The crafter's labor is worth the same gp regardless of the project. If the crafter "rushes the finishing" they can increase the risk to then get more value from that finishing process.
This is the decisive point, for me. A crafter who is looking to make money from crafting a) should not be able to quadruple their income by crafting batches instead of single items, but more critically b) should not be required to craft batches instead of more interesting permanent items to min-max their profits.
EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear, my interpretation is that each day spent reducing the costs would do so for all items in a batch, not for one item at a time.
I'm with you up to this point - I don't see where the rules indicate this.
Rather, the cost of crafting the batch would be treated as the total crafting cost, and reduced in the same way that total crafting cost normally is, wouldn't it?
Oh! Favorite "small" change though might be that rangers no longer have to ask the GM if difficult terrain is "natural". Their class features that involve difficult terrain now work with all difficult terrain, even magical.
What!? That's awesome! These quality of life changes just keep getting better and better.
MaxAstro wrote:
Also love that gnomes get to talk to all animals with a single 1st level feat, and that druids get to choose between animals and plants. That means a gnome druid can talk to both animals and plants at first level at just the cost of an ancestry feat!
I saw this too. Super fun roleplaying potential there.
"Just because I'm a hermit doesn't mean I'm alone." *Casts animal allies.* lol.
I know this has been talked about to death but I'm just so, so happy that all the weird finicky weapon proficiencies got upgraded into just full proficiency at the next tier.
Bards, rogues, and wizards rejoice.
Oh, also, the new warrior bard feat that lets you extend inspire courage (or whatever the new name is) by smacking someone is great.
Oh! Favorite "small" change though might be that rangers no longer have to ask the GM if difficult terrain is "natural". Their class features that involve difficult terrain now work with all difficult terrain, even magical.
Also love that gnomes get to talk to all animals with a single 1st level feat, and that druids get to choose between animals and plants. That means a gnome druid can talk to both animals and plants at first level at just the cost of an ancestry feat!
I've actually been using a deadlier variant of the dying rules for a while now, originally as a misreading of the rules - my variant is that whenever you lose the dying condition, your wounded value becomes equal to whatever your dying value was.
Despite that being extremely lethal to any character that gets dropped by a crit, I've had very few player deaths.
Mostly, my players save a clutch hero point to stave off death if they need to, and I'm surprised to hear that others don't. Unless you are burning that last hero point willy nilly, it's pretty hard to actually die in my experience.
I will probably keep using my own variant rule for a while just because we are used to it, but once Fantasy Grounds has automation for the new dying rules I'm sure I'll switch to those.
The foxhead medallion grants complete immunity to all magical effects, right?
Only for magic affecting you directly. Indirect uses of magic, like someone chucking some manure at you or walking through an already existent magical portal are not canceled by the fox head medallion. It does have a cool interaction with creatures that have an antimagic field, though, so be sure to bash one of them with it.
Are... are you guys making Wheel of Time references?
Holy crap you guys are making Wheel of Time reference.
I love you. <3
(Although clearly the medallion only functions against casters who identify as female [except randomly in the last session of the campaign the GM may decide to ignore that restriction])
Sneaking the reveal of upcoming mythic rules into the playtest document... FFS Paizo my heart can't take this! XD
Anyway, I certainly hope mythic characters are straight up more powerful than non-mythic characters of the same level. What's the point of being mythic otherwise? Just attaching signs to enemies that say "you must be this mythic to fight" is boring.
The 1e mythic rules were TOO broken, but the basic concept wasn't the problem. Mythic heroes should be stronger than non-mythic heroes, and should face little (or at least less) threat from non-mythic enemies.
That should be the baseline expectation of choosing to run a mythic game, imo. It's what 1e mythic promised - it just overdelivered a fair bit!
As someone who ran PF1 multiple games a week since it came out, and has run PF2 the same, combat - especially high level combat - is significantly faster in 2e.
1e combat was only fast if the caster won the fight with their first spell. Fights where everyone was participating equally took forever to resolve. I had single combats last multiple sessions.
It's hard for me to imagine what you would need to do to make 2e combat slower than 1e combat, unless you just have players that have vicious choice paralysis and really struggle with having to decide on three actions per turn.
I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.
Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.
I am SO excited. :D
Oh my god, a Vitalist successor would have me over the moon. One of the coolest things ever made for the old d20 chassis!
Based on the video, it sounds like the Mystic class feature works exactly like Vitalist. You have a bond with your party members, you have a floating pool of hit points, you can spend an action to send hit points down the bond...
Hopefully there will be feats to do some of the cool stuff Vitalists could do with their bond.
I got as far as them saying "Mystic has a class feature called Vital Network" and then I squealed uncontrollably for like a minute straight and had to take a break.
Vitalist was one of my all-time favorite classes and nothing like it has existed in Pathfinder for a while.
Thinking about this more, I think the things I most hope stay in Starfinder for 2e are
-the different gear paradigm (ranged combat is the default assumption, flight is easily available from low levels, etc.)
-high level equipment being technologically better rather than magically better (i.e bigger fancier guns that do more damage, not just magic runes)
-weird ancestries that actually get to do weird things and aren't just mechanically equivalent to a humanoid (kasatha being able to use all four arms effectively)
That would be the things that I "care about", I suppose, the most, as far as Starfinder having its own distinct style and feel.
For the most part if you want to run or play a game that is old/out of print/not supported, the traditional way to do that is "convince your friends".
This is, I think, a very valid reason to be disappointed in this change, for people who aren't happy with the direction of PF2.
Although I personally play mostly home games, I know that's not true of a lot of people. And going from "I can easily find tables" to "I have to convince people to play the game I want to play" - I can definitely sympathize with that feeling like a downgrade.
One of my close friends doesn't like PF2 - mostly just too invested in PF1 - and the changeover pretty much resulted in him not being able to play anymore.
Terevalis, you approached the periphery of a valid point, which is why I said something.
But you've been pretty combative the entire time, and flinging insults at one of the most respected members of the community (not to mention claiming to speak for people other than yourself) is not going to win you any favors or sway anyone to your point of view.
Interesting that voicing inpopular opinions brings out the vultures.
Do you have any evidence any of these statements are wrong? I'll be happy to correct them if you do.
1: No one is making you buy anything, it's a choice only you can make for yourself.
2: Starfinder 2e won't even be out for 2 years.
3: People still play Pathfinder 1e, there's no expiration date on the books.
I'm definitely on the side of being excited about Starfinder 2e - heck, I'm in the elite group of people that has been accused of being a Paizo shill - but sealioning like this doesn't strike me as conducive to a non-toxic discussion.
And while Terevalis phrased it in an unhelpful and combative manner, I do feel like sometimes people are quick to go on the offensive. There has been a time or two that I've felt a bit unwelcome on these forums, because my opinion on an issue diverged from the zeitgeist.
I love Pathfinder 2e. I adore it. It's by far my favorite system ever. But I think sometimes people forget that it's okay to not like things.
Not this forum, but watching some people literally attack Puffin Forest for daring to not like Pathfinder 2e at first blush was embarrassing. Being an inclusive community means more than just being accepting of people with different backgrounds and orientations. It means also accepting people who don't enjoy the same things, and even (especially!) people who are unhappy about decisions we are happy about.
And doing so with previously published third party products for Pathfinder and Starfinder would do wonders more in helping you get your foot in the door than sending a reply to Thurston offering to sign an vague NDA.
Also, if I can offer some unsolicited advice: Asking for an NDA like that screams "I'm an amateur". It does not present the level of professionalism you are looking for.
Novice writers are forever worried about people "stealing their ideas". Experienced writers know that ideas literally aren't worth the paper they are written on; only execution has value. No one is going to steal your ideas, no one wants to steal your ideas, and publicly worrying about your ideas being stolen really just marks you as inexperienced.
I like the Metal and Wood planes, but I will miss the PF1 lore of wood kineticists drawing from the first world.
I suspect that the First World would still have strong ties to the elemental planes, possibly even having areas directly tied into particular planes. If so, perhaps kineticists would gain a benefit near an area attuned to their element.
Also, the languages for some planes will likely be renamed, such as Abyssal.
Hopefully to something other than Riftian.
I’m guessing Demonic.
The only possible issue with "Demonic" is that some things in the Outer Rifts that aren't demons speak it, like qlippoths.
I'm running Kingmaker as an evil campaign, and one of my players wanted to get into making Soulbound Dolls. So, here is my write-up for the process I came up with. Feedback welcome!
Doll Body (Item 4):
Cost: 30gp
Craft DC: 19
Description: This is a Small-size wooden body with articulated joints, suitable for turning into a Soulbound Doll. The specific features of the body, such as its shape and appearance, are left to the crafter’s choice – however, for best results it should be at least vaguely humanoid. The body has a slot – usually on the chest, neck, or forehead – in which a filled soul gem may be placed. Setting the gem requires ten minutes of work and a DC 15 Craft check; on a critical failure, the gem is damaged in such a way that the soul fragment escapes it (although the gem can be repaired for reuse with 5gp of materials and a further DC 15 Craft check). On a success, the doll comes to life as a standard Soulbound Doll with the same alignment as the soul fragment. On a critical success, if the doll body was supplied with a filled soul gem that was also created with a critical success, the resulting Soulbound Doll has the Elite adjustment.
Once a Soulbound Doll has been created, the soul gem cannot be removed without destroying the doll. However, if the gem is destroyed but the doll body is relatively intact, it may be repaired and reused.
In theory it is possible to create more advanced doll bodies with additional abilities, but even if researched such constructs are likely to require either more complex soul containers or a steady supply of filled soul gems as they burn out their soul energy.
Fill Soul Gem (Ritual 2):
Cast: One day to prepare a ritual circle plus four hours to conduct the ritual (see text); Cost: 50gp in non-consumable materials (such as powdered silver) for the ritual circle, an amethyst worth 20gp, and 10gp worth of consumable materials (rare oils and candles); Secondary Casters: 1
Primary Check: Occultism (Expert) DC 23; Secondary Checks: Arcana DC 18
Range: 10 feet; Target: One dying creature (see text)
Description: This ritual ensnares a fragment of a dying creature’s soul, using it to charge a soul gem that can later be used to create a Soulbound Doll. In preparation for the ritual, a special ritual circle 10 feet in diameter must be inscribed in a cool, dry location and etched with powdered silver and other reagents. Properly creating the circle required a DC 18 Craft check and a day’s work; on a critical failure, the materials are wasted, while on a critical success the circle provides a +2 circumstance bonus to Fill Soul Gem ritual checks.
Once the ritual circle has been created, a creature that is unconscious and at 0 hit points must be placed within it and remain in that state for the duration of the ritual. Once the ritual has been started, the target is placed in a kind of stasis: Even if they were poisoned or dying before beginning the ritual, the magic keeps them on the edge of death until the ritual is either completed or interrupted. This does not prevent the target from being healed, either from outside interference or their own natural abilities (such as regeneration), which of course ruins the ritual.
The strength of the target does not affect the outcome of the ritual, as only a small fragment of their soul is captured in any case; however, unwilling targets (that is to say, any target that would be unwilling if they were conscious and aware) receive a Will save against the primary caster’s Occultism DC; if the save succeeds, the target dies but no fragment is trapped. For this reason, weaker individuals are typically used if unwilling, to reduce the risk of wasted time and effort.
Once completed, the ritual has the following effects:
Critical Success: The target dies and the amethyst becomes a filled soul gem of unusual quality with an alignment matching the target; if combined with a doll body of similar quality, the result will be a stronger than usual Soulbound Doll.
Success: The target dies and the amethyst becomes a filled soul gem with an alignment matching the target.
Failure: The target dies but no soul gem is created. The consumable materials are wasted, but the amethyst may be reused.
Critical Failure: The target dies and the amethyst shatters, ruining all the consumable materials. There is a higher-than-normal chance that the target’s body or soul becomes some sort of vengeful undead, especially if they were unwilling.
Regardless of the outcome of the ritual, the ritual circle can be reused as long as it is not damaged. Ritualists should be warned, however, that any undead created by a botched version of this ritual are likely to attempt to destroy the circle – seeing it as being as much responsible for their wretched fate as the caster.
Heightened (5th): The heightened version of this ritual allows multiple soul gems to be created in one go using a larger, more complex ritual circle that is 20 feet in diameter (200gp; Craft DC 25). Each target needs their own amethyst, but only 20gp worth of consumable materials are used regardless of the number of targets. The ritual can target up to five creatures, requiring one secondary caster per target. Each unwilling target makes a separate Will save, but the result only determines if the ritual fails for them individually. However, if three or more targets succeed their saves, the primary caster suffers a -10 penalty on the check for the ritual.
Note that the write-up for Soulbound Dolls says that resisting should be Will vs Craft DC; however, I changed that to Occultism because I split the process into two parts that my PC will have to learn separately.
Also this ritual is slightly "stronger" than Animate Object, since it's a 2nd rank ritual that creates a 2nd level creature, instead of 3rd for 2nd. I think that's justified that with the additional complexity and needing a sacrifice, though.
Surely I am not the only one noticing all these worrying little tunnels that seem to grow from the Outer Rifts and reach everywhere, except Heaven ?
IIRC, the Abyss/Outer Rifts is what exists outside the outer sphere, with the plane we are familiar with being an intrusion - almost like a wound.
Someone described it as the outer sphere being a "soap bubble floating in the infinite Abyss", which is a lovely mental image. XD But that's why it's drawn that way I imagine.
I have to say, I adore all of these changes, love the new names, love where the planes of Wood and Metal were fit in...
Except the Material Plane being called "The Universe". That does not spark joy. :P
With all due respect, that strikes me as willfully obtuse given the context.
A player will be able to play the game with only PC1. They will not with only PC2. It's not difficult to imagine someone comparing the two to decide "oh, I want to be a monk...I'll get the Player Core book that contains that class" -- only to find out they can't actually play the game with said book. It's an objectively bad title, because the book doesn't do what it says on the tin.
While I definitely get where you are coming from here, I want to offer the counterpoint that if a game system contains multiple books named "Core", it is probably a reasonable assumption that you may need all of them.
I'm just here to say I'm glad to see the subtle mention that ancestries with flaws aren't completely going away in the Remaster; I was concerned the +3/-1 ancestries would get changed to +2, but I see the blog post still mentions flaws so that's good.
What makes you think the numbers are fake, BeNotAfraid?
Overall it looks like 80-90% of respondents told Wizards they were unhappy with the move, which sounds about right to me. If anything, I'm a little surprised responses were that united; it's pretty hard to get 80% of people to agree about anything.
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.
Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).
There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.
Indeed. Layout was poor.
This I have to agree with.
The amount of time it took me flipping back and forth through the CRB from cross-referenced entry to cross-referenced entry to figure out how Dispel Magic works was absolutely silly.
The end result once you understand it is good - unifying spells like Dispel Magic and Neutralize Poison along with items that do similar all under a single system is great.
I am no fan of 2e and didn't care for the ways it was encouraged by some fans of the system or how it was promoted by the company. That said I don't know of anyone who swore off paizo entirely because of it.
I know two people, both formerly of these forums. One chose to die on the hill of non-Lawful Good Champions existing, which was apparently a bridge too far.
The other was absolutely insistent that Paizo would be shuttering 2e within two years unless they made the changes he personally wanted to see to the system. Went so far as to make me promise to apologize personally to him for defending the system when it happened. I told him I would if he would do the same if 2e was a success.
Can't imagine why I don't see him around here anymore. XD
Being a fan of roleplaying games is not a purity test. Don't try to make it one.
Can we have this again in like, 20 foot tall burning letters please? For the people in the back? :)
I am definitely "boycotting" Wizards right now (in quotes because I already wasn't buying anything from them, just because there was nothing there I wanted), but the occasional tribalism that sometimes rears its head on these forums is icky, and let's avoid it.
The only thing that is different is that you cannot gain power in some focused specialization by taking on maluses that you probably are just thinking of as some kind of dump stat that isn’t an important part of your character, while potentially narratively covering that decision by doing something like talking with a stutter, or an accent that represents a lack of intelligence in your mind, or having your character stumble around.
I feel like this comment somewhat unfairly stereotypes people who enjoy playing characters with mechanical drawbacks.
It also skips over that it's entirely possible to be enough of a "roleplayer" to enjoy playing characters with flaws, but enough of a "powergamer" to feel ooky taking flaws for no reason. I'm certainly right there.
If I'm playing a character with low Wisdom, I'm not going to roleplay them as an airheaded caricature, but I am going to feel like I am seeing my character creation choices in play when they fail a Perception check. And that's a good feeling, in the same way that seeing your choices come into play when you succeed is a good feeling.
I look at character creation as something like a puzzle, with lots of moving parts and fiddly bits to put together to make something unique and mechanically interesting. But a "you are optionally worse for no reason" puzzle piece doesn't enhance the enjoyment of that, any more than a "you are optionally better for no reason" does.
Actually, thinking about it, I am realizing that I dislike the new flaw rules for the exact same reason I dislike how fixed/free ancestries interact with the new boost rules. "Obvious good" and "obvious bad" choices make the puzzle less fun.
I hope we continue to see +++- ancestries in the future. I really like every ancestry having access to the ++ option, but if they stop doing +++- ancestries the net result of that will just be older ancestries being more versatile than newly printed ones.
And I definitely agree that printing fixed/boost ancestries at all in light of this change is decidedly odd.
My personal houserule is going to be treating fixed/boost as an intentional drawback, meaning those ancestries can't choose ++, but that will quickly stop being a reasonable houserule if fixed/boost is just the standard going forward.
Giving every ancestry the ++ option seems like it nicely resolves the concerns about biological essentialism; I'd hate to see Paizo go the extra step of not wanting to print ancestries with flaws anymore.
Very excited about most of these changes, but I agree with Kobold Catgirl that the nerf to voluntary flaws is a bit sad to me. It was a rule I used on many of my characters, and almost never for the supposed "point" of getting an 18 in your flaw stat. My players have used it many times too.
Obviously I can just keep using it, so it doesn't really affect me that much, but I wanted to express solidarity with others who are sad to see that particular change. :)
What is making folks think Elemental Blasts are 2 actions now? I don't see that in the blog, and it would break my heart.
This is the wording that has me worried they will go to 2-action:
Quote:
The contrast between Elemental Blasts and other impulses touches on the lack of clarity too. After seeing feedback, we’re looking at switching it to function similarly to other impulses and act more like an attack cantrip.
All attack cantrips are two-action, and for that matter all impulses are at least two-action, hence my concern.
Very much right there with Cydeth and Themetricsystem.
I like what is being said, but I'm concerned there's no mention of damage types.
I also hope blasts aren't balanced too tightly to cantrips - a class whose main attack feature can be replicated with a first level ancestry feat doesn't sound fun.
Edit: I'm also a little disappointed this probably means they will be two action. One action blasts was a nice feel for the class.
As someone who has been pouring an embarrassing amount of money into Fantasy Grounds, and also as someone who has had to develop a Fantasy Grounds module myself for an adventure by hand...
I have to agree with the people saying it's a good deal. It's a bit more expensive than going the Fantasy Grounds route, but my understanding is that FG has a much higher buy-in cost than Foundry.
Instead I'd suggest that wands or talismans don't get destroyed and you can continue to invest their 'burnt-out' item. and after a set time longer than a day, or allow it be a once-per-day upon being invested, they make a DC15 flat check allowing it to be used again. Any roll of a natural 1 on its recovery check, the wand stops being eligible for recovery rolls for 1 week, and may seem to stop radiating magic.
The changes to wands and talismans actually predate the rest of these rules for me, and I implemented them simply because my players never used talismans.
They didn't get excited about finding them as treasure, and when they found a talisman they did like they never used it. Basically the Elixir Paradox: "What if I need it more in the next fight?"
Changing talismans to 1/day got my players to actually use them and be excited about them - although even at 1/day, they still don't see a lot of use.
Almost certainly the Impersonate action would already cover imitating someone else's spell signature or hiding your own, since it already handles things like voice or even supernatural aspects of one's appearance (i.e. Impersonate is still the correct action for a human to disguise themselves as a conrasu, it's just a harder check at GM's discretion).
I'm super excited about this project (over the course of the past day I've gone from "I'll just get the year of monsters PDF" to getting the hardcover and the Eldamon hardcover too...) but I don't use Kickstarter much. ^^;;
Just sharing here some rules I have been using for a while to get my PCs to be more excited about treasure they find in a dungeon. I don't convert all dungeon treasure to ancient items, but individual items here and there, and it has definitely resulted in my PCs using more of what they find and selling less.
Some groups might struggle with the verisimilitude of "you can find these in just about any dungeon but you can't buy them", but my players have accepted it as just part of the game.
-----
Ancient items are rare variants of more common items, often found in old ruins and other places frequented by adventurers. Mostly created by old and dead civilizations, the methods for recreating them have largely been lost; ancient items cannot be crafted. They also have a reputation for being fickle and unreliable, especially if they frequently change owners. As a result, those who own an ancient item are typically reluctant to sell it, but in turn few people are willing to pay what such items are truly worth. Mechanically, ancient items have a sell value equal to that of the common equivalent, but cost at least five times as much as the common item for the average adventurer to purchase, if they are available at all. Ancient items also always need to be invested to function.
In exchange for the difficulty of acquiring them, ancient items come with several potent benefits. Any save DC associated with the item uses the bearer's class or spell DC, whichever is higher, and the bearer can substitute their own attack roll or spell attack roll for such rolls the item would make. If an ancient item can cast a spell, that spell is heightened to half the level of the bearer rounded up. Ancient weapons and armor also typically (although not always) increase in power with the bearer; such items cannot be inscribed with fundamental runes, but instead receive those bonuses based on the level of the bearer, as though using the automatic bonus progression rules from the GMG.
Ancient consumable items - which are almost always Talismans - are not consumed on use and instead function with a frequency of 1/day.
Staves are never ancient, but wands can be. An ancient wand has a DC of 6 for the flat check the first time per day it is overcharged; this DC increases by 5 each subsequent time that day. When the flat check to overcharge an ancient wand fails, it can no longer be used that day, but is not destroyed and functions normally the next day. Unlike other ancient items, the spell contained in an ancient wand is not heightened based on the level of the wielder.
Reviving this because my players just about killed me last session.
------
Rogue: "Ah, I see the Lamp Eaters are here."
Monk: "...Lamp... Eaters...?"
Rogue: "I've thought of several epitaphs for them, that's one of the more polite ones."
Monk: "Do you mean epithets?"
Rogue: "No, I don't."
------
Barbarian: "After careful consideration, I think we should take her offer."
Monk: "Yes, I can see you've been deep in thought; we are an hour into dinner and there are only five empty plates stacked next to you."
Sorceress: "Actually I've been eating them."
Amped Telekinetic Rend is the baseline for doing AoE damage all day. Psychics can do this twice a fight, every fight, and often at a higher Save DC than the Kineticist.
This is not entirely accurate - Psychics give up the opportunity cost of using any other amps to do that, and you don't always get ten minutes of downtime between fights.
Overload abilities can be used every other round forever, with no need for a ten minute rest and no restriction on what abilities you can use.
Don't forget there are also higher level feats that specifically require dedicated gate. Deconstruct Element in particular looks very good for fire kineticists.
That said, I hope the final version has more dedicated gate feats... and that Stoke Element is less awful. XD
Considering you can gather way before combat and there's no reason not to, it rather feels like most of the AoE blasts are designed to be openers. Since they are also at-will, I'm pretty okay with that design space.
If anything were going to change, I'd want more damage rather than better action economy.
To expand a little on that last point: it’s one of the few APs that supports any type of hero, which adds a lot to that customization. Your kingdom is as likely to be a refuge for the oppressed as it is to be a bastion of Asmodean tyranny. The only thing you need your PC to be is “somewhat interested in building a kingdom” and “capable of working with the party.” Compared to the usual heroic fare or the campaigns with a significantly tighter premise, you get a lot of variability.
Very much this.
I ran the original Kingmaker as a heroic campaign with your typical assortment of good-to-antihero spectrum of heroes. I'm going to be running the 2e version of Kingmaker for a different party as an evil campaign, with PCs about as evil as you can possibly get.
I don't expect to need to make any major adjustments to the story or villains to accommodate that.
That would definitely be ideal, yeah. Especially with the bonus feats that a single-element kineticist gets, since you could just drop one of those on switching your blast.
