Captain K.'s page

Personally, I have found Rogue to be horrible for archetypes: I took Cleric Dedication at level 2, but since then I've had a backlog of Rogue feats I'd rather take over any dedication feat, so right now it's just two extra trained skills and a couple of cantrips...

And yet the Rogue chassis is perfect for so many archetypes.

Look at Shadowdancer. Look at Pathfinder Agent, Cha caster MCs, Scout, Vigilante...

The problem might be that in 2e, Rogue is one of the very best classes so almost every other option is a downgrade. Oh well, Rogues are really good, what can you do?

Very much in favour, especially for the more RP archetypes.

Class feats and non-multiclass archetype feats are vastly different in power, to the extent you have to keep the vital clas feats.

Free archetypes for flavour however are just cool and seldom boost power too much, aside from full MC or Halcyon Speaker.

I don't know the rules in the APG yet, but tagging Viking or Gladiator or Zephyr Guard on to your Fighter can't hurt, can it? It just adds more RP and skills.

A good example is Crystal Keeper. It's super niche and weird and you never want to give up a class feat for it. But is it interesting, good RP? Yes:

"You can use Arcana, Occultism, Religion, or Society to Decipher Writing by meditating before a crystal, regardless of the type of writing. When you Decipher Writing and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead, and when you Decipher Writing and roll a success, you get a critical success instead.

Additionally, you gain resistance 10 to damage from hazards associated with crystals."

Other feats let you create a magic lock as a focus spell. Kinda cool, but you're never giving up a Wizard feat for it.

To put it another way, if Bob the Baker and Peter the PC both fall off the roof and lose all their health to falling damage, then:

• Peter is mostly dead and can be stabilized / healed.
• Bob is completely dead and the only thing you can do is go through his pockets for loose change...

Yes, correct, and yet you are missing the point.

Fine, this is the Paizo forum. I should have known people are only interested in the mechanics rather than the lore.

What happens in a Gnome village?

Understanding the minutae of dying rules is great, and relevant for PC battles. I want to know about a Pathfinder rules world like Golarion works where NPC magic is ordinary and nothing special.

No limit use cantrips were a thing in PF1, and not hard to get, but now pretty much any ancestry can grab a cantrip with no power or levelling, merely from being born. The system in general and Golarion in particular are very high-magic settings, how does this affect the ordinary person?

Heritages matter and are relevant to even the lowliest NPC, consider the Cavern or Desert Elf's Darkvision or heat protection for example. Similarly, an unlimited use cantrip is quite an ordinary thing for many otherwise ordinary folk.I'd like to explore how these might work in the game, and perhaps in the game's in-world society.

- STABILIZE is superb. That and profiency in medicine make a perfectly capable village nurse or the lay clergy for someone like Sarenrae.

- MESSAGE has many ordinary uses. Gossips, government officials, criminals - but also consider the uses in a high-magic, low-tech city. Have an NPC with this cantrip in the town's best inn and have links to the receptionist in the town hall. This is a basis for rudimentary telecommunications.

- PRESTIDIGITATION is fun, and I'd expect children's entertainers to spam it. It also has the tidy and cook capabilities - the head chef at Magnimar's best restaurant spams it. The ultra fast but expensive dry cleaner spams it.

- JOIN PASTS is for diplomats and marriage counsellers.

- LIGHT is for explorers and guides. Perhaps very lavish aristocrats employ Light casters instead of candles?

- PRODUCE FLAME has many practical uses. Lamplighters, firestarters etc. I can imagine a tundra guide with no fighting ability but some Survival skill and this cantrip being a very employable NPC.

- CHILL TOUCH. I have seen a reference in Curse of Plaguestone that this can be used to make ice from normal water. There you go. Chill Touch can make ice. useful for preservation and bartending.

- Most of the offensive cantrips are not much use for NPC jobs and may make the person unwelcome in their little society, but even then I can imgaine ACID SPLASH being useful in something like mining or cleaning work.

- GUIDANCE is extremely useful for PCs and no less for NPCs. It works in every walk of life - a quick boost to your Diplomacy as a beaurocrat, a help with your smithing, etc.

No published adventure I have seen has these minor tricks yet in a setting with access to such magic being trivial, wouldn't they be used? Would there not be a niche?

Ideas very welcome.

How often will a crit success come up though? I know its more than 5% of the time in this version but I dunno. Tickling an enemy's brain for 4 damage for the first 4 levels of play just hoping to take an action or two away from a foe maybe once every few combats is just not super dramatic (or super tactically sound, imo).

1e Daze had to be trained out or torn from the spellbook after level 4 or so. This 2e Daze might be useful. The damage is nothing, the spell is only useful on enemies we can crit success on. It's not for bossses, it's for the pet of a boss, it's for a dumb henchman. Played right, as Seifter says, they are vulnerable for a round as they don't get to use their violent and dangerous Reaction. The casting range is 60' - cutting away one of the three encounter actions can stop a charge or a second attack and a reaction.

It's a battlefield control spell - and you won't find many of that type in the cantrip list.

It's only for mooks, but it's ok and it's free, spammable. At low levels, it might be the knock-over punch. At higher levels it's not so bad to put on a big brute of a mook in the way of your Barbarian. Losing an action in a round is losing the combat, throwing a cantrip at an animal or Ogre to make them lose the round isn't a waste.

LittleMissNaga wrote:

Just got the chance to try it myself, and I'm having fun. The biggest problems will pretty much all be fixed by more books coming out.

One member of my group is extremely anti-2e, though. It's a shame. He rips apart things that are issues in 2e that were already issues back in 1e and that he used to ignore.

Honestly, I think he has a problem with some of the new moves towards political correctness and inclusivity and the like in the game mastering section of the CRB, and is throwing a tantrum about it. Declaring the game to be a GM's nightmare, mechanically constraining, and impossible to build a creative character with a whatnot, when his real problem isn't actually with the mechanics at all, and he just doesn't want to admit that any part of something he dislikes is good.

He sounds awful and you have my sympathy.

Seconded. It's a game with rules, and how we love our rules, but the number one rule is letting people play. It's a game for all. it's about imagination.

I love Paizo's hardline stance on inclusivity, it is not half-hearted, it is sincere and yes please.

What tf is this guy saying about not being able to build a creative character? Within the rules I can make a Halfling junkie katapeshi belly dancer transexual, and they will still get their 10th level Bard spells. If you must have some funny ideas about character constraints, there is nothing stopping you from making a Prophet of Kalistrade Hellknight, proclaiming Make Avistan Great Again.

In a party, damage dealing isn't everything.

In PF1, my Witch didn't cause a single hit point of direct damage until level 8 (eventually cast a lightning bolt, to be fair the baddies were in single file down a corridor, it would be rude not to). You on this board know that that did not make my Witch useless,you'll rightly suspect that she was vital to the party and shortened most battles by at least a round.

In PF2, I intend to play a Bard, and as a fan of support, i'm not sure I care about direct damage. A Bard can cast twice a round, buff and debuff. I'd be delighted if he never has to draw his rapier. Damage is what the Fighter and Rogue are in melee for. You won't see them complain about a pure support caster in the party. And that support Bard can go all day without proper spells. Focus points can be regained by writing a diary or admiring the nearest tree.

That speedy but weak elf gets tangled up in the fruit cart as he crashes into it while the dwarf just powers through, barely hindered by the flying apples and melons.

I assume your chase sequence has a fruit cart

Another side effect is that Enchanters get a boost. In 1e, Enchanters were cool but very limited (there were odd cases like Kitsune Fey Sorcerer), but now...

Have you seen the Wiz Enchanter's Focus spells? Dread Aura lasts a minute, no save Frightened. In 2e this school is a powerful choice.

And now Sorshen can defend herself against the Tyrant.

Battle Herald to come back as an archetype.

Good for Fighters, Champions, Bards and more. We play a game which involves lots of fighting, professional military officer should be an archetype. The PF1 Prestige class was very weird, requiring obscure Monk or Cavalier Archetypes to work. a PF2 Battle Herald (or Military Officer, or Warlord, or Commander etc.) will allow for a more strategy-minded Paladin of Iomedae or a brave Bard barking orders.

Iruxi Monks and Druids, obv. What about Iruxi Barbarians? Can we adapt the Frog Animal Insrinct to be more lizardy? Bite and claw and tongue and tail attacks with a Str bonus look sweeet

Clear concepts, well-spoken with understandable examples and visuals. Likey lots, subscribed. Keep them up.

Good post.

I've been making a character inspired by a picture in the Core book, the Bard dancer.

I like the groovy clothes, her attractive complexion, that Mwangi clever magical hippie thing and that 2e Bards have been given the red carpet.

Now we have the Magaambya Academic archetype, just to fit my concept and it's a doozy, especially for a Bard. All killer, no filler. I'll be having that, thank you Paizo people.

The Ancestry stats are very useable. Let's have... a Venus Flytrap Leshy Barbarian with Frog Animal Instinct (for tongue and bite) and Herbalist Background, maybe a skill increase into Performance, for singing...

We have Audrey II from Little Shop Of Horrors.

The best bit is that this isn't wholly a joke build, it's a playable build.

People keep saying chat sabotaged the alchemist but while it's certainly not an optimal building, pumping up what the game says is your primary stat and then investing in dex and con because you're gonna be in melee and don't want to die are not particularly unreasonable decisions either.

For me the idea that the the build is that easy to 'sabotage' in the first place, or that a player should ignore what the book says its primary stats are are both kind of indicative of design shortcomings to me.

That's the thing, I don't think chat sabotaged it. Now, they didn't play as nice as some - the Sailor background for Storm Druid fits very happily into such a build for example, and everyone had at least one thing that was unused or deliberately silly, the Chameleon bit for that Druid for example. So even though all three of the other PCs had fun or flavour parts, they were all mechanically quite good builds, they all worked. A goblin who thinks he's a shark... fine. Silly, but works quite well, a viable melee PC.

I'm in agreement with you essentially, Chat and Mark Seifter didn't sabotage him. I just don't know what the alchemist was for. He was... ok at fort saves?

But maybe that's ok too. PF1 Core had some trash like original Rogues and Monks, now they are both pretty good.

Do you know what other Heritage is good? That Monkey Goblin.

In PF1 a Monkey Goblin Pirate rogue was a laugh and all, but not all that. In PF2 that pictured PC is very strong. Rogue is a good class, Sailor is a good Background and Monkey Goblin makes it all the sweeter. Grab Cat Fall as one of the Rogue's many Skill Feats and you are a v mobile and deadly striker pretty much out of the gate. Nice.

Always down with weird bits of lore like this. Want to read it. I have to applaud any book which discusses the Prophet of Kalistrade.

That prestige class is bonkers. The character has to be rich, but explicitly not enjoy the wealth, unless looking at big numbers is your jam. In return they get... the worst PrC in the game, a semi-sorcerer an Adept would look down on. I can't think of a way to make one mechanically playable. Roleplay-playable is easy, we don't have to look far to see examples of blinding monetary greed.

Edit: One of the authors, Mr. Hillman, is very aware of this:

https://twitter.com/OnCallGm/status/929008581365714947

Mona supports the attempt.

Ha ha. Good luck with that, the class is hopeless. :)

Oh boy, it's really good. Cannot wait.

The Befriend a Local activity rule is a great idea and should be used in the wider game. It lets a PC interact with an NPC using mutual skills, rather than just Diplomacy. Thus a low-cha Wizard doesn't need to use Diplomacy to make friends at the university, he can use his Arcane skill, to talk to other nerds, that is their interest. Similarly, a gruff Ranger can go into the woods with a local guide, they can hug trees or whatever these types like to do and become friends based on the PC's Survival check. An excellent rule.

It seems a pity that two of the most obvious, least immediately interesting backgrounds are so mechanically good. Entertainer is not a particularly imaginative background for a Bard to take, but Fascinating Performance as a free feat is hard to ignore. It's so good. Similarly with Warrior. For an intimidation Barbarian (going on the route to get Scare to Death) that Intimidating Glare feat is gold, but a Warrior Barbarian isn't so inspiring.

On the other hand, both of those backgrounds are so broad that a decent back story can be made. Entertainer is anything from a jester to a playwright to a rapper. Warrior can be a guard or a gladiator or that village boy who must venture out for a trophy to become a man.

Edit- just seen the Age of Ashes players guide (gasp!) and for that barbarian, Dragon Scholar is just as good and much groovier. Get that. Dragons!

Wait, what's an enigma muse? New muse or a rename of a playtest muse?

I guess it is the Lore muse renamed.

Very odd feat though, especially as Enigma/Lore Bards will rinse most knowledge checks anyway. The wording doesn't help, does the GM just show the player the stat block, there, knock yourself out?

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Kroft doesn't seem given to that kind of wileyness. Nor does she have many cards to play.

She does, presumably, have a party of quite high level adventurers as allies. That is a pretty impressive hand :-)

Not only does Kroft have a party of 17th level adenturers as allies, she does have cards to play, with them, at least. In CotCT, those PCs end up with their own Deck of Many Things!

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

I'm in the UK (so direct from Paizo is not ideal unfortunately) and I don't like Amazon so I shopped around and got a good deal, don't know if I can say where.

And even though I have to play online, I was so excited I bought a bunch of dice too

The books are under publisher’s embargo until 1 August, so nobody should be getting them in your hands before that date (shipping time variability allows some leeway, and Paizo’s own shipping practice is why some of us have them already). Basically, if someone other than Paizo got the books to you this early, they’ve broken a rule, and Paizo will be obligated to discuss the matter with the distributor and the store.

It’s now between you, your conscience, and Paizo about whether you should reveal your source.

Whoa there. I have bought them, not recieved them yet, nor do I expect them. The shop is totally legit. Bought and paid and now I can't wait for the postman come August. My dice might come quicker though, something to play with.

My coyness about the store is that Paizo shipping is v expensive outside the US and I'm not sure about advertising other resellers.

Anyway, roll on August, can't wait. I'll have rolled up 2e's baddest Bard within hours of feverish reading, 640 pages or not

IIRC the base assumption for a scoundrel rogue is a feint build, so 16 dex / 16 cha is probably what you want for them. More important for getting a +2 cha may be the potential to build an Arcane Trickster off of the Scoundrel Rogue chassis using a Sorcerer multiclass or being an ancestry with racial spells.

Arcane Trickster has so many possible builds now, expect to see loads of them. Your suggestion is very good, that chassis is also ideal for multiclass Bard.

In other news I have finally bought my books! Hooray!

I'm in the UK (so direct from Paizo is not ideal unfortunately) and I don't like Amazon so I shopped around and got a good deal, don't know if I can say where.

And even though I have to play online, I was so excited I bought a bunch of dice too

Pumpkinhead, Grognard, you are right we shouldn't derail the thread.

Still,

Justin Franklin wrote:

There definitely was a fundamental shift from 2 to 3e. (although you can see some of the trends start to really show up in the Player's Options books). AC scaling indefinitely instead of capping at -10, Attack bonus vs THAC0, Skills that advance (NWP were weird for advancement), unlimited Ability score increase, Magic Item creation assumed in the rules, etc. It was definitely a fundamental shift.

Don't forget that prior to 3rd edition not all races and classes were compatible. Dwarves couldn't be wizards. Also, for demihumans, there were level caps depending on the class you chose. This chart here shows it in detail.

That chart is bizarre. Very happy to discuss it in a different thread. Only Humans and Drow are any good? Mountain Dwarfs have a Fighter limit?

I'm glad in PF2 that our boy Kaliban can become a Fighter 20 and he'll probably be casting 8th level Arcane spells. It does say something about the superhero power levels, Kaliban would astonish Gygax and Arneson but I like the ultra high-fantasy gonzo direction Pathfinder has become.

Nobody in their right mind doesn't love the concept of Swashbuckler, but I can't justify it as a class in PF2. As an Archetype (get good with rapiers, have a focus pool for Panache substitute), my goodness, yes please. There is too much crossover.

Fighter: We'll already get the Aldori Swordsman, and it's a fighter with a sword, no problems, more specialisation would be better.

Rogue: Again, we have a person who is handy at fencing. Merisiel herself is fond of a rapier, it's a thing.

Champion: A CG Liberator of Cayden Cailean wants a tankard in one hand and an epee in the other. This absolutely calls for a Swashbuckler archetype.

Alchemist: I'd like the Investigator to come back, but one can pull of a Sherlock Holmes type with this.

Bard: A flashing blade with quick wit and an eye for the ladies is a known trope with good reason, needs the archetype.

I could go on, but it's clear that many classes want to be able to swashbuckle, so many classes should be allowed to, thus make it an early-entry (and very good, please Paizo) Archetype. My one concern is combining it with other Archetypes, Pirate being an obvious example. How do you combine the two? A Fighter or Rogue with both the Swashbuckler and Pirate Archetypes makes a lot of thematic sense, but wouldn't have much of the build together until teenage levels. This is fine for a powerful enemy like a level 14 Pirate Queen, but tricky as a level 1 PC in a PF2 version of Skulls and Shackles. Minor problems though.

As for the others, I'm in broad agreement:

Witch: Hexes as focus spells/cantrips. Prepared Occult, with other spells from patron lists.

Oracle: Everyone loves them, the Curse/Revelation this was great, Divine Sorcer just doesn't cut it for me.

Kineticist: Can probably be done with Cantrip/Focus spells and Con stat in exchange for armour and weapon Expert/Master improvements.

Mesmerist: Superb and creepy class, can almost certainly be done as a level 1 Bard Archetype though.

Antipaladin/Tyrant: Not my cup of tea, but the rules are aready here for these baddies. The only discussion is the name of the NE version. MFer?

Shifter: Conceptually neccessary, but i wonder if it can be done with an Archetype? There are solid reasons why a Monk or Ranger or Fighter would want to be one. Barbarian can already do it a bit. Even Rogues should - a sneaky rogue who can turn into a bird or a cat is a solid PC.

Battle Herald/Tactitian: I know one was a PrC and 4e did a Marshall and the other was a Cavalier Archetype, but this please. We can probably do something with Bard/Champion multiclass, but It'd be nice to have a tough non-caster who hands out bonuses and coordinates the battlefield. I'd like to see clever generals with high Int or Cha who make those stats work. Bear in mind that in PF2 a PC gets a boost to four stats every few levels, by the end of a career it will be commonplace to have Int 18 Fighters and Wis 18 Rangers. May as well use it.

Brutish Shove looks very nice, especially with a Rogue in the party. Bop the enemy and it's a sitting duck for a Sneak Attack, every round (there won't be many rounds).

The power trajectory in PF2 looks steeper than PF1. At level 3, Kaliban has +7 Will (a good number in this edition), 44 HP and is ok at spells already. Compare that competence to a level 1 character.

Leaked photos of the multiclass pages of the new rulebook show Kaliban's pic on the Wizard multiclass page. And here he is, casting Shield before whaling on someone with his big hammer. He's named, he's built well and he looks cool. Good chap. I welcome our new iconic Kaliban!

I haven't seen a more boring and tangential discussion about a minor aspect of our game since the endless dross posted by fascists arguing for Paladins to be heartless cops.

Check this out:

I care a lot about our game and while I'm no cheerleader, I have been telling my friends and colleages on the down low that we play a good game. We play a game that is liberating for the mind. We play a game that brings friendship and imagination and a happy, inclusive environment.

I'd like to point newbies to this blog, but alas no. We can't get hype and spreading the word, we get folk who get upset about the definition of a 'week' in game time.

And they call us nerds.

Arcane Archer is a cool concept that usualla fell flat in PF1, but with the new attack scaling and archetypes they would be easy to implement

Dedication would grant bow prophiciency
Further feats would grant:
Imbue Arrow: (using bow reach for spells)
Enhance Arrows/bow: uses focus to imbue the bow/arrow with different enchantments
Improved bow prophiciency
Seeker Arrow and Phase Arrow as Focus abilities

the point about a 'prestige' class is that in PF1 one must be of a certain level, and in PF2, while that level limit may not be required, hoops must still be jumped through.

Thus in this case, your build for the class looks good, though I disagree with you about the Dedication feat and entry. The requirements to take the 'prestige archetype Arcane Archer' or whatever it will be called are more likely to be Trained in a bow (or crossbow) and Trained in a magic tradition, (even if just at cantrip level). It makes sense on a narrative level - if you want to be an Arcane Archer, you must already know how to cast a spell and draw a bow, but also it creates that level gate, for most people being able to do both ok will be about 6th level anyway.

There might be some early entries in the instance of Arcane Archer - Bards, Elves, Clerics of Erastil -but they are thematic anyway insofar as Pf1 is concerned. Similarly something like Mystic Theurge can be level gated simply by requiring Trained in two different traditions, Arcane and Divine the most obvious.

I never knew Blessed Tattoo was from Mwangi Orcs, I only ever knew Sacred Tattoo as the excellent alternative racial trait for Half-Orcs to replace the suicidal Orc Ferocity. Huh. Cool.

This whole blog is cool, Love the jungle stuff and my first PF2 character will be a Mwangi Elf. They look great.

Richard Lowe wrote:

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode?

Seems pretty clear to me it triggers outside of encounter mode, too.

Quote:

I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time

Yes, that would be a thing, but for many characters that would be a feature, not a bug. And you can always take it off when you go into town.

It is indeed a feature. Here is a fun thing to do.

1. Be a Bard, borrow your Barbarian friend's Dread Blindfold.

2. Be Legendary in Performance, have Fascinating Performance and Legendary Performer. You are headlining Woodstock at this point, everyone loves you.

3. At the climax to one of your hit records you put on the Dread Blindfold

4. ???

5. Profit

(Maybe not profit, it's possible someone might get hurt)

I like that because getting training in a skill that your class didn't normally get was my preferred use of traits

I was not a big fan of everyone picking "Reactionary" for the mechanical bonus despite it not fitting their character. Or even more bizarre stuff like "Wayang Spellhunter" or whatever it was called

Yes, that was awful, Reactionary, where every member of the party were bullied as a child. How did so many timid people all become adventurers? Entire parties of Scoobys and Shaggys, no Freds or Daphnes.

At least Reactionary can be roleplayed (poorly). There's that awesome one which boosts caster level but you have to have been raised in the woods by a weird monster or something.

I didn't play the playtest so please bear with me.

What has happened with NPC classes, Commoner, Expert etc.? Are they gone? I can imagine they might be for simplicity and as things in the new bestiary are simplified it's esy to make a low-level Human 'monster' without many features.

On the other hand, it seems that Backgrounds shoud still work with NPCs. Blacksmith background for example, or Sailor. They don't need lots of fighting ability to be Trained in Crafting or have Sailing Lore as a feat. Even giving a cantrip is a simple addition, it'll do for an Adept.

The character illustrations:

1. Liberator of Calistria. He's going to whip Asmodeans pink, and loving it.

2. Sorcerer. She looks fly, as sorcerers should and she's in the middle of casting Mirror Image.

3. Monk. She's a badass monk. "So, it comes to this. A pity. Prepare yourself."

Red Mantis Assasins are awesome, I loved slaying the tricky blighters in Crimson Throne. So many cool things like the nasty swords and the scorpion summoning. I do wonder how they become a 2e archetype? it's great that any class can potentially become one, but their special rules are very niche. For instance, I loved their narrow but interesting spell list (losing these is one of few downsides to 2e).

masda_gib wrote:

I would allow many activities assuming they fit with the deity and are not used to cheese some benefit out of it. As a rule of thumb: the activity should bring yourself or the party much mechanical benefit.

So a cleric of Sarenrae treating the wounds of some NPCs? That can be refocusing. The same cleric treating the wounds of the party's fighter after battle? Nope, that's you doing maintenance to go back to killing things.

I disagree with this. This is a purely metagame consideration and deeply damaging to verisimilitude. I also don't think that Clerics mundanely treating people allowing them to regain Focus (basically the only time this would come up) is very mechanically relevant. The difference between a 10 minute break and a 20 minute break is just very rarely gonna matter.

So it's not even a particularly compelling metagame reason, IMO.

This reminds me of the Deific Obediences in PF1, especially the good deities. Some requires one just to be nice (Erastil or Sarenrae for example), some had bits to do with the portfolio (Shelyn wants a peice of art or poetry, Kurgess like to see you hit the gym), but some were trivially easy. Desna's is wander around for a bit. Cayden's is have a beer and sing a song. Iomedae's is literally just pray with your sword, which you would be doing anyway, Paladins love doing that sort of stuff.

If this is the standard to regain focus, it's not difficult.

Evil gods on the other hand have much tougher rules (except Rovagug which is funny).

Glad to see coverage of Rahadoum.

It's an interesting country that might become more powerful in this edition. The Godless Healing feat is mentioned, but the Medicine skill is vastly boosted and there are plenty of folk who can heal adequately without a deity, bards and Alchemists and even some Sorcerers (Which has implications for Razmir but I digress). Rahadoum can now get away with not having Clerics, at least for crunch. Spiritual values in a world with proven gods is another question.

tqomins wrote:

So here are the archetypes we know so far:

1) Absalom: Pathfinder Agent
2) Broken Lands: Aldori Duelist
3) Eye of Dread: Lastwall Sentry
4) Golden Road: Living Monolith
4) High Seas
6) Impossible Lands: Student of Perfection
7) Mwangi Expanse
8) Old Cheliax: Hellknight Armiger
9) Saga Lands
10) Shining Kingdoms

And next week we find out if my guess that we'll get Red Mantis for the High Seas was right or not!

Red Mantis is a good guess. So far these have been all factional archetypes that have previously been prestige classes (well, mostly. Lastwall Sentry wasn't one). So Red Mantis makes more sense than a generic pirate.

The only one I can think of for the Mwangi Expance would be the Magaambyan arcanist. But it could very well be a new archetype that was never a prestige class.

Red Mantis Assassin has always been popular, so good call, though it is uite hard to do as an archetype with the niche spells and specialist summoning. I suppose they can add some invisibility spells and dual-weilding and call it good.

Mwangi Expanse is definitely Magaambyan Arcanist. None of the archetypes known so far are specifically for casters, this one is (and how!). Not too hard to implement either, and I'd imagine Wizards, Sorcerers and Druids can all get something out of it.

Arachnofiend wrote:

I agree, this is a major positive change for the system. Best part is that it's a baseline action rather than something you (or worse, the Expert themself) have to feat into.

I kinda wonder if we could broaden it even further; if the Bard wants to put on a play in a Hamlet-esque scenario, then he should be able to give the Barbarian quick instruction on how to perform her role the way he wants even though she lacks any previous acting experience. This would open up a ton of non-combat solutions to problems that simply were not feasible in PF1 because it was unrealistic to expect everyone to be trained in the same skills (and was a bad idea anyways in most scenarios).

I am now planing a play within a play, thanks for the idea.

It's a lovely idea, and now rules-compatible.

The bard puts on a play, the Rogue and Sorcerer take the lead roles, the Barbarian does a bit of stunt work and clowning, the Wizard does stage management and special effects. All of it can be role played, yet not too much hand-waving, die rolls are still in effect.

I'd rather the Swashbuckler be a (good) archetype. I intend my first charcter to be a Bard, and I'd like to play with those swinging-from-the-chandelier tropes, roses for the ladies, a bit of Zorro. That concept can work with a Fighter or Rogue too (or MAgus?), so an archetype might be best. Panache might not work (maybe focus spells?) but dex to damage and a Parry/riposte reaction are quite doable.

Both.

When I'm scrolling through a guide I want to first scan Blue must takes then Red mistakes (often funny commentary too).

Excellent. My Chaotic Good Bard will now have rules on how to hunt and kill capitalist exploiters. Fight the power!

"A couple of things are gonna happen..."

Excellent news. GCP is a superb show, not just for Pathfinder but as entertainment in general. They take a few episodes finding their feet and then it just works.

It's about Giantslayer but also about Pathfinder and the whole concept of finding friends to play a game with. They are a team, committed to the game, and the fear when die rolls go bad is genuine.

It's also laugh out loud funny. Just tune in.

A guy in my recent party made a Drake Rider Cavalier.

From level 1.

At first he carried the useless thing around in a box, then he left it at the party's house for safety. It was too dangerous to use the one and only class feature, the damned thing is a liability.

Utterly hopeless. He was playing an NPC warrior class.

Not his fault entirely, he saw the fluff, figured he could ride a dragon into combat with his lance and be awesome.

Having said that, he kept on rolling crits and his AC and HP were fine, so it wasn't a total mess. It's the fault of the writers of the poor archetype.

Most of the answers to this thread are reinforcing to me how most of these gods are actually good. Just LOL at the Pharasma, Calistria, and Cayden Cailean hate.

Yep, it shows Paizo must be doing something right with such strong opinions.

I do not understand the hate for Cayden. He's a laugh riot, but nice about it. And Calistira, also fun but nastier about it. I see some posters dislike Cayden for being naughty and drinking too much. I suspect it it because most posters are American.

What does surprise me is so little hate for Abadar.

I LOATHE Abadar, and so do the rest of my international online group (including Americans).

He's the god of arbitrary law. F that, I'm not worshipping that, worship law just because someone powerful said those are the rules. No thank you. Just as bad is that his own portfolio has a contradiction. He is the god of law, but also money and the market. The market is entirely about law made by the powerful and the market is not solvable, it is a chaotic system, hence the players in reality are high-stakes gamblers. He is the god of a game in which only the rich may play, by their own rules, and the rules don't always apply. Some god of law he is.

So no, I don't get it. Cayden and Calistira are bad because hedonism is bad, but the god of corporate lickspittles is okay? Not for me, thank you. At least Asmodeus tells you to your face that he's a corporate tyrant. He doesn't pretend any of that 'fair and balanced' pack of lies.

We played a 3.5 arena game once, high level and we were allowed crazy races and templates. It was the monster mash.

People naturally chose mega charger dungeon crashers and nuker Incantatrixes, all the usual suspects. I played a Cleric. He had the Lernean Hydra template (as an aside, wonder if it will come back? Paizo's own Owen K C Stevens wrote it) so he had two heads and could only be killed by beheading.

I took the Lumi race. Lumi were weird moon men who had detached, floating heads who could not be beheaded...

Yes it was a silly game. Fun though.

two permanent negative levels, though.

True, but most Witches take UMD because of their weird spell list and by the time the can use that Hex they can afford the two scrolls and 2000gp for Restoration to bring back the levels.

The more I think on it, it's a really good idea. Get your mind to venerable, force Reincarnate yourself to (rolls on table)...

I got Orc! Woo, enemies will be surprised. A young, spritely Orc... who is an 18th level Witch with 36 Int.

Witches get access to a bunch of spells to alter their own appearance, so it matter less if you don't like your new body.

Shaman is doable mainly because you still have Shaman casting. Play one for flavour.

Please think of your fellow party members. Someone in my group plays a Drake Rider Cavalier and all he does is eat our healing resources. They are that bad. Maybe at level 18 they are okay, but still. They only become anywhere near okay after most APs finish. The worst.

Perhaps it is because Legacy of Dragons is fairly new, Lord Fyre, perhaps not everyone has formed an opinion or seen one in action. Certainly no frequent poster on these boards would be mad enough to play one, for they are very poor. I imagine op made the sweeping statement for dramatic effect, though when you ask people directly they must come to the conclusion they are bad. In my gaming group 5 out of 6 people all decry the uselessness of the Drake Rider Cavalier, we and the GM realise he just drags the group down. It's so bad the PC is actively detrimental. The number 6 player is a newbie and doesn't understand.

And I don't understand it. The book is generally well written and the art is terrific as per usual Paizo standards. The new Draconic bloodlines are a good idea and well-written. The Scaled Claw Cha-based Monk fills a vital gap. Many options are interesting. And then comes these drake archetypes. Lord Fyre - you have entered RPG Superstar and if you had submitted these archetypes you'd have been laughed out of the competition.

I do wonder what the design decision was.

OP has come up with good fixes, but it won't help PFS so we can't now ride drakes in PFS and that is the real shame. I do mean that sweeping statement - the earliest you can ride a flying Drake is 11 if you are small and neither you nor it will ever survive that long anyway, having given up all your class features.