Arkat wrote:
I mean, they're not likely to say it out loud, are they? Not when there are so many more deities to make us agonize over? That's hard work, squeezing out that agony.
While I wouldn't call this RAW by any stretch, bard spellcasting does say this. Bard Spellcasting wrote: As a bard, when you cast spells, your incantations might be musical riffs or clever limericks, your gestures might incorporate dance and dramatic pantomiming, and you might accompany your spellcasting by playing a musical instrument. So I'd definitely say it was a consideration, if not RAI, and I'd say it is likely RAI, myself.
qwerty3werty wrote: The ayindilar (cavern elves) are not intended to be antagonists of the Darklands the way the drow were. So i dont think it's a replacement for the drow unless what you wanted is just "underground elves". That's the bit I was referring to, yep. I guess you could always be an evil one if you wanted.
Jonathan Morgantini wrote: From a Marketing perspective, it helps to keep in the consciousness as we get to the launch point. From a Community/Social Media side, it makes my job a LOT of fun to watch all the theorizing and reasoning being thrown around back and forth. Also they're secretly meanies. :P
We are also going to eventually have more about some subterranian cavern elves who have a name I cannot recall how to spell and am too afraid to try. They're also going to be considerably nicer than the drow, though that's not a high bar.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Vulnerable in the sense they take whatever extra bad effects Holy things do? Yeah. They haven't got a specific weakness to it, though. Captain Morgan wrote: As to doppelgangers, pretty sure faceless stalkers are still in there. I was never quite clear why we had both TBH, and there are plenty of other shape shifting creatures too. Totenmaske springs to mind. Oh dang. I forgot the faceless stalker; James even mentioned them upthread.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Thanks for checking. And that is what I'm figuring would happen too, assuming they make the jump. Tying them to a single spell trait rather than a spell school would make each incant more unique, which would be cool, even if it would also narrow the range of effects they can employ. Honestly a bit surprised the doppelganger isn't in the book; androgynous, nearly featureless shapeshifters who like schemin' are all over the shop in fantasy and sci fi literature.
Keirine, Human Rogue wrote: The thing I'm looking forward to the most, at this point, is the final reveal and people pouring into the different threads saying "I was right! I knew the signs! I read the bones and prognosticated and am very very very smart!" when in actuality so many people have thrown so much spaghetti at the wall that even the stuff that sticks is random chance. At this point I've been swimming in so much of that spaghetti that I can't recall what my original rationales for my theories were. Torag is my only remaining guess, but I couldn't tell you why I picked him now.
Oh, here's a bit of an obscure ask. Is there some version of the roiling incant in Monster Core? I'd bet almost certainly not, it didn't show up until B3 and is a pretty out of the way kind of monster, but I really like the idea behind them and would like to see how they'd be translated to a school-less magic world.
Squiggit wrote:
The first one is mostly a me thing, as well as the friends in the circles I move in. The second though, that's something the devs have stated before, that all the three-letter books and three bestiaries were the books of the game you really needed to do everything. I dunno where to look to quote them, though.
IIRC there was also some discussion post-release that giving the precog Dex skewed them somewhat, because they didn't have to choose between doing some of their magic stuff or being better with weapons like other casters did. Granted, that's less of an issue now that casters attack with their casting attribute. I think we'll get a good idea of what to expect once we see some of the MADder classes in Player Core 2. Champion and monk will be the ones to watch, I think.
Unicore wrote: Wouldn’t someone looking at “core only” in either the remastered content or the original PF2 rules be ignoring all supplemental books? Like, even if you are playing core only in a preremasted game you aren’t going to be seeing any Kineticists, psychics, magi or inventors. Hard to say because, as this thread is demonstrating, the definition of core is a pretty slippery one. I'm trying to figure it out myself now. Previously, core meant everything from the RPG line to me. the Core Rulebook and all the supplements in the RPG line were the core books, because the RPG line is Paizo's core line. But even then you could quibble, because the CRB, APG, Bestiaries 1-3, and GMG were considered the "core" six books you needed for the full game. Now that is even more explicit with the four main books having the word Core in their titles.
Kingmaker is the only AP I've played in multiple times, and is one of the few I've heard friends of mine talking about playing in multiple times, so I'd bet Kingmaker as well. That's a biased and not helpful sample, but stack it atop Michael's arguments anyway. Lord Fyre wrote:
I don't see why not. Whether WotC are playing nice or not, Paizo has still invested time and effort and money into producing that product. It's not like WotC can do much in any case. The adventure runs on their rules, but using Paizo's IP, so even if they wanted to stop Paizo from publishing it there wouldn't be much they could do about it. From Paizo's point of view there are just way more 5E players than PF2E ones, so why not tap into that audience? More people get to play a cool adventure, and it's always possible some people will like it so much they'll check PF2E out and become future customers.
James Jacobs wrote:
Does that mean that the deep ones from PF1E's B5 are being folded into the sedacthys as well?
James Jacobs wrote:
Looking forward to the other qlippoth making the jump at some point, myself; they're quite possibly my favorite fiends. The qlippoth's alien malevolence strikes a balance of understandable, confusing, and horrifying that make them good villains. I'm especially looking forward to whenever one of the Qlippoth Lords gets statted up in PF2E, them or the iathavos. I'm definitely gonna miss the shoggti, nyogoth, and chernobue, but they're all in premaster bestiaries and it doesn't sound like qlippoth changed too much aside from losing their weakness to lawful.
I really like the idea that kobolds are influenced by sources of power around them. Rapid adaptation was cool for elves, and it's cool here. It's also a great hook for PC psychology. Does your kobold view themselves as an intended servant of whatever they gained power from? Do they view the source of their power as a parent or holy figure worthy of venoration? Do they use this aspect of their culture to demonstrate kobold craftiness and resourcefulness, believing they use the power they've acquired better than even the original source does? Does having a small piece of power from some other thing make your kobold desire more, possibly to overthrow the source of their genesis?
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
The real Shyka was the Shykas we made along the way.
BookBird wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. Them mapping up sounded more like a happy coincidence from the blog, and James also had this to say about dragons. James Jacobs, 'Curious about Dragons post Remaster' wrote:
dirkdragonslayer wrote:
I'm hoping we see more animal companions along these lines in Howl of the Wild. Honestly new animal companions are what I'm hoping for hardest in the new book, ranging from insects, to sea life, to more expressly fantasy stuff like some oozes, scaled down magical creatures, and the like.
Nameless Henchman wrote: So does this change Mengkare from being a gold dragon to an empyreal dragon? No. The previously written dragons are staying the same, from what I understand, but they're being treated as individuals rather than as a member of a specific draconic ancestry. Mengkare isn't a gold dragon anymore, now he's a dragon who happens to be gold in color, instead.
shepsquared wrote: That's distressing but also interesting. Could it be Dolok Darkfur or another of the eidolon-gods? Pulura the Shining Maiden? One of the spotlighted gods for 2e, Sturovenen, Alglenweis or the Stag Mother? Another god I don't remember? Wait aren't some of those local names for some of the Core 20? Whether they are or not, that does give me some cool questions. If a deity dies in one form for a specific culture, would just that piece of them die or would the whole thing? What would happen if it wre the former? A fun hypothetical if nothing else.
I've always squared things in my mind with the fact that ghosts are largely spiritual, so they'll be operating under different rules than purely corporeal beings.
This is assuming that I'm thinking about that at all, since normally it's not much of a concern at the table. It's also not a perfect rationale; I'm sure there are fiddly niche cases and philosophical hypotheticals that could poke holes in it, but the logic is wieldy enough for me to use if needs must.
I'm also interested in seeing what knock-on effects this change to ghouls will bring. Like, will the ghoul archetype be gaining feats to reflect this new kind of ghoul? I think they got some feats to reflect some of these powers in Blood Lords but I haven't checked again yet.
I'm not sure what to call a possible material/spirit tradition, but I've been thinking of a potential life/mind tradition as "Mystic" spellcasting for a while now. I picked that word both because it has two syllables like the other traditions, and that makes my brain smile, and because life/mind feels a lot like what the SF1E's mystic was going for with a lot of their flavor. I think it'd focus on a lot of what the mystic liked, too. Connections of emotion and health between people, creating webs or unions, healing, and some psychic power stuff thrown in for good measure. I don't imagine that the tradition would be very good at throwing around big, flashy effects like fireballs, and it probably wouldn't be good at summoning, but buffing, healing, and some debuffery feel well within its wheelhouse, as well as some attacks involving mental or vitality/perhaps void damage.
I love the idea that they go out of their way to make their lairs lootable to the right people. I'm imagining one who is disguised as a humanoid listening to the stories of a new adventuring party about how they "braved the dragon's lair" and came out with treasures that helped them save the village, and the dragon fighting so, so hard to not accidentally burst their bubble and tell them how proud it is.
Those new ghouls rule! Their abilities make them much better align with their depiction as creatures of unending craving. Also, Forbidden Cravings is nasty. You think you're managing it, eating meat to keep the effects down, but if you do the curse gets you in the end. I also like that, if the curse kills you some other way, you don't rise as a ghoul. If you can resist its urges then you still die, but at least you stay dead.
Ohrns wrote:
Because a slang definition of mark is as a target for a swindler or con-artist, which feels like a pretty big chunk of the envoy's flavor, mostly. Focus also conflicts with other game mechanics, like Xenocrat pointed out, which is also a potential problem with target.
dmerceless wrote:
I definitely wouldn't say no to some flexible key attribute picks similar to rogue rackets. Lead from the Front is practically begging to be a strength build, for example, and the infosphere jockey does make considerably more sense with maxed intelligence.
Yeah, that's a pretty good argument against remastering lots of books. There's also the issue of diminishing returns. The four Core line books make sense as pickups because they're what provides the basic framework of the game, and the core books of a game always sell the best. Other stuff, like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears, are more niche, and if you print remaster versions then you'd need to assume that not everyone from your original customer base who purchased them will do so again. They already have the book, after all, and updated material will be up on AoN and other resources.
I was also going to point out there might be some licensing concerns, stuff can't be under both OGL and ORC, but on thinking about it more I don't know how much of an issue that actually is.
Captain Morgan wrote:
This makes sense. Most undead didn't have any weakness to good in Legacy, either, they were just vulnerable to any effects that procked off of being evil. So I guess most undead will take any extra, nasty effects of holy abilities and spells, but not take any extra damage.
Oh I love that one of the envoy leadership styles gives you medium armor, really helps it sell a military commander-style envoy, at least to my mind. I'm not sure how I feel about the leadership styles. One part of me likes how light each one is, mechanics-wise; makes it way easier to make more later without having to worry a huge amount, and what you get does sell their flavor pretty well. Another part of me wouldn't mind seeing them get a bit more oomph to differentiate them.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Oh sorry. I was trying to be silly; the swapping of the initials was intentional. I didn't mean to seem like I was calling you out.
Captain Morgan wrote: Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there. IIRC phantoms existed in the premaster bestiaries as well. I super love that change to archons; having goodly entities that predate the gods is neat worldbuilding and suggests that this cosmic struggle has been going on, kinda, way longer than even the gods might assume.
Jan Caltrop wrote: There's also the kind of idea I'd had about "blocking the Force" from Star Wars, but it applies here too; it's not a "dead" zone, it's not "gone", it's just "jammed". Taken up with nonsense signals. In the same way you can't really type a coherent message if someone's also pressing random keys on your keyboard. Or if someone swaps all your keys around and you type-by-sight. What you're doing still makes perfect sense to you, and by rights should work, but the underlying outcomes of the instructions have been altered without your knowledge. Nethys' death reminds me a lot of Worlds Without Number's magic system, the Legacy, a series of incredibly complex and subtle rules that govern reality and manipulating those rules is how you get spells, but those rules themselves are also open to change from potent enough forces, so what works at one time could no longer work in the present.
Easl wrote:
IIRC there aren't any bonus attribute points handed out. All I know of regarding animal companion attributes is this passage, which is from the premaster Core Rulebook. I don't know if it is replicated in Player Core 1. "Animal Companions, p. 214" wrote: An animal companion begins with base ability modifiers of Str +2, Dex +2, Con +1, Int –4, Wis +1, Cha +0. Each type has its own strengths and increases two of these modifiers by 1 each. These increases are already calculated into the stat blocks in Companion Types below. Which is admittedly a bit misleading considering how many animal companions break that formula. Personally I think they should have said something more like, Modified Animal Companions wrote: An animal companion begins with base ability modifiers of Str +1, Dex +1, Con +1, Int –4, Wis +1, Cha +0. Each type has its own strengths and increases four of these modifiers by 1 or more. Some animal companions may reduce a modifier in order to raise another elsewhere. These modifications are already calculated into the stat blocks in Companion Types below.
YuriP wrote:
Which is why I've never taken it as a prepared caster. A spontaneous one though? Sure will. It's one of those spells that's very handy to have floating around, ready to be plugged in to any level of slot.
Powers128 wrote:
I'm pretty sure "structural integrity" is referring to the structure of whatever item you are plating in treasure, not, say, specifically items with the Structure trait. It's saying that your items hardness and HP don't change based on what you cover the item in. Your major sturdy shield isn't going to suddenly become super flimsy if you decide to make it out of cold iron, for example, just like a basic steel shield wouldn't suddenly gain loads of hardness from being covered in adamantine. Both would trigger any special weaknesses or effects from being covered in that material, however.
Unicore wrote:
This was how I used Dispel Magic on my sorc-turned-summoner in our Age of Ashes campaign. Spoilers here if someone is playing it. Spoiler: There are a series of magical totem hazards in the second book. Each one activates from fairly far away, and slaps the party with magical effects and damage as they get closer. IIRC each one could be turned off with a specific spell cast on them, but all could be deactivated with a casting of Dispel Magic. My guy pretty handily neutralized those hazards with only the spell slot lost as resources.
|