Luis Loza's page

Haos52 wrote:

Since they're connected to Heaven, I wonder the relationship with Paradise Dragons will be..... Also, mostly because the difference in lore, I like to imagine the old Planar Dragon's main difference with these divine dragons is that the old Planar dragons spread the influence of their homes, while these newer ones embody their home and often serve it's will....

Also in the book there is a term called Archdragon, what is that?

My theory is Archdragon is the new Great Wyrm category.

Indeed!

While I did attempt to use my rudimentary artistic talents to create some sort of sketch, even my best guess at the appearance of this beast has fallen quite short, as it matches nothing I am currently aware of.

I'd love to see everyone else's attempts at drawing a monster capable of hunting a god!

Now, that's inferring a lot from one blog post quote, and I absolutely don't want to press anyone to reveal more than they meant to! I just want to be sure I understand what's being conveyed here. Are horned dragons arrogant librarians, or growling forest predators? Or both?

Bestial in this case is referring to more animalistic physical features, say a particularly prominent horn. I think a more accurate term to use would have been "naturalistic" as the adamantine dragon has features reminiscent of stones and the horned dragon's scales have a leaf-like pattern as noted in the concept art, while the term can also account for animalistic features. The intelligence and mental capabilities of the horned dragon remain the same as they were with the green dragon version. I literally used the green dragon stat block as a starting point and changed things only by adding brand new material or updating terms to remaster language. Their entry still notes them as contemplative, open to communicating with outsiders, and keeping vast amounts of knowledge in the form of scrolls and tomes among their hoards.

Why does the concept art mention fire breath?

In part because Kent was working with the general idea of a dragon for the concept art. He didn't know the full statistics of the horned dragon and likely made some assumptions about what a dragon can do. There are lots of little details like this that vary from the concept stage to the final presentation in published material. This is one of those neat little behind-the-scenes things that you get to see when we share concepts like this.

In the end, the statistics for the horned dragon use the original poison breath, so there's no need to worry about the damage type suddenly changing.

The iron aspects of them (teeth, claws) are a reference to Baba Yaga. In folklore, she's often noted as having iron teeth. The whole bit about kidnapping children and locking them in towers draws from Rapunzel.

Even if the death of Asmodeus isn't true, this prophecy imply that the wound is an actual real thing that Asmodeus have. And if it's true, now a mortal, a mere apprentice even, know the greatest secret of the god of Hell. In itself, it feel like a pretty important story beat. And also an important bit of characterization for Asmodeus and Ihys, of course.

Let me point you to a quote about Asmodeus from Book of the Damned, Vol I. This served as the inspiration for today's prophecy.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Project: J-ko wrote:

Oh my God...all 20 of 'em. So week by week is how we're gonna find o-WAIT NO!!

There's only 10 weeks until April 16th. They're only gonna clear half the names by the time that stream goes live, if I'm doing my math right (which is questionable).

Correct. There's enough teasing in this thread and campaign in general that I do feel a certain level of transparency and expectation management is warranted. This is a 10-part series, during which we will reveal 10 of the core twenty "safe" from the pending demise set to fall upon one of their number. This means that when we do our big stream on April 16—in which we'll reveal not only who dies, but a bunch of info on tie-in products and more—there will be 10 potential victims. We didn't want to narrow it down too much and ruin the fun of speculation!

And now back to being a cagey instigator!

From a lore perspective these are very interesting. Obviously, the prophecies themselves are meant to be false but are the outcomes of said prophecies, such as how the souls are heralded in Pharasma's absence, intended to be taken as canon statements of what would happen in the aftermath, or is it just one potential version of what would happen if Pharasma was dead as well?

I know a lot of people theorized she was safe because of potential ramifications, but it'd be cool to understand if this is actually the order of things that Pharasma creates or not.

These are meant to be just a possible outcome, but also one that comes with enough ramifications and story potential that we would use the idea to kick off the War of Immortals. I'd like to imagine there are various parallel timelines where we chose a different god to die and their death plays out like in the Godsrain Prophecy blog. So, in a way, these are canon to parallel timeline versions of Pathfinder.

Look at that big, chonky dragon!

Let me see what I can do. :)

I'm kidding! Who would you want dead? I might know a guy or two.

Give me the fiver first and we'll talk.

Again, please move all drow discussion to the above thread. Thanks!

Drow don't exist in Golarion and it's as if they never existed. Going forward, ayindilar elves will fulfill any Darklands elves needs and mechanically, you can play a cavern elf to scratch that "elf that lives in the dark" itch. Any further discussion on ayindilars, drow, and so on should probably be in its own thread!

Unsurprisingly, we had similar feedback internally. Don't worry! The core deities will have their stat blocks in Divine Mysteries so you won't have to flip back to Player Core.

Will any future books feature asian themed classes or archtypes or backgrounds perhaps? Such as Ninja, Samurai, Wu Jen, Shrine Maiden, and the like?

New classes only show up in rulebooks. Tian Xia Character Guide has some new character options, some of which are new class options, but they're not exactly the examples you mentioned.

I'm also curious if Rougaru will be in Howl of the Wild? They sounded like a very cool race in PF1E and I've seen no anthro wolf races unless its a beastkin.

They will not. We've already announced all of the ancestries showing up in Howl. They're the athamaru (previously known as locathah), awakened animal, centaur, merfolk, minotaur, and surki (new insectile ancestry). A beastkin, an awakened animal, or werecreature archetype will get you closer to a rougaru, but for now, we don't have any announced plans for rougarus.

Also one question for funsies. Who would win in a fight: Azlin Rex from Ravenloft (D&D) or Tor-Baphon? (I think that's how you spell his name?)

Sorry to say that I don't really know much about Ravenloft other than some of the basic details of the setting. At a glance, it feels like Tar-Baphon would ultimately come out on top, mostly because of the difficulty of destroying his soul cage.

Patrickthekid wrote:

So we got some confirmations of Drow and Wyvaran arriving somewhat in the future. Do you have any plans on making the bugbear an official ancestry?

I thought Drow were removed because its a D&D race and ORK/Paizo wants to avoid copyright stuff and OGL fiasco?

Drow are absolutely gone and aren't coming back.

Not that I'm aware of.

This is an error that we're looking to correct in the future.

Is there a plan to add a Vehicle containing passengers on a railway in Golarion? Minecart excluded.

The real question is where would the first railroad be built, and who would build it? And where is the AP about it? :-)

Right now, something like a railroad feels just a bit outside of the kind of technology we'd include in Golarion, even in other parts of the world outside of the Inner Sea. Not to say that it couldn't happen, but it would definitely be a big event, probably tied to an adventure. For now, if you want some railroad fun, I'd say that placing it near Alkenstar would work or some place with high magic if you want something more magitek.

So we got some confirmations of Drow and Wyvaran arriving somewhat in the future. Do you have any plans on making the bugbear an official ancestry?

No plans on playable bugbears at the moment, but I like the idea!

Is hardened harrow deck counted as fine one, for EXPERIENCED HARROWER's cost negation?

I would rule yes at my table.

Hi, Luis. I hope you've been well. Here's my question. In a hypothetical Mythic book for 2e, I know you wouldn't be the arbiter on this, I'm more just asking about personal opinion. Would you want the mythic paths to be more generic like in 1e, (hierophant, guardian, marshal, etc), or would you want them to be centred around certain creature themes like in the Wrath of the Righteous CRPG (like angel, azata, or aeon)?

Also, completely different topic. Have you watched Guardians Vol. 3? If you did, what did you think? I personally would rate it above the second but below the first.

Since 2E mythic is actually coming, I'm going to be coy about that first question, since I think it will give away what's coming!

I did watch Guardians 3! I quite liked it. I think it comes down to 1>2>3 for me. They're all really great movies, though, so the rankings are liable to shift continuously, since I think they're all pretty much around the same level of quality.

Hello!

Now that we've finally announced Lost Omens Divine Mysteries, I'm coming to the community for some help. There are a lot of gods in Pathfinder Second Edition and we're doing our best to remaster as many as possible in LODM, bringing their stat blocks up to speed with the updated format and mechanics of the remaster (dropping alignment, adding sanctification, and so on). While I've tried my best to tweak edicts and anathema for gods as part of this, there's surely some I've missed along the way.

What I'm looking for specifically are those edicts and anathemas that make typical adventuring more difficult or nigh impossible, or those that are so vague that ruling from table to table could cause issues.

For example, Qi Zhong used to have an anathema of "Deal lethal damage to another creature (unless as part of a necessary medical treatment)." That sounds fine and all until you run into constructs and undead that are immune to nonlethal damage. What are you supposed to do then? The anathema now specifically calls out dealing damage to living creatures to allow PCs to fight undead without worrying about displeasing Qi Zhong.

I'd love to see any other gods that have edicts and/or anathemas that make adventuring difficult. I can't promise that every god shared here will see changes or even make it into LODM, but I will definitely look every submission to see what can be done about any issues.

Thanks for the help, everyone!

There shouldn't be any problem with using an adamantine dragon across both games! I made sure to keep a lot of the essence of SF's adamantine dragon when designing PF's take. They should still have the same personality traits and now have some fun new abilities that play well with the three-action system. I wouldn't be surprised if SF's adamantine dragon ends up using the same stat block with a slightly sci-fi skin as appropriate for the game.

Everyone will definitely want to tune in to the Lost Omens Special. Just saying! :)

The 4718 date is the correct one. During the development of LO World Guide, I asked James about an appropriate date for the closing of the Worldwound. While the AP released in 4713 and the typical rule is to use the year of release with the equivalent year in the setting to determine when the AP occurs, we didn't go with that for Wrath of the Righteous. We agreed that an AP like this wrapping up in just a few months didn't feel right. It's basically a massive war, so it taking several years would make sense, right? Thus, we landed on the 4718 date. However, at some point during the remaining development process, the date got changed back to 4713. It's also cropped up once or twice since then, which has caused this frustrating confusion.

The Worldwound closed in 4718, full stop. We'll be doing our best to make sure that this is the date that's used in the future and being able to help oversee these aspects of the setting as Creative Director will hopefully prevent this mixup from propagating in the future.

FYI, I checked with Thurston and can confirm that a deity's status in Starfinder has no bearing on the likelihood of their death in Pathfinder. :)

FYI, I checked with Thurston and can confirm that a deity's status in Starfinder has no bearing on the likelihood of their death in Pathfinder. :)

Yes, Camazotz is still part of the setting. Camazotz might be making an appearance in the future. :)

No need for a link! I'm here to let you know that Focus Pools are still capped at a maximum of 3 Focus Points.

I'm not sure where to notify about this, but I just noticed what I'm HOPING is a problematic oversight in the art of Magrim on page 122 of the book.

** spoiler omitted **

We can assure everyone this was an accident and are already looking into updating the PDF and future printings of the book to correct the art. We're also working with our artists to avoid these kind of errors in the future. Our art team has a list of things to avoid that they share with artists to avoid problems like this, and this specific example is getting included on this list for future illustrations.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

On Page 73, the new spell, Forge, is listed as a 1st level spell. However the text of the spell refers to its self as a cantrip.

Can we get some clarification on what the spell is intended to be?

It's a first level spell. It changed from cantrip to 1st level during development, but I missed some of the text that referred to it as a cantrip. Sorry for the confusion!

I will just say one thing about that not-so-little spoiler.

The goat's headbutt having the shove trait is an error! It shouldn't have the trait. Thanks for catching it. :)

This book references the dwarven city of Kolvar, but the Age of Ashes campaign and the PathfinderWiki reference it as Kovlar. Which is correct?

It should be Kovlar. I nabbed the (incorrect) Kolvar name from the map in Inner Sea World Guide, but upon further research, it looks like that was a typo, too! I perpetuated it. Other sources confirm that Kovlar is the way to go and that should remain the correct name.

Saedar wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Could any kind soul with the book do a Ctrl-F for "Jormurdun?"

Only instance I found was a sidebar entry with the rest of the Sky Citadels (minus Highhelm) talking about how the population was displaced by a time event, hryngar took it over, and was finally brought back under the control of its initial inhabitants.

That’s excellent! Before this, the only mention of the time event was a single sentence in a PFS scenario back in 1e; finding out if that was actual canon or not is a big relief!!

For what it's worth, there's a whole scenario that visits Jormurdun. It was a PFS special, so it was harder to come by/play for a while. Check out 6-00 Legacy of the Stonelords!

McMoogle wrote:

Now give me a Stonelord champion archetype with all of this Dwarf content! (I'll accept Stalwart Defender as a stopgap while you all figure out the logistics of translating Stonelord from 1e to 2e :P)

You'll need to chat up the Rules & Lore team and my counterpart there, Luis Loza, for that. In the meantime I'll keep setting up adventures for your stonelord to get into trouble in. ;-)

This one is actually already in Narrative's court, as it were. I worked with Vanessa Hoskins to help develop some material for the Sky King's Tomb backmatter. Two of the archetypes found in volume three took inspiration from the 1E stonelord archetype, but it's open to all classes. Hopefully it will scratch that itch for you!

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

The words "enemies" and "your people" are very broad on purpose here. These enemies could range from a dangerous, rival adventuring party to monsters from the Darklands to the agents of a sovereign state. Similarly your people might refer to your group of fellow adventurers or your family or all of the people of your hometown or nation. Dwarves typically create strong bonds with friends and family, becoming very protective of these people. Anyone who threatens these connections could be seen as an enemy of your people.

So, keeping that in mind, we want to make sure that players are understanding that this isn't meant to be read as "kill all orcs/goblins/whoever" or anything like that. Additionally, edicts are never mandatory. The beliefs for our ancestries are suggestions, so if you prefer not to adhere to them, that's fine. Ultimately, these are roleplaying guidance and suggestions.

Are some of the "weird" Dragons from 1e past (Bliss, Dream, Vortex etc) still in consideration for future additions or other lore stuff, or have they been mostly disregarded given their very limited presence in their prior release? I remember being glad to see Cloud Dragons in the Mwangi Expanse, but the revamp of 2e and the introduction of new dragon types dims the hope for some of those more "out there" options.

All of the dragons from Pathfinder's past are definitely in consideration for updates. Some of them, like the chromatic and metallic dragons, will require additional considerations to "remaster" them and make them a good fit for the game going forward. We're also excited to create new "weird" dragons, too. There's one I can think of that we're adding to Monster Core that feels very weird and creepy, at least to me, so hopefully it scratches that itch a bit!

Is this the same as the Infernal Dragon from 1e's Bestiary 6? If so, is there a possibility that the rest of the planar dragons might make an appearance eventually? I'd be over the moon for an Edict dragon. If not, is the Infernal still canon, or has it been written out to make room for this new one?

...Wait so what about infernal dragons?

Is this literally just planar dragon infernal dragon renamed for some reason or did paizo accidentally come up with same dragon twice?

While the two are similar, they are meant to exist as separate entities. Hell is a place all about hierarchy and order, so look forward to see where diabolical and infernal dragons fall within that structure.

Due to very limited space with 1E's Bestiary 6, there wasn't really a good chance to explore the stories of infernal dragons, which might be contributing to why they feel so similar at the moment. (Mind, there are a lot of similarities, since both dragons are derived from Hell!) If and when we get a chance to bring infernal dragons over to 2E, we'll be making sure that both dragons have their roles obviously carved out.

*I'm assuming grippli are OGL?

The name grippli sure is, but a frog person as a general concept is very broad and generally usable by anyone. Playable frog people could feasibly remain in Pathfinder 2E post remaster with relatively minor tweaking. There's already an example of us doing something similar by renaming gnolls to kholo and including them as a playable ancestry in Player Core 2.

Additionally, since the rules in the 2E remaster are relatively unchanged, playing with the grippli ancestry rules from Mwangi Expanse in the future should be a generally seamless process.

For those wondering, that's the new diabolic dragon on the Player Core and the new mirage dragon on the GM Core. :)

Shout outs to the ever amazing Kent Hamilton for concepting those dragons in-house and, of course, to the inimitable Wayne Reynolds for making them look absolutely killer on these covers!

It's because the spell is uncommon. Outside of focus spells, characters typically don't receive access to uncommon spells without GM permission. Granting read omens would be breaking that rule.

There isn't at the moment. I've been working under the assumption that all of the core ancestries (dwarf, elf, gnome, gobling, halfling, human) are found on every continent, since you have to use the CRB to play characters in any part of the setting. How widespread these ancestries are varies, however. In Arcadia, I feel that elves would be far less prominent and be an uncommon ancestry, maybe even bordering on rare. They're around, but they're not found in every region. The reasons for that aren't ones we've explored, but I feel that it might be something like a lack of an auidara network on the continent. It's harder to spread out across the continent when returning from Castrovel without a way back to Arcadia.

All of that is to say, there isn't any info on Arcadian elves at the moment, but knowing that they're rarer than humans, dwarves, halflings, and orcs might be a helpful starting point!

It is! This is our first foray into including the results of adventures, AP, and other material in setting material. From what I gathered, most readers were okay with these events being referenced in our books. While we aren't planning to give fully detailed spoilers, I figured something like this could be a good approach. We're dipping our toes with the whole adventure spoiler thing, so let us know how this attempt worked out!

Hooray! Raise your swords to these wonderful authors!

Oh, yeah, that should totally be Strength instead of Athletics.

What a silly little mistake. Ha, ha, ha, ha... :(

Runs away to latibulate.

Is there any in-world distinction between the leshy PC ancestry and the leshys that are statted up as NPCs?

I would say no. I think leshies statted up as "monsters" (i.e. leshy stat blocks from the Bestiaries) can represent leshies that aren't fully capable of or interested in living a fully independent life. That is, there could be a leshy with a "young" spirit or one that isn't in a position to take on the life of an adventurer or NPC.

It is! Angradd, Bolka, Dranngvit, Folgrit, Grundinnar, Kols, Magrim, and Trudd each get a writeup and piece of art. There's also a fair amount on the dwarven pantheon as a collective.

I wasn't in my Creative Director position (or fully spun up in the position, can't remember exactly) when Gatewalkers was completed, so I can't speak to the nature of these changes. They could be errors or might be aligning with future plans for the setting. I'll definitely look into them, but don't expect any kind of update on them soon. For the moment, assume they're correct, as this is the latest version of the map.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

I'd like to know which other deities will get a writeup. Most of the relevant ones already have articles, some in multiple books. There aren't that many ones without a writeup that come to mind.

Arshea, Besmara, Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Chaldira, Desna, Grandmother Spider, Jin Li, Lubaiko, Marishi, Milani, Nivi Rhombodazzle, Picoperi, Thisamet, and Yelayne each get major entries. :)

Oh, and there are four new pantheons!

I'm sure we can still share some spoilers, just not as many. :)

Yeah, there are a lot of new poisons. This includes lots of variety in both concept and level. I don't believe the expectation of DCs has changed with these new poisons, but I wouldn't know as well as someone like Michael Sayre, who was the design lead for the book.

Yes, there is a fair amount of alchemical ammunition in the book.

There will be definitely previews soon! Stay tuned!

I was at PAX Unplugged, so sorry I wasn't around to answer questions. I'm back now, though!

Is there any particular order of which maps to rely on more if they conflict? For example, in the World Guide alone, the big Inner Sea map has a lot of different borders than the regional maps. Is it generally smaller scale and more recent > larger scale and older? Something else?

Super fair that this is a more nitpicky question that is for a very specific subset of wiki and map users like me, lol.

I think the Inner Sea Poster Map is still the gold standard in terms of detail. I know that in the rush toward to PF2E's launch, we got a little more lax with things like borders. Basically, the higher detail maps like the poster map or the zoomed-in maps of specific nations like the map of Cheliax in the campaign setting book are the ones to go with.

Can we expect an expanded edition of Gods and Magic? I understand if you guys needed more time to revamp the goblin gods, but there were others left out that I felt were glaring holes (the three main Vudran gods Vudravati, Obari and Embaral, main Protean Lord Ssila'meshnik, Main Psychopomp Usher Ceyanan, some rakasha imortals, asura rana and velstrac demagogues).

It wouldn't necessarily be something like a Gods & Magic 2, but we're definitely looking for ways to get more gods brought over. I think the chance of another book in the vein of G&M is possible, especially since there are lots of groupings of gods, like the ones you mentioned, that we still want to port over. It's just of matter of when and what would be the best product for that.

One more thing. Do you know when the city of Kibwe was founded? I know it's an ancient city, but it was difficult figuring out how long the area has been around for.

Unrevealed at this time. The original gazetteer suggests it was over a thousand years old, but Mwangi Expanse also name drops Kibwe during events set as early as 1054 AR, so there might be a conflict here. It could be that Kibwe existed for thousands of years as a small checkpoint or trading post, but eventually grew into a proper settlement around 3600-3700 AR.