Gaulin's page

I was thinking the other day about a body modification style book. Would be right up my alley.

Some brainstorm ideas;

Class - shifter (with subclasses for beasts, mutant, and machine stuff)

Class archetypes - prosthetic innovation inventor, synthesist summoner

Archetypes - mutagenist, polymorph/morph archetype (a là captivator), graftcrafter, mutant, tattoo master, experimental pet (comes with aberration pet subject)

Pets - mutants and aberrations

Items - grafts, mutagens, tattoos, nectografts, elemental grafts, prosthetics,

I didn't have a lot of interest in shifter until I saw the adaptive shifter archetype in 1e. I hope, if we do get shifter, that we get something closer to morphs like that then full battle forms.

Not going to lie I'm a little salty that the thing I've wanted most in pf2e (being able to apply runes directly to your character to empower unarmed attacks or unarmored ac) is tied to a rare class that I don't really vibe with. The monkeys paw curls.

Animist is a really cool class and the class archetypes are great. Bloodrager is an awesome new take on the class. Again a little salty that seneschal witch is the only class archetype that's rare and maybe the one I was most looking forward to playing, but such is the rarity system.

I'm mostly okay with uncommon stuff, with the exception of ap back matter (from a different AP than the one I would be gming). Any common options I'll allow, though some I'll ask if the player wouldn't mind picking something else if it makes a lot of work for me (dubious knowledge, investigator, etc). If they really do want to use the common option, I will allow it.

I do tend to see how pfs handles things and adopt that stance in games I run, but also characters I play. It feels a lot safer to me to build and get hyped for a character that should be allowed at any table without having to hope they'll allow a specific option.

Personally I would be really annoyed if I built a character using only common options and someone disallowed it because they found it overpowered or something. Feels really stupid that we have this rarity system in place, and then people go out of their way to ban even more than that. Pick one, having both is dumb.

Just wanted to note that being large doesn't automatically give you ten foot reach, I'm pretty sure. So if that's the main reason you wanted to be an awakened animal you might want something else.

I looove the idea for seneschal. Was always weird to me that a witch was always dependent on their patron, even all the way to 20th level. If I ever make a witch (I had no interest before)it will likely be with that archetype.

Personally very happy to see class archetypes come into play. They could be an great implementation for a lot of reasons.

Making more and more classes means that extra feats per class get stretched very thin. Look at how many core classes get extra feats from aps, lost omens, or other books compared to more niche classes like inventor or thaumaturge. Adding vindicator to ranger means not only do you have less classes to make specific feat support for, but you also have a pretty hefty backlog of feats already available.

It saves space in other ways too, not having to add in all the regular text that have to be added to every class. Just pick the things you want to change up and you're golden.

As pf2e matures, concepts people pine for get more and more narrow. Not to overly simplify as I know there are some with pretty radical wishes, but a lot of character concepts people want are simple things like 'magus but primal list' or 'kineticist but Shadow' or what have you. The class archetypes in this upcoming book are perfect examples of that sort of wish coming to fruition, with extra paizo flair to make them stand out even more than just 'ranger but divine'.

Damn, all of these sound wicked. I'm especially happy for my good friend who's favorite 1e class is Inquisitor, both the vindicator and avenger sound right up his alley. And bloodrager sounds perfect; can cast spells while raging and get to add damage to them?! Sign me up.

Would anyone remind me (if it's been teased already) what other class archetypes are to come in this book?

I feel like there are a ton of people taking remaster to mean a PC/PC2 style rework of the book. Those people are going to be disappointed I think. I hope people aren't upset when it comes out and few things changed.

Main thing I hope for for inventor is to be able to change the material your innovation is. For an inventory to not be able to make their weapon adamantium is so silly to me, for example.

Aww man that's the same time as gencon keynote isn't it? Dannnng

I do hope that there's a clarification on deadly working with bestial mutagen. Raw you still need hand wraps to increase the number of extra damage dice you deal on a crit since it's dependent on striking runes.

A big part of why people want pc3 is because paizo has done such a good job not only with adapting classes for the remaster, but touching up classes to make them more enjoyable to play. In my mind, that is why people want pc3. Lots of people have their favorite class not in the core/core 2 list, and the idea that the issues they have with their class could possibly be fixed (or they just straight up get new toys) is a big reason to want them updated.

Intercept strike getting a bit of movement was my biggest hope! That's awesome. Very excited for the final version! Thanks you Jason

I cancelled my subscription for this month (timing issues mostly) but I think that's pretty lame we were only told a few minutes ago PDFs weren't going out early with physical copies. I'm sure that's part of the reason some people wanted it

Will PDFs be going out for starfinder playtest when the physical books ship? There's some chatter amongst subs that might not be the case

I liked the old oracle but I also think these new mechanics have a lot of potential. I like it a lot.

Cursebound reminds me of burn. Stacking detrimental condition gained by powering up abilities or cheating action economy, some abilities get stronger the higher your cursebound condition is.

Welp I'm out at this point. Whatever works for your game, but I hope I don't get stuck with a GM that doesn't simply use avoid notice out of combat and roll stealth for initiative if there's a potential combatant around. Seems so cut and dry to me, a lot of stuff in his thread is needlessly complicated imo.

So is this disagreement about searching and avoiding notice, who is the active roller and what goes against whos DC? And are we in an encounter just because this moment of tension happened?

Somewhat, yes. The thread has evolved a bit since it's beginning, but the main question was if I hide out of combat with no enemies around, and an enemy passes by, what happens. If the enemy doesn't search, is there no roll involved at all? And personally I think that rai if potential combatants meet, initiative should be rolled. If the hider wins initiative (and beat the enemies perception dc) they're hidden, so you're free to sneak away, continue hiding until the guard leaves, whatever. Otherwise things get complicated and house ruley.

I'm saying there is no text for searching for creatures because you're always looking for creatures. It's represented by rolling perception for initiative. If the only way to find stealther creatures is the search exploration activity, that's way better than any other option (especially since it includes looking for traps and secret stuff).

This is the first time in a while the rules seem so obviously cut and dry to me and it feels like most people in this thread are crazy pants. In exploration mode, you roll stealth vs initiative. If the stealther wins, they're hidden and begin their round as such. If more enemies enter the combat at later times, they roll initiative just like they would have at the start of the encounter.

The only thing the search exploration activity does is find traps and doors and such. You don't need to be searching to spot a stealthing enemy, that's what initiative is for.

One thing that most people might be missing is that the exploration activity 'searching' says nothing about hidden creatures. It is only for hidden doors, traps, objects and such. As others have said, hide is not an exploration activity, and neither is seek. If someone if hiding and an onlooker would come nearby, you'd roll perception vs stealth for initiative.

Yeah there are a lot of holes in that. For instance, your hide roll doesn't matter. A level -1 goblin could roll negative 50 if they hid when no one is around, and a level 20 ranger who is stealthing themselves or following tracks would walk right past. That's dumb.

Hide is an encounter action.

For what you're describing, you don't "roll to hide", instead you simply are doing "avoid notice" exploration activity, and when the other creature is close enough to be reasonable to have an encounter, THEN you roll your stealth check.

This, to me is the right answer. Any time there could be a hostile enemy, initiative needs to be rolled. If you were to flip the op's hidden character into an enemy and the seeker into pcs, it's easy to see why.

Gaulin wrote:

My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory

I mean, Conceal Spell is a thing that could be easily added to ETs. But even then, one of the most common complaints about ET was that the subclass was seemingly built around dealing sneak attack with spells which wasn't worth it because your spell proficiency lagged way behind your martial proficiency, so the most optimal way to play an ET was to use those spells for support or buffs making Magical Trickster kind of a trap option. Paizo could easily switch stuff around to make it work in the other way; using a spell on someone leaves them off-guard against your attacks similar to how most rackets allow to target off-guard more easily. In the long run ETs would have the same problem they currently do because spells would become very unreliable, but it would allow for a playstyle in which rogues would go for an attack + a MAP-less spells as part of their rotation.

Even conceal spell, raw, doesn't work well with the hide action. The only things you can do are step, sneak, hide, or make a strike. Some gms may rule have rules otherwise for spells that are concealed but raw, casting spells after hiding doesn't make your foe flat footed to the spell attack.

My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory

Gaulin wrote:

For what it's worth, Zoken, I've wished for (I think?) a similar thing to what you're proposing. Something similar to a monk in style, but instead of punching things they hurl ki blasts and such. Monk having a bunch of (really cool) focus spells based off of qi is great, but I would love to have a class that is closer to a caster with Qi as it's focus, though maybe not with actual spells (a la kineticist/thaum as you say). That concept doesn't really work with a monk, Qi spells supplement the rest of what the class can do but even if your sole focus of your build is Qi stuff, you're still going to need to do other monk stuff.

That being said I can see where others are coming from in that it's a pretty niche desire, even if I agree with you that there are too many people here that tend to shoot down ideas too quickly.

I wrote at least two 3pp classes for PF1 that were kind of "monk but more magical" for 3pp books, and they both sold quite well. The guru was "what if monk but Incarnum" and the sage was "what if monk but less punchy and more 'shonen anime'-inspired."

They 100% are the kinds of concepts that people would say "that's just a flavor of monk", but there's still an audience out there who are going to love them and prefer to have a class that targets the flavor and mechanics more specifically; they might not be the audience that justifies Paizo[/] doing it, but there's a whole lot of ground between "Paizo would publish this in a hardcover" and "this isn't worth doing at all". Both of those are kind of the slimmest slivers of what is possible in a TTRPG; Paizo because there's a fixed schedule and very high sales goals that need to be met, the "not worth doing" bucket because there's fans for all kinds of ideas and "not worth doing" is highly subjective and contextual.

I've also written a 3pp luchador class for both editions of Pathfinder (another "isn't that just a monk/archetype" class that still sold well in both editions), and a book for Rogue Genius Games...

That's awesome and thank you for sharing. Hopefully that makes you feel a bit better too, Zoken. I really think some people in this thread could do with a lot less 'mmm sounds like blank' instead of yes and-ing some more fun concepts.

For what it's worth, Zoken, I've wished for (I think?) a similar thing to what you're proposing. Something similar to a monk in style, but instead of punching things they hurl ki blasts and such. Monk having a bunch of (really cool) focus spells based off of qi is great, but I would love to have a class that is closer to a caster with Qi as it's focus, though maybe not with actual spells (a la kineticist/thaum as you say). That concept doesn't really work with a monk, Qi spells supplement the rest of what the class can do but even if your sole focus of your build is Qi stuff, you're still going to need to do other monk stuff.

That being said I can see where others are coming from in that it's a pretty niche desire, even if I agree with you that there are too many people here that tend to shoot down ideas too quickly.

I could see shifter as a mix between the build a bear-ness of an eidolon and the branching out and picking of themes (and ideally at will-ness) of kineticist. A shifter could pick the type of creature they can change their body into, then at later levels add in more creature types. At the beginning of the game you might pick aberration and be able to grow tentacles or turn into ooze, then at level 5 or what have you, you branch out into angels and can grow wings or a halo. Just full on chimera in the craziest ways.

While I would love the geniekin consolidated into one versatile heritage, talos and ardande being published in RoE makes that a little wonky since RoE is ORC ready already. Otherwise I would love a single heritage for them all.

Personally I would like to eventually have most major types of creatures depicted with an ancestry and a versatile heritage.

Animal - Awakened animal for ancestry, beastkin for heritage.

Plant - leshy, conrasu, ghoran for ancestry, maybe an argument could be make for ardande for heritage but I think it could use its own.

Undead - Skele (and a bunch of options from book of the dead but not sure where to put those) for ancestry and dhampir for heritage.

Elemental - I would love a straight up elemental ancestry, and we have all the geniekin for heritages.

Dragon - A dragon ancestry would be cool (an official, 1st party), and we have dragon blood heritage on the way.

Divine - I'm not super sure if we have a pure divine ancestry really? Maybe something upcoming, not sure. But we have nephilim for heritage, as well as ghanzi, aphorite, and duskwalker.

Giant - Now that large ancestries are a thing, yeah it would be cool to have both an ancestry and heritage for this category.

Aberration - Fleshwarps for ancestry, and count me in for wanting a heritage for Fleshwarp as well.

Construct - Android, automaton, and poppet for ancestries. I kind of feel like android would have been better as a heritage but oh well, yeah we need a heritage here.

Fey - Gnomes and sprites for ancestry, no real heritages.

Shadow - we have kayal, but would be cool to have a shadow heritage.

I feel like that's most of them, though arguments could be made for other creature types. But those are my main hopes.

I know this is a thread for classes, but I would love a set of archetypes modeled after a remastered version of captivator. An archetype that gives slightly better progression than a multi class caster archetype but is limited to spells with certain traits. I imagine a remastered captivator will be limited to illusion and mental spells. I could see a similar archetype being based around detection, prediction, and fortune, another based around summons, another around polymorph and morph, etc.

Gaulin wrote:

I've heard that wrestler is going to make it into this book (yay!) and was wondering if captivator and/or spell trickster were also in the running or if wrestler was the only extra archetype added from the og apg? I remember hearing a while ago that those three archetypes were originally slated to be in the apg but had to be cut for space and so ended up in grand bazaar.

I really like captivator but with spell schools gone it needs a remaster update. If not in apg then hopefully an errata.

Only thing said was that Wrestler was being added to the archetypes in PC2, and some archetypes would not be coming back due to the OGL stuff (Dragon Disciple being confirmed on Discord as one of the said archetypes).

Aww man no dragon disciple? That's too bad. Hopefully we get something cool in it's place. Maybe with some archetypes being removed there is a chance for captivator and such at least.

I've heard that wrestler is going to make it into this book (yay!) and was wondering if captivator and/or spell trickster were also in the running or if wrestler was the only extra archetype added from the og apg? I remember hearing a while ago that those three archetypes were originally slated to be in the apg but had to be cut for space and so ended up in grand bazaar.

I really like captivator but with spell schools gone it needs a remaster update. If not in apg then hopefully an errata.

Sadly kineticist dedication specifies you don't get to do a blast or a stance when you activate your aura.

I think it's best to wait for PC3 to come out before making an elemental barb though. I don't think the rage trait will change (it's described in howl of the wild appendix and works the same way it does now), but getting to rage as a free action will really help. Who knows what other goodies they'll get.

I have a few issues with investigator but I do think a lot of them are my dumb opinion and not really anything that should colour anyone else's perceptions.

The class having little else to fall back on when devise a stratagem fails (and it's even worse if you're not fighting the lead your pursuing). You get a bad roll, that's most of your combat features done for the round. You have the one trick against one enemy. Uh I guess I'll recall knowledge or if I'm lucky enough to have another enemy in range, attack it with a lower hit chance and damage. It just feels poopy. And yeah I know there are archetypes out there that can help but they don't help enough.

Investigator feels like the only class that's just worse at combat and that's okay. I don't really understand. A rogue has a huge amount of skills and is amazing in combat. Wizard has enormous versatility. Why is everyone okay with it not being a good combatant? I dunno I guess if I had an investigator in a party it feels like it would be dead weight. Let's face it; the story is going to happen whether we have someone solve the mystery or not, we're going to get where the GM wants us to go.

Most of those complaints are me being too dumb to play the class or realize what others have. Maybe the class isn't really terrible in combat. But I've tried to build a good one a few times, have done a one shot with one, and it's just frustrating. Which is sad because the flavor is just wonderful.

The Thlipit contestant's powerful lash feat is either not supposed to be an action, or is missing a duration of it's an action to grant your lash a higher damage dice and sweep.

I also would like inventor to get more juice, though they did get buffs through errata and they have at least some toys coming in the near future. It's nice to know it's not forgotten. But yeah things like being able to make your innovation precious metal (for durabilities sake), more/better gadgets, etc would be very welcome.

Maybe a silly question, but will subscribers still get free PDFs when their copy of the physical book ships?

I think most who want pc3 want it because every class will always have (at least) small nitpicky things people want fixed. Some people may hope for a way to avoid reactive strike on spell strike, a way to have your inventor innovation be made of a precious metal, or a touch up to fey eidolons (maybe even synthesist summoner).

I don't know what I'm talking about with this point but I imagine there are some benefits to having all classes under the orc licence as well.

Gaulin wrote:

A little boring, but I would love a 'player core 2' for starfinder. Get the most wanted starfinder 1e stuff done, and then go hog wild with new options after. PC 2 could have another 6 classes (mechanic, technomancer, biohacker, vanguard, nanocyte, evolutionist) which doesn't seem too crazy. I also think only 6 classes for core might get old fast, even if they're designed well.

Also I really love vanguard and evolutionist so am biased

After my lukewarm reception of the APG classes, I dont fancy the idea of play testing more than two classes at a time after the release of the core book. That could have just been conservative design but I'd rather be on the safe side bc fewer classes in a book should mean less rush and more work hours on those classes.

That's a very good point. I do like to think that the devs have learned a lot since the apg playtest and that doing 6 classes at once is doable (I mean they're doing it with core, in *addition* to a ton of other rules to figure out), but yeah you are right that doing a couple classes at a time is much safer.

It is hard to be patient when none of your favorite sf classes made it into core, and releases beyond that are sooo far away T.T

A little boring, but I would love a 'player core 2' for starfinder. Get the most wanted starfinder 1e stuff done, and then go hog wild with new options after. PC 2 could have another 6 classes (mechanic, technomancer, biohacker, vanguard, nanocyte, evolutionist) which doesn't seem too crazy. I also think only 6 classes for core might get old fast, even if they're designed well.

Also I really love vanguard and evolutionist so am biased

I don't think rage will change with pc2, as the rage trait is defined in howl of the wild and works the same way as it does pre-remaster.

Hey, folks! We missed adding a couple of items to the FAQ page initially that should be in there now. Didn't realize it until seeing some of the responses like "Rain of Rust still doesn't have a duration?" Adding errata is a complex process involving changing and tracking text across multiple internal tools and I missed a step on these two items! We've now updated the Rage of Elements FAQ section with entries for Winter Sleet (page 32) and Rain of Rust (page 36).

Oooh I really like the winter sleet change. I never felt like picking it up before just cause of the extra rolling and fiddlyness, now it looks super usable and fun. Thanks team!

Yessss. I know you have all been working super hard lately pumping out content, so thank you for managing to get this done. Especially happy about some of the kineticist errata! Stance being taken out of rebirth in living stone is awesome (and what I assumed was supposed to happen!), the scaling on conductive sphere is unexpected and awesome, and we have ranges and areas on all impulses!

My one and only (unrealistic probably) hope left is to get a faq that tremor can be used even on aerial enemies (actually everything in a 10ft burst) and not only on grounded enemies, especially is the damage is confirmed to be d8 scaling and not d10. Even then it's not a big deal (maybe the intention is for enemies to be on solid earth) but again that's just my hope.

There are a lot of ways to measure optimization in this game, since it is balanced and varied. Personally when I build a single character I don't try too hard to max DPS or other stat (if it's a damage focused character then obviously make sure you can do decent damage, but not really in a way that's as focused as pf1e or anything), I have a small checklist of things that have been problems and try to hit as many of those as I can. This is more of a party optimization thread but I think a similar approach can be taken here.

But I feel like, if one were to dig into the heart of the matter, the single strongest way to optimize is numbers. If a group was to coordinate to get the optimal party for stacking buffs and debuffs, they're going to wreck in a lot of fights. Look for the highest proficiency bonuses, item bonuses, status bonuses, and circumstance bonuses, and do the same with penalties.

A bard with heroism, synesthesia, who aids as often as they can. That's a ten point swing from one character.

Fighter flanking an enemy, ideally with a shield for a circumstance bonus. Raise athletics to inflict prone or disarm for extra circumstance penalties to hit.

Alchemist with a butt load of formula for mutagen to get that extra item bonus and feats to debilitate enemies with bombs (can inflict status penalties to hit, off guard, etc).

Last slot is has some wiggle room. Good choices would be warpriest (can do a lot of status buffs/debuffs to take some of that load off of bard, be a melee partner for the fighter, heal, and other things), champion (to optimize in a more defensive manner, also off heal), or a miriad of other things. Would probably want another character who can be in melee and ideally heal, but there's no huge standouts for this particular exercise in getting big numeric swings.

I was also hoping for some sort of built in armor feat (or even graft) but I definitely understand that you can't fit every cool animal thing into a single ancestry.

I already asked a (the first) question so feel free to disregard but this thread seems to have slowed quite a lot so maybe it's okay?

Just hoping to hear some more awakened animal feats. I've heard they can take a feat to gain any primal cantrip, that they have a chain of feats for fly speed, that they can get a scaling innate summon animal feat, aaand that they can take a feat to make them better at the awaken animal ritual. That's already a lot of spoilers but I want moooore

Be careful what you wish for. Some may want a pf3e, thinking it will fix everything they want fixed. It could easily (in my mind, likely) not go the way those people want it to go. Ttrpgs are getting less crunchy and more gm fiat, narrative type games. I don't think the next Pathfinder edition would go full narrative style but I do think it would mean more that way.

And as I mentioned in the spoiler section of last Friday's Paizo Live, there's a pretty strongly linked upcoming high-level Adventure Path I'm currently outlining that will work VERY WELL to continue on from Seven Dooms for Sandpoint, so if you play that Adventure Path consider putting your 12th level PCs on ice for a bit when you're done. Will be a bit before that particular high-level Adventure Path is out (or even announced) but I wanted to start letting folks know that something along those lines in particular is in the works.

Thank you so much for revealing this. I really like the idea of wardens of Wildwood but I also really like playing to level 20, so it ending at the level it does was kind of a bummer. But if there's an ap that starts at that level and goes to 20 coming out eventually than my hope for playing in it is reignited!

Can you share how awakened animals work, especially how they can hold/manipulate objects? Do they get hands?