In 45 minutes, Arcane Mark interviews Paizo Customer Service Representative Joan Hong. Come hear about her non-profit work on outdoor recreation, DEI work, games, anime, and more.
Everything Ssalarn and others have said is accurate. But maybe this will help kayman: Incapacitate does prevent disappointing fight-enders against bosses, yes, but it was even more so created to protect the players and their characters from weird situations with multiple low level incapacitation enemies. If you get attacked by 8 harpies in PF1, or 8 mummies, even if every character in your party of 4 only needs a 5 on the d20 to save, the chances each character will fail and get incapacitated is about 5 in 6, meaning the chances everyone is incapacitated (and eats a coup de grace, TPKing) is about 50/50. And we saw that happening in those types of encounters a lot unless the GM pulled punches or used other methods to help save the PCs (you can likely see the pattern yourself if you check online reviews for any adventures you remember that have such an encounter).
Over the course of a long game, PCs are the ones most likely to benefit from effects like this that make things a little more likely for survival (since monsters don't need to survive an encounter but PCs need to keep surviving each encounter in the campaign). So you could also try to remind your players that this benefits them.
(Aside: your English is great. Much love for all our fans in Brazil!)
This decision also means that if you want to run a Beginner Box adventure but you want to use a different monster, for instance, you can just do it if you have access to the Bestiary, and if you want to level past the upper range of the box, you just can if you have access to the CRB, using your same character.
I've marked this for erratum to make it clear that the second paragraph's "maximum distance you can jump" refers to the limit of jumping a distance equal to your Speed, as the reason that line exists is so you can spend a bunch of actions to jump farther than your Speed if necessary to clear the jump. But please everyone calm down and avoid from making personal attacks here. Thanks folks.
Yep, the text was missing in Bestiary 1 but we'll make sure to get it back there in errata. I first noticed it wasn't in the book based on how many people were confused by this. I was like "Shouldn't the definition of negative healing cover this?" and then it wasn't there. I would suggest to go with the Bestiary 2 definition. Negative damage is damage that undead and constructs don't take. Positive damage is damage that living creatures and constructs don't take. And healing is healing.
They have not been confirmed. Folks were thinking the kyudo themed monk archer options would be a class archetype, but I have confirmed that they are not (any monk can use them!)
Class archetypes will typically be for when you need to remove something from the core chassis to get the concept to work. Lightning Raven, you're right that at least half your examples would probably be even easier to just add in as instinct/muse style options or class feats in PF2, allowing more versatility and customization. Look at what you couldn't get without subtracting a feature that needs to be gone for that concept to work: that needs to be a class archetype. Theoretically it would be possible to write a class archetype that didn't need to remove class features, but in that case, the other tools are more flexible for character-building and allow a bigger diversity of characters, since anyone could take the options, not just someone with the archetype.
That all said, back to the OP, having cool items is always good fun. And relics from GMG are one way to get a scaling item without an archetype.
In one hour, Arcane Mark interviews Paizo Customer Service Representative Calliope Taylor! Join us and find out more about their podcasts!
Fortunately, the processors in this case are people, so we don't really need to worry too much about race conditions. There is a fairly high degree of polymorphism, though, and we need to do defensive programming, since the preconditions and postconditions aren't always consistently met...
The ones in the CRB can give you a good idea. Classes deserve at least that much pagecount because they are that important to the play experience, and they are so closely aligned to a character's identity, which in turn aligns to player's identity when the player identifies with that character.
Yep, I was too!
Plus there's a lot of deities who might employ some kind of "sacred rogue" that you can cover with a divine version. In PF1, they were often a multiclassed cleric/rogue NPC (or PC) that often wasn't terribly effective, even if it was very thematic.
The new stuff looks awesome, and the obscene object oriented-ness of PF 2 is beautiful to behold. The modularity of it all makes me want to over indulge in archetypes until my character is optimised for dinner parties. Bring on the new book already!
That is the goal. Top-down, object-oriented modularity to make it so easy to plug and play, or to change something for your group without ripple effects. I have a personal goal to make players and GMs more comfortable with flexing their inner designers and houseruling and homebrewing things confidently, and our design for the game helps a lot with that.
From what we've seen so far (thought actually reading it could totally change everything) I'm most exited about making a Dragon disciple, dragon barbarian Kobold. I hope all those things work well together!!
I think you're going to find some sweet support for building that thanks to some great entries from John Compton and Logan Bonner.
You could always make a shadow bloodline sorcerer shadowdancer with a shadow relic from the GMG for all the shadows.
So the APG is going to have the archer, the eldritch archer, and the zen archer?
Those are indeed two great archetypes from Stephen Radney-MacFarland and some rocking class options from Michael Sayre. Though in the latter case, the name "zen archer" is a bit of a mismatch for the principles of kyudo, picked up from the book Zen and the Art of Archery, so the name is something else.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
My prediction is that you will be happy. They are fun, cool, and have some unique abilities, but they aren't a quantum leap above a normal familiar like in PF1 where my lyrakien familiar was capable of literally upstaging PC characters with a weak enough build (and she outperformed me pretty handily in direct output, but I was buffing the team so I still put out more indirect output).
Also somewhat sad there doesn't seem to be any feats for actually drinking blood (which would be the #1 reason for me personally wanting to play one).
I work in mysterious ways. ;)
What made that data point stand out was that every other character on the list had a really negative rating for the blaze of glory from the same folks answering the survey, except that one character where people wanted to see the blaze of glory. I believe the lowest score on any NPC for any fate was for "Valsin suddenly disappears with no explanation ever given."
In 20 minutes, Arcane Mark will begin, with an episode called "Mysterious Harrowing." It's not really that mysterious; we'll be performing Harrowings for people who used XP to get a Mysterious Harrow Card reward that did nothing up until now.
It's not that process point A was tied to process point B was tied to process point C, it's that rule A was tied to rule B was tied to rule C. All the rules needed an answer together, speaking purely to Battle Medicine would not answer the overall question that led to the Battle Medicine question (and probably would result in inference of many ripple effects if done in isolation).