Fletch's page

I've been away from RPGs in general for a while, but had to come back when I heard there were SF2e test rules available to try out.

Out the gate, let me say flipping through it put a big smile on my face.

I'd heard SF2 was being designed to be compatible with Pathfinder 2e and I'm very happy to see how true that is. I have a very specific taste in Pathfinder, and that taste is the "Proficiency Without Level" optional rule. I'm glad to see SF2 structured in a way that allows that rule to be used here too.

Almost as important, I have a very specific taste in Starfinder, and that taste is as a "D&D in space" game rather than its own, stand-alone game. Dwarves and wizards in space more than Ysoki and Solarians in space, if you get my meaning. I'm stoked to see that Pathfinder races and classes can seemingly be ported in without any modification. Or, I guess more accurately, the sci-fi skills, feats and equipment can be used by Pathfinder characters.

But the biggest smile came when I saw the first feat listed: "Additional Spoons." Spoon theory is such a niche thing that my wife says about her condition that it's like the game was calling out to us specifically. I mean, I had to explain what feats were to her, but we got there eventually. Footnote to that, after I told her about it, she showed me an image where apparently the new approach to "out of spoons" is to say you're "out of spell slots," so we've really come full circle.

Anyways, really excited to see SF2 compatibility with my favorite parts of PF2.

Thanks, guys. I guess I was letting the word "army" draw too much focus.

At the very least that opens the door to letting multiple players participate in a battle by each controlling a different unit.

All I know about medieval warfare comes from Braveheart and Warhammer, so I'm assuming battles are supposed to include some archers and some cavalry and so on.

In PF2's warfare rules, how does that appear?

If I recruit a cavalry army, fer instance, is that saying *some* of them are on horses while the rest are infantry, or are all of them on horse and I'm supposed to fill in the foot ranks with a separate, infantry army?

Basically, how many armies am I attacking with to get my assumed "unit of infantry, unit of cavalry, unit of archers" battle? Just one army with all the upgrades, or multiple specialist armies?

This was tried way back in the 3.5 days in Second Darkness as book 2 ended at a lower level then 3 picked up with the idea that GMs could fill in the gap and if i recall correctly it was EXCEEDINGLY unpopular.

Oh yeah, I remember that. Heh. Good rebuttal.

And I'd love a more cohesive redo of Doomsday. The Aucturn Enigma and Dominion of the Black where a couple of the little Pathfinder seeds we'd gotten that intrigued me the most, and I was kind of bummed they got used up in an edition test.

But otherwise, that's exactly what I'm talking about: A long-running thread that characters keep returning to over their careers until the full mystery is solved.

I'm someone who likes a lot of different styles of adventures in my campaigns rather than sticking to a single theme the entire time. Stringing together a few shorter APs sounds like a good way to get that variety.

However, I've also grown to like a good thru line. What are people's thoughts on an AP that skips levels. Like, Vol. 1 is levels 1-3, then you do some other adventures before Vol. 2 kicks off at level 8 or something. The whole thing goes to 20, but sporadically.

Something like Eden Odyssey's Wonders Out of Time (for 3.5) if anybody remembers that. It's a favorite of mine.

Good insight, guys, thanks.

I hadn't realized shields would get bettor over levels. I'd just imagined they'd be fighting hydras with the same 5 hardness shield they started with.

And I guess I do have to adjust my narrative. It felt like it wanted to be an "oh carp!" reaction to try to survive a big attack. It seems like "pfft blocking" over time is where the value is.

Now, I've never played 2nd edition and just kind of browse the rules out of curiosity. I'm curious if actual play matches how I read it.

Some characters get to use Shield Block to reduce damage by a shield's hardness, but the shield also takes that damage. On paper, that seems to incentivise blocking only low-damage attacks, like a kobold with a dagger. It doesn't seem worth losing your shield just for 5pts off damage from an ogre.

Is that the intent? Shield Block is to slap aside small attacks rather than a last ditch reflex to hide from a troll claw?

At least that's how I read it. How does it play at the table?

A word of caution. Those caravan rules are not universally loved.

I've heard that. I honestly don't know much about it other than seeing it in th JR Player's Guide. I'm just old-school enough to really like a certain amount of resource management in my TTRPGs, and I miss it in elements like this where it's a long-term expedition, presumably with a bunch of support personnel. I feel the same about crew and cargo management in Skull & Shackles.

Will your party want to help Pathfinder Juliver once the feeblemind is dispelled?

My players have always been very good at following the carrot. That's never been a problem.

I haven't played SS, so I don't think my thoughts hold much weight, but I've wanted to run this AP for years.

By the reading, I liked the whole AP (minor nitpicks aside, which I think is normal for published adventures) except for Book 2. Ultimately it just failed to deliver on the promise of the title. I didn't see where it was an actual race. Like, where is the risk of another faction getting ahead of you? Where is the opportunity to eff with a faction getting too close behind? Were there any real gambles you could take to cut time off your journey at greater risk?

On a personal desire, I wanted to see something that made it feel like more of an expedition than a regular D&D excursion. Maybe somehow adapt Jade Regent's caravan rules to account for leading a train of porters.

So, on paper at least, I thought everything about Smuggler's Shiv and the actual exploration sounded great. It's just the "race" that left me wanting more.

I don't know that SWN has a range band map, so I'm going to assume you meant Star Wars and apologies if I'm sniping someone elses questions.

And I'm going to be very longwinded about it too.

The big error we discovered after our first space encounter was that we did in fact only use one band chart for the PC's freighter and I just placed the pirate raiders around it. I didn't keep separate charts for each of the enemy ships and just rolled their generic skills to move and attack relative to the PCs map. To be honest, it played pretty smoothly and is actually how I recommend it be used. However, there's obvious complications if the PCs have more than one ship, there's more than one side, or the enemy ship(s) are expected to make tactical choices beyond basic fight or flee type actions.

We didn't play with multiple PC ships, but I feel like the spirit would still hold up. The strength of the concept, to me, is that it boils the space melee down into just what matters to each ship: how many are out there and where are they relative to me. To be honest, I don't even think I'd include my friend's ship on my range template. It wouldn't matter how close you were to them, just how close you were to ships that were attacking them.

There are specific pilot actions that require skill checks, like closing range or shaking pursuit. There's also a check for avoiding hazards, although I'm not sure how hazards are intended to come into play. With no map, there's nothing that needs specifically to be flown around. I assume a pilot could choose to risk a hazard in order to force a pursuing ship to make the same Avoid Hazard check, but that's not spelled out in the rules that I know of. I could also see a game master deciding that an asteroid field, fer instance, might require a check in order to change range bands, but again, that's just a possibility and not a rule that I remember.

Not for nothing, moving enemy counters around the map ranged from tedious to fun for everyone. There can be a lot of moving parts, but sometimes the excitement lead to everyone grabbing tokens and moving them around. I don't think it was an intentional design goal, but it was a fun little extra point of engagement for other players around the table.

Attacks are just like basic combat, the size of the ship decides how far away you can attack (fighters need to get to point blank while cruisers can shoot farther (but notably NOT point blank)). There isn't any system targetting or anything nuanced like that, just blasting away.

Weirdly, now that I'm flipping back through the rulebook, I can't find any mention of what other crewmembers would be doing. It's weird because I totally remember them doing stuff. We must've dragged in some rules from another game, but the guy playing the repair droid was definitely making repair rolls and we had some sort of system damage going on. (I wonder if we cribbed from GURPS, one of my players had a huge library of GURPS books.) Anyways, unless it's hiding in some other chapter, that's definitely a shortcoming of these rules.

Thanks. I'll try it one more time. Copy and paste has worked initially, I hope this photo site isn't temporary

space combat map

My first time linking an image on these boards, but fingers crossed.

https://ibb.co/tZxR5nH

That's the space combat "map" from the 1st D20 Star Wars version. Each ship (or fighter wing) would have one and use tokens to mark where the other ships were relative to you.

Maneuvering your ship would change where the other ships were relative to you (fer instance, turning left moved everybody one firing arc clockwise).

Opening the book again, I realize I'd forgotten that even speeds were abstracted too. "Attack speed" was faster than "cruising speed" for example, and each category is speed had bonuses and penalties for different attacks or maneuvers (and bigger ships couldn't reach the faster speeds)

I vaguely remember our first battle went pretty well, but then someone pointed out that I hadn't run it exactly right, and correcting those errors kind of bogged it down. I specifically remember the biggest frustration came when we couldn't figure out how to move out of a pirate frigate's firing arc, since turning your ship only affects your arcs and not theirs (as I remember it).

Looking back on it, though, it really did give a fun experience of a fast and furious space battle, but it needed to shore up some specifics.

I'd love a fighter squadron AP, but I wouldn't ask for that to be the default solution.

I like the direction Sanityfaerie is going in, especially not tracking map positions, just relative ones. I'd just been saying how much a fan I was of the 1st Ed WotC Star Wars space combat system in another thread, and that's what it's based on. I also like the idea of starship position feat trees, especially if they're like PF2's 'gain new ability rather than increased power' approach to feats.

SW's relative space map combined with Starfleet's "not enough power for everybody" and crew results that grow over the course of battle I think is what I'd be happy with.

I think the only other element I'd like addressed is to change the name of the Science Officer to Navigator. I don't have a great reason for it, I just like it better.

How were the threat bands measured, marked, or defined?

Vaguely. You'd basically do pilot checks to get into your attack range band while the other ship makes checks to move out of your target band and/or get into the attack range band of a different ship.

There's also a special tailing position that you can pilot skill into and gives you bonuses to attacks and you're harder to shake.

That's not a great description, but let my pull the book when I get home and I'll link a photo of the graphic.

I like a lot of what Bretl said, including my realization that it's actually not the Sci officer who controls shields like I'd for some reason assumed.

Reduced ship defenses, increased risk to crew, reduced energy resources. All really insightful ideas. The base level of a ship should be mediocre, with the crew making up the difference.

Where crew combat really suffers, I think, is that only the pilot (and maybe gunner) has decision points. The pilot is deciding where to go and how to get there, and the rest of the crew just makes that possible.

Now, I really don't have a good grasp of how long the average space encounter lasts, but I'd like to see something where a crewmember has to invest in an action. The more turns they spend on it, the better the results or bonus. Then there's some weight to deciding if they should, fer instance, sacrifice their +3 targeting bonus against one ship in order to start building up shields against another. An engineer can spend one turn getting a system working for two turns, or can spend three turns to fix it permanently.

Like, make the crew actions skill challenges, if that's still a term we use.

I might be the only person who liked the original, WotC Star Wars spaceship rules. Instead of a hex map, it used range and threat bands around each ship, and you'd maneuver to get into or shake someone out of different bands.

I liked it a lot. It felt a lot more atmospheric and chaotic like a real dogfight, and it's almost "theater of the mind" approach felt richer than trying to accept this 2D hex map as 3D space.

The rest of my group didn't care for it, though, and it was replaced in the 2nd edition with 2D hex maneuvers so they certainly weren't alone.

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly, but I don't think Weakness/Resistance is the right answer.

If I'm wearing, say, A bantha hide vest that has weakness to lasers, I'm suddenly taking more damage than if I wasn't wearing anything at all?

I think I'd like different AC types. Armor Class has always been kind of vague, but at the same time D&D has also always defended energy attacks with saving throws, so you could argue that AC's vagueness never included lightning guns or ray beams to start with.

And I'm not convinced it's a lot of effort to track or reference two different ACs. To be honest, I don't even think it'd be a lot of effort to add it back in at our home game if it's not included. It's minimal effort tactical flavor.

As for my desires in SF2, I'm actually very on board with it being PF2-compatible, but I have a very specific flavor of Pathfinder i like.

I love the inherent bonuses and no level bonus options and use those exclusively in the games I run. I'm not great at "encounter balance" or "wealth by level," and these options give us more leeway in playing our games.

So I'd want the pieces of Starfinder to support that, such as by having single die weapon damages that can be multiplied by inherent bonuses, or keeping the easy math to subtract the built-in level bonuses if we don't want them.

I get you can't include all of Absalom in a beginner's box or any adventure, for that matter. But where ever the beginner's box takes place it should have a starter location usable as a home base, even if it's just a tiny portion of a larger station.

It's from many years back, but one of the Dragon Magazine articles supporting Age of Worms was a small neighborhood in Greyhawk called the Midnight Muddle. It was the perfectly sized home base, with a number of shops and locations, and plenty of personalities and inter-NPC drama. No quest hooks, just flavor.

That's exactly the scale of "adventure setting" I've been wanting ever since.

I feel like this is the perfect place for Proficiency without Level.

Lower-level areas stay challenging a little longer, and wandering into a higher-level area isn't immediately fatal.

Removing alignment without at least providing an alternative descriptor process is a bad idea.

For my two cents, not that I think this has a chance, but if this remaster make the "Proficiency without Level" rules from the Gamemastery Guide the default, then I'm 100% in on this. Pipe dream, sure, and I'm probably in a minority of people who think that is what the game really needs to do, but just getting that thought out there.

Learning about Proficiency without Level is why I even checked out PF2 in the first place. If it becomes core, great, but it's staying in my game regardless.

I think the only thing I really hate about PF2 is full-caster bards, but I'm not hopeful they'll be changing that.

But if you want to hear about real disappointment, when I first saw the name "Pathfinder Remastered Project" pop up in my YouTube, I thought it was an ongoing project to update all the old APs to the 2nd edition.

After that let down, finding out they're changing spell levels to spell ranks was kind of anti-climactic.

Ah, "recent" change in my setting, but there's a sizable portion of true neutral/chaotic neutral Rovagug followers in the darklands, that worship It as a nature god, much like Gozreh is worshipped on the surface.

That's worth copying.

Fletch wrote:

D3stro 2119 wrote:

The idea that "elves are aliens" is a really good one and sets one of the tones of the setting (something I really wanted the setting to play into more rather than just being "bog standard fantasy").

I very agree. I was actually disappointed to find out elves weren't the major race on Castrovel like I'd long thought they were. If there's ever a thread about changes we made to the Starfinder setting, I have some notes.

I mean, they’re just as major as the other two they share Castrovel with (the Formians and Lashunta). Given how many ancestries share Golarion, it would be a little silly if their neighbor was wholly Elf Planet, no?

Meh. I'm okay with monocultures in sci-fi settings, but that's really a Starfinder thing. I'm just saying I'd imagined Castrovel as being the elf planet, not just a planet where they are hidden recluses, taking a back seat to their antenna friends.

The idea that "elves are aliens" is a really good one and sets one of the tones of the setting (something I really wanted the setting to play into more rather than just being "bog standard fantasy").

I very agree. I was actually disappointed to find out elves weren't the major race on Castrovel like I'd long thought they were. If there's ever a thread about changes we made to the Starfinder setting, I have some notes.

Oh, and another note on races: I really dislike "humanocentrism" (something something Absalom of all places still being 80% human) and "race stereotypes."

This is where my fogey-ism shows through because I prefer humanocentric settings. I'm not sure I can describe it well, but I find racially-homogenized settings take away some of the fantasy feel. Like, if elves and gnomes are everywhere, they become mundane.

Buuuut, since Absalom is supposed to be THE metropolis, I agree that it should have a wider range of residents. That should be its special thing, like you walk in and are like "ohmygod, there's elves and goblins and mermen and..." Of course you only get that feel if all the other cities in the world aren't also like that.

Daemons have no satisfactions nor joy, their only respite is that they suffer a bit less when they make someone else suffer

That's pretty compelling.

Good tips on Velstracs, everyone, thanks. I'm going to have to come back some time and pick y'all's brains for Razmir ideas.

.

Zon kuthon has connections to Velstrac's a different group of evil outsiders. based off of the things from Hellraiser(i'm not too familiar with the franchise).

Oh, in that case it slots quite nicely. Where is this described? Does any book go into more detail?

demon are mortal on their worst day

I'm not very deeply read on Golarion, but I understand that here demons are spawned from specific sins and this line does a great job of summarizing the nuance that can give.

I do think demons can be subtle while devils can be brutish, but it's their ultimate goals that I consider the dividing line. Devils want to dominate, demons want to destroy, and daemons also want to destroy.

Cenobites, on the other hand, have this unique "you will experience incredible pain and learn to enjoy it" aspect that is not only unique but also comfortably neutral evil.

Side note: I had thought Zon'Kuthon was connected with them, but I guess that was the Dominion of the Black, which is aliens? I have so many questions about that.

I've only recently become a fan of Golarion (having formerly been all-in on Eberron), but I came on board with a few general mods in mind if they ever come up.

First off, it's not exactly a change,but I generally find the 1e setting more interesting than the 2e setting. Fer instance, I think Thassilon is better as an ancient empire to uncover secrets about rather than as a neighbor you can just ask. I've paused the setting so there's no Ravounel, the Whispering Tyrant is still a pending menace, etc.

As for actual changes, though, I find the timeline is way too long and have mentally compressed everything after Aroden's ascension by 75%. That lets the AR years roughly approximate our own AD years in a way my little brain can comprehend.

To specific points, though, I've eased back the hard sci-fi in Numeria to make it a bit more like He-Man. It's a fantasy setting where you can find people using tech rather than being overrun with it.

I also was very disappointed to find out the truth about Razmir, so have decided he's an as-yet-undetermined outsider who gives his followers actual spells (divine, psychic, or other) for unknown reasons. There are actual clerics of Razmir who are in the dark about his ultimate goals.

Finally, I've changed Velstracs to Neutral Evil and replaced Daemons with them. I couldn't easily see a distinction between demons and daemons, but Cenobites are something else entirely.

Oh, and I've replaced the Whatsit Consortium when mentioned with the Pact Masters because I just find them more interesting.

I think that's it for actual setting changes outside of adventure flavoring. I'm finding that I've softened on a lot of the elements that didn't initially connect with me back in the day, but these remain my sticking points.

Waaay back when, my favorite deity was Razmir. I don't remember where I read about him first, but there was a definite gap of time between when I learned of Razmiran, the Living God, and his masked missionaries and when I found out it was all a con and his priests were in on it.

In fact, I was so disappointed with that revelation that I decided to just kind of ignore it. In my home version of Golarion, Razmir grants divine spells. Who or what he is remains a mystery behind his mask and none are more deceived than his acolytes who have taken him at face value.

It is out for backers, but for the general public it will be a bit longer

That makes sense; I guess it never registered with me as an actual crowd-funded thing.

Like I said, the ol' AP was a favorite and, even though I never got very far in the video game (see "fogey" above), I'm keen to see how that gets incorporated and added to the campaign. I'm a little leary from what little I've heard about the kingdom building elements, so I'm a bit anxious to see that fully as well.

It goes out for sale October 26, I believe.

Ah. Thanks, guys.

The reviews, questions, and (GM Reference) winner made me think it was already out. I was going mad trying to find it.

I'm kind of a fogey and have the hardest time navigating Paizo's website. I'm really interested in this re-release of Kingmaker, but literally cannot find where it's for sale or even if it's for sale or if there's a pdf.

Would somebody take pity on an old man and link me to the store where I can buy a pdf of this or if there's a placeholder for its future release. Or even just update me on its current status and where I'd go at some future date to buy it?

Thanks guys. I really loved the original AP and am very excited to see how it's approached for the 2nd edition.

I'm still very new to Pathfinder 2nd Ed, but I've noticed that the 6-part APs released for 2nd Ed go all the way up to level 20, while the first edition APs seemed to wrap up around level 15-ish.

I don't have a lot of high-level experience in any edition, but I'm curious what approach 2nd Ed took to high-level play that made them so confident in making adventures to max level.

What caused the previous edition to shy away from the upper teens that the current version doesn't have to worry about?

One thing I know they did do was genericize many of the subsystems to the Victory Points model in the GMG.

I don't think this is exactly what I'd be looking for in terms of mass combat or kingdom building. Tracking how the PCs' actions build up over time to succeed (or not) at something is one thing. Building something that, while it can be influenced by the PCs and affect them in return, otherwise exists and acts as a separate entity warrants its own subsystem.

The 2nd edition version of these rules instead presents the kingdom in a similar way to a character, sort of like how the Hell's Rebels rebellion worked, or how a starship works in Pathifnder, but taking full advantage of the new edition's rules.

I don't actually have any experience with either of those subsystems, but I'm not really down with the idea of kingdoms or armies or fleets or pirate havens just growing by default because the PCs advance.

I like my subsystems to play as sort of minigames where the PCs do get to influence it and be affected by it, but is actually a playable game.

Like, while Kingmaker had a "kingdom in the background" section for those who didn't want to bean count, but otherwise there was a whole side-game of choosing buildings and setting policies and raising armies that was quite a bit of fun. All it really needed was a throttle on the easier-to-abuse aspects.

Conversely, Skull & Shackles treated the whole ship and piracy element as a side thought. I would loved to have seen more granulity in loot and crew morale and its effects on boarding combat and supply management for sailing out and looking for ships to pirate. Don't get me started on the fleet combat rules.

Anyways, it just sounds like they're going in the opposite direction from what I'd hoped, is what I'm trying to say.

Good insights, guys, thanks.

I take it there hasn't been any chatter from the developers or off-the-record rumors that might point to revisiting some of the mini-games of the past edition.

I remember many of these subsystems, like the caravan rules from Jade Regent, weren't well-received so I was hoping there was some interest in revisiting them. And while the kingdom building rules were pretty solid, I was wondering if the team adapting Kingmaker had made any statements about how they were using any "lessons learned" in the rewrite of the system for PF2e.

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to Pathfinder 2e until now, but now that I'm looking at it, I'm curious if there's been any statements about updating some of the 1e campaign rules.

Like, I know there's a 2e version of Kingmaker coming, do we know if that's simply using/ updating the old kingdom and mass combat rules, or if those are getting a larger overhaul like the PF rules themselves did?

I'm also interested in hearing about any announcements or rumors about things like the technology guide and ship combat in case anyone wants to adapt Iron Gods or Skull & Shackles.

Thanks, all.

If you guys do end up wanting to do that AP you can always use the excuse of the party's growing fame at resolving the previous AP as a springboard.

That's fair. It also occurs to me that someone could just place the Ab-Vault in Minkai, but I know very little about that setting so it'd have to be someone else.

I've the ghost of an idea of continuing with the back half of Extinction Curse (minus the circus part) if we really wanted to continue on Kortos. I mean, I don't actually have any of that AP and it's really overthinking things, but it's an idea.

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I'm inclined to agree with the original post. My old group has started whispering about trying some online gaming, and I'm really leaning toward PF2e. But when you're coming in new and fresh, too many new ideas feel like a distraction. Like, learning rules takes enough attention without also learning mini-games or trying to keep up with new locations or being told what kind of character you should play (sorry, you're all cops.)

I'd say shaking things up as a circus or all-wizards group is great when you're ready for something new, but we're not there yet.

Fortunately, the Humble Bundle I got came with Abomination Vaults which seems like a good starter AP: it can be picked up from the Beginner Box if we choose to do that, keeps to a single location for RP, and only goes to 10th level so it's not as much of a commitment. I only wish the 11-20 AP weren't on the exact opposite side of Golarion so we could continue if we wanted.

And, as long as I'm here, I'll add my vote to keeping XP. Milestone-based leveling feels even more like the story's pre-determined than playing an AP already does, but at least XP rewards allow for branching out in off-script directions that aren't just kind of pausing advancement until we can get back to the story we *should* be playing.

Fast advancement is an option I appreciate, because it'd let me trim encounters that feel repetitive or like padding.

PF1 heroes are John Wick, and PF2 heroes are Neo

That's actually the opposite of what I'd heard. I believe you, but maybe it comes down to play style?

I'm guilty of buying more than a couple Adventure Paths just for reading, so I'll likely get some of the 'Return' books at some point. So I guess my question about the Runelords appearing in other media is...

Oh, and...

I didn't intend to get into the weeds of the actual AP here in the setting forums, but I'm curious.

Anything listed as uncommon means you can't have it unless your GM says so. Occasionally there are some character specific background options that might give you access to things that are uncommon.

Rare things are basically saying "This is exists, but you shouldn't ever get access to it except under really specific conditions".

So the assumption is that a player couldn't choose these uncommon or rare spells outside of a class trait or a campaign event? I like that idea. My son and I played the PF Beginner's Box and I liked the very limited spell listings in there as kind of a foundation to build on from exploring. That's for sure how I'd want to play it.

It's pretty cool, really, if you want a game with bounded accuracy ala D&D 5E.

Just between us, I've never played 5e either, but I really like the *idea* of bounded accuracy. I don't hate the idea of adding level to skills enough to want to head that way out of the box (even as it doesn't feel very simulation-y), but it's fun to know that's an option. (While understanding The Rot Grub's clarification of it).

To be honest, it didn't register that the "add level to skills" was also considered to include to-hit rolls. That doesn't seem weird to me, but I might have to re-evaluate what I consider a skill check if I'm misreading the rules.

Second edition is more down to earth, the struggle is real, more like Tolkein level action.

And that's the one review point that single handedly got me to even look at Pathfinder 2. If anybody remembers the old Pathfinder Chronicles Podcast, there was a point where everybody chases off after the badguy using a crazy variety of flying abilities/spells/items and thry describe it as feeling like a superhero game. Any fantasy game system that stops shy of 'D&D Avengers' is something I'm interested in.

There is a variant rule in the Gamemastery Guide that allows you to drop the level bonus to proficiencies. It's a bit of work to implement but it may align more with your preferred style of play.

Look at that, it's also in the SRD. I mean, I obviously don't hate the way it's originally written, but it's interesting that there was that much consideration put into modifying it to create what looks like a pretty different campaign style.

Like Elorebaen hinted at, I should probably pause until I get the actual rule book, but I did give the spell section a good read and had some thoughts.

First was what turns out to be my own misunderstanding. To hear people review the game, I thought spellcasting was more sorcerer-like, with wizards being able to spontaneously up-level their spells to be more effective. Like, if you had fireball in your repertoire, you could choose to use a level 5 casting slot (fer instance) to get the increased damage dice. Unfortunately I convinced myself that was a cool idea and now I'm kind of disappointed that you have to memorize a spell at a specific level to get that boost; you can't just decide on the fly.

That's my own baggage, though.

I also noticed a real shortage of material components for some spells that traditionally had them. While previous editions had already started homogenizing them by just saying "yeah, that's in your spell pouch," I really enjoyed the detail of pulling out an amber rod and some fur to cast my lightning bolt. Sad to see those go.

The only real question I'm left with is about the Four Essences. I'm thinking this is new to PF2 (unless it was a late-add to PF1), but I don't see why it's a thing. Are there examples in the rulebook that explains why they're defining these elements? Are there some class traits or magic items that influence spells that affect "spirit" or "matter"?

Wait, there's a second question: why are some spells listed as 'Uncommon'?

As awesome as the SRD for the searching of specific rules, I have found being able to look at whole sections in the book to be invaluable.

You're no doubt right. I intend to get the rules and might've jumped the gun on my late-to-the-party notes.

I suggest jumping right in, and running a few short combats with your players.

Sadly, I've been without a group for a while now. Reading gaming books is really just, like, a mental exercise now. Does that make sense? I got a link to a supposedly good actual play podcast that I intend to listen to when work lets up.

Thanks, Phntm.

It really is kind of jarring that Varisia, once defined by being a frontier land built over the ruins of a forgotten empire, is now just that empire again.

Side thought only kind of related to the rules, I'm learning that none of the currently available or proposed APs for PF2 interest me. Out of curiosity, how easy is it to run a PF1 adventure in the new rules? Is it as easy as using updated monster stats, or do skill DCs and treasure amounts need adjusting too?

Similarly, is PF2 any flatter than previous editions? I mean, does it have the same power escalation that made it difficult to run an adventure for a wider range of levels, or is it more lenient in letting me run a 5th level adventure for my 1st or 10th level PCs?

Finding impactful uses for those extra actions tends to be the crux of martial strategy in my experience.

Having martial classes need to make choices sounds like a great improvement. I did see the penalties for multiple attacks (as well as the 'raise shields' action requirement) but I guess I hadn't thought through the impact of those.

However, the real thing stopping this in PF2 is that the way PCs level and gain skills is not how NPCs do so

Oh, that's new. I'd thought NPCs and monsters following the same progression rules as PCs was a hallmark of 3e and Pathfinder. I wasn't aware of a shift. Thanks.

Also, I confess that my old group might not have been the most efficient players, as swift actions etc. didn't seem to come up much? Maybe we were all just to ingrained with the 2-action actions of earlier editions and never deviated much from move-attack.

Thanks for the insights, guys.

I'm just getting back into Pathfinder after a few years away; how funny this thread is still current.

I don't know anything about any of the more recent Paths since, say, Giantslayer, but that won't stop me from chiming in because I really like Eberron.

I think Veltharis has a great idea for Tyrant's Grasp being about a Rakshasa trying to break free. Vol appearing as an ally would be amazing. The only thing I can add is that the summary of 'Eulogy for Roslar's Coffer' sounds a little like the Mourning.

'Strange Aeons' would also make a good addition to Eberron lore. Not a Lovecraft fan myself, but it sounds like it could 100% be about Xoriat re-linking with Eberron and the PCs involvement in making that not happen. The kind of campaign that isn't just set in Eberron, but is *about* Eberron.

Finally, I would have no interest in 'Extinction Curse' unless it were set in Eberron. It has House Phiarlan written all over it and I wouldn't be interested in a campaign involving a traveling circus unless it came with that kind of history.