Blacksmith

Lazarus Dark's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 52 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
It's PCL if you want to put the Pathfinder Compatible logo on the cover and refer to our trademarks (like "Pathfinder" or the titles of some of our books).

I do want to correct this part, so that people are not misled. You are correct that the PCL is necessary to use the official Pathfinder Compatible logo, as Paizo maintains copyright/trademark on that logo.

However, when publishing under ORC, anyone can put something like "Compatible with Pathfinder Second Edition" on their cover, without the need of Paizo's permission or using the PCL. (but of course, not using the official Pathfinder font style or in any way misrepresenting that the product is official). This was something we very specifically discussed when we were in the ORC creation process and it was confirmed by Eric Mona and Azora that by leaving out the part of the OGL that explicitly forbids this, it enables it be allowed as normal, by default, according to US law. Just like anyone can make a car part and say "Compatible with 2023 Ford Mustang", you can make any PF2R product using ORC in your product and say "Compatible with Pathfinder Second Edition" on the cover or anywhere else.

The ONLY reason this could not and still cannot be done for OGL products is that it explicitly forbids it, you essentially give up your default right to do so in exchange for the right to use the OGL and its benefits.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
Paizo is still committed to open gaming, which is why we championed and funded the creation of the ORC. It's why we release our non-OGL game books under the ORC. It's why we go above and beyond the OGL and ORC to offer the Pathfinder and Starfinder Compatibility Licenses to allow people supporting our games and open gaming to use even more of our IP in their releases. And it's why we created Pathfinder Infinite to allow access to even more of our IP, but in exchange for a stricter set of distribution conditions. Publishers are free to use whichever of the various free licenses they feel meets their needs the best.

This goes beyond Infinite, this is a community issue and a Paizo issue. Is Paizo not confident that the ORC protects their content? Because thats what it looks like. This decision doesn't just affect Infinite, it affects the community and the 3rd party ecosystem.

The ORC is about trusting that we are all operating under the same rules and that we are all equally protected by them. This sets up scenarios where non-Infinite users are unprotected from Infinite users and perhaps vice versa. If Infinite users use ORC content from a 3pp, now its up to that person to have to sue the Infinite creator because you must protect your copyright or risk losing it, whereas if the Infinite creator were using ORC, then thats all fine.
Or a 3pp publishes something similar to an Infinite product, even by accident, which is not even remotely unusual since theres like ten Inquisitor classes across Infinite and DTRPG. Now the Infinite creator has rights to bring lawsuit against the 3pp publisher, but if Infinite used ORC, the 3pp would be properly protected, just like Paizo basically promised with the ORC.
Thats part of the problem, a breach of trust. The ORC is supposed to protect all of us and you want to split the community and remove that protection now.

Then, lets go a step further. Paizo survives as a company today because of open mechanical content. The OGL allowed Paizo to survive and eventually thrive when 4e/GPL, A CLOSED SYSTEM, threatened their existence. Until now Infinite has been a happy part of the open ecosystem, now you want to make new content on there CLOSED and this all looks like a step toward WOTC, forgetting where you came from and what got you here.

And all for... what? To prevent edge cases, when this move doesn't even really do that (these same edge cases can happen whether you use ORC or not) and causes more issues and community disharmony than any good that it does for Paizo. You want to blow up the bridge when you could just put up a sign telling people how best to cross it. You've drawn the line at the wrong place when its very simple, if you are worried about the streams crossing, draw the line there: if the Infinite product uses OGL material, use OGL; if the Infinite product uses ORC material, use ORC; and the two can never ever cross or mix. Thats where you draw the line and its a whole lot easier than splitting the whole ecosystem and going CLOSED on mechanics like current day WOTC and creating a bigger headache for everyone to navigate.

Please reconsider, I don't know how well thought out this is, but I can't imagine this has been thought through to whether its truly necessary when compared to the cost to community goodwill and the health of the ecosystem as a whole. This is about more than just Infinite, its about the entire ecosystem. The Remaster is already causing a lot of upheaval and uncertainty and confusion (whether you are positive or negative on the remaster, it is doing these things), lets not compound the issues, lets not introduce more uncertainty and doubt into the player and creator communities without reasons that stand up to scrutiny, lets not split the open mechanics in the community unnecessarily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I understand the thought process behind this, I really do. But I feel it misses a key consideration: Open Content is not incidental to Pathfinder users or writers and publishers, it is part of the package. It is for many a key checkbox in the positive column for Pathfinder AND Paizo. Eric Mona talked up open gaming a LOT during the ORC creation process and this decision to exclude open content and the ORC itself from Infinite releases going forward flies in the face of that. It feels a bit two faced to me, talking up Open Gaming, telling everyone else to embrace the ORC, then turning away from it for your own product ecosystem. It's not a good look. And for what benefit? To catch a few edge cases where someone misinterprets what is and isn't Open? A simple letter here and there from your lawyers can clear that up. It is not, in my opinion, worth the ill will this decision creates or the hampering/splitting/insulting of the PF2 3rd party ecosystem.

I don't expect my words to change anything, I'm a nobody. But this certainly makes me not only more hesitant to ever publish on Infinite again, but even to support it through purchases or endorse it in the general PF2 community.

Paizo and PF2 are either dedicated to open gaming or they are not, halfway closed is still closed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

"rather than having a player need to learn how splash damage works for the purposes of a single spell the way acid splash did."

https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1331
Doh!
Acid Splash wasn't the only splash spell, they just added the second splash spell ever in Rage of Elements: Exploding Earth. And it does... bludgeoning splash damage? Thats kinda weird, but it makes sense in context, earth is flying out in a radius and smacking people.
I'm guessing RoE went to print before they decided to get rid of splash as a spell effect! haha. Wonder if they'll errata Exploding Earth then?

Either way, I think its sad, I think they should have leaned into the splash trait and made more spells with it, instead of abandoning it for spells. I thought it was a really cool different effect, and I'd rather have more different and unique choices rather than more of the same type of AoE effects.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

On file size: I agree that files over 50mb are hard to load on many low power or mobile devices. What I have done in the past with larger Pathfinder PDFs is to split them into chapters, this makes opening them quick and stable (I've tried downloading the file by chapter before but it's misleading as it's not by chapter at all but just split evenly by page count, which is awful).
So my preference would be:
Have one full book pdf that is about 25mb for those that just want one pdf, then for those that want quality images have the file by chapter be actually split by chapter but they can still be 10-20mb each for better quality.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lazarus Dark wrote:
Lazarus Dark wrote:
I think Splinter Volley spell should have the Attack trait, right? It even specifies that it increases MAP. Might need to errata that so Magus can use it.

I also think the number of actions is inconsistent with other stat blocks. RoE is using new remaster spell block format and moves the action cost next to the name like feats, but Splinter Volley is a two or three action spell, which would have shown that in the "Cast" line before (see Chromatic Armor as an example). So in the new stat block form, shouldn't it show more like the Monk feat One Inch Punch which is like this:

⬗⬗ or ⬗⬗⬗

Another potential error: the crit success effect is listed twice in Slashing Gust, this is redundant and not how spells are usually written.

I don't envy the writers/editors on RoE, they were nearly ready to print probably when suddenly they had to rewrite/edit everything for Remaster changes while trying to figure out what those changes even ARE, and still make the print deadline for RoE. That's a difficult and probably stressful situation and I have huge sympathy for missing some things! Thankfully we shouldn't have to wait years for errata, since errata is supposed to come quicker now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lazarus Dark wrote:
I think Splinter Volley spell should have the Attack trait, right? It even specifies that it increases MAP. Might need to errata that so Magus can use it.

I also think the number of actions is inconsistent with other stat blocks. RoE is using new remaster spell block format and moves the action cost next to the name like feats, but Splinter Volley is a two or three action spell, which would have shown that in the "Cast" line before (see Chromatic Armor as an example). So in the new stat block form, shouldn't it show more like the Monk feat One Inch Punch which is like this:

⬗⬗ or ⬗⬗⬗


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think Splinter Volley spell should have the Attack trait, right? It even specifies that it increases MAP. Might need to errata that so Magus can use it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Whoa. Just downloaded the PDF.
23 MB??
That's so tiny?? At least 10mb less than any other rulebook.
Is it because there's more text/less pics or did it get overcompressed (even more than usual, since I find the rulebooks already a bit overcompressed, the images are always so pixelated on even a minor zoom. The artists worked so hard, I wish I could see that work!)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have to agree, the dark green background detracts from the image, making some of them even a little difficult to separate from the background. I'd prefer a cleaner background, like the Bestiary 1/2/3 battle card background is good (though even those could be lighter)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My GM gave me a copy of his 1st printing pdf to compare and it doesn't have the issue. The error seems to have been introduced with the 2nd printing pdf, and still remains now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:
The Seldon Plan wrote:


Who is it that we need to report this to? In addition to looking blurry as all heck, it immediately crashes the iOS Books app (works fine in OneDrive and Acrobat apps, but is too big to put into Kindle)
Email customer.service@paizo.com please.

Thanks Aaron. I found my original CRB pdf purchase email and replied to it to customer service at that address with side by side pictures of the CRB open in Adobe Acrobat (where it looks fine) and Google Chrome (where it looks blurry/bad). I hope they fix this, its not a good look for all these new folks that can't get a hardcover, then buying the pdf and opening the CRB pdf and it looks kinda amateur-hour in most readers that show it blurry. And I don't think thats a fair impression, and I want the new players to be impressed with the product like they should be!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My thoughts:
The rulebook pdfs were always way too cheap for the work put in (and honestly probably still are, but at some point you have to think, you want folks to be able to get the rules to get invested in the system...)
Bringing down LO Absolom and the LO regionals probably hurts, but probably necessary. That said, I have trouble seeing Monsters of Myth or Legends as equal value to Mwangi Expense, and would never recommend them at that price, I thought they were already overpriced.
Bringing down the Battle Cards and Pawns PDFs, is brilliant, I never even considered them before, but I'll get the entire lot at the new prices as they feel totally appropriate.
I don't see how Bounties are valued at $5, I don't see myself buying them at that price.
It doesn't mention One-Shots, I know they are discontinued but I actually thought $5 was too cheap, those felt like $10 to me.
The new AP and Standalone adventure prices look right though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, is this just literally pulling the AV specific cards from the Bestiary Battle card pack, or are they new prints with different art or something?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Lazarus Dark wrote:
that's almost ten percent of the class budget per the BCS.

Per the BCS?

What is that?

https://www.reddit.com/r/OGL_BCS/comments/uzbkht/balanced_core_system_bcs_1 0_release_post_reverse/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

I reverse engineered the class system and released it to the community a couple months ago.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't say Legendary DC is impossible but the problem is on a martial it would take up a huge amount of the class value budget, that's almost ten percent of the class budget per the BCS. To get Legendary Class DC, they'd have to lose something(s) pretty big. Same way you'll never see Legendary casting and Master Attacks together, there's just not room in the budget for both without taking away spell slots or save progression or unique class features and leaving a class with either very few slots or the worst save proficiencies or almost no unique features. So either a weak class overall or a bland bag if proficiencies. Just look at Magus, in order to get Master attacks and defense, it had to give up like 80+ percent of spell slots AND legendary casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Alright, maybe some people aren't as picky as me, but why are the file by chapters so badly split? Like, I don't see why they are split evenly instead of actually, y'know, split by chapters. Every rulebook, and some of the larger LO books, I have to keep taking the single file version and splitting it myself into chapters. Why even call it file per chapter if it's not that at all?
Also, what's with the file sizes? 62 mb for the single file, 132 for the split files? That's not how splitting files works, you don't end up with double the total mb.

And you still never fixed Mwangi which has 4 pages that didn't get compressed properly, doubling the filesize it should be (though I've already fixed my own copy by compressing those pages myself)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For my Twilight Archer on Infinite, its main feature is a conjured arrow of light/shadow as a focus cantrip. I basically gave it the stats of a bow then it has a pair of bracers that basically copies Handwraps of Mighty Blows but only works with conjured weapons. And so you'd need to buy the levels of Bracers as you level up, just like with Handwraps. In the end, you get a bow that uses runes like a bow, scales like a bow, damages like a bow, and costs similar to a scaling bow, but because it's magical/nonphysical it has a few extra tricks (and a lot of flavor).

But this does create the situation where the character progression is pretty much dependant on purchasing Bracer upgrades, but in truth that's how it is already, upgrading weapon runes is basically a necessity for all martial classes. Which is why I think rune etching should have been separate crafting rules. It's just etching, so really a party member with Crafting proficiency should be able to do it for free if it's essential to progression and there's no material really involved, maybe a set of tools. From a game perspective, how does obfuscating the weapon upgrade system make it more fun if it's really a necessity, that just makes it a formality you have to go through.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
thewastedwalrus wrote:

One very minor thing is that Spellshot changes the Gunslinger Class DC to be Intelligence-based where other similar things like the Ruffian and Scoundrel rogue rackets just change the class's key ability score.

Not sure that distinction justifies the entire class archetype, but it could be a factor.

nah, because Monk does that without a Class Archetype, I don't think that is a factor: "When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells. You become trained in spell attacks and spell DCs of that tradition and your key spellcasting ability is Wisdom."

Its WIS, not INT, but I'm not sure the distinction here is really important?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Lazarus Dark wrote:

I think excluding it from multiclassing is the most reasonable theory.

However, there is at least a possibility that it is purely thematic. Spellshot makes the Gunslinger magical and they hey wanted to separate it from all the other Ways that are non-magical.
*looks at all the weird pseudo magical feats Gunslinger has* Yeah I don't think they cared much about separating magic from non-magic when it came to gunslinger.

okay, but magical is an actual distinction in this game that has certain consequences (like weaknesses and immunities). I'm looking again and while the normal class feats are fantastical and sometimes alchemical, they are not magical. I'm not saying definitely for sure that Spellshot was separated because it's magical, but it's surely not totally out of the question?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think excluding it from multiclassing is the most reasonable theory.
However, there is at least a possibility that it is purely thematic. Spellshot makes the Gunslinger magical and they hey wanted to separate it from all the other Ways that are non-magical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

for Inventor class features under Medium Armor Expertise/Level 11, it says "If you have a medium or heavy armor innovation, you
gain access to the critical specialization effect with your
armor innovation."
Can I assume this means "Armor Specialization", since Armor "Critical Specialization" doesn't seem to exist?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If I was in charge, what I'd like to see from the rulebook line going forward would be something like 4 books a year:
1. One full book with two classes, like SoM or GnG.
2. One themed book like Book of the Dead, especially with themed monsters, spells, items, etc.
3. One $30-$35 APG every year, a hundred pages or something with nothing but expansion on existing content, like more class feats, subclasses, class archetypes, not just for CRB classes but for APG, SoM, GnG, etc classes. Even more feats for existing archetypes, or optional focus spells for bloodlines and other class options. Spell Trickster feats.
4. One $30-$35 item book, a hundred pages of crazy and useful items, new runes, totally new item types, expansion on the ideas they've introduced like Catalysts, item runes, weapon attachments, etc but they're barely more than super cool ideas with a couple item examples.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
elisaelli wrote:
Oh no this got pushed out to February? Would have been great for Christmas.

Awww. I was getting suspicious about the lack of promotion, so I finally checked here. I was really wanting this for Christmas party games


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Creature Echo Feats> this is exactly the kind of thing I want more of! Mixing the RP and combat in unique ways!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Misprint: page 77 to 99 has wrong chapter names on the side of the pages, mentions Shootist and black powder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:

I don't think it's ambiguous.

It's like if a caster took Barb MCD re: Rage; it's nearly always a major drawback for them to Rage, much less get a net benefit from it. That would nearly always be a dead end for a caster, much like w/ Inventor.
Even the Construct Innovation is a bit of a trap since it's hard to keep it competitive (at least if intended for direct combat).
Sure, Inventor seems like a great fit for intellectuals, yet it remains a very martial class (unlike say an Alchemist), and therefore its MCD is of limited use for casters. IMO this can be said of most other martial MCDs too. And there is a light armor option too which can be worn early.

But you COULD take the Barbarian multiclass at level 2, so long as you met it's str 14 and con 14 requirements and you could select any of the Instincts and fully use the Rage action, you don't need any extra proficiency to Rage. Yes, as a Caster, using the Multiclass rage might lock you out of your own abilities at times, but you get to choose when you want to use it and you are fully able to use it when you choose to at level 2. Thats my point, you can take literally any other dedication and fully use it as worded, Inventor is the first multiclass dedication that needed some basic proficiency prior to being able to use the actual dedication feature.

For the Inventor, a caster can't just take any of the Innovations and fully use them at level two. And comparing Rage preventing a caster from using class features while raging, if you are using the Innovation, then you wouldn't be using the spells at the same time then either, it's about having options, literally like any other multiclass carchetype, you want the option to use it, even if using it means you are temporarily not using your own class features.

If the Inventor Archetype had wording like "choose an Innovation you are trained in or have access to", then I would agree, that would be unambiguous. As it stands, it only says "Choose an innovation. You gain that
innovation, though you don’t gain any other abilities that modify or use that innovation, such as modifications or Explode."
And I read it as "choose any of the Innovations listed, you can use it immediately, but you don't get any mods or extra features beyond just accessing and using the armor/weapon." I read it as "you can take the Power Suit and are able to use it's listed basic armor abilities".
But you and others read it as "choose an Innovation you are already trained/capable of using". So, it is ambiguous as written. When writing "choose an innovation", did they intentionally mean only if you already have proficiency, or did they intend any caster to take and use the Power Suit as armor immediately. There isn't even a feat in the Archetype to get proficiency, so I think the latter, I think it's an oversight not to include language saying you are trained in your Innovation. But if the devs come back at some point and clarify you can only take an innovation you are trained in, then that's fine, I just need to know one way or the other if casters can't be Armor or Martial Weapon inventors without heavy feat investment and waiting until higher levels, as this would be the first time a multiclass dedication had such a prerequisite (which again, is not listed as a prerequisite currently).

As for Light Armor, that is an Innovation option, but even that would still mean Casters need Armor proficiency general feat at lvl 3 before taking the dedication at level 4, this would still be unprecedented for a multiclass dedication


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Alright, gunna try asking this one more time, I gave it a while to see if I got answers elsewhere, but no luck. I really need to know, if a wizard or caster or any class without Medium Armor training takes Inventor Archetype at level 2, are they trained in the Armor Innovation power suit? The archetype dedication just says choose an Innovation from the class listing, and the only prerequisite for the dedication is INT 14. But without stating you are "trained in your Innovation", then it effectively locks out Wizards and casters until at least level 8 (after taking Armor Prof general feat twice at lvl 3 and 7). And a wizard would be very limited in weapon innovation choices. Construct Innovation doesn't need any proficiency meanwhile. Unless I'm mistaken this would be the first time half of the classes are basically locked out of effectively using a multiclass dedication until far later in levels. (Yes, you could technically do it without proficiency but no one would ever do that.)

If the devs really think that's necessary for balance, then I can understand, even if I don't agree, but as it stands, it seems just as likely to be an oversight as intentional, leaving it very ambiguous for tables that try to adhere to the rules as written.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't want to spam the forum, as I asked this in the Rules area, but since we've got a dev in here, I would really love a simple GnG question answered if at all possible: if you take Inventor multiclass dedication, are you trained in your innovation?
For instance, a Wizard taking Inventor archetype and armor innovation-power suit: is the wizard trained in the power suit? Also on the same subject, weapon innovation says choose a 0 or 1 level simple or martial weapon, is the wizard trained in the weapon innovation?

Should there be a line in the dedication saying "you are trained in your innovation, treat it as [simple?/martial?/light?/medium?] for proficiency"?

If not then, should there be an extra archetype feat for innovation proficiency? Because otherwise it is far too expensive for casters to take the Inventor archetype, unless they want construct which doesn't require proficiency.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally I think they could have allowed you to choose an advanced weapon for the innovation and treat your innovation as a martial weapon (not the weapon, I mean treat the Innovation as martial for proficiency, so you couldn't switch your innovation and then use that advanced weapon on its own as though it were martial, or somehow buy a second copy of that advanced weapon and be trained in it).

That said, I also think flavor-wise, I wouldn't use an ancestry weapon as an innovation, you'll be strapping various mods to it and making it explode and I think that might be a huge insult to other members of your ancestry to use thier ancestral weapon in such a way. And if I were a GM, I might allow you to take an advanced weapon as an innovation and treat it as martial for proficiency if it fits rule of cool, but still not allow it to be an ancestral advanced weapon because that may clash with the setting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond! Looks like I'm at an impasse, I think we've covered all the bases, but I still think the intention is to be trained in your chosen innovation, no more, no less. Otherwise, in my opinion, the whole archetype is pointless for casters who want armor or a specific martial weapon. It's still a fantastic archetype if you want the construct though! Or if your class already has the training and scaling to make good use of the armor/weapon.

I highly doubt we'll ever get any official ruling either way, not likely even one saying they definitely didn't intend for you to be trained. I suspect most home GMs would rule in favor of training for rule of cool, whether they agree it is RAI or even if they don't believe that is the RAI and are willing to house rules it anyway. Meanwhile tables at PFS and the like would most certainly go by the absolute RAW, which doesn't mention training specifically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Asethe wrote:

The devs rarely, if ever, have answered directly in this thread, haven't had a Paizo casual stream since Payton left around this time last year, and didn't address rules questions that didn't already have an obvious answer on the stream since the very early versions of that stream.

Your best bet is to continue your original thread as you will not get anything official, or markedly different, here.

thank you, I suspected as much, but hard to figure out with 4000+ replies. I some of the Gencon stuff, they did some q&a there, and there was the ask Paizo videos a couple months ago. I figure it's pretty low that we'd ever get any answer as to what the devs exact intention was on this particular issue and it's going to stay a stalemate for anyone like me.

Funny thing is, I'm almost certainly not taking the archetype at this point, because even if my GM allowed me to be trained in a martial innovation weapon, and I'm 95% sure he would agree that the intention is to be trained in your innovation, the entire archetype is still underpowered for my purposes, you can't even get the better modifications, so what's even the point? It's amazing if you want the construct, or maybe if you have solid armor scaling in your base class, but I feel like even if you have both training and scaling in your weapon innovation, the feats and everything are lackluster for weapon innovation specifically, especially with a crossbow which is my weapon of choice. I'd be far better off and more powerful taking Archer and then Eldritch Archer just to do cool crossbow stuff. Even gunslinger looks better than Inventor Archetype for crossbows. It's pretty disappointing as I've literally been excited for months to get the Inventor archetype, only to find it's weaker than other options.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Asethe wrote:


The dev intention, as it has been shown in previous offerings this edition, has never to automatically make something in a dedication useful just because you chose to take it, just to make it usable. There is a world of difference between those two things.

This still seems like a new, untested situation to me, no other multiclass dedication has ever GIVEN you a specific armor or weapon before. Especially if you look at it less as a lack of proficiency and more like a penalty. At level 20, a sorcerer gnome with Inventor Dedication with armor innovation taken at level two is taking essentially at least a 20 point AC penalty to use thier Power suit armor at level 20 vs just using level 1 spell mage armor, and nearly 25 AC penalty compared to heightened mage armor spell lvl 10.

Where if they were just trained in the armor innovation, then there is almost no penalty.

All the dedication needs is "you are trained in your innovation" and the archetype dedication is balanced with itself (because construct innovation is very powerful without needing any additional training) and with other multiclass.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Asethe wrote:

Lazarus, I think the biggest cognitive problem you're having with this is that you're trying to view it through the lens of getting another class. It's not. What it is is spending a class feat on something that's outside the list for your class.

Look at all the other MC/Archetype dedications. They mostly have a similar power, and few, if any, on their own outshine the best class feats. The advantage of Dedications is that they unlock access to feats from their MC/Archetype that you can then spend more class feats on later.

The Dedications that give any proficiency all give very little else in the Dedication feat itself. As has been pointed out, proficiency is expensive in terms of internal costing, and proficiency progression moreso

That's all fair and valid and reasonable and I mostly agree. But the phrasing you use makes me still wonder if you are talking about full general proficiency, because that is certainly off the table, it was never in question. The question is proficiency only in the innovation it tells you to choose. The issue of scaling has definitely been cleared up here, this dedication definitely does not provide any proficiency scaling, no one can argue that.

What I'm stick on is: did the dev writing Inventor archetype say, "choose an innovation", and in the back of their mind thought, but if you aren't naturally trained in Medium armor, then you don't get to be trained in the Power suit even if you choose it.
OR: Did the dev say "choose an innovation" and in their mind they thought, anyone who can take this dedication can use any of the innovations in a useful way equally no matter what class as long as they meet the INT prerequisite of it, and they never realized lack of training would make Subterfuge suit difficult to fully use by half of the classes, or half the classes could not fully use a martial weapon even though the Innovation page they refer to gives the option of a martial weapon.

All I think is that there needs to be one line that say "you are trained in your innovation". That's it, and I don't think that's OP or unbalanced, I think it's exactly what's intended.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MEATSHED wrote:
Lazarus Dark wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.
they get "effective" proficiency, they essentially get a bonus that replaces proficiency such that they "effectively" have proficiency, it's actually very smart on the devs part.
How exactly? To my understanding a wizard conrasu with Rite of Reinforcement will basically be stuck at mid teens AC because they can't add their level to their AC unless they spend two feats to actually be able to use it or get a dedication to use it.

dang, okay, you are right, I was ONLY looking at level 1 Conrasu sorcerer/wizard with rite if reinforcement, and that actually looks pretty good, better than explorer's clothing at least. Truthfully, I am very unknowledgeable about armor in general, as I just use mage armor. Now that I tried plugging in on Pathbuilder, if you set it to level 20, holy cow yeah, that AC is absolutely garbage without taking armor proficiency general feats. Alright, so Conrasu doesn't help my argument at all then, that was just a wasted tangent. I'm not sure it says anything about the Inventor Dedication at all because the Conrasu is a very unusual ancestry with very unusual abilities, and while Inventor is uncommon it's not nearly as unusual as Conrasu, so I don't think you can compare the two as much as it seemed when it was first brought up.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.

they get "effective" proficiency, they essentially get a bonus that replaces proficiency such that they "effectively" have proficiency, it's actually very smart on the devs part.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Lazarus Dark wrote:
In fact, the Conrasu exoskeleton reinforces my view, as they do not give the Conrasu any armor proficiency at all but instead give it a +4 bonus to AC!
I don't think you're quite understanding that heritage. It gives you a +4 item bonus to AC and a dex cap of +1... That's pretty much just medium armor. To be more specific, it's functionally identical to breastplate with the comfort trait that can't be removed (or broken/destroyed).

exactly, they get medium armor proficiency in their exoskeleton without stating they have medium armor proficiency. I understood it exactly and it supports my position.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
nicholas storm wrote:
You can pick simple weapon or light armor for base innovation choices. OP just wants something that isn't listed in the dedication feat to be added.

I thought I had mentioned in my initial post, but I guess I didn't. I'm aware that weapon innovation gives you the choice of simple weapons, but I'm not convinced they considered that wizards wanting Inventor dedication with weapon innovation at level 2 would effectively be limited to use the club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, or staff as thier innovation, as that's all they are trained in. They'd need Weapon proficiency at level 3 to even use a bow or sword innovation, is that really the intention? The dedication just says choose an innovation and the innovation says choose a simple or martial weapon, I believe the intention is that you should be able to choose any Innovation and use it effectively (effectively meaning being at least trained in it, otherwise it's less powerful than your other weapon or armor options of your class).

And for Armor it's even worse, casters don't have light armor, so most all of them would be pushed out of taking Armor Innovation at level 2, they'd want to wait until after they could take armor proficiency general feat at level 3. But wait, two of the initial mods are specific to the subterfuge and power suit armor specifically and those are medium armor. So, in order to use those, a caster would need to take armor proficiency at level 3 and 7 in order to make full use of those specific innovations. That is a very heavy cost and while it might be worth it to someone willing to put all of their feats into this, it makes the cost far higher than any other multiclass and that's the point I keep trying to make. Not having at minimum trained proficiency in the innovation dedication for casters is not balanced compared to any other class taking the dedication, and is not balanced to anyone taking it for the construct, it's unbalanced, and that's what is bugging me because 2e's middle name is balance.
All the dedication says is choose an innovation and I believe, short of the devs literally saying otherwise that they fully intended any class to be able to take either innovation at level 2 and be at minimum trained in it, they simply never considered that they needed to state that because they just overlooked it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Isn't it somehow similar to the conrasu exoskeleton or the android ( warrior heritage ) martial weapon proficiency?

thank you, these are also excellent examples, I've not yet taken the time to examine those ancestries before now, not apples to apples since they are ancestries, but it's at least more on the scale of multiclass archetypes than trying to compare to skill feats or even general archetypes. As my sorcerer is a gnome, it also reminds me how costly it is just to take ancestry feats for gnome weapon familiarity/proficiency. Then you look at the general feats for armor/weapon proficiency and you see they put a high price on proficiency in 2e. So, I'll concede, they definitely do NOT intend Auto scaling of proficiency for either the Armor or Weapon innovation in the Inventor Dedication. I still don't think that answers the training question though. In fact, the Conrasu exoskeleton reinforces my view, as they do not give the Conrasu any armor proficiency at all but instead give it a +4 bonus to AC! So, that makes me even more convinced that Inventor Dedication should come with training for any Innovation you choose, whether armor or simple or martial weapon (they wouldn't do the bonus thing because that would make it OP for fighters and the like).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aw3som3-117 wrote:

I didn't realize we were talking about scaling too... Yeah, that's just flat-out wrong. Guaranteed. Not even close to being a possibility.

The fighter dedication (and let's keep in mind that the fighter's whole shtick is weapon proficiency) doesn't even get automatically scaling proficiency and it definitely doesn't give you the same scaling as a martial. It gives you trained at level 1 and (at the cost of a feat) expert at level 12. As many others have mentioned: proficiency isn't easy to get in pf2.

Ah, okay, finally something I can really compare, thank you! Though still not the same thing, as the fighter is about general proficiency, not proficiency in a single weapon, which the entire base of the weapon innovation subclass, whereas weapon proficiency is just one aspect of the fighters core essence (I'd argue the feats are actually the main fighter Archetype aspect, as feats are actually it's gimmick, and so weapon proficiency is just a big secondary bonus). I absolutely agree they don't intend the Inventor dedication to give full Inventor scaling for all armor or weapons. And I will now also concede that if scaling is to be provided, then based on the Fighter dedication feat, it will likely require an additional Inventor Archetype feat to be able to scale the weapon at all; you are very correct, I had noticed that armor and weapon proficiency is very hard to come by, months back I tried to figure out how my sorcerer could take Eldritch Archer when I eventually get to level 6 but the expert bow proficiency prerequisite was just impossible to get! I still think they just didn't consider lack of training or scaling at all when they whipped up the Inventor dedication, I just don't think the thought crossed thier mind, because if they had and decided no proficiency would be given, they'd have known it would be a point of contention, especially in PFS, and they'd have clarified it in the dedication that no proficiency is given.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have a question about Inventor Archetype dedication that I'm just not seeing eye to eye with others on. If a sorcerer for example takes Inventor Dedication at level 2 and chooses Armor Innovation, is it the intention that they be trained in that Armor Innovation? If not, then the earliest they could be trained is level 7 after taking the Armor proficiency general feat at both level 3 and 7 to get medium proficiency. Whereas a martial class would not have this issue. Additionally, if the intention is to be trained in your innovation, then what about scaling? Scale like an Inventor or scale with the sorcerer's unarmored scaling? This still leaves it unequal to a martial with better scaling. Is the intention that any class can use and scale the armor innovation equally using the Inventor's scaling? Secondly, the weapon innovation let's you choose a simple or martial weapon, how does training/scaling work for those if you are a sorcerer and choose martial weapon or even a wizard choosing a simple weapon they are not trained in?

More discussion can be found here, with deeper analysis by me, but I feel I'm at an impass with everyone else, I just think the devs might have had intentions that every class could take the Inventor Dedication and use it equally, but I could be wrong: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43i5d?Inventor-Archetype-are-you-trained


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Not everyone is going to be able to benefit from every archetype they qualify for. Picking up an armor innovation when you're not trained in medium armor sounds an awful lot like picking up the Archer dedication when you dumped dex. A bad idea? Sure. Allowed? Also yes.

Ah, but there you are a) comparing to a non-multiclass archetype and b) ability scores are the only prerequisites on multiclass archetypes to this point anyway. So I feel this is not entirely relevant to the discussion of armor or weapon proficiency for a multiclass archetype subclass. If we were talking about general archetypes I would agree with you! Or skill feats, or even other abilities. But I think we need to specifically compare only to multiclass archetypes and then it would be unprecedented to lock certain subclasses from being taken at level 2 from certain classes (because you'd need to take the armor proficiency general feat at level 3 first, if you are a sorcerer for example --Edit: no wait, I just realized it's medium armor so the sorcerer would be untrained until taking armor proficiency at level 3 AND level 7! ). I think the problem is that this is a whole new problem, never encountered before, where a multiclass dedication gives you a specific weapon or armor, so I honestly think the devs did not consider the ramifications of this in regards to proficiency. That's my point, I think the intention actually was that any class taking Inventor Dedication at level 2 should be able to choose any Innovation and that every class would be able to use that innovation equally. I think they totally didn't think about how proficiency was needed for certain classes. They just pointed to the Innovation class feature and said "choose one" and I think their intention was that any class could choose one and use it equally. I think not providing training and scaling for the innovation is a total oversight. Otherwise, this one multiclass dedication is unbalanced to all other multiclass dedications in who can fully use the dedication as written (aside from ability scores, the only prerequisites that multiclass have ever had till now). Do you really think they intended for Inventor archetype to be inconsistent with the other multiclass archetypes?

Asethe wrote:

Nothing in second edition stops you from using any type of armour or weapon without proficiency; you will just never be very good with them.

Archetype dedications' power budgets are quite small, so it's not at all out of line that the artificer doesn't offer any additional proficiency.

You do have a point, that it can still be technically used without proficiency. However, is that what you think the devs intended? I don't, I think they intended for the innovation to be used to it's full potential within the confines of the archetype and what mods and feats it allows, I don't think they intended this proficiency issue, I think they just forgot to consider it, because it's never been a thing they needed to consider before when making an archetype.

In fact, I think they probably if anything intended the proficiency to scale just as an Inventor would scale. Because otherwise, let's say you actually chose a simple weapon for your weapon innovation, and you are a sorcerer: a fighter would still be far better at being an Inventor Archetype with simple weapon innovation than your sorcerer, because it scales better in simple weapon proficiency. I think they likely intended the scaling to be equal, because in the back of their brain they had Inventor scaling proficiency but didn't ever realize, as written, they forgot to provide that in the Inventor Dedication.

As an additional thought experiment, let's think about a hypothetical Adventure path, something like strength of thousands or maybe just a one shot. And you are playing in Pathfinder Society play. The path/one shot has every character taking Inventor Archetype, like how SoT has everyone with a magic Archetype. And the adventure starts at level one or two. Someone at the table wants to be a caster while everyone else is martial classes. At level two all the martials can take any Innovation without issue. But the Sorcerer really wants Armor Innovation. He takes it, but he's untrained in it, will never be trained unless he takes Armor proficiency general feat at level 3 AND level 7! I don't think that's working as intended.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:

Looks like you still need Medium Armor proficiency or Martial Weapon proficiency. Nothing in Innovation rules makes you proficient with it, the rules just makes everyone else not proficient with it.

The Weapon or Armor aren't useless, you can get Explode at level 6 and Basic Modification at level 8, and you are still able to take other Modification Feats with Basic and Advanced Breakthrough.

If this were a skill feat or something, I'd agree with you, the intention would probably be that you needed proficiency as a prerequisite. However, for a multiclass archetype dedication, this would be unprecedented. The only prerequisites for any multiclass archetype are certain ability scores. And unless I'm mistaken, there are no other subclasses that you could take with a any other multiclass dedication that would require some additional proficiency. So going from that, I don't see Paizo intending to lock out casters from taking the Inventor archetype with Armor Innovation, or at least putting an additional burden on them to wait to take the armor proficiency general feat at level 3 then they can only get the Inventor Armor dedication at level 4, while all the martial classes with medium armor proficiency get to take Inventor Armor at level 2.

This presents another issue, that I also don't think the devs ever thought about, scaling. If they were to agree that anyone taking Inventor Armor dedication at level 2 is trained in that armor, how does the proficiency scale if they never get general medium armor proficiency, would they be stick at trained forever? So a fighter can be even more powerful as an Inventor than a Sorcerer could ever be? Doesn't seem like that's the intention to me. Again, I think there may not be any intention yet, I think they never thought about it before.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

See, I'm wondering if this is a case of an oversight. The Innovations don't mention training because the Inventor is already trained in medium armor and martial weapons, it doesn't need to say you are trained in them again, it would be redundant. But then they go to make the archetype and just say go pick an Innovation from the Inventor. Since it doesn't list medium armor proficiency as a prerequisite and just says you can take the innovation, then there is an oversight here. I'm thinking they never actually thought about what if the person taking the Inventor Archetype isn't trained in medium armor, I think they likely never thought about it. So it seems ripe for an errata. But the question is would they errata that proficiency is a prerequisite or that proficiency is a given?

And I ask about armor even though I want to take a martial weapon innovation because the armor is only medium armor and doesn't have a choice and so the answer to that question will give me the answer as to whether weapon innovation will give me training in a martial weapon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, if you take the inventor dedication, and you are not trained in medium armor, but you choose the armor innovation, then are you trained in that innovation? Because the armor innovation is medium armor. And the archetype doesn't mention anything about needing to be trained in medium armor before taking the innovation or giving you medium armor proficiency.
So it would seem the intention is that you are trained in your armor innovation, though obviously not in all medium armor.
Following that logic then what if you choose weapon innovation, and you don't have martial weapon proficiency, but it gives you the option of choosing a martial weapon, are you then trained in your innovation if you choose a martial weapon?

I ask this because taking the construct innovation is very powerful because it gives you something you can't just buy. But if you take the weapon innovation then it seems like it's just slapping the innovation title on a weapon you could easily buy. This seems very imbalanced. Even the armor innovation is something you can't just buy in a shop. But, if you don't have martial weapon proficiency like with my sorcerer, and this gives you proficiency in one martial weapon, then at least it would be somewhat balanced for characters that don't already have martial weapon proficiency, since it's giving them something they couldn't just go out and buy. (Though I would still say that it's a little lame for classes that already have martial weapon proficiency and they want to use the weapon innovation, this basically just slaps the innovation title on a weapon they can buy in any shop)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Weeks ago I asked Art to look at the file sizes of the books as one PDF and they were not aware of any issues. I'll send your posts to them and ask for a second look, given your specificity.

Thank you, I appreciate your response and effort!

BTW, I apologize if my posts came off as rude or aggressive (as I reread them now, I see they may come off that way), the intention was to convey more like incredulous/surprised, I'm not mad or anything. I know you all have had a lot of stress the last couple months, I wouldn't want to contribute to that, even a tiny bit.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:
We believe the Mwangi Expanse PDF is the right size for an art-heavy 300+ page book.

please see my post above. Is there going to be a corrected version of this pdf? my Chromebook really chugs trying to open 100MB+ pdfs, and this one doesn't need to be that size. Even the 600 page core rulebook is less than 100mb.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

okay, I split the pdf, most pages are less than 1MB per page, but here are the offending pages:
130 is 17MB. It's a full color page, so it should be a larger size, but this is still more than it needs to be compared to other full color pages.
138 is 35MB, this is too large given what is on the page.
141 is 19MB, this is too large given what is on the page.
144 is 35MB, this is too large given what is on the page.

Likely the art assets for these were put in at full resolution and not compressed. I find it hard to believe no one has pointed this out and fixed it in the months its been out?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

What size should the pdf of this be? I just got it and the pdf download I get is 176 MB, which seems high. So I tried downloading the file per chapter version and all the "chapters" files are less than 10MB each except for pages 122-145 pdf is 112MB! So it seems like those pages were not properly compressed? Is this a problem with all of the pdf's or just the watermarked version I'm getting? I clicked the "problem downloading this file" and had it redo the files and they came back out the same.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>