Aravashnial

Camellen's page

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber. 23 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Relics, eh? A throwback to Weapons of Legacy perhaps?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I like the idea of Aasimar as an ancestry where the heritages are things like Angelkin, Musetouched, etc. than I do with Aasimar as a heritage or archetype available for any ancestry.
This is my preference by far.

Going along the same line of thought, we could add something like "Native Heritage," granting access to feats of an ancestry you specify and changing your size to fit the ancestry (or work the size differences into the planetouched as a base).

I'd really prefer not to resort to "humans by default," and pretending nonhuman planetouched only exist in homebrew.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

It seems likely we'll get them eventually.

They may well be Heritages (in the vein of Half Elf and Half Orc) rather than Ancestries per se, though. My personal theory is that they'll be 'modular' Heritages you can apply to any Ancestry the GM allows. Which would be pretty cool, IMO, and make a lot of sense.

I'm personally in support of the modular heritages as well. It fits really well, and we might be able to use it for templates that previously had a level adjustment as well (separating stronger abilities into ancestry feats).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:

There was treat wounds again but I don't think it was any different from before DC 15 heals 2d8 takes 10 min.

The Fatigue condition that Jason mentioned was a little less bad than in the playtest. Only -1 to AC and saves no mention of Hampered 5 or of the penalties increasing with every action you take.... but they didn't get into combat so maybe those are still there and just didn't come up.

They also didn't benefit from exploration tactics, if I recall (due to fatigue).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Eh, I feel like I might go the easiest route myself; dump the PF1e adventure loot and use the recommended loot progression for PF2e, using the original loot as a guideline.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Consider me part of the kobold plushie cult fan club!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Bleachlings are an option! 10/10 fantastic update!
Humans can multiclass into anything! 10/10 will maybe break the game but hilariously fantastic!
Goblins get annoying songs! 10/10!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

In the "Positives and Negatives" blog, they've expressed that they're already looking into alternatives for resonance due to its lack of popularity, as well as highlighting some of the issues they've run into with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Sorcerers and bards, the two spontaneous casters we will see in this playtest. Bard was previously a "half-caster," with reduced access to spellcasting in return for a plethora of abilities. In PF2e, this is reflected by lower overall spellcasting capability compared to its dedicated caster relative (sorcerer, gaining an additional spell per level), and having several powerful cantrips that interact with its other abilities.

Now, with sorcerer established as the "spellcasting class," it seems odd that bard would be the class to have the 8th level "additional heightening" feat, directly related to having more powerful spellcasting capability as opposed to the typical bard abilities (dealing with powers augmenting their cantrips and so on). I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or simply a quirk written in for an unknown reason.

That leads to a final point, the case for Universal Class feats. I've seen many complaints about certain feats or techniques being gated behind certain classes. Now, take the "Additional Heightening" feat described above. Imagine this was made into a "Universal" class feat, available to any who meet the prerequisites "Spontaneous Heightening class feature." Or Power Attack/Double Slice, "Trained in a martial weapon." Widen Spell, "You are a spellcaster."

You could add a variety of depth to character creation without taking too much away. Fighter could still have access to many open/press feats not available to other classes, with some unique abilities besides. As an added bonus, you might save page space avoiding the extra entries on the classes that would normally gain them. The problem comes in when you look at terms of balance. Martial classes will likely have more to benefit from in variety, since many spellcasters will already have access to a feat that would otherwise be made Universal. Would Double Strike be too powerful in the hands of a Barbarian or Rogue, and how does a Monk's ability to take Power Attack change things? Of course, these are all questions that would have to be asked to address multiclassing balance anyways. A potential solution would be to increase the level requirement, with a special note at the end stating "Fighter and ranger treat -X- as a level 1 feat," as an example. Thoughts on how a universal class feat system might affect balance? Would adding another group of feats make character creation needlessly complicated?

TL;DR for Developers:
1. Sorcerers don't have access to additional heightening. Oversight?
2. A universal class feat system including feats such as additional heightening, power attack, Double Slice, some metamagic, etc.?
3. Would said universal class feat system adversely affect game balance?
4. If yes to 3, does multiclassing adversely affect game balance?
5. Would the cost in game balance be significant compared with the improvement in enjoyment to the players?
6. Would it make the game significantly more complicated?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Would fungi and molds be considered plants for the leaf druid anathema, or might there be a fungus-based druid introduced later? Because a druid focused on mold and decay sounds pretty sweet.

Edit: Nevermind, saw that they were considered different! Decay Druid, here I come!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Ectar wrote:
Camellen wrote:
I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

"Some things make you flat-footed to everyone, but usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you or that otherwise has the drop on you."

I should have re-read that bit. Oh well, we can always hope! I'm always excited for options that might make combat a little more exciting. Maybe a feat (like the teamwork feats) that treats an enemy as flat-footed to you if allies are flanking you? We could get some pretty exciting builds out of this!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

The largest problem, while many of the commenters claim that morality is an objective truth in Golarion, the fact is that morality is subjective for the real-world GMs and players that deal with a morality-based system.

A player decides to kill a cursed innocent to prevent the curse from spreading to the rest of the town. The player argues that it is a good act, he's doing it to save the town. The GM argues that murder is always an evil act. What about when attacking monsters? Or evil creatures? If you attack a drow first without proof that they have done wrong, is it an evil act? Is laying ambushes for monsters evil? Eating meat as an omnivore? What about the town over, that considers it evil to burn their dead due to spiritual beliefs? Would it be evil for the paladin to cremate their dead? For the sorcerer to use burning hands on the town's zombies? Or is it only evil if you belong to the town?

I'm not saying you can't have a system of objective morality. But, because morality is not inherently objective in the real world, the constraints of this morality need to be clearly written and defined. Not a paragraph detailing what evil is, but a defined list of what constitutes an evil/good act, what would cause a shift in alignment, and how a clearly-stated intention can affect it. This way, if there is a rules concern about an alignment-based mechanic, the player (or GM) can bring out the book and read, "According to X, this is an evil action." If such rules are not clearly defined, it will continue to be based on the subjective beliefs of the people playing the game- which is only fine so long as the players have the same moralistic views.

If the game cannot have a defined list of good or evil acts (It does not need to be pages long, but it needs to be clear and precise), then it is clear that morality cannot be used as a game mechanic due to its subjective nature.