Iconic Evolutions: Advanced Player’s Guide

MaxAstro wrote:

In fact, as long as having nine tails has no mechanical benefit, I don't think you have to do anything at all except say "my familiar is a fox with nine tails" when you are creating the character.

While most GMs I know would allow that, the specific rules for creating familiars talk about animals only. So it'd be nice if we get more mechanics that give a nod to the idea of supernatural creatures as familiars.

We know the APG will at least have fairy dragon, imp, and some sort of ooze familiars.

"Up to 11" is for stuff beyond the maximum, so I think this is just the dial at 10. And since Witches are supposed to have more powerful familiars, it seems like an appropriate place for the dial to be at a 10.

PF2 is just filled with too much wonkiness, from goblins being a core race, to alchemists being core, through stuff like the nine-tailed fox here. There's fantasy, and then there's wonky-crazy-annoyingly-everything-goes-over-the-top-absurdism. Sadly PF2's crossed that line considerably in feel, theme, and mechanics. It's practically BESM now. :|

Literally none of that is wonky unless you have PF1 experience. And if you've played other games, even less so.

The only wonkiness in the CRB in my opinion is that goblins are core but orcs weren't there too! Glad we're getting them early though.

What's wrong with BESM !? (Big Eyes Small Mouth -- for those who aren't familiar with it.)

...

We are referring to the Tri-Stat (original) version, right?...

:p

--C.

Last time I played BESM, I made a goblin with a lead pipe and an inability to be killed by anything less than an atomic bomb splitting every one of his atoms.

Sorry, but Pathfinder 2e is not nearly there yet in terms of over-the-top absurdism.

QuidEst wrote:

"Up to 11" is for stuff beyond the maximum, so I think this is just the dial at 10. And since Witches are supposed to have more powerful familiars, it seems like an appropriate place for the dial to be at a 10.

PF2 is just filled with too much wonkiness, from goblins being a core race, to alchemists being core, through stuff like the nine-tailed fox here. There's fantasy, and then there's wonky-crazy-annoyingly-everything-goes-over-the-top-absurdism. Sadly PF2's crossed that line considerably in feel, theme, and mechanics. It's practically BESM now. :|

Ah. I always avoided "core only" games, which might influence my perspective; my first character was a synthesist summoner. PF1 establishing that the sun and other stars contain portals to the positive and fire planes, and that the sun has a grumpy wizard living on it who got sick of the world's problems, kind of set the tone for me.

A fox familiar with multiple tails is more of a normal fantasy thing to me than PF1 letting you have a tumbleweed as your familiar, and the iconics getting in on the fantasy setting a bit more doesn't change my personal experience much.

But, I'm quick to ignore some of the more tech-sided stuff from my own games, like Numeria and gunslingers, so I can understand if somebody found the old core to be the right set of stuff for them.

I mean I can get the idea that some things might push someone's preferences and expectations to their limits.

But alchemy, goblins and nine-tailed foxes all personally strike me as pretty vanilla.

I mean I can get the idea that some things might push someone's preferences and expectations to their limits.

But alchemy, goblins and nine-tailed foxes all personally strike me as pretty vanilla.

Yeah, I've played vampires, superheroes and a sapient ball of energy plasma, and have nothing but excitement for the possibility of playing one of those sapient ooze hiveminds from Nex someday.

This doesn't even get close to 'hyperintelligent shade of the color blue.'

It's *barely* past 'elf,' 'wizard' and 'pseudodragon.'

My scale for "weird" was definitely set when I played GURPS. One of my friends decided to play a sentient hive mind of psychic nanomachines controlling the body of a cyborg wizard, and he barely needed more than two books plus the core rules to do it.

Everything in Pathfinder feels vanilla after that. XD

Yeah, goblins and alchemists are pretty bog standard fantasy, and have been for a while honestly. Alchemists slightly less so, but then they were in the APG in PF1, so they're hardly new.

The nine-tailed familiar is very slightly more out there, but only due to the Eurocentrism in a lot of fantasy, and Feiya is ethnically Tian Min so references to Japanese folklore seem very on-point thematically.

Yeah, the wacky in Pathfinder is way out of hand, next thing they'll do is add androids, guns and psionics to a fantasy game. Or playable plant people.

I would absolutely let a player’s character wielding a rapier loop their finger over the hilt and give them absolutely no mechanical benefit to do it. Unless they really wanted one and trained for it. And they wouldn’t have to be drawn that way either way. Unless they wanted to. Be drawn. That way.

I wish she was holding her sword correctly. Index finger looped over the guard.

Both methods of holding a basket hilt rapier (As pictured in the illustration of Jirelle and index finger looped around the crossguard) are correct. They're both featured in Agrippa and Alfieri historical fencing manuals (Maybe in Meyer too?)

I did consider the option of looping Jirelle's finger around the crossguard during the sketch phase of the artwork.
It was a 50/50 decision.
However, I decided against it in the end due to purely visual considerations.
Her outstretched finger created another intersecting vertices which I felt visually interfered with the shapes of the basket hilt.

Although it did occur to me whilst deciding on which configuration to depict is that someone would probably complain no matter which version I chose.

I'm more amused by the fact that Jirelle is correctly holding a buckler but the rules still describe it as being strapped to your forearm in the CRB and leaving your hand free. It's been more than a decade people, we know bucklers don't work that way!

They all look very nice though.

I'm more amused by the fact that Jirelle is correctly holding a buckler but the rules still describe it as being strapped to your forearm in the CRB and leaving your hand free. It's been more than a decade people, we know bucklers don't work that way!

They all look very nice though.

Pft, next you are going to tell me that a "longsword" and a "bastard sword" are actually the same thing, and a "shortsword" is actually an "arming sword", whatever that means... :P

QuidEst wrote:

"Up to 11" is for stuff beyond the maximum, so I think this is just the dial at 10. And since Witches are supposed to have more powerful familiars, it seems like an appropriate place for the dial to be at a 10.

PF2 is just filled with too much wonkiness, from goblins being a core race, to alchemists being core, through stuff like the nine-tailed fox here. There's fantasy, and then there's wonky-crazy-annoyingly-everything-goes-over-the-top-absurdism. Sadly PF2's crossed that line considerably in feel, theme, and mechanics. It's practically BESM now. :|

There's nothing especially over the top about alchemists being a core class, just because its not traditional for D&D derivatives. Far as that goes, that's true of goblins as a core race. You're confusing "what I'm used to with D&D" and "normal".

I mean I can get the idea that some things might push someone's preferences and expectations to their limits.

But alchemy, goblins and nine-tailed foxes all personally strike me as pretty vanilla.

Well, the last does have some strong associational cues with powerful (very powerful) kitsune, so I can kind of see a bit of the objection there.

Alchemists are so vanilla we had them IRL, and hell, a lot of modern chemistry can seem pretty magical.

Alchemists are so vanilla we had them IRL, and hell, a lot of modern chemistry can seem pretty magical.

The amazing thing about Science is that you can turn Lead into Gold in the real world...but it costs more to turn Lead into Gold than the Gold is worth by a massive margin.

But yeah, I see nothing weird whatsoever about Alchemists or Goblins in core. That should be a permanent standard if anything.

Pft, next you are going to tell me that a "longsword" and a "bastard sword" are actually the same thing, and a "shortsword" is actually an "arming sword", whatever that means... :P

My impression has always been that what's listed in Pathfinder as a longsword should be called an arming sword while the short sword should be called a side sword. But yes, the sword terminology in Pathfinder and D&D is pretty off and has been for a long time.

I'm pretty sure I've heard it both ways, but I don't know enough about swords to know which is correct. :)

Don’t forget shotguns/blunderbuss and cones :3

Getting super specific on weapons has been and continues to be kinda weird to me. A lot of weapons generally aren't so noticably different to one another to need specific stats. They will generally work like their closest analogues enough not to warrant it, so I feel it is more sensible just to reflavour. Is there really that noticable difference between a fauchard and glaive except maybe in an overanalytical sense?

The few that do need specific stats is simply because they are different from real examples. The scythe for instance is a reaping scythe, which has the blade at a right angle rather than at the pole tip. That to me makes sense for why they would differentiate them.

Getting super specific on weapons has been and continues to be kinda weird to me. A lot of weapons generally aren't so noticably different to one another to need specific stats. They will generally work like their closest analogues enough not to warrant it, so I feel it is more sensible just to reflavour. Is there really that noticable difference between a fauchard and glaive except maybe in an overanalytical sense?

The few that do need specific stats is simply because they are different from real examples. The scythe for instance is a reaping scythe, which has the blade at a right angle rather than at the pole tip. That to me makes sense for why they would differentiate them.

I totally agree.

A friend of mine wanted a bident for his character, so I said "just use the trident stats for it and call it a bident." Worked out great.

I'd argue the trait system kind of self justifies having a variety of weapons in this system though.

There's a difference between a fauchard and a glaive because one of them is better at tripping and attacking multiple foes and one of them is better at concentrating a large number of attacks in one turn, which incentivizes different playstyles with each weapon.

Yeah, there's no need for a bident when we have a trident, but there is a need for weapons that fill mechanical niches that aren't yet filled.

A d6 one-handed reach weapon, a d8 two-handed finesse weapon with the Monk trait, a d8 bludgeoning weapon you can two-hand for d12, and so on.

There's a really large amount of mechanical ground to cover, more than enough to allow for separate stats for many neat real-world weapons.

Yeah, there's no need for a bident when we have a trident, but there is a need for weapons that fill mechanical niches that aren't yet filled.

A d6 one-handed reach weapon, a d8 two-handed finesse weapon with the Monk trait, a d8 bludgeoning weapon you can two-hand for d12, and so on.

There's a really large amount of mechanical ground to cover, more than enough to allow for separate stats for many neat real-world weapons.

Conceptually, what would some of those weapons be though?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, there's no need for a bident when we have a trident, but there is a need for weapons that fill mechanical niches that aren't yet filled.

A d6 one-handed reach weapon, a d8 two-handed finesse weapon with the Monk trait, a d8 bludgeoning weapon you can two-hand for d12, and so on.

There's a really large amount of mechanical ground to cover, more than enough to allow for separate stats for many neat real-world weapons.

Conceptually, what would some of those weapons be though?

Chain Whip for the first. I got nothing for the other two.

Yeah, something in a chain whip or one-handed flail for the first, for the second I think a three-section staff is perfect, and for the third, well, a large hammer or mace somewhere between the size of a one handed hammer and a maul (distinctions between one-handed and two-handed weapons when there are weapons with pretty similar design made for both are always a bit artificial).

I've been wondering if the earth-breaker is going to return as a two-hand weapon instead of being two-handed like in 1e; it would make the hammer-and-fang style mechanically more straightforward.

The thing is, if the earthbreaker is one-handed normally, it winds up being used for more than the thunder-and-fang fighting style. It would make more sense to put that style into something anyone can take but isn't baseline for the equipment. An archetype comes to mind, since it was a feat originally that defines your style of fighting. And something mechanically supporting thunder-and-fang would be appreciated, since it is a very cool and thematic fighting style.

This is true. And admittedly Earthbreakers do not look like weapons that could be comfortably wielded one handed.

Yeah, I think a big part of the earthbreaker aesthetic is that it's just a big, monstrous weapon.

Wouldn't mind seeing a 2e version of that. Or the executioner's axe, on the subject of gratuitous weaponry.

This is true. And admittedly Earthbreakers do not look like weapons that could be comfortably wielded one handed.

Yeah, that weapon does not look like something that could used one-handed at all...

Plus what I really wanted was a Shoanti feat that let me use two of those Klar at the same time (but for any enhancement bonus to the shield part not stacking, so you'd get a game-wrecking +1 AC out of the whole 'has two shields' thing going on). Seeing some Shoanti ranger with a Klar strapped to each arm, leaping at you like Wolverine, a cinderpelt companion at her side, also mid-leap, would be a cool thing to see.

Possibly the last thing you'd see, but cool. :)

I'm a bit disappointed... You set the bar high with the new Iconic Oracle so I was hoping to see something more interesting here.

...like a Hobgoblin Swashbuckler or Leshy Investigator.

We’ve known only Oracle was being changed for months now.

There should be a 1d6 one handed martial spear. Using a shield and spear for the reach is just about as old as human warfare.

There should be a 1d6 one handed martial spear. Using a shield and spear for the reach is just about as old as human warfare.

This is a very solid option for the one-handed martial reach weapon, yeah.

There should be a 1d6 one handed martial spear. Using a shield and spear for the reach is just about as old as human warfare.

That's where you come down to the difference between game rules prioritizing simulation of reality, or prioritizing meaningful mechanical options with a nod toward reality.

Because a spear and shield configuration definitely does have a superior reach to most other one-handed weapons, but doesn't have as much effective reach as a two-handed spear - so while a system like HackMaster that measures out weapons and gives an edge to whoever happens to be wielding the longer weapon upon engaging in melee, a one-handed spear can fall short of the cut-off line for a Pathfinder style reach mechanic.

WatersLethe wrote:

There should be a 1d6 one handed martial spear. Using a shield and spear for the reach is just about as old as human warfare.

That's where you come down to the difference between game rules prioritizing simulation of reality, or prioritizing meaningful mechanical options with a nod toward reality.

Because a spear and shield configuration definitely does have a superior reach to most other one-handed weapons, but doesn't have as much effective reach as a two-handed spear - so while a system like HackMaster that measures out weapons and gives an edge to whoever happens to be wielding the longer weapon upon engaging in melee, a one-handed spear can fall short of the cut-off line for a Pathfinder style reach mechanic.

Well, unless you're using a pike (which should really have like a 15 foot reach) a spear wielded in two hands has less reach than the same spear wielded in one.

Factor in purpose-building a spear for one handed use by slightly reducing its length and weight, you can end up with a spear with the same reach as a two-handed Longspear, but with less damage and requiring more skill.

For reference: Lindybeige

There should be a 1d6 one handed martial spear. Using a shield and spear for the reach is just about as old as human warfare.

Agreed

Incidentally, I recently homebrewed a Tetsubo for a player by knocking a Greatclub down to D10, and granting it Deadly D10, I also made it advanced and gave it the orc trait, for my setting.

The witch is one of my favorite classes

The nine-tailed familiar is very slightly more out there, but only due to the Eurocentrism in a lot of fantasy, and Feiya is ethnically Tian Min so references to Japanese folklore seem very on-point thematically.

Yes! This! Multiple tailed animals is a semi-common part of Japanese folklore and their fantasy worlds as well.

Is anyone else unable to view the new art of Quinn and Feiya? Only Jirelle's art appears to be loading for me.

Is anyone else unable to view the new art of Quinn and Feiya? Only Jirelle's art appears to be loading for me.

Yes, that's currently a problem for me as well.

Weirdly, I'm currently having the opposite problem, with Jirelle not showing up.

I had some minor issues earlier with all three at various times, but refreshing usually fixed it. It's not fixing the current issue, though.

I've had the same problem and clicking on the space still brought up the full size art.

I am mildly disappointed in all of you that nobody has as of yet made a “I see she has a-studied her Agrippa” reference yet.