Ravien999's page

My understanding is that those traits weren't removed from old content: Old spells continue to exist as they were, Unless they were reprinted with the same name in which case the new version is treated like an errata.

remaster changes wrote:

Any previous item or ability which relies on the existence of spell schools to function (such as the staff of transmutation) may still be purchased or chosen. However, as spells printed after the Remaster do not have spell schools, the utility of these options will diminish over time.

Bolding is mine. New spells do not have spell schools, utility diminishes over time... Seems to imply that old spells still have spell schools, and you can continue to use them but as spells get reprinted ( = errata'd) and new spells lack those traits, the item/ability will grow weaker and weaker as time passes, unlike new options which grow stronger and stronger with added content.

I believe this falls under the same purview as legacy wizards - they're permitted to still use spells as if they had spell schools, even if said schools have been dropped in a reprint. Its just that their list will never expand, not that it will shrink.

Ravien999 wrote:

I'd like to double down on hephaistos' question - Is the two pages including OGL/ORC langauge and title card, or is it in addition to them?

Small note: Because it's on Infinite, you actually can't use the ORC license. You can reference ORC rules without any problem, because Paizo give you the license to on Infinite, but you can't publish your stuff under the ORC license on Infinite, cause you're publishing it under the Infinite license, which is more restrictive (that's part of the "price" to "pay" for releasing something that can let you make money while using the Paizo IP without the hassles of getting the "traditional" full license).

The only reason you NEED to reference OGL when making stuff that reference OGL elements on Infinite is because so many things that Paizo published under the OGL are not original stuff, and might be hard for us to know all of them, it was simpler to have us all publish them under the OGL license too.
Because all outside references have been removed with the transition to ORC, this double licensing isn't needed anymore.

Okay the note about ORC is fair.

But for Starfinder, your note about OGL is very important - and basically required for damn near everything. So I return back to Hephaistos' question - should it be included as an additional page, or does it have to be incorporated in the 2-sheet limit?

I'd like to double down on hephaistos' question - Is the two pages including OGL/ORC langauge and title card, or is it in addition to them?

Ravien999 wrote:

Someone forgot to link the Store page, I need to buy this now!

the Gap ate the link but don't worry we've got it back!

#TypicalGapThings

Someone forgot to link the Store page, I need to buy this now!

I love that paragraph about Shelyn and Sarenrae. Not only is it incredibly evocative, and Sheyln's tribute in the dissonance of music is just absolutely HAUNTING in vibe as much as I love it so much. And Sarenrae? That Bit about Daring Sheyln to climb the walls around her heart? Ugh, I'm dying.

You're getting a standing ovation from me for this one, Erin.

Aesthetically the sketch reminds me of D&D Blue Dragons a bit, but the vibes are nice.

"horned dragon" feels unevocative though, is that the final name? Feels kinda... vague.

"I SAW A HORNED DRAGON ON THE MOUNTAINTOPS"
"John, all dragons have horns."
"NO IT WAS A HORNED DRAGON, NOT A DRAGON WITH HORNS!"
"What's the difference?"

Ravien999 wrote:

AceofMoxen wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Shelyn definitely goes into the "more interesting alive than dead" category. Zon Kuthon is just an edgelord without her.

Unless Shelyn's death sets Zon-Kuthton back on the path of light. That creates lots of interesting stories.

There's an old segement from Paizo where they talk about how ZK never really was Dou-Bral, Shelyn's brother, but rather that Dou-Bral was a vessel for ZK's evil self to inhabit like a incubation chamber from himself in another multiverse altogether.

That is to say, if we go by the dev team's old intent, there never was a "Light" option for ZK.

Do you have a link? That sounds fascinating!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dKiL51pGE&t=876s&ab_channel=Paizo timestamped to the relevant period - It was meant to be part of an AP but according to James Jacobs here, this is the intent/canon.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Shelyn definitely goes into the "more interesting alive than dead" category. Zon Kuthon is just an edgelord without her.

Unless Shelyn's death sets Zon-Kuthton back on the path of light. That creates lots of interesting stories.

There's an old segement from Paizo where they talk about how ZK never really was Dou-Bral, Shelyn's brother, but rather that Dou-Bral was a vessel for ZK's evil self to inhabit like a incubation chamber from himself in another multiverse altogether.

That is to say, if we go by the dev team's old intent, there never was a "Light" option for ZK.

I had Cayden as living but I also had him being held back for the final reveal because he's one of the most popular gods in the setting. I'm pleasantly surprised, now I'm reshuffling my "who gets revealed, who gets held back, who actually dies" deck again.

You've got your logic backwards. The ones are going to get written about are going to be the most popular or interesting ones that aren't going to die. Like if its not Sarenrae dying, I guarantee we're getting a Sarenrae narrative.

The 9 kept back for the reveal are the ones nobody cares about or who are uninteresting. coughiroricough

Even PF2e started has started to branch out, the underlying mechanics of the Kineticist represent a massive change in how they're built, one that a lot of classes like the evolutionist and Nanocyte could iterate on.

I highly agree. Psychic and Kineticist i've joked multiple times are "Starfinder Class Design." I've never enjoyed PF/D&D class design and they both give me hope we can actually have versatile, interesting classes in SF2e.

Give me breadth every day of the week over the super specific niche that most fantasy classes occupy

This was a fun little way to depict seemingly mundane powers.

Is "Nn" meant as a term of address, a sound, or what? I feel ignorant here.

Why is there a cap at level 4 when the campaign is ending and nobody is making low level characters anymore? This is the time to let the level 10s shine.

poretty sure we'll have a 7-99 that'll be the capstone

Ravien999 wrote:

...

It could be a red herring.

It is not a red herring.

A red herring is a piece of information that leads you to incorrect conclusions.

All Luis has said is "this thing here is not actually information".

So yes, it absolutely could go either way.

Ahhh, I slightly misunderstood the definition of a red herring. So "the Prismatic Ray is changing" is potentially a red herring, as you could easily presume that means one of the three is dying, but the Starfinder comment is just "this is not information"

Perhaps, but the staff have stressed that Starfinder lore is NOT an indication of what's to come. Further, if it were, Brigh (along with Epoch and Casandaleee) is part of the active collective consciousness of Triune, so in such a case wouldn't be "dead" even if her vessel were destroyed.

BUT, I'm hoping they keep the two as intact individuals for Pathfinder xP

Luis has stated that a god's presence in starfinder has no bearing on whats to come.

He hasn't stated that its not relevant, or that it is a Starfinder god who is dying.

It could be a red herring.

...

Sarenrae, though? I absolutely agree her death would be powerful. I also kind of agree with a previous poster that I'm not sure Paizo would kill off the goddess linked to their iconic cleric. I'm not wedded to that, but I think I can bet on it with at least some comfort. I think other gods are more likely. She's probably more likely than Erastil and Gozreh, though.

I'm somewhat against any of the Prismatic Ray being chosen because of the "Bury your Gays" trope, but Desna and Sarenrae have such incredibly far reaching consequences on the setting itself disregarding their narrative impact I can't imagine that either is chosen to die.

keftiu wrote:

If we get death-prophecies for all 20 core deities, that's glorious - and fodder for at least 20 home campaigns!

Yes, what a great idea. Not just building the suspense, but a great 'side gift' to home campaigns that want to use War of Immortals with their own choice of casualty. Or casualties.

Though I admit, Yivali's treatise is maybe a bit too Victorian for me to want to read 19 more of them. So just on a personal note I will hope different NPCs cover different death-prophesies, in their own style. Bonus kudos to Paizo if one of them is a goblin, writing in rhyme. ;)

Being that Yivali is a psychopomp, which makes sense for a prophecy regarding pharasma. I'm guessing most these could theoretically be written from the perspective of adherents of each of the gods spoken of - but it does sound like Yivali is coded to be the teller of the prophecies from this, but as Sen HHS has noted earlier in the thread, it sounds like these may have been distributed out to a number of authors, so it might feel weird to maintain the same narrator anyways.

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.

Michael Sayre wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Well, that confirms that just one dies, and that it is of the Core 20,

It is for sure more than one deity that dies during the course of War of Immortals, but only one of the core 20.

*Jaunty clockwork jazz music stops*

*Starts sweating in Brigh fanboy* Well that's just MEAN to drop on our heads! D'=

(Yeh, I know Brigh is part of Triune in Starfinder, but yadda yadda different systems different lore ETC ETC)

To be fair... Brigh dying could be part of how Casandalee fuses with another diety.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Nolinquisitor wrote:

It's Abadar.

Is someone going to axe Abadar to get all the goodies in the first vault?

I mean, from a meta perspective, Abadar has a great mix of "his death with greatly impact the setting without destroying it" (cities and commerce will likely exist, but will be weakened, which is the start of a ton of great AP ideas) and "Surprising" (almost no one is claiming Abadar). Plus, I feel like he is popular enough for his death to matter, but not so popular that it would invalidate a ton of clerics and champions. I also really want to see what kind of capitalism powers his god goo can give exemplars.

The big problem of axing Abadar in my mind is that Abadar permits for the "rule" of capitalism. Removing Abadar over that means that someone else has to get it, and unless it becomes a good god that is actually all about charity and f~~&ing over evil (which isn't really a fun storyline) it just becomes a story of unabashed capitalism paralleling the real world.

Abadar keeps stories about laws, contracts, and money interesting in the fantasy setting.

Jenny Jarzabski wrote:

Oh no, technomancer isn't going to be eaten by the PF2 wizard. We see it as an iconic Starfinder class—a mage who manipulates tech. If you haven't seen us talking about a specific class, it's probably because we're still working on it internally and we're not ready to show off what we've created yet.

As we get closer to release, the likelihood of seeing more detailed previews decreases. But the time of the playtest approaches. SOON!

Oh, this is fun, I get my a teaser every time I mention a class that excites me!

I wasn't to worried, just expressing empathy and awe at the task the designers had ahead of them.

and since this has worked before. Jeepers Worry that they won't be able to find a way to impliment the Nanocyte!

real talk, I hope too much of PF2 design methodology doesn't impact Starfinder. Nanocyte, Precog, Vanguard, Evolutionist, Solarian, Envoy they all use alternative resources today, but PF2 design seems to be afraid of utilizing anything other than Focus Spells/Points and spell slots. I hope we don't maintain this fear going into SF2, as having different managed resources allow these classes to feel very entertainingly variant to each other and really raise the level of uniqueness.

Ravien999 wrote:

Personally I don't think it'll be too much of a problem. For the mechanic, their "tool" is just a subset of their technology. The drone, weapon, armor, or exocortex is something that they're very invested in, but unlike Inventor who is 100% in on their invention and doing risky/experimental things with it, the mechanic is akin to a military armorer or engineer - ideally making things more reliable and maybe getting a bit of extra performance out of it, while still being a skilled technician and soldier. Its got some overlap, but so did Technomancer in SF1e, and both lived perfectly good lives.

Hmm... I can see your point, And that is a good point, finding a way to differentiate based on "Creating unstable" things and "Maintaining stable things is thematically a good idea, but it still leads to how do you mechanically represent that, and prevent their class feats from having too much overlap. Especially since their sublcasses are very similar, with the exception of the Exocortex.

Technomancer I'd worry about it having too much overlap with Wizard since it had that whole spell cache thing.

Tbh, there might be a slight overlap in feats, but I would also expect a slight overlap with the design space of gunslinger feats too. An overlap isn't a big deal in feats imo. There's only what, like 8 archetypes that just steal Fighter or Monk feats? Its the base class and the overall selection that needs to be distinguished.

Oh, we eating good this month, we already get a preview of the next adventure after!?

Thank you for putting to rest the nervousness around Technomancer and Mechanic finally. And yeah, SFS is gonna be fun come Paizocon ;)

Will this follow the same principle as the Pathfinder 2 playtest (and the OG Pathfinder playtest before it): PDF available for free, but professionally printed book available for those who want it?

From the Starfinder Discord:

There will be a physical rulebook as well as a PDF/free version, yes.

Do we know what level range this adventure will cover?

SF adventures are usually 3 levels, so I would expect finishing the adventure at level 4.

But its also entirely possible this is a bunch of milestone setpiece battles at various levels, but based on the language in the synopsis I'd expect the normal.

Ravien999 wrote:

Preorder... July!?

I was going to ask about pickups at Gencon, but it seems we'll have it a month ahead of time?

July products are late July, aka Gen Con releases. As last year, no Gen Con Subscriber pickup. They will on sale in the booth and worldwide.

I believe last year there was a bit of an early push for shipping to make GenCon if I recall (unfortunately, my RoE showed up hours after I left for the convention) - Should we expect the same? I'd very much appreciate being able to have a physical book as a subscriber for the convention.

I don't know who the cover artist is but it feels delightfully comic-like (Is it the same person who did Angels of the Drift?)

Iseph's looking delightfully female superhero pose with their exquisitely posed butt tho :D

Preorder... July!?

I was going to ask about pickups at Gencon, but it seems we'll have it a month ahead of time?

Ravien999 wrote:

Any update on the bard feats getting errata to allow usage with non-remastered Warrior bards? (Aka include Inspire Courage in all the higher level Warrior Bard Feats)

How does this update to the text strike you (update is in bold)?

Player Core Sanctioning wrote:

Due to a quirk of the interaction between the remaster changes and the PFS-specific guidelines[...]

Additionally, any bard feat which specifically mentions courageous anthem (such as Courageous Assault) also functions in the same manner with inspire courage.

I believe that accommodates all the feats in question. Danke schoen! I was primarily focused on the Warrior ones, but looking over the full list which reference Inspire Courage/Courageous Anthem...

Warrior Feats: Courageous Advance, Courageous Opportunity (Reflexive Courage), Courageous Assault, Shared Assault, Courageous Onslaught

Other: Inspire Heroics(Fortissimo Composition) (8), Vigorous Inspiration(Vigorous Anthem) (14), Discordant Voice (18)

Of these, Courageous Opportunity, Vigorous Inspiration, and Inspire Heroics already worked due to being separate but equivalent feats for remaster and sans-. The rest were broken, and your language fixes all of them.

But if you added "any bard feat or spell" as a slight tweak to permit Fortissimo (which calls out Anthem in the Spell details), they'd all work for both as well and theoretically catch any focus spell interactions I might have missed.

The only remaining thing I see is the Singing Sword... and I think since it applies Courageous Anthem with its abilities it should be good as well for triggering anything with the above language included.

Jenny Jarzabski wrote:

Don't worry! We have plans for mechanic. We want mechanic to be its own class and not just an offshoot of inventor, but as you astutely observed, those two classes occupy the same niche and there's some overlapping design space we'll have to be careful about.

I know we're telling you to wait and see a lot, but remember: Patience is a virtue, and Zon-Shelyn appreciates the joyful pain of your anticipation. ^^

Yay! That's really cool! thanks for the heads up. Finding a way to give it it's own identity while letting it retain some of it's old features will have to be tough.

Personally I don't think it'll be too much of a problem. For the mechanic, their "tool" is just a subset of their technology. The drone, weapon, armor, or exocortex is something that they're very invested in, but unlike Inventor who is 100% in on their invention and doing risky/experimental things with it, the mechanic is akin to a military armorer or engineer - ideally making things more reliable and maybe getting a bit of extra performance out of it, while still being a skilled technician and soldier. Its got some overlap, but so did Technomancer in SF1e, and both lived perfectly good lives.

Did anyone play the Solarian as a ranged focused character? Every Solarian I've ever enjoyed was ranged focused, and the strength primary of the class that's being teased will heavily dissuade that as an "subpar" build.

Low key, I hate the look of it.

Part of the beauty of R20 and Foundry character sheets is that they resembled the physical sheet.

Its one thing to improve the automation and make everything work better.
But don't reinvent the wheel: present it in a form where people don't have to hunt for things

Any update on the bard feats getting errata to allow usage with non-remastered Warrior bards? (Aka include Inspire Courage in all the higher level Warrior Bard Feats)

I notice a thing.

The Vesk have natural weapons. They have natural weapons so hard that they have a heritage that's all about getting more of them

I'm guessing that SF2 is not going to be making heavy use of runed handwraps.

If I'm playing a Vesk who's really into playing claw/claw/bite games and not in an PF2 crossover game, do I have any standard way to keep my natural attacks viable as levels go up and weapons get better?

For that matter, what if I'm playing one of those vesk with built-in armor? Are PF2-style armor runes going to actually show up in the SF2 core rulebook?

I'm guessing that Battlegloves will become the "tech" variant of handwraps while they maintain their status as the "magic" variant.

I'm also presuming we might get more interesting options as well, like explosive fists, and cryo fists, and such that would augment unarmed options.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, Pathfinder already has ancestries that don't have parents or even relatives: poppets, skeletons, leshies, etc.

But I don't think having one-for-one substitutions replacing fantasy word for SF word or vice versa is really a problem, since the point of using the same basic rules is not so that specific characters are interchangeable. Like if they wanted to rename "Thievery" as "Security" and "Craft" as "Engineering" that would be fine, so I'm fine with either Species or Ancestry.

There's also another fact to consider. 5e changed their terminology from "race" to "species". So yeah, can't have that in the ORC.

5e did not. OneD&D did. Which isn't OGL. And we're also not using their definition of Species. They don't have ownership of a common dictionary term being utilized for its understanding of a common dictionary term.

There's also the fact that we used Species for our ancestries before they ever announced that.

I must say, looking over the Android, I am very happy that the Android is just a PF2E Android with extra options more thematic to SF2E. It gives me the confidence that this really is being designed with intercompatibility in mind.

Personally, I dislike that element. But its mostly because the base PF2E android I didn't realize was so... penalizing in PF2e. The Diplomacy and performance and charisma penalty is just not right thematically for a number of our android representations.

Also, the fact that the sense motive doesn't have a "tradeoff" - our androids are both bad at reading people as well as being hard to read - the sense motive penalty should have been offset by a bonus to lie (and other instances of Sense Motive DC usage) as well.

Cyfer wrote:

Will there be a special edition subscription for the Starfinder AP books, or will we have to preorder each one to get the free PDF?

We have no plans at this time for a specific subscription, but I'll pass the idea along! :)

Will there be a capability to have Support switch the books out, or opt out of this book specifically but still be able to get the special edition w/PDF?

Feels like this should be part of Abomination Vaults Hardcover where it wasn't part of a subscription but preorders got PDFs if they had the subscription

Hi all! I'm about to head out of the office for PAX Unplugged, but there's an update in the queue that will make the following changes to the Character Options page:

- Player Core: scholarly journal & survey map legal for all; fix to the Martial Performance feat for our warrior bards
- GM Core: staff of unblinking eye legal for all
- Bestiary: no Treerazer for you

There's also an FAQ for mastermind rogues and other Recall Knowledge-based abilities that will hopefully clear up any lingering questions there. We also have on our list to take another pass at the spellhearts and see if there are some we can put back into play, but that won't happen until later in the month.

Hey Alex! Thank you so much for the change for warrior bards. However, there's still another tweak necessary - all the warrior bard prerequeisite feats call out Inspire Courage by name. The same clarification as the first part of the Martial Performance feat needs applied to all the feats in the bard which utilize that cantrip composition specifically.

Question: How is stripping Pathfinder Training from existing characters who decide to use a rebuild not directly at odds with the intent stated on Lorespire?

When considering the Pathfinder Remaster, our intent is as follows:

• To ensure that players are not forced to rebuild characters
  
• To ensure that as much previous material as feasible is still useable
  
• To incentivize adoption of the new, Remastered ruleset
  
• To provide an optional method to rebuild characters into Remaster rules

Both the issues with Warrior Bard as well as the Pathfinder Training stripping feel at odds with the Intent.

Stripping Pathfinder training disincentivises me to adopt the new content.

Treating all new content as errata making the old warrior bard unplayable forces a rebuild.

So I'm rather disincentivised to interact with the character at all anymore, which is the opposite of the intent.

Alex Speidel wrote:

"Class chassis" is the term I'm broadly using to define everything all members of a class get. Basically everything that gets published before the list of class feats. So if you want to use the new rules for the cleric's divine font, that's part of the chassis, you gotta rebuild for that. But if you previously had the ranger's Crossbow Ace feat, you'd update the text to be in line with the Player Core.

The good news is that means Warrior Bards are only half broken.

(They still get weapon proficiency from their muse.)

Their feat tree is still broken. (The feats have been updated to trigger off Courageous Song, but they don't get courageous song, they get inspire courage.)

Nope. Because their muse gives a feat (Martial Performance) and the feat gives the martial proficiency. The muse gives nothing RAW except the feat and a spell.

Ravien999 wrote:

Alex Speidel wrote:

Sebastian's correct, yes.

What does this mean for Warrior Bard? I don't want to lose my Pathfinder training benefit, but viewing the Martial Performance feat as errata means that my class chassis loses the core function of being able to use martial weapon, because I don't get that from the remastered core class - essentially forcing a rebuild and losing features I have today due to the rebuild rules as written, or losing the ability for the character to function.

May be a specific thing that needs to be clarified.

I actually just realized its worse, and Warrior Bard really got the short end of the stick with the rebuild ruling. Courageous Advance/Assault/Onslaught and Reflexive Strike (aka most the Warrior Feats) all require the usage of Courageous Anthem now instead of Inspire Courage, meaning all non-remaster Warrior bards with those feats become incapable of using them - and no way to rectify without a rebuild which forces the loss of Pathfinder Training.

The Inspire Defense rename makes the successor Defensive Coordination invalid from missing prerequisites now, but that's fixed with a feat retrain.

The only warrior bard feats that aren't entirely broken by the Feat errata rule is Inspire Defense and Song of Strength.

Sebastian's correct, yes.

What does this mean for Warrior Bard? I don't want to lose my Pathfinder training benefit, but viewing the Martial Performance feat as errata means that my class chassis loses the core function of being able to use martial weapon, because I don't get that from the remastered core class - essentially forcing a rebuild and losing features I have today due to the rebuild rules as written, or losing the ability for the character to function.

RIP on the starfinder metaplot spoilers not being hidden right, guess I know what I'm discovering in the one I'm in right now lol

Very interested in the Paizo@ stuff. I assume this would probably be funneled through local VOs to find locations?

This is kind of a nitpick, but the biggest thing I have to say is to be cognizant of making sure that anathema are purely hard brakes and not things they should avoid. I remember in the ancestry remaster blog there was anathema listed that very much felt like "yeah, it would be frowned upon, but anathema is a bit strong"

I think such things would be preferred as an edict to avoid those things, as opposed to anathema.

Dennis Muldoon wrote:

I will miss the free lore skill that came with school training. More Lore skills at the table is fun. Any chance we could replace training with something like “all PFS characters are automatically trained in PFS lore”? It’s honestly never really made sense to me that you’re average Pathfinder wouldn’t know the basic history of the Society.

HMM wrote:

Can we just add PFS Lore as a bonus lore to all characters?

This actually already exists :D The lore you get from the PFS training replaces the default PFS lore that all Pathfinders get as part of the character creation. If you don't choose a school, you get PFS lore automatically :D

Thanks for stating this, I thought I lived in bizarroworld for a minute where I imagined that. Yeah, there's the free PFS Lore and Regional language everyone forgets, and then schools were on top of that.

Personally, I think it'd be great to just open up that to a free lore of your choice from the list that schools usually gave, and as previously stated, make boons for the other "school bonuses"

I know I'd spend ACP for the benefits schools give today

I liked Pathfinder Training, but removing it is the right move. Frankly most players I see in PFS didn't know it existed and didn't tend to use it. It's an out of the way thing to know about and remember to use, unless you're using Hero Lab Online (which if you tell it you're making a Society character will actively prompt you to pick stuff from it).

That created this weird situation where my character has extra stuff than another players character just because I know to take them and the other person doesn't.

People also tend to forget the consumables in my experience and so while I remind them, we tended to default to "if you don't know what I'm talking about, you get X healing potion" (whatever the table says) rather than trying to explain at the start of a game what training options are available.

It was a neat idea that with the benefit of experience just hasn't gotten traction.

Personally, I would rather have gotten rid of factions as they mean so little in PFS2 and made schools the mandatory choice as it adds more flavor to the character, but that's antithetical to the history of PFS

Aww man I liked Pathfinder Training bonus feats/lore :'D

I'd be willing to bet/hope that they come back in the form of boons. It felt like a great way to flavor your character, and being able to "specialize yourself" by getting a bonus feat + more consumable options would be a great boon.

Doesn't solve the lore options but allowing a free lv 1 choice of free lore would solve that - and the free language and PFS lore are imo very important parts of the system and they haven't mentioned removing those, so there's a chance?

Shay, Stop! I'm having too much fun reading pathfinder blogs, and I normally don't care too much for those!

This is a fun little blog. A lot of character in not a lot of space.

I picture the "author" as someone who rolls their eyes a lot and laughs loud haughty laughs with a hand covering her mouth which hangs wide. And always wears a fashionable necklace at all times.