Baron Ulfhamr's page

Think about the lack of parachutes on commercial airplanes, or seatbelts on school busses. In both cases, the structural design is *intended* to compensate for or exceed the gains this equipment t would provide

New evidence:

Critical Specialization Effects

Certain feats, class features, weapon runes, and other effects can grant you additional benefits when you make a Strike with certain weapons and get a critical success. This is called a critical specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which weapon group your weapon belongs to, as listed below. You can always decide not to add the critical specialization effect of your weapon.

There is mention of Eoxian body merchants purchasing corpses for reanimation, but few details. Does anyone have any insight into the legality of this trade? I mean, are there legal avenues established to purchase corpses, or what have you done to address this (if at all)?

I'm working a story arc where a group of smugglers is selling people to Eox, Apostae, etc. in a black market scenario and want to add more details for the intrigue/RP portions before we move to shoot-em-up mode.

So I hear you acknowledge that balance matters, and that the things you're asking for probably break balance, but to please do them anyway.

So, tiny PC ancestries are all ready a thing, sprites, and poppets are either tiny by default, or can be. and I believe in howl of the wild they will be introducing their first large player ancestry. So those things are already fine.

Starfinder has quite a few Large races already and I don't want to lose them!

Some of these changes seem to be incorporating the "streamline and sameify" approaches from 2e. Kasatha have 4 hands but can only effectively use 2 of them. Seems similar to the 2e approach to winged creatures that have wings but can't use them until PCs have access to flight via spells or equipment. From a player perspective, what's the point of being able to play as dozens of species if they all turn out to be pretty similar in how they play? I understand that this is being done in the interest of balance and ease of design but it has a real cost in terms of player customization and the joy of character creation.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Starfinder 2, just balance the game, don't destroy it!

What I mean, is please don't let mathematical balance flatten the beautiful diversity the Starfinder universe blossomed into! In coming online with Pathfinder 2 rules, I fear we will lose the winged races, Large races, and the damage scale for the epic high-tech weaponry that flatly SHOULD BE better than sword and board -sans epic magic, of course!

Also, I for one LOVE the original starship combat feel which, although complex, provides a great tactical feel that is reminiscent of some of the most notable moments in the sci-fi genre. As this is a somewhat optional component anyway, please don't set Enhaced's streamlined system as the default mode.

I see that the design philosophy calls out for balance, but please try to find a way that keeps the universe strange, alien, and different so player races don't feel like a bunch of costumed humans at a convention. Let aliens be Tiny, or Huge, Fly or whatever make them unique. The balance comes from what they trade from being so different and how they react with other races and ships/gear/etc. built for them.

To keep this positive, any who agree please post things you love about Starfinder 1 you hope to see carry over into the new edition.

The ayindilar (cavern elves) are not intended to be antagonists of the Darklands the way the drow were. So i dont think it's a replacement for the drow unless what you wanted is just "underground elves".

That would be a good and logical replacement for the "drow" in the Abomination Vaults AP. The word "drow" will forever forward be placed in quotes when referencing a Golarion race now, as we know better...mwahaha....

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

Thanks for adding rhe clarity and insight from the design side- the side we only peek at! As another refugee from D&D, a game I loved for years, and love Golarion and hate to see it change. I DO like a lot of the new stuff, just will take getting used to. Will there be a new thing to replace the drow? A Golarion thing?

Fun Fact: in the 90s I didn't allow drow in my home games because they were a Forgotten Realms and everyone was obsessed with them, lol

It's been hinted at quite a few times that the drow mythology on Golarion was created as a 'cover' for ancient civilizations allegedly destroyed by the Azlanti and Cyclopean empires.

One of the more reliable sources about Darklands sorts of things was also doing his level best to suppress knowledge of some of the dangers in an effort to secure against them/prevent those dangers from being aware they'd been 'found out'.

He even quit his job in furious protest over it when his bosses decided to go to press anyways.

Eando Kline

THIS... thiss is what I came for! Now I musssst ssssssilencsssse you and ssssslip back to my vault in Sssssssekamina....

Getting the remastered rules out as fast as we did was already a tricky enough thing. Doing the same sort of deep dive into the lore would have required many more books added to the schedule which would have even further pushed things out, AND would have created the perception that all of our previous lore content was out of date, which is not good. Rules change every edition and (to a lesser extent with every errata), but the lore needs to stay as stable as possible.

It's not as much a missed opportunity as a deliberate choice aimed at self-preservation, personal preference, time management, and a desire to avoid the perception that we were trying to cash-grab or milk money out of our loyal customers.

Remember, the rules are free online. Customers don't HAVE to buy the...

Thanks for adding rhe clarity and insight from the design side- the side we only peek at! As another refugee from D&D, a game I loved for years, and love Golarion and hate to see it change. I DO like a lot of the new stuff, just will take getting used to. Will there be a new thing to replace the drow? A Golarion thing?

Fun Fact: in the 90s I didn't allow drow in my home games because they were a Forgotten Realms and everyone was obsessed with them, lol

We try not to do in-game explanations for standard errata or full edition changes (with the Remaster living between those two extremes, but being far closer to errata than an edition change), because the number of times that a game goes through those changes is so frequent that if we had to explain them in-setting every time, it would make the setting feel ridiculously impermanent and chaotic. Instead, our goal is to make sure that whatever we do to change the rules, that they work to keep the stories we want to tell the same, thematically, going forward.

Otherwise we might as well just start over from scratch and build an entire new campaign setting each time, and that's not feasible.

I get that, and I appreciate what Pauzo is and the circumstances that have come about due to ... everything. But things do feel impermanent and chaotic when things keep changing. Little tweaks and rules are one thing, but this is fairly huge. Rulewise, maybe not so much as an edition, but lorewise it's a reboot in some ways. Feels like a missed opportunity to tell more story and document and acknowledge the things that are going away for those who care about such things

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

Chill Touch-->Void Warp is now ranged and has no effect on undead

Ray of Enfeeblement--->Enfeeble no longer requires a spell attack roll (relevant for the Magus' Spellstrike)
...and other spells with boosted damage or effects that may outstrip legacy spells, like Acid Spash--->Caustic Blast, again no spell attack and now is an AoE instead of just splash damage.
These are the things I notice immediately as they affect my necromagus build, now possibly imperiled if my GM goes to Remastered.
Spells definitely work differently.

Finoan is correct. Nothing is changed.

But you know what's funny? Even if it had really changed exactly as you've wrote? You ask about changes in fiction, in-universe. Everything you give as an example, even if true, changes absolutely nothing at all in-universe. Fiction hasn't changed.
Fiction and story don't know what 'spell attack roll' is.
Fiction and story can't distinguish between AoE and splash damage.
Fiction and story don't care if it were 'negative' or 'void' damage when it's the same thing, and especially if you use one version. Or if using both they can be synonyms. Or different people in-universe could use different words.
Fiction and story mostly don't care about spells' names either: basically any caster already can name their spells as they like.
So no, 'spells' don't work differently at all.

Synonyms, fine. Characters are unaware of game mechanics, yes. However, spell attack is a prerequisite for the Magus Spellstrike feature without a specific feat, and there are noted differences in how some spells affect undead. That is in fact different.

And by "goes to Remastered" that apparently means that anything that isn't republished in Player Core or GM Core is no longer available.

That isn't the intent of the Remaster. Player Core could not possibly be a compendium of everything that was published for Pathfinder2e.

Saying that it is would involve removing everything from Guns and Gears, Secrets of Magic, and Dark Archive at the very least. I'm not entirely sure what a Necromagus is, but if it is built on the Magus class, losing Secrets of Magic would kill the build more than just renaming a few spells would.

-----

So if those spells haven't been 'removed' in the Remaster, what exactly is the in-game difference between the drop of Player Core and the drop of Secrets of Magic? Both added spells to the game.

Spells that automatically are redirected to a new version on apps we use to run campaigns make it difficult to utilize legacy content, suggesting these are meant to replace said content.i. my examples above, the changes are more than skin-deep. Some may be better, sure, but it has already thrown off some builds and the Remaster preference of the apps and sites makes using legacy content more complicated. Perhaps this will change.

I don't like when they change my thing, it's WotC's fault my thing is different, HATE THIS WITH ME! [/rant]

Just kidding. Thanks all for entertaining my musings, honestly this has helped me start to see things differently. Being 45 with rampant ADHD doesn't help when the sands I stand on shift suddenly, but these forums do. Thanks all.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I say "warped" as in they are different than they have been, and spells work differently than they have. This suggests a specific magical anomaly that could at least be alluded to and I could deal.

Ok. In which way do spells work differently?

(Because they don't. At all. Especially in-setting as magic never was completely solved science. Even arcane.)

Chill Touch-->Void Warp is now ranged and has no effect on undead

...and other spells with boosted damage or effects that may outstrip legacy spells, like Acid Spash--->Caustic Blast, again no spell attack and now is an AoE instead of just splash damage.

These are the things I notice immediately as they affect my necromagus build, now possibly imperiled if my GM goes to Remastered.

Spells definitely work differently.

The dragons are not warped. We will just focus on ones that have not been in the spotlight before.

Just like everyone took Magi, Oracles and Witches in the setting in stride without batting an eye that we never knew they existed before.

I say "warped" as in they are different than they have been, and spells work differently than they have. This suggests a specific magical anomaly that could at least be alluded to and I could deal.

Also, I don't take these things in stride very well- I waited anxiously for the release of chara ter options to support my preexisting characters is PF2 and STILL await several options that have yet to return (ninja, samurai, bloodmage maybe?). Hard to explain why these characters disappear for a while while the book is at the printer, lol

From experience, sweeping in-universe rationales for game mechanic changes tend to be extremely awkward and rarely (if ever) satisfying to read or experience. Especially given that often these universes don't tend to work all that hard to remain rules compliant in the first place.

It's also not always practical. Like consider your request re: Drow. If the point of removing Drow is to disentangle official setting material from other licenses and IP, then telling a story about where all the Drow went is literally undermining that.

I dunno- I think an attempt at explaining the sudden changes is more satisfying than none at all. I do get your second point though. IP issues like drow could be alluded to and replaced by other creatures, I like the false report idea. I'd like to see a lot more background about these "cavern elves" that appeared in PF2, serpent men and svartalfar could explain the rest. I wanna know about the dragons and magic- as creatures of magic, a disturbance in the fabric of reality would warp them as well... I WANT to like it, just gimme something more than "see the errata and GM Core" Even ther titles feel soulless.

As a longtime player, one of the most jarring things to the continuity of a game world in which our campaigns exist is a new edition or a remaster. Even when the changes are good for the game, it shatters continuity of storytelling. Why not make an in-game rationale for why things are changing? Tell me where the drow went, what evolved the dragons, what warped magic! Was there another Earthfall level event? A war of the gods? Maybe it was to gain freedom from a corrupt cabal of Sorcerers by the Sea... just gimme something to work with and and I'm in!

The sticking point here (pun vigorously intended) is intent. Is dealing this extra damage a willful, intentional act? Critical hits etc are fate, Yada Yada, but precision implies... striking precisely- can this be done without intent? I feel like that's a no. This "wound" was reopened talking to the OP poster earlier.

That said, I fired a crossbow stating to shoot a leg. It should've been at a -2, but oopsie! Going forward, I feel like PCs shouldn't be co.ing at each other with pointy things unless we mean it!

Thirdly, I can totally see doing nonlethal damage with blades or even bullets (but a fleshwound!), but maybeit could be argued precision damage is the potential for massive damage (shoot, he didn't even TRY to dodge that!).

I'm good either way

So again, as the rogue in question who made the attack, I feel I understand this now. I spoke to the GM and we came to the conclusion that his ruling was very fait, if at first it seemed odd. My character stated I was going to shoot my crossbow at my ally's leg, which in fairness should've been at a -2 for a nonlethal attack but we all missed this. Making the attack was my choice, as was the weapon in question (agile, finesse, or ranged which triggers Sneak Attack), and opting to use nonlethal or not. That's on me. Also, if I had crit, or done so with a Deadly or Fatal weapon, that damage would've applies without question

Now, consider shooting into melee, or or otherwise hitting an ally accidentally with such a weapon- all damage would apply, yes? The possibility of lethal force due to the nature of the weapon (Fatal, Deadly, etc) or training (Sneak Attack, monk Powerful Fist etc.)is always there and a calculated risk accepted when I struck an ally. I'm good with this ruling.

I was the rogue in this fight. Seemed weird to me to lose agency in something that requires precise (and to my mind, intentional) damage. When you consider that the Confused condition imposes the Flt-Footed condition as well, there would be no way for a character with the sneak attack ability to avoid using it under a strict ruling.

These are rock solid. The familiarity is a great starting point, and does a good job of making them immediately accessible.

Did you re-flavor them at all? The only downside is that there's nothing overtly "fantasy-ish" going on.

I work at an actual casino and am running a session where the PCs (many of whom work there with me) visit one in-game. I will be substituting video poker/blackjack with a holographic dealer (hard light construct) for flavor and am looking for a few other ideas as well. These minigames are great!

The mitflits are likely foraging the swamp. The upper and middling denizens include many undead, outsiders, and aberations that can presumably subsist for long periods (or indefinitely) between meals. Also recall there are tunnels connecting to the Darklands here, so inter-faction predation supported by wildlife and wanderers that come in from these tunnels should suffice till the farms and hunting grounds are accessible in the lower third.

My party just whooped up on Urevian (partially due to a bad call on my part involving Wall of Force and line of effect rules for spells, but I digress...)

Is there really no treasure listed for him?

The whole "this race of people are just innately evil" was always irksome less because it's offensive and more because it's lazy.

I think some of this comes from original authors of books, games, etc. created heroes and villains- and told the story from the side of the heroes without much detail given to the other. This is fine for video game minions but becomes problematic when history is treated this way. Fans are now asking for deep explanations of motivating forces for every monster in the book, partially because they want to play them (as I do often), but innate evil is another separate rabbit hole. How about genetic tendency toward aggression, cultural practice of demon worship and/or cannibalism? These are tendencies, but not inviolate rules, but they set a default for monstrous races that I really don't see an issue with.

The problem then is at this point we either just trash pretty much any flavour from the ancestries or we cut from the past by rebranding them. If orcs, drow etc are always going to be problematic due to what some people 10 years ago wrote then they might as well just be cut.

Strong disagreement. Orcs and drow were written as enemies, their species influenced by evil outsiders and/or cultivated specifically for nefarious purpose. You're special exceptional character (Drizzt) was a breakout requiring story explanation. Rebranding feels a cheap fix to imagined parallels to real world humans that these fictional species are not.

A lot of the "wrong ancestry" argument comes from optimizers- a halfling barbarian who exceeds an orc barbarian given the cultural and genetic tendencies for each species is exceptional, legendary even. Why cheapen that?

How about this: a special rune or container that allows a [i]set[i/] of shuriken, chakri, or similar thrown items of negligible bulk to be placed inside and attuned (invested) so that they share a rune?

Counterpoint:

Flies, being monstrous creatures with animal intelligence, are gonna do what flies are going to do...

...which could include just flying off into the swamp where there are most certainly a population of hundreds more just like them doing whatever they do.

The Devils in your example, OTOH, can be negotiated with...

...BUT are the epitome of Evil and will, by their very nature, try to twist any deal to corrupt the souls of all they can and send them to Hell.

What if you had something that applied runic qualities to a set of shuriken/chakri/etc.? Not an endless pouch or glove, but these 5/10/whatever pieces are +1 striking kinda like the way special materials cover several pieces for the same price?

The Balance stereotype comes up semi regularly in discussions of Neutrality, but the lord of the setting suggests that, by and large, concerning oneself with the balance if the cosmos is not the hallmark of True Neutral. This is much more a D&D/Greyhawk-ism, though there is at least an extremely nice place for it in the worship of the inscrutable Monad.

Even so, while I would not object to there being an option to play Balance-of-Good-and-Evil Champions in the Neutral or Lawful branches, I would very much rather it not become the default concern of neutral champions. Pharasmas job may at least approach the concept of a balanced cosmos, but she is not the enforcer of that balance, nor are the balances with which Nethys and Gozreh concern themselves anything to do with alignment.

True- and Nethys and Gozreh are much better candidates for focus on domain/theme because they're about magic and nature in an amoral sense, regardless of the extremes of alignment. "Unaligned" feels as appropriate here as Neutral.

Of course, even on this page not everyone agrees what the core of Law and Chaos really mean so no doubt others may hold different visions.

As far as the gods go, I personally consider Law/Chaos, Good/Evil as cosmic forces that bind the universe and the characters' alignment being how aligned they are with those forces (intentionally or not). The subjective good/evil a person may do or feel deed-to-deed is with little "g" and "e", the grand average of their soul is what counts in my reckoning.

I've been thinking about the whole concept of neutral champions, and the quandary that designers have said they've had with creating content for them, because neutrality has this whole-middle-of-the-road / not passionate-about-anything reputation.

But that's a fallacy. No one is neutral about everything. Think about one of the most neutral deities of all, Pharasma, and how passionate she is about preserving the cycle of souls and fighting the abomination of undeath. Alignment aside, this is a deity with a CAUSE.

So if we're going with champions that are neither evil nor good, maybe we should be building those champions around different sorts of passions rather than just determining your cause by your alignment.

I would love to see neutral champions that fight to maintain cosmic balance between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. True Neutral could be the end-all perfect harmony of All. Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral could champion Law and Chaos with little regard for Good or Evil. In the absence of the greater Good/Evil, Law, Chaos, and Balance become their cause. I DO like the idea of specific champions for specific gods, domains, or themes.

Events have come about that have prompted a somewhat shady challenger to run against the current respected mayor of the town our campaign is set in, as well as one of my PCs entering the race. The challenger has recently gained some headway and respect, and the incumbent mayor has recently had to deal with some troubling familial matters (but this has cost him both focus and funding for his campaigning). My party is currently exploring the megadungeon near town (and likely to soon trigger events that directly and adversely affect one or more participants), and the election I set for two weeks hence.

How would you run this election? I am leaning toward two political debate mini-games wherein my PC-candidate makes skill checks against the other two, with options for the other PCs to assist by working the crowd, digging up dirt on the opponents, glowing testimonials of the PC's deeds, etc.

I want to make this fun and interactive, but I am cool with anyone winning. Campaign specific details with minor AV spoilers posted in this thread.

Advice appreciated!

I actually started using Christmas wrapping paper! Many have 1" grid on the back and are perfect for maps, they can be obtained cheap after Christmas and/or at dollar stores, and have jarringly festive prints to balance the gloom and doom you'll be scrawling on the reverse side, mwahaha...

I really love this stuff- I work with my daughter and her crayons, I do the line work, she draws and colors the furnishings. I purchased a roll of plastic that covers my map and allows for dry erase markers to be used, and you can put blank sheets under or over the plastic to add "fog of war" in unexplored regions. I no longer do this, however, I simply place "dummy tiles" over secret doors/regions.

I didn't fully understand what you were after in my first reading and response post- you have kept the encounter difficulty the same yet dispersed the challenge amongst several monsters rather than a single creature. This is similar in philosophy to adding creatures to balance an encounter for additional players rather than applying the elite template to a single creature. Thank you for sharing this, and my apology for not seeing this sooner!

Events have come about that have prompted Carman Rajani to run against Oseph Menhemes yet again for mayor of Otari, as well as one of my PCs entering the race. Carman has the Cooperative Blade and Oseph's daughter is safe (but this has cost him both focus and funding for his campaigning). My party is currently exploring the Prisons on level 7, and the election I set for two weeks hence.

How would you run this election? I am leaning toward two political debate mini-games wherein my PC-candidate makes skill checks against the other two, with options for the other PCs to assist by working the crowd, digging up dirt on the opponents, glowing testimonials of the PC's deeds, etc.

I want to make this fun and interactive, but I am cool with anyone winning. It would be especially devious if Carman was in the lead as the team nears the end of the Prisons, don't you think? Mwahahaha...

Advice appreciated!

I'm loathe to set my encounters on Easy Mode,but will add monsters for groups larger than 4 players (or adjust XP down accordingly). I feel like the monsters that are written to be there ARE there- it's up to the players to handle them (or come back later).

I'm not above the free archetype option which provides wonderful utility to small groups without breaking game balance, and also letting players hire NPC mercenaries from town if need be. This can be an NPC of the group level or two that are 2 levels below (the math works out).

@Rysky- we can converse and even disagree without the snark.

@CorvusMask- "I don't really see why there needs to be playable ancestry that is always chaotic evil..." ALWAYS would be terrible, DEFAULT to vary from is what I'm after. It's OK if that's the norm, but this character, or even this story is different!

@keftiu- I feel like the only dissenting voice and you seem to speak for what most here seem to want, so I see no need to argue difference opinions. I always enjoyed homebrewing things to be different, rebelling against the expectation with monsters, but when it becomes the norm it feels less special I guess. Very, VERY different from the games I grew up with.

How many times can you do that story, though? The first Drizzt novel came out in 1988 - the singular good guy Drow in a world that hates and fears his kind has been a fantasy genre mainstay for coming up on 40 years.

...but what of the players that never experienced that because unlike me (and maybe you) they're under 40 years old?

Sometimes, you just want to play a Gnoll because you think hyenas are cute, or you reach for a Hobgoblin because you like the sound of being a military-trained alchemist - demanding those characters all have suspicion baked into their stories is frustrating and limiting. All of these published Ancestries are meant to be used! It’s a big, fantastical world out there in Golarion, and there’s places for damn near anything to find a home.

Sure, but then there really needs to be some differentiation between these races to make them into the different species that they are, otherwise it feels like a great big costume party- humans in funny suits trope.

I get the desire for one big happy world, but adventure often comes in response to adversity. I LOVE playing around and through difficulties, but this isn't everyone's style. I LOVE when characters break stereotypes, but they have to exist to stand out against them.

I don't see why in the world you couldn't do this.

You are especially good at riding traditional goblin mounts. You gain the Ride feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Nature checks to use Command an Animal on a goblin dog or wolf mount. You can always select a wolf as your animal companion, even if you would usually select an animal companion with the mount special ability, such as for a champion’s steed ally.

Prerequisites Ride

You've undertaken the ultimate challenge of the Mammoth Lords and tamed a megafauna. You gain a megafauna you tamed as a young animal companion. Your megafauna animal companion must be a megafauna; see the What Counts as Megafauna? sidebar for guidance and examples. While an animal companion usually starts as Small, you can begin with a Medium version of that animal (changing no statistics other than its size)...

Who cares about the mount ability? ...BUT as it states "You are especially good at riding traditional goblin mounts" I'd let you run it, balance-schmalance. You ARE a goblin, after all!

You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can't move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it's especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.

There will need to be some monsters left to fight. I was kinda annoyed with the sudden acceptance of goblins, and the frequency of casual tieflings everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE playing monstrous races, but I feel to take away the struggle for acceptance in the civilized world robs them of an important character-building experience (and one that many players can relate to). I certainly don't love racism or xenophobia, but the struggle (and victory) over such forces for the monsters who overcome their circumstances of birth is something I prefer to put in the hands of players rather than cannon.

They found out about THAT only afterward, but one player (a passive, less experienced RPer) destroyed the band's instruments in the midst of the challenge which started the fight. Quite a mess.

I think diversity makes things more fun/interesting in general, but I'm against rote "party balance" for its own sake. I prefer a more organic, story-driven party composition. Play what you want and enjoy the results. Unless the group is hand-picked by an outside force, it doesn't make sense to always have a formulaic party.

The band are interesting NPCs, negotiation-capable, and you can show them later in the campaign. Probably not even evil, so 'monsters' doesn't seem deserved (I don't know precisely, because I'm not the GM). We rather like them as players. So maybe total massacre isn't needed? :)

I could only hope, but if they go for chaos, I'll give it to 'em. Annoyingly, it's mainly one player driving this bus, another who just wants to play and will be content either way, and 3 more passive RPers

Oh, fair.

I think the best option 3 is to jsut let people choose. A spray of bludgeoning water is fine, but no reason to shut out the ice mages to let it happen.

I completely agree. I feel like these are possibly subdomains of the water element, as lightning could be seen as being of air OR arguably fire. See also Azula.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I will ALWAYS favor theme and cool over balance e3very time

Cool and thematic like three different flavors of bludgeoning damage? Not buying it.

No no, THIS treatment isn't right either, my point is that THAT one wasn't either. We need an option 3 (which, I guess, is why I included it in the middle of the word "every")

I understand the desire to diversify the damage types, but I HATED the PF1 system:
Fire = Fire damage, obviously
Air = electrical damage. Maybe? Lightning is in the air, but...
Water = cold damage- yeah, ice, but what about hot water? Steam?
Earth = acid damage!?!? Straight-up NO from me! It felt very bluntly like 4 elements into 4 damage types was just another square peg forced a into a round hole for mechanical balance.

I will ALWAYS favor theme and cool over balance e3very time- the four elements may not all dish the same damage. Some should be more utilitarian or defensive imho. But hey, I don't work here, I just play here, haha

We resume our game this tomorrow with my party of 5 (level 6 consisting of an investigator, witch, summoner, rogue, and gunslinger) intent on going in guns blazin' into a bar filled with monsters. The logic, as explained to me, is "we'll have to fight them all at some point anyway, might as well get the jump on 'em". They have "recruited" a surly skulk NPC, promising him the fight he craves with the tavern manager, but his allegiance to their cause is flimsy at best.

The text implies the band (of monsters which is playing at the time they enter) should flee if violence breaks out and that the manager will take a few rounds to join the fray, but I dunno... I kinda don't wanna make it so easy for them to just go in and mow 'em down in little chunks. As I've estimated their odds based on the encounter difficulty tables, taking on everyone at once would be an Extreme challenge, and I'm thinking of having the skulk hold out and fight the manager 1v1 anyway.

What do you all think? how would you run it?

(note: should things go TPK, they have alternate characters waiting in a nearby lab on the same level that could possibly join to mount a rescue...maybe)

This is fantastic info, thanks so much !! And I'm thrilled to hear that Iron was your favourite to play. Would you be so kind to tell me more about that ? What made it your favourite ?

I really loved the whole concept of a martial character enhanced by magic. My character studied with wizards and warriors and took what he could from both lessons. We also had a houserule for spellstrikes that a 10-over crit affected the spell OR the attack, but a at 20 affected BOTH (we use Critical Hit & Fumble decks). I felt very rockstar when the dice lined up!

Wow, Scythe ? I'd never even thought to try that. How was that to play ? Did you find you had the actions to use Trip much ? Or was it more of a backup thing ? Did you do ok without Reach ?

I used a scythe mainly because it was thematic for my concept rather than advantageous, but it performed wonderfully, however, I recently played a polearm fighter in a one-shot and think you're about to have a great time! Don't forget that Assurance: Athletics let's you ignore the multiple attack penalty on Trip (it uses 10+ your proficiency ONLY) so it's great for a 3rd action trip attack.

Yes I was definitely planning on doing this. Question, when you open with it in this way, would you use the reaction if you get hit, or would you hold off b/c you want to be able to cast it again later in the fight ?

At the moment I'm imagining that if I cast it, and I got hit, I'd really want to use it, even if that means I can't cast it again for 10 rounds, b/c I think I'll need the durability, and also I probably won't have the actions to cast it again afterwards.

How did you do it ?

I only burst the shield when I felt I I couldn't take the hit, but with those free temp HP each round, this is easier to do. Just weigh the +1 AC for 1 action each round vs. the ability to absorb 5-10 HP one time.

This is fascinating to me actually. I'm not sure about using Expansive Spellstrike, but I have a few levels to see how I feel about it I guess. I'm leaning towards starting with 18 Str, and then 14 in Int & Con and just 12 Dex. Does that sound ok ?

Sounds great, and with your wizard archetype, you'll probably want to pass on my alternate build and get that INT up when you can. My wife has an Iron Magus with STR 16, DEX 12, CON 14, INT 12, WIS 12, CHA 12

Fighter doesn't have to be as bland as some may unintentionally make them sound. They don't have to be one-trick ponies! Pick a weapon or two you like with useful traits- say, a polearm with Reach and Trip. Take all the feats that get the most out of these, like Lunge and Assurance: Athletics. You'll be surprised how much utility you'll get at range, Tripping with your 3rd action, flanking with the champion for big damage- just have back up weapons/tricks in case something gets broken or doesn't work with an enemy type you weren't expecting!

I played a scythe-wielding Inexorable Iron Magus, a Sparkling Targe in another campaign, as well as helping build a number of other types. I found a couple interesting points to consider for Iron Magus (my favorite so far):

1. Arcane Cascade stance is great, and gives the Iron Magus temp HP each round. The extra damage is just a cherry on top, until it exploits an enemy weakness- then it's pure gold. As a stance, you only need activate it once during combat and will remain in stance until knocked down, disarmed, etc. OR you can re-enter stance after casting a different spell to change your extra damage type. (I like to think of it like residual dweomer from your spell captured by your weapon's movements).

2. Shield is a solid cantrip for you because you can use it with your two handed weapon, and it adds Force damage to your strikes. When in doubt, open with this cantrip and enter Arcane Cascade stance. Safe and defensive, and almost all monsters are affected by force damage.

3. Unless you plan to use Expansive Spellstrike or cast a lot of spells outside of Spellstrike (which you might, with your stated wizard free archetype) you don't really have to have a high INT. Spellstrike requires your weapon to hit (that's STR for Iron Magus or maybe DEX for others). Unless it requires a saving throw your INT doesn't really matter for most spells. Some add damage per spellcasting modifier, yes, but by and large you don't HAVE to. Just pick spells that don't depend upon INT for damage and have no saves, round out with a few utility spells (summons, buffs) and you're fine.

Something to chew on, anyway.

We resume our game this Sunday with my party of 5 (level 6 consisting of an investigator, witch, summoner, rogue, and gunslinger) intent on going in guns blazin'. The logic, as explained to me, is "we'll have to fight them all at some point anyway, might as well get the jump on 'em". They have "recruited" the skulk arena champ from the spa, promising him the fight he craves with the Warped Brew manager, but his allegiance to their cause is flimsy at best.

The text implies the band should flee if violence breaks out and that the manager will take a few rounds to join the fray, but I dunno... I kinda don't wanna make it so easy for them to just go in and mow 'em down in little chunks. As I've estimated their odds based on the encounter difficulty tables, taking on everyone at once would be an Extreme challenge, and I'm thinking of having the skulk hold out and fight the manager 1v1 anyway.

What do you all think? how would you run it?

(note: should things go TPK, they have alternate characters waiting in Jafaki's lab on the same level that could possibly join to mount a rescue...maybe)

Correction- just got dropped by skeletal champions, haha

I've been hit with burst heals, but have a channel protection amulet. I really haven't taken much damage due to the reach of my halberd and Lunge feat, and the fact that the zombies haven't been keen to attack me (but they have when I waded into the hordes).