Axebeak

MMCJawa's page

7,576 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,576 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
AestheticDialectic wrote:


This is important to me because I believe representing these animals as animals is important, the new player core design more so fits in the designing them as monsters trope. It is barely feather, has pronated wrists(something impossible for any dinosaur to do), has a skull more akin to a carnosaur than a dromaeosaur and it's arm feathers don't look like proper quills like we know they had. Dromaeosaurs are one of the closest relatives to the avian dinosaurs(birds). The other closest is the troodontids which looks incredibly similar to dromaeosaurs. I know it is well past the point of any art being changed ofc, I would just hope that the artists referenced paleo art when rendering these animals in the future

Yeah...this is a straight downgrade in art. The second edition bestiaries all had pretty good looking and accurate dinosaur art.

It's not just not being accurate, it's also that this weird "throw some feathers randomly onto a scaled dinosaur" just straight up looks worse than either the old scientifically inaccurate dromaeosaur or the updated scientifically accurate view.


Yakman wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I kind of feel with the announcement of Arazni as being promoted, Urgathoa and Pharasma make the most sense.

While Arazni might not be precisely taking the place of whatever deity gets offed, She could fill the thematic hole of those two. Killing most of the other gods would IMHO leave major thematic holes in possible character concepts among the core 20, and while there are minor gods that could "take over" those roles from the player side, it's probably not a great idea for the game to force new players to turn to those.

The biggest issue I see with Urgathoa however is that her demise feels like a "end of arc" event, rather than something that precipitates the story. And I just get a general sense that whichever god is going to buy the farm will do so early in the story.

i think the intent was that she's not assuming the space of the vacated deity.

in which case... there's no direct link to either Pharasma OR Urgathoa, both of whom are pretty well established in the canon... and you can't get rid of Brides of Urgathoa, who are an iconic Pathfinder monster.

As such, I'm once again betting on Gozreh, who isn't in the Starfinder canon and can easily be supplanted by the Elemental Lords.

And I would argue against Gozreh for two main reasons: If they kick the bucket, you lose the nature-themed deity of the Core-20, and I don't think such a basic concept should force new players to deep dive into the lore to find a god that fits there concept. The other reason would be that...would anyone really care? Gozreh isn't a bad deity exactly, but seems sort of personality-less.

I guess I could also see Iomedae going, since there is a bit of overlap with Sarenrae there, and I could see some the players who might turn to the latter being cool with Arazni as a patron


I kind of feel with the announcement of Arazni as being promoted, Urgathoa and Pharasma make the most sense.

While Arazni might not be precisely taking the place of whatever deity gets offed, She could fill the thematic hole of those two. Killing most of the other gods would IMHO leave major thematic holes in possible character concepts among the core 20, and while there are minor gods that could "take over" those roles from the player side, it's probably not a great idea for the game to force new players to turn to those.

The biggest issue I see with Urgathoa however is that her demise feels like a "end of arc" event, rather than something that precipitates the story. And I just get a general sense that whichever god is going to buy the farm will do so early in the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Latest paizo live was really focusing on tian xia book stuff :O so hoping people give watch to it xD
Tsukumogami as a Poppet Heritage, some fun teases of Samsaran, Tanuki, and Wayang options, overviews of Wanshou and Valashmai, and a few other tasty hints - it was a fun one! TMS’s writeup is an essential resource, as always.

Where is the write-up? I don't follow the forum often enough to know who/what TMS refers to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Demigod is also a term often used in Pathfinder to describe gods of a certain power-level. Strikes me as extra confusing to also use it for a class which presumably would start at a much lower power level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Throwing out my likely wrong guesses.

Animist, although I think that could apply to either character: an animist from a more tribal background could very well look like the muscle dude in this image. Also an animist would fit in well with the upcoming Tian Xia sourcebook.

Archivist for the one with a million scrolls. If its a character whose entire thing is "delving into knowledge that man was not meant to know", than that might be enough to make it rare.


Unicore wrote:

Remember that 1 of the classes has James Case on lead development and that Sayre said each class was going to reflect a lot of the personality and energy of each developer. It is not just Sayre working on both.

Animist would be very different from the PF1 shaman in all liklihood. Probably so much so that a name change would in part be necessary to stifle expectations that this new class was that class with anything just "filed off of it."

I don't know if I believe that this is the time for whatever class that turns out to be though. Sayre hasn't had a heavy hand in any casting classes that I know of, so this could be him expressing his inner caster, but I am not sure I believe it. As the new Pathfinder wide theme is going to be war, I think there is a strong chance that some combination of what we have seen with the soldier playtest for starfinder, with something like the Envoy, with much more of a Golarion feel to it seems like a strong possibility, and would really be a class new to Golarion. I am holding firm that it will be called the Seneschal but it could be the commander. Commander just doesn't feel like it has a strong enough fantasy vibes to me compared to Seneschal, which could potentially fill in something close to a royal or judicial guard.

I remember maybe a year ago talking with Sayre on one of these forums about ideas for a martial leaning book that covered things like big battles of Golarion and possibly started to lean into the great military campaigns of Casmaron. At this point, even though it feels like some Casmaron content is comming, I don't think this new thing will really be historical at all, and I am not sure the Casmaron content will be ready by the time this pathfinder-wide storyline drops.

As far as what James Case has been working on, I would be shocked if it wasn't a caster of some kind. At this point, he has taken lead on redesigning the witch, the wizard, and was the lead on the psychic as well. I look forward to seeing something entirely new from him. However,...

Someone can (and will!) correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I saw mention somewhere that the new class won't be something from Starfinder. With those two games becoming interchangeable in the near future, I think its unlikely there will be a class that is going to be very similar in theme or mechanics to a Starfinder class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beyond being second in command (and a living embodiment of Hell itself), Mephistopheles is also the kind of classic figure of fiction that I could see Paizo wanting to elevate to boss of Hell

As for what Cheliax does or how it affects the plans of Hell, I could only see a massive military mobilization occurring if Moloch gets placed in charge, but that seems unlikely. Mammon strikes me as someone more into economic domination than military.


The Raven Black wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Morhek wrote:
If they do kill off Asmodeus, then that kinda makes the unleashing of the Rough Beast less likely since he's the guy who created the lock that seals him in the demiplane at the centre of the world - with him would go the knowledge of how it was made, or how to get through it.

Minor amendment; the version of the myth of Rovagug's imprisonment told in the Windsong Testaments suggests that it was actually Abadar who provided the lock and key--plausibly from his vault of perfect things, or at least related to it. Asmodeus' contribution in this version is being the only deity cunning enough to work the mechanism on the lock to turn the key and close it.

Since it's all just myths, technically neither version of the story has to be the objective canon, but this version does feel more complete than the one that came before, with details how the battle started and several other gods who participated.

Makes you wonder why nobody ever tried to kill Asmodeus before, just to get rid of the guy who could potentially open the lock and release the beast.

If Asmodeus is holding the key to Rovagug's prison, and dies, that creates instant plot threads for future APs. Since potentially the key to Rovagug's prison is out there, lacking deific protection. So you would have pretty much every divine power out there hunting it down to use as leverage against others (Let me do this/don't interfere with this, otherwise I open the lock) or to safeguard it to prevent misuse. Not to mention Rovagugs followers would be after the key, and in general Rovagug's cult might see this opportunity as a reason to rise up en-mass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most Gods are not going to be rules lawyers or non-sapient magic dispensors. If you are a cleric doing horrible things that technically doesn't break a edict or fall into Anathema territory, I think the Deity is still going to yank your powers.

Good gods would have higher standards...I don't think in a few cases its going to be easier to play a evil or even "neutralish" character than it is with codified alignment.

It's probably a lot easier however to be a good character worshiping a evil. Mostly because I assume evil gods are less picky about there followers as long as they accomplish their goals in the world, and beings like devils probably actually appreciate the cover that good worshipers in the community give there less nice worshipers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, WotC couldn't do anything about a already published book, even if they revoked the OGL. So they won't get some notice to immediately burn all the copies of Secrets of Magic in existence. So yeah, presuming there are not major issues they want to address no reason to really remaster every book.

Not sure exactly what that means for future printings though.


Shisumo wrote:
The truth is, when dealing with taking immortals out, there's almost literally no rush. Inevitable (as a species name or a regular concept) doesn't imply a specific timetable - in some ways, it's the opposite. When it comes to making sure that immortals actually die, they either a) will be there when you're ready to deal with them or b) won't because the matter will have taken care of itself while you've been working on other projects. So it's fine either way. Everything will get sorted out in the end.

In the grand scheme most immortals are not really immortal. If you are a being that has been around for millions (billions in the case of Pharasma) of years, some dude living an extra thousand is pretty much nothing. One could have as head canon that any immortal that a Marut leaves alone is one whose immortality isn't so sure proof that they won't eventually die, even if it takes a few thousand years.


Paul Watson wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Norgorber dying all the way feels unlikely to me, but I somehow hadn’t considered “killing” him being a shattering into gods for each mask/aspect.

You could kill one of two aspects of Norgorber. It's less in pursuit of "a kinder gentler Pathfinder" and more that there's not really anything interesting you can do with "Father Skinsaw" that is not a rehash of something they already did.

Particularly since the other three aspects of Norgorber are enough. You have to imagine that the assassins, thieves, and politicians who value subtlety in the cult of Norgober have to be annoyed by the "let's cut off some faces!" sect of their religion.

And the person responsible for the death of Norgorber was...Norgorber? Wait, that can't be right.

It turned out that Norgorber was really just the friends (or enemies?) we made along the way...


I think there is still potential for champions of "neutral" concepts or gods after the remaster. They will just have more specific abilities that future rules supplements can detail.

A champion of nature that is neither sanctified or unsanctified may exist, but their abilities would have more of a natury theme and they may get bonuses against different flavors of enemies, maybe outsiders in general or constructs more specifically


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

What if Asmodeus gets whacked… and Hell has an election to replace him?

A transparently-corrupt, nightmarish farce of the democratic process, of course, but that’s just politics, sweetheart.

This is a brilliant idea that I don't think would execute well in Pathfinder. For one, as others have stated, it strikes me as politically fraught since people would consciously or unconsciously, both the writers and the people interpreting the material, incorporate modern parallels.

Secondly, we are about to head into another election cycle in the US. I don't think anyone is going to want to think about elections in their fun escapism :(


Captain Morgan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I'll be a bit bummed if golems do end up going, but ah well. I was sort of hoping they would go the other route, lean more into the golem's mythical and religious roots. I was imagining a series of constructs animated through the power of divine words with different kinds of abilities, and maybe personalities if they weren't mindless, based on the specific words or phrases used in their construction and animation, with some sort of consequence or flaw that manifests itself if they are used improperly, or not given time to rest, or required to do something antithetical to their words, etc.
That would leave out creatures like Frankenstein's Monster that is also a big inspiration for PF/DnD's "golems".
Is that the case for anything other than Flesh Golems? I'm not seeing a lot of parallels otherwise.

You could still have something like a Frankenstein's monster, but you just couldn't have it be called flesh golem. Flesh Golem as a term that describes a frankensteinian creature is a DnD invention. Also some of the specific mechanics associated with that creature.

Going away from Flesh Golems would actually be useful, in the sense that you could rework the lore to create a monster that was maybe a bit more faithful to the original inspiration.


It would be really weird if Hell didn't have a representative amongst the core pantheon. It would be the only major plane to lack one. Even if Asmodeus buys it, I would assume someone/something would take his place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My two cents:

I've recently just about finished the High Helm book, and with the caveat I am not Jewish, I don't really see anything that particularly looks like it was drawn from that real world culture or fills in those stereotypes. If anything, Dwarves are portrayed within that book are the opposite of greedy, certainly less so than humans.

Paizo 2E has done a pretty good job of adding cultural diversity to there different ancestries, especially with elves and dwarves. Of all the settings I have come across, it probably has the least amount of monoculture for those ancestries. Although to be honest, they are probably an ancestry that sort of makes sense to have a lot of cultural similarities with other groups. They all share a relatively recent origin, they take there traditions seriously, their seems to be a lot of contact between different groups, and of course they have long lives. If you assume stuff like the clan daggers was present in the pre-quest for sky population, than it makes sense it might be retained.

I am also not a Tolkien scholar, but I will point out the "greedy dwarf" aspect is something Tolkien more likely (IMHO) pulled from Norse mythology, especially with the story of Regin and Fafnir, but other dwarves share these traits. It's also where the crafting and subterranean tendencies come from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Second... modern games just don't sell as well. They don't, and they haven't. GURPS has a modern, because GURPS has everything, but other than that? We play TTRPGs to get away from the world we live in for a time. Making sure you have a certain minimum distance helps with the appeal. I've bought PF2 books, and I suspect I'll buy more. I've never bought Starfinder books, but SF2 is looking pretty shiny to me. I'll likely buy at least one or two of those at some point. A PF2-system Modern, though? There's not a lot of appeal there. There just isn't... and I don't think it's just me. D20 Modern didn't exactly fly off the shelves from what I can recall.

Vampire: The Masquerade and all those other systems which were part of the World of Darkness setting say "Hi!"

And, yeah, they aren't very popular anymore, but not because people stopped wanting to play in the modern world with fantasy elements, but because White Wolf screwed up by literally blowing up their very popular setting and replacing it with a not very good new version.

The popularity in recent years of the urban fantasy genre, which is sort of built from the tropes employed by the World of Darkness, is also evidence there is a market for that genre.


NerdOver9000 wrote:

I still say they need a Modernfinder game dealing with modern times and near future to tie the settings together. This may be problematic with the Gap, though.

This talk of compatibility has gotten me dusting off my old Chrono Trigger style time hopping campaign that I had in mind during d20 times, but rejected due to fundamental differences between 3.5, d20 modern, and d20 Star Wars. I know Paizo can do this better.

I dunno, I don't think there is a niche for modernfinder since I think most folks interested in that sort of game would want to use it with Earth, not a 20th century version of Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mammoth Daddy wrote:
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Mammoth Daddy wrote:

I think we will lose either Sarenrae, Urgathoa, Pharasma, or Shelyn.

I can’t imagine Paizo letting us keep a good or largely stabilizing force.

What about Urgathoa is either good or stabilizing?
I meant Urgathoa as the exception, with her death as the most likely ‘win’ they could give the forces of stability and/or good on Golarian.

If Urgathoa dies and is replaced by Arazni, that could do a lot to open up the idea of less evil undead, something Paizo has been moving towards in PF2E.

Also honestly I just find Arazni a more interesting goddess. Although I am skeptical about this happening is that I think it's more likely that a storyline will kick off with the death/murder of a god, than it being the end of the story. Sort of feels like if Urgathoa is going down, it would be the result of the PCs in some way.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I think the crowds for and against the move are getting ahead of themselves.

I just think the Shelyn/Dou-Bral story has to end eventually. The potential endings are:

1- ZK wins, by convincing his sister that he's right.
2- Shelyn wins, by freeing her brother from the corruption that afflicts him.
3- Something in the middle.

I think 3 is the only one that sets up new stories, which ought to be our goal here.

This however assumes that only their demise would create new stories. There are plenty of other gods whose demise could lead to just as much story potential.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been stated that Starfinder and Pathfinder can't be assumed to have the same canon. I'd be shocked if a minor bit of lore from Starfinder would lead to a complete revamp in Pathfinder.

Also, I just plain don't want to see Zon-Shelyn as a core 20 deity in Pathfinder. We already have enough dark edgy not-evil goddesses, with Calistria, Arazni, and Nocticula (and maybe Pharasma for that matter). The way I see it, Zon-Shelyn would reduce the diversity of archetypes for characters to emulate or worship.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brinebeast wrote:

I think it might be Asmodeus, who is replaced with Xanderghul.

1. Xanderghul was already a divine being with worshipers
2. Divine Domains: Xanderghul- Evil, Law, Trickery, Deception, Tyranny. Asmodeus- Evil, Fire, Law, Magic, Trickery, Arcane, Ash, Deception, Devil, Devine, Legislation, Smoke
3. Alignment (from 1E) Lawful Evil for both.
4. Areas of Concern: Asmodeus- Contracts, Pride, Slavery, Tyranny vs. Xanderghul- Mind, Body, Soul. I could easily see Xanderghul claiming Pride & Contracts and keeping Mind & Soul.
5. Upon "dying" Xanderghul transforms into a resplendent being before going to the Boneyard. Which doesn't really sound like dying.
6. Asmodeus has a lot of prophecies about his involvement in future events… but this is the Age of Lost Omens.

So what does a Hell Peacock look like, and I definitely what to see Xanderghul's new look as the Lord of Hell.

That...sounds very plausible. It's all been confirmed that Xanderghul is coming back in some form at this point.


ornathopter wrote:
Given that Paizo's been moving away from always-chaotic-evil monster races, and opening up more monstrous types to be playable with their own cultures that have just as much capacity to harm or help as anyone else, I wonder if they might kill off Lamashtu to push that that? If they want to someday make playable medusas/sthenos, or lamiae, or [insert niche monster type here], then killing off the evil patron goddess and replacing her with a more nuanced one could make sense. And since disfigured people exist in our world as full, rounded individuals who usually get a lot of s~@# for their looks, it'd be nice to get rid of the goddess of "if you're born with a birth defect, you were literally cursed, and you might be evil."

I'd personally hate to lose Lamashtu RIGHT as we were also ditching alignment. Lamashtu I feel could lend itself to some nuance more so than a lot of evil gods, as a monstrous mother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morhek wrote:

It's just occurred to me that, with 2e moving away from static alignment as a concept, killing off Pharasma, the goddess who objectively measures it, is the perfect way to lore-justify a mechanical change. It also allows Paizo to make exciting new changes to how their afterlife works, and fix some peoples' biggest criticisms with it, being that it feels like mortals are just fuel or the building blocks of the universe -

But also if Pharasma dies, there goes the last person who probably knows for sure what actually happened to Aroden.

THe fate of mortal souls seems a bit more ingrained into the setting than simply a whim of Pharasma. If Pharasma died her daughter would probably take her place, and there really wouldn't be a big shake-up I would imagine.


Captain Morgan wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The status quo is being thrown out anyway. Golem antimagic is out, and will-o-wisps will likely be purged and replaced to.

In relation to this thread, the kineticist doesn't need to be fixed on these fronts. The monsters do, and by all accounts so far are.

Why would you assume Will-o-wisps would be purged? They are straight out of folklore and mostly match folklore. At best they need minor tweaks.
For the same reason as golems. The monster name may not be a D&D original but the highly specific immunity to spells is. It goes back to at least D&D 2e. Plus Paizo already published a wisp fueled AP recently and would likely want a break from using them anyway.

DnD/Pathfinder Golems don't really have much to do with the golems of folklore. Only the clay golem actually draws from that lore...golems as magical constructs with weird weaknesses/immunities is a bit too WotC product identity

About the only weird DnDism is the idea they are abberations, when fey or undead would be more appropriate. although I imagine the immunities could also get reworked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

The status quo is being thrown out anyway. Golem antimagic is out, and will-o-wisps will likely be purged and replaced to.

In relation to this thread, the kineticist doesn't need to be fixed on these fronts. The monsters do, and by all accounts so far are.

Why would you assume Will-o-wisps would be purged? They are straight out of folklore and mostly match folklore. At best they need minor tweaks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Iomedae dying and Arazni taking over as "the Crusader Goddess" definitely crossed my mind as a possibility. It's now less important that the "Crusader Goddess" is "Lawful Good" since that's not even a thing anymore, and Arazni was Aroden's Herald first.

Keeping Arazni's nature of "survive, no matter what you have to do" and "hurt people hurt people" in that role would be a little edgy, but not more than is normal for Pathfinder from time to time.

Even if alignment itself is going away, I see Iomedae still filling an important goddess niche. Arazni is a VERY different god that I don't see having a whole lot in common with Iomedae, and I wouldn't want her to lose those aspects to make her a better fit.

What would be interesting to see, even if I don't think is likely, is for Urgathoa to die and for Arazni to replace her as a new Goddess of Undeath. With Alignment going away and Paizo seemingly stepping a bit back from Undead = evil in 99% of cases, this could have some great story potential. Urgathoa feels a lot more generic than Arazni in regards to undeath, So Arazni getting promoted to Core 20 WOULD improve the god roster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I was tossing out a possibility and some of the thinking behind it. I have no more insight than anyone else and less than many. I know Asmodeus and the Nine Hells have been part of D and D since the early days. It is strongly a part of D&D. I know the source material is open source with the names and the idea of layers of Hell from Dante's Inferno or Milton's Paradise Lost.

I have no idea if WotC/Hasbro has copyrights they can cause trouble with over any of that material or names.

So maybe the creative minds plan to kill off Asmodeus and reshape Hell.

Just a guess.

The structure of Hell is straight out of Dante's inferno, so not really a need to reshape it. Most of the Archdevils are also from real world myth, although I can't recall how different they are from their DnD versions, as at this point I have become more familiar with the Pathfinder interpretations.

The types of devils IMHO are problematic OGL-wise than the individual demons.

I am sort of partial myself to the idea of one of the Queens of Night pulling a coupe if Asmodeus dies, and taking over. It would open up a lot of potential plotlines. Although failing that Mephistopheles would be my first choice for the new god of Hell


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


Sidenote, nobody has discussed possibilities of minor deities who are doomed.

The deity said to die was explicitly stated to be part of the core 20. So I mean, they could kill off some less important gods or demigods as well I guess, but that's kind of not what this thread is about.


keftiu wrote:

For the Sarenrae crowd: who would replace her as the main sun deity? Her command over both that and redemption feel like pretty essential pillars, so she'd need someone to inherit them.

There might be something with the Old Sun Gods of Mzali there, but I'm just not sure I see it.

Her Herald? there is precedent for that.

Probably a new character introduced in the adventure path would be my most likely guess. Unless her portfolio just gets carved up and given to other deities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I just hope this isn't like Marvel/DC event comics where authors make decisions to kill off minor characters willy nilly thinking "nobody cares if they die" and using them as canon fodder

I do kinda refuse to believe that if Sarenrae dies that its for permanent because I would consider it really mean decision to kill Sarenrae permanently and replace Kyra's deity. She is kinda too iconic to die for good and killing her off permanently wouldn't be shocking in good way

They have mentioned that one of the new classes we will be hearing about is "rare". Maybe that class is themed around followers of dead gods?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think "conservation of threat" means that you can't replace Asmodeus (who threatens to end free will) or Rovagug (who threatens to end existence) with something that isn't similarly threatening.

Just because Asmodeus goes down doesn't mean devils in general aren't around

You would almost certainly have a civil war in hell, which would certainly distinguish Lost Omens versus the DnD baseline.

Also, I could easily see the Queens of Night acting as a unified whole to take over, which would promise a ton of story hooks.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

The thing is... Pathfinder and Starfinder are two different genres, and that actually matters.

Questions like "how normal is it for people to be able to fly", "how normal is it to have a vehicle", "Do people who want to kill each other tend to do it up close or shoot each other from far away" and so forth are baked into the genre, and they lead to some very different design decisions. They have a real effect on what will and will not be disruptive to an adventure and thus on what will or will not be easily accessible. That's only the simplest and most obvious stuff.

Even where Pathfinder *does* have laser guns and robots, they are laser guns and robots that are designed to fit into the swords and sorcery genre. Those same laser guns and robots, if written for Starfinder natively, would be written differently.

The Starfinder people are concerned about having the answers to some of their core genre questions get overwritten by PF2's answers to the core genre questions... and that's a serious and reasonable concern. Now, I'm pretty sure that Paizo is aware of this, and making sure that that doesn't happen, but a big part of making that not happen is to have them be actually legitimately separate games.

Roll for Damage (I think that is the name) did a youtube interview with the devs about Starfinder 2E where they addressed these concerns. The plan is to basically just to treat the games as different genres with there own assumptions, with GM's having to take those accounts when allowing material to cross over.

The example discussed was flight. Flight is a huge issue in PF, where it is assumed many characters are melee and and flight can be overpowered. However the assumption is that everyone is using ranged weapons in Starfinder, so flight is less an issue. So flying ancestries will just be given full flight at level 1, versus the graded approach Pathfinder usually does.


The only way I can see the ancestry system of PF2E working with SF1E's cantina approach is with solid hardcovers that are JUST alien ancestries.

Might be worth it to get to play a skittermander in PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Travelling Sasha wrote:

Haha, ironically, Sarenrae is one of my favorites but I'd be pretty interested in seeing her die... But I do love my dramas. :B I'm low-key hoping for some tragic turn of events.

That said, I'm under the assumption that she is pretty well-beloved at Paizo and I'm not so sure that she would pass away because of that. Same thing with Desna. I could see Iomedae dying, more in the sense that I don't see a reason on why she couldn't be it, and maybe Calistria or Erastil as well. Having Nethys or Abadar die sounds like it should change a lot of things in the setting, especially for Nethys, and I'm not so sure that would happen right now.

I'd be pretty mild on any of the evil deities dying, though, unless their death could create some more cool hooks around Golarion. Wouldn't love if their death just wrapped some issues up. Ultimately and realistically, I do believe that it's Asmodeus though, for the post-OGL context.

My wildcard choice is Pharasma! That would be pretty unexpected.

I think the thing is, if you are going to kill a neutral/good god, it really has to be one with some popularity. I kind of feel like Erastil or Abadar would kind of get a collective shrug if you killed them off, versus a deity like Desna. Not that I think Desna will die mind you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Wait what is the issue with the word golem?

Original first usage of the word was from Jewish mysticism, they were legendary constructs that could be created by inscribing words in Hebrew on their foreheads.

The most famous legend is the Golem of Prague from the 1500s, which was created by a rabbi to guard the Jewish people of the city from anti-Semitism. The golem goes mad on the Sabbath and eventually has to be shut down by the rabbi.

I can see an argument for it being problematic since it pulls from non-mainstream folklore. On the other hand, so do genies and kami, and they clearly aren't going away (and most people would argue they aren't problematic).

My Jewish friends like them because it's fun to see your culture represented in the game. For them, I get the impression that it's comparable to seeing Tian Xia if you have Asian ancestry, or Rusalkas if you have Slavic ancestry. Makes you feel more welcome. But I can see the counterarguments to the contrary, and I certainly don't want to argue with anyone Jewish who's offended by it.

*sigh* really that's it? That's why the name is changing? I don't even know what to say to that reason.

I suspect the name is changing for OGL reasons more than anything else.


Perpdepog wrote:

Right now my main guess for a possible divine death is Torag. Thanks to Highhelm the other dwarven deities got a nice glow up and were all fleshed out, meaning that dwarven PCs haven't got to lean so heavily on Torag any longer.

He's also pretty conspicuously missing from Starfinder's setting, supposedly having disappeared during The Gap. While SF and PF's canons aren't necessarily linked, it would make sense if a deity who is missing from one winds up missing from the other.

The counterpoint is, with us getting so much Dwarven content right now, would they be so quick to to return to that well? I kind of think if Torag was going to bite the big one, we wouldn't be getting the AP that started this month.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to consider when speculating on classes: even if there can now be mechanical cross-over, they are going to want major character archetypes available in the core rulebook for Starfinder. I don't see them dropping operative for that reason, as you shouldn't have to buy a completely different book just to play a rogue-like character.

For that reason, I would assume mechanic and operative to show up in the core rulebook. They can always revise the operative to make it more distinct, if there are concerns on similarity.


For those that don't follow all the adventure paths, could someone describe the "hints" about Sarenrae biting it that have popped up recently?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think we can assume that the Starfinder deities are safe. I think it has been stated that Pathfinder and Starfinder could be separate timelines, to make the canon of one game not dependent on another.

From a Remaster perspective:
I could see Asmodeus, who is also used in DnD, even if he is a mythological character. It would also allow a shake-up to Hell, which might allow them to take that plane farther from DnD interpretations. Counterpoint would be that would be a pretty big chance to the game, since it would heavily impact Cheliax.

From a "kinder and gentler" Pathfinder approach, Torag (whose history kind of links him with genocide of what is a soon to be core ancestry) or Erastil (who original conception painted him as being overly patriarchal), Cayden Cailean (do they want one of the core 20 to be a drunk?). On the evil side of things, Lamashtu might be a bit too extreme and would be the most likely one I think to go down.

Counterpoint that any sort of Torag-related AP would have to feature dwarves heavily, and we are already getting a dwarf-heavy AP. Cayden Cailean seems pretty popular.

I mean, personally I think Asmodeus is most likely. Especially since they mentioned these events being a war of cosmic-scope, and the Ruler of Hell certainly fits that.


The Thanatotic vs Elysium Titans is very much a DnD thing. So it wouldn't be surprising if they had to go taking Demodands with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I guess our clamoring for a technology book really paid off! I can't wait to give my players their beloved rail guns and laser rifles again!

Going to be a lot easier to run a Iron Gods or Distant World campaign, since you can just pull in stuff from Starfinder now.

I do wonder if this will cause balance/weirdness issues. It might clash with the aesthetics if someone wants to bring in a a character from Pathfinder into Starfinder and vice versa. It kind of feels wrong if a ranger with a bow and arrow is equally as effective as Space marine with high tech armor and rail guns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing they mentioned (I have it playing right now) is that the Starfinder and Pathfinder 2E editions will be more compatible. They mentioned that you could easily slot a Starfinder monster into a Pathfinder game and vice versa.


With all the remaster changes coming, is the timing right for a playtest? Seems like it could increase the difficulty of getting good data if people are playtesting a class without the new Core books in hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I'm kinda wondering whats point of aeons and proteans now since preview pdf seems to admit that law vs chaos conflict was irrelevant, are they just random outsider monsters for encounters now without really grand relevance in cosmology or stories?

(I'm mostly over it by now, but that did kinda hurt that text directly says it wasn't important x'D Like whats point of keeping axis and maelstrom around if the main themes of them are stated to be unimportant?)

I don't think the status quo as far as cosmology is concerns changes, other than some renames (and most of the monitors are Paizo originals, so even that is going to be minor)

It's mostly that APs, modules, and so forth mostly have characters dealing with evil forces. Chaos and Law might flavor evil, but usually the reason that characters are opposing them is the evil part, not so much the law or chaos part.

Although I do wish Paizo would do more with non-evil outsiders (or whatever the new term is?) The vast majority of souls going to the Great Beyond are probably some flavor of neutral, yet neutral outsiders are the least diverse group. And they became LESS diverse when Paizo merged the Aeons, inevitables, and axiomites together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


While I see the value in simpler execution of classes for the core rulebook, I think simple concepts are the wrong way to go when trying to make your brand identity legally distinct. But there's a tension between those two values I have not yet figured out how to reconcile.

PS Not sure how complicated kinecist will be in play yet. They have a wild amount of options to choose from while building, but any given build only has so many action choices.

The thing is that your core rulebooks by there very nature are entry points into the game. The more complex you make something, the more likely a new group might give up due to confusion or game issues, or just turn off some folks before they even try it.

I mean you can argue that is already an issue, and in part why 5E was so successful. How many recent PF 2E converts originally learned 5E first, then switched over to PF 2E? Certainly Pathfinder could occupy a "Sick of 5E, try us!" niche, but its better if they can stand on their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Now that Alignment has seen the axe with PF2 I am starting to doubt if the concept of the "Class" is going to survive the jump to PF3, they already figured out way better ways to set flavor/mechanics/theming with Archetypes between 1st and 2nd edition.

They could EASLY put out say 4 to 8 different base Chassis that you then bolt an Archetype that takes the full place of what the Class is now onto it and dramatically increase the variety of builds and ensure that the mechanical balance is fine as it's just the Chassis/type that you choose that defines all the baseline mathematical assumptions of how your numbers scale which are balanced against each other.

I don't see them getting rid of classes. They provide structure which can help guide players and reduce complexity, and also provide baselines to keep everything balanced.

I also think you can't underestimate the marketing and hype generation new classes bring. I don't think you could easily gen up excitement with just some extra class bits and bobs the way you can with a whole new class.


Dubious Scholar wrote:

Hmm. I'm looking at a list like this:

"List too long to quote in full"

This would be closest to what I would want. I like the idea of pairing a full caster with a gish from that tradition. Not sure I would make Bard a full caster, and Psychic I don't think quite scratches the itch either. Maybe create a new full caster that is more directly lovecraftian themed or something?

I think the Bard fills a iconic niche that isn't easily replicated by existing core classes, so I would want it to stay. Maybe it could be retooled into filling some sort of occult gish role. I'd consider theming the Berserker as the primal gish class. I like the idea of a shifter but kind of want it to be more general.

I'd probably swap the monk for the witch, which I think along with alchemist is one of the most iconic PF classes, at least of those existing in 2E

Otherwise I would keep the the existing line up.

I'm against throwing classes like thaumaturge, summoner, or kineticist into a core rule book. All three I feel have lots of moving parts and complexity, and need more space to do them properly.