BotBrain's page

/QUOTE]

Battlecry! was never the "Martials" book. It's the "War" book. Aesir Bloodline, a military wizard, and Necromancer raising their own pseudo-troop make perfect sense. Swarm Eidilon is a little bit of a curve ball, I'll admit.

Yeah this really can't be stressed enough. Calling it "the martial book" was always something that was imposed on it by the community, really. I don't think it was a wrong assumption, but I do think calling it that is about as misleading as calling WoI "the divine book". It is, but it also isn't.

That being said if we got a martial book, especially one focused on a bunch of feats for most martial classes, I wouldn't complain.

Yeah unless I'm missing something, I don't see the problem posed for psychics here. An amp cantrip is "using a focus point", no?

Edit:
Wait hold on I'm dense I missed the slowed part.

Even so, depending on the situation, that's a trade I'd take. I still don't see why that's a psychic problem and not a problem for every caster.

Now, the real cheese is with innate spells. There's gotta be some nonsense available there.

What classes could they add stuff too?

Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.

Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.

Magus: Add some magus feat options.

Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.

Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.

Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.

Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.

Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.

What other classes have weak or limited feat options?

Magus NEEDS duel wielding support. Come on, it'd be so cool.

I wouldn't mind it. Lots of non-core classes could use some more feats and stuff.

Dark Archive is coming next year, so we're only waiting on Magus and Summoner.

Huh. I thought it was going to get rolled into sosmething else given WoI reprinted its oracle and witch mysteries.

I wonder if they'll double reprint or remove them to make space for rejigging things.

Yeah as NorrKnekten noted, we've had replacements for replacements by now. Arcanist is now arguably a flexible casting wizard, shaman is part of animist's schtick, spirtualist got rolled into summoner.

So I don't think a "skald" is forever out the question, it might just not look like or called a skald anymore. An occult wave caster (I.e Magus meets bard) could be really fun!

Ooh this makes me want to play a guardian so badly.

It's probably a mistake but I hope they keep it, it's pretty funny to imagine Hei Fong ranting at Ranginori about it, despite Rangiori hardly knowing who he is.

Divine Mysteries also has a writeup on sakhil tormentors, which could give you some ideas.

Obviously the name conjures the impossible lands, so it's possible the framing device of this book will be a looming war between nex and geb, or an actual war between the two.

This would certainly explain the necromancer. If you're doing a book about Geb, you put in necromatic options.

The real snag to this theory is runesmith. If necromancer represents geb, runesmith would represent nex, which doesn't make much sense. Dougun hold if you squint, sure, but that's not much of a match anyway.

So it could be a red herring and it's just a more generic book about magic or something.

Can we start calling it descriptive text and ditch the word flavor.

You can't eat the words and taste them.

I broke into paizo's warehouse and ate the books but that's a seperate issue

Also no site which tracks differences between the remastered and previous versions mentions anything about a change in size and reach rules.

Thanks for any clarification with sources.

The large PC rules are from howl of the wild, a post-remaster book. There are no pre-remaster rules for this, as PCs that are by default large did not exist until howl of the wild.

BotBrain wrote:

One of my big wishes for a hypothetical PF3e or some kind of PF2.5 (.75?) is an overhaul of the profiency system, especially for weapons. It doesn't really feel fit for purpose anymore. It could be as radical as the requirements you noted, or my personal idea i've been tinkering with in my off-time is some-kind of point based system where each class can "spend" points to get weapon profiencies at character creation. So a wizard could go all in for a martial weapon and be left with nothing else, whilst a fighter could pick from a large swathe of weapons.

It's never made much sense to me that a level 1 character is able to use virtually any weapon they find, even if it's completley different from what they're usually using.

Eh, what's been found out through actual play is that most characters only need one-two weapons - a melee weapon and a ranged one, if you're being spicy two melee weapons for dual wielding. Having proficiency in three weapons and proficiency in all weapons is a smaller gap than one to two, the wizard with one martial weapon is 70% of the way to the fighter with 4 and the druid with two is 90%

And it makes stuff awkward with random loot weapons if the GM doesn't change the weapon type and begs the question of why switching from a shortsword to a longsword is exactly as difficult as from a shortsword to a shortbow (or maybe it isn't, which is it's own bag of issues).

Mmm, that's a good point. I hadn't considered that.

In regards to weapons, the design of simple / martial / advanced is vestigial now that there aren't "half-martials" in PF2e like the rogue used to be in 3.X / PF1e and now even bards can have access to martial weapons too. I would really love for a similar approach to what I described with armor would be applied to weapons too, with some weapons like advanced weapons probably having both Str and Dex requirements if necessary. Again, in PF2e casters don't really have a reason to gish other than personal preference, so if a caster takes attribute boosts to become proficient in a few weapons it wouldn't break anything. And this is talking about how these changes would make a difference in PF2e. Assuming PF3e is designed with this in mind from the get go, then less unforeseen cases would appear in such a system.

One of my big wishes for a hypothetical PF3e or some kind of PF2.5 (.75?) is an overhaul of the profiency system, especially for weapons. It doesn't really feel fit for purpose anymore. It could be as radical as the requirements you noted, or my personal idea i've been tinkering with in my off-time is some-kind of point based system where each class can "spend" points to get weapon profiencies at character creation. So a wizard could go all in for a martial weapon and be left with nothing else, whilst a fighter could pick from a large swathe of weapons.

It's never made much sense to me that a level 1 character is able to use virtually any weapon they find, even if it's completley different from what they're usually using.

Yeah calling 5e rules-lite is a bit of an abuse of the term. 5e wants to be both rules-lite and crunchy at the same time and cannot make up its mind as to which one it is. So you get stuff like the gold ecomony being used as a balancing tool, whilst DMs are given zero advice as to how to handle this.

The big meme is that D&D players can't read,

You're telling me. I used to help run a knock-off adventurer's league at university. The things i've seen.

Hasn't daggerheart like, just come out? That'll be the main reason. It's also by the critical role people who are basically the biggest movers and shakers in the DnD space.

However, I do also get unreasonably fustrated at the popular idea that PF2e is somehow absurdly complex*. If you're able to read at a passable level, you can learn it. I'm not saying it's like playing catch but the idea it's ultra-complex seems like the typical r/dndmemes nonsense where a line is repeated constantly without any regard for what is actually true.
(20 as auto-succeeed on a skill check is another good example of this. It's not true, but if you read around certain places, you'd sure think it is).

That being said i'm very selfishly happy with the space PF2e occupies. It's large enough that there's a good sized community but not large enough that it's devolved into the depths of complete nonsense that other large fandoms do.

*And frankly if I feel like being mean, I'd point out how 5e refuses to give DMs anything to work with, making it much harder for first-time DMs to run.

Oh Chk Chk, you've stole my heart.

That's because Adamantine is from Mythology. It can't be trademarked.

Same goes for orichalcum while we're at it.

JiCi wrote:

Agonarchy wrote:

Dragons are a reference to Greek serpents, and then the word and concept evolved and got leggier and wingier, possibly partly due to fossil finds etc. The "Asian dragons" aka the loong likely have a similar origin but developed separately, so are only dragons by convergent cultural evolution.

Oh boy :p

- Dragon -> 4 limbs, 2 wings

- Wyvern -> 2 hind limbs, 2 wings, 1 stinger

- Drake -> 4 limbs, no wing

- Lung -> 4 limbs, no wing, can fly

- Wyrm / Serpent -> no limb, no wing

- Amphithere -> no limb, 2 wings

- Linnorm -> 2 fore limbs, 2 wings

No matter what they tell you, remember: YOU ARE RIGHT! Fantasy definitions must be defended; otherwise, we end up with vampires that glitter in the sun and goblins that look like green elves. If you choose to die on this hill, I will die at your side.

Why are those bad things? Twilight didn't change how vampires are written or depcited in media, and it's very very rare that something does. Nothing was lost.

The idea that fictional concepts need to be locked in one incarnation forever is absurd and would make things like TTRPGs very very boring.

So if Monster Core has eight dragons, and Monster Core 2 claims to have eight more, does that mean only around four new dragons will be in the Dragon Codex, as the twenty dragon statistics includes expansions on those sixteen dragons?

It says "over 20" so I'm going to guess we get 8 more, for a total of 24.

Barnes and Noble must really hate dragon themed suprises. That's a pretty interesting list of features for the Lost Oments book.

Woo! Elemental Barbarian doesn't lock you out of all your impulses. That's made me sad for a while, so thanks for the correction. It's finally tiime to make my big hulk of metal barbarian.

None that I know of. You'll probably have to search around the internet.

I do personally feel like the design of "class that has high AC, but has a really good reaction that requires them to not be targeted" is a bit scuffed and has antisynergy.

That being said, the class features are strong enough on their individual merits that it doesn't really matter if there's antisynergy. It's just a good class.

I've always understood it as the high AC means the champion won't be targeted, so it needs something to punish that and say "Hey! Look at me, not them", and that's where the synergy comes on. You either try and hit the harder target, or go for the squishy and trigger the reaction.

YuriP wrote:

Another problem that I can point about giant whirlwind barbarian is that they compete with casters for AoE space. When we have a sorcerer was common that the giant barbarian player preventing the caster to use AoE effects. . .

Heh. The Sorcerer's answer at our table was, "Here's a Backfire Mantle and two healing potions."

Now that's a true sorcerer player.

My contender is Nevermind. In a campaign we were in, opponents critfailed enough for us to feel bad about the effect. Also, my character got a fail on this.

Oh god I'd never had a proper look at it before. That's disqueting.

The advanced character sheet pack contains sheets for the classes from the advanced players guide.

Unless I'm mistaken though, the character sheets are all pre-remaster, so you might find there's some discontinity between the sheets and the modern remastered rules. (Assuming you're using the remastered rules, that is).

I decided to bring this up because is Spellcasting ca be universal why can't Class DC?

Probably because the rules were written when spellcasting wasn't universal, and it wasn't updated or made clear.

I'm not a big balance guy so i don't have anything on that front but I am in love with the mechanic! Cannot wait to build a turret.

It doesn't look like you have Free Archetype turned on in the Character Options settings of the app. Which oracle feats have you taken / plan to take?

You do have to pay for that.

You could adapt choice segments of iron gods, but that's pf1e as mathmuse said.

1 day to go!!

There's no notification system here, so go crazy.

Avenger is a racket but it seems to work like an archtype in that you have to take Avenger dedication and then 2 more feats. The real thing is if I have fun with it or not.

Aye it's a class archtype. They're a middle ground between an archtype and a subclass.

Finally got my hands on war of immortals and I want to know more about these giants roaming around. I do detect a hint of inspiration from shadow of the collosus and I simply must know more.

It does beg the question why they haven't reprinted them post-remaster though...

Is it really that big of a mine field to reimagine the OGL dragons?

Because it's been a year and a half, give or take. There's been an emphasis on the new dragons in MC1, because they're, well new, and slapping an extra 10 or so dragons in the book would bloat. it.

Since then, I can't think of a single book where you'd print them. It's not a "minefield"

I recall mention of a Rune Dragon in one of the new Pactbinder, sounds like a potential new Dragon

Oh yeah, they're some kind of academic dragon. If only my supervisor was a dragon...

More dragons are always welcome imo. Now that paizo have fully broken away from the chromatic/metallic split, I am very excited to see what we get.

An interesting question- would Moradin be the same as Torag in this campaign?

Obviously, converting every single deity that might be worshiped in this campaign is daunting. I'm not even sure where to begin.

If I were you - i'd only convert what I need. So if a player wants to worship Moradin, convert him. If none of them do, and you don't want to include Moradin worshippers, don't bother.

I mean, would it be hard to just import alignment from unrevised 2e?

Depends how much you want it to do.

If your primary concern is just the effect planes have on other alignments, then you can just have players pick their alignment and give it no mechanical weight outside of any interaactions with the planes.

19?! But I want it now!
Better find some kind of time vortex.

Yeah even if we don't get an ancestry for cyclopses, it's not unprecidented that a heritage gets printed down the line that might as well be its own ancestry. Dokkaebi goblin is probably the best example.

Ditto on the trip/grab focus. I've seen it done before and it's great. The duo i saw was a gunslinger/monk, but anyone who wants to be in melee can do it.

Hm, well I can imagine they'd certainly appreciate a Fear Gem.. Even if your party loves to demoralise, this doesn't count as a demoralise, so you can keep the enemy's AC low for them to hit better.

What other classes are your party members? It would help narrow down some good choices.

You could possibly consider grandmother spider as a deity, if you still want to try this.

She's a god, yes. But she was also mistreated by the gods and not compensated for her work as their weaver of fate. She specifically forbids abuses of power, and encourages independent thought.

While not explicitly stated, it would not be hard to assume this applies to her too, making her less of a divine boss, and more of a divine mentor, or guiding figure, who grants divine power not with the expectation of servitude, but with the idea that followers use it to secure theirs and other's indpendence.

If the idea of divine servitude is upsetting for you, but you want to play a cleric, this is one possible angle.

Obviously - I don't know you - so if this wouldn't work for you, that's fine. I just wanted to give my two cents. :)