Search Posts
IMO, Mark Quarry is something you do 1) before traveling to the adventure location (as part of the time spent Gathering Information/research/etc.), 2) during exploration, or 3) [with Instant Enmity] when meeting an unexpected monster. It's not just another version of Hunt Prey, because the slayer also needs to customize their arsenal for the arsenal bonuses (which are generally better than the ranger's Hunter's Edge).
Note that if a daredevil is using a weapon in the Club or Polearm group and gets the critical specialization effect (via ancestry or other means), the forced movement from the critical hit can trigger Stunt Damage on top of the extra damage from the critical hit...
Regarding saves: Perhaps it would make sense to have Galvanized Mobility apply to Ref saves as well as AC vs. reactions. IMO, that would fit in with class concept without including the Legendary risk mitigation for critical failures. Regarding hit points: I think it could make sense for Adrenaline to add temporary hit points equal to class level (1/2 class level for the multiclass archetype) until the start of the next turn. Considering that hit points are an abstraction that includes "stamina" and adrenaline boosts stamina IRL. Regarding props/terrain: An earth/wood kineticist would probably be one of the "best buddies" to have in the party with a daredevil, creating terrain that could be used as props.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I feel like it's an issue that none of the other tool options function as a damage boost. The Warding Mail kind of skirts it because it's reasonably defensive, but you're not a heavy armor class like Champion or Guardian (should it give heavy proficiency?) where going all-in on AC and taking hits can make up for the lack of direct damage (plus, those classes have additional tools to mitigate party damage) A slayer with Warding Mail is a heavy armor class. Page 18 of the playtest document: "In addition, you become trained in heavy armor. Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in medium armor, you also gain that proficiency in heavy armor." Also, at 7th level with Specialized Arsenal: "You gain access to the armor specialization effects of this signature tool, and the initial benefit grants resistance to all damage dealt by your quarry."
We look forward to seeing what everyone puts together! I'm skimming the classes and have some initial ideas. Daredevil: halfling with alchemist dedication (and several alchemical food formulas) using a frying pan (taking Halfling Weapon Familiarity for the forced movement critical specialization effect), probably taking the Step Lively/Dance Underfoot/Toppling Dance ancestry feats; or possibly a Varisian dancer with a bladed scarf. I have to think a bit more on pairing the Stunt Damage class feature with a weapon that has the Shove trait; it may be that prioritizing a weapon with the Shove trait will make it easier to get the extra damage. Slayer: half-orc from Ustalav with the consecrated panoply signature tool and the undead slayer archetype. Although the chymist vials allow people to create a witcher-type character, I might also tinker around with the warded mail signature tool and the alchemist dedication to use a weapon siphon while wearing a dread helm and either powered full plate (if allowed) or bone dreadnaught plate (if 11th+ level).
The issue with evil adventures in a setting with (at least to some extent) objective morality is that actually good foes are going to be sympathetic and altruistic, not overbearing hypocrites like the "awful good" stereotype. And the old Lantern Bearers (the Winter Council in particular) in Second Darkness are not actually good (neutral at best, with a leaning toward "the ends justify the means"*). For a campaign that allows proactive evil PCs, good enemies will likely be a rarity or at most opponents that need to be defeated for specific objectives. *- which can be a dangerous road to travel
You might be able to use some or all the following:
TBF with Hell's Vengeance, there was noise at the time about how an evil adventure "needed" to fight against good opponents. "Evil vs. evil is unsatisfying" and similar comments; and there were gripes about the lack of good opponents for most of Blood Lords (and even some shade thrown that the PCs could ally with the good groups in Field of Maidens). As far as starting as evil minions in evil societies (Cheliax and Geb), that's pretty much the same set up as Second Darkness (employees at a gambling establishment), Skull & Shackles (press-ganged pirate crew), Shattered Star (Pathfinder agents), War for the Crown (agents for Martella), Agents of Edgewatch (members of law enforcement), Wardens of Wildwood, etc. This is common for low level characters; you have to work your way up the ranks in an established organization. I think the biggest disconnect for some groups who want to play in an evil campaign is that the PCs for Hell's Vengeance and Blood Lords are enforcing the status quo, instead of rebelling against it.
You can find plenty of concepts/ideas in this thread from 2022.
There is interest from players in Evil scenarios/APs, the main lack of interest is from GMs and writers. Paizo has released deliberately "evil scenarios/APs," as well as ones that can accommodate a party of evil PCs, in the past: Kingmaker AP (can accommodate), Serpent's Skull AP (can accommodate), Reign of Winter AP (can accommodate), Hell's Vengeance AP (deliberately evil), Strange Aeons AP (can accommodate), Emerald Spire (can accommodate), Fists of the Ruby Phoenix AP (can accommodate), Outlaws of Alkenstar AP (can accommodate), Blood Lords AP (deliberately evil), Gatewalkers AP (can accommodate), and Myth-Speaker AP (can accommodate). The ones that require a party of evil PCs are less popular (sell fewer copies and make less money) than those that can accommodate evil PCs or have the PCs as heroic/good people battling evil foes. Yes, "there is interest" for "evil scenarios/APs;" but less interest than for good or neutral ones.
Going off of Archives of Nethys, a barbarian with the spider animal instinct gains the following:
*- The spider’s web attack deals no damage, but the target takes a –10-foot circumstance penalty to its Speeds for 1 round on a hit. If a target is hit a second time by the same character’s web attack while they have this penalty, they’re instead immobilized until they succeed at a check to Escape against your class DC. Since the web attack "deals no damage," abilities that increase damage or add riders to damage have no effect. Also, Brutality doesn't apply to the web attack because it isn't a melee weapon and lacks the unarmed tag.
You know basic facts off the top of your head. Choose a skill you’re an expert in that has the Recall Knowledge action and for which you have the Assurance feat. You can use the Recall Knowledge action with that skill as a free action once per round. If you do, you must use Assurance on the skill check.Does anyone actually take, much less use the above feat? Mainly as a feat tax for Enigma's Knowledge (for basic facts using all Trained skills, as well as Expert or better).
IMO, a shifter could be similar to an animal instinct barbarian with two major differences:
TBF regarding armor and weapons under WBL customization, you probably don't absolutely need much more than about +3 for weapons or +4 for armor with strategic choices on material and qualities: a +3 holy adamantine weapon in many campaigns, a +4 mirrored mithral breastplate (or chain shirt), etc. It's often more desirable to have more qualities than "plusses" to make up the "+10 equivalent" limit for non-artifact/-mythic items.
TBF, in certain periods of real-world history it was fairly common for a "stone castle" to have wooden floors/ceilings, wooden beams for support, wooden roofs (covered with slate or other non-flammable material), etc. "Burning down a stone castle" would usually involve all the wood structural components, furniture, tapestries, etc. which would just leave a stone shell and often involve a collapse of the upper portions of the stone walls.
If you want to concentrate on channeling, an oracle (likely spirit guide archetype; using Bonded Spirit to pick up a second set of channeling uses per day at 7th level) is probably a better choice than cleric. The oracle is still a better caster than warpriest and +3/4 BAB; it also allows you to focus even more on Cha, instead of splitting between Wis and Cha.
You do not have to take a lineage feat as your ancestry feat at 1st level. However, you can't take a lineage (apart from some special feats allowing it in some versatile heritages) after 1st level.
Two things, mainly. First, every build for a caster I see involves a time of "just add metamagic rods," and that regularly suggests to me that they're too important as part of a build, and thus improving diversity in the space involves banning them. I wanted to be sure there wouldn't be some unforeseen effect from doing so.I've been thinking about using PF1 in an OSR way. And that led me to wonder: what happens to the martial-caster disparity if metamagic rods just don't exist? What if you can't find them, can't buy them, can't make them?Is this idea coming from 'personal experience' with these rods, or just from seeing them on the item lists? In many cases, the use of metamagic rods isn't because they are "too important as part of a build," but rather a way of circumventing the limited number of feats. Essentially, the "build" is spending money for use of metamagic because other feats don't have an easy way of duplicating their benefits ("I want feats A and B, but I also want to cast using metamagic feats X and Y."). Since rods can only be used 3 times per day each, they may not be as "important" to the build as you think; they are icing on the cake. Second, I greatly dislike the magic mart and will not allow the simple purchase of magic items (except for some low-level potions and scrolls). However, I'm aware how Wealth By Level expects the ability to convert gold into magic items without issue. There are multiple ways to allow players to customize their characters' magic items that don't involve "the magic mart." TBF, "the magic mart" is really just an exaggeration and a shortcut of many GMs that don't want to deal with down time. The biggest issue with limiting the ability of players to customize their characters' magic items is that some characters can be hamstrung by not finding level-appropriate gear suitable for them (armor type, weapon type, class-specific items, etc.).
In many cases, this is an adventure/campaign design problem. Especially after the internalization of "every encounter must 'challenge' the party" (the four EL equal to APL encounters per day "rule" that was never an actual rule) during the early 3.0 days. See a more complete analysis. One way to help with this perception is to adopt a more flexible approach. I.e., incorporate a more "sandbox" design so that:
A bit of a tangent, but even with a high degree of system mastery tastes, play-style, and even mood influence the choice of character concept and class for a given adventure/campaign. Yes, casters are "optimal" in PF1. However, optimization is not the be-all and end-all of RPGs.
IMO, banning metamagic rods would just push experienced players more toward the arcanist (and exploiter wizard leaving unprepared spell slots) class for the Metamixing exploit. The caster-martial disparity is such that metamagic rods don't really move the needle that much. The biggest issue that causes the caster-martial disparity is that, with the proper spells (and possibly some multiclass/prestige class levels), a caster can do everything a martial does and still have other spells to act as a caster.
We know what's under the black ice at the Crown of the World. We know who/what caused the Worldwound (and it wasn't another effect of Aroden dying). We know where Old-Mage Jatembe has been. We know the origins and issues with the Quest of the Sky. We know why Sandpoint has been so "interesting" over the years. We know more details about why Earthfall happened. (and why the Azlanti in general, not just Aroden, *sucked*)
Technically, yes. However, a shield with an attached or integrated weapon is mostly treated as two separate items (except for hands required to hold it). As for the dart shield, the launching trait specifies "[t]he trait lists the type of weapon, such as 'launching dart.'” Since no other details are given, the dart launched by the dart shield should be treated as a dart ranged weapon: Price 1 cp; Damage 1d4 P; Bulk L; Hands 1; Range 20 ft.
That explains why Minrah didn't have the double images in #1338, I guess. And "-oh, thog lost count" is so on brand.
On the devil advocate side for nanocyte as an archetype, it's possible that it could end up (very roughly) like the cavalier PF2e archetype where you get to choose various nanite "powers" (expanded from the android ancestry feats, maybe). "Doing cool things with nanites" does seem to be a niche that has a broader application than limiting it to a single class (or ancestry).
What about Wild armor even working with, lets say, Wizard Polymorph spells? Does it work or not? I haven't found any definitive answer other than some who say "armor of the wild only works with druid wild shape because the enchant only mentions druid wild shape." As mentioned, the wild armor quality only works with wild shape. For actual polymorph spells, note that as long as the spell doesn't change the character to a form with the "animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type" (such as alter self, fey form, giant form, monstrous physique, undead anatomy, and even [technically, by RAW] ooze form), you can still use all equipment normally: "If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size."
Regarding imaginary weapon and using the multi-classed psychic archetype on a magus: with imaginary weapon getting a slight downgrade and the amp language change to prevent using an amped cantrip to spellstrike, maybe force fang will get a slight upgrade? Or maybe just expand the "hybrid study neutral" available feats that provide additional conflux spells to provide more ways for a magus to contribute in a magical fashion while recharging their spellstrike. Granted, that probably won't satisfy the "must use spellstrike every round" crowd.
Regarding Asmodeus, one of the justifications for worshiping him is that he promotes ORDER. Even if it may be a harsh order (especially for those lower in status); frankly, the evil aspects are considered less important to the higher-ups than maintaining control (and their place in the social hierarchy). Add in some propaganda (both from the state and Asmodeus' priests) and a place like Cheliax can keep things together for a while.
I can’t imagine not wanting all the bombs, half a dozen mutagen options, 3/4 of the elixirs, a new poison every couple of levels, and a few foods (e.g.Owl Screech Egg). If your GM allows infused items to make bottled monstrosities without the craft requirements those are also easy picks. Pucker Pickle and Galvanic Chew can also be useful for the party in a lot of situations. The class for someone with system mastery, OCD, but without analysis paralysis. I present to you the Alchemist. OCD is not accurate. However, the alchemist does require a player to understand what each item does and prepare and/or react accordingly; rather than focusing on a handful of options (or even just a couple).
Personally, I wonder if the biohacker will end up as an archetype or possibly combined with another class (like the precog getting rolled into the witchwarper). From a thematic standpoint, you could make a case for either. It might make sense to add the biohacker as a "sub-class" of the mechanic after the tech book is released; it could also make sense to merge the SF1e biohacker, evolutionist, and nanocyte classes into a single SF2e class.
There is even the armored hulk archetype that gains proficiency with heavy armor, with increased movement (+5 ft at 2nd, improving to +10 ft at 5th level) too!
My table want to be sailors. I know there's a nautical component to MythSpeaker, but I think an 'exploration' AP where the PCs are sailors / traders, might satisfy their itch. You may be in luck, with the recent announcement of the upcoming Lost Omens High Seas book... I could see an AP, or at least a stand-alone adventure, based on it.
The issue that people are bringing up is that Paizo has already moved away from that mindset... The enemies that the party fights in most Paizo adventures (apart from some that are intentionally set as morally gray or even casting the PCs as "bad guys/girls") are enemies because they are bandits, committing crimes, oppressing others, etc. You aren't sent to fight a group of orcs "because they're orcs," but because "this group of orcs is slaughtering your neighbors." There is even the Triumph of the Tusk AP where the PCs are working with, or even taking the role of, orcs trying to prevent being conquered/killed/turned into "cannon fodder" (again).
The biggest assumptions about religion in Pathfinder (inherited from AD&D and D&D 3.x) are:
Attempting to apply moral relativism and/or real-world historical interpretations of religions is something that would be more productively discussed as a homebrew topic. The Golarion setting doesn't incorporate those assumptions.
This rigid explanaition of the divine cosmology restricts a lot of people's perspectives, and entrenchs a lot of western ideas. Like the idea of holy vs. unholy, that's a western mono-theistic idea. Eh. Not exactly. Yes, it draws upon Zoroastrianism (which influenced all of the Abrahamic religions). However, the "Cycle of Souls" has significant parallels to Buddhism; just as "good" has parallels with the Buddhist concepts of enlightenment and the Eightfold Path. Also, many polytheistic religions have embodiments of "evil" such as the asuras and rakshasas in Hindu myths.
I just want to add to the opinion that "dungeon-style" gaming doesn't require an actual dungeon. A "dungeon" is less a physical structure than an adventure paradigm with the following characteristics:
Also note, the mega-dungeon is not the only type of dungeon. The most common form of dungeons in recent adventures is a narratively-linked series of small dungeons that the party explores in sequence rather than a single location.
Not to get too into Paizo culture stuff but it kind of feels like there's in general a lot of siloing and lack of communications between divisions. Consider the lack of Impossible Magic on Paizo's own website, or the recent stuff with errata, or various divergences between PFS and eventually dev rulings in like... really fundamental ways on a few issues. Sometimes it just doesn't seem like there's any sort of internal communication.
I'm speculating, but this might be a sign that Paizo is transitioning from a smaller corporate structure to a medium to larger corporate structure. In a smaller company, communication seems better; but that is usually because a person is often wearing multiple "hats" (in charge of more than one function). However, that is not a very scalable way to do things; the workload increases too much for the "cross-functional" managers to keep up as the organizational responsibilities grow with the company's size. Unfortunately, when the functions get separated it becomes more difficult to get everyone on the same page.
Other than the options already mentioned, vigilante might also be an interesting choice (depending on the campaign). The vigilante also has a broad range of archetypes (instead of or possibly in addition to the avenger/stalker vigilante specialization). An avenger vigilante may even be more advantageous than a slayer, considering both the social and vigilante talents. Fort will still be a weak save, however.
Similar to the Bloodrager Dedication? Possibly.
I'm glad it turned out Secrets of Magic was rolled into this book. There was so much speculation about that to the point it was almost assumed by some posters I was worried there'd be a riot if that wasn't the case. TBF, a straight Remastered version of Secrets of Magic was probably "impossible" considering how prevalent the OGL elements were in several sections. The only question IMO was how piecemeal the updated versions of the contents would be released; like the elementalist archetype in Rage of Elements, the runelord archetype in Rival Academies, etc.
Kind of a tangent from the errata blog, but I just want to say I appreciate the addition of the Starfinder Second Edition specific forums.
But Cheliax would have second thoughts about allying with demonologists... Asmodeus and the rest of the devils hate demons. As does Cheliax.
Also, I'm not sure why Belkar seems to be affected in the last panel. I don’t see the doubling effect on Belkar, so I assume his alignment and protection is working normally. Yes. The aura around Belkar is (still) from the protection from evil effect he activated when Nale arrived ("Reruns." "Ngnnh."). Interestingly, Serini doesn't seem to be affected either (but Sunny is).
(trying to avoid spoilers) IMO, either concept would be thematically appropriate. It just depends on how heavily you want the specific character to lean into the runelord theme vs. a Thassilon/Varisia theme...
I believe that Geb also throws shade at the Whispering Tyrant for being short-sighted: once everyone is undead (Tar Baphon's apparent goal), then the entire population becomes a limited resource with no way of replacing losses... Not to mention that certain types of undead (especially vampires) require living/freshly killed creatures for sustenance.
Part 2 is the section that me and other Venture Agents can't agree on at all. My understanding is that you use your skill proficiency or Simple/Martial proficiency, whichever is lower, but my original read of it agreed with you in that you used the BETTER of those two. Yes, that is what the rules text states: "up to your proficiency with the listed skill (if higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon)." For purposes of proficiency, you treat this martial weapon as a simple weapon or this advanced weapon as a martial weapon, up to your proficiency with the listed skill (if higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon). Since skill increases can only raise proficiency to Expert at 2nd or 3rd, Master at 7th, and Legendary at 15th, it can be a bit of a boost. However, the weapons with the professional trait aren't that "good" compared to other weapons in the same category (damage and other characteristics).
The professional trait essentially just allows the character to use either the proficiency level for the weapon category (simple, martial, advanced) or the proficiency level for the skill associated with the professional trait on that weapon, whichever is higher. That's it. For your example, a character would add their Expert, Master, or Legendary proficiency bonus from the Crafting skill to their attack rolls with a hammer if it is higher than the proficiency bonus they gain with martial weapons. If the character doesn't invest sufficient skill increases in the Crafting skill to exceed the normal proficiency with martial weapons, they treat the hammer the same as any other martial weapon. The other benefit of the professional trait is that a character without proficiency in martial weapons can use a hammer without penalty as long as they are at least Trained in Crafting. Or use a polyglove if Trained in Computers.
As mentioned, Starfinder 1e isn't truly compatible with D&D 3.5. However, if you want a "sentient four legged robot dog operative" (or something close, at least) I'd recommend the using the following PF1e rules (which are fairly close to 3.5): 1) Create a "robot dog" race using the Race Builder rules (possibly a variant of the wyrwood); 2) Leverage the rules from the Technology Guide (including Tech Equipment, the Numerian Scavenger archetype for rogue as an "operative," etc.*). You should definitely also talk to your GM on if they have other ideas/restrictions.
If you want more of an old wizard feel, try the imperial sorcerer. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed that the loremaster archetype hasn't been Remastered (yet, maybe?). A wizard (or witch, or Int-base psychic, for that matter) taking the loremaster archetype can be the "know it all" caster; possibly even better than the bard or thaumaturge. Using the elf ancestry feats of Ancestral Longevity, Expert Longevity, and Universal Longevity in conjunction with an Int-based class and the loremaster archetype Quick Study feat allows the character to essentially "prepare" additional fields of knowledge they want to make RL checks about at the start of each day (and even switch one of them at a moment's notice).
Takes place in Alkenstar.Not the Deadshot Lands? Alas. I believe James Jacobs mentioned earlier this year that there might be an AP in Arcadia "soon-ish." As in within the next couple years or so. Obviously, it won't be related to the Runelords. |
