Search Posts
They should be. The paizo store labels them as such and if you have the book you can check the last page(s) of the book. If the licence is listed as ORC it's remaster. Good spot. And yeah, the spines of the "major" books are green, but lost omens books are still blue, so I didn't mention it just to streamline. I don't own physical copies of any of the adventures so I don't know what colour their spines are.
They should be. The paizo store labels them as such and if you have the book you can check the last page(s) of the book. If the licence is listed as ORC it's remaster.
To start, it's worth noting the changes from legacy to remaster are comparatively minor to pf1e to pf2e. You may have to change a few things out, such as spell names or remove references to alignment, but it is the same core system. The vast, vast majority of changes were player facing, so your work as the GM is pretty light when it comes to conversion. That being said. 1) Depends on the book. Every "major" book has had a remaster, with the exception of Secrets of Magic, which will be remastered this summer as part of the Impossible Magic book. Other books, such as setting books (those tagged with Lost Omens) haven't, 2) Paizo have converted a couple (Season of Ghosts, for example), but there's, to my knowledge, been any word on the others. I've grabbed the list of all the adventures published post remaster, which I've put in the spoiler to save page space. This doesn't include the ones that have been remastered under the ORC because I don't have the time to dig through all of them, but I know seasons of ghosts has been remastered. Names: Wardens of Wildwood Curtain Call Triumph of the Tusk Spore War Shades of Blood Myth-Speaker (Note: uses the mythic rules) Revenge of the Runelords Hellbreakers
Yeah, the thing I get out of having multiple encounters especially in parties light on casters, is less the actual draining of resources, and instead a bit of hesitancy on going straight for the highest spell rank you can to blast something down. IMO, this makes my encounters flow a bit better, as players are more willing to go for a nova round and then feel the next round out before committing more resources. In terms of their actual power it does very little.
So, bard.
I get you don't really want to change the structure, which is valid, but 1 encounter per day where it's one enemy is inherently doomed to fail in a system like this, especially with optimisation-minded players. Even if you're unwilling to add in extra combat encounters, you might benefit from adding other events that can use up some resources.
What do people think about the potential change to wave casting? As a reminder in the stream there was a reference to changing a feature both magus and summoner share, which I'm 99% sure is only wave casting, outside of your standard features, of course. I'm hoping it's something that stops the weirdness summoner especially has where you actively lose spells as you level, but realistically I imagine it might be you get an extra rank's worth of slots, so at 7th level you get 2/2/2 slots, for instance.
Tbf I didn't spot it either and I was trying to disprove it! That makes a lot of sense.
I looked into this because I was thinking more about the build and I don't think you can give it the minion trait. You summon six underlings by default and you can only control 4 minions at once. You'd have to add extra rules text in to define them as one minion or whatever, but that'd add more text in and there might not be the space for that. I'm not terribly sure the summon trait applies either because it is entirely unlike the other summon spells. The summon trait doesn't denote creatures separate from you, it denotes a specific type of spell where you summon different levels as you upcast. It's arguably closer in design to an incarnate spell, where you're summoning a pre-defined statblock and effect. I don't know how you'd neatly solve the issue, outside of just deferring to the usual too good to be true failsafe, tbh.
Scooterscoots noted you can use a feat like tactical reflexes to reactive strike and then activate the reaction to keep them asleep for a longer period of time, which on it's own I don't think is worth it but does open them up to be hit with a suffocation spell of your choice. Presumably you could also use the ready action if there's a way to drown someone with a single action but I can't find anything that would qualify. All of that aside I am in agreement this does seem like a pretty aggressive reading of the way the mask works and I'm not calling for an an errata because any GM will instantly say no. I'm generally of the opinion that errata to fix these kinds of technicalities isn't really needed, and I'm not going to lose sleep over it. We're bordering on the oberoni fallacy here but eh, that's how I see it. If I were dealing with it, I'd rule that the mask gives the breath back when the monk's turn ends, bypassing the unconscious rules, because that is the clear intent.
Going monk archetype hence losing a feat and archetype locking yourself to make one enemy a day miss one turn doesn't seem very worth it unless you're in a campaign where you're reliably fighting one person per day. As an aside "creature that breathes" is actually a decently harsh restriction too, including most if not all undead*, elementals, oozes, constructs* and probably a lot of aberrations but they're much more case-by-case. This just feels like the kind of setup that works in a white room environment but the more you deviate from it the less appealing it is compared to the feat(s) you're giving up. *also typically immune to unconscious
Yeah to the extent that the spells are going to mess with maths, I think it's going to be letting players punch far above their weight class. IDK, you slap the Level 20 BBEG with something that makes them effectively level 10. Stuff like disregarding immunities on their own just doesn't seem narratively satisfying.
I'm thinking more in terms of massive story implications. Disabling target's signature abilities, destroying someone outright and removing them from memory, that sort of thing. I don't think just being mathbreaking will live up to the impossible moniker. I also hate to say it but we should probably look at Mythic for an idea on how they'll behave because it seems to be a similar goal. High story impact, not necessarily massive mechanical impact. I hope I'm wrong on that front, I really didn't like most of Mythic.
I'm also just generally excited for the book. Treasure Vault is definitely one of my fave books, as I do enjoy "kitchen sink" books that print a variety of stuff that any campaign can benefit from. Paizo's heavier theming has definitely made the books more interesting to read, but if you're running a campaign with specific flavour and vibes sometimes there's just nothing for you in there.
Your scrolls don't have a scaling DC, unless I'm sorely mistaken? The way I'm understanding this is that you'd be able to snag whatever wand at the cheapest level you can, and then cast that spell at the on-level DC. Hence it's not just scrolls because depending on the level, you're potentially paying under the cost of an on-level scroll for a repeatable cast of an on-level* spell that stays on level for the rest of the campaign. My *as far as DC is concerned
Sure but what's the point bothering with your spell slots when buying wands of your fave buff/debuff becomes trivial and you can just keep trying again until you hit it. That's my contention here, the game is designed around the expectation that some resources are limited and giving everyone as many spells as they can carry even if you have to draw it seems like it'd become a headache to manage pretty fast.
At minium they'd need to include how the scaling process works, I assume it'd be a discounted version of how you can currently upgrade items, but to any level. You'd need to discount it to make it actually viable. It can't be automatic because then the game instantly becomes buying up level 1 items and reaping the benefits of the improved scaling. Or perhaps you pick "signature items" that scale with you, which means you can't just buy several wands of slow or whatever. Then as you said, you'd want information on the other scaling, and I think that's a couple pages worth of rules given the several tables it'd need.
RE: the mention of flying enemies, which I assume is why you'd want to not use the animal weapon. This has been a pain point for an animal instinct barbarian I have GM'ed for. As far as I can tell outside of Squark's suggestion to use ancestral unarmed attacks, there's no inbuilt way to resolve it that isn't the usual ready if they get in to range or relying on teammates. A solution I allowed was disregarding Oversized Throw counting as a weapon, which gave them a reasonable enough backup, albeit at the cost of a feat. Had they wanted another level 4 feat this might not have been as appealing.
Personally I'm heartened that it's not all reprints of SOM, which was my major fear outside of whatever's happening to magus, but I think flexible spellcasting could have really benefitted from an update. I use it a lot to bridge new players (esp. from 5e) who would otherwise be turned off by vancian. Although I bump it up to 3/level because two is a hard sell.
I don't have the time to do a complete writeup but tbh it was very light on spoilers. The most details we got on magus and summoner for instance was nebulous "improvements" with mentions of things like arcane cascade being "more accessible". We got a bit more for necromancer and runesmith but again it was very vague. Necromancer can move thralls, with some limitations that weren't mentioned, and runesmith will have shield support. The most interesting thing was that impossible spells seem to be a one time cast deal, where you cast it once and that's it, you cannot cast it again. Oh and new wizard schools and archtypes. Most of the archtypes are all new, and flexible spellcasting doesn't seem to be one of those, which I imagine will be contraversial.
I was going to say giants wouldn't work because they're Huge but apparently most of them are just Large. I'm down for playable giants in that case. I guess fire, cloud etc might need shrinking but eh. Maybe slap down a sidebar about GMs letting you play a Huge one if they say so. As silvercat said it's a good chance to inject some more nuance into them as well and allow them to be more a multifacted peoples, which I generally prefer to a species* being wholly evil or good. *That is to say, species that are just regular people, not supernatural species like demons or something like a rune giant which has been specifically crafted to be that way.
To be clear, I'm not just referring to this book. We're early on in SF2e's lifespan that there aren't any neglected options yet, because nothing has had the chance to be neglected, it's more a looking forward one. But yeah otherwise, hard agree, using the extra space to provide more thematic options is also an exciting possibility.
Hardlight props should definetly have language making it clear you can use them like kinetict's flashforge. I don't see the point of denying them all function when there's plenty of ways to get basic tools for free already in the game.
I'm still reading through and thinking about luminary but I just wanted to say I think I'm a big fan of only having one class per book. (I'm assuming that's what happening, and not that the second class will be revealed later). I think a big problem pathfinder has is that a lot of things are just not revisited, and it's probably a casuality of page count more than anything. You slap in your two classes, your archtypes, magic items and lore and there's only a few pages left. If one class at a time means books can come with more things for older content (Esp class feats, archtypes, i'm a big fan). This may also be to put a bunch of ancestries in the book, but tbh after galatic ancestries I've got total faith in the team to deliver exciting ancestries so I wouldn't mind getting those too! I'm curious how others feel here. Would you rather get double classes to round out the system faster? Or would you rather we get more things for what we already have?
Yeah they seem fine. I like the idea of them but obviously being level 0/1 we don't get to see what you can do with more mechanically impactful choices. I'd like one that's a repair droid style thing, where it can go cast mending (or something that's functionally mending). Feels like something my planned mechanic would like.
First impression is solid. Very glad this isn't just a space bard but I'm also enjoying that it has that aspect of it. That's a very fine needle to thread. I also think 1 class at a time is a good call. Hopefully that means books can have a bunch of extra goodies :)
Am I missing something why are we talking about UB like it's actually unplayable? It's not the best, obviously, since nothing it incentives is what Magus wants to do but like you still have the core magus class, and that's strong enough on its own. Like this is a system where anything will "work" because you're never going to lose the core progression like you would if you didn't know what you're doing in PF1e or 3.5e. |
