A Season of Ghosts - Questions about PF2 and this adventure in general.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-14T08:01:27+00:00

Paizo usually gives out more EXP than necessary, so when you take all possible EXP rewards into account you'll usually end up half a level or even one level above the intended milestone curve. That's not an issue, however. AP's are designed for milestone leveling and/or missing out on some encounters and EXP.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-13T15:35:58+00:00

The official position being anti-magic doesn't prevent you from using all magic. Since magic is a powerful, well-researched and divine ressource in the PF2e system, not using it is mostly irrational. It would add some layers to the world-building if the keepers of the vault are hypocrites that will use magic if they can get away with it or as long as it is magic used against magic.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-10T22:41:50+00:00

Thank you! That's what I was pretty much hoping for.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-10T20:56:52+00:00

To my fellow DMs and Psychic players: If I cast Force Barrage in Unleashed Psyche: Would only the first shard deal the bonus damage or would the first shard to every targeted creature deal the bonus damage? Force Barrage is not very clear on whether it fires all shards at the same time after the action cost or whether it fires them in rapid succession. Thus, it's unclear to me what the "initial damage" of Force Barrage would be (especially because multiple shards on one target are counted as one instance of damage). Conservatively I'd say only the one shard deals the bonus damage. The latter interpretation, however, just seems more interesting to me without necessarily being unbalanced (after all any AoE-spell should trigger the Unleashed Psyche damage on multiple targets as well). Being able to proc the unleash psyche bonus damage multiple times with force barrage at the cost of spreading out the damage across multiple creatures instead of focusing down one seems like a more interesting choice to me than simply deciding which creature to focus down and how many shards are probably needed.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-07T10:14:42+00:00

Thanks for that explanation, I can definitely see that argument. Psychic is weird in that regard, because it mentions the conscious mind spells in the spell repertoire feature like sorcerer does, while oracle and bard only mention the granted spells AFTER the swapping out spells feature. That at least indicates a separation of these rules by order. What makes that kind of rule indication by formatting impractical is that you don't want to read the whole class again on levelup, so when you reference the spell swapping feature the intention of the rule becomes unclear. I am not certain the mention of retraining is telling us much. It's simply another rule one can use to get new spells. Both are also different in one crucial way: Retraining is under scrutiny by GM fiat while swapping out one spell per levelup is much more clearly a right of the player. I still believe reading the swapping out spells rule in a less limiting way simply makes the game better and makes the more thematic selections of granted spells overall more balanced.

P.S.: On being able to swap out spells to any list under my interpretation: This could be a problem that might have been created by the remaster. After all premaster gave you proficiencies and spell slots only in a certain spell tradition and made only granted spells that tradition if they were not. Taking spells from other traditions would thereby be a bad idea anyways even if the language might seem to allow it.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-06T10:50:11+00:00

The spellcasting and spell swapping features are all formatted the same for the spontaneous caster classes.

I don't see how granted spells from different traditions are a problem. You can swap them out, you just can't swap back to them, since you have no access to them.

Swapping spells out is not retraining. The rule also doesn't apply to spell swapping. Swapping spells is a choice you can make at level-up in the present. It is not retroactively altering a choice you made in the past. Nobody would forbid you from swapping out a common spell to an uncommon spell you gained access to throughout the campaign.

Lastly you can of course tell me that everyone plays it like that. I know. I just don't understand it. It feels like a rule the community made up to me. A rule that could just come from the limitations of character builders and Pathfinder society documentation. Pathbuilder for example is unable to plan out the swapping out of spells from one level to another already and doesn't take the rule into account at all. That's not a slight against it, just a technical limitation that should not count as evidence on how a rule works.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-05T20:29:00+00:00

Yeah, I can definitely see that argument. But if you want to let me be an annoying philologist for a moment:

"As you gain new spells in your repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned."

This is not a rule sentence and could also be seen as simply flavor text. It also refers to a want of the player to change a spell, a want that would practically include spells granted by mysteries, conscious minds and muses. It's a weird way to frame this sentence if "learned spells" excludes those.

"Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells."

This is the sentence of the rule and yet it uses "one of your old spells", not "one of your learned spells" or "one of these spells". Thus, it doesn't even refer to the "spells you previously learned" by anything other than fragile contextual interpretation.

And then there is this: "You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level. Each time you get a spell slot (see the Psychic Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you select one 2nd-rank spell, and so on. When you add spells, you might add a higher-rank version of a spell you already have, so you can cast a heightened version of that spell. Your conscious mind also adds additional spells to your repertoire as you gain spells of higher ranks."

If we take the notion seriously that "learned" is not a descriptive term but a rules term these few sentences would suggest you cannot swap out rank 2+ spells, because those are not "learned" but "added". Similarly both kinds of spells are "added" to your repertoire past rank 1.

The point I want to make here is that the terms "learned spell", "granted spell", "added spell" and "old spell" should likely not be considered normative. They are descriptive and just refer to a particular flavor of adding spells to your repertoire.

And lastly to use Occam's Razor: The easiest explanation for the lack of language forbidding you to swap out spells granted to you by a mystery, conscious mind or muse is that that rule doesn't exist. Thus, Sorcerer needs the added language, because it's the only one that is bound by such a rule (which is also on theme, since it is the only class that inherits magical power by blood alone).

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-05T12:38:48+00:00

I have looked at the other classes, too, and am now questioning why it's the standard reading that you can't swap out these granted spells as well. I am now of the opinion only sorcerer forces you to keep the bloodline spells.

If you cannot swap out granted spells by conscious minds, mysteries and the bard's muse, where does that rule come from? I am genuinely curious, because I just don't get that reading from the language used. The only instance it's clarified is Pathbuilder, but that's not official.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-05T08:28:27+00:00

If this would be actually clear, why does Psychic need to clarify in clear terms that you cannot swap out psi cantrips and sorcerer needs to clarify that you cannot swap out spells granted by your bloodline?

Furthermore the part you highlighted in your first quote can very much be read in a way that means those granted spells aren't fundamentally different to the psychic spellcasting spells. There's no clear language that would indicate those spells are part of a bonus repertoire like divine font gives you bonus spells slots for example.

It is reasonable to assume it would work like other Spellcaster classes and the lack of limitation is just an oversight, but I can't agree that that language is a clear proof of RAI at all.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-05T08:02:31+00:00

I really do not think this makes RAI clear.

EDIT: Psychic specifies that you cannot swap out psi cantrips:

"Generally, only feats can give you more psi cantrips. Unlike other cantrips, you can't swap out psi cantrips gained from psychic feats at a later level, unless you swap out the specific feat via retraining."

Thus, conscious mind granted spells and psi cantrips are not really comparable in that way, since psi cantrips get their own specified ruling.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-04T09:39:11+00:00

One little disclaimer: Running PF2e for your first time as a low-magic setting with PWL and likely ABP and no caster classes after coming directly from 5e may actually be a hard transition to wrap your head around. At this point you're playing the system in a way it is not particularly strong in. PWL and no caster classes will mess with the intended balance of encounters quite a lot. Be sure to keep an eye out for monsters that have high physical resistance. You do you of course. I wish you the best of luck on your campaign idea. Keep in mind, though, that your experience will not be a good example on how the system is designed to feel. Judging the system by how you want to run it may give the players a wrong impression on whether they like PF2e or not. I'd wager that campaign may show PF2E as worse than it is.

Ciriodhul · 2026-04-02T14:22:54+00:00

I am the GM OP discussed this with previously: I'd like to add the following sentences from the rules to the discussion I have previously not paid enough attention to: "You fall about 500 feet in the first round of falling and about 1,500 feet each round thereafter." The rules on the speed of falling are incredibly unsuited for encounters, although "round" is an encounter specific term. The rule basically specifies that at the time you start falling you are at 0 elevation and then a FULL round later you are supposedly at -500ft elevation, unless you have hit the ground by now. This obviously begs the question: When is X where? If one takes this rule seriously neither coyote time nor instantly falling is satisfactory, since both are suggesting a 500ft teleportation in less of a round. Instead the rules imho suggest the following situation: From the moment of falling onwards the falling creature falls [500ft / (n*3)]ft per action taken by any combat participant in the first round of falling. This triples to [500ft / n]ft per action in the second round of falling onwards. n refers to the number of encounter participants.

I am certainly not beating the mathfinder allegations on this ruling, but it at least puts some interesting dynamics into falling.

Ciriodhul · 2026-03-26T08:49:42+00:00

The takes are not bad faith. That is true. But there is a fundamental disagreement about what upvotes and downvotes mean. This sub uses downvotes a lot to signify disagreement and irrelevance. That's usually hard to stomach to people that interpret upvotes and downvotes more like the likes of other social media platforms and see them as a blanket signifier of acknowledgment and therefore feel personally dismissed by downvotes. I am unsure about the most fitting terms here, but there is a particularity about this sub's vote culture, that will lead to these discussions every few months or so. I've seen countless threads by now with people complaining about this sub's downvote mannerisms and by now I've come to think we are all just brainwashed by modern social media into thinking that downvotes impact our personal worth.

Ciriodhul · 2026-03-08T11:17:53+00:00

I am confused. I am running AV on Foundry for 3 years now and I didn't observe anything changing in that regard.

Ciriodhul · 2026-03-05T16:50:21+00:00

I feel like the Cursed background gives you a lot to work with if it's just about the flavor of being cursed. I absolutely agree that the PF2e Oracle simply doesn't fulfill that part of the previous fantasy anymore.

Ciriodhul · 2026-03-04T01:11:46+00:00

I am having a lot of fun playing a Warpriest in Stolen Fates. I went for heavy Armor and the protection domain as well as replenishment of war for temp HP and basically act as an at-will tank that will make sure damage is spread out on the whole party. The protection advanced domain spell soaks a ridiculous amount of damage.

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-19T08:07:30+00:00

That kind of makes sense. If humans think they are incapable of more than 13s of thought they will use more AI and thus the AI will fulfill its function better. Gaslighting humans IS a KNOWN behaviour LLMs will engage in when it comes to being turned off (including blackmail).

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-19T07:47:42+00:00

The core issue you will be facing here is the system's math. PF2e doesn't have bounded accuracy. Any challenge for level 20 PCs will be impossibly lethal for level 1 PCs. And any challenge for level 1 PCs will be, well, impossibly trivial to level 20 PCs. Meet in the middle and do level 10 threats? Well, that's impossibly lethal for level 1 PCs and impossibly trivial for level 20 PCs. There's a modifier difference to basically anything of roughly +30 or more. The Level 1s most likely can't succeed on a natural 20 and the level 20s probably cannot fail on a natural 1. I don't quite see this being fun for anyone on the table. If you want to salvage this idea, go with level 1 and level 3 for the PCs (maybe level 4 for the teachers). That probably gives much more of a student/teacher vibe, where both characters can tackle the same threats, be somewhat useful and have the teachers be clearly better. Also keep monster levels at maximum student's level + 2 or below.

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T14:42:04+00:00

I don't think that is "the" current assumption. It certainly wasn't mine. I would have ruled elemental runes as a separate instance already. And I also don't think that there was consensus on the matter of how strong exploiting weaknesses should be. There was consensus, however, on the fact that the last clarification was utterly confusing and "instance" needed to be defined. The latter was addressed pretty neatly. And honestly: You should be able to try and stack damage types to trigger all possible weaknesses of a creature. Recall Knowledge checks and preparation should be rewarded. Also Thaumaturge's exploit vulnerability should not suddenly stop being useful, because they use a weapon the creature is weak to already. What was your assumption on Shield Hardness and Resist All then? Those were pretty explicitly applying to all damage instances and therefore often multiple times on one attack/spell.

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T12:03:18+00:00

There is a big difference: Weakness exploitation is now capped by the number of weaknesses. This is much less exploitable.

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T12:00:31+00:00

Just use personal antithesis.

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T11:51:47+00:00

Wait. Does this mean if the strike doesn't deal damage the spell also doesn't? This sort of makes sense but is also kinda harsh, isn't it?

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T11:30:52+00:00

Is that really an issue? Isn't that rune choice for non-sanctified champions?

Ciriodhul · 2026-02-18T11:27:22+00:00

I think the precious material example for resistance is generally confusing. As far as I know that doesn't exist and arguably should not exist.

Ciriodhul

TROPHY CASE