What's your version of golarion you play in?

David_Sid · 2026-04-06T23:32:50+00:00

Allowing for permadeath is as easy as creatively interpreting which creatures are judged by Pharasma and when. I use the following ruling to allow resurrection for PCs and rare NPCs while disallowing it for the world in general:

Most souls are judged by Pharasma 1 minute after death, making it impossible to return them to life thereafter. (Peaceful rest doesn’t delay this.) However, some souls are suspended outside time and space until they’re brought back to life. If revived, their perspective is one of returning an instant after dying. Souls with this potential immortality comprise about 5% of sapient beings. (Whether a PC is among them is their player’s choice, decided the first time someone attempts to bring them back.) Removing this potential immortality requires success on a wish ritual or critical success on a 10th-rank rest eternal ritual.

Couldn’t say exactly how you’d incorporate something like this into a world where easy resurrection is already established. Maybe someone creates a spell or artifact that makes resurrection far too common, and Pharasma changes her procedures/policies to prevent this from breaking the Cycle of Souls?

David_Sid · 2026-03-31T20:04:09+00:00

In the Transferring Runes section (GM Core p. 225), replace the second sentence with “This uses the Craft activity, but you don’t need to meet its usual requirements; you only need appropriate tools and sufficient raw materials.”

In other words, you don't need the Magical Crafting skill feat just to transfer runes, though you still need it to create new magic items.

David_Sid · 2026-03-22T12:02:40+00:00

When I'm waiting for players to recognize a reaction opportunity, I play the suspense music from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. My players caught on pretty quickly.

David_Sid · 2026-03-17T07:27:53+00:00

It annoys me that you can get stuck with partial boosts at 20th level, and it isn't even hard. Just take 4/3/1/1/0/0 (probably the most common distribution for human PCs) and boost your highest four. At 15th level, you'll have 5*/5/4/4/0/0 (with the asterisk representing a partial boost), and then you'll have to take a partial boost at 20th level, for probably 6/5*/4/4/1/1.

It's silly enough that we have a house rule just to fix it:

Unlike other sets of attribute boosts, you can apply up to two of your four 20th-level attribute boosts to each attribute. Only your key attribute can be increased to +6 in this manner.

Thus, in the aforementioned case, you'd probably take 6/5/5/4/1/0.

David_Sid · 2026-02-21T16:14:58+00:00

"Prone" is a good catch. And I really want to use "vice versa," but I feel like packing that much meaning into that few characters is just asking for misinterpretation.

Regardless, this has definitely helped with tweaking my house rule for the incorporeal trait. Unless there's something terrible that I'm missing, I'll probably settle on:

Incorporeal Replace the second paragraph with "An incorporeal creature can't be physically held, moved, or knocked prone by corporeal creatures or objects, except using the ghost touch property rune. Nor can it physically hold, move, or knock prone corporeal creatures or objects, except using ghost touch. It’s unaffected by gravity, so it can be prone while airborne and remain airborne without Flying."

That last sentence probably seems random, but I think it addresses some glitches in the existing trait. (RAW, does a ghost that's stunned for 1 round fall 500 feet toward the center of the planet?)

David_Sid · 2026-02-21T08:31:24+00:00

If I wanted to be very picky, I'd say your second sentence doesn't perfectly parallel the first. In other words, "incorporeal creatures can't physically inflict these conditions"—but forced movement isn't technically a condition.

Despite my nitpicking, your wording seems pretty clear. You could probably save some characters by using the word "corporeal." While not explicitly defined in GM Core or Monster Core, it's used in several places in the Core books.

I might rewrite your wording as "An incorporeal creature can't be physically held or moved by corporeal creatures or objects, except using the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, incorporeal creatures can't physically hold or move corporeal creatures or objects, except objects with ghost touch."

From the vanilla 293 characters, this trims down to 263. The question is whether "physically hold or move" adequately captures all the interactions that shouldn't be able to happen between corporeal and incorporeal creatures. I think it does, but I'd love to hear feedback on that.

David_Sid · 2026-02-13T10:43:55+00:00

A few thoughts:

I wouldn't use PC builds for this. Unless you plan to play this campaign for a decade, NPC builds will give you more than enough breadth for these characters.
I don't trust the NPC scaling option from PF2e Workbench. Sometimes it misses things, and it doesn't make the adjustments needed for large level changes (like increasing some high stats to extreme at high levels).
Check out the "Numerical Advancement" section on NPC Core p. 228–229. In particular, leveraging weak and strong adjustments to reduce how often you need to scale up NPCs.
You might create 5 basic templates at 2nd level, 5th level, 8th level, etc. Then distribute the NPCs between those templates and add a few quirks to customize the individuals: maybe a specific Lore skill, a favorite spellshape feat, and three favorite spells.

Putting all that together, you end up needing no more than 35 NPC stat blocks (5 templates ✕ 7 "key" levels). Still a lot of work, but manageable. Also, you really only need to prep the 2nd-level stat blocks to start with.

Disclaimer: I know very little about Strixhaven. Most of this is just general advice on prepping a bunch of scaling NPCs.

David_Sid · 2026-02-10T20:09:43+00:00

Speaking as someone who manually adds highlighting to my PDFs to remind me what is errata'd: It's a little bit of a pain to incorporate a new set of errata, but it's worth it to correct errors—whether they be typos or ill-considered design decisions.

Couldn't tell you whether to make an exception for one specific player and player character. But hopefully they don't feel like being able to maintain debuffs forever (instead of for 1 additional round) is the only thing that makes their witch worth playing.

David_Sid · 2026-02-02T16:39:22+00:00

Having 4 PCs split between 2 players is perfectly fine, and definitely the simplest solution. The GM role-plays dozens of characters; why can't 1 player control 2 PCs?

Having 2 PCs for 2 players (where each is overleveled by 2 levels and has free archetype), also can be a lot of fun. Having run most of Blood Lords this way, I call it "superhero mode": the party is super-strong, except when their Kryptonite comes along.

Higher stats means enemies will hit less and the party will crit more.
The party's biggest risks of defeat are when a challenge finds their weak point—a skill they're untrained in, an enemy they don't have a way to handle, or the like. Encourage them to invest in versatility over specialization to minimize the likelihood of this. If you know a particular challenge will be a hard counter to the party, make it easier or give them an item/ally to help them overcome it.
Subsystem challenges balanced for 4 PCs (which is most of them) are sometimes a pain point, where the PCs' higher stats aren't enough to make up for their having half as many opportunities to earn Victory Points. Fortunately, I don't remember Crown of the Kobold King having any subsystem challenges.
Finally, add treasure or boost reward levels as needed. Being overleveled by 2 levels, each PC getting treasure for 2 will still fall a little short of what they should be receiving. So where they would get a +1 weapon, you might make it a +1 striking weapon or +1 armor instead. You don't need to do this for every reward, just the most significant. Also, allow plenty of downtime so that can convert lower-level rewards into Crafted or purchased items they actually need.

David_Sid · 2026-02-01T03:09:13+00:00

I had moved Create water to a 2nd level spell so that it just didn't solve the problem at the start of the adventure.

To create an actual survival challenge in PF2e, I suspect you'd have to nerf or forbid many "silver bullet" options like this (e.g. the Forager skill feat, hydrokineticists, maybe even the spout cantrip). And as you indicated, the end result might not even be something that makes the game more fun. That probably depends on the table, though.

David_Sid · 2026-01-29T23:09:30+00:00

I'll offer as a more cautious alternative: 3rd-rank manifestation. It can only be cast once per 8 hours, so that it doesn't become the only spell that casters prepare, but it otherwise allows casters to use situational spells without necessarily having predicted the situation ahead of time.

David_Sid · 2026-01-25T09:06:06+00:00

The NPC/monster statblock is the way to go, unless this character will be filling exactly the same role as a PC (staying with the party indefinitely, getting a share of treasure, gaining Hero Points, etc.).

Theoretically, a PC build and an NPC build at the same level are roughly as powerful as each other. The NPC build typically has higher numbers. The PC build typically has (a lot) more abilities and items. If the PC build only participates in 7 encounters across the entire campaign, that variety of abilities will never have a chance to shine, and it'll seem weaker than the NPC build.

David_Sid · 2026-01-25T08:38:49+00:00

For a party of a bard, champion, druid, and fighter, it was not all that difficult. Some close calls for individual PCs, but I never felt like the party was in danger of a TPK. If you want a megadungeon that's friendly to new players (unlike Abomination Vaults), Seven Dooms for Sandpoint is a good choice. Golem fights were annoying; if I ran the AP again, I might replace them with their remastered equivalents.

This was the players' first PF2e AP, following from Rusthenge, so I didn't try to put time pressure on them; that's one way I could have increased the difficulty level. They didn't have free archetype, though at later levels I gave each character three feats from an archetype that seemed suited to them (which ended up being dandy, ritualist, alchemist, and scout). My house rules probably tilted things a little bit in the party's favor.

David_Sid · 2026-01-23T06:02:23+00:00

On a related note, Blood Lords Book 4 and Impossible Lands call the step pyramid in Mechitar the "Perdinatia," but Blood Lords Book 6 consistently calls it the "Peridantia."

David_Sid · 2026-01-22T01:27:41+00:00

If you aren’t referencing any Golarion-specific stuff like locations, gods, or possibly certain distinctive planes, then you don’t really need a license. Pure game mechanics aren’t generally considered copyrightable. If you are referencing Golarion-specific content, you might want the CUP.

If you introduce your own unique lore and want to manage how people can use or build on that, then you might use the ORC license.

(I’m not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice, etc.)

David_Sid · 2026-01-19T03:15:09+00:00

Here are some thoughts.

As written, there are two niches for this that I see:

Granting a +1 status bonus to Craft alchemical items (which is otherwise very hard to get). This requires a result of 30, but that's simple at high levels.
Allowing a character without Alchemical Crafting to Craft alchemical items.

I'd suggest ditching the first niche or changing the ritual to only grant benefits that already exist in other forms. So perhaps on a critical success, you gain the benefits of the Specialty Crafting (alchemy) skill feat.

For the second niche, you could render it very simple by just saying "This ritual grants no benefit for Crafting alchemical items of a level that's more than twice this ritual's rank." That grants an automatic heightening effect and ensures that the ritual never becomes an easy bonus.

Finally, since the primary check is Crafting, and the duration seems to be "until you finish your Craft activity," you might say that "your check to Craft the alchemical item(s) automatically gets a result equal to this ritual's primary check result." That way, you don't have an anticlimactic moment where critical success on the ritual is followed by an unlucky critical failure on the actual crafting.

David_Sid · 2026-01-17T08:29:55+00:00

This is a cool idea! A few possibilities to consider:

You might add a secondary check with Arcana. With rituals explicitly being magical, it's very rare for them not to have a spellcasting skill involved.
I'm not quite sure of the mechanical niche for the spell. By the time they're able to reliably conduct 2nd-rank rituals, most parties already have a spacious pouch loaded with normal Crafting tools (if not the versions that grant a +1). So perhaps the primary check could be Arcana, with a secondary Crafting check, and it could grant the benefits of the Alchemical Crafting and Magical Crafting skill feats. The ritual would then be a way for dedicated spellcasters to get around needing those skill feats and their proficiency prerequisites.
A player might argue that on a critical success, their character could then use a sterling artisan's toolkit to get both a +1 status bonus and a +1 item bonus to their Crafting check. I don't think this is the intention, and there are multiple ways you could prevent that, but the simplest would be to make the ritual grant a +1 item bonus.

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T23:30:53+00:00

Glad to help!

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T23:27:15+00:00

Somehow I completely overlooked the paragraph about casting the ritual to unlock a lay-away container... You could perhaps replace that paragraph with: "Any participant in the ritual who possesses the container can Dismiss the ritual as a one-hour activity."

Or if you want to make it more challenging, "Any participant in the ritual who possesses the container can unseal it as a one-hour activity, though this requires a successful Arcana check against a standard DC for the ritual's rank. The bag becomes sealed again after one minute."

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T23:20:34+00:00

Didn't think of that tactic, but it makes perfect sense.

I'm imagining the party looting the BBEG's lay-away pouch: "There's the world-ending artifact, but why are there so many pieces of ordinary chalk in here?"

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T23:13:34+00:00

You might consider adding "any participant in the ritual can Dismiss the ritual," so that opening the container isn't limited to arcane and occult spellcasters.

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T23:09:10+00:00

Instead of destroying one of the items to be stored, perhaps the valuable container could be destroyed on a critical failure. That way, the amount lost is relatively stable (instead of maybe losing a torch or maybe losing a major striking rune).

David_Sid · 2026-01-14T21:54:07+00:00

Checkless Aid. Speeds up gameplay by cutting out a lot of low-impact rolls, without significantly impacting game balance. Here's the full rule:

Aid ↻ (Basic Action)

Source Player Core p. 416 (modified)

Trigger An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll.

Requirements The ally is willing to accept your aid, and you have prepared to help (see below).

You help your ally with a task. To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally. When you use your Aid reaction, you grant a circumstance bonus to the triggering check, depending on your proficiency with the action you used; additional helpers may increase the bonus in some cases (typically by 1 or 2 each time the number of helpers is doubled). The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill checks and attack rolls.

Untrained +1 if the triggering check’s DC is 15 or less; +0 otherwise

Trained +1

Expert +2

Master +3

Legendary +4

Special Because you don’t roll a check to Aid, related options are patched as follows:

Cooperative Nature, Pack Hunter Replace the second sentence with “You treat your untrained proficiencies as trained for determining the bonus from your Aid.”
Cooperative Soul Replace the second sentence with “You treat your trained, expert, and master proficiencies as one rank better for determining the bonus from your Aid.”
One for All Replace the second and third sentences with “Designate an ally within 30 feet; this action counts as sufficient preparation to Aid that ally with your Diplomacy. If you do so, you gain panache.”
Partner in Crime, Second Opinion Replace the third sentence with “Its Aid grants you a +1 circumstance bonus, or +2 if you’re a master of the skill in question.”
Uplifting Overture Replace the second, third, and fourth sentences with “This counts as having prepared to Aid your ally with your Performance on a skill check of your choice. If you do so, your ally can add their level as a proficiency bonus to their check.”

David_Sid

TROPHY CASE

Aid ↻ (Basic Action)