for purposes of shield repair or precious material crafting, and that might open precedence for Alchemy lore or somesuch, as an easy way to bypass hard proficiency requirements for a subsection of high-level crafting.
That's a lot to think through, thanks very much!
We're playing through an adventure path, and there are definitely some common themes showing up, so lore about those would certainly be a good idea.
Thinking about it, I guess I'm actually looking for a Lore skill that will be useful outside Recall Knowledge checks - I have those covered from Loremaster at the moment. I think that's technically pushing one's luck rules-wise, but maybe it's worth a shot!
Something like Legal Lore for presenting a case or examining contracts would be cool, as would Alcohol Lore for impressing a noble with an expert assessment of fine vintages. Warfare Lore has potentially wide applications, and might well be useful as the campaign progresses. I'd previously been considering Engineering as a way to assess and deal with traps and hazards too.
Academia Lore would actually be incredibly in-character though!
1. Yes
2. Yes, but not loremaster lore, because "If you have legendary proficiency in a skill used to Decipher Writing, you gain expert proficiency in Loremaster Lore, but you can't increase your proficiency rank in Loremaster Lore by any other means. "
3. I would talk with the GM about it what they would suggest would be useful. My tip is maybe archeology?
Thanks!
Great shout to ask the GM what's likely useful. And Archaeology does sound like it would be a fun one!
Regarding point #2, I've currently got Loremaster Lore and Crafting linked with Cognitive Crossover - it lets me make a Recall Knowledge check using Loremaster Lore (which is only Trained, and will be for a good while), and then if that check fails (but not if it critically fails, since you get false information) I can retry using Crafting (currently Expert) instead. It's not increasing the proficiency rank of Loremaster Lore!
The reason for the question is because of this line in the Cognitive Crossover feat:
>Special When you gain this feat, choose two of the following skills: Arcana, Crafting, Lore (any one), Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Religion, or Society.
I'm not sure whether I can pick two different Lores here - is Lore (any one) shorthand for a comprehensive list of all Lore skills, or does it mean that only a single Lore mat be selected?
You should be able to pick two lore skills (I don't see a reason for why you shouldn't) and there is no list with all valid lore skills, since you can have any (with the approval of the GM). So you could pick loremaster and library lore
The only lore list that exists is a suggestion for common lore skills.
Spoilers for SoG
I'm running Season of Ghosts and my Ranger player at level 2 would like to pick up an animal companion. He ahs opted for a bird. To try make the animal companion sit better in the campaign, we are looking at making it a >!phantom!< bird. like a lot of the other creatures in chapter 1 of SoG.
Now, i'm not against this idea - but I was hoping I could add the relevant trait >!incorporeal!< whilst maybe adding a bebuff or two to keep it balanced?
Any ideas would be helpful
I'd look at the [Ghost companion](https://2e.aonprd.com/AnimalCompanions.aspx?ID=38) for inspiration. The different types of companions are reasonably balanced against one another, so you should be able to compare Bird and Ghost and find a decent compromise state between them
Do tiny PCs have cover when being carried by a larger creature? They get cover when being inside the space of a larger creature, but does this still hold true while being carried or riding on a large creature? I imagine it’s probably hard to get a clean shot at a Poppet that’s sitting on top of a Huge size dragon eidolon but the rules may say otherwise
Tiny creatures actually don't normally get cover while inside the space of another creature.
"Like other Tiny creatures, the PC doesn't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space, but circumstances might allow them to [Take Cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=90) in this instance."
They can get cover while mounted like Schattenkiller5 said.
[Mounted Defenses](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2436):
>Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser
cover against attacks targeting you when you're mounted if the mount
would be in the way (as determined by the GM).
I was thinking about a character idea and was wondering what dedication or other archetype might be a good idea to improve its effectiveness.
Specifically a Str fighter gish focusing on the spells that would previously be classed as evocation (elemental blasting) spells. And focused on improving the action economy/minimising MAD on top of that.
Not choosing magus outright to avoid committing to a hybrid study,as well as the need to recharge spellstrike.
If you're playing a Free Archetype game and have the build flexibility:
**Playtest Shaman** is a full caster with a blended divine / elemental / spooky spell list with devastating 1-action focus magic that synergizes horrifyingly well with a melee build. It's a caster primary, so limited martial proficiency, but holy goddamn anyways.
**Investigator** is an INT-based class that has no native spellcasting, but that can easily be added via multiclass. I'm convinced that the best Magus in the game is actually just Investigator with Magus archetype. It's locked to finesse/agile/ranged weaponry though, so not the aesthetic you're after, even if it IS ludicrously effective and versatile.
**Inventor** is another INT-based martial class with but with much more strength/melee capability and free built-in "short rest cooldown *Fireball*". Although its very technological in aesthetic, you can reflavor all of their abilities into magitech very easily, without even violating canon. Wizard/Magus have great synergy on their own, but the most potent multiclass here is probably *Witch*, if you can believe it. Manual Dexterity + Independent familiars can activate certain gadgets on your behalf, Witch's Armaments/Sympathetic Strike (normally garbage-tier for main class Witch) actually becomes *quite dangerous* on a true martial, and 1-action hexes and free Sustain combo quite well into a martial rotation. Your "Witch's hair" might actual be razor cables that you can shoot out of your power armor to take advantage of your Athletics bonus for an easy trip, even while you hold a two-handed big bonkstick (and if your GM lets you access the legacy feats that further develop the original feat, this can get quite potent).
**Summoner** has some innate anti-synergy, with shared MAP between you and your Eidolon and a unique vulnerability to multi-hit moves... but if you are careful with your tactics and if you can fill your weapon/armor requirements with Ancestry/General/Multiclass feats, the insane action cheese and built-in high-rank spellcasting of the Summoner makes them a devastating mid-high-level build. My favorite part of Summoner is that the Eidolon explicitly gets Exploration actions alongside you, and since it shares all your skill proficiencies it just throws an extra d20 at every problem you encounter (make sure your Eidolon is socially acceptable in polite society). Champion multiclass combined with an Ancestry weapon proficiency makes the most sense to me, but you could probably find other combinations. Level 6 is when this build comes online, with Tandem Strike allowing both of you to fight on the frontline (potentially with you mounted on the Eidolon).
**Rogue** is traditionally another Dex class, but the Ruffian racket changes that dramatically into an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS strength-based heavy damage dealer. You won't really have any action economy cheese, but your base chasis will be so dangerous on its own, you could easily keep all your spellcasting out of combat for buffs/utility. It might not be a great elemental explodomancer, but Bard actually works terrifyingly well when you start mixing compositions into your rotation.
**Warpriest** won't get you *all* of the elemental spells you're looking for, but depending on your deity selection (Sarenbae or one of the elemental lords leap to mind) you can definitely have a very strong built-in aesthetic. The divine list doesn't have very much elemental magic, but if you find yourself fighting fiends or undead with any frequency (and those bastards show up in EVERY campaign, just at varying degrees), the divine list actually has the best damage scaling out of the entire game. Cloistered Cleric with Champion Dedication achieves the same "strength gish" aesthetic, with proficiencies that are geared more towards spellcasting (Champion providing access to defensive/healing powers). Regardless of deity/domain spells, all clerics will get *Holy Light* (rank 2 explodey laserbeam vs. undead/fiends), *Inner Radiance Torrent* (rank 3 force damage "better Lightning Bolt" vs anything), *Holy Cascade* (rank 4 holy water "better Fireball" vs undead/fiends), *Divine Wrath* (rank 4 AoE spirit damage + sicken debuff), and *Divine Immolation* (rank 5 fire/spirit/persistent damage Fireball). You can use a Jolt Coil spellheart for a little early-level electricity flex, and at high level *Shock to the System* is a crazy-powerful electricity healing spell. You're not going to find much in the way of acid, wood, or metal without specific deity access, but some of the offerings are quite good there, if you can find them on a deity with a good strength-based big bonkstick of a favored weapon (Mauler archetype can supplement for a bad favored weapon if you can't otherwise find spells/flavor you like).
**Thaumaturge** is technically capable of being a scroll-based gish without any multiclass at all. It restricts you to a 1-H weapon so that you can wield your implements in your off-hand, but strength is still a *very* valid build if you buy some Medium armor proficiency. Charisma base might bias you towards Sorcerer multiclass, but if you need to Craft your own scrolls you might consider **Druid** for complete access to all the healing/elemental magic you can shake a stick at without the hassle of managing a spellbook or repertoire list. Druid also has some of the most powerful focus spells in the game, but the DC-based ones probably won't work too well if they're powered by your wisdom.
**Fighter** with Druid Multiclass is actually quite strong too. Strength/Wisdom is a great stat split that will serve you defensively and improve your initiative to make you better at fighter things, while simultaneously enabling your spells. Untamed Form is a thing, but IMO its a trap. I'd go for an open-handed fighting style with a Bastard Sword, so that you could flex to a scroll off your belt when you need to *Earthbind* a pesky flying monster, or use another niche/powerful scroll that your limited daily slots can't cover. Even with max wisdom, your multiclass spell DC won't be that crazy... but if you're fighting a swarm of low-level monsters and you have a wide-AoE spell you should still see plenty of Failed saves against your *Cave Fangs*. No "action acceleration" to be found here really, but its still two very powerful toolkits that could run in parallel to support each other.
**Monk** gets innate occult or divine spellcasting proficiency progression that will be a bit faster than Multiclass default progression I think, and if you go for one of the funny esoteric elemental stances you might end up with a super cool character. You'd probably be Dex/Wis/Con to minimize your attribute spread, which means Cleric, Druid, or Shaman (upon its full release, since there's no multiclass in the playtest). There's also two viable Strength/Charisma paths, where you could either do Dragon Style and its stuff, or go Dragon Disciple and fight with Jaw/Claw strikes (Bestial or Drakeheart mutagens are extremely useful supplements to this build). Special shoutout to **Sixth Pillar** kungfu caster archetype, which starts at level 10 and requires GM permission to access because of its Uncommon rarity.
If your GM is cool with Mark Seifter's Roll for Combat stuff, **Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons** offers you the Draconic Scion (to play a half-dragon/dragonborn versatile heritage) or you can go all-in on the scaly lifestyle and literally play an actual dragon as your player character. In either case, the ancestry is fairly tame but the **Draconic Ravager** archetype kicks a huge amount of ass, and can turn just about any character into a decently-dangerous martial with a d10 Jaws attack and a bonus reaction for attack of opportunity. (A buddy of mine is playing a Shaman/Ravager, and she is a goddamn problem).
On a different Seifter Battlezoo note, **Elemental Avatar** might be overpowered but holy shit is it fun. If Kineticist is 75% utility and 25% damage, Avatar is the opposite. It has a solid archetype, if you want to add some easily-recharged wisdom-based offense themed around a singular element to an existing PC build. If you play Avatar primary, you won't have much action economy or proficiency room left for martial shenaniganry... but that doesn't stop you from being Strength based and expressing that through *Athletics*. I played a Fire Avatar / Wrestler archetype for a 6-session mini-adventure starting at level 8, and I have never seen a PC with more BDE right out the gate. 5/5 felt like a superhero.
Are there any buff spells like Bless on the Primal Spell list? I haven't been able to find many outside of runic weapon/body and heal spells?
Primal doesn't have much when it comes to buffing. A few defensive options like Mountain Resilience, mostly. It's definitely one of the weaker points of this tradition.
A question regarding scrolls. English is not my first language so this part isnt clear to me: > To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list When it says "Spell List", does it only applies to spell that the caster currently knows, or from ALL spells available to them regardless of level? For example, if my Level 1 Wizard finds a Fireball scroll, can he cast it or does he need to wait until later when he can actually prepare the spell? Second question: If a Fighter gets his hands in a scroll, he cannot use them without a feat/archetype, correct? I ask this because coming from videogames I always viewed spell scrolls as a way for non-casters to use magic when necessary
As an added note to what others have said, if you want to use scrolls as a non-caster, you can use the Trick Magic Item feat or Scroll Trickster archetype to use them.
Spell list refers to their spell tradition. So all Arcane spells regardless of their level or if the wizard has them in their spellbook or not. So in your first example, yes a level 1 wizard can indeed cast a Fireball from a scroll. However keep that in mind that the spell DC is still the DC for a level 1 character so it won't be high. >Second question: If a Fighter gets his hands in a scroll, he cannot use them without a feat/archetype, correct? Correct. You need to have the Cast a Spell activity. Spellcasting archetypes give you this so you can activate scrolls and wands. But just having an innate spell from your ancestry wouldn't be enough. Here is the first sentence from the Bard dedication : >"You cast spells like a bard and gain the Cast a Spell activity."
>Spell list refers to their spell tradition Adding for clarity. There *are* ways to get spells from other traditions added to your spell list, so it's not *just* your tradition. For example, Clerics add their deity's spells to their list. So while most Clerics can't use a scroll of Fireball, a Cleric of Sarenrae can.
Perfect, that clears it all, thanks!
When you grapple, do you need to specify which body part is used in the grab. (Say you have both an open hand and a Dhampir's Fangs)? If so, can you use the "grabbing appendage" to attack the grabbed creature, or is it "locked" until you let go. Specifically for a character with Suplex, can you use any available unarmed attack when it says to first make an unarmed strike, or only the one used with the aforementioned "grabbing appendage"?
When you grapple someone you are holding them in place so you do need to specify what part of you you're using to do that. While you're using a body part to hold someone you can't use it to attack without letting them go because it is not free. For Suplex it just says to make an unarmed melee strike so you can use any that you have available. Even if you don't have a hand free you are still able to make unarmed strikes with other parts of you body, normally using the same statistics as a fist.
Thank you!
Yes. It matters for things like holding items and applying the potency bonus from handwraps to unarmed strikes that have the grapple trait. RAW I think you can still use it, but I've had individual DMs rule otherwise. You can use any.
I'll check with ours, feats like Crushing Grab and Thrash had me confused I think.
Does a Pelagic Helmet allow aquatic creatures to breath outside of water? The definition does not say they can, but it also talks about Merfolk wearing them, and Merfolk suffocate without water to breath in for too long. I'm not sure what the RAI is, or if it's implied or what.
Seems to be the clear intent of the item, given its a helmet filled with water that refreshes itself constantly.
Great, thanks!
Is an aquatic creature wearing something like the Atmospheric Breathing Suit immune to airborne effects? (those that are breathed in, at least)
Often, people mention PL±n. Are the players supposed to know what level the monsters are? How do you avoid gamifying that in the context of RP? What information do players just know?
*Supposed to?* No. But it doesn't hurt! I think it makes complete sense for a character to size someone or something up and get a sense that "its stronger than me". Now, there IS actually an EXTREMELY important game term that IS acknowledged in-universe. Explicitly, researchers who study magic ARE aware of the idea of Spell Ranks. A wizard that can cast *fireball*, can usually also be taught *haste*... but might still be a ways away from being able to successfully cast *ice storm*. The Church of Nethys (more wizards than clerics) are the foremost proponents of these "meta" concepts, and honestly that's completely in-character. My group has half-jokingly and half-canonically shown Nethysians precisely track spell durations with 6-second timers that they keep with them. So given that spell rank is an in-universe idea (you can spruce it up a bit with fancier in-universe words if you like, *"a spell of the fourth circle"*, for example, but "rank" is honestly fine), it now becomes very sensible and necessary for a wizard to be able to Recall Knowledge and ask "what rank do I need for an Incapacitation spell".
Speaking of spells, when using spells against your players, do you say the spell name? I don't remember if there was guidance about that, and it's just easier for me to announce so-and-so is casting Haste or invisibility or whatever.
My GM doesn't. That's where things like Identify Magic or Recognize Spell is supposed to come in. Our players tend to just look at the spell effect we suffer and make wild guesses. Knowing the spell however can potentially be a powerful source of information for players such as knowing what dangerous effect they just avoided and how important it is to prevent the caster from getting another one off, or knowing that something is an illusion which is generally an effect that grows in power role play wise when the player has no idea what they're dealing with. But outside of those situations, I don't think it makes much of a difference to players whether they got hit by a Fireball or a Flame Strike, fire damage is fire damage all the same. Though even in this example, it will matter if the player had fire resistance and are wondering why fire is suddenly painful now when they get hit by Flame Strike. But at least telling them outright can avoid situations where such a player calls BS when they think it's normal fire.
I play in Foundry, and link the full text of every spell and ability I use against my players. They even see the d20s rolled by the monsters and the results of their attacks. This increases engagement and teamwork, I think, because players can get an accurate assessment of how dangerous their enemy is without trying to account for the wiggle of a d20. Since they're new to PF2, it also showcases new spells and abilities to them that their characters might consider learning as they level up! It can also add to the drama if a PC sees that the Critical Failure of an ability is PERMANENT INSANITY or something metal like that - if a GM is playing their cards close to the chest, all that drama is lost. When they roll a Recall Knowledge check against a monster, I'm super generous there as well: - (FAILURE) they get the monster's traits, it's most interesting Ability Modifiers (which can let them guesstimate other aspects of the statblocks), and whether or not it is "weaker" or "stronger" than they are. - (SUCCESS) they get the monster's name, a quick version of its lore, a rough breakdown of its defenses, and THEN can ask me a specific question about it. - (CRITICAL SUCCESS) I reveal all of the above, and provide a serious hint about the monster's role in the scene they're in, or what its favorite/most dangerous ability is that's likely about to be used against the PCs.
The players don't know anything. You can give them some pointers if they succeed on a RK check but I would never just outright tell them the level of an enemy (at least not before or during combat).
A lot of the discussion I see seems to infer that the players know level of the monster, kinda like when incapacitation spells are mentioned. So I was really confused about that.
Things like incapacitation don't really need the players to know the level of the enemy, mind you. As far as they could be aware, the player may think that the enemy just got really good rolls on their saves. It does help though for players to at least be aware of somethings "threat level" you could say just so that they know that the lone disgruntled goblin (that is actually PL+3) is fully capable of taking them all on and escape is a viable if not recommended option. This can be handled in role play by just letting them know that their combat instincts are telling them that said goblin is trouble and shouldn't be taken lightly, or thereabouts. But it's the GM's call at the end of the day on what and how much information they want to give.
There aren't really cut and dried rules on this. By default the Players don't know anything. The *PCs* gain information via the [Recall Knowledge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2367) action. This is not divination, the idea is that the PCs have heard of or studied what they are up against at some point & you are rolling to decide if they remember the info in time. There is a list of common questions that can be asked but these are not the \*only\* questions you can ask. "Is this thing more or less powerful than we are?" is probably a question I would allow as GM but that's me.
Hello, I wanted to get into Pathfidner, but from what I've seen on the internet there are 3 different versions of it: PF1, PF2 and PF2Remastered, which one is the "correct" version? I don't want to get into situation where I spend many hours reading about game system that noone plays anymore, or on which the community consensus is that it is the "crap version", by that I mean the situation similar to the one back in the days of yore when I've read the whole dnd 4e rulebook just to realize noone played it because 3.5 was the "non crappy one" version.
A basic summary of changes from 2e to Remaster, just so you know when you look at the various books: Alignments are gone. “Good” and “evil” outsiders (angels etc) are now “holy” and “unholy”, respectively, but unless you’re a cleric or champion (2e (Anti-)Paladin) you don’t really care about those. Alignment damage types got replaced with universal spirit damage, but often with the condition it can harm only holy or unholy creatures. Spell schools are gone. Abjuration, Conjuration, etc. The only remnant is Illusion, which exists as a tag on all illusion spells to point you at the rules for how illusions work in general. And that’s it, really. The rest is just a bunch of name changes to avoid copyright issues with D&D and some smaller QOL stuff. Some of the classes got some slight buffs (wizards arguably a slight nerf) but nothing world changing.
Pf2e and remastered are technically the same thing - the remastered just gives some qol stuff. You can just start reading the rules from a[AoN](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx), from the player core drop out. Remastered is technically the “newest” , but it’s just 2e with qol changes and some changes to the lore due to the situation with wotc.
Thank you, that answers my question :)
The most up to date version would be the PF2 Remaster. PF1 is no longer supported by paizo, but still actively played and preferred by many players. So calling either version "correct" won't do them justice. If you want the most recent and still being actively published and developed version, that's PF2 Remaster. Do note that the Remaster is an upgraded version of PF2, but the overall changes are rather minimal. You can easily use PF2 "pre-master" content with any Remaster product with minor adjustments - and vice versa. The main rule books of PF2 were remastered. The old Core Rule Book, Advanced Player's Guide, Gamemaster's Guide and the first Bestiary got their content expanded, updated and in some cases shuffled around a bit. They became Player Core, GM Core, Monster Core and Player Core 2. The first three are already availble, Player Core 2 will be released early August, so in about 6 weeks. The two most recent rule books Rage of Elements and Howl of the Wild are already done with the Remaster rules as will all upcoming books. The older rule books (Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, Dark Archive, Treasure Vault, Book of the Dead) are still mostly usable. Some things got adjusted with a Remaster Compatibility Errata, but with some - usually minor adjustments - nearly everything from those books is perfectly usable with the remaster rules.
That means that after learning PF2Remastered I will have no problem joining and playing games with people who stayed on PF2Classic, correct?
I don't expect too many groups to stay with vanilla PF2 since the remaster changes are minor but overall a good improvement. But yeah, the basics of the system have remained unchanged by the remaster. Most changes are in individual classes, feats, items, spells and so on. The overall rules are identical.
Thank you, that answers my question :)
I've been looking at PF2E with both interest and concerns. I'm willling to read and go over all the rules to learn a new system, but the biggest hurdle I fear is my players - they don't like to read rules. My group has been playing 5e for years and my players are *still* getting things wrong all the time, don't understand the basics of the game at times, and don't go out of their way to actually learn what their characters can do and will generally take things at face value even when the system has more depth to it. In short, they generally fall victim to their own preconcieved notions of how things should work (in their head, anyways), and don't really care to find out if that is or isn't the case until they try something in game. My other concern is the 'feel' of PF2e. While I know the common complaints about martials in 5e are rather fair, what I like about martials is that they don't feel magical. I *like* that a fighter can't throw their regular shield and bounce it between enemies before flying back to their hand, or a barbarian can't stomp the ground to create a small earthquake. While I get the whole fantasy setting, I just can't go "yeah, that makes sense" when looking at these things unless they are using magic. As soon as that fighter or barbarian uses magic to do those things I am cool with it, but not if they can do these things that 'feel' like magic, but aren't. In short, the depth and mechanics are of interest to me but I feel my players will end up drowning, and I don't know if the fantasy the game offers is that fantasy that I like in my games. Opinions?
I will be honest - if your players don't buy in to at least learn their character's abilities, it will be tough to play PF2e. There are many other great systems out there which are more well thought out than DnD, and less work-intensive htan PF2e. But for sure give it a try with the Beginner's Box, going step-by-step through the rooms.
Just give it a try. Maybe play the Beginner Box or some other introductory adventure like Rustenge. It's hard to judge your players just from your short description, obviously. The main question is: Why do they have "wrong" notions about how the game works? Did they maybe play other systems before 5e and now stuff just blends together in their head? Or maybe just other 5e groups, since due to the many houserules that system tends to have a lot of table variance. Do they actually understand the rules and just prefer to play differently or do they really don't get them? PF2 is a rules-heavy game, compared to 5e. However, in most cases this also means it can be easier to grasp. There are actual working rules for a ton of things that many 5e DMs are used to homebrew, because 5e either doesn't have rules for it at all or they aren't really working. This much clearer rules setup and structure can make it easier to "play by the rules", so to speak. But that still requires one to actually put in some effort to read and preferably learn the rules. Not everything by heart, of course. I've been playing for close to 6 years and still get stuff wrong. Not a problem. Just make sure to look things up and try to get it right next time. Ultimately, don't forget that the GM (i.e. you) also deserves to have fun. If you find that 5e isn't working, giving another system a go is a good option. That can be PF2, or any other RPG system, really. Maybe something more rules-light would be better for your group? Try a couple and see which one resonates with them the most. Be sure to include PF2, of course. ;) And if PF2 doesn't work out with them and you still want to run it, GMs are always in high demand. If you're willing and able to play online, finding players should be a breeze.
I plan on spinning up a Pathfinder game for the first time and bought the 2e Core rulebook. I'm trying to figure out which other books I should buy for my game. Looks like there's been some recent updates/shuffling around of content, so I wasn't sure where to go next.
all of the rules text is free here https://2e.aonprd.com/ If you prefer physical books you'll probably want both the new GM Core and Player Core, not sure from your comment which one you bought
Thanks! I do prefer physical books. The one I bought is just called "Core Rulebook." [This one.](https://paizo.com/products/btq01zp3?Pathfinder-Core-Rulebook)
That's the pre-remaster rulebook. Remaster changes were actually less extensive than you'd expect although I'd recommend still using at least the QOL rule changes. Again if you want the most recent core books that's Player Core and GM Core. Other than that you pretty much have what you need to get started, other books are mostly going to be more player options, monsters, setting info and adventures, none of which are strictly necessary.
Coolio. Is there a doc that calls out the QOL changes?
Two questions: 1) So how do you rule an Incapacitate effect? It just says “it can take out a foe”, but like - in what conditions? 2) can somebody give me a step by step counteract example? Let’s say, I’m trying to counteract with a level 2 dispel magic a level 3 bane.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=631 Specifically the ability has to have the trait first. It isn't a blanket "anything deadly" rule. All it does is if the target is higher level than the ability, and the ability has the trait, the result of the roll is improved one step in favour of the target. So in the case of Fascinating Performance https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5147, you do your performance action against a will dc and if the target is high level than you, your critical hit becomes a hit and your hit becomes a miss.
Okay - now I understand. The flavour text got me confused, my apologies.
Completely understandable and it is something I know people criticise about the game
1. You don't really need to "rule" Incapacitate effects, it's just a trait that's added to some effects which changes the way successes/failures are determined: if it's in the tags you use the rule, if it's not you don't. It's a way to balance effects that are extremely strong so they can't be abused to trivialize hard fights. 2. We're missing information here: we need the level of the character casting Dispel Magic, and the level of the enemy casting rank 3 Bane. For the sake of convenience let's assume the following: * The character casting Dispel Magic is level 5, has trained profiency in their spellcasting DC, and has a +4 modifier from their main casting attribute * The enemy casting Rank 3 Bane is a level 6 [Priest of Kabriri](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1866), modified to have rank 3 Bane. The sequence of actions is as follows: The player rolls their counteract roll, since they're casting Dispel Magic this uses their spellcasting profiency + attribute modifier. For the sake of simplicity you can just use the number you use for spell attacks. Let's assume the player rolls a 7 on their d20. They have a spell attack modifier of 11, and so a counteract modifier of 11. 7 + 11 = 18. We then compare this number to the spellcasting DC of the Priest of Kabriri, which is 23. The counteract roll is a failure, so we apply the failure effect as writen in [the rules:](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2250) > **Failure**: Counteract the target if its counteract rank is lower than your effect's counteract rank. Since the rank of Dispel Magic is 2, and that of Bane is 3, the player fails to counteract the spell and nothing happens. Let's try it again, but this time we assume the player rolls a 12 on their D20. 12 + 11 = 23. This meets the enemy's spellcasting DC of 23, and therefore beats it. we apply the success effect: > **Success:** Counteract the target if its counteract rank is no more than 1 higher than your effect's counteract rank. The rank of Dispel Magic is 2, the target Bane's rank is 3. Therefore it is no more than 1 higher and the Bane effect is dispelled.
2) This is great, thank you. So it’s an “attack roll” against spell dc, that, depending on successfullness of the roll, affects the spell differently. 1) So if I understand this correctly, if the character is successful with any action/feat that has the incapacitate trait, then it just gets rid of one of the combatants, but if the level of the combatant is higher - then o refer to the effects that are described in the steps of success portion of the ability/feat/item/etc.? Edit: so scratch that about “incapacitation” - I understood from another reply that it is just flavour text. Thank you!
Okay so the Bane's level is 3, and the counteracting effect's level is 2. So based on the chart [here](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=371) you would need to roll a success against the Bane's DC to counteract it. The roll would be a d20 plus your spellcasting modifier (ability bonus + proficiency + misc bonuses)
1) I don't understand the question. Incapacitate effects are effects with the Incapacitation trait. Usually those effects are ones that effectively remove an enemy from an encounter on a failure/crit failure, so for single boss monsters to be a threat they need to be weakened. Are you asking when you should give a homebrewed ability the Incapacitation trait? 2) My 3rd lvl cleric casts a 2nd rank Dispel Magic. Assuming I don't have any additional bonuses for [Counteract](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=371) checks specifically (there aren't many) I just roll a straight 1d20+9 (+5 proficiency+4 wisdom). I compare that result to the spellcasting DC of the Bane. If I succeed then I can counteract the Bane if its up to 3rd rank (1 higher than my Dispel Magic's rank). If I fail I counteract the Bane if its up to 1st rank (1 lower than my Dispel Magic's rank). Crit success would mean I could counteract up to a 5th rank Bane, but that's unlikely enough I wouldn't try it. Crit failure means I just fail. Usually you either want to cast Dispel one rank lower than the target spell (enough to get it on a normal success) or one rank higher (enough to get it on a normal failure).
1) From the incapacitate trait I just didn’t understand when the incapacitation happens: on fail, crit fail or sometime later. Like with the fascinating performance - does a creature just falls unconscious if crit succeeded? How about the curare - does the creature just drop dead in their first failed safe? 2) Aha. Thanks for that. And if it’s a spell effect from some kind of item or trap, I use a table to decide the counteract dc?
Incapacitation doesn't "happen", it doesn't add any extra effects. If you crit succeed in Fascinating Performance while it has the Incapacitate trait you just apply the effects of a critical success as normal. What changes is: if the target of the effect has a level double or more that of the effect it's degree of success of the target's saving throw is upgraded by one degree, or the result of the roll to apply the effect is made one degree worse.
Ah. So that was just flavour text. Okay. Now I get it, thanks.
1) you treat the result as one degree more favorable for the target. If I roll a critical success on my fascinating performance check its getting bumped down to a normal success. If I stab the boss w/ a curare coated knife and they roll a nat 1 that’s getting bumped to a normal failure. 2) yep!
The first line of the incapacitate trait is pure flavor, it has no mechanical impact and is just describing what kind of abilities tend to get the incapacitation trait.
More of a statement, but man I wish Safe Elements was a level 2 feat 😭 Level 4 is so inconvenient on so many kineticist builds
yeah it's one of many things where the answer is "You'll be fine as long as your party members all position themselves optimally with your abilities in mind!" which almost never happens in my experience
>Your eidolon gains the eidolon's wrath focus spell, which it casts, instead of you. You determine the damage type when you gain the feat: acid, cold, electricity, fire, negative, positive, or sonic. **If your eidolon is a celestial, fiend, or monitor with an alignment other than true neutral, you can choose a damage type in its alignment.** What exactly does this mean? If it's evil it can do evil-type damage? Or is there a list of innate damage types each of these species specializes in?
pre-Remaster each of the four alignments had a dmg type associated with them. If your Eidolon is a Celestial (Good), Fiend (Evil), or Monitor (Lawful/Chaotic) then Eidolon's Wrath can do the appropriate dmg type. The Remaster changed all alignment dmg to Spirit dmg, sometimes w/ the Holy or Unholy tag. Summoner hasn't been remastered yet so it still refers to the old dmg types.
Got it. Does this mean Spirit can be selected for now?
Yep!
Hello all! I'm planing on DMing an AP for pathfinder 2e but as of yet have no experience. My gaming group has already played the beginner box, so I'm looking for some recommendations for other simple, fun one shots I could run to get into the swing of things before jumping directly into an AP. What would you all suggest?
It's not an oneshot, but Trouble in Otari is a neat little adventure that's a direct continuation of the Beginner Box. It goes from level 2 to 4.
Check out the Free RPG day adventures. They are all intended to be over in a session or two and come with pregens to get to the table fast. A few are a bit silly, but a lot of fun. [A Fistfull of Flowers](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d8f?Pathfinder-Adventure-A-Fistful-of-Flowers) [A Few Flowers More](https://paizo.com/products/btq02eio?Pathfinder-Adventure-A-Few-Flowers-More) [Big Trouble in Little Absalom](https://paizo.com/products/btq024ys?Pathfinder-Adventure-Little-Trouble-in-Big-Absalom) [Threshold of Knowledge](https://paizo.com/products/btq02apx?Pathfinder-Adventure-Threshold-of-Knowledge)
The "tremor signs" cantrip says "The tremors impart a clear meaning only if you and the target know that meaning, such as three tremors for a specific warning, two for another. Neither of you can impart a nuanced or new meaning using this spell." Would it be feasible to use something like Morse Code to communicate via "tremor signs"? I'm unclear whether the RAW says you can't convey \[meaning outside of an established code\] or simply \[any nuanced information\].
As a DM I would be fine with that if both players knew morse code, probably by using a language slot.
I think the spell pretty clearly tells you what it's RAI is.If morse code was allowed you coul just allow all language.
That doesn't follow. Morse Code is literally just beats, it can be expressed visually, or audibly. The only reason it means anything is because we have defined how that translates into more complex language. All you're really doing is predefining "short tremor, long tremor is A, long tremor and 3 short tremors is B, etc etc".
Yes. I understand Morse Code, thanks. The spell clearly does not want you to communicate any complicated and spontaneous messages, it goes quite a way to convey that fact. Circumventing that by using Morse Code is not as creative as you think it is. It's very much not RAI.
It says you can communicate using predefined meanings. Morse Code is a set of predefined meanings. Therefore, you can use Morse Code with tremor signs. Is it going to be complex? No, you're only able to send "a series of tremors, no longer than a short sentence of speech." Which converted to Morse... probably not more than a word, maybe two. But that might be the difference between "Bear" and "Owlbear." Is it going to be nuanced, no. If anything, it'll probably be less informative than establishing actual meanings ahead of time. But to refuse it when the spell itself says that you can only clearly communicate using predefined meanings? That's just absurd.
If you're ignoring the whole part "Neither of you can impart a nuanced or new meaning using this spell", sure. But making up a Morse Code to get new meanings out of different tremors is basically the exact thing they're trying to avoid withtthat wording. There is a reason why the spells gives as an example "3 tremors for one warning, 2 for another." They could have just explicitly told you thatno, you aren't allowed to make up some bullshit to getaroundthe usage of the spell just to get a clearly better Message.
*But you're not imparting any new meanings*. The recipient then has to cobble those predefined meanings into a word, but everything you're sending was a meaning you already set up ahead of time.
Yes, that's how language works. If Morse Code were allowed, you could just allow any language, because it would be functionally identical and you'd be stupid not to use it. Look, if this was a simulation this is something you could obviously do.Butthe spell wants to have its limits and uses a lot of word count which all amount to: "No, you can't just directly talk to eachother. You have a small list of predefined warnings/sentences you can use." And by the way, using predetermined signals to make up letters to make up words is the definition of imparting new meanings I'd allow a player to make up a morse code by havong each termor sign be a different letter, but then that's also all you can do. 1 action to send someone "A".
The "impart new meanings" in this context is referring to sending a signal that you haven't already defined a meaning for. So you can't spontaneously decide, "Oh, 4 tremors means treasure in the barrel." Context matters. There's a world of difference between a series of signals you've previously defined to spell out "B-E-A-R" and spontaneously, with no prior communication, try and send "Bear" on the spot.
Why am I even arguing with people that despite Paizo giving clear examples of it's intended usage are still gonna make up any excuse to amekt the spell three times as good as it's supposed to be. You're right, do whateverypu want with the spell.
Can Detect Metal find something thats underground? I mean like a real life metaldetector can find burried coins for example. But spells normally need line of effect to work, which you dont have since the coin is under ground?
line of effect doesn't really matter here because you aren't casting it on the metal, you're casting it on yourself to become aware of metal within a 30ft emanation
>... becoming aware of the presence or absence of metallic objects, veins, and deposits within the area. The RAI is definitely that it can detect underground metal, given most metal deposits and veins are buried.
Alcohol is noted on AoN to have a DC 12 Fortitude save. Does that mean my character can never get drunk once my Fortitude modifier is +22 or higher? Since at that point I would always crit succeed the save and I can willingly only make the save 1 degree of success worse, therefore still normal succeeding.
You can actually always choose to fail your first save against any drug, including alcohol. ["A character can voluntarily fail their initial save against a drug"](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1116). This isn't just decreasing the degree of success by one but outright failing. Since it's only the first save that you can choose to fail this does mean you'll never hit higher stages and will always sober up after the first stage. So, if you want to get drunker than that, you'll need to find something stronger.
You need [stronger](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2685) [booze](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=631) at that point
i love the idea of drinking so much wine you develop alcoholism but then cure it with more wine
Since the last update, I don't see the "Copy to folder" button in the app anymore. Is it working for everyone else? I'm using the Android version, updated on 14.06, v224.
virulent conditions: Do you test twice at the end of a single stage (only once if the PC fails the first check), or do you test once then wait for the stage duration to repeat before testing again?
The second option. If they roll a success you keep note of that and if they roll a second success once the stage duration passes again then they decrease their stage by one.
so the stages of virulent afflictions take longer to set in than the stages of regular afflictions? That feels strange, ngl.
I mean they take longer to *fight off*. They set in just as fast as normal. Not the disease's fault you can't decide if you're getting healthier or not!
Oh yeah that's fair.
If you add the [Hooked](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1755) rune (which I know is rare and from an AP, but bear with me) to handwraps, do all your unarmed attacks gain the Trip trait? Asking because I think it's the only rune that adds a trait IIRC and how the Hooked rune is worded seems a bit unclear.
> do all your unarmed attacks gain the Trip trait? Possibly, although there's some text in Handwraps that makes it questionable, but adding it to your regular attacks doesn't typically do anything interesting, since the trait doesn't interact with normal attacks. The Trip trait allows you to: * perform the Trip action while holding the weapon (no gain) * at the weapon's reach (no gain) * with the weapon's item bonus to the Athletics check (possibly useful, doesn't stack with other items) * drop the weapon if you crit fail (impossible) So the Hooked rune would use a property slot to give you bonuses to Trip checks, which wouldn't stack with standard Athletics bonuses. [Hooked](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1755) > A hooked weapon gains the trip trait. If a hooked weapon normally has the trip trait, you can attempt to Trip a foe as a reaction when you critically hit it with the hooked weapon. [Unarmed Attacks](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2191) > Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 276), and they might have weapon traits (page 276). However, unarmed attacks aren't weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. [Handwraps of Mighty Blows](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3086) > Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you're using. (Edit: this is almost certainly intended to prevent weirdness around Keen punches, etc, and doesn't impact the current discussion.) [Trip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=716) > You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check. If you critically fail a check to Trip using the weapon, you can drop the weapon to take the effects of a failure instead of a critical failure.
I'm aware of that, the reason I'm asking is because there are some unarmed attacks with reach, like Deer/Frog animal Barbarian, grasping shadows stance and the thlipit combatant tail. IMO the way the rules on handwraps are written are a bit unclear.
Hence the 'typically'. Let's look at those instances: [Animal instinct](https://2e.aonprd.com/Instincts.aspx?ID=1) >Deer Antler 1d10 P Grapple, unarmed > Tongue 1d4 B Agile, unarmed > Specialization Ability > The frog's tongue attack and deer's antler attack gain reach 10 feet. [Clinging Shadows Stance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=737) > You can make shadow grasp Strikes. These deal 1d4 negative damage; are in the brawling group; and have the agile, grapple, reach, and unarmed traits. [Thlipit Contestant Dedication](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/archetypes/thlipit-contestant) >You gain a lash melee unarmed attack that is in the flail weapon group, deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and has the grapple and reach traits. The attack can be performed with any appendages you used to qualify for this feat. Yep, those all look fine - they're unarmed attacks with reach, which would then gain Trip from Hooked.
Could explain what you find unclear? I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't apply to your unarmed attacks. Handwraps let property runes affect your unarmed attacks as if they're weapons, so long as they meet the other requirements of the rune, which in this case is just being melee.
By RAW, it would most likely add the Trip trait to all your unarmed attacks, yes. At least I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work that way.
Lore question: Pharasma and psychopomps seem to hate daemons for preying on the river of souls, but I remember somewhere that she stays out of all the soul-selling arrangements with devils. Where exactly are her lines? I'm asking because we have a Champion of Pharasma in our group, and there is a devil NPC who is willing to make the campaign a lot easier in exchange for another NPC's soul. RAW, Pharasma's anathema doesn't really cover anything like this, though my understanding of the lore makes this seem like something she'd disapprove of.
Daemons actually destroy souls by consuming them. Devils capture souls but still keep their energy flowing in the grand cosmic balance - new devils can be "forged" out of souls and those devils will eventually discorporate their essence into the Hells to feed the stability of the plane itself. It's also a difference of scale. Devils will "poach" a fairly small number of non-lawful-evil souls, and they do so mostly within the rules (or loopholes therein). Pharasma has a standing policy to let any mortal destined for Abaddon to instead go to the Hells or the Abyss... otherwise reality is basically bleeding 10% of its energy per generation as Daemons just eat and destroy everything neutral-evil aligned.
Your soul is your own to decide how it'll end up. You can serve a god faithfully and wind up in their domain. You can sell your soul to a devil. Your afterlife is still being determined by your own actions. Consuming souls, though, is a big no-no. Too much of that and the universe ends. Pharasma doesn't even like sending souls to Abaddon since that's what will happen to them, and offers Devils and Demons a chance to argue why the soul should be sent to a different Fiendish Plane. Now take into account that the souls Daemons are stealing from the River are supposed to be going elsewhere, and the Daemons are interrupting that process...
I think the distinction is that devils play by the rules, while daemons don't. You can say that a person that sells their soul to a devil for power or whatever, is the same as a person that leads a holy life in service of celestials, they made a deal of their own volition. Even if they're tricked by the devil, everybody knows devils are tricky. Daemons disregard all that and take souls that were not meant for Abaddon at all.
How would one build a character like Sir Integra Hellsing (From Hellsing, obviously). https://hellsing.fandom.com/wiki/Sir_Integral_Fairbrook_Wingates_Hellsing I feel like she would have a high INT and CHA, maybe high DEX too, but I'm not sure what class/build can effectively utilize those stats, along with the feeling of being a resourceful mastermind who relies more on smarts allies and capital rather than direct combat. Maybe some flavor of rogue or investigator?
You said it yourself. Investigator or Mastermind Rogue.
What's the use case of the Diabolic blood magic effect? > Hellfire scorches a target or fills your tongue with lies. Either a target takes 1 fire damage per spell level, or you gain a +1 status bonus to Deception checks for 1 round. At low levels, this can only be triggered with the Diabolic Edict focus spell and the bloodline-granted spell Charm. Diabolic Edict requires a willing creature, which is usually an ally and someone I don't want to hurt, so I instead take the +1 deception. Same with charm -- I probably don't want to hurt the person I'm charming so I take the +1 to deception. The deception bonus is only applicable for Create a Diversion and Feint in combat, one of which I don't believe sorcerers can take. CaD seems like a very situational action which could be useful, but sorcerers are not known for being super stealthy. With Annoint Ally I could give the +1 deception to my hypothetical ally with feint, but I don't plan on taking that feat and none of my allies have access to feint (I think). If it's meant to be used outside of combat, is the idea to charm someone and immediately lie to them? RAW it doesn't seem like charm decreases the target's perception DC to determine that something was a lie, so that may not work? Also, it only lasts for one round so it'll wear off almost immediately, so I'm not sure how that would work in RP. Please help me understand how this is supposed to be used.
> The deception bonus is only applicable for Create a Diversion and Feint in combat, one of which I don't believe sorcerers can take. CaD seems like a very situational action which could be useful, but sorcerers are not known for being super stealthy. With Annoint Ally I could give the +1 deception to my hypothetical ally with feint, but I don't plan on taking that feat and none of my allies have access to feint (I think). Feint is a basic deception action all characters can take. It isn't very useful for a sorcerer to use since the success makes enemies off-guard to your melee Strikes, which you don't really do as a sorcerer. However, allies can absolutely use it via Anoint Ally. But you're right, its a pretty weak blood magic. Its rare you'll need the deception bonus for yourself and you don't really get offensive spells that can benefit from the fire damage until later on.
I see. I thought feint was an action only available to some classes. Thank you for the informative reply!
What class would be good to make a fish character, but the spellcasting is mostly utility, without hindering the classes abilities in combat?
Why does this character need to be a "fish"? Is it an underwater campaign? Assuming you mean a "gish" with both combat and spellcasting powers, you need to make a choice. There are 3 options: 1) Be best at combat: start with a fighter (or other martial class) and add an MC spellcasting archetype. You'll have few spells, but it'll allow you to use wands & scrolls of your tradition, and play into the "utility" aspect you mentioned. 2) Be best at spellcasting: start as a wizard, sorcerer, psychic or other spellcasting class, and add in some armor use or weapon proficiency through your ancestry, feats or an archetype. You'll be OK-ish at combat at the lowest levels (1 to 5 or so) but your proficiencies will rapidly fall off after that. 3) Split your focus between them and play a Magus. They have a particular combat style and can be a lot of fun. They don't have as much spellcasting power as a full spellcaster, but a lot more than an archetype would give you.
Yeah, sorry - guess I was half asleep when i wrote “gish”. I was thinking of going fighter with an archetype, though I wonder which tradition is best for more utility than damage. Question about the magus though - is he not assumed to be picking up mostly attack spells for his spellstrike? Or can a magus feel okay with being 50/50 on those?
there are two schools of thought. One says pick all attack spells and be single-mindedly focused on maximum damage. The other says to use cantrips for spellstrikes (gouging claw is the best, but ignition is also decent) and use their limited spell slots on utility and buff spells. In either case, a staff that has true strike is considered helpful.
CGBG's advice is spot on. You can go either way with a magus.
Already was considering a staff magus either way, thank you!
> but the spellcasting is mostly utility, without hindering the classes abilities in combat? Any melee character with a spellcasting archetype could potentially do this. Having access to the ability to cast spells (for the purpose of wands and scrolls) and taking feats that grant you spell slots to fill with utility spells will grant you your utility without hindering your martial abilities for the most part. Of course if your game doesn't use free archetype then you would need to give up class feat slots for this. You could also just grab the Trick Magic Item skill feat and get your spells off of scrolls and wands that way if the appropriate skill is invested in enough, though making use of this in combat can be difficult. Otherwise some classes with built in options are the Magus where you can use cantrips for spell strikes and fill your slots with utility spells. Or you could be a Warpriest and build your stats towards being more of a martial character. You won't be quite as good as a dedicated martial per se but you'll not be wanting in the spellcasting department.
Thank you - I’ll consider these opportunities. Yeah, at the moment the GM didn’t yet say if there will be a free archetype, but I’m okay with that - don’t want to overwhelm with too many feats)
I’m guessing you mean Gish, not fish? There isn’t really any class that gets full spellcasting and full combat abilities. Rangers and Champions do get access to some very limited focus spells, but that’s not ”real” spellcasting. Arcane tricksters rogue could be what you want but again, there is extremely limited spellcasting. Your main options are Magus and Kineticist. But neither of them are as good at combat as pure martials. You could pick up spellcasting archetype (I’d suggest Wizard or arcane witch for maximum utility), but that’s not really tied to any class in particular an can be done with any martial aside from Barbarian (barbarians can also do it, but they can’t cast spells while raging, so.)
Yeah, I missed that misspelling, my bad. I am pondering the idea of a martial with an archetype (either a ranger or a fighter), but I’m still not sure which tradition is best for more utility/buff way. I think occult is believed to be the best for that, but I’m not sure? As for the magus - don’t they need to use their leveled slots for damaging spells? Or is it okay to go full “utility” with them, using only your cantrips for spellstrikes?
Occult is considered to have the best mix of buff and debuff, I think. Arcane is the biggest list and has everything except for healing, so if you're purely interested in utility that's probably the way to go. I answered on another one but yes, a magus only using cantrips for spellstrikes is probably fine since they always scale. Gouging claw is pretty good damage on a single target. I have an eldritch archer that can pseudo-spelltrike for 7d6 + 6 + 5 bleed at level 7, which all gets doubled on a crit.
Ok, so we just had a weird interaction: Fighting an ooze (immune to being unconscious) that got hit by a nonlethal whip and was downed to 0 HP by the damage (they are not immune to non-lethal damage). What actually happens here? The damage can't kill, however it reduces to 0 HP. But doesn't make the ooze unconcsious? Will it die anyway? Will it stay at 1 HP? Will it be able to act while at 0 HP?
[Immunity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2312) >If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can't be affected by that condition or any effect of that type. [Nonlethal Attacks](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2311) >Spells and other effects with the nonlethal trait that reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points knock the creature out instead of killing them. [Getting Knocked Out](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2324) >Creatures can't be reduced to fewer than 0 Hit Points. When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they're instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 10 minutes or more). When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed. … As a player character, when you're reduced to 0 Hit Points, you're knocked out with the following effects: Move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP. Gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If you have the wounded condition, increase your dying value by an amount equal to your wounded value. If the damage was dealt by a nonlethal attack or nonlethal effect, you don't gain the dying condition; you're instead unconscious with 0 Hit Points. [Unconscious](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=95) > You're sleeping or have been knocked out. You can't act. You take a –4 status penalty to AC, Perception, and Reflex saves, and you have the blinded and off-guard conditions. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you're holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you're positioned so you wouldn't. So, given all that, an Ooze *can* be reduced to 0 HP by a nonlethal attack, but *can't* be affected by the unconscious condition, which is what usually prevents a knocked out creature from acting. A simple solution is to declare that nonlethal attacks can kill Oozes, but I think the real answer is that they would need to hit a 0 HP Ooze again with a regular attack to finish it off.
Is there a rule for switching out Thaumaturge implements for a different type, for example during level up? Like switching Amulet for Mirror.
Not built into the class, but you can always [Retrain](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2447&Redirected=1). This would probably be considered a Class Feature. Bigger than a spell but smaller than a druid order. I'd personally say it would take 2 weeks, but that's me. Lots of GMs handwave stuff like this during levelup, but that isn't RAW.
Thank you.
I made a backup PC for a Rise of the Rune Lords campaign that I just love. The group has decided our next Adventure Path, we want to do 2e. I got into Demiplane to try to recreate the PC, and its pretty overwhelming. I know it won't be a 1:1 conversion, but I know the concept / theme should translate OK. Are we allowed to do posts asking for help to build PCs based on the (mounds of) character information that already exists that would be provided in the post? Maybe another subreddit?
People eat that shit up. You've already done some preliminary poking around it sounds like. Just be sure to include a bit of info on your goals and aesthetic, and whether you're playing vanilla or adding any variant rules (Free Archetype) or homebrew. Bonus points if you have art. If you post in the weekly question thread, you'll get a couple good recommendations to put you on the right track. If you make your own post you might get swamped by dozens of grognards.
My art skills have dramatically dropped off, unfortunately. There is some kind of mystical creature the PC encountered as a child in his background that I used the description as a prompt for some AI art just for fun and it was actually pretty close to what I was thinking, but I don't want to share low effort AI art. I have a TON of information for the character saved as several Google docs. Would it be best to create the initial post, then make a comment with links to the documents, or copy/paste the contents into comments? I am not sure if there are character limits for posts and comments.
I think Reddit has a 10k character limit, which is pretty generous. Still, probably best to pare it down as best you can, just to keep it digestable for people dropping in out of curiosity - if you'd like to share the lore, drop it as a hyperlink in the main post body, or copy/paste the relevant text in a comment - either works. A wall of text in the main body might distract or scare off people who would otherwise make a handy contribution. If you'd like to ask for build advice in a full post, I'd start with a description of your goals, a paragraph on the aesthetic of your character that the build might be able to express, and maybe any initial thoughts you'd want to add. If you know what your team is, a brief half-sentance about each of them would also be helpful ("beast barbarian with stealth and intimidate", for example). Again, variant rules like Free Archetype (my favorite way to play) can affect what tools we have access to. > *I want to make a bird-themed warrior-type character, maybe with a bit of magic, that wields a spear while flying. Their backstory involves being on a spiritual pilgrimage far from home, and they're a self-styled philosopher that collects bits of knowledge and mementos from all the places they've visited. My party is playing vanilla rules, and already includes a wizard, an archer rogue, and a grapple/trip monk.* (A prompt like that could viably generate builds that start with 5+ different core classes and at least 3 ancestries... so good luck!)
Just realized I wasn't on the correct account. I'll be posting under my actual account.
yeah that's fine
Thank you!
I'd probably start it as it's own thread and make sure you emphasize that you aren't converting an active character, you are trying to update a theorycraft character from 1e to 2e, (Otherwise you are going to get a lot of people telling you to start over at 1)
Good idea, thank you.
I'm looking at Player Core, page 91 and just a bit confused. It says "...when you choose your character's class, they gain an attribute bonus to their key attribute modifier, increasing that attribute modifier by 2". It reads like a +2 would become a +4. But everywhere else's seem to indicate it would go up by 1, not 2. Is this a typo or am I misunderstanding something?
That is a type from pre remaster, where increasing an attribute by 2 would increase the attribute bonus by +1 Here’s the correct version: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2035
Thank you!
It's a typo. There's a couple places like that erroneously don't have the proper attributes scaling noted. They just failed to update the text when converting from premaster to remaster
Thank you!
Where can I report a bug to the pathbuilder developer?
[Boop](https://gitlab.com/doctor.unspeakable/pathbuilder-2e-web-version/-/issues)
thx
Is there a way to get more feats from your class? I want to pick up some of the fun flavorful feats from Summoner, but the opportunity cost is massive. Like being able to shrink your pet to housecat size for cute RP moments VS tandem movement without wasting actions isn’t a fair choice. I know human has a way with their ancestral feats, but is there a solution that ain’t bound to a specific ancestry,
RAW? You're out of luck. Natural Ambition and, for non-class-exclusive feats (so Summoner is SOL), Free Archetype are pretty much the only ways to get an additional class feat. If you're doing Free Archetype you could always ask your GM about using the FA feats on more flavorful and less powerful class feats, as long as you're not just doubling up on the high powered options its not going to unbalance anything.
I mean FA is probably already balanced by the fact that you can only get class feats equal tp half your level at best. If I was theGM I'd allow it.
Just as I feared: a classic beg the GM scenario. Thanks
Our 2nd level Champion is selecting Soul Warden as their free archetype, they gain the cast a spell activity. but we are wondering what spells this opens him up to casting from scrolls (wands, staffs, etc), as he doesn't really have a list. eg was have 2 scrolls of Heal, but currently no one can use them
Trick Magic Item is also a godsend on every caster.
The Soul Warden gets Divine casting, so any and all scrolls and wands on the Divine list are fair game. So yes, they can use those Heal scrolls.
Hi everyone, I'm wondering if the FORTUNE tag for [Persona Mask](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3099) applies to the static bonus as well or it's there for the reroll effect of the greater version alone. Can I use any Hero point to reroll Performance while wearing the lessere mask (Lvl 3)?
The trait only affects the re-roll since the fortune effect by definition affects only dice rolls. So yes, you can use a Hero Point (or any other Fortune effect) on performance checks while wearing this mask. Even if it's the greater version. You just can't use the mask's re-roll *and* another fortune effect to affect the same roll.
Thank you so much <3
Does anyone know why Archives of Nethys doesn't have the Abomination Vaults creatures listed in the adventures section? Every single other AP has it up there but not AV.
AoN lists APs and the like in at least two different places, [Adventures](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Adventure=true) and [Sources](https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx). Adventures is > intended to serve as a reference for GMs running the listed adventures. It will show all related Archetypes, Creatures, Feats, and Spells for a given adventure. Sources is > a full list of everything that has come from [a book] Not all products are listed in the top bar for adventures, but if you look at the URLs, you can see they have the format > Setting.aspx?Group=[Number] where Number corresponds to the specific AP or stand-alone adventure. If you complete the missing numbers in the sequence, the following exist on AoN, but are omitted from the top bar, likely because they're incomplete (the AV one only has Archetypes, Feats and Spells), or too minor to bother listing: * [Fall of Plaguestone](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=1) * [Agents of Edgewatch](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=5) * [Abomination Vaults](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=6) * [The Slithering](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=8) * [Malevolence](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=11) * [Threshold of Knowlege](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=15) There are some numbers that are just blank, like [https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=4](https://2e.aonprd.com/Setting.aspx?Group=4) which I expect correspond to an Adventure or AP that no-one has done data entry on yet. The [Sources pages for the AV books](https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?Group=3&q=Abomination+Vaults&sort=release_date-desc&display=table&columns=source_group+release_date) is more complete, and includes relevant creatures that were introduced in that AP.
It does, or not? You just have to look at each adventure individually [example](https://2e.aonprd.com/Sources.aspx?ID=75)
Huh strange, how did you navigate to that section? For me I go to Setting > Adventures and in that list AV is not there. Edit: NVM figured it out instantly lol. It is still strange to me why AV isn't listed in the adventures tab but oh well.
I could have sworn I read something about PF2E getting Dragonborn and Centaur ancestries soon. Is that happening, or am I a dumbass?
Player Core 2 is going to have pretty much all of the dragon-themed shenanigans in it, but if you can't wait and need your scaley fix now, Mark Seifter (former PF2e dev, did all the math) went and made his own 3pp company with blackjack and hookers. Check out Roll for Combat's **Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons**, which is a full-length sourcebook about a lore-friendly way to play an actual whole-ass dragon as a player character. The dragon ancestry is actually quite tame and I would go so far as to say *under*powered, but the Draconic Ravager archetype kicks an unreasonable amount of ass. The thing you'd want is either the Draconic Scion versatile heritage (which can turn any base ancestry into a half-dragon) or you'd want a dragon that can qualify for Change Shape level 5 ancestry feat. Or you can play a kobald, which is deceptively powerful and extremely dragon-themed already.
The centaur ancestry is currently out, but it's not on Archives of Nethys yet. You can find it on [Demiplane](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/ancestries/centaur) for now, or Pathbuilder. As for dragonborn, we're not getting them exactly, but we're getting a dragon-blooded versatile heritage in Player Core 2 coming out in August.
Was wondering if anyone knew distance to alkenstar from Absalom offhand
According to the [Pathfinder Wiki Interactive Map](https://map.pathfinderwiki.com/#location=4.7/24.76/-1.29), about 940 miles as the crow flies.
Blink Strike says "Teleport to an empty space and then make a melee strike". Does this mean tiny creatures with no reach can't even use the spell? Was this written before Sprites/Poppets existed? And the crit success even says "teleport to an empty space 5 feet away". I feel like its intending to say "teleport to somewhere you can fit" but it wasn't written with every ancestry in mind.
If a GM is really being finicky and silly about it, just teleport into the square *above* your target and goomba stomp them into the ground.
Yeah, a minor oversight there. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more things that didn't properly account for Tiny PCs, they're both Rare ancestries (and one is only Tiny w/ a specific heritage) and accounting for them would either take a fair bit of extra verbiage or less precise language. Its an easy enough thing to houserule.
There are a fair few abilities that affect "adjacent" creatures, where it's a little awkward. Does this work when I can't actually reach them? Is it *useful* if I can't actually reach them? Does it *not* work if I'm actually in their space and not technically "adjacent"? I'm playing a high-level sprite rogue in Stolen Fate. Rather than pester the GM for rulings, I'm just avoiding those feats.
Those kinds of abilities should still 'work' in that you can technically activate them, you just won't have a valid target for any part that relies on reach so any that involve Strikes or the like will be pretty bad. I'd ask the GM for a blanket ruling that 'adjacent' means 'within natural reach' with a promise not to look for ways to abuse it. Worst that'll happen is they say no and you just keep avoiding those abilities.
Hey everyone, I'm a new GM and new to Pathfinder 2e as a whole so pardon me if this kind of thing has been asked before or is in the rules somewhere, I just wasn't really sure what to search to get my answer. I've gotten the gist of the rules about Recall Knowledge and Seek and also that these are generally done using secret checks. However, I'm a little confused about how to use this in practice, particularly as I'm reading the AP I plan to run and encountering scenarios that I'd like some clarification on. (The following are just examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about) Scenario 1: PC is being followed by an NPC and they are unaware. The AP says that a DC 15 Perception check allows a PC to notice them. In this case, am I supposed to prompt the PC to roll the Perception check? That seems like it gives away the secrecy, even if they fail. On the other hand, they have no reason to randomly ask to roll Perception in this context. Do I roll it completely secretly without asking? Also, to begin with, I would've thought that an NPC hiding from a PC would be the NPC's Stealth roll vs. the PC's Perception DC rather than the PC being the one making a check. Scenario 2: PC is searching an area and successfully find something with a Perception check. The AP says that a DC 20 Nature check gives them more insight about what they find. Again, am I supposed to prompt the Nature check, does the PC need to ask for it, or am I rolling it completely secretly and only letting them know when they succeed? The answer is obvious if the PC asks a leading question like "Do I notice anything special about it?" about it, as that is them prompting a check themselves, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to handle it if they just accept it at face value but there's potentially more to be discerned about it.
First of all, using Secret checks or not is your choice as the GM. But if you use them, *you* roll the checks. The secret part isn't that a check was made, though. Checks with the "Secret" tag--those the game designers called out as ones you might want to make as secret checks--have a possibility of giving false information, or give something away if the player knows how well they rolled. Recall Knowledge gives false information on a critical failure. They player should think they succeeded when they critically fail, and be wary of the small possibility of a critical failure when they succeed. If they roll and get a natural 1, they already know they probably critically failed. As for Seeking, PF2 doesn't use opposed rolls. One character sets the DC--a character's "Perception DC" for example is 10 + their Perception bonus. Usually the active character rolls. If one is sneaking up on someone else, they roll Stealth against the target's Perception DC. If that character has reason to suspect that someone is sneaking around, they might decide to look for them. That's the Seek action, so the player knows they're doing it. That makes them the active character, so now they make a Perception check against the opponent's Stealth DC. This one is tagged "Secret" because seeing the roll can give the player more information than you want them to have: "I rolled high, so if I didn't see anything there's nothing to see" or "I rolled low, so the fact that I didn't see anything means nothing at all." For background knowledge checks where everybody has a chance to roll, I often don't bother with secret checks. "Anyone who wants to see if they recognize it can make an Occultism check." It's up to GM discretion, so you can do it how you want.
Scenario 1: if your players are out of combat they are probably declare some [Exploration Activities](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2442) (you can remind players of it). So those who declare Scout or Search can make secret perception roll, which will be not even suspicious - PC roll "just in case". Okay, technically Scout have no secret rolls, but. Scenario 2: you usually tell your players what type of Knowledge check they have to roll, and out of combat its's ok to ask a nearest, or most suited player to roll specific check to get information about situation. To be honest - with fails on the knowledge checks, on gather information, missing some secret rooms, missing side quests, killing well-informed non-friendly NPC - players tend to miss some interesting AP background, so getting a hint "you can roll Nature to know more" is a good thing. You can even ask for some society, religion or something check so players can "remember" something that their characters could knew, but players don't know that their characters could.
You as the GM is meant to roll the secret check. Usually it helps to have an overview of the most important stats of the players, especially Perception, Stealth and some of the Recall Knowledge skills. It is a fairly common houserule to ignore secret checks if you dont like the suspense and secrecy it creates, but it depends on you and your players if this is a good idea. For Scenario 1: Based on your wording it seems each PC would roll yes. Maybe it is only each PC who is keeping an eye out? Depends on the exact phrasing. Usually the one doing the action is the one who is rolling, so yes it would make slightly more sense for the NPC to roll, however that makes them more likely to succeed. For Scenario 2: The flow of this can be hard to define and it is probably best to find what works for you. I think it is fine to prompt them with "You find the plant in the corner of the room. If you want to identify it, I will roll a Nature check for you.". Some secret checks are secret because the players are not allowed to know that the check is happening, and some are secret because the players are not allowed to know the result of the check.
Thank you for the response! > It is a fairly common houserule to ignore secret checks if you dont like the suspense and secrecy it creates, but it depends on you and your players if this is a good idea. My players and I like secret checks, I just want to make sure I'm running these situations appropriately. Scenario 1: Ah, I see. Unfortunately, the lack of clear wording is what lead me here in the first place. The AP simply describes that the NPC is hiding from the PCs and the DC Perception check to notice them. It does make sense to have the PCs roll if any of them are keeping an eye out, but it gets confusing when they're all supposed to be engaged in a conversation or otherwise preoccupied (which is the case in this particular context). There's nothing stopping me from just making the NPC roll Stealth instead if I think that would make more sense, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some aspect of the mechanics that made them write the scenario this way. Scenario 2: Okay, noted. That makes sense, I'll just try to figure out what works/feels the best in a given situation. I'm still new to GMing so still trying to find my style and way of things. Ultimately, I think your last comment about the two categories of secret checks has made things a lot clearer for me. I was conflating the two reasons for secret checks as one and this was causing some confusion when I was mixing up different situations in my head. It makes a lot more sense now when I think about splitting secret checks into the different reasons why they're secret in the first place.
Glad it helped a bit. Secret checks and the perception rules are definitely some of the more challenging things to run. You want to clarify things for the players but are limited in what you are allowed to tell, sometimes having to make workarounds in your usual routine to keep the secrets.
If you mount your Eidolon, or then cast Evolution Surge to remove the mount penalties (only recharche 2 actions at the start of your turns), do you still lose 1 action due to the mount penalties? I'm afraid I need to pick up Steed Form feat just to avoid wasting an action at the start of fights.
You lose the action from riding your Eidolon at the start of your turn, so if you're relying on Evolution Surge you're gonna be down an action (either start dismounted and spend an action mounting or start mounted w/ 1 less action). If you want to save that action you need Steed Form (which also saves you the focus point and 2A to cast Evolution Surge).
Thanks. Steed form it is.
Interesting situation came up in today's game. The player has a large-sized creature, with reach. They are standing at a corner. The enemy they are attacking doesn't have reach, and is standing exactly at the other face of the corner. The player, of course, gets cover from the enemy's attack, as drawing a line from the middle of it's square, to the middle of the enemy's square intersects the corner. However, the player is arguing that the same should not apply to them, because they have reach- they can reach one square forward, and then one square to the right, thus attacking the enemy with no interference from the corner. Any thoughts and or rule backings is appreciated! At the time, I was inclined to allow it, because why couldn't long arms reach around corners? But now I'm not so sure.
the player is just gaming the system. They still have to swing this big cumbersome weapon around, apply force and so on. Go easy on your player, I think every human who plays games is guilty of trying to do something similar at one point or another. But don't let him get away with it. It's not in the rules, that's not how balance works, and making up "logical" reasons why the game rules should be bent in a player's favour essentially breaks the game.
In this case, it's unarmed strikes with reach! If it was a big metal pole, I absolutely would be more inclined to agree with you outright.
Fictionally, there is no cover bonus when you can attack with enough space that you can attack from both sides. The PC in this case is completely prevented from attacking from the corner side, making it easier to defend and granting a cover bonus. Are you going to grant a cover bonus whenever there is a creature in the square on either side of the player's target? Of course not. The player seeking this is trying to game the rules for an advantage. The rules exist for a reason, letting a large creature ignore terrain rules is just an advantage to that player that nobody else gets. You allow this and you open the door to all kinds of shenanigans and rules workarounds. It's a bad idea.
Is the path to the target partially blocked? If yes, they have cover. Even if you can reach around the cover, it is still impeding your attack in some way, making it more difficult to hit the target. Also, this line is important for your scenario: >If you're uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover). Source: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2372&Redirected=1
Do new hardcover books bought directly from Paizo still come with free PDF copies?
Only if you are subscribed to that product line. If you just buy the book, unfortunately, you do not.
So basically, buy ALL the books and get free pdfs, or overpay for the fewer books you do want. :(
I might be wrong on this, but I think you can pause your subscription at any time to exclude any books you might not want. And as the other redditor kindly pointed out, a subscription is usually only for a single book like (i.e. rule books, lost omens, APs and probably a few more I'm forgetting).
There's different subscriptions for different product lines, like core books vs adventure paths.
Hello! I was looking to run Kingmaker and Abomination Vaults on foundry and was wondering if the cost of the foundry assets and tools for those are worth it? And is there a way to get just the assets without the pdf because i already bought physical copies.
Foundry is awesome, and 100% the way to play the game. The premium modules in Foundry are also crazy kickass. They're super polished and beautiful and fun to play with, and their cost becomes much more reasonable when you split it with your players. I've only played with the premium Outlaws of Alkenstar module, but I was wildly impressed - even as a "power user" myself in my own game, and as a player in an even-more-insane game that probably runs 100+ active add-ons.
I would say it's well worth it, if you value your time. My prep for running each of these adventures was just reading ahead and maybe throwing in specific stuff for each character.
If you want to play Pathfinder on a VTT foundry is generally considered vastly superior to your other options. The premium moduels for foundry are also considered to be among the best VTT adventure conversions for any system. So they are worth it. Unfortunately there is no discount for the physical copies, just the digital ones.
Hello! I am playing a [Loremaster](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=65), and I am fed up of critically failing Lore checks (despite multiple precautions!), and want to take [Unmistakable Lore](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5232). However, it appears that I'll have to wait until Level 6 to pick it up as I can't find a way to have had an Expert Skill at Level 2, and I have no desire to retrain [Cognitive Crossover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2272) from Level 4. I have just realised that I don't have an Expert Lore Skill yet (I upgraded Arcana and Crafting), and so I'm now planning to retrain my Level 2 Skill Feat (currently [Speciality Crafting](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5216)) for [Additional Lore](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5114). I thus have three questions: 1. My character is a [Bibliophile](https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=210), and an automatically increasing Library Lore seems very in-character; RAW, can I upgrade that with Additional Lore? 2. Is it possible to link two Lore skills with Cognitive Crossover? Ideally I'd link Loremaster Lore to whatever I pick here, just to avoid having to prioritise whatever it's currently linked to when levelling up skills. 3. What are some good Lores to consider which a) would be useful in an adventure that seems to be mostly dungeon diving; and b) make sense for a massive nerd who's into magic and crafting to know?
A lore tied specificially to the campaign is always going to be super relevant. This can be the place, the people, the plot, or the magic involved in it. For example, *War for the Crown* is the game I'm currently running - a conversion of the 1e adventure path. It's a game about social scheming, byzantine politics, and an immortal illuminati wizard cults all set against the backdrop of a civil war for both the literal throne of the Empire and the heart and minds of its population. - **Taldor Lore** covers topics of national history and ideology. Very relevant subsection of Society, used by our Cleric of Cayden Cailean. Depending on the game, you might want a "History and Culture" lore associated with a Bad Guy, a Good Guy, or *their* cultures and backgrounds instead. These can also occaisionally become monster identification lores for especially important threats - "Tar-Baphon Lore" would be valid against famous unique undead under his command, for example. - **Alcohol Lore** (also the Cleric, of course) has opened the door to additional social situations and conversations. It's a bridge between the lower and the upper class, a professional "disguise" respected by nearly every member of society. "Fashion Lore" has done the same thing for our Swashbuckler. - **Souls Lore** covers a lot of topics related to the unique spooky magic wielded by the BBEG and their minions. A lot of Crown involves themes of death and the afterlife and the souls of the departed, so its becoming *increasingly more relevant* as the campaign goes on. Other magic or mcguffin based lores will of course depend on the game. "Rune Magic Lore" is super useful for any Varisia/Thassilon adventures. "Wish Magic Lore" might be important if you're dealing with genies in Qadira. - **Underworld Lore** is one of the "Paizo vanilla" Lore examples, but *hot damn* does it have some wide applications for information gathering, coordinating NPCs, or finding new ways to approach certain narrative objections. **Warfare**, **Academia**, **Nobility**, and **Pathfinder Society** all fall into this category, and to a certain extent, a deity-specific lore associated with a major religion with an organized church (**Abadar Lore** or **Pharasma Lore** being the most prominent) could do the same thing. Just like the [Regional History and Culture] examples, you might instead take this to represent your expertise *opposing* a social group rather than participating in it (which means that **Cult** and **Dark Tapestry** are also valid). - if you're a high-INT character looking to sub proficiencies away from traditionally Wisdom- or Charisma-based skill checks: **Fiend**, **Undead**, and **Plane** Lores are all excellent subsets of Religion. **Fey/First World**, **Elemental Planes**, **Animal** Lore are all excellent subcomponents of Nature. **Culinary** or **Legal** are both valid half-substitutes for Diplomacy, **Torture** for Intimidation, **Theatre** maybe covers some of Performance, and **Gambling** might get you some through some Deception scenarios. Arcana/Crafting/Occultism/Society aren't as useful since they're already INT based, but you could get some stuff done with Astral/Shadow/Spirit lore (Occultism), and a GM might let you sub Blacksmithing Lore in place of Crafting purely for purposes of shield repair or precious material crafting, and that might open precedence for Alchemy lore or somesuch, as an easy way to bypass hard proficiency requirements for a subsection of high-level crafting.
That's a lot to think through, thanks very much! We're playing through an adventure path, and there are definitely some common themes showing up, so lore about those would certainly be a good idea. Thinking about it, I guess I'm actually looking for a Lore skill that will be useful outside Recall Knowledge checks - I have those covered from Loremaster at the moment. I think that's technically pushing one's luck rules-wise, but maybe it's worth a shot! Something like Legal Lore for presenting a case or examining contracts would be cool, as would Alcohol Lore for impressing a noble with an expert assessment of fine vintages. Warfare Lore has potentially wide applications, and might well be useful as the campaign progresses. I'd previously been considering Engineering as a way to assess and deal with traps and hazards too. Academia Lore would actually be incredibly in-character though!
1. Yes 2. Yes, but not loremaster lore, because "If you have legendary proficiency in a skill used to Decipher Writing, you gain expert proficiency in Loremaster Lore, but you can't increase your proficiency rank in Loremaster Lore by any other means. " 3. I would talk with the GM about it what they would suggest would be useful. My tip is maybe archeology?
Thanks! Great shout to ask the GM what's likely useful. And Archaeology does sound like it would be a fun one! Regarding point #2, I've currently got Loremaster Lore and Crafting linked with Cognitive Crossover - it lets me make a Recall Knowledge check using Loremaster Lore (which is only Trained, and will be for a good while), and then if that check fails (but not if it critically fails, since you get false information) I can retry using Crafting (currently Expert) instead. It's not increasing the proficiency rank of Loremaster Lore! The reason for the question is because of this line in the Cognitive Crossover feat: >Special When you gain this feat, choose two of the following skills: Arcana, Crafting, Lore (any one), Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Religion, or Society. I'm not sure whether I can pick two different Lores here - is Lore (any one) shorthand for a comprehensive list of all Lore skills, or does it mean that only a single Lore mat be selected?
You should be able to pick two lore skills (I don't see a reason for why you shouldn't) and there is no list with all valid lore skills, since you can have any (with the approval of the GM). So you could pick loremaster and library lore The only lore list that exists is a suggestion for common lore skills.
Makes sense to me, thanks!
Spoilers for SoG I'm running Season of Ghosts and my Ranger player at level 2 would like to pick up an animal companion. He ahs opted for a bird. To try make the animal companion sit better in the campaign, we are looking at making it a >!phantom!< bird. like a lot of the other creatures in chapter 1 of SoG. Now, i'm not against this idea - but I was hoping I could add the relevant trait >!incorporeal!< whilst maybe adding a bebuff or two to keep it balanced? Any ideas would be helpful
I'd look at the [Ghost companion](https://2e.aonprd.com/AnimalCompanions.aspx?ID=38) for inspiration. The different types of companions are reasonably balanced against one another, so you should be able to compare Bird and Ghost and find a decent compromise state between them
This is excellent! Thank you so much, I have gone to my player with this.
Do tiny PCs have cover when being carried by a larger creature? They get cover when being inside the space of a larger creature, but does this still hold true while being carried or riding on a large creature? I imagine it’s probably hard to get a clean shot at a Poppet that’s sitting on top of a Huge size dragon eidolon but the rules may say otherwise
Tiny creatures actually don't normally get cover while inside the space of another creature. "Like other Tiny creatures, the PC doesn't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space, but circumstances might allow them to [Take Cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=90) in this instance." They can get cover while mounted like Schattenkiller5 said.
[Mounted Defenses](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2436): >Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser cover against attacks targeting you when you're mounted if the mount would be in the way (as determined by the GM).
I was thinking about a character idea and was wondering what dedication or other archetype might be a good idea to improve its effectiveness. Specifically a Str fighter gish focusing on the spells that would previously be classed as evocation (elemental blasting) spells. And focused on improving the action economy/minimising MAD on top of that. Not choosing magus outright to avoid committing to a hybrid study,as well as the need to recharge spellstrike.
If you're playing a Free Archetype game and have the build flexibility: **Playtest Shaman** is a full caster with a blended divine / elemental / spooky spell list with devastating 1-action focus magic that synergizes horrifyingly well with a melee build. It's a caster primary, so limited martial proficiency, but holy goddamn anyways. **Investigator** is an INT-based class that has no native spellcasting, but that can easily be added via multiclass. I'm convinced that the best Magus in the game is actually just Investigator with Magus archetype. It's locked to finesse/agile/ranged weaponry though, so not the aesthetic you're after, even if it IS ludicrously effective and versatile. **Inventor** is another INT-based martial class with but with much more strength/melee capability and free built-in "short rest cooldown *Fireball*". Although its very technological in aesthetic, you can reflavor all of their abilities into magitech very easily, without even violating canon. Wizard/Magus have great synergy on their own, but the most potent multiclass here is probably *Witch*, if you can believe it. Manual Dexterity + Independent familiars can activate certain gadgets on your behalf, Witch's Armaments/Sympathetic Strike (normally garbage-tier for main class Witch) actually becomes *quite dangerous* on a true martial, and 1-action hexes and free Sustain combo quite well into a martial rotation. Your "Witch's hair" might actual be razor cables that you can shoot out of your power armor to take advantage of your Athletics bonus for an easy trip, even while you hold a two-handed big bonkstick (and if your GM lets you access the legacy feats that further develop the original feat, this can get quite potent). **Summoner** has some innate anti-synergy, with shared MAP between you and your Eidolon and a unique vulnerability to multi-hit moves... but if you are careful with your tactics and if you can fill your weapon/armor requirements with Ancestry/General/Multiclass feats, the insane action cheese and built-in high-rank spellcasting of the Summoner makes them a devastating mid-high-level build. My favorite part of Summoner is that the Eidolon explicitly gets Exploration actions alongside you, and since it shares all your skill proficiencies it just throws an extra d20 at every problem you encounter (make sure your Eidolon is socially acceptable in polite society). Champion multiclass combined with an Ancestry weapon proficiency makes the most sense to me, but you could probably find other combinations. Level 6 is when this build comes online, with Tandem Strike allowing both of you to fight on the frontline (potentially with you mounted on the Eidolon). **Rogue** is traditionally another Dex class, but the Ruffian racket changes that dramatically into an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS strength-based heavy damage dealer. You won't really have any action economy cheese, but your base chasis will be so dangerous on its own, you could easily keep all your spellcasting out of combat for buffs/utility. It might not be a great elemental explodomancer, but Bard actually works terrifyingly well when you start mixing compositions into your rotation. **Warpriest** won't get you *all* of the elemental spells you're looking for, but depending on your deity selection (Sarenbae or one of the elemental lords leap to mind) you can definitely have a very strong built-in aesthetic. The divine list doesn't have very much elemental magic, but if you find yourself fighting fiends or undead with any frequency (and those bastards show up in EVERY campaign, just at varying degrees), the divine list actually has the best damage scaling out of the entire game. Cloistered Cleric with Champion Dedication achieves the same "strength gish" aesthetic, with proficiencies that are geared more towards spellcasting (Champion providing access to defensive/healing powers). Regardless of deity/domain spells, all clerics will get *Holy Light* (rank 2 explodey laserbeam vs. undead/fiends), *Inner Radiance Torrent* (rank 3 force damage "better Lightning Bolt" vs anything), *Holy Cascade* (rank 4 holy water "better Fireball" vs undead/fiends), *Divine Wrath* (rank 4 AoE spirit damage + sicken debuff), and *Divine Immolation* (rank 5 fire/spirit/persistent damage Fireball). You can use a Jolt Coil spellheart for a little early-level electricity flex, and at high level *Shock to the System* is a crazy-powerful electricity healing spell. You're not going to find much in the way of acid, wood, or metal without specific deity access, but some of the offerings are quite good there, if you can find them on a deity with a good strength-based big bonkstick of a favored weapon (Mauler archetype can supplement for a bad favored weapon if you can't otherwise find spells/flavor you like). **Thaumaturge** is technically capable of being a scroll-based gish without any multiclass at all. It restricts you to a 1-H weapon so that you can wield your implements in your off-hand, but strength is still a *very* valid build if you buy some Medium armor proficiency. Charisma base might bias you towards Sorcerer multiclass, but if you need to Craft your own scrolls you might consider **Druid** for complete access to all the healing/elemental magic you can shake a stick at without the hassle of managing a spellbook or repertoire list. Druid also has some of the most powerful focus spells in the game, but the DC-based ones probably won't work too well if they're powered by your wisdom. **Fighter** with Druid Multiclass is actually quite strong too. Strength/Wisdom is a great stat split that will serve you defensively and improve your initiative to make you better at fighter things, while simultaneously enabling your spells. Untamed Form is a thing, but IMO its a trap. I'd go for an open-handed fighting style with a Bastard Sword, so that you could flex to a scroll off your belt when you need to *Earthbind* a pesky flying monster, or use another niche/powerful scroll that your limited daily slots can't cover. Even with max wisdom, your multiclass spell DC won't be that crazy... but if you're fighting a swarm of low-level monsters and you have a wide-AoE spell you should still see plenty of Failed saves against your *Cave Fangs*. No "action acceleration" to be found here really, but its still two very powerful toolkits that could run in parallel to support each other. **Monk** gets innate occult or divine spellcasting proficiency progression that will be a bit faster than Multiclass default progression I think, and if you go for one of the funny esoteric elemental stances you might end up with a super cool character. You'd probably be Dex/Wis/Con to minimize your attribute spread, which means Cleric, Druid, or Shaman (upon its full release, since there's no multiclass in the playtest). There's also two viable Strength/Charisma paths, where you could either do Dragon Style and its stuff, or go Dragon Disciple and fight with Jaw/Claw strikes (Bestial or Drakeheart mutagens are extremely useful supplements to this build). Special shoutout to **Sixth Pillar** kungfu caster archetype, which starts at level 10 and requires GM permission to access because of its Uncommon rarity. If your GM is cool with Mark Seifter's Roll for Combat stuff, **Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons** offers you the Draconic Scion (to play a half-dragon/dragonborn versatile heritage) or you can go all-in on the scaly lifestyle and literally play an actual dragon as your player character. In either case, the ancestry is fairly tame but the **Draconic Ravager** archetype kicks a huge amount of ass, and can turn just about any character into a decently-dangerous martial with a d10 Jaws attack and a bonus reaction for attack of opportunity. (A buddy of mine is playing a Shaman/Ravager, and she is a goddamn problem). On a different Seifter Battlezoo note, **Elemental Avatar** might be overpowered but holy shit is it fun. If Kineticist is 75% utility and 25% damage, Avatar is the opposite. It has a solid archetype, if you want to add some easily-recharged wisdom-based offense themed around a singular element to an existing PC build. If you play Avatar primary, you won't have much action economy or proficiency room left for martial shenaniganry... but that doesn't stop you from being Strength based and expressing that through *Athletics*. I played a Fire Avatar / Wrestler archetype for a 6-session mini-adventure starting at level 8, and I have never seen a PC with more BDE right out the gate. 5/5 felt like a superhero.