AM DOGGO's page

On March 1st we lost one of the most influential, inspired, and talented artists in modern times.

It would be a stretch to say that there is anyone whose work in television and video game animation is more highly respected and impactful. I am not the type of person who is frequently emotionally impacted by the loss of an artist or actor but there is a sinking hole in my heart knowing of his passing. There are few creators who I have held in such high regard and would label as the GOAT (greatest of all time) in their field but he stood and will continue to stand as the legend among legends.

Rest in power Akira, your art has touched the lives of billions and the legacy he leaves behind will stand for generations to come.

Okay, so I can't find a definitive answer to this after tinkering with a build regarding how this should be interpreted or even any questions/threads that speak to it so I figured I'd ask, well, there is one other question by RD regarding how Splash interacts with Weapon Spec and I supposed that is more or less just about the same but that was years ago and I figured I'd refresh the topic and survey what peoples thoughts are.

I'm working on a Halfling Slinger Ranger with Gravity Weapon.

Using a Scatter Sling that has Scatter 5ft. Gravity Weapon stipulates you get Bonus Damage on your Strikes and the Scatter Damage IS the result of a successful Strike, and I know it would only apply once per target no matter what but do the creatures within 5ft of the Target of the Strike also take the extra Damage on the Splash Damage they take equal to my number of Weapon Damage Dice since the Damage Bonus from the Spell does NOT stipulate that it is a Bonus to Damage Rolls?

In other words, do you all think we should:
1) Always interpret "Bonus to Damage" as "Bonus to Damage Rolls"
2) Apply a Bonus to Damage to effect that Deal Damage (with an eligible Weapon/Attack) to effect that are and are NOT done via a Roll.

Caster Wand
Item 4
[Magical] [Wand] [Invested]
Source Player Core 1 pg. XXX
Price 35 gp
Usage held in 1 hand; Bulk L
This special Wand is about a foot long and unlike other Wands that contain a single Spell, it is instead used to help channel and cast directed offensive Spells with magically enhanced accuracy.

Activate [Free Action] Cast a Spell that requires a Spell Attack Roll that targets Armor Class;
Effect Add a +1 Item Bonus to your Spell Attack Roll.

Craft Requirements; You are an Expert in Crafting and have access to the Cast a Spell Activity.

[Special] During the creation of a Caster Wand you may also integrate the effects and functions of any other Wand that enables the casting of a Single Spell or a Staff by paying the additional cost of the integrated Wand or Staff.
------
Also, create higher-level versions of these that correspond 1-to-1 with the +1 Potency Runes that benefit Weapons and Handwraps. Price them all accordingly. Yes, it does mean that to use them you would need to "give up" a hand but that is the tradeoff.

Just give in and allow Spell Attacks to benefit from the Item Bonus, it's not going to be game-breaking, if anything it will simply quiet the masses and the casters will have to pay for it just like any Martial has to as well which helps suture up a bit of economic unfairness in that Casters save a TON of money as they rarely, if ever, currently invest much of their funds into Runes which nets them far more consumables, magic items, and other cool stuff that the Martials simply cannot afford as they essentially HAVE to pay the Rune tax to stay effective.

Warning, This is a light-hearted thread meant to provoke giggles more than anything else.

With the Remaster in the pipeline, we might as well go full bore and finish the alphabet!
Maybe others have their own in mind or would like to continue the list, who knows, could be fun?

First, we have what has already been established...

A - Ancestry
B- Background
C- Class

So we know those but what about the rest? I've heard tell of a few more that have been unofficially adopted by others...

D - Description/Detail - Describe how you look, and your general personality/attitude.
E - Equipment - What gear are you using/toting around?
F - Feats - Fundamental, crucial, mandatory. Can't finish WITHOUT these, maybe it's even a good idea to look "ahead" to see what you MIGHT want to become.

These are all pretty much crucial to building a fleshed-out and realized player character but I think we can go further...

G - Grease - Just HOW greasy are ya, huh? You like to say squeaky clean, stay in the upper crust inn where they scrape the chewing gum off the stools every fortnight or are you down for a nights stay at the B&B that features a nightly scrappy game of dice played out of a chipped cup in the alley outside just across from the tanner's shop.
H - Herocism - Just HOW heroic are ya now? I mean, there are big damn heroes and then there are the unwilling forced into doing things they'd REALLY rather not just in order to survive.
I - Incentive - What is REALLY driving your character to DO what they ARE doing?

And then... things get a little bit...

J - Jank - Somewhat related to Grease but it's more akin to something fundamental about who/how you are rather than the choices that you make.
K - Killer - Speaks for itself, ya like violence, huh?
L - Lethargic - How motivated/lazy are you exactly? Are you willing to stand up to walk across the room for a chance to get the last slice of cold pie or would you rather go hungry/pester the halfling to do you a favor (that you have no intention on returning)?

...

Time caught up with you, I hope you had your will in order because the Reaper man has come to claim your optimization curve.

I was wondering on a lark about the idea of a true LO Recipe Guide, you know, something that has like 20 or so odd recipes from around the region and it had me thinking... have corn tortillas been invented? We know that corn exists based on the inclusion of it in various books as an ingredient in Whiskey and the existence of the Blood Maize monster but... what about fried mashed corn flour turned into a crispy tortilla, for like, nachos or perhaps by extension the presence of tacos in setting?

On the PF2 Subreddit, there is a post asking for questions they can get in front of the Paizo Developer they are interviewing (They have not yet said who it will be other than either Logan Bonner, James Case or Michael Sayre) to help clear up some community confusion.

The post already has quite a bit of traction there but I wanted to bring it to the attention of non-redditors too.

Hi everyone! It's that time of year again -- a member of the Pathfinder Rules Team (Logan Bonner, James Case and Michael Sayre) has graciously agreed to join me on my YouTube channel (How It's Played) to answer your community-submitted rules questions!

So, if you have any rules questions for them, post below! And if you agree with an already posted suggestion, please upvote it, as priority will be given to the most popular questions.

Also, a few limitations to be aware of. They ask that our questions be limited to the Rulebook line and not anything specific to adventures or Lost Omens books. Also, just like in previous years, please understand that they cannot comment on potential errata (so the most popular question might not be answered when we meet if they plan to address the topic with errata).

Thanks for your questions and support!!

So, I know there are literally dozens of hanging threads without substantive answers that have been raised and left to gather dust for GM interpretation here over the last few years, and now might be a great time for anyone to ask about them in the conversation there given that the staff directive seems to be to avoid talking publicly on these forums at pretty much all costs.

I haven't been following it very closely but I'm surprised I haven't seen any discussion on the topic yet.

Apparently, there is something weird going on relating to specific pages of the Dark Archive where some users are being sent individual select pages of the book to reveal some hidden meaning via their downloads. The Discord has a whole thing going on to figure it all out but I figured I'd make a topic here to help clue in some others who don't keep an eye on the pulse of things in other social media as a place to discuss what theories and findings people come up with.

Well, it's been well established so far that the Kinetecist damage output is too low and while the jury is still out if this ranges from being "cripplingly bad" to just being "a bit low" the consensus has essentially already been reached that the damage numbers are going to HAVE to be tweaked upward.

Take this with the knowledge that pretty much all other playtests had a similar pattern where the first version tested had low damage and from what I've read before and recently it seems like this is probably intentional since "it's better to start low and buff from there" than it is to have the final version be nerfed from the playtest output.

So I propose that at this point we should probably take into account that repeatedly hammering the point that the damage is not where it needs to be is going to be a pointless effort and a waste breath since we know and the devs surely have gotten the message already coupled with the fact that this low output is actually NORMAL for a playtest, despite how frustrating it is. Instead I feel like we should be looking at other aspects of the Class and their features so we can be sure to give THOSE things a good test and to sus out what problems there are with the versatility, Training scaling, Defenses, and probably even ways they can harness their powers for the purpose of Skill Checks.

In short, I feel we should stop hyper focusing on their Damage since I am CONFIDENT that the message has already been communicated and obsessing over it any more is only going to result in a lack of feedback on the OTHER important things that need to be vetted for the Class.

Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.

Will this Class be seeing revisions in order to push the tweaks out for further playtesting like some of the earlier playtests?

I tried searching to find out if this is the case and coudln't find a solid answer, perhaps I missed it?

Anyhow, at this point, the class is already on extremely rocky footing and extremely underwhelming in pretty much every way except for just pure narrative flavor so I worry that if the playtest doesn't see a round 2 version we can play around with that the changes that absolutely do need to be made are not going to get the kind of community crowdsourced vetting that this initial version so desperately needed. I know time and staffing are always tight but since this is just one class I implore the team to STRONGLY consider pushing back the release date if need be in order to add a second round of testing and feedback should that not already be the plan.

Thus far, according to my count PF2, generally looks like this.

-----------------------------
Twenty-two Classes

-----------------------------------------------

ONE
HUNDRED
FIFTY
FOUR
...
Misc Archetypes.

-----------------------------------------------

F - I - V - E Class Archetypes... WHY? The Class Archetype has been more or less ignored despite how promising it is as a mechanic to allow even further tweaks on a given Class. Since day one the described Class Archetype system seemed, to me at least, to be the area where the coolest stuff could and would eventually come from as they're a PF2 spin on how Pathfinder 1st edition handled Archetypes (which as we all know is where most of the cool and actual interesting stuff came from). There are THIRTY Archetypes for every Class Archetype and it.. just doesn't make any sense. Perhaps there are plans on one big crunchy book where there will be 25+ Class Archetypes will be published as a kind of "Expanded Class Guide" or something?

I get the idea that it is good to be sure that certain tropes can be used by any PC regardless of class but... we are talking about options that have the ability to dramatically change/morph a Class to fit a whole new schtick and in do so in a manner that doesn't drain them of most of their Class Feats along the way.

Is there some kind of like... memo that was sent out to the developers that told them to avoid making Class Archetypes at all costs? Is this something that's being "reserved' exclusively for development toward the end of the PF2 publishing life-cycle? Maybe Paizo is intentionally not making these in an effort to ensure that the PF2 Pathfinder Infinite program has bountiful room to play within and stuff to publish?

Final confirmation that this rumored deal has finally come through.

A few interesting things of note.

- It's being bought out from Fandom completely, with no partial shares or ownership/control being left with Fandom, instead, it is going to be wholly owned and operated by the new HASBRO overlords.
- The agreement was announced with a $146.3 Million price tag, 100% CASH purchase. (Which to me, is the CRAZIEST part of the whole thing)
- This sale represents almost as much money as the entire company is worth in totality according to most public estimates of its reasonable valuation.

As thread title: This is an idea/concept that doesn't really have the kind of support it needs to really be thus far, and is such a lovable (IMO) trope that's been touched on in tons of different systems, albeit mostly through homebrew. These exist in a variety of different fiction mediums, can be made in some more lightweight and crunch unfettered fantasy RPGs, and are just so freaking funny and cool, at least to me...

Sure it could probably be done partially by way of other Archetypes and various Spells but that's only going to get you halfway there and you'll still basically be a bookworm who bought a gym membership but never has the time or energy to invest in it. This thread is explicitly NOT about how to build this with existing rules but instead to talk about ways this could be created as a whole new thing. I am talking about the BEST minds at Paizo (and maybe even some freelancers) putting their heads together and publishing this in a real hardcover book, of course, I'm not at all OPPOSED to the idea of it being made in/as Pathfinder Infinite or another 3rd Party release but the idea to me is a strong one. (I'm not sorry for the pun)

I want this thread to not only be an appeal to the devs to seriously consider finding a way to make this work but to also be a lighthearted discussion and brainstorm of how it could work.

To start off, my first idea would be to have it as a Class Archetype that trades out the Arcane School and Arcane Thesis, has 1 fewer Spell Slots of each level starting right at 1st level (This does mean they can never gain 10th Level Spell Slots and also cannot take Archwizard's Might), but in exchange, they're granted a significant boost to their Unarmored Training, increased Unarmed, Simple, and a single Martial Weapon (that they otherwise have Access to) Training, and are afforded a Focus Spell named FIST (Yes, in all CAPS) that empowers their MELEE (NOT RANGED, just my opinion) Unarmed, Weapon, and Spell Attacks that as a 1-action Focus Spell gives a SIGNIFICANT boost to attack and damage until the beginning of their next turn or alternatively as a 2-action Focus Spell lasts for a full minute that offers a MODEST boost to these. The Key Ability Score is STR, Spellcasting Modifier, and the Class DC is also based on Strength. Oh and they should also be given Attack of Opportunity for free.

I really do genuinely think that a 1st party version of this is a good idea, I may be alone in that and others think it's too silly, feel free to speak up and let your thoughts be known either way and if you're bored and the idea catches you maybe help me spitball some ideas on how this could work and also be functionally balanced.

I was advised elsewhere, and probably rightly so, that I was off-topic bringing up the subject on another thread so I'm making a new one here.

I do not for the life of me see any solid logic in having Customer Service support threads and content being universally accessible to anybody who visits the website. I wonder if this is just an artifact of bygone days when various norms of that kind of communication and requests for help were not really something that was consistently handled in similar/same ways across the net. That said, at this point when someone needs to reach out to customer service about problems with card payment, subscriptions, deletion or modification of Account details, and a variety of other things that are handled there I cannot think of any reason whatsoever why those communications should be had in a public forum, surely the website can be modified so that if it MUST stay as a forum that posts there should only be visible to the person who opened the specific thread or if that's not feasible then I feel the method one goes about handling that should be scrapped and replaced with private chat messages, email, or even a new "Open ticket" system that is completely confidential.

Sure, not much can really be gleaned from a user requesting X or Y be addressed but having specific Order #'s, and even requests for freelancers to shut down a consignment account out in the public is not what I would really call ideal.

I'm having a hard time getting to grok the benefit of having them out in the open other than to potentially be a kind of showcase where people can go to review other people's problems to see them politely responded to by CS staff. Even the header of the forum indicates that one should email if things that could be considered private should be discussed (which IMO should include any reference to refunds or issues with orders) on the topic. Is it just like... another place that can be checked in case someone is waiting on a reply from their email to be sure things don't fall through the cracks?

I'm not even particularly sensitive about what is/should be said in a public forum myself but it gives me pause to think that the company is handling part of their CS tasks out in the open where anybody with an internet connection can find their appeal for help.

For real though, I looked at the Iconic art and I read the class and then I read it again.

Flipped back, looked at the art, and then double-checked... Esoterica states

... You wear your esoterica in a small bag or pouch somewhere on your person that makes it easy to access...

A small bag? For real, that has to either just be something that's being glossed over due to the nature of the playtest or an oversight because the Iconic is wearing at LEAST twice as many bits and bobs as any other Class Iconic. Describing their Esoterica to fit in a singular easily accessed bag or pouch does not line up with the image of an individual quite literally having an answer to help key off the weakness of any given creature, person, construct, or even hazard. By my estimation, this collection should add up to at LEAST 2 bulk. I just tried counting all the individual little things that should be adding up and I gave up at 20 that are visible in the sketch art without even considering what is in the many pouches.

Now, I don't really want to see them forced into stacking Strength as a way for them to offset this, or maybe even just a description that doesn't reduce the size to that of a Tiny PCs Material Component Pouch with zero actual weight would be welcome. The way I look at things, they should be wearing at least as many things on their person as you can stuff in a modern shopping cart so it feels like a big disconnect to me.

Am I wrong in thinking that this immense load shouldn't simply be relegated to one pouch that couldn't even fit my smart-phone?

This was just released and between my wife and I, we sank about 6 hours into it, we used to sit around for DAYS at a time back in our college and easy-life days playing League of Legends with friends so when I heard they're making a Moba-lite game for the Pokemon-verse I had to check it out.

It's a bit different than most other Moba games in that there are no towers and all minions are neutral (except Rotom which is special), nothing gets purchased at all, instead, you get Pokeballs/Aeos Energy/Pokemon that you score in your opponent's goal areas (these take the place of the Towers from other Moba games) that heal enemy Pokemon by doing a kind of charged slam dunk.

The feel is great, the latency isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be for a Switch game, matches are fast, and the whole game honestly is quite addictive. Since it's free to play (with microtransactions available and like a dozen different types of micro-currency that can be bought or earned) and will be cross-play compatible with Mobile devices in September there ARE an unusually high number of individual hoops to jump through to accept the ToS and PP for the game.

So far I'm maining Snorlax, typically with a Heavy Slam and Yawn build but I wondered if anyone else has picked it up and what your throughs are.

I've not built a Leshy to actually play in PF2 and the same goes with a Druid so both of these concepts are new to me and in fact, I've only ever seen two other Druids in actual play at this point so I wanted to survey for some feedback on a build I'm cooking up for a replacement Character.

We're already playing and use the Free Archetype and if for whatever reason my Rogue doesn't make it I want a backup ready that is something I haven't played before.

I took Loremaster as the free archetype because I really don't know what ELSE to do with it, I thought about taking Beastmaster and getting permission for Arboreal Sapling so have a whole army of plantlings at my command but am very iffy on how cheesy it would be, not to mention a free Recall Knowledge against literally every creature/subject is handy with the group comp as we don't have a Bard.

Any feedback from experienced Druids on the potential viability of what I'm going for would be appreciated.

Just finished this film and I MUST say that even after following his work over the last decade or so I am utterly blown out of the water by his ability to capture emotion and unfiltered humor in such a dark and honest form.

Like much of his other work he doesn't shy away from tough discussions or avoid topics but instead charges headlong into some of the themes that most of us resonate with given the last year and a half of this blasted pandemic, or at least what I assume to be the general demographic of these forums. The strong and VERY adult themes of the film/special are absolutely not for children given how dark the production. A general warning for adults as well here: The topics and the show itself might not be best viewed if you're not in a great place mentally too so beware, those being of adult relationships, loneliness, and suicide. Like his other work it mixes dark humor, self-reflection but this time around the comedy takes a back seat to the message.

I wanted to give it a SOLID recommendation on here as I think many of you might not otherwise think to watch yet another comedy special on Netflix, I myself overlooked it until I had a conversation with an old friend from school who is a bit of a musician and comedian that recommended it to me and despite it being put on to be the background while I did chores I found myself fixed, dishes and cleaning be damned because it really was that damn good that I couldn't resist sitting down through the whole thing.

Between a couple of ACTUAL bangers there are introspective moments, silence, awkwardness, and some of the best solo cinematography I could imagine inside of a single room live-in studio. Highly recommend anyone mature with a sense of humor take an hour and a half a watch.

Given the strict wording of the Free Archetype optional rule granting Class Feats, it would seem that there are about a half dozen or so Archetypes that just flat out cannot be supported by RAW which will leave levels where you have zero legal Feat selections since many, or in some cases, most of the related Archetype Feats are Skill Feats. Nothing in the optional rule seems to override the fact that you always need a General or Skill Feat resource to gain any Feat with that Trait.

Given that this is an optional rule that just plain doesn't work 1-to-1 with a bunch of other Archetypes that don't offer Feats at level 4, 6, 8, etc there is almost always going to be some given and take in what the GM allows but I wanted to survey the community to see how YOU are running this.

I want to start preparing for a PF2 game that I'm HOPING to start in March that is a continuation of an old Slumbering Tsar game that I had run for two years in Pathfinder 1st Edition and along with this comes the necessity to convert a folder full of "stock" PCs that can be swapped in or chosen like a pregen by the players at any time given the unforgiving nature of the adventure itself and to help make sense of things given that the adventure location simply does not make sense to have replacement PCs just show up out of the blue.

One such Character is Strix and I used him myself as a GMNPC and also had them passed around by nearly half the party as a temporary Character until they were able to write up a new replacement. For myself having played this Character and for the players as well the Strix ended up being one of my favorite races in the whole system.

The Strix has been pointed to a number of times as being an example of where the PF2 rule set is going both have a particularly hard time actually allowing for Players to take control of them as PCs due to their natural and contact ability to fly that is... well, it isn't really optional... at least in my opinion. I had considered the idea of changing Nocutural into an effective always-on penalty instead of providing a bonus to help offset things and adding in some other penalties given that they're more than a bit spooky and uncommon to the point of probably even being considered Rare in the PF2 rarity system.

I'm starting this topic to get the ball rolling on a discussion on how we might reasonably balance the Strix to account for at least SOME measure of functional flight. Since this PC is higher level (12th level) it's not crucial that it be possible at level 1 but in the spirit of the Strix I really do think this is something it should have, after all their wings are very much NOT vestigal at all. On top of this, they also have Darkvision which is also quite valuable.

I would like to find a way to make this work.

The Black Blade

One of the coolest things I think I ever saw come out of Pathfinder 1st Edition was this Class Feature that allowed a handful of Classes/Archetypes to get access to an awesome, iconic, and just downright fun intelligent magical item called (in most cases) a Black Blade. This was done VERY well in my opinion and strikes me to this day as one of the things that Paizo polished to a mirror finish with very few flaws or issues with game balance. I want to see this return to Pathfinder Second Edition but I want to just appeal to the powers that be to innovate here.

The Living Weapon is, in my opinion, at LEAST as iconic a concept as "the sexy bard," the superstitious barbarian, or any particular specialist wizard. This is a popular concept in fiction that dates back a VERY long time, not only in TTop RPGs but in video games, literature, poetry, art, movies, and even music.

Don't be lazy, please don't be lazy. I don't want to see this supported with a Class Feat or even a Class-Path for Magus. PLEASE just make it an Archetype that anyone with 14 Charisma can take starting at Level 2, and create Level 4, 8, 12, & 18 Archetype Feats that improve, refine, and empower it. I'd also like to kindly ask that you consider opening the idea up to allowing ANY Simple or Martial Melee Weapon that the PC has access to instead of just trying to balance it around less than a half-dozen options.

Secrets of Magic is THE place to release this type of option and I wanted to start a dedicated discussion for this to appeal to the Purple Golem, and James Jacobs specifically to consider the idea that the Black Blade/Living Weapon concept should NOT just belong in the Magus wheelhouse and to see what others ideas and views on the topic are.

Thoughts, questions, concerns?

Ok, so it's not an errata thing, nor is it really disruptive in any way but...

The Monk Advancement Table (3-13) has a formatting/consistency issue compared to all other Tables in print, specifically, the top adjusted Row (for level 1) does not follow the same pattern as can be found everywhere else. It doesn't even match the Light-Tan color in case the pattern was shifted, it seems like that portion was just left on transparent to match the background of the page itself.

The Table Background coloration scheme that is used in all other places in the book of Tan/Light-Tan/Tan/Light-Tan begins on the Level 2 Row.

I figure it's the most minor thing but if you're working on a second printing that includes errata, layout improvements, and other minor changes I figured you may want to fix this while you're at it. It's super nit-picky but since I noticed it I straight-up cannot unsee it so I felt I had to share.

A lively discussion has taken hold of late regarding the Shifting Rune that's caused me to look at some of the Rune and Staff rules again with a fine-tooth comb.

In so doing I've come across an ambiguity that I wanted to bring up which very well might eliminate the need for clarity on that topic altogether. I'm including sourcing to the rules in question along with it so everyone can read along and chime in within the context of the rules at play.

The Staff Rules indicate that you can add Runes to the Staff as normal and the normal Rune Rules prohibit Specific Weapons from having Property Runes altogether.

So, this begs the following questions.

1) Are named Staffs considered "Specific Weapons" for the purpose of applying Runes to them?

2) Which rule is MORE specific than the other; the General Rune Rules, or the Attacking with a Staff Rules?

I'd like to hear the opinions others have on these two questions as well as justifications one might have in regard to why you feel that way.

So, this was questioned during the playtest but never really addressed.

You can apply Runes to the Nails granted by this feat and they cost the same as those placed on Handwraps, function pretty much the same except that the Runes only apply to the Nail attacks and never any other Unarmed Attacks they possess or might gain through any number of the various Morph/Polymorph effects, Ancestry or Class Feats. It is straight-up inferior to just using the Handwraps.

So... this leads me to ask, why would a Witch ever choose to apply the Runes to their Nails, am I missing something?

As noted in the Adventure Seminar for Gen Con Online the Paizo team asked us to chime in regarding what locations of Golarian are popular and we want to see supported through future releases.

I personally asked about materials that take the party on adventures through the Mana Wastes and Alkenstar because of the unique effects of the anti-magic and warped magic effects of the area as I think it can be a good opportunity to tell some stories that are grounded in more technological and industrial regions as well as presenting an opportunity for interesting sub-systems that prohibit, suppress, or corrupt spellcasting.

With that being said, that's just my opinion so I wanted to see if there were opinions of others here regarding regions that haven't been utilized for much, if at all for adventure modules or APs.

Where do YOU want to explore?

Onto the error I found:

Quick Contacts references two Feats in an either/or manner as pre-requisites to take it: Connections & Underworld Connections.
The problem is that neither of these Feats exist. I have a feeling that this was simply missed at some point in that Criminal Connections & Underground Network were originally named as Connections & Underworld Connections but the Pre-Reqs for Quick Contacts were never updated.

We already know that SOME hardcover, main-line, crunch heavy book is going to drop next year and we should almost certainly expect it to include another three of four Classes given the precedent that Paizo has been running with for, oh, nearly a decade now.

There are a number of discussions going on about is some Classes should be brought to PF2 from PF1, debates on what makes those concepts important or 'Iconic' enough to warrant a full Class, the flavor and mechanical role they should play, and even discussion about renaming them, but one thing sticks out to me; That being, we don't really have a great place to discuss which one is the MOST important to us on a personal level to prioritize as a must-have for the next Hardcover.

I'm going to list the various Classes that seem to be making the rounds in terms of the popular discussion and I would like to see if we can get a short-form answer from as many people as possible in regard to which ONE of them they personally want/need the most. Some of these are QUITE debatable whether they warrant an actual full Class but I will be including them if I recall seeing more than one person around here appealing for a full Class appearance of them.

-Arcanist
-Gunslinger/Drifter/Stranger/Whatever
-Inquisitor
-Kineticist
-Magus
-Medium
-Occultist
-Psychic
-Shaman
-Shifter
-Spiritualist
-Summoner

I'd like to keep post length to a minimum in regard to the discussion on WHY you feel the way you do and help make this a thread that exists to let Paizo know where their consumers stand (or at least those who participate here in the forums) on what concepts/Classes are the most important to get official support for.

Please pick ONE selection that you feel stands above the rest in terms of your desire to have it included ASAP.

This is a starter thread as they've asked in the PaizoCon Panel to let their team know about stuff they can make and sell which we're interested in.

I'll go first, I would QUICKLY buy any Starfinder "Tales" or softcover fiction novels.

Also, a Starfinder Adventure Card Game could be REALLY cool, especially if you can make another high-quality App for it like with the original one.

What SF do you want them to make?

Now, I have a question for the community here which I am wrestling with which the RAW doesn't seem to offer insight into.

Innate Spells are, from what I gather, are "...natural to your character, typically coming from your ancestry or a magic item rather than your class."

So, establishing that bit it goes on to say that you're always trained in them and that Innate Spells follow whatever your other Spell Training is so if you're expert in Occult you are also an expert in Innate, ok cool it all makes sense fine. Then it goes on to talk about how you always use Charisma unless otherwise noted on the source of the Innate Spell which is where the "problem lies."

As far as I can tell EVERY Magic Item in the game that grants a way to Cast a Spell falls into these guidelines. The way the Innate Spells rules are worded it would seem that since the Scrolls, Magic Items like Skeleton Key and Aeon Stones, as well as the good-old Staff do not in any way indicate that you should use a Spellcasting Ability Modifier OTHER than Charisma to calculate the Spell Attack and DC. It notes that you should use your Class DC for the Spell for all Innate Spells but this Formula already has a uniquely defined DC if the source of the Innate Spell doesn't explicitly state you should use an Ability Score other than Charisma. Basically, if the source (Scroll/Item Staff) doesn't spell out that you use something OTHER than Charisma, you ALWAYS use Charisma.

This impacts a HUGE swath of Magic Items. First, it's a bit problematic as it seems that this isn't spelled out a bit more clearly and second it's an issue because, well... I have no idea if Spells sourced from a Magic Item are supposed to automatically key off Charisma. I'm having a hard time finding precedent anywhere that would suggest that, for example, a Wizard with a Class DC of 22 for a normal Fireball should have a DC 22 for a Fireball cast from a Staff, if anything I'm seeing what appears to be rules consistent with the fact that this hypothetical Wizard has to key the DC off Cha resulting in a DC loss of 1-5.

So, now that I've laid the groundwork for where my head is at in all this and how utterly confused I really am I want to open it up to the community with a few basic questions:

What is/isn't an Innate Spell?
Are Scroll and Staff Spells Innate Spells?
How do you think this work via RAW?
How do you think it is supposed to work via RAI?
How do you WANT it to work?
Do all Magic Items which grant the ability to Cast a Spell, grant Innate Spells?
Are there any sections, items, or abilities that I missed when going over this which override the Specific "Use Charisma" rule for Innate Spells?

Please help, this is really hurting my brain. I feel like a Wizard should be able to use his Scrolls/Staff to cast at his normal SA Roll and Spell DC but from what I can tell Innate Spells overwrite the normal DC Calculation and the Staff/Scroll description doesn't offer any "out" of the specific wording that forces the use of Charisma.

The question involved here relates to the note stating that Cantrips do not use Spell Slots although the Class Table for both Sorcerer and Bard includes a column for this where daily Spell Slots are listed.

There is mainly a consideration regarding how one character adds additional Cantrips since the Cantrip Expansion Feat notes that the cantrips are added to your repertoire but it makes no mention of gaining additional Cantrip "Spell Slots" to actually cast them.

From my perspective, it seems that there are two different interpretations to be had here.
1) Any Cantrip you Learn or which is added to your Repertoire will automatically increase the number of Cantrip "Spell Slots" that the PC has. 5 Cantrips changes to 7.
2) Cantrips added to a Spontaneous Spellcasters Rep are added to a "hidden" table for your Character to select from when the Level Up as described in the section outlining how you swap out spells. 5 Cantrips stays 5.

My tilt here is mainly aimed at understanding how Magical Shorthand should work for a Spontaneous Caster since it overrides the normal rules for Leaning a Spell as I see it, and if interpretation #1 wins out that seems to suggest that any and all Cantrips Learned via Magical Shorthand ALSO expand your number of Cantrip "Spell Slots" whereas option #2 would mean that Cantrip Expansion as a Feat does not actually increase your Cantrip versatility but instead gives you additional Spells which you can switch out when you next Level Up.

This has been discussed somewhat around here already but in tinkering with a Character Idea I discovered that these rules seem to be in a really weird place where I find myself uncertain how Cantrip "Slots" should be handled. I was trying to make a Character who has access to as many Cantrips as possible and via Magical Shorthand, by my reading, it seems that for the paltry cost of 2gp and some downtime. Another "catch" in this is that Magical Shorthand accounts for Spell Level but fails to note how it interacts with a Cantrip, does it automatically default to the highest Level Spell you CAN cast since these are automatically Heightened?

Thoughts?

So I have a question- How exactly is an Alchemist ever supposed to ever use Quick Alchemy? The equipment requires 2 Hands to use effectively.
Was the overall intent of Quick Alchemy supposed to be that you never actually need to use your tools, just simply that you have them in your possession?
If the intent here was truly that an Alchemist must never actually HOLD or USE the equipment in any way, why does the table state that it requires 2 Hands and why does it note in description that you can stow the equipment in pockets or bandoliers when you carry them from place to place (Suggesting you're not actually using them)?

If the intent WAS that it requires 2 Hands, how exactly is an Alchemist ever supposed to have the expectation that they should have 1 free Hand to perform Quick Alchemy?

The same thing goes for the Formula Book except with 1 Hand.
------------------------------------------------
Next, with Quick Alchemy, eventually, you'll end up in a situation where you'll be creating multiple items with a single action through Double Brew.
Does this change the number of free Hands that are required to do this?
What happens to the second item that you make?
It is automatically stored on your person?
Are you holding two 1 Handed Alchemical Items in 1 Hand?
Do you just drop the additional Alchemical Item you make from Double Brew to the ground?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

When can we expect to see the new rules and guidelines in their final form for use by the community and ... well, anyone.

I'm PRETTY sure that the Convention Games that are going to take place in the next week are all going to be for use with Pregen Characters only, but if this is at all untrue, then I think getting the new rules pushed out before the show might be advisable.

I mean... come ON, how is this NOT a thread already. I simply cannot believe it!

-

So let me introduce to you all, the secretly leaked Magic Item from 2E as previewed and much laughed over at the PaizoCon Banquet.

The Eye of Robes
Magic Item
Traits: Magical, Transmutation,
Magical Item
Item Level: 7
Price: 1,000 gp
Slot: Eyepiece
Method of Use: worn, eyepiece
Activation: 1 Action (Manipulate Activation)

This soft cloth eyepatch is made of fine red silk and black stitching. It is designed to be worn over a single eye. Affixing this eyepatch over a single eye obscures the wearer's vision slightly imposing a -2 on Perception checks beyond 30 feet. Those wearing this eyepatch may transform their equipment and that of their very own form to appear as that of another creature. No matter what form the Character takes, they are always seen visibly wearing all Magic Gear they're equipped with including Eye of Robes itself.

The eyepiece grants the wearer an ability to alter the appearance of their body, clothing, and other worn equipment to appear as that of another form, be it from another region, ethnicity, or manufacturer. The Eye of Robes may be used at-will by adjusting the strap around ones head to change the wearer's appearance as the Illusory Disguise spell which has been Heightened to 2nd Level. Unlike the Illusory Disguise spell, the actual form of the creature and equipment is modified to the newly desired shape and not simply projected as an illusion.

I am going to try something here, just hear me out.

Throw us fiction lovers a bone, lie to me, link to an unfinished URL or tease something that one author or another has pitched to the team since the line went quiet. Something, please!

So I was wondering if anyone had some good insight into how Article 13 is going to impact the big-dog leaders of the industry.

Based on what little I understand the companies behind the VTT's in the market now are all going to have to start policing the content on them for any breeches or publishing of "protected content."

If anybody around here knows what all that really means I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts because as I see it, there is pretty much no way that some of these VTTs can continue functioning within the realm of the law without needing to themselves purchase the License for the specific content to appear on their website- Meaning that nobody can share, expound on, improvise, use, write, or distribute what would basically amount to product identity publicly....

Even more alarming is the idea that videos that display protected Content will need their material reviewed for this purpose, Twitch themselves put out a call to get folks to contact their reps because of how much it could impact them and well.... it's too late now. Does this mean that people cannot play any IP controlled Content on Twitch anymore if they do not explicitly themselves get writing that the use of their materials to play Twitch games will end up being removed, demonetized, or banned?

I don't see how it could really mean anything else for the platform, and in kind does that mean that only the REALLY BIG Industry Giants like Critical Role who have inside networks to the lawyers of the content they use will be able to get the permissions they need? I really don't see the hundreds of smaller companies being able to handle putting someone in charge of granting these special exceptions to folks so they can share their game online, be it a Play by Post, Stream Game, VTT, PbCA, Facebook Group RPG, or the like.

Some of these sites are just BURSTING with "homebrew" games with entire gigs of protected material that was scavenged various Campaign settings, although I doubt the IP holders in most cases are going to push to have things removed as they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot, I'm not sure how this will be policed.

Will those that operate these websites (Obsidian Portal, Fantasy Ground, Roll20 et al) be forced to create new filtering and searching tools to identify lines, maps, images, videos and text for protected material?
Will these things be considered exempt from the restrictions?
Is it even legal (In the EU) to PLAY a Tabletop game of ANY sort on a service/website that doesn't themselves own the License to 100% of EVERY IP rule and proper noun that is used in the game?

Thoughts? Wild speculation? How does the sausage get made?

As they say, "no news is good news," but I'm really getting nervous with all of this "good news" I'm hearing about Monk.

Has there been any concrete discussion of what changes and updates the Monk can expect in light of all the other "Sub-Class" and other interesting changes that've been leaked?

Maybe some under-the-radar hint'hints?

Wild speculation? Everyone is welcome!

In the Class Descriptions - Weapon Proficiencies section, the CRB (p.59) states:

Grenades, missiles, and other consumable weapons never add specialization damage, even when you?re using weapons like a cyberbow or grenade launcher.

While I am aware that this is likely just a typo/oversight I wanted to inject some homebrew fun with it, so I present my homebrew Cyberbow.

Cyberbow, Handheld
Small-Arm Ranged Weapon
Technological Item
Item Level: 2
Price: 455
Damage: 1d8 P
Range: 40 ft.
Critical: –
Capacity: Drawn
Usage: 1
Bulk: L
Specials: Analog, Quick reload

Modern advancements in kinetic energy conservation has yielded a new type of handheld projectile launching system that requires neither explosives nor batteries to function. The Cyberbow resembles the illustrations of ancient weaponry from the pre-gap era called the "Crossbow." Unlike traditional crossbows the Cyberbow uses state of the art Shape-Memory Alloys to enable the effortless pulling back of the firing string combined with a simple trigger that sends the loaded projectiles flying. It uses the same ammo as a standard Bow including grenade arrows.

Hey guys, I don't know how or why this category exists but you have a blank webpage for the Paizo Blog for posts from 1999 at the following URL.

It can be found here.

Preface: This turned into a much bigger rant than I intended so please try not to pull at any one thread too hard lest the shoddy craftsmanship of the post fall to shreds, this is intended to a discussion launching point about how best to position the mechanical components and "power level" of PF2 against it's competitors.

I've read the criticisms, the praise, the back-tracking of a few design decisions, the theorycrafting, pitfalls of the tight math, the endless circular debates about the "true" role of a number of classes, bemoaning of loss of backwards compatibility, and the million and one discussions about the caster/martial disparity that is being discussed around here.

One thing that I haven't seen much of, that I personally see as one of the best potential components to the future of PF2, is one that I think is being skirted by Paizo intentionally for the VERY reasonable fear that they'll be stepping on toes or infringing on someone else "zone" but nonetheless I think represents a function to enable more cross-pollination between different play groups and also to be attractive to new players.

This being, the degree to which published 5e D&D Adventures and player Content can be EASILY AND QUICKLY be converted for use with Pathfinder 2E. The Dice & Slice Podcast has tackled this discussion point HEAD-ON and I applaud you guys for doing so and jogging my imagination.

As it stands many people have been apt to compare the various components of the PF2 crunch to that which is present in 5E, some levying talk of how it is a bad idea or that it would serve to dumb things down, but they rarely touch on the idea that it is inherently in everyones best interest to line things up in such a way that a GM could take a published 5E Adventure such as the Temple of Elemental Evil, and with only a little bit of tweaks implement almost the whole Adventure with minimal pain. As it stands with PF1 being puffy and swollen like a Bloatmage at level 20 it is nearly impossible without rewriting EVERY statblock, challenge, trap, and encounter to use 5E Adventures.

If in the final version of PF2 we can bring some of the mechanical parity between the systems closer together I really think the system as a whole could greatly benefit, even WITHOUT a formal conversion guide (Which I'm certain is NOT in the cards legally speaking) I'd like to see this bridge to D&D repaired, and for some of those really great changes from 4E>5E to have comparable pieces that be used in the PF2 system.

Right now, we aren't actually too far off from being able to do this, but there are still stumbling blocks in the way, primary among these is the degree of PC customization and choice when first being created or advanced. There exists in 5E very VERY few choices a player can make to make themselves meaningfully different from someone else who is playing the same Race/Class compared to Pathfinder at large, but this isn't a weakness, in fact I think it stands as a strength but as it stands the ABC method for character creation is still an order of magnitude more adjustable than the elephant in the room.

The player choices really shouldn't matter too much in the scope of this sideways-compatibility , it's the back-end stuff like how Challenge Rating is handled, what "level" is appropriate for a given Spell/Power/Challenge that lies at the core of this.

Please forgive my rambling nature on this thread, but I've not seen much cogent discussion of the value that could be engendered by simply making sure that 5E Content could easily be either converted for PF2 or simply drag/dropped "as-is" to open up entire new exciting Campaign Settings, Iconic (Truly culture shifting) Adventures like CoS, and to work as a way to let players who are new the game and chomping at the bit for more content and options to be able to play/learn the new Edition as an avenue for people who want more "meat" and player choice in their RPGs.

Places to start- Something that need tackled if this is ever going to work is a way to transfer "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanics that makes sense without breaking the math. I personally like the A/D system, but I do not think it is very "Pathfinder" and would like to see what any other folks think on the issue. To start off, there is going to be a quite sparse number of published modules/adventures for people to try PF2 and each of these are going to be truly untested pieces of new fiction.

If as a GM on day 1 I could come up with a few guidelines to bring my 5E books to the table and play them nearly "as-written" but supplanting the mechanical differences I feel that could be a HUGE advantage for the new system, and conversely if Paizo takes the tack that they should be doing everything they can to differentiate the "reality" of the two systems then I think it will not only be detrimental to the new Edition, I think it would be a crippling blow that ensures that D&D loyalists never even TRY PF2.

Honest replies, thoughtful comments, genuine input to how this could be done without starting from scratch, dad-jokes, and criticism is welcome here, I mainly got this rant started in hopes to spark some NEW conversation about how PF2 can set itself up as a single "step up" from the simplicity of 5E without stepping over that "Sue me please" line.

I know things are coming to an end soon, and the timeframe for input they can actually test (Internally or otherwise) and print is rapidly approaching.

In light of this I wanted to create a new thread for all of us to just GET IT OUT, you know, that ONE nagging itching thing that you feel absolutely must be changed, added, or addressed.

To keep things light on the moderation staff, I'd like to propose that discussion be kept to a minimum in regards to debating one another. I'd like to to be a good thread where we can each note our one sticking point with the Rules as they stand now.

What would YOU change?

I thought it may be time for a more lighthearted discussion of changes we could make to the Playtest.

Some of you may be aware of the buggy state of the game right now.

I've sunk some time into playing and its various learning curves, and I wanted to note that if there is only 1 message I can get to everyone just picking it up it would be:

Create new Save Files (With a manageable naming convention) at the beginning of every quest, major encounter, event, and expedition. Due to a number of BUGs you are going to want a variety of backups of your game in case you need to revert to a previous state to avoid the issue.

Have fun!

Why?

Seriously, what justification is there for making Fighters better at Unarmed Strikes than a Monk?

Right off the starting Line Fighters are ALREADY at Expert where Monk is only Trained.. **baffled look**

Is there some reason that Monks should be more inaccurate with their primary attacks than a bare-fisted Fighter with no special training or unarmed focus at all?

This makes no sense, can we please get a Dev to chime in as to if this was an oversight or intentional.

Quite simply, why was the Tower Shield omitted from the PT? I thought if ANYTHING the Tower Shield would need more testing than it's lighter counterparts? They are a quintessential component to MANY Tank/Protector Builds and as it stands PCs are left with only regular Shields to use.

I'm assuming they will make a comeback with the full release, but is there any chance we can maybe have them included in an Update midway through the Playtest?

Additionally, will Tower Shields require a special Armor Prof like they have in the past?

The topic really says it all, I noticed that Leadership is missing from the Feats and I just want to say GOOD! Paizo, please save your Diamonds, you don't need to cast Resurrection on this one.

I've NEVER EVER played a game where Leadership did anything other than grossly expand the power and wealth access a PC has to an abusive or disruptive degree. I don't mean to insult people who liked it, and I'm not saying there isn't design space that should be made to allow PCs to recruit Cohorts, but the Leadership Feat is NOT the way to do it, it's always been to powerful, awfully balanced, and a drain on resources such as "Length of a Players Turn" and WLB. A feat that essentially grants the PC a second Character to play (Albeit at a lower level) is simply WAY out of it's league considering how weak Animal Companions, Mounts, and Cohorts in general are now.

Don't try to balance it, don't make it a Rare Feat, don't gate it behind prohibitive Stat/Level/Feat requirements, just let it die and we can all have a nice Wake in it's memory. If we MUST have this kind of thing, please just roll it into an Archetype that has to be invested in over the course of several levels.

Sincerely
-Themetricsystem

Flying Kick

Monk Class Feat 4
Traits: Monk
Two Actions

Frequency: Once per round.
Make a Leap or attempt a Long Jump. At the end of the jump, if you’re adjacent to a foe, you can immediately Strike that foe.

So I'm curious about how this interacts with Quick Jump.

Quick Jump

Feat 1
Traits: General, Skill
Prerequisites: trained in Athletics

You can use High Jump and Long Jump as a single action instead of 2 actions. If you do, you don't perform the initial Stride, and you don't need to have moved 10 feet.

Since the Flying Kick Ability seems to be a specific action which tells the PC to use an "Activity" which NORMALLY takes 2 Actions, I'm not sure if Quick Jump will reduce the Actions required to use Flying Kick it to 1 Action.

Thoughts?

I know that there is only so much you guys can do to ensure that the Binding on the Hardcovers are going to hold up, but we all know, there have been some pretty serious issues (Which I'm SURE cost the company BIG $$) with the binding quality of the last few big Hardcovers.

Have you switched printer/binder partner companies, shouted down their throats, or otherwise addressed this kind of quality issue in relation to the Playtest book?

After the entire first run of Starfinder was botched (Collectors edition included) and reprints being sent out, Paizo has done a GREAT job of "making it right" but I cannot fathom how the Purple Golem could EVER hope to reprint or replace these Hardcover Playtest books since I believe there is only 1 Print-Run planned for the product.

I'd considered buying the PF2 PTRulebook but after some really disappointing print qualities I decided it wasn't worth risking my money on it should it run afoul of binding problems.