Considering the length of this thread this may have been asked before but with PF2 out and using it as sort of a "reset" for some design ideas:
I always thought the Misfit Monsters Redeemed was an interesting take on some of D&Ds...more unusual monsters. And often PF1 Bestiaries barely got to use a paragraph or two for an entry due to the stat-block and artwork. So are there any PF1 creatures (original or still hold-overs from D&D history) that you'd love to give a flavor makeover?
I'm more curious that if dhampir/changeling/tiefling/aasimar are heritages and they get Ancestry feats to make them more like the sub-races they descend from, will we see those feats before actually seeing the creature that they come from in the bestiaries?
Some of the sidebars in the PF2 books already hint at stuff we know exists from PF1 but that haven't been officially given stats in PF2 yet, so might we see an extension of that such as feats for nosferatu, jiang-shi and vetala created dhampir with a side bar telling about those vampires before they even appear in a bestiary?
Our sneak peek of the Pathfinder 2E Gamemastery Guide is tomorrow at 4 p.m. Pacific! Have any questions?
In PF1, I felt there were a lot of "unspoken rules" that a new GM might not know about if they didn't comb through message boards or see the small print in each book (such as certain magic items being expected for players for the math to work out or that player characters for APs were expected to be built with 15 point buy). With new emphasis on empowering GMs, can we expect more transparency in the base expectations of the game for the smoothest play experience? A Game Mastery Guide seems like it would be a good place for this.
Well the geniekin should definitely be high on the list of things to port over soon.
Also with the way heritages are now, I'd actually really be into a book that's basically a larger and updated Bastards of Golarion that is just heritages, since now they can theoretically be applied to any race. There were several themed books in 1e that gave alternate racial abilities for the core races, but that made using them difficult for the non-core races, if possible at all (like Blood of Shadow and Legacy of Dragons). Now, if you wanted a dragon-blooded dwarf or a part-fey human there should be design space for that.
I'm interested in seeing what they do with hobgoblins going forth. I'm all for more playable character races that get more limelight in the products and aren't just treated as outliers. I never got a change to run Ironfang Invasion, though it was on my list of APs to try if I had kept GMing. I had flavored hobgoblins to be very much like the Qunari from Dragon Age when they did appear in my campaigns (maybe with a bit of Klingon thrown in)--while their society as a whole may be considered evil due to some of their harsher beliefs, it was more about them being extremely lawful and organized (while goblins on the other hand were completely chaotic and had impulse control issues, whether they were evil or otherwise).
Most of my table either keeps their character sheet on their laptop or tablet (though one or two players use pencil and paper). I've only found pencil and paper to work for me for the first three levels or so before I start running out of room to write all the things my character can do, and just printing out those sheets just got to be a tedious waste of ink when I had to do it anytime my character got a new ability or useful magic item. Personally just keeping it on my laptop/tablet has been far more convenient.
Admittedly, it was this (and not the finicky rules for mounted combat) that made me avoid mounts in PF1. If you're a medium creature, you were basically stuck with a horse or camel unless you delved into numerous companion books which came out later, and it still felt fairly limited compared to the various types of familiars and animal companions out there. Sometimes humans/elves/dwarves/etc want a giant spider/dinosaur/great bear mount! Hopefully more options for this will arise at least by the time of the APG/bestiary2.
During the 2E Advanced Player's Guide announcements, it seemed that it would be positioned as a "core" book (pretty much a baseline book expected at every table along with the CRB and Bestiary). However, in the 2E APG, we will be getting "new" Ancestries in the planar scions, tengu, catfolk etc (the 1E APG included ideas that became core to Pathfinder including traits, archetypes and new classes but did not have new Races).
Does this mean we might expect broader representation of these "new" Ancestries in future materials (NPCs in adventure paths, number of feats and story development on part with those in CRB, possibly even an iconic from those races)?
And now that 2E has launched, is there any chance we will continue with exploring the iconics on Twitch?
Isabelle Lee wrote:
Hmm...I will have to look into that. Admittedly I kinda glossed over that entry myself as I was deep into a campaign and tended to only look at new magic items or spells to reward my group with. Good to know!
I was always disappointed when a new player race (0 HD race) got introduced in a bestiary as there were not much information about these races and how they fit into the world in general. Some of the earlier ones eventually got some attention in companion books over the years, but those that came out later--I have little to no idea what to make of them (such as the vishkanya, astomoi or rougarou). In PF2, I kinda hope they reserve introducing new playable ancestries to books that can afford the space to really let us know more about them, especially if their basic idea is fairly far out from anything we might commonly experience in the game or other fantasy media.
Also I always wanted an unchained summoner with an eidolon that was more magic-based instead of physical and the summoner being tailored to being more of the combatant. Something like the eidolon with limited spells like abilities per day and replacing their STR boost with a CHA boost. Basically to create a healing/buffing angel eidolon or a hellfire hurling demon and so forth.
I don't get into the whole debate about paladin alignment because everyone has their vision of how they see them and that's fine. But I'd like to ask the designers is there actually anything in the paladin toolbox mechanically that backs up the lawful alignment (aside from tenants)? I was easily able to house rule PF1 paladins as being any good alignment because mechanically there was little the core paladin got that even hinted at the lawful/chaotic axis.
Is this changing in PF2 with just as many lawful class feats as good? And if not, then it would seem the main "complications" of non-lawful good paladins is from a lore/legacy perspective (which again, many people have different visions of) and not necessarily a mechanical one. If that is the case, giving the option for it in the final game (not the playtest) wouldn't seem to be a huge step.
Obviously I don't know about all the moving pieces that are at play here as there might be some other mechanical reasons this isn't immediately viable since we don't know the full rules. And if there are no changes towards the law spectrum, it's easy enough for me to house rule in the future just as I did for PF1, but I would be interested in the thoughts behind the decision.
I basically started with Fate and Savage Worlds in my old group before doing True 20 and finally just running my own Pathfinder game. I wouldn't consider your opinion as "wrong". What might be fun for a lot of other people may simply not be your cup of tea. It doesn't make either side wrong, but some people have more fun playing in one style than another. So I'll try to hit up the points that attracted me to Pathfinder while I was playing Fate. However, it might best be summed up by saying that most of the reasons are mechanical. You mentioned being able to see the character's story in Traveller as you made him. In Pathfinder, it's definitely more about building the mechanics of how the character plays, not so much who the character is. Having an idea and finding the class/archetype that gives abilities to support that idea and the selection of feats to back that up and seeing it all come together can be a journey unto itself, but ultimately it doesn't tell you a lot about who the character is, just how the character plays.
Mechanical Progression: This is certainly nothing new to most RP systems (D20 in particular), but when advancing a character in the Fate game I was part of, there were no "levels" to speak of so when you progressed it really meant you got better at a skill or two or you had to really talk it over with the GM if you wanted a new perk or the like. In Pathfinder, clearly seeing what abilities I would get at what level and knowing how things would progress allowed me to look forward to leveling up a lot more.
Numerous Races: I honestly have never really cared for the "core" races--the ones that are in almost every Western fantasy setting. Elves, dwarves, some version of hobbits etc. Pathfinder has released a lot of different races suitable for player characters over the years, some with much more in-world definition than others admittedly, and without added rules like level adjustment. As someone who loves the idea of the plane-touched races this was a welcome opportunity.
Class Customization: While most classes did offer a fair bit of movable parts in the Core Rules, it was when archetypes were implemented that I really wanted to play Pathfinder! Before, if I wanted to play a class, but there were just some elements of it that I didn't see as part of my character or didn't want to bother with I was still stuck with those abilities. The archetypes allowed me to refine my idea, find something that better fit what I wanted to do. And now with so many other classes introduced over the years, it's hard to find a concept that you can't at least get close to mechanically.
I can't speak to the total of APs (I've only run one and am in the middle of another thus far and I make heavy changes to them) but my opinion is that a lot of pre-written adventures (APs in particular due to their length) require a certain degree of buy-in and suspension of disbelief to be run as is. If you don't have time to sit down and homebrew an adventure but want something long term, that is what APs are there for. But by the same token, they can't be everything to every character and obviously a character can at any time just decide to go do something else instead of what's presented no matter how many flashing neon signs are pointing to plot thread. Thus the players have to be willing to accept that it is likely to be somewhat railroady--otherwise there wouldn't be much of a way to write an overall arc. If the players aren't up to that social contract, then perhaps APs just aren't what they're looking for and making up the adventure as you go is needed instead.
Sandman (Bard)--I love the spellthief concept, and while I think thematically it fits better for a rogue, making it a bard with some rogue additions allows for less explaining of rules as bards already have spellcasting.
Skirmisher (Ranger)--Honestly, as a GM almost every ranger I make is a skirmisher or trapper. I don't really care for ranger magic and the skirmisher really gives some interesting options for combat whether its using an animal companion or not and regardless of fighting style.
Flowing Monk (monk)--I would say Qinggong, but that is pretty much handled with the Unchained monk, but monk had a lot of good archetypes that did not port over easily to unchained. The defensive counter attack options of Flowing monk is one of them. I think it worked well for creating a different style of fighting for the character.
Tinkerer (alchemist)--I kinda feel this is the closest to an actual machinist or artificer we got. Would love a version of this that is expanded on a bit more.
Serpent fire Adept (monk)--I really wish the chakra points system worked better. The saves were just too high for their payoff, especially compared to what could already be gained by Qinggong powers or the Unchained monk. But I would love to play a monk that is a master of chakra points--not just his own but his enemy's as well (way back in the day there was a Dragon magazine article that gave the monk pressure point attacks)
I'm in the camp with restricting Raise Dead but making PC dying more difficult. I didn't like that in my previous campaign death was just a speedbump and had no gravity to any situation. It just broke my immersion when party members had no problem picking a fight with a huge dragon but everyone in the party would abandon an area just at the signs that there were rust monsters nearby (because Raise Dead and two Restorations is cheaper than that +3 weapon I bought!)
Technically I use Artistry and Lore in my games, but they are mostly for NPCs as my players rarely put anything into them (but to be fair, my players don't use Craft, Profession or Perform in the first place either). I'm on board with what Benjamin posted, using Artistry for creating those works that aren't tangibles (like composing music, poetry, or being a playwright).
If that's the case, what would be the benefit of it? The confusion only lasts 1 round. If you use the ability and are confused and roll "act normally", then you can just go about doing what you normally would. There's no need to remove it because it'll be gone on your next turn.
Maybe someone can help me parse this. I'm making a villain with the Voice of the Void archetype for the Medium (Villain's Codex). However, the Surge of the Void ability has a bit of text that I find confusing.
Emphasis mine. I can understand that a creature immune to confusion would be unable to use this ability, but why the part about removing confusion? If the character is immune to confusion, when would he ever be affected by it? Does anyone else have any insight into how this bit of the ability is supposed to work if a character is immune to confusion?
Meraki said wrote:
This is how I do it as well. I've never had the issues with the enemies swarming and flanking the PCs as mentioned (it happens, but I wouldn't call it a problem) as this also has the drawback of the enemies not being able to adequately respond to what the PCs do because their turns are clumped up. Say the orc mages act before the commander (using Meraki's example). The orc mages take their turn, then the witch PC puts the commander to sleep. Now they all have to wait until their next turn for one of them to go over and wake him up, whereas with individual initiatives there's a chance at least one of them still has a turn after this happens. Similar could be said for if the enemy commander needs healing from his minions needs but his clerics have all taken their turn already etc. So kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Off the top of my head, this is the background of an important NPC in Paizo's
That's interesting. Thanks! That is actually the kind of information I was looking for so I know I'm not completely imagining things (this is for an NPC I'm creating that is a tiefling without actually having fiendish ancestry).I guess APs should be another place I look. Maybe I ran across it in one of them or a Player's Guide.
Maybe someone can help me out here, or at least tell me I'm not remembering things correctly.
At one point I recalled reading that not all tieflings are the result of breeding with fiendish entities. Sometimes they are born simply by parents/ancestors making a pact with such fiends, or they are born in an environment tainted by evil etc. However, I can't find this premise anymore. I thought it might be in Inner Sea Races or Blood of Fiends but didn't find mention of it in those. Does anyone else recall this being a thing, and if so can you direct me to where it was stated? Or is my memory just faltering?
I grouped the Improved feats together basically so they serve as a gateway to doing combat maneuvers without such a steep cost. Sunder, drag, over run and bull rush are one feat and reposition, disarm, trip, and dirty trick are another (Improved grapple stays by itself as the odd man out for needing a different prerequisite with Improved Unarmed Strike).
I would love this. The blog on poison (and then later the one on darkness) really helped me. For starting GMs there is a lot of stuff to keep in mind and players always seem to find some odd thing that you didn't prepare for. At this point with all the rules, feats, spells, class abilities etc it is really easy to second guess yourself when starting out--you don't want to cheat the players out of something cool, but you also don't want to set the precedent for something working one way that will have a domino effect on some other part of the game later (I'm still trying to parse ranger camouflage vs hide in plain sight with the stealth skill as it is written). Any experienced input, especially from devs, is always welcome.
You can add additional (non-monetary) costs to the casting of death-reversing spells--items for which the group either has to undertake a quest to find (phoenix feathers or essence of an elder elemental) or things that can be found only through morally shady means (angel blood that an evil faith is willing to part with, or that not-quite-trustworthy trader who can score unicorn horn in exchange for a future favor). This can make bringing a character back to life an adventure in itself (making it less a speedbump and more of a hurdle), but it could also mean the player needing to be revived is playing an NPC for a while till his character is back up and at 'em.
Or it could be particularly risky for both the revived and/or the caster to bring souls back from the dead. There was a random effect chart around here somewhere(in homebrew I believe) for character's coming back from the dead--anything from becoming albino to gaining negative energy affinity to possibly pulling something from the beyond with you (roll for initiative!) If even the caster could risk drawbacks from the spell, they might be more averse to giving them out like candy.
This was used all the time by my players to an infuriating degree. Having a way to have a safe place to sleep, but for the level of the spell this always seemed a bit much to me. The players could see out, but creatures outside could not see in. The extradimensional space is not limited in actual size but by how many creatures can occupy it so even if a larger enemy or creature tried to sneak up on them in the space, they could be outnumbered (or the party would just bring in small creatures with them to reach the max occupancy and prevent anyone from entering). Having a way to sleep more safely in a lengthy dungeon crawl is fine, but it became the "normal" way for the party to sleep (like they would get a room at an inn and then cast rope trick in their room that night).
While Guru has a point, the issue I ran into was the fact that the group could see outside of the space while the creatures on the outside could not. They could see what was there and buff/plan accordingly while the the enemies on the outside are left to guess as to what could come out. I did eventually start having the enemies lay out traps far away from the rope trick so they were out of sight or changing the environment to get ready for a fight.
I posted this to the rules section, but maybe I can get more input here as well since the feat appears in this book.
Does the Dead Inside story feat actually give any real benefit for completion? It says you can ignore any morale bonuses or penalties applied to you by outside forces, but are there any morale penalties in the game?
I found the Dead Inside story feat in Agents of Evil and was curious if anyone else had clarification on the completion benefit.
Dead Inside completion benefit wrote:
So you can avoid morale penalties, but can anyone cite anything that actually gives you morale penalties? Most penalties I've run across are untyped. Since you can still be affected by other emotion effects and I can't really think of any obvious situations where you would choose to ignore a bonus, this doesn't seem like much of a benefit. Input on this would be appreciated.
Well I think there's a big difference between "game breaking" and "game changing". For new GMs a discussion of game changing spells is useful. For instance, Fly is a game changing spell. Before players have access to it, flying enemies are much more of a threat. Climbing and difficult terrain challenges are much less an issue. When the group gains Teleport, those treks in the wilderness between towns are practically non-existant. These don't "break" the game but definitely change how the group approaches things and what the GM should put in front of them.
I do this for my group, but tend to lean towards feats they wouldn't necessarily take themselves but that could still be pretty thematic or useful for the character. The Story feats work well for this as the characters usually meet the prerequisites of at least one or two. Also, since I limit the players in the books they can pull from I will occasionally throw out an NPC that can teach them a feat from one of the books outside of their usual selection.
My problem with Suggestion is that it's not terribly difficult to come up with a suggestion that takes a character out of the combat, but if used on a player that basically just leaves the player there twiddling his thumbs (having been on the receiving end of that, I know it's no fun, especially for the duration of the spell or if combat goes on for a while). So I try to use suggestions that at least can keep the player in the game instead of shutting them down, even if it isn't the wisest option for the character to use. I've used variations of some of those mentioned ("it's really hot here. You should remove your armor."), but I look forward to seeing more that significantly hinder the characters rather than completely taking them out of the fight.
"Your clumsy greatswords and arrows will never be able to pierce me. You'll need the precision of a dagger." (used on those that really focus on the damage of their heavy weapons.)
"That last spell you cast used up the last of the contents of your spell component pouch. You'll have to rely on spells without components or other methods."
"Your friends are taking significant damage. Focus exclusively on healing them." (used on clerics to expend their channel energy and spell slots to heal allies during battle instead of attacking. Whether they use up their higher level slots to heal minor HP loss, using channel energy to heal everyone when on only 1 ally is injured, or expending charges out of a wand, they end up casting instead of attacking).
"Your archer/mage friend is very vulnerable. You should stay beside them and protect them from anyone getting close." (used on the heaviest melee damage dealer, effectively putting him in the back and out of range where he is less of a threat)
"Oh no! Not fire (or cold, electricity or acid etc)--my one true weakness! That is the only attack you have that is effective so only use fire attacks!" (used by someone immune to fire or with high resistance.
Since you can't "auto fail" on a roll of a natural 1 on a skill check, a character with a +10 Acrobatics can easily jump 10 feet horizontally (once he rolls, his check will be a minimum of 11). The DC for an acrobatics check to jump a horizontal distance is equal to the distance covered
Acrobatics from the PRD wrote:
So someone with a +50 can jump AT LEAST 50 ft from the start and as they level up this is going to get more absurd as they put more skill points into it (or take Skill Focus or other traits/feats/class abilities to increase their skill). Imagine a monk spending ki on top of this.
So yeah, I agree with the others. Considering the skills will get better as the characters level, something like free Skill Focus would be fine. A +10 at the start is still a HUGE bonus and higher than that means a lot of challenges are going to be negated completely. Keep in mind that with such a bonus, you could be creating a large gap between what party members are capable of. If you are challenging the party, it's pretty much an auto success for the skilled character, but if challenging the skilled character the party will be kinda SOL (granted this is more an issue for some skills than others, particularly contested skills like Stealth and Perception)
Honestly I'd love a new one if for no other reason that to pull all the magic items in the rest of the APs and modules into one place. There have been several magic items that I've just happened upon in looking through APs that I have given to my players because they fit the theme of the game or the character, but I would've never known about them if I wasn't just idly looking through APs which I otherwise had no interest in running. Granted that's not enough for a new full-on hardback release (and there are only so many new weapons, armor and alchemical items you can add before you're really getting into minutiae) but having a resource that puts them all together like UE did would be helpful. A player companion "Equipment of the Inner Sea" or something would work just as fine for me.
I ran a Shattered Star campaign (that got changed a lot from the actual AP). Catfolk are native to Varisia (or more specifically the Storval Plateau region and badlands) and are constantly fighting against the Shoanti tribes.
Kobolds are not evil (well, no more so than humans usually) and are well integrated into societies. They usually serve as advisers and clerks to the scaleless humans despite their grandiose claims of draconic birthright.
I used a lot of the shadar-kai lore from 4e for the fetchlings (including the name because it like it more). They are more of a disenfranchised people among human settlements because of their ties to shadow and tend to fierce individualism and thrill seeking thanks to dulled senses (which also falls into how they seek the extremes offered by Zon-Kuthon's teachings).
The elemental planes can bleed into the Material plane through areas where their affinity is strongest, creating unpredictable and often violent incursions of elemental energy in the region.
Runelord Xanderghul built an underground city and vault inside Karzoug's territory under his nose. He left his second-in-command there to guard over it but abandoned the site before Earthfall. Created a new sword of sin for Xanderghul's new general and he ended up being the final encounter of the campaign (riding atop a gargantuan colossus that was formed from one of the submerged Irespan pillars that now stands in Magnimar's harbor).
I absolutely allow it and was grateful they put it in the game! The only things I found that kinda break verisimilitude are retraining something like sorcerer bloodlines since they are something innate in the character (even before he decided to become an adventurer) and might have even had story or backstory built around it. Granted you could always change to something similar and it wouldn't cause much of an issue.
Yeah, illusions can be tricky to deal with depending on the GM and how creative the players are. The first thing I'd suggest is to get familiar with the types of illusions and their limitations in the CRB. The "image" line of spells are figments.
And what happens on saves vs illusions
What "interact with" has been debated since the 3.5 days, though most seem to take it as the character must use some action to investigate it (usually a standard action).
So for your examples (and again, expect table variation because illusion spells really depend on the interpretation of the GM, but here's my take):
B.) I'm not familiar with Tangible Image, but with Shadow Conjuration it would seem plausible since shadow illusion spells conjure semi-real material that can affect the Material plane. Having someone create an object and then having others fail the save to disbelieve it means they think it is real enough and can interact with it. Maybe someone else has insight on this one.
C.) Nope. See above. Figments cannot cause damage. Though for role play purposes they might think they are burning, but no actual damage is done
D.) I don't know if there's a definite answer on this one but I would lean towards no. Generally spells shouldn't be able to replicate spells of higher level. Also, in line with the above, "image" spells don't cause any real physical effect as they are not real
I'm still testing out some things. I really love the new poison/disease rules thus far. Makes them an actual threat now and for me it fits better with story elements such as nobility being assassinated by poison or epidemics breaking out.