Friendlyfish's page

Some good points raised; I still wouldn’t mind playing a sorcerer though.

But wizards and sorcs should find at least one thing to agree on: spells hit like a wet noodle, and are a consumable resource. They seem weak. God wizards have been nerfed into Nerd Wizards, and blockbuster wizards seem pretty gimpy. If anything, a bit more dpr for the arcane casters is in order.

I couldn’t find any information to derive about how many encounters a day the party is supposed to play through before a rest. Any indication about how the game is currently balanced?

Friendlyfish wrote:

Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.

Please remember than learning a spell in 2nd edition has a lot more value. You do not have to learn summon monster 1 to 9, learning a single spell gives you that.

I think that the increased value to learn spell is a direct consequence of the new spell structure, where individual spell have a lot more value than in 1st ed.

True, I can't argue with that.

That being said, in my own opinion, heightening isn't so valuable as to make the wizard de facto better than a flexible sorcerer. I'd be perfectly happy as a sorcerer to heighten summon monster and fireball for my two free heightens, for instance, and then I'll use my highest level spells at their levels when necessary. Typically, heightened spells aren't any better or even as good as higher level spells anyway (with the notable exception of summon monster).

Given the wizard only has 5 or 6 spells in his spellbook per level that he has to precisely apportion with prepared casting, and doesn't necessarily have any great incentive to heighten anyway, I'll happily play my imperial sorcerer with 4 spells per level that I can cast any way I see fit.

I'd also play a wizard too, honestly; when I play Vancian wizards I tend to develop a standard loadout anyway. The drain focus mechanic gives them greater flexibility as well. My guess is that the two classes won't play that differently on average or have too much to distinguish between them in terms of role or efficacy.

I don't entirely get this thread. They make an option for Vancian haters. It's called the sorcerer. It works pretty well...?

I'm pretty sure everybody posting gets this point, so what is the real beef? People want more spells known? They'd rather have an int-casting sorcerer? Just curious.

If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it.

Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.

You could have the sorcerers flexibility with four spells per level in your repertoire, or you have to do prepared casting and deal with potential waste with only six spells per level in your spellbook.

Really, the two aren't that different. Wizard still has heightening flexibility and a little more versatility, sorcerer doesn't. Sorcerer has spontaneous spellcasting and a better primary stat and skills, wizards don't. Pretty much a wash.

Just a quick thought:

Going by the character wealth by level table, it seems like adding a spell to your spellbook outside of the two spells per level received automatically is very expensive. You could drain your entire currency to learn an additional 4 spells of the highest level; since that's unrealistic, let's say you spent it all to learn 2 spells of every level.

Therefore, you'll have maybe 6 spells/level in your spellbook, 4 from leveling and 2 from buying spells.

Perhaps this is intended? It makes sorcerer a lot more attractive when the wizard can't de facto purchase every spell in the spell list. Wizard's advantage becomes more about flexibility of heightening spells rather than of raw versatility.

I love it when people compare wizards to sorcerers and decide that wizards are just better. Yes, they have access to all the arcane spells, theoretically, and sorcerers just don't.

Everybody ignores the fact that preparation spellcasting means you as a player have to call the ball exactly right at the beginning of each adventuring day or you ended up wasting resources on a certain number of useless spells.

Narrow as they have to be built, sorcerers aren't goaded into speculative resource waste. If I know lightning bolt, when a lightning bolt is needed, I cast it.

Designing the imperial sorcerer to have the same spell progression as a universalist wizard is very strong.

I'd be hard pressed to determine which caster is stronger. Certainly an arcane sorcerer is a better artillery piece or battle-mage. And certainly a wizard is a better toolbox. Pick your poison, they did a good job here.

Yes, I'll agree- the organization of spells particularly, and probably feats as well, is pretty bad. I shouldn't need Lexis Nexis to reference spells for my wizard.

Please indicate what spell lists (arcane, occult, etc.) each spell is on, as was done in PF1. That would go a long way towards helping.

I like fighting demigods, and becoming demigods, but what is the point of bolting on a subsystem solely for that purpose? It’s more elegant to have that function happen within the bounds of the game as-is. I enjoyed Mythic, but more for the narrative space, not for the mechanical.

At higher levels these extra spells aren't going to help you in combat. Your secondary spellcasting stat is going to lag (unless you're Bard/Sorcerer or Druid/Cleric) for DCs and after level 12/16/19 you're falling behind on proficiency boosts to your DC compared to your main spellcasting class. It can provide slots for utility and buffing, though, if you don't mind the opportunity cost in missed metamagic or other boosts that make your primary spellcasting more effective.

Makes sense. There are reasons why the spellcasting progression for the secondary class lags the primary class. That being said, extra spells per day are still a very strong option, since they are a limited resource in a resource management class. Even when balanced against spellcasting modication feats and metamagic. I was wondering whether the option to get more spells instead of metamagic, or what have you, would be available within your own primary spellcasting class, rather than only available by taking a secondary class archetype.

A generalist Wizard who takes the feats from the Wizard preview blog to (1) have an extra use of Arcane Focus and (2) cast successive spells from the Arcane Focus that are two levels below the previous theoretically can cast an extra ten slots off those feats at level 17. Recast a 9/7/5/3/1 level spell (in that order with no breaks, all spells have to have been cast previously in the day), twice.

Agreed, although the trick you quote lacks a lot of flexibility, it can be used to give you access to more spells per day.

Spells for feats seems like a very strong option.

If I play a wizard with a cleric archetype, for instance, and I take feats to get to 8th level spellcasting, as well as the feat giving me extra cleric spell slots, I get an extra 2 spells each for levels 1-6 and 1 spell each for level 7-8 for a total of 14 extra spells!

Typically, my PF2 wizard would get 4 spells per level for a total of 36 spells at lvl 20; but with cleric archetype on board, he can end up with 50. That's a 40% increase in spells per day! That seems like it would be a really strong use of feat space, if not flat out optimal. Obviously, without the playtest in hand, I'm not in a position to call anything optimal, but it seems like it would be really strong.

What I'm wondering is this: will there be equivalent feats allowing me to get an extra 14 spell slots purely in the wizard spell list, rather than making me feel like I need to go cleric or druid multiclass in order to maximize my spell loadout? I'd prefer not to feel sub-optimal if I'm not a mystic theurge.

(How strange, having been in the game since 3E, to wonder if mystic theurge just became optimal...)

So there’s this brand new occult spell list, evoking Eldritch ritual, sanity blasting horror and psychic potency.

Its chief practitioner is the bard.

Whut?

‍

I would have liked to have had more Mythic support than I got in PF1; I enjoy the type of campaign where your party actually slays the demon lord and explicitly becomes a demigod in the planes as a finisher, for instance.

Whether that style of campaign would require the addition of tiers or levels of power beyond 20th in PF2, or whether this edition will be designed such that "slaying the demon lord" play will be within the capability of a party of 20th level characters, thereby obviating the need for mythic, would of course be a design decision. I would prefer the latter, honestly.

Certainly, PF1 was explicitly designed such that a party of 20th levels couldn't kill a demon lord or an archdevil, and that always seemed strange to me.

What did we ever do to you? That sir, is just rude!

It’s just that demon lord goes well with fava beans and a nice chianti. Nothing personal!

My question is: will a 20th level character party be sufficient to defeat all possible enemies in the game universe? As opposed to PF1 where a 20th level party couldn’t take out the demigod-level monsters ala Cthulhu/Pazuzu. I never understood that design decision- it made it necessary for a mythic ruleset to exist in order to fully tell that sort of story. “PCs shouldnt be epic out of the box!” Why?? And that aforementioned mythic ruleset was not forthcoming for many -years-. I can’t imagine that model going any differently this time around.

I think it would be great if 20th level were the limits of power and there was hence no need for any mythic ruleset. This would make the game self-contained out of the gate and that’s no small thing.

Id rather stab Nocticula in 2019, not 2026.

Thoughts?

Yes, I want to resurrect this thread to ask this question. Thematically, you’d expect an aberration to be able to sport anything biological, like a protean. But the rules didn’t list which natural attacks the aberration subtype could take, so it can by rules take none at all.. Has there been any information after the publishing of the book that clears this issue up as of 2018? Thanks.

Aberrant eidolons can select other unchained evolutions as normal, provided those evolutions don't list alignment subtype or a particular type of eidolon (like claws and many other natural attack options do). The aberrant base form also removes any base form-dependent options. That said, tentacle mass is a good deal for natural attacks. (I forgot to check if that was primary or secondary...) It works much better than the fey or shadow eidolons, since it gets its own additional evolution options.

I should be more precise. I'm reacting to the fact that for any other natural attack evolution, the aberrant eidolon is unlisted and therefore, de facto, the only attack mode legal for the aberrant eidolon is the tentacle mass.

I doubt this was intended. Even the model Aberrant base form has a bite attack listed, yet apparently this is not legal.

Clarifications on legal natural attack evolutions for the aberrant eidolon would be useful as I think they were inadvertently omitted.

It's still worth it by far. What you lost is your ability to chew up all of your lowest level spells for nice high-level summons. It's just a little better balanced of an archetype now. Now you have to lose higher levels slots.

Start with 16 INT, 16 CHA. That'll pretty much guarantee you 4 standard-action summons, mins/lvl per day if you chew up three of your 2nd-highest level slots every day. In return for those 3 slots, you get 4 of the best spell line in the game, in the highest slot available, one level early half the time.

The trade is definitely in your favor.

Your other option is Academae Graduate conjurer wizard for standard action summons. You have to make a fort save, and you're trading highest-level slots for highest-level summons...not quite as favorable a trade.

Somebody tell me about the Mutation Mind! Will I be able to devolve into a disgusting Akira-style biomass?

It's not about how people feel about mythic. It's about how it sells.

All the same. I'm not privy to their financials and forecasts; that's their business and their problem. I'm putting my vote in as a consumer with disposable cash that I'd appreciate basic mythic support for psychic characters.

What about mythic support for these classes?

Regardless of how people may or not feel about the mythic rules/mythic AP, it would be irritating to have a mythic campaign that doesn't well support these characters as a viable choice.

For instance, take the psychic- although it'd best fit into the Archmage mythic path in terms of analogous function, it can't go simply because it's not "arcane".

Hopefully this gets cleared up quickly for mythic fans.

4) Dunno. At this point I'm not too keen on doing another mythic PC Adventure Path at all though.

This was disappointing to hear, I must admit. I really enjoyed the rule set and that style of play. May we know the reasons behind why you would not wish to do another mythic PC Adventure Path?

I thought I'd take a moment to give my specific thoughts on the psychic-only spells in the playtest.

Mind Thrust: Unfortunately made necessary, if only because it's the only way to deal hit point damage at most spell levels. Otherwise, it's just second class damage for most of its lifespan. Not multi-targeting, it's mind-affecting- pretty weak stuff for damage dealing when benchmarked against what sorcerers get at similar spell levels.

Ego Whip: At 6th level, would I take Ego Whip I, or would I take Haste or Slow? No question in my mind that Ego Whip is not a compelling offering at levels where it becomes available. Benchmarked against a comparable sorcerer, would I rather have Ego Whip to stagger a single enemy for a single round, or Stinking Cloud to nauseate multiple enemies simultaneously for rnd/lvl? Or use Dazing Spell metamagic with a fireball at higher levels? The choice is, again, unfortunately clear. My suggestion: Make it a swift action spell.

Id Insinuate: Would I rather take Id Insinuate, or Confusion at 8th? Clearly, a spell that affects an indeterminate amount of enemies in a radius for rnd/lvl is superior to a concentration only effect that hits a single foe. Id Insinuate becomes a bit more compelling at higher levels, because of multi-targeting and because of favorable confusion rolls- but I'd have to think very hard about taking the spell if I had Confusion in my spells known list in order to stretch my meagre spells known resources. My suggestion: Make it a swift action spell.

Psychic Crush: Here's something worthwhile to take. A real save-or-die spell. I really like this beast at higher levels- and frankly, it replaces Mind Thrust at those levels. Finally, here is something where I can't point at the sor/wiz list and go "why would I ever want to take this, given the alternatives?"

Thought Shield: I like the immediate action to use, but the difficulty is the extreme situational nature of the spell. Within its narrow niche, effective. I would perhaps take this as a late-level pick for its spell level, otherwise I'd give it a pass.

Mental Barrier: These are great spells. Immediate action to cast, very high bonuses to AC. What's not to love here? Here's another spell I'd take over some comparable offerings at their levels.

Intellect Fortress: Another suite of spells that are difficult to recommend. Very situational and specialized: an area-affect thought shield. Deals only with mind-affecting effects. The Immediate action to use is its major saving grace. As with thought shield, I would perhaps save it only for a late-level pick at its spell level.

Tower of Iron Will: As with intellect fortress and thought shield, these are very situational and difficult to recommend without a heavily psychic campaign. Immediate action to use is good. Perhaps a late-level pick- but by the time you get access to these, you are already at late levels. So probably would get a pass from me entirely.

Where is Psychic Blast, by the way, if we're adhering to the 10 classic modes? Mind Blank is in the list.

Conclusions:

I think that these spells, in general, suffer from a spell-list comparables problem wherein the spell does not match favorably with other spells available at that level. I'd keep current with Mind Thrust, but only because I am pretty much forced to- where else is my damage dealing capability? And I'd keep current with Psychic Crush, because that's a bone fide nasty spell. Mental Barrier is also strong, but I'd probably give the rest of these spells a miss due to weaksauce problems.

That brings me to a crucial point- how exactly is the psychic supposed to deal damage? The psychic cannot deal area damage at all, and only weak single-target damage. I don't know of too many other classes in the entire game so entirely dependent on the presence of party members who can actually kill monsters. Obviously Pathfinder is a team game, but must I point out the incongruity of a 20th level psychic that sadly got locked in a room by himself and eaten by that mindless dung beetle?

I am of a mind with TwoWolves here; I think the class should emphasize the classic 5 attack forms/5 defense forms more. As it is, the psychic can't really indulge himself with all of them without giving up a lot else. Since the psychic doesn't really have any other way of dealing damage, these should be gratis.

I have to agree with a lot of other posters as well, regarding the bland nature of the class. It really feels like this guy came out half-baked. I'd like to send it back to the kitchen for some more critical thought about how this class can be made to be more original/standout and also effective in a variety of situations.

First impressions, all IMHO of course.

Spells? No thanks. Name them Powers or Talents or Abilities or something else. They can behave exactly like spells and interact exactly the same with Spell Resistance etc, but not spells. Psychics shouldn't be using wands and staves.

Undercasting? Ugh. Why not make them scaling UP instead of DOWN? When you have what is effectively a spontaneous full caster, why make them burn their limited higher level "spells known" for weaker effects?

Speaking of weaker effects, it sure seems like the attack/defense "spells" are woefully underpowered for their levels.

All of the classic attack/defence forms should not be "spells" at all. They should be like Magus Arcana. Start with 1 attack and 1 defense at 1st level, then pick from a list every 3 levels. They should be scaleable, not undercastable. They could be powered with "phrenic pool" points, which could be increased to pay for escalating costs of upscaled "spells". The current uses for the phrenic amplification could be moved to feats or another mechanic ("uses/day" or something), or have their costs adjusted to account for the greater number of available points.

Psychic Disciplines. Call me old fashioned, but I had hoped this would more closely mirror the classic disciplines, rather than be like Sorcerer bloodlines. Currently, this class is (again, IMHO) a poor-man's sorcerer. Telepathy, Precognition/Object Reading, Mind Control, Psychoportation, etc etc. instead seems more in line with what I think people might be hoping for. Lore? That just looks like an attempt to make a psychic themed sorcerer look more like a psychic themed wizard. Pain? Make an archetype instead.

Again, I have not studied the playtest document in depth, and all of these are just my first impressions after a quick read through. If I got something wrong mechanically, forgive me, I'll look at it more closely when time permits.

My general comment:

The psychic doesn't have many options for, well, actually hurting things in combat. Inconveniencing them mightily? Yes. Controlling them? Yes. Confusing them? Of course.

But beyond magic missile and a few save-or-die spells scattered throughout, you've got the mind-affecting only mind thrust and psychic crush lines of spells with which to actually put hurt on an opponent, and these are limited to single target and look a bit weaksauce to boot.

This is probably intended as part of the class design (otherwise why not just play a sorcerer). However, my opinion is that it'd be good to have some sort of general self-defense setup for this class.

Put this guy and a skeleton in a room by themselves together, and the psychic is going to have to bust out his belt knife and go chipping away to survive.

Another point of opinion:

This guy looks way too much like the sorcerer to be a distinct base class. Make a "psychic" bloodline, slap int-attribute casting on it, and what's really so very different here?

In Golarion, how does a character end up as an Arcanist, as opposed to a Wizard?

Is the character born an Arcanist, ala the sorcerer, or does the character decide to go to "Arcanist school" instead of "Wizard school"? The "born arcanist" vs. the "learned arcanist" hypothesis.

Or does a character initially show up for Wizard school only to find out that he tends to cast spells a different way, thereby becoming an Arcanist? Like finding out you're left-handed when the teacher sticks the pen in your right hand.

These burning questions await illumination.

The Arcanist Occultist archetype obsoletes the Conjurer Wizard summoner. It has 9 levels of casting and standard-action summons (that's unbelievably huge!). Unless you're playing the Conjurer Wizard for the non-summon spells, then I'd go with the Arcanist Occultist without further thought. Frankly otherwise, I would have little use for the Arcanist as a class in comparison with the wizard.

Since the devs have unofficially ruled (through con panel) the Summoner and related archetypes "broken" in anticipation of the Pathfinder Unchained rework, I'd say that the Arcanist Occultist is currently the strongest summoning class in pathfinder today.

My hopes for the Summoner revamp:

1.) That Thing from Beyond is one of the base types of Outsider we can summon.
2.) That summoner becomes an INT caster, because I've never been able to understand the mechanism of the summoner being a CHA caster. There was no flavor as to its being an innate caster like a sorcerer in any way.

No, an arcanist is definitely not stronger than a wizard.

The wizard gets a substantial amount of spells of the next highest level for 40% of levels. Another 50% of levels, they share the same highest spell level...but the wizard is strictly better at spellcasting in the sense that all the wizard has to do to equal the arcanist is to memorize the same spell N times. That's because the arcanist can only memorize 1 spell of his highest spell level 1-18.

Also, if the wizard is a specialist and has the bonded item feature as well as competitive INT, the wizard typically can cast 4 spells at the highest spell level the level he receives it.

All the hype about the arcanist is hype. All the arcanist has is an extra bag of miscellaneous tricks. He won't keep up with a well-designed wizard.

Wait, I thought there were four, including Aroden, who got there by the Starstone and two who got there by other means, including Nethys not in your list.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to strong arm a sweeping ruling from you, just trying to cadge a cool story idea from the creator of the setting.

After all, while deciding story for GMs may not be interesting, providing creative suggestions can be.

Friendlyfish wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Friendlyfish wrote:

What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.

No such thing as a fast, efficient, no-nonsense path to that goal.

Ok, so given there is no directly efficient route within the setting, if my wizard wanted to become a deity, what would he likely be trying to do to achieve said goal?

Step 1) Inform your GM of said character goal.

Step 2) Wait for the GM's story to begin unveiling the process.

Step 3) Become a deity.

There IS no method, currently, in the rules that specifically allow player characters to do this. In Golarion, we know it can happen—it's happened before with Aroden, Irori, Cayden Cailean, Norgorber, and Iomedae—three via the Starstone and two via other methods.

But it's left to the GM as to what method will work for any one PC. And that's not something I'm interested in deciding for GMs.

Friendlyfish wrote:

What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.

No such thing as a fast, efficient, no-nonsense path to that goal.

Ok, so given there is no directly efficient route within the setting, if my wizard wanted to become a deity, what would he likely be trying to do to achieve said goal?

What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.

Hi JiCi,

I'm Stephen, and I'm a demonologist.

Okay, that's not true, but I am the guy who designed the archetype. Your bound demon is fixed to the basics stats as a demon of that type, and it does not increase with the demonbinder's stats. Instead, you can bind a number of demons to you, and steadily increase the number of demonic true names that you have and the power of demons that you can bind. The bound demon class feature entirely replaces the eidolon class feature.
I hope it helps, and I'm glad you like the demon binder.

Hey, I have another question about the demon binder. Does the demon binder continue to have access to the Summon Monster I-IX spell-like ability? If so, since the demon binder no longer has an eidolon feature, does that mean that the SMI-IX SLA can be active simultaneously with the bound demon, or should this restriction be applied there as well?

Thanks for the mechanics support.

I'd like to run the "Nascent Sphere" mythic campaign idea from Mythic Adventures for my group. What might be a good geographic location in Golarion to place the Nascent Sphere?

Thanks!

What is the ethnic breakdown of cosmopolitan Nex?

Is it an even mixture of Garundi, Keleshites, and Vudrani, or mostly Garundi?

Is there a sizable population of Avistani peoples living there? For instance, would a Taldan character be commonly found in Nex?

Does there exist any information about this?

Has anyone explained why the Mythos has been locked out of legal character choice for a cleric to worship? They have the Dark Tapestry for Oracles. Are they worried about Chaosium and copyright?

Hi James,

A few questions on the theme of ascending to divinity on Golarion.

1.) Must a mortal be Mythic before attaining the godhead? Or can one skip to the end, so to speak?

2.) Is there, or could there be an alchemical means of divine ascension?

3.) Excepting the Starstone and being born a godling, what are a few cool ways for mortals to become Gods?

My thanks for your cosmic wisdom.

I'm still curious about this. Any official errata that resolves the contradiction?

Any unofficial guidance from developers?

Since so many adventures have Mythos elements in them, how about something giving character options for mythos themed characters? Id love to see an aberrant summoner ala the 3.5 alienist make a reappearance in pathfinder.

Hi James,

I'm running a Conjurer Wizard in the Varisia region. I need a mythic source for my mythic ascension. I've bought Mythic Origins and Mythic Realms, and none of those mythic wellsprings presented are quite doing it for me for a variety of reasons.

Could you see your way clear to suggest a couple of Golarion based, thematically appropriate mythic sources that would work well for a Conjurer Wizard in Varisia? In particular, it's an infernal binder (Academae).

Thanks!

Dear James Jacobs,

About how many magical universities exist in Quantium? The source material seems to indicate several, not just one monolithic "Quantium Arcane University".

Along a similar line of questioning: could Taldanes and other Avistani peoples, for instance, be regularly found as students at Quantium magical universities, or would such mage apprentices in the main be Garundi, Kelishites and Vudrans?

Certainly, we could use a bigger buffet of NEUTRAL outsiders, even TRUE NEUTRAL outsiders. Currently, my neutral conjurer has the option of summoning sugar 'n spice 'n everything nice angels, or fart-stink devil beasts that make the party Paladin look at you a little funny.

I guess I can do elementals.

With the Great Old Ones in Bestiary 4, I continue to hanker after my all time favorite prestige class. As it is, I can't summon odd melted horrors from the Beyond. Are we ever going to see some official character options with a Lovecraft focus in the game?

Hi James,

Could a Diabolist bargain with a potent devil in order to obtain Mythic Power?

Alternatively, could said Diabolist learn a mighty Infernal Duke's true name and force it to imbue him/her with Mythic Power?

Thanks!

Evil can play at the same table as good with zero problems. As long as the evil character is into teamwork with all the rest of the players and doesn't break the fun by ruining somebody else's fun, there's nothing wrong when a character's motivation is "rule personal empire with a tyrannical fist" rather than "feed and clothe poor orphans."

When you start sticking your Pathfinder knife into somebody else's PC's back, it stops being fun. Don't do it. That's the GM's prerogative, and you're crossing the line with your gaming group. Instead, stick your character's knife into an NPC gnome. I hear that they make great steaks.

Yeah, that is a pretty neat take...

For the other arcane classes, it seems pretty clear: wizards are made, sorcerers are born. Witches are pretty much made, by a pact; magi are made; alchemists are made.

It's not clear how summoners get to become summoners. Let's examine the data that could point us in one direction or another.

1.) They cast spontaneously, using CHA as a major stat. That seems analogous to a sorcerer, who we know are born.

2.) On the other hand, they are very analogous to the Bard class, who study at bardic colleges and such and are therefore made. They also cast spontaneously, using CHA.

Has there been any consensus on how a summoner goes about becoming a summoner? For instance, does one find an arcane ritual in a library and use it to summon an eidolon which then imbues you with arcane power? Or are you born and your eidolon appears to you as a baby?

I'd ask James Jacobs, but he hates summoners and I'd probably get a snarky answer. I like them, so I'm hoping there's some info out there to guide character background.

Dear James Jacobs,

I have a question about inner sea ethnicity and phenotype.

Currently, all described ethnicities in the Inner Sea World Guide are said to have dark hair and dark eyes with the singular exception of the Ulfen (with blond/red hair and blue eyes.) The baseline inner sea inhabitant as described seems overwhelmingly likely to be brown haired with brown eyes.

Does this imply that if a PC were to be described as blond haired, it would follow that they are almost certainly an Ulfen? Or is a broad range of phenotypes possible in the other ethnicities, such that it would be patently unremarkable to find a blond Taldan or a blue eyed Chelaxian?

Thanks for clarification. I have a player who is having a hard time finding the right ethnicity to describe a character who is "Northern European" in conception without channeling a Nordic vibe.

Dear James Jacobs,

In Golarion, does becoming a mythic character always require some sort of external agency or event as portrayed in the material? Or could a character become mythic in the setting by dint of their own volition and efforts?

Seems somewhat personally unsatisfying to at all times require some sort of Deus ex Machina in order to attain mythic ascension.

After all, some characters (e.g. sorcerers, oracles, clerics) seem to fit well with an externalist trope, while others (e.g. wizards, monks) might go well with a sort of self-deterministic origin story, in effect studying or meditating their way to superhuman stature.

Thanks for your take.