Master of Rhetoric's page

Folks, over in this thread it has become very apparent that people are confused about GM Star replays and whether or not they renew.

Here is the text from the Guide, page 20, with relevant text bolded:

Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.

The confusion stems from the fact that the "Beta" version of the Guide 5.0, which was released before GenCon 2013, said that they would renew every season. However, from the time the Guide went live, the policy has been "lifetime"; this is not a mid-season shift.

If you have a version of the Guide that says otherwise, you need to download the new version of the Guide!

Now, it is possible that this will change in the future, but time will tell.

Finally, I want to note something here: I am concerned that this is going to be blamed on the fact that the Guide sees a beta release at all. While I definitely absolutely agree with the general sentiment that the next beta release should be clearly marked as such--not least because at least a few of the people who expressed confusion in that other thread are Venture Officers--I think it's worth noting that the confusion was internal as well as external (note not just the linked message but the one it was replying to, please). I don't think the policy of releasing the Guide early, for feedback, is to blame; it was in fact that same early release that caught this error. While the process of release obviously needs some refinement, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shouldn't Bonekeep Level 2: Maze of the Mind Slave have a Season 5 cover? It's listed with the S5 releases, but it's got the same yellow background as the S4 stuff.

Since this is for Society play, I need a RAW answer:

What happens if a Tengu Oracle takes the Wolfscarred curse? The exact wording is "you gain a natural bite attack that deals 1d4 points of damage if you are a Medium creature or 1d3 points of damage if you are Small."

I can't find any indication in the Universal Monster Rules or the Natural Weapon rules that you can only have one bite attack, so ... do I get both?

Since the general consensus seems to be that there's no synergy for prestige class retraining in PFS until the campaign leadership establishes a list of same, I figure we could put together a list of recommendations for leadership to start with, because they're very busy, and this will make the job much more likely to see the top of a to-do list some day. :)

Here is where I have started. Please give me feedback.

At various points over the weekend I was getting the traditional "no store" message, which ends with "Thank you for your patience."

I think we can all agree that I lack that particular virtue, as do many of the other posters here. I feel, therefore, that this error message misrepresents both me and those same other posters.

Accordingly, I propose that the message be changed from "Thank you for your patience" to "Suck it up, nerds."

Discuss.

I bought into a prestige class I don't think I want anymore. I am looking to retrain it to a base class. My question is this: Do we have a list of which PrCs have synergy with which classes for PFS classes, or is it up to the GM who approves the retraining?

In this thread the first post has occasionally been editable. I took advantage of that last night to add a flag to the title so campaign leadership will hopefully notice it, but on the whole I suspect this is not expected behavior.

TriOmegaZero (or "TOZ," as the kids say) earned his fourth GM star this New Years Eve, and I'm delighted to be able to congratulate him for it. TOZ has been GMing both online and in real life for a while now, and put the pedal to the metal last month to hit a table count of 100. I've consistently enjoyed sitting at his tables*, and I hope to do so many more times in the future. Well done, man!

* Well, except for the wasp incident. But we need not speak of that any further.

I have some questions about PFS retraining, and some thoughts.

Practically speaking: The first PFS character that I focused on (which is actually #2 but that's not the point) shows very clearly that I didn't know what I was doing: He has two separate level dips away from Paladin, both of which are stupid, and in combination with the vanities I bought and the Raise I got after our Sanctum of a Lost Age run went south, he only has a total of 14PP to his name at level 10. I've been thinking about retraining one or both of those levels back into Paladin to shore up his crappiness, but I'm a little concerned about the PP cost. Since a class level is 7 days--and since neither dip has synergy--it would be 7PP per, thus leaving him bereft. On the other hand, he's less likely to die if I make that retraining happen, so that's something. Basically, have people found retraining worth the effort with the PP cost factored in? It seems steep to me.

Theoretically speaking: I recognize that the "1PP per day" mechanism is to prevent people from accomplishing endless retraining, because the gold cost is fairly low: Days x Level x 10. For the example above, that's only 700gp to retrain a level. My thought is this: For PFS, might a better mechanic be increasing the gold cost? "Retraining in PFS costs 5 times the standard gold" bumps a level 10 class level retrain to 3500 ... even an x10 modifier would be workable; 7000 is a lot of gold but at 10th level it's not unreasonable for something as dramatic as a retrain.

Anyway, I freely admit that I have not utilized these rules yet, so this is all just theoretical. But I'm interested in input on the questions (should I?) and the ideas (should we?), so please have at.

The other day, one of my players said something along the lines of, "Nobody's using their GM-star replays, because they're per lifetime rather than per season, so they want to save them for just the right moment--I'm not sure they're ever going to get used."

I personally have only seen one star replay since they went into effect, and it was someone who had forgotten that he had already played a scenario, so he used a replay instead of dropping out after the briefing.

I know that I'm saving mine for after I've run my backlog of played scenarios, at least, and possibly longer. Once I run out of things to run for credit (without spoilers), I won't mind re-running, but even then I might be tempted to hold onto the credits for something special.

So, since we're about halfway through the season, I wanted to see where other people were at with this. Have you encountered similar mentalities? Are people using their replays in your area?

Is there any possibility that we could consider some options for the Secondary Success Condition document? Either for release this summer when the season changes, or maybe even next summer? Many of them make perfect sense, but in my opinion, there are a few that don't necessarily suit the overall "further the goals of the Society" theme that's supposed to clue us in, even though there are other, more obvious things that could be used instead.

An example of one I would bring up would be

There have been some others, though none spring directly to mind. I'm not trying to just complain about secondary missions I don't like--it just seems that this is something that might benefit from live feedback, now that we're actually playing through these, on the lookout for our secondary missions.

Basically, I'm asking if the document has potential for revision, or if it's locked in as is.

I'm going to be running The Harrowing, and one of my players has just gotten into animating the dead, and I'm conflicted. My first thought would be to argue that a dead storykin doesn't leave behind a body so much as a lump of plaster, so it can't be zombified. But the eclipse leads to a number of skeletons rising from the ground, so maybe that's not fair. On the other hand, those skeletons might just be storykin in the shape of skeletons, rather than skeletons of storykin, so ... I'm not sure how to handle it. Thoughts?

At the end of Dark Menagerie, assuming you free Melabdara, you get one of two boons. One gives you 375gp; the other does this:

Millennial Lore: In return for her freedom, Melabdara promised you a future service. When you would fail to earn a Prestige Point at the end of a scenario, you may call upon Melabdara to provide you with long-lost information that might prove just as enticing to your faction as your assigned mission, and that earns you 1 Prestige Point as though you had completed the faction mission. This boon may only be used for faction missions, and may not apply to a scenario’s success conditions. When you use this boon, cross it off the Chronicle sheet.

Since there are no more faction missions, this boon as written does nothing. I see four possible outcomes:

Would campaign leadership please let us know which we should implement? I just ran this for several people, and I don't know which to tell them.

I've had a few people at my table recently who were playing scenarios they've already run, and it got me thinking about the way I try to handle that. Then I thought maybe we could put together a list of suggestions. So here are mine; I'd love to see others.

1. Don't pester the GM with things you remember from the scenario. They might already be doing them, in which case they don't want to hear it; there might be something in the scenario you've forgotten that negates whatever you're reminding them of; and maybe you just don't remember it correctly. (I'm not saying I've never done this, just that I should not have. :P)

2. Don't drive. That means that you need to let the players who have not previously run the scenario make the decisions. No matter how much you try not to metagame, if you're making the decisions, it can be problematic. In essence, play a support character, even if that character is normally a rockstar.

2a. Speaking of which, please don't deliberately metagame. Buying equipment specifically designed to handle the BBEG's best move, making decisions that don't necessarily make sense because you know what the secondary success condition is, et cetera.

2b. Sometimes, not driving means making behavioral sacrifices. For instance, if you're in an area where you know a perception check will accomplish something, and you're certain that your character would make the perception check ... don't. Wait for the other players to make the perception check. If they roll it and you then roll higher, that's fine. But if they don't roll it, sometimes you just have to suck that up. Don't get me wrong--if they're missing a trap, and you're the rogue, you should be searching. And if there's a trap and you're not the rogue, it's okay to let someone who should have thought to search for it trip it. But if there's a secret entrance, and nobody thinks to scout for it, well, sometimes you just have to go in the front.

2c. When dealing with a puzzle, just walk away. Refresh your beverage, check your email, whatever. Or filibuster--I had someone the other day spouting gibberish math theory because he couldn't help with a math-based puzzle, and that was actually pretty funny. Just don't help! You already know the answer, and if there are clues to be delivered, the GM will deliver them. (See point 1.)

Uh ... I guess that's all I can think of right now. I'm sure more will come to me. Please tell me your thoughts on the matter.

Charitable Impulse is a spell from Chronicles of the Righteous. I am using the PSRD definition, because I don't own the resource, but here it is:

The problem is there are implications here that I think (in fact, I hope) the designers didn't consider: Specifically, priority #5 with a long-duration spell. For example we were just playing Perils of the Pirate Pact, and during the last fight, an extended Charitable Impulse got cast on a certain female NPC then due to a series of area-affect spells, she could neither move nor see anyone nearby. So 1 & 3 aren't useful--instead, she just drops her weapon, then starts dropping her equipment, and eventually starts stripping off her "armor, boots cloak, and so on."

So we have a spell that, under the right circumstances, can make NPCs strip naked in the middle of the battlefield.

No me gusta! I got lucky, because I was playing with four dudes, so we just awkwardly cracked the expected jokes. But you throw in a kid or any number of people who wouldn't find that funny, and you have a huge problem. And frankly ... I found it unpleasantly awkward, so this isn't just a "what if" kind of concern.

So I think we should ban this spell. I'm not saying the spell isn't awesome, as it clearly is, but it needs to be adjudicated by GMs who can (1) know their players and what they like and (2) adjust spell effects accordingly. In PFS, where we GM for strangers and are bound by the rules, this spell is a recipe for disaster.

PS: I'm not calling the caster(s) of this spell creepy, nor am I saying that creepers will abuse it. In fact I'm not using the adjective "creep" or "creepy" in reference to any person or persons at all. I'm saying the spell itself has a presumably unanticipated but rather problematic creep factor.

I could swear I saw something about this the other day, but I don't recall where.

Once the playtest ends, are the classes legal in their final playtest form until the books come out? Or do they become unplayable during that time period?

When the Black Marquis lost all of the men he could trust on a failed treasure hunt, he did the only thing he could: turned to the Pathfinder Society for help. Offering an ancient lost text in return for assistance, the Black Marquis of Deadbridge sends you deep into the spider-haunted Echo Wood of the River Kingdoms to track down his missing pirates and recover an ancient treasure for the Society. You'll face brigands, pirates, spiders and more—but will you survive the perils of the Pirate Pact?

Written by Matthieu Dayon

Warhorn signup: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/17

The eldest daughter of the prominent Blakros family is set to wed an influential Hellknight, and the Pathfinder Society is invited to the festivities. Dressed for a wedding befitting royalty, a team of Pathfinders attend the ceremony on behalf of the Decemvirate, but will their presence ultimately strengthen the Society's relationship with the influential Blakroses, or will events at the wedding bring the already tenuous alliance to a breaking point?

Written by Thurston Hillman

Warhorn signup: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/16

Whenever someone proposes more GM rewards, a number of people argue that since PFS is the first campaign to give the GM rewards that it does give, everyone should just be happy with what they're getting.

Then this occurred to me: Given the consistent growth of PFS, it seems obvious that PFS is doing something right. Since PFS is the first campaign to give the GM rewards that it does give, doesn't that mean that's a good idea, which should be expanded? The argument that one of the things setting PFS apart from previous organized play campaigns is somehow not something that should be played upon for future expansion doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I'm hoping people can clarify their position on this, because it seems odd. I have at least two 5-star GMs in mind who have made this argument in the past; I'm hoping to see them here (and may email them if they don't arrive on their own).

When a Pathfinder agent working in the famed Blakros Museum in Absalom falls victim to a terrible, ancient evil, if falls to the PCs to hunt down the released terror before it can retrieve a relic of the mad astronomer Ralzeros the Overwatched.

Written by James F. Mackenzie

Sign up on Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/15

Agents of the Pathfinder Society have discovered the location of a back door into their private demiplane that puts the entire realm at risk of plunder and exploitation at the hands of the Aspis Consortium. Rather than close the access point into their adventuring paradise, however, the Decemvirate sends a crack team of Pathfinders to secure the gate for future Society use... at any cost.

Written by Larry Wilhelm

Sign up on the Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/13

In the hour of Nhur Athemon’s greatest defeat, his three proud apprentices sought to betray their master by constructing a powerful array of ioun stones meant to project the apprentices into the distant future, far from their mad master’s grasp. The enraged archmage discovered their treachery too late to put an end to the plot, but early enough to bend and pervert the magic that fueled it. Instead of transporting the wizards to safety, the corrupted time vortex instead became a time lock, sequestering the three apprentices and their sprawling lair into a single moment of time that would itself stretch into eternity. The traitorous apprentices were forced to eke out their endless existences in these isolated halls for millennia before their chance discovery by explorers paved their way to freedom.

Written by Erik Mona

Plan on about six hours for this. Unless there's a TPK, in which case it might be shorter. :D

Sign up on my Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/07

When an unlucky historian in Absalom uncovers an infernal book from distant Tian Xia, he unwittingly unleashes a terrible evil into the city—the legions of devils imprisoned within its dusty pages. Only the book's holy counterpart can end the threat, and the Pathfinder Society has been called in to assist. Can the PCs locate and retrieve the key to ending the diabolical invasion of the City at the Center of the World, or will Absalom be drowned in the sea of destruction wrought by the Infernal Incantation?

Written by Thurston Hillman

(This scenario is especially amusing if you've played Silent Tide.)

Sign up on my Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/03

Hi! I've had a cancellation for tonight's game of Red Harvest, so I'm looking for an alternate. If you're interested, please drop me a line at pathar [at] gmail [dot] com.

On 6 August 2012, Mike Brock said, "Simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."

An argument is being made that because the Guide 5.0 took out the language about committing evil acts for the purposes of completing faction missions, the more general clarification is being overridden.

Since this is a fairly important point, and very easily addressed by campaign staff, I have one question: Does the clarification from Aug 6 still apply, or are spells with the "evil" descriptor evil once more?

I just realized I hadn't posted this here!

When the mad wizard Nhur Athemon wasn’t tinkering with his subjects on Golarion, he found his way to even stranger worlds, be they other planets, other planes, or even other dimensions. The myriad relics and strange mementos he returned with held great power, and in his hands they proved potent tools that he used to further explore the universe as well as solidify his earthly domain. The dread magician even managed to capture creatures from the impossibly distant locales he visited thanks in part to his stolen technology. His most prized findings inevitably found their way into his personal collection, a museum-like complex only recently unearthed and cryptically referred to by its strange denizens as the Enigma Vaults. Written by James Jacobs.

We have one slot open, and as always a potential need for alternates. If you're interested, sign up on the Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/11/23

After a year of searching and risking life and limb, the agents of the Pathfinder Society have discovered the resting place of the Runelord of Sloth, who has been sequestered from the world at large for 10,000 years awaiting the proper time for his return. Thanks to the efforts of the sinister cult of Lissala, that time is now. In a desperate attempt to defeat this ancient evil once and for all, the Decemvirate sends its best agents, armed with relics found throughout ancient Thassilon, to foil the cult's last-ditch efforts to usher in a new era of tyranny and strife. Will the party succeed in preventing Krune's return to Golarion, or will the Pathfinder Society serve simply as a speed-bump in the runelord's path to domination over the entire region?

Written by Tim Hitchcock

My semester will finally be over and I have decided to celebrate by killing some PCs.

We're starting at noon and going until we're done. Maybe that's 2pm. Maybe that's 6pm. I don't care.

Votes will be taken in advance to decide if we're doing hard mode. Votes will be submitted to me only, and hard mode will only happen if the vote is unanimously in favor.

Either way, bring your "A" game.

Sign up on Warhorn: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/12/14

This is springing off from my thread about increasing GM recognition; I decided it was too derail-y so I started a new one.

A few reasons against GM feedback that I recall from previous discussions:

A player's bad experience may be tied to not liking the scenario and not to disliking the GM's performance. Nonetheless, the GM gets a bad rating for an unenjoyable experience.

A player's character dies in a scenario, and he takes it out on the GM's rating.

One or more players created a disruption at the table, generally ruining the experience for everyone. The GM may have been able to mitigate it but not stop it completely. The GM gets panned for circumstances that are partially outside her control.

There was no consensus on whether the GM would receive feedback directly or have to just watch as her rating goes up or down without knowing exactly why. Direct feedback risks quantifying what could otherwise be a low-pressure session of "Hey, I had a few thoughts about a recent game you ran."

Not all volunteers are comfortable receiving quantitative feedback. At that point we'd have to consider an opt-in system or the like.

Overall there are still concerns about how such ranking would be implemented and reported. If it's in the hands of the GM doing the reporting, is there the temptation to tinker with the numbers?

[Write your own concerns about jerks here.]

GM ranking in this way has proven a very contentious subject. By all means feel free to discuss it—perhaps we'll hit on a good idea—but be aware that folks have debated many takes on it with little that approaches consensus.

Until I'm a tenured professor, my entire life is based on student ratings, which is subject to many of the same vagaries you've listed here, so maybe I'm just jaded. But those all seem like things that should theoretically wash out in the average over time.

As for the rating vs feedback, that's a much more interesting concern. Speaking again from the metaphor of student evaluations, the more questions you ask, the fewer responses you'll get. To the point where ~20% of my students have just waited weeks for their grades to unlock instead of just filling out the eval to find out what they were immediately. So if you don't want a simple "How many stars would you give this GM," you're immediately going to cut out feedback from everyone who doesn't particularly care, and only get answers from people who feel very strongly about something. That might seem a good thing, but it means you'll only get extreme feedback, which can be overly inflating or overly deflating to the ego (depending).

The idea of qualitative feedback--"How do you feel about this GM in 250 sessions or less" seems to open up a whole pile of problems, not the least of which is the ability of players to use that to say horrible things to GMs who, for instance, killed their character. On the other hand, quantitative feedback could be as simple as putting a column in the Sessions list that says "Rate this GM: *****" If you want to make sure people aren't rating the scenario, put a second column next to it: "Rate this Scenario: *****" Even if you just ignored that data, it would hopefully filter out people who were just pissed off about finding themselves playing ... oh ... On Shadow's Door, for instance. :P

Okay, I've just played Bonekeep 1, and it's everything it's supposed to be. Awesome.

What that means is that people have complained enough that they got what they wanted--a hard scenario with absolutely no roleplay.

Okay.

But now it's time for the other half. We want a roleplay-only scenario. All skill checks, no combat.

If agitating on the boards is how we get these things done, then let's agitate on the boards. C'mon, folks, let's do this.

My messageboards (the main interface) re-expand every time I load the page. It just started this weekend.

In the ruins of Xin-Bakrakhan—seat of power of the Runelord of Wrath—the Pathfinder Society stands on the verge of a great discovery, but first the brave agents exploring the ruins must survive ages-old dangers and contemporary threats to return with the knowledge and wealth they've unearthed.  Written by Mike Shel.

I promised myself that if I finished grading today, I would run this tomorrow afternoon.  And I did!  Motivation works.  Now I just need to find some players. :D

Warhorn signups: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/11/09

Couple spots open for this Friday. Warhorn sign up: https://warhorn.net/events/on-the-line/schedule/2013/11/08

Hey all. I'm gonna be in the Poughkeepsie area for Thanksgiving, and after a certain point (Thursday morning, probably, but let's shoot for Friday or Saturday night) I might be pretty happy to escape my in-laws. Anything going on? There's nothing on the Warhorn, but I don't know if that's because it hasn't gotten that far, or because everyone's off that weekend, so I thought I'd ask. :)

A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for 1st to 7th level characters (Tiers: 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7).

The Shadow Lodge’s assault on the Pathfinder Society has come to a head in the Andoren city of Almas, where renegade Shadow Pathfinders have taken over the Grand Cathedral of Aroden, holding the Pathfinders and Venture-Captain stationed there hostage. You must gain entry into the overrun Pathfinder lodge and put an end to the open warfare within the Society.

Written by Steven Robert.

If you're interested, email the following to pathar (at) gmail (dot) com.

Your name
PFS #
Character name
Race, Class, and Level
Desired token (attached to email)

Listen, I like a little cleavage as much as the next guy, but what is going on with the characters in this AP? Shalelu's got that little figleaf of a quiver strap, Nualia's armor leaves nearly all of her internal organs exposed, Lyrie is basically just tits out, and don't even get me started about Shayliss. But the thing that really blows my mind is Erylium, whose barely-restrained bosom is causing her posture issues even in the artist's imagination, apparently. Why does a quasit need cleavage? Why does a quasit need breasts?! They aren't mammals. They don't reproduce at all, in fact!

Look, I understand fantasy tropes means exposed flesh, I get that, but this is just downright embarrassing. I'm running a group that is 2/5 female, and it's getting to the point where they're rolling their eyes before I even flip the iPad to show them the portrait. What the hell is going on here?

I want to clarify that I don't mind adult themes. The nudity in Tsuto's journal makes sense and does not bother me. The descriptions of the harem in Thistletop, sure. Even with Shayliss her portrait at least ties somewhat to her story arc, though I can't scroll past it without facepalming.

But seriously, what was with the thought process behind this?

I've just finished Burnt Offerings, and my players are all really interested in renovating and claiming Thistletop as their stronghold. In fact, in regards to the question of why they would want to do that, they all stared at me and asked why they wouldn't want to. Which is a compelling point. They're also doing some interesting work with NPCs that is resulting in them developing into interesting potential cohorts.

However, it seems like the timeline of the campaign as written is very fast--the Swallowtail Festival is the 22nd of Rova (September), and then I'm supposed to be starting Hook Mountain Massacre by early Kuthona (i.e. December): The chapter introduction starts with "A few months have passed since the events of the fateful Swallowtail Festival." So this doesn't give a lot of game-world-time for construction, or for development of NPCs. I'm thinking of spacing it out a bit--maybe doing the Feast of Ravenmoor module in Gozran (tax season, naturally), then having the Skinsaw Murders occur in the heat of the summer to really play up the corpse stink. Then I could move on to Hook Mountain for the next winter, or even the winter after, depending on how far into the construction/downtime rules they want to get.

Has anyone done this? Does anyone have any thoughts on it? It seems like the forces at play here have been scheming for years--millennia, in some cases--so it doesn't seem like a stretch that they'd be playing a slow game.

Sometimes when I look at my Messageboard page (which is set to Hide ø, Flatten, Unfocused), I see Sticky threads from my open forums. Other times I don't.

I don't actually mind seeing the sticky threads except that there are three I can't seem to hide. I have successfully hidden others; the inability to get rid of the ones I really don't care about is kind of irritating.

Since PCs end Book 1 at level 4, and need to be level 5 as Book 2 starts, I'm going to run a module in between. I'm torn, because "Feast of Ravenmoor" seems like the obvious choice (with some increase in difficulty), but I'm worried the plot will be a little redundant once we get into Book 2. Does anyone have any suggestions?

So obviously Reaper, Bones 2, yadda. That said, there are two other KS's that caught my eye today, and I'm wondering what people think.

The first is Fairytale Games, which has a lot of stuff for the game itself which I don't care about, but it looks like the $100 pledge level gets you all the main boxed sets--presently 30 medium minis and four "boss" minis, and both numbers should go up significantly according to Kicktraq. The minis seem pretty high quality, and I'm pretty tempted. (There's also "the sacred 40," which are apparently minis from the last Kickstarter, but they're only available as add-ons, and at those prices I'm not particularly with the caring.)

Then there's Chibi Asian Adventures which my girlfriend thinks is overwhelmingly cute. Presently $100 only gets you 21 minis of your choice; that'll climb to as much as 27 if Kicktraq's projections are correct. This seems a lot less efficient, price-wise.

So, thoughts? I'd like to hear what people think before I go all in on these; I've backed a grand total of two Kickstarters in my life, and only one of them was about minis ... and it's Bones 2, so I can't exactly speak to the results yet. ;p

Proposal: I would like to see some APs, which would be difficult to sanction as playable modules, be sanctioned as "campaign mode only."

Explanation: This way the old OGL APs like Curse of the Crimson Throne can be sanctioned without having to worry about conversion for PFS. Additionally, APs like Wrath of the Righteous--and any subsequent APs that involve mythic tiers--can also be sanctioned without worrying about the problem of needing mythic tiers in PFS play.

Exigence: I have encountered rumors that WotR will not be sanctioned because it cannot be played as a module without mythic tiers. This will impact future APs as well. It is also my understanding that the push to sanction past APs was not going to include the ones released for the 3.5 ruleset; I consider this unfortunate because I am a big fan of CotCT.

Background: Presently, sanctioned APs can either be played as part of a home game (for chronicles that act like GM credit) or in part at a game day (for standard module-like chronicles). Since some APs simply don't lend themselves to being chopped into game-day module-like events, it becomes difficult to sanction them for both purposes.

As of 10/4/2012, it was clarified that certain requirements for the Diabolist are not fully waived.

First, on documentation: The Guide 5.0 says that "Roleplaying requirements for prestige classes (such as particular ceremonies or killing a devil) are waived in Pathfinder Society" and that needed adjustments are found on the Additional Resources page. From what I can see, the message board ruling has not made the transition to AR or FAQ, and the list of clarifications is now gone. This makes that information nonobvious, leading to confusion--people might make take Diabolist at 6th level, since all mechanical requirements are met at that point, only to find out later they were meant to wait until level 8 or 10 (the first level after they can cast 4th level cleric or 5th level wizard spells). Resolution of this is problematic.

Second, on the requirement: This sets the Diabolist class apart from most others. In fact, unless there's a corner case of which I'm not aware, it makes it functionally unique. In PFS, roleplaying requirements "such as particular ceremonies or killing a devil" are waived (again, per the Guide). Additionally, the clarified requirements for Diabolist listed above require an expenditure of resources, which no other prestige class (of which I am aware) requires.

Finally, on the class: As written, the mechanical requirements of the Diabolist class are set to post-5th-level, which is fairly standard. In a home game, the GM would presumably work with the player to meet the roleplaying requirements; since that can't be done in PFS the requirement moves the class back to post-7th- or post-9th-level (depending on divine/arcane). Considering the dearth of higher level play in PFS, this goes a long way to making the Diabolist difficult, if not impossible, to play with.

Proposal: Waive this requirement. This brings Diabolist in line with other prestige classes both for requirements and availability. I do not feel that this is overpowering--the Diabolist PrC comes with some pretty serious limitations, especially in Organized Play (failed Raise Deads are not really affordable in this setup).

Otherwise: I feel strongly that this requirement should be waived; I don't think it benefits anyone to have one specific PrC significantly more restricted than others. That said, if this requirement absolutely cannot be waived for whatever reasons, please note it on the Additional Resources page to avoid confusion in the future. The Guide does say that "any minor adjustments needed" will be noted on the AR page; while this isn't actually a change from RAW, it's a change from PFS RAW back to standard RAW (if that makes sense), so it should be noted visibly.

I'm running Burnt Offerings right now--our first session was today--and I don't feel like my players are getting any cash. There's the reward from Aldern, and beyond that there's ...? The goblins had some crap gear, but that and Tsuto's ring of protection doesn't come close to bringing a level-5 party to 1000gp each as they enter the catacombs.

Am I supposed to be including the "other treasure" notation (which presumably leads me to the "Treasure Values per Encounter" table) to add loose change to the pockets of the goblins they killed?

I can't shake the feeling that this is a dumb question. In my defense, the only AP I've ever run was Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I seem to recall it having explicit loot information.

It seems to me that capping the star count of our GMs at 5--or more to the point at 150 games--is unnecessarily limiting. That's not to say that it didn't make sense in the past, but as we go on, it seems like we might want to raise the cap, because the run count of long-term volunteers is just going to keep going up.

I like the idea of needing to meet special requirements to move from 4 to 5 stars; it's not my intention to change that. But it seems like hitting 5 stars prevents further recognition--I think people who continue to run after reaching 5 stars should continue to earn stars.

The earning pattern is pretty straightforward: 10 (+20) = 30 (+30) = 60 (+40) = 100 (+50) = 150. Just keep extending that: 150 (+60) = 210 (+70) = 280 (+80) = 360 and so forth. There's no need to limit it to any set number.

For the recently-introduced rewards for star count, I see no problems. I have no issue with Kyle Baird being able to re-run an extra 10 scenarios for credit, and I actually get a huge kick out of the idea of his one +15 reroll per session. If others disagree, you can always cap either or both at 5 until we see how it works out.

Side note: It used to be that 5 star GMs required recertification; as of Guide 4.3 that went away because, per Mike Brock, "there is no way I felt comfortable removing a fifth star from a GM who had dedicated nearly 1500 hours to the campaign. It wasn't right, it didn't sit well with me." I absolutely support that--but this proposed expansion opens the door for, not re-certification, but another certification at levels 10, 15, 20, whatever.

Thoughts?

I know you Paizo folks don't want to give us an ignore function, but I think that you should, and I'm going to give you several reasons.

• You place a high premium on civility here. Allowing people to simply ignore each other will make civility easier to achieve.
  
• I am not the first to request this, nor will I be the last. This is clearly something your users want. Your stated reasons for not giving it to us speak to your intended use of the boards--but our repeated requests for it speak to the realities of how they are used.
  
• The ignore script is not exactly unpopular. I have spoken to several people who use it and consider it a blessing; as do I. However, the author has announced he will not support it anymore, which means it will some day break when the website format changes (which, to my understanding, has happened before). Also, it has one failing, which is that it can't prevent me from seeing threads started by people I have ignored; it only prevents me from seeing their posts. This can be problematic.
  
• Speaking of which, there are a number of people who should long since have learned the rules who post thread after thread asking questions that are clearly answered in the documentation of this game, and when others tell them that they have been around long enough to know to check the documentation before posting, it is those others who are chastised. It is not our job to answer question after question from someone who knows perfectly well where those answers are found but refuses to open the PDF to look them up himself; if you won't allow us to point that out, it would be great if we had the option to just not see the question in the first place.
  
• It is my personal contention that the very best thing about the Internet is the ability to simply block the people we can't stand from our perception of existence. I can direct emails I don't want to my trash, I can block people on Facebook, I can unsubscribe from certain blogs in Feedly, I can even use Google Voice to block phone numbers I don't want calling me. But I can't block posters on the Paizo boards; my options are all or nothing. This is a design decision that, in my opinion, does not benefit the users of the boards.

So, please, reconsider. I recognize that I am not the first to ask for this. I hope you recognize that, should you refuse, I won't be the last.

Both APs and the new multi-level modules sanction "campaign mode" play, where the game is run with whatever home rules the GM likes and PFS chronicles are distributed as though they were pregen credits.

Is there any possibility we could open the door for older, already-sanctioned modules to be run the same way? The module format only lends itself moderately well to organized play (IMO), but the now-established "campaign mode" would allow for PFS players to enjoy older single-level modules with more freedom, in a setting more conducive to an ongoing story, while still allowing us to get credit for them in the same way we can choose to get credit for APs and new modules.

Also, since it has been noted that some of the older modules fit into APs fairly well, this will allow GMs the ability to do that even when running APs for credit.

Presently, it seems that some GMs in face-to-face situations will accept scanned copies of Chronicles, but not all, and at least one GM has stated that they will accept the scans but not allow single-use boons to be used, since they can't be "crossed off."

Online players, though, are expected to have digitized versions of their chronicles, and the online VC recently made a post explaining in no uncertain terms that GMs could refuse to allow players who can't produce digital chronicles.

With the release of the Hero Lab character sheet, I have begun running my characters straight off my iPad; since we're allowed to maintain our own ITS, that will be digital as well. I would like to digitize my Chronicle sheets and keep them in PDF format so I don't have to carry a large folder full of paper to each game. This also makes my Chronicles less susceptible to damage and/or theft: If they are safety at home (since obviously I'll keep paper backups), and my backpack is lost or stolen at a con, I won't lose any irreplaceable data. (I'll lose my iPad, of course, but that's my problem, and if I'd instead lost my character sheets and Chronicles, I would've been screwed anyway--arguably more so, as far as playing PFS goes.)

Since a counterargument is likely to be that this opens the door to cheating, I would like to preemptively point out that the same technologies allowing one to cheat their digital records allow for cheating of hardcopy records; modern (color) printing technology makes it pretty straightforward to move from one medium to the other. But PFS already runs on the honor system--the idea is that you won't cheat, and there's not a whole lot we can do to enforce that. As such, I don't believe that this will cause any problems that don't already exist.

In essence, I think that the move away from the requirement for paper is not a bad thing, and the increased popularity of tablet technology makes it possible.

Since digital chronicles suffice for online gaming, can we consider an official policy that they suffice for face-to-face gaming as well, thus removing the current table variation that makes them impractical?

I don't know how people will feel about this idea but I, for one, would be very interested in a digital-only subscription. Even if it were full price, but came with the early PDF access that current subscribers have, I would subscribe to most of the product lines in a heartbeat.

I don't think it would take away from the current hardcover subscription list, because I doubt there's many people who're paying for a full subscription just to get a PDF two weeks early. There may be one or two, but overall I doubt it will have impact. It will, however, likely get new subscribers, which is good, because Paizo has repeatedly noted that they use subscription income to run their business (since it's reliably stable in ways that retail sales are not).

Thoughts?

Since many of us use many different aliases for whatever reasons, is it possible that searching the posts and/or threads of a main username could incorporate posts made by aliases as well? This would make it a lot easier to find things.

Any speculations on new and Remastered Magics from the Book of Unlimited Magic section?

Elemental and Rune Magic have both been remastered in Rage of Elements and Rival Academies.

But what about Shadow Magic or Ley Lines?(These two were my personal favorites)

Back when Secrets of Magic was announced, I remember Erik Mona said the was a Blood Magic section that was cut for spacing but would get added to a more appropriate themed book.
That's something I'd like to see as well.

What other types of Magic would you like to see?

I dunno how many optional systems we're going to be getting, considering that this book has four classes in it and only slightly more spells than Secrets of Magic (which, honestly, might just be extra focus spells)

Personally I'd temper expectations pretty low on that front. I imagine they might do less "experimental" options and more content for existing classes like Wizard with new Curriculum options. They also teased options to bring magic to "any table" so I'm low-key hoping we might see the return of their version of an Eldritch Trickster, maybe as a Rogue class archetype?

But more in the spirit of your question of what I would LIKE to see, is maybe their take on a slot-less casting system. Which is so wildly unlikely that I would legitimately be shocked to see it. I think Kineticist is going to be the closest we ever get to that in this edition (which, in fairness, was a really cool take, if held back by its whole limbo between caster and martial locking it out of so many features that affect only either Strikes or Spells)

Unicore wrote:

Then why is it a tradition? It’s not like stealing spells from other traditions is rare in the game. Why don’t wizards just have ways of learning any spell?

I argued back on PC1 release when the "wizard has been nerfed" threads happened that, among other changes I would make to the class, that it would be interesting if the wizard had ways to poach spells from other lists. The whole point of the wizard is that its a magical scientist that pushes the boundaries of what magic can and can't do further, so breaking reality and poaching spells from other lists seems totally on brand to me.

That's also why I think Experimental Spellshaping should be baseline feature of the class and not a thesis. Experimenting its what the wizard does.

Honestly I feel that way about the Spell Substitution thesis. You have an entire spellbook there with you at all times (barring very extenuating circumstances) and it feels like you should always be able to just take a moment to refer to a solution you might have for a particular obstacle.

As far as the Remaster, them getting interesting "Array" feats added some more flavor (though the Runesmith is going to poach that HARD) and adding Knowledge is Power was a nice but ungainly step to giving them more support as a Recall Knowledge centric class because, you know, they study.

I hope in future editions the Wizard really settles into what their role feels like it should be, which is to say someone who understands the fundamentals of magic and can do things with their spells no one else can, and who is broadly a very educated and knowledge-focused figure.

Honestly what I would have LOVED to see in the Remaster would be to have Wizards gain their increased Spell Proficiency ranks earlier than other caster classes to reflect their greater understanding of magic. Expert at 5th, Master at 13th, and Legendary at 17th. In the end they would still be only as powerful as other casters (unlike, say, Fighters compared to most other martials) but it would've been a nice bump to make up for some of the other hits they took.

ADDENDUM: ALSO, how easy would it be to have a feat to let Wizards take the initial Focus Spell from another Curriculum? Could've even called it "Extracurricular Study" and fixed their issue of being capped at 2 Focus Points unless you multiclass.

Little update I noticed: I was curious about the Pacts Witch and Time Oracle, both of which were already Remastered in Divine Mysteries, and while The Unseen Broker seems to be the same, the Time Oracle has been re-remastered, now with a new Cursebound feat instead of PC2's Oracular Warning: Trance of Celerity. Basically you get a status bonus to speeds equal to five times your Cursebound value -- restores a bit of the premaster utility and technically available to all Oracles.

There's also a new Time mystery-specific 10th level Cursebound feat, On Borrowed Time: deal persistent mental damage that also causes the target to experience two rounds at a time for the purposes of conditions, afflictions, etc. Does not affect the persistent damage from this action, but does for other persistent damage. Bit of a mixed bag there, fear won't last as long, but if your party's good at stacking persistent effects…

Also they kept the same art for "Rumored Owlbear" and just made it "Rumored Bear" lol.

Not even a Platypus-Bear? A Skunk-Bear? A Gopher-Bear? Or an Armadillo-Bear?

Just a Bear??

...This place is WEIRD.

I agree with Teridax and Tridus that the issue with Psychic is in their overall design itself, and supplementing with new Subconscious or Conscious minds, feats, etc just to make the class "work" would only serve to limit the class to only one direction if someone wanted to be "effective" in that regard.

I will say that I am a little more optimistic that, once errata does come around, Psychic might actually be a higher priority despite its recent Remaster because it's so clear the majority of people who were keeping track of it are very unhappy with the end results. Even then most have been tempering their requests to be in line with very simple changes that would do very little (if anything) to the layout of the book itself.

Homebrewing and/or 3PP probably is the best until then.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

I don't think that's happening, either. The Eldritch Archer archetype, which was Remastered in Player Core 2, doesn't have that caveat with their Eldritch Shot. Granted, theirs is a 3-action ability, rather than 2-action Spellstrike plus 1-action Recharge, but it effectively is the same thing unless you're contending with being Slowed or Stunned.

I'd argue there's a lot more besides action loss conditions that would make a character spend an action doing something else, such as if an enemy is getting too close, if the character is knocked prone, if an ally needs help urgently, and so on. Action deferment is a significant advantage in flexibility, and the lack of it makes a difference. I'd argue that the Eldritch Archer could do with this limitation as well, but even without it, Starlit Span would likely still win out.

Sure! My point was more that I don't foresee them making the suggested changes to Starlit Span because of the Eldritch Archer dedication not receiving such an update despite operating in a more-or-less very similar manner and having similar enough mechanics that it would effectively undermine the ability to make such a change really "stick."

If X thing has a limitation a player doesn't like but Y thing pretty much does the exact same thing they want to do without that limitation, then it doesn't really become much of a curb. Just means it takes a bit longer to come online.

To be clear I agree that the suggestion to limit the spell to within its own range would be a fine adjustment, or to say that ranged Spellstrikes can only be used with ranged spells to get away from Gouging Claw and Imaginary Weapon spamming. My only reason for bringing up the alternative is to point out that, even if they did make such a change, people could still exploit those options starting at level 6 rather than level 1 (or level 2+ for dipping into Psychic for other options)

I'm honestly less excited about Impossible Magic now that I know it's going to be the Remaster's answer for Secrets of Magic. Sure, they would cut out a lot of the OGL fluff and special alternative rules, but that space was probably quickly eaten up by the two additional classes on top of Magus and Summoner, which themselves were not simple classes that were economical with page count.

I will hope that this will be more than half wholly new content, but the 240+ spells sounds a lot less impressive when you realize how close that is to the count from Secrets of Magic, and Spells made up a very, very large section of that book.

BUT, I will say it was a smart decision on Paizo's part as a means of getting the Magus and Summoner up to speed with the Necromancer and Runesmith. Just feels less "special" to have two wholly new classes introduced with a lot of upcycled content, if that makes sense.

I'll definitely still be getting this, don't get me wrong. I just hope we get some cool surprises that make this feel less like a revisit to old ground.

exequiel759 wrote:

You can't nerf starlit span because what it makes it strong are the things it has innately from being a ranged class. Out of all the hybrid studies is the one that less relies on arcane cascade and its feats aren't that good either, so unless you remove it from the book you can't nerf it.

While it's true that Starlit Span will almost always be able to use their Spellstrike each round compared to the on-and-off-turns of melee Maguses, I do think you could take the last line out of the subclass to nerf it substantially. "You can deliver the spell even if its range is shorter than the range increment of your ranged attack" is what lets Starlit Span Spellstrike with gouging claw and, above all, imaginary weapon, so removing that would force the subclass to look for less damaging alternatives like needle darts or fire ray.

With that said, and as monstrously overpowered as the subclass is right now, I would also like to see it improved, not just nerfed: as you mention, Starlit Span makes no use of Arcane Cascade, and while enabling it on the class wouldn't be necessarily a huge buff, it could be enough to make the subclass feel like they're making better use of the Magus's baseline tools, instead of trading them off in exchange for becoming this spammy Spellstrike turret.

I don't think that's happening, either. The Eldritch Archer archetype, which was Remastered in Player Core 2, doesn't have that caveat with their Eldritch Shot. Granted, theirs is a 3-action ability, rather than 2-action Spellstrike plus 1-action Recharge, but it effectively is the same thing unless you're contending with being Slowed or Stunned.

So even if they added that to Magus for some reason, there's already a Remastered means of getting around that rule through an Archetype.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

In fairness they really didn't say anything at all about it other than that it's kinda furry like old medieval European illustrations =P

We can't say everything all at once! We like the speculation and pontification from our community!

Oh for sure! I was more referencing how we're unsure where the successors of certain of the Metallics are and how Executor is as good a thought as any due to not knowing much yet ^_^

Definitely been a fan of the preview posts preceding Draconic Codex!

LOOOVE the dragons introduced in Alien Core, and the artwork is fantastic! My favorites are definitely the Akashic and Cosmic, but all four are spectacular and rich with storytelling opportunities. Also, imagine a Host Dragon with the Nanite template o.O

Really looking forward to seeing what other dragons might come up in future books! Maybe a Drift Dragon, for example =D

The Mocking Dragon, also known as the Kefka Dragon in my game group.

The picture showed at Gencon screams Kefka from FF6 to us.

I can see it, though personally I get more Warhammer 40k Harlequin / Cegorach vibes. Probably the color scheme that does it for me.

Also saw a screenshot of the table of contents for Draconic Codex, and I feel vindicated that my initial guess on the Oath Dragon was as the successor of other silvery entities, given their historical Paladin/Champion-esque outlook and role! Cool to see it indicated up front that not every cause they choose to champion is necessarily a benevolent one, making them an even cleaner parallel to the Champion =]

Primal dragon with link to metal and "spark".

Lightning rod dragon

Better yet, a Dragonblood PC named Zapp Dragonman.

I was really curious of the role that Requiem dragons would play, considering the very draconic (though technically not dragons) Yamaraj Psychopomps. Very distinct from one another, in that the former ferry souls to their afterlife while the latter are judges that oversee particularly sticky "cases" that aren't *quite* at the level of needing Pharasma's direct attention.

Hoping there might be a little blurb on how Requiem Dragons relate to the Psychopomps, particularly the Yamaraj =] Wonder if they're ever hobby-buddies?

I love the idea of a Rune Dragon keeping a handful of magical craftspeople around like feeder shrimp, where they just clean and take away shedding scales to then bring back to their own shops while the dragon benefits from some regular grooming and hygiene =P

Also happy for the return of a non-Diabolic fire dragon. Goblins who don't want Unholy influence for their Bloodlines or Instincts may now rejoice and enjoy their Sanctification-neutral fire!

With the Time Dragon featuring so prominently in Pathfinder Quest, I'm really excited to see their return to the TTRPG too!

And if their redesign is essentially in line with the art from PFQ, then I am SO very enamored with their updated look! <3

Purchased the PDF and had a quick look through, and this looks like quite an exciting story to tell and play!

The new Mythic Destinies are QUITE cool, and while I was initially disappointed to hear that Timewracked doesn't directly play with spellcasting classes and it's way more geared toward martials, there are enough features that can work for any playstyle and as a whole it is DRIPPING with thematic flavor and interesting mechanics! I think what held it back most (without getting into specifics or spoilers) is that certain feats take a LOT of text to really elucidate how they are meant to work, which one might expect from time-bending abilities, translating to fewer feat options overall but very interesting and consequential choices between what's there (Preserve the Moment being the longest but one of the coolest such options)

So I want to compliment what the designers did with the space available, and while I may have liked a bit more synergy for spellcasters I would still happily slap this onto a chronomancer Wizard or Witchwarper any day! May not be optimized, but it's still rad as hell and I'll take flavor over mechanics all day every day.

As always, I am highly excited for this game. I love Pathfinder CRPGs but it makes the world that much richer when you go into different formats (like the Vampire Survivors-type top-down action game or an ARPG) and see how that changes how you interact with the game world.

100%! I had already been craving an ARPG set in Golarion for *ages* before the KickStarter even began, so I'm definitely super eager to get some friends together to stomp our way through Gauntlight Keep!

And on the topic of other genres, I would ADORE a narrative-focused game ala Tavern Talk. Imagine playing the role of a Venture Captain or maybe concierge at the lounge of a Pathfinder Society Lodge and all of the people who come to interact with you are part of the Society or different factions who often deal with the organization. You could pepper in some Iconics while also having fun with wholly new characters ^_^

Super excited for this! My partner and I had a lot of fun trying this out at GenCon, and I went in for the Dragon Hoard to get those snazzy minis!

Also my very first GenCon!
The Paizo team were super awesome and sweet, very accommodating and down to just talk shop about Pathfinder and Starfinder. Really happy to finally meet some of the people behind the games I love, and bought some awesome goodies in the process!

My partner and I didn't do too much gaming, though we both really enjoyed trying out the Pathfinder Quest prototype and found it very intuitive and easy to play. Really excited to get in on the backer-kit for that!

The Starfinder Reveals panel was also a lot of fun, the dynamic between the speakers was really enjoyable and it was cool to get so many sneak peeks in less than an hour! (Still hoping that we get a proper look at Zon-Shelyn before toooo long, maybe in a fun setting blog post?)

We definitely want to try and come back again and next time take the full 4 day experience to really sink our teeth into things.

And lastly, BIG shout-out not just to the creative teams but also the staff at the counter and who helped set up! Everything looked great and was arranged really beautifully and everyone we interacted with was so pleasant and enthusiastic, you all did a terrific job! <3

I'm so here for this ADHD and Autistic duo <3

Really fun and cute character dynamics in general, and cool to see the class fantasy in a more "cinematic" light! Definitely cements my desire to play a Dwarf Mechanic who uses Mines as an asteroid-mining "demolitions expert" xD

Also would love to RP the exocortex as a partitioned intelligence and character in its own right, like Jarvis with Iron Man!

Luvvin' it, Witchwarper is 100% what I'm most excited for in Starfinder2E, especially with so much of the 1E Precog helping to further develop the class fantasy!

My Wizard in a PF2E conversion of Shattered Star has a whole subplot about how he's been unwittingly drifting through other realities and being observed and occasionally aided by Totally-Not-the-Lutece-Twins, and it would be really cool for him to "evolve" into a Witchwarper (probably Analysis / Core Memories) as his realizing his true capabilities and connection to the multiverse.

Plus more direct time-warping spells and shenanigans, of course ;P

autumndidact wrote:

Moon_Goddess wrote:

Torradin341 wrote:

Others have said it, but I would also like to say that Pakelia is awesome and I would love to see more of her, either as a new iconic or just in more fiction as a recurring character.

I'd rather not see her as a new iconic, I wanna see her again in fiction and stuff, but I like the idea of her staying an accountant that just tries to live a normal life while Navasi does the adventuring life.

I'm pretty sure she's not just an accountant. And Navasi is certain of it.

Sure she is. In the same way that "Christian Wolf" is just "The Accountant". :)

Ya know, I'm reminded that there's a whole archetype in Galaxy Guide for Abadar Corp agents, so I could definitely see Accountant+ on her CV xD

Really cute and really fun! I love Pakelia's dry humor and want more of her xD

Also getting that Starfinder 2E HYYYYPE!! REALLY eager to see Zemir's Iconic Encounter, Witchwarper is absolutely the part of the upcoming Player Core that I'm MOST excited for!

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Will the GenCon releases still be purchasable at the convention? My partner and I are going this year, so it would be great to know if they should be preordered instead (which I will happily do, if need be)

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

Hello!

Yes, all Gen Con releases will be available in the Paizo booth during Gen Con. :)

Awesome, thanks so much! We'll definitely be swinging by to pick up some swag <3

Will the GenCon releases still be purchasable at the convention? My partner and I are going this year, so it would be great to know if they should be preordered instead (which I will happily do, if need be)
Thanks in advance for any clarification!

I'm SUPER interested to see how the final cut differs from the playtest, especially with some of the more dramatic changes mentioned for some of the classes!

Really happy that I get to go to GenCon this year, so I'll be taking a close look right on release! Most excited by far for the Witchwarper, which my current Wizard in a 2E conversion of Shattered Star may or may not "evolve" into. If nothing else, more timey-wimey spells will definitely be appreciated by the chronomancer! ^_^

Awesooome! Thanks so much for releasing an even bigger and more complete list!

Spoilered below re: Erastil's family

For those who worry about Mythic upsetting the balance, just skip this book and keep enjoying the games as you already do.

I mean, there's going to be a load of non-Mythic content in War of Immortals as well, such as two new classes, several class archetypes, non-Mythic items and gear, potentially non-Mythic spells and feats, etc.

So it'd be better to say "ignore the Mythic rules" rather than encouraging to forgo an entire book with plenty of other useful content =P

That said, I agree with Tridus: we're only getting a very narrow snapshot of the whole system and so it's really early to be making judgement calls. I do think, though, it would've been worth playtesting. I suppose since Mythic will largely be an entirely optional system (outside of potential future AP's, which themselves are also optional), there wasn't as much pressure felt to get the community involved in helping to finetune things like with other, broader releases like the various class playtests.

Really glad this is almost here! Been dying to learn what the Eternal Legend destiny is all about, and the long-ago tease of an ability called "Eyes That See Through Eternity" really has me hankering for the ability to make an immortal chronomancer =3

Moreover really want to see what the various Callings are like as we've had very little input on those thus far!

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Well researched and documenting things.

Man oh man, am I excited to play a Witchwarper with The Gap Paradox. If you are going to play a reality bending wizard, might as well go full plaid.

Delighted with the Spaceballs reference, there xD

I think I'm most hyped for the Precog Paradox as it sounds like it'll be the most heavily associated with time. But in general, Precog was my favorite SF1E class, and initially I was *super* disappointed and vexed that it was getting cut and absorbed into Witchwarper. HOWEVER, the more I see and hear about how the WW will play and feel in 2E, the more I can see so much of what made the Precog cool impacting and reshaping the WW in ways that I REALLY love.

So now my consternation is instead that I won't be able to play this class for my imminently forthcoming "chronomancer" in my group's next PF2E campaign, as it already sounds just *so ding-dang good* for that character concept!

Assuming he survives said campaign, maybe at some point in my SF2E gaming I'll need to roll up a Witchwarper with an uncanny likeness to a certain hero-Wizard of Pre-Gap Golarion who seems to have no memory of who he is or was... =3

Quinn being so oblivious makes me feel both seen and attacked xD

And with that, the existential dread of the Grande Reveal looms that much closer like Groetus over the Boneyard xP

Wonderful writing for all of the prophecies, they've been quite the romp! I love that all of these could make excellent hooks for homebrew games, both in alternate versions of Golarion and different settings entirely ^_^

Will we be learning about what other gods outside of the Core 20 will be dying during the reveal, or is that more part of the "live event" portion of War of Immortals?

Asking for a friend who loves Brigh!
...It's me, I'm the friend xD

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Well, that confirms that just one dies, and that it is of the Core 20,

It is for sure more than one deity that dies during the course of War of Immortals, but only one of the core 20.

*Jaunty clockwork jazz music stops*

*Starts sweating in Brigh fanboy* Well that's just MEAN to drop on our heads! D'=

(Yeh, I know Brigh is part of Triune in Starfinder, but yadda yadda different systems different lore ETC ETC)

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Discojaddi wrote:

How is all of this going to affect psychic?

Are the "special" cantrips they get going to remain as normal? Since amps are technically not focus spells, are they being affected at all by these changes?

While they're not "technically" Focus Spells, Amps still use Focus Points to function, and the overhaul is inclusive of how Focus Points can be used/recovered across the board.

Mainly it just means that Psychics lose that "edge" they had where they start level 1 being able to recover two at a time. I imagine there will be some errata down the line.

Technically, they still have that part of the edge because they can do in 10 what everyone else is doing with 20 pre-feat.

True, as they exist presently, unless they get errata. It does make it awkward though, now that there's going to be the one feat that grants full recovery of all Focus Points in a single 10 minute rest as opposed to needing to take two feats (or the one additional for Psychic)

That, and Psychic will need further errata to get that feat earlier, because they'll be locked out until 18th level otherwise >.> Unless Paizo decides to go wild and just give the Psychic the ability to recover all points in 10 minutes from level 1 o.O

How is all of this going to affect psychic?

Are the "special" cantrips they get going to remain as normal? Since amps are technically not focus spells, are they being affected at all by these changes?

While they're not "technically" Focus Spells, Amps still use Focus Points to function, and the overhaul is inclusive of how Focus Points can be used/recovered across the board.

Mainly it just means that Psychics lose that "edge" they had where they start level 1 being able to recover two at a time. I imagine there will be some errata down the line.

Caustic Blast as a 5ft burst makes SO much more sense with it's +2 Heightening, rather than it's previous version of single target with minimal splash. That feels way more balanced!

I'm very interested to see how something like Daze (or whatever it's analogue will be) will be readjusted. Will it have that same +2 scaling, but with a better damage die? Or will it have d4 damage with +1 scaling, since the Non-Lethal trait already means that there are large swathes of creatures already immune to it (not to mention others who are also immune to Mental effects) and it's single-target? Very curious for that!

(Tangential, but personal gripe: on seeing the Player Core page for the Wizard's feats, I saw that Non-Lethal Spell is STILL a 2nd level feat. WHY?? This really should be a 1st level option, IMO, as it provides less mechanical benefit than even Reach or Widen, which are both 1st)

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Secondary Detonation Array starts looking pretty interesting with Telekinetic Rend, just as a way to swing that mojo in a resourceless way..

New spell proficiencies makes wizard+psychic MDC very appealing and functional

That's actually my plan for my forthcoming Wizard, since my group is postponing further PF games until the Remaster (we just finished a 2E conversion of Skull'n'Shackles)

But not so much for the min-maxing, I'm going with Unbound Step and picking up specific spells that feed into the whole chronomancy vibe, like Hypercognition, Tortoise and the Hare, Suspended Retribution, etc plus the Warp Step and Phase Bolt Psicantrips ^_^

So STRONGLY agreed, the single proficiency to apply to all spellcasting makes MCD's MUCH more appealing, and the Psychic in particular is really great since it can be Intelligence or Charisma =]

Honestly, the thing that I'm most curious about regarding Wizards is if the "School of Unified Theory" mentioned in other previews will function the same as the prior "Universalist" school, IE that you don't gain the bonus spell slot per rank to prepare certain spells into, but instead you get to use Arcane Bond to recast a spell at each spell rank, instead of just 1/day.

My forthcoming Wizard was planned as a Universalist, so it'd be nice to know if that's going to be radically different in the Remaster, especially since my group's GM is going to enforce the Remastered versions of ALL affected classes once we start playing PF again next summer.

Personally, I really feel like if they're bringing back Mythic Power to 2E, that really deserves its own playtest so that the community can help make sure it isn't overtuned like it was in 1E.

I agree with the idea that Mythic characters SHOULD feel more powerful than non-Mythic characters and foes, but not to the point of it being Trivial or Extreme encounters and Nuke Tag, with no in-between. 2E is already WAY better at eliminating Nuke Tag, so I imagine that won't be as big a problem. It's a very delicate balance to play, to make them feel more powerful as they should, without completely breaking everything else down.

If 2E's "Mythic" rules are more tongue-in-cheek and not at all what 1E presented (ie, bringing Epic power into the game), then I'd really appreciate if the designers could be very explicit about that right now so we can temper expectations.

I know JB came in to state that there will be no over-leveling, but 1E Mythic Power didn't operate like that either, so that still doesn't tell us much about what they mean.

EDIT: I should note, I have a vested interest in this clarity and outcome as I do intend to run a 2E home-conversion of Wrath of the Righteous at some point, so knowing whether or not this will actually be useful or relevant to that pursuit would be very nice (and save a great deal of time and energy personally converting Mythic rules from 1E to 2E and doing all of the balancing myself)

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Another thing that feels like a missing detail:

On the Initial Proficiency table, Spells simply lists "Trained in spell attack modifier" and "Trained in spell DC"

This is consistent with all spellcasters post-Remaster.

Gotcha, thanks! I guess we'll find out come November as to what that entails =]

I was looking at the Embodiment of Battle focus spell and I thought that... since it gives you a status bonus to attack (and damage) to keep up with martials that nearly follows how a martial would get it's weapon scaling increases ("expert" at 7th level instead of 5th though), why don't make it that you instead use your spell attack roll proficiency with weapons while under the effects of Embodiment of Battle?

At the only point where it would make a difference mechanically would be at 13th level (since currently you would have expert proficiency with a +3 bonus on top of that, while under this proposal you'll stay behind martials till 15th level) and at 19th level (because at that point you will be above msot martials due to legendary proficiency). I also think this is a way more flavorful way to convey mechanically what you are doing at the table, as you will be channeling the apparition's martial prowess through your spellcasting. You would still get the -2 to spell attack modifier and your spell DCs when you actually use them for spells though.

THIS. Or, if they want a bigger buy in, have it swap Spell and Weapon Proficiency entirely, so you can suddenly be a Martial badass, but your spells become WAY weaker.

Another thing that feels like a missing detail:
On the Initial Proficiency table, Spells simply lists "Trained in spell attack modifier" and "Trained in spell DC"

All other spellcasting classes specify the Tradition in this section, such as "Trained in divine spell attack modifier" or "Trained in arcane spell DC", or even for classes like Sorcerer / Summoner / Witch, "Trained in spell modifier in the tradition from your Bloodline/Eidolon/Patron" etc.

And since under the Apparition Spellcasting feature it specifies that any Apparition Spells are also Divine spells, my assumption would be that the Animist should specify its proficiency in Divine spells, especially since they prepare their spells from the Divine list as described under Animist Spellcasting.

Otherwise, this opens up the possible interpretation that they can use their unspecified "spell modifier" for scrolls/staves/wands etc from ANY Tradition, which seems WILDLY off-base.

Is this something to do with the Remaster, where Spell Proficiency isn't going to be so specific and thus there will be more language needed to make these distinctions between what magic they can utilize through items and such?

Only one pic left on IG to make a complete look at both!
I definitely think Animist is in the bag =3
Less than 30 minutes for the stream, HYYYPPEE!! =D

Calpal wrote:

Calpal wrote:

Looking forward to the Nipplemancer being released soon.

Sorry, "Nipple Lord". Forgot the naming convention.

I believe the correct term is the Milkman!

Perhaps the Mammarist...?

Hmmm, looking very closely and carefully at these two pictures, I think I have a solid, educated answer to both!

The first on the left is clearly going to be a Strength-based spellcaster called a Swolomancer, that casts all of their spells with unarmed strikes and Athletics maneuvers like "Pacifist Fist" and "Falcon Punch"

The second is a Ysoki-only class called a "Trove Rodent" that gets more powerful the more Bulk they carry. (Early designs had called it "Packrat", but that was deemed to be a coarse slur)

Jokes aside, I'm very interested to see what these are, and happy that we'll learn more on Thursday before the playtest! I REALLY like the idea of an Animist as one of these, and as much as I jibed with the Swolomancer, I think it would actually be REALLY cool to see a super-buff 2E spellcaster iconic for a change to shake up the silhouettes some xD

I'm skeptical about Demigod as a class, though, especially because Demigods weren't just big beefsters like Hercules, but some were also cunning tricksters or powerful magicians. How could that all be captured in one class?? I think, if that wasn't a Versatile Heritage, it would fit better as a first-level Archetype like the Wellspring Mage that could be applied to any class and has enough that's appealing to both martials and casters and maybe a smattering of things specific to either role.

Looking forward to finding out what they are in less than a week! =D

LoreMonger13 wrote:

nonbinarysunset wrote:

If the class does end up taking Precog into itself, and if we think about space/time/alternate dimensions and timelines with the flavour from the description of the Witchwarper in SF1e...

Something involving "Wyrd" could be neat, as the old definition of the word denoted someone or something that could manipulate fate. But in general, leaning into the "Weave" theme and making sure that the Precog is well-represented would be cool.

Considering they're taking a big step of "deleting" another class, the onus is on Paizo now to show us that was a good idea and that those who enjoyed the Precog can still play that kind of character in the Witchwarper (or, hopefully, whatever name it falls under in future)

Wyrdweaver?

That could be fun! Though maybe even something as simple as "Warpcaster" would fit the bill, keeping some of its prior nomenclature and identity while also being more distinct from Pathfinder's Witch, especially not that they are being made to operate under the system core chassis of 2E.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Further, as someone that manipulates time in a proactive way, the Precog presented a MASSIVE opportunity and incredible design space to really play deeply with the Action system, Fortune/Misfortune, and the underutilized Circumstance modifier.

For the latter two, the Witchwarper already had big inroads into these categories. They have all the reroll spells that precog does, including those that grant them to allies - they just flavored how this was accomplished differently. It's also hard to see how a circumstance modifier granted by manipulating a timeline can't be done by manipulating reality/probability.

As far as action manipulation, you mentioned forcing enemies to stride instead of step. The WW always had access to 95% of the spells that created difficult terrain, as well as that being one of the earliest things that Infinite Worlds could do. Same thing, different flavor as to how they're doing it.

WW also has Reality Bend spell (later shared with Precog) that let you trade your standard action to move an ally 10'. Or in PF2 terms, two actions for two steps by an ally. And of course slow/haste is a universal for action manipulation, this has never been anything special to the precog.

Comparing almost entirely by spell lists seems overly narrow and trivializing of the differences in class features, especially in the context of coming into 2E where there are only four "spell lists" for all spellcaster classes to use in Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. So not a great basis of comparison to make unless you're going to say that we should only have one caster class per Tradition, because what else could actually be different between them? Both the Witchwarper and Precog were more than just their spell lists, and those differences set them apart from one another in not only how they could be played, but also how they could be designed.

That all said, here's what I will lay out as my hope for the Witchwarper absorbing the Precog (and also the hope for a name change, like the "Warpcaster", to make it clear that no, they don't just Warp Witches specifically now that we'll have class-compatibility between systems xP)

*Flexible Primary Attribute: Rather than ONLY being yet another Charisma-focused character, I'd like the option to choose between Charisma or Intelligence, at minimum.

*Kineticist-esque Design: I think this could be a FANTASTIC route to take, considering the Kineticist operates in a wonderful way with the Action system and has very interesting, compelling choices to make. In this case, the WW's "Elements" could be different physical and cosmic forces, such as Entropy, Spacetime, Matter, etc, and like Kineticist you could choose to go all in on one focus or spread yourself out across multiple.

*Unique and Dynamic Actions and Activities: I really stand by my point that the Precog, as someone that manipulates time, had ENORMOUS opportunity to play with the Action system of allies and enemies in really unique ways =outside of their spells like all other spellcasters can=, so if the WW is taking on Time as a core part of their build, then I'd like them to be able to do that as well (earlier examples: trading one of your Reactions to give an ally an extra Reaction, non-spell actions to limit enemy actions or control said actions, etc)

*Making use of Fortune/Misfortune and Circumstance Modifiers: Most time-related features, such as from the Chronoskimmer Archetype, apply Circumstance modifiers to checks because you're effectively using foreknowledge to give yourself or ally an advantage. It's also a REALLY underutilized modifier, and it'd be cool to see a class lean into that. Further, outside of a rare few feats and some spells, Fortune/Misfortune feels really poorly represented and utilized as well. Let the class that bends reality get in on that, which would also make them feel more like they truly adopted the Precog's niche!

By the sound of it, the Witchwarper is a ways off from any public Field Tests, but I really hope they do the Precog justice in a strong representation through the class rather than just "sure, you can flavor abilities this way if you want". I'd like to see mechanics that are recognizable as the Precog, like their Paradox and Anomalies.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

And it's not invalid if the team just needed to trim down content to make it work and be ready for '25, that's totally fine. I'm just REALLY bummed out because, of all the things I was looking forward to in Starfinder 2E, a redesigned Precog was near, if not at, the top of the list for me...

Well... on the bright side, there is still time, and the idea of a precog that's a variety of witchwarper doesn't necessarily need to be the death of your dreams. I mean, the witchwarper bends reality. Time is part of reality, right? From the lore standpoint, this could be more a case of broadening the witchwarper's scope, rather than cramming the precog into the existing space.

So... let's suppose that Precog is a Witchwarper class path, but that the lore of "witchwarper" is still pretty malleable, and the class path is pretty significant. What would you want to see in this version of the precog? What would make you say "You know what? This is actually pretty cool after all."

After all, if you want to make something awesome, one of the best places to start looking is the people who love that thing, and you've just outed yourself as loving the precog. So... what would make it awesome?

"Outing" myself is kind of a weird turn of phrase, but to your questions: I had mentioned earlier in my post the things I would have hoped they could delve into with someone who manipulates time, ie being able to do interesting things with their Actions, as well as that of allies and enemies (ex: burn their reaction to give an ally an extra reaction, or force an enemy trying to Step away to Stride instead, spending their actions to give allies additional actions, etc), and leaning into the Fortune/Misfortune mechanic and Circumstance modifiers to bring some of what Paradox was used for in SF1E.

But a lot of these design choices would be core to the class design itself, so unless Witchwarper is going to be able to do a lot of the aforementioned (trading Actions, utilizing Fortune/Misfortune, etc), it feels like adding Precog to them is purely for flavor and expediency, rather than taking full advantage of a design space that someone capable of manipulating the flow of time presents.

Obviously, this is an initial impression based on VERY limited information provided, and maybe when the Witchwarper drops in possibly a future Field Test or the Playtest next summer we'll see more and then it could be a totally viable route to take with them and maybe they DO manage to pull off both the themes and mechanics that the Precog could.

To be clear, this is not a "deal-breaker" for me, I'm still looking forward to SF2E. I'm just really disappointed that it looks like it was decided that the Precog did not present a strong enough theme or design space when I would personally feel it really could've stood out on its own next to the Witchwarper as it already has been doing plenty well in SF1E.

Alright, first leading with the positive: this is definitely the kind of post I like! I LOVE being able to get a look at the behind-the-scenes nuts and bolts of design and testing, and certainly look forward to more Field Tests and the eventual Playtest next year =]

But, on to the core reason for this response: I am -extremely- disappointed to have it confirmed that Precog is just being rolled into another class. While I can understand some of the reasoning, it feels much more like a logistics choice than a design or flavor choice. Personally, I always felt the Witchwarper and Precog were very distinct from one another: the WW bends reality and reaches into other dimensions, where the Precog actively edits the timeline on the fly. Sure, you *can* flavor a WW's powers as conjuring or shunting different timelines, but that's very different from the feel I personally got from the Precog.

Further, as someone that manipulates time in a proactive way, the Precog presented a MASSIVE opportunity and incredible design space to really play deeply with the Action system, Fortune/Misfortune, and the underutilized Circumstance modifier. Imagine a Precog spending their reaction to give another character an extra reaction, or (ala the Kineticist's Four Winds) spending actions to allow other characters to move, or attack, or take cover, etc.

And aside from allies, imagine them being able to manipulate the actions of enemies. An enemy is using a Step to get away? The Precog spends a reaction to make those spaces Difficult Terrain, so now they can't step and instead have to stride, which could trigger a Reactive Strike from an ally also adjacent to the enemy. Or that could just be a passive aura the Precog can lay down as a stance!

And it's not invalid if the team just needed to trim down content to make it work and be ready for '25, that's totally fine. I'm just REALLY bummed out because, of all the things I was looking forward to in Starfinder 2E, a redesigned Precog was near, if not at, the top of the list for me </3

LoreMonger13 wrote:

LOVE everything about this so far, from the concept to the new additions! Been hankering to have first-party support for Harrowers, so REALLY pleased to see three different routes for that ala the Archetype, Bloodline, and Ritual!

ONE thing that I noticed, and if anyone could help me:
On page 14, the "Vengeful Spirit Deck" feat mentions it requires a basic save against the Harrower's Class DC to resist the damage, but it doesn't actually mention if this is a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. My guess would be Reflex, since you're lobbing an enchanted card at the target, but since Poison may instead go against Fortitude and Mental may go against Will, clarification would help. As it is, only three of the six cards have a given saving throw associated with them so we can't really use that for the other three.

I did look under the "Benevolent Spirit Deck" feat on the same page to see if it makes any mention of saves (since Vengeful Spirit Deck references this feat for damage types), but there was no mention there either.

Is my brain just not processing a line somewhere in these writeups? >.>

The Vengeful Spirit Deck should be a Reflex save. Sorry about that omission.

Gotcha, that makes sense! Thanks much for the clarification ^_^

LOVE everything about this so far, from the concept to the new additions! Been hankering to have first-party support for Harrowers, so REALLY pleased to see three different routes for that ala the Archetype, Bloodline, and Ritual!

ONE thing that I noticed, and if anyone could help me:
On page 14, the "Vengeful Spirit Deck" feat mentions it requires a basic save against the Harrower's Class DC to resist the damage, but it doesn't actually mention if this is a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. My guess would be Reflex, since you're lobbing an enchanted card at the target, but since Poison may instead go against Fortitude and Mental may go against Will, clarification would help. As it is, only three of the six cards have a given saving throw associated with them so we can't really use that for the other three.

I did look under the "Benevolent Spirit Deck" feat on the same page to see if it makes any mention of saves (since Vengeful Spirit Deck references this feat for damage types), but there was no mention there either.

Is my brain just not processing a line somewhere in these writeups? >.>

Don't miss this exclusive preview by How It's Played of Temporal Anomalies from the Pathfinder #DarkArchive rulebook!

Preorder or subscribe to this paranormal tome at the Paizo Store or your local game store today!

YEEESS!! This is the part I'm most excited about for Dark Archive, though honestly everything I've been hearing about it sounds SO COOL =D

Quick mechanics question, if I could plead your indulgence:
The preview shows the initial Splash Page for the Time Mage archetype, and in the text it includes an Additional Feats entry. One of those additional feats available to the Time Mage is Quickened Casting at 12th level.

So my question is: If a character took Time Mage through a class that itself has access to Quickened Casting (Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, etc), would that mean that they could take the feat both through their Core Class AND the Time Mage and thusly be able to use it twice per day, rather than only once??

(Many would probably see this as an ineffective use of two class feats, but I'm curious as to whether it's possible rather than optimal)