Search Posts
Not necessarily, especially if it doesn't have new mechanics, but instead has a remix of old ones. If it's an archtype, which I didn't consider. we could see it, I suppose.
I think there really ought to be language that allows for trophies to be taken non-lethally, or even as quest rewards. It would give GMs another method to smooth out gaps in a Slayer's kit. For example, lets imagine you're in a campaign full of fiends and undead, so all your trophies would be a variation of those themes. If you want something related to celestials, you'd be out of luck. (To say nothing of the roleplay implications of killing an angel!) However, what if by doing a favour for an angel, it gives you a shed wing, giving you access to a trophy. You can see how this would help a slayer out and maybe mitigate the serial killer vibes they give off, especially in a humanoid-heavy campaign.
I feel like if we were gonna get shifter it'd be playtested. I'd love to hope but I just do not see it. That aside I really do hope we get that nephalim but for fey vers heritage people have been hankering for. Edit: the listing says we do, oops.
Adjustment is such a fun trait, I really wish we'd see more of it. With that in mind, I have my own!**Item: Throwing Chain - Item 3**
This is something a player wanted to do once, but there were no rules for it. We never ended up using it but it's one of those things that I reckon people try a fair bit. The intent here is to offer an alternative to the returning rune. You get the extra rune slot, but you sacrifice some range and an action to return it.
I've been mulling over the idea of Daredevil getting some kind of self-heal to simulate the "He's alright folks!" trope. You know, you take a grevious injury, and then stand up again like nothing happened. I don't know how you'd integrate this into the existing chassis, but I thought it was a fun idea. (Also temp hp from adrenaline should come online well before level 19, but i think we all know that)
Even so I think they should still get it for free at level 1. You're a class that's very dependent on your atheltics maenuvers and you're going to be forced into it eventually.
That is the question:
I figured there should probably be a dedicated thread for this because this is going to be the biggest discussion around the two classes. To get us started, I’d like to give my thoughts, but I am conflicted.
Slayer on the other severed monster hand, I just don’t see it. Mark quarry feels like it has very similar problems to investigator where there’s a real chance it just isn’t going to come up, which is the kind of specificity that I really don’t want to see on a class. If this were an archetype feature, this would be more acceptable, as hyper-specific archetypes are common, and people haven’t really had much of an issue with them. It would also let people use the more interesting part of Slayer (Trophies) on any class, which suffers from a similar problem as Daredevil where it really is just something anybody could do.
The feat doesn't explicitly state "You cannot transform into objects with broader mechanical implications", but I think the intent of the feat is very clear that you're only mimicking the form of that object and gaining something like hardness is not the intent. Sure but then we just go back to what I said about intent. The feat clearly intends you to use the tool or item as as a tool, not as a defensive shift. That's what I mean about "Not getting hardness". You have implied hardness because the tool works, sure, but there's no mention about capital H Hardness because that's not what the feat is trying to do.
The key phrase is "Assume that form" not "Gain the statistics of that form", so any strict mechnanical interactions are out. It also doesn't say "You are an object" only that "You can function as that object for allies to use" so being a grain of sand doesn't mean you can be picked up and go invisible. WRT to currency, it's not hard to imagine that the shopkeep you just paid an inordinate sum of currency to would immedietly notice that the platinum coin he was just paid has vanished, and put two and two together. That imo, is just the feat working as intended. You can do trickery but you need to actually get away with it. Finally, I would point you to the following section in player core: Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed. The feat doesn't explicitly state "You cannot transform into objects with broader mechanical implications", but I think the intent of the feat is very clear that you're only mimicking the form of that object and gaining something like hardness is not the intent.
Good thing I'm not naming them then. There's still got be something less anachronistic than daredevil though. That's interesting, I didn't know the roots of the word. I think the problem in my case is that "daredevil" brings up a mental image of like, evel knievel. Perhaps i'll come around as that association diminishes with the more i see.
Good thing I'm not naming them then. There's still got be something less anachronistic than daredevil though.
Braggart seems like a good one. If we didn't have acrobat as an archtype I would have suggested that too.
I mentioned in the thread on quality that I tend to catastrophise at the first sign of trouble, so I'm probably overcompensating, and feel free to idk hit me with a rolled up newspaper if I am, but I really think we should wait to see the classes properly before bemoaning the end times. Daredevil (slightly anarchonisitc name aside) sounds fine. There is definetly overlap with monk and swashbuckler with the emphasis on manevuers, but it looks like it interacts with them in a very different way. I'm honestly more reminded of some wrestling homebrew I've seen for DnD 5e than I am the PF2e monk and swashbuckler, but again, we haven't seen the whole thing, so I could be wrong. Slayer... mmm.... I'm a bit less charitable. Again, need to see it, but it just sounds like it could be an archtype. A big archtype, sure, but I'm not seeing that distinct mechancial hook. I hope that's clear, as I said I'm very bad at keeping a level head when I start deciding that one bad bit of news will ruin a game i can manually change the rules for.
If we're going homebrew, the boring path is to make something with the effect of sanctury but over the whole day. Add a provision that it cannot be used on PCs (or language to that effect) and I'd probably start it off at level 6 or so, but that's a bit of a guess. If I had more time I'd write it up nicely but I hope that suffices as a pitch.
I'm not the biggest fan of it for a couple reasons. One is it can really suck to have a cool archtype locked behind an ancestry (and while GMs can give fiat, this isn't always applicable), and two is I really dislike biological essentiallism in fantasy. I get it is part and parcel to the genre, but a lot of the pf1e racial archtypes were almost entirely cultural, and the limiting felt weird. Now that being said, PF2e has experimented with them (See the highhelm archtypes, ostill host) and I like that they're uncommon with acess for that ancestry, as it retains the cultural and biological flavour without hard limiting it. More of that would be welcome.
I'm really glad I brought that up so fast. Errata for a book published just a few days earlier is a rarity (novum?). It's happened a few times. I assume what happens is it's found as the book is going to print. I remember exemplar dedication was given an errata to be rare pretty swiftly.
This is a false equivalency. Stunned 1 is not meant to end your turn. Stunned 1 being turned into essentially stunned 4 because of timing alone is clearly unintentional. The conditions you mentioned are working as intended when they end your turn. What do I even say? What other condition in the game becomes four times as strong because you did some trickery to time it right? The fact that stun ends your turn sounded like a an oversight where the interaction of gaining short-term loss of acting on your turn was not considered. It makes sense that something that takes up your entire turn ends your turn. It does not make sense that something that takes up one third of your turn ends it. I don't know why you're deferring to what it used to do, because that was, at least from my perspective, very clearly erroneous. I also don't see how Galvanic Chew has anything to do with this. With the errata in mind it just lets you try to waste an enemies action. It's certainly not written based on the assumption it ends the turn there and then. You don't even think it's good if it did!
It's also just a bad interaction. Stunned 1 removes 1 action. It should not remove potentially 4 actions just because of timing. That never made sense. This is a false equivalency. Stunned 1 is not meant to end your turn. Stunned 1 being turned into essentially stunned 4 because of timing alone is clearly unintentional. The conditions you mentioned are working as intended when they end your turn.
It's a bit weird. The way the "Regardless of whether you can already cast spells or gained the ability from this dedication," is seperated out would imply that the prior paragraph is meant to only apply if you can't already cast spells. Which would then imply A. But I'm not super confident either. FWIW if I was your DM i'd let you use interpreation B because an extra cantrip is fun.
I mean then why are you asking, it's not like you need us to tell you what to do. Interpret or adjust the rules as you see fit for your table. That aside I really don't think it's going to be a problem either way you rule it. A thaum probably doesn't want to duel wield anyway, and being able to chose between which weapon your strike with is not enough of an upgrade to do anything. However, reading it as "holding a weapon, including a gauntlet, in their other hand disables the implement" seems like a pretty silly conclusion. The game normally explicitly calls out when you need a free hand. Edit: NVM, implement's empowerment does contain this language. I am the silly one who confused the reaction for implement's empowerment. I do think the gauntlet thing is splitting hairs though, as technically correct as it is.
There is a blood magic archtype from one of the APs: Sanguimancer. It's actually bit weird and experimental and when I first read it I wondered if it was a first attempt at trying something similar later.
Yeah I think it's worth considering the intent of the implements here. The implements are intended to be items held in one hand that (for the most part) block you doing things with that hand that aren't called out in your class or its feats. Though weapons are a bit weird with that given free-hand weapons are viable. Hence, things like shield boss + shield or fused tome are probably going against the intent. Now, would it be a problem if your GM let you ignore that, especially with the tome idea (which is a good idea, I like it), probably not. As Quidest said, that's a lot of investment for not much mechanical weight.
Spell DC will be a bit of a problem, but the occult list does have some great buffs that don't need a DC at all. I quite like time jump, for instance, though there's plenty of options out there. It's a shame you don't have the space and wis for medicine because organsight is always fun (and kinda horrific). I also agree with the above on directed audience, nothing you've got benefits super heavily from it. I'd probably swap that out for something else. If you don't want bard, I'd say marshal. It's really good.
I am getting concerned the more I hear about the working conditions. I wonder if it's something we should make a bigger stink about. I'm aware it's a common problem in gaming and similar industries but I'd love the people making one of my fave things to work proper hours.
Yeah +1 to devs not ad hoc correcting things. Go read sage advice for 5e and you'll see why I think that. No disrespect for jeremy crawford but it's very apparent he was firing off rulings with zero forethought. Maybe for real problems like you mentioned but otherwise.
This is something I’ve been wondering, and I’m going to type out a long response, almost as a way of getting my thoughts in order. I’ll break it up into sections.
What level of quality degradation would be a problem?:
This is the key thing to answer for me. What would “decreased quality” look like? I moved over from 5e in 2023, so it makes sense to consider what made me choose pathfinder over 5e. One was the fact WOTC attempted to destroy the industry, which I’ll get back to later. Thinking about it, there’s three major factors. - I can trust the books to not blindside me with something comically overpowered or disruptive. In my mind this would be something like 5e’s hypnotic pattern. A spell that allows a player to completely swing a fight without any real effort. - The books provide adequate guidance, inspiration and new mechanics for GMs to play with, rather than just being more options for players - I don’t need to excessively meddle with the system to get it to do what I want, and any homebrew I do want to make is simple to integrate and balance. So, has that happened yet? Points 2 and 3 still hold true. The only exception would perhaps be the mythic rules, which if you’re playing with certain class combos, you’ll need some GM fiat to get to work. The rest of the system however remains pretty good at eliminating ambiguity (certain options notwithstanding) and will often call out when something needs GM fiat. Uncommon and Rare are still being used appropriately with the possible exception of exemplar dedication, and that puts a lot of control in my hands as a GM, and I appreciate that. Option 1 is perhaps a bit more difficult to answer. Pathfinder does still have swingy options, but it always has. The closest we get to a hypnotic pattern would be spells in the vein of slow or synthesisa, but those aren’t post-remaster. Blister bomb comes close, maybe. But otherwise, there’s nothing I’ve seen that’s player-facing that is screaming at me to disallow. Spells are certainly starting to trend stronger but given how the number 1 complaint about the system is that casters don’t get to be powerful, I’m willing to play ball a little longer and see if this causes problems down the line. After impossible magic, I think I’m going to be able to form a more solid opinion on that, as we’re going to see SOM spell reprints, and seeing how those change will be informative. How have I found the products themselves?:
I am going to count Player Core 2 as the start of the “post remaster” period, as any book published after that will have been written with the entirely of the remastered core in mind. Saying that, here are the books I’ve purchased since then. - War of Immortals - Battlecry! - Tian Xia Character Guide (+World guide but that was before PC2) - Divine Mysteries - Rival Academies The only book I have been disappointed with was WOI, mostly because I think the mythic mechanics missed the mark. The flavour is excellent but I’m not a fan of having the calling system. I would have rathered just pick the destiny at level 1, perhaps with destiny-neutral feats that relate to given skills. If we were to talk about slipping quality control, I think this is an example of something that really needed a playtest, because there’s so many small issues that needed ironing out, and because of how big they are, I don’t know if we’re going to see clean errata for it. Exemplar dedication is also a questionable decision, but I don’t allow exemplar dedication in my games, so I’ve never seen it in play. We’ve also seen playtests be used to great effect. Guardian was a fantastic 180 from its playtest state, and it does keep me optimistic for other class books, as it seems Paizo do listen to feedback enough to fix the biggest issues. Otherwise, I’ve adored every book I’ve bought, and I’m eager to get my hands on draconic codex. Whatever minor mistakes each book has, and there are some, I don’t think it’s anything out of the ordinary. Remember that arcane cascade didn’t work RAW for years. I also haven’t bought any starfinder books yet, but I have no major objections to anything that has been done over on that side. The classes are well done, and the errata was also mostly excellent and fixed some of my personal pain points with the system. Errata, Communication and other mistakes:
This, I suspect, was the impetus for making this thread. There have been some major stumbles in Errata. Spring 2025 was a major disappointment compared Winter 2024, which was generally excellent and fixed many real problems (Including some massive magus buffs, which I think people have forgotten Paizo did). Then, the lack of any Winter 2025 errata stung, especially since it seems Paizo didn’t feel there were any issues worth fixing. While I am normally on the side of “A lot of these issues are probably not that big a deal”, there are a couple of issues like Oracle Spells that are not so clear cut. The handling of imaginary weapon has also given me pause, because it doesn’t feel very intentionally done. I feel like three fixes were proposed and all three were thrown at the problem, rather than taking the cleanest option of disabling amp cantrip + spellstrike. Communication has also been annoying. Maya has done a great job since she joined the team, but even then xe can’t really tell us what we want to know sometimes. (No disrespect to Maya there, it’s the nature of the job. If Xe spoiled everything, or told us things that are in progress, it’d be a bigger problem), especially in relation to the things we really want to know, such as what’s going on with Tech Core and the Starship playtest, or whether certain pressing errata candidates are being considered. The worst offender for this was rogue saves, which really needed to be cleared up much sooner. The fact that announcements often do not go up on the website until days after Paizo lives is also frustrating. Twitch is not a good medium for scanning for specific bits of information, and as I refuse to use reddit, I’m often out of the loop for a few days. Paizo as a company:
There’s also been a couple things Paizo the institution has done. The CUP scuffle was unnecessary and while it ended okay, I’m still side-eyeing that entire situation. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it was an OGL-imposed hasty decision, but I do not owe companies my loyalty and it is something I’m going to keep an eye on. I don’t use the store at all, but the second-hand opinion I’ve gained of it is also poor. The Opt-out instead of opt-in for the subscription is bad and doing it before a book people may not want to buy is scummy. I’m also alarmed by the comments I’ve read that Paizo staff are working 11 hour days, and I think that should stop. Businesses need to make money, and I understand that, but this shouldn’t happen, and if it costs us an extra book a year, that’s fine with me. This is probably the thing in this post that would make me quit soonest, as it’s already in an unacceptable, though tragically common, state. So, am I worried? I don’t know. I am genuinely delighted with probably 90% of Paizo’s output, but the concerns remain around that 10% which gives me a lingering sense of doubt. I would be curious to hear from some of the long-time players around here, as I suspect by the standards of the forum, I am quite young, with a tiny TTRPG career. Are these concerns things that have happened before? Not to overshare on a forum, but I'm a very anxious and paranoid person, so I'm very much prone to thinking everything is about to go wrong, but this writeup seems to me to not be the most dammning indicitment. As I said, I'm conflicted.
I don't think its as unlikely as it used to be. We're definetly seeing an increased amount of post-release support for non-core classes in the past few books. Magus, Inventor, Thaumaturge and Summoner have all got stuff in the past year. That's not bad, by paizos standards anyway. (Also non-core ancestries have been thrown bones, that's really good to see). I would urge caution against hoping for new options to fix the class, we'll probably get new stuff eventually but it's not going to solve a lot of people's pain points.
A Regenerating your vials aren't an exploration activity, you don't need to declare you're doing it, and in narrative you are picking plants or mixing vials every now and again. There's no reason that would significantly slow you down. It is no different to other abilites that naturally return over time. We're not "ignoring" the bolded text, it just doesn't apply here. In addition, there's no reason to limit it, and limiting it is a massive nerf to alchemsists that just isn't warrented. This would also make having an alchemist in the party painful, and actively punish the party for it.
They made it force damage and dropped it one damage die, and it is only one unique cantrip that never worked as a “bread and butter” combat spell (for the psychic). Its adjustment barely affects the psychic at all. If you want to be a blasty psychic you go oscillating wave. Shield is the powerhouse psi cantrip of tangible dream. I don't nessercarily agree with dropping the damage but force damage is just not resisted by 99% of creatures, which is why force options tend to have decreased damage.
I am hopeful that the returing spells will see some pretty liberal revisions. If we're honest, there's a lot of spells in secret of magic that are just... bad... But yeah I'm a little apprhensive about how much of this will be "new" stuff. If Magus and Summoner are reprinted mostly as is (and I'm going to be honest with everyone, I really think that's what's going to happen.*) it's going to sting a little. *Magus and Summoner have both had stuff added in the past year, and I don't know if that's something Paizo would do if they're planning drastic overhauls to the class within the year.
We do already have canon alternate timelines in both Starfinder and Pathfinder. A lot of the time themed spells refer to them. There might be a fun precog character in there. Someone who zooped over from pathfinder to starfinder. "no no no you don't get it, nocticula is a good person now, trust me"
I think you've misunderstood the special text. The special text isn't saying "You can take this feat more than once", or "the feat has additional effects as you level" it's saying "Unlike usual for feats you can't retrain, this feat can be taken above first level" All this feat does is change your size catagory whenever you take it, and you then can't take it again, as usual for feats that don't explicitly state you can retake them. |
