Mythraine's page

Will we get the Battlecry specific font and a different colour on the spine pretty please?! ;-P.

Having War of Immortals come out with the same white spine and green font as the core rulebooks made me sad. All pre-master rulebooks outside of core had their unique font and colour on the spine and made the bookshelf look WAY better IMHO.

I'm not sure why it was decided to "bland-up" all the remaster spines.

Will there be a sketch cover? (Is sketch cover a standard option from now on?)

I love this idea of stands-alone adventures. One where they explicitly don’t have any suggested lead in to the adventure

I really want to see one book that make all necessary changes for SF2 classes to seamlessly play in PF2. I already know the rule set is fully compatible but, for example, the Soldier currently is a two-handed ranged weapon specialist (AFAIK). In SF2 that’s easy, they use big guns. How does it work in PF2? Do they use crossbows or bows or firearms? Can PF2 have a melee-specialist Soldier?

Maybe it’ll already be apparent on launch of SF2, but if not, give me the conversion rules!!

I really hope they get auto scaling Crafting like the Inventor.

And they open up the Key Attribute for the subclasses. So INT is available for everyone as key attribute. But Bombers can take DEX if they want to for instance.

My FLGS (in Australia) hasn't communicated a minimum volume of regular covers to secure a sketch cover. I just order the sketch cover only.

However, with Australia being the bottom of the world, none of the physical books (regular or sketch) are getting shipped to my FLGS until February. It's a massive downer and isn't a once off. Rage of Elements only got stocked recently but came out in August, same with Highhelm.

The physical distribution network makes it difficult to keep up the enthusiasm for new products for PF2e. Especially compared to "the-game-who-shall-not-be-named" which has the books available in Australia at the exact same time as the rest of the world.

The original methodology for the "Core 20" was that we wanted to have 2 choices for every alignment, but also to try to make sure that we had at least 1 "perfect choice" for all the various character classes we had in the game at the time with the 3.5 SRD. I don't recall the exact reasoning why we chose Lawful Good and Neutral to get the 19th and 20th leftover slots, but I think it probably had something to do with the fact that since paladins in that time were always Lawful Good we needed an extra choice there, and since druids were always Neutral adjacent they needed an extra choice there.

As for why 20? Because it was a fun nod to the fact that it was a d20 game we were creating.

Regardless... a "core 20" is something that we want to keep. It's served the game well by presenting a diverse range of choices for most archetypes of play without being too overwhelming.

I love this kind of behind-the-screen insight into Pathfinder and very much appreciate your openness and willigness to share. Thanks James!

bugleyman wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

My objection is actually the opposite: Player Core 2 is the only book of the four that doesn't contain the core rules; it is explicitly a supplement, and as such should not have the world "core" in the title. That fact that it does represents an inconsistency that could easily prove confusing for the uninitiated.

To be clear, this isn't a tragedy, but it is a pretty obvious unforced error on Paizo's part. And I expect that, just as WotC figured out that "Player's Handbook 2" was a bad name, Paizo will figure this out when they get tired of fielding questions about why "Player Core 2" doesn't have the core rules for, you know, players.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. ;-)

I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is a sizable portion of players that would be outraged if Champions and Sorcerers and Monks were not "Core classes" that are basic staple of the game, and not supplemental classes unnecessary for the game to work. The fact that the classes all already exist makes splitting the player core in half relatively manageable, but I am sure if there were tables telling their players that you can't be a monk because it is not in the core, there would be no end to the bad feelings.

This is my bugbear as well. I agree that Player Core 2 is a mislabled titled. My preference is Player Core Expansion. Though I've said this on many a platform and thread now. Time for a break.

Mythraine wrote:

What are the odds of sketch covers for the other two core books? (PC2 and MC)

Someone asked this on Reddit, and Erik Mona said this:

"We will be doing these for all four announced Remaster books. It remains to be seen if we will do them beyond that, but I’m encouraged by the positive reaction. If people buy them, we’ll make more."

Nice! I actually hope the sketch covers remain exclusive to the four core books and they are not repeated past them. It will make the four core books feel extra special.

What are the odds of sketch covers for the other two core books? (PC2 and MC)

Will the sketch wrap around to the spine? Or will the spine remain the white and black (or dark green?) as shown in these images?

Given that books spend most of their lives with just the spine showing, there have been a number of books I've been swayed to buy just for the excellent spine!

With all the ancestry name changes over the last couple of years (ratfolk to ysoki, lizardfolk to iruxi and now gnoll to kholo), what is their status in the ORC?

Are they able to be freely used in any unrelated material if the ORC is appropriately referenced? Or are they considered Paizo IP (like Red Mantis Assassins)?

Hopefully it's the former. I'd love to have all my gnolls now be kholo with no IP issues. If it's the latter then other publishers need to find a new third name for all of these ancestries (yes, it's a hyena-headed anthropomorphic humanoid, called, um, a Hyenu, haha, yes, that will do)

Evan Tarlton wrote:

James has said that #200 will be somewhat nostalgic...

Yup. But swap out "somewhat" for "very."

Hell's Rebels was amazing regardless, but the special issue 100 was even better. Can't wait to see what AP brings in issue 200.

I was also interested that Sky King's Tomb is the third 3-issue AP in a row. But now it makes sense if Issue 200 is meant to be the 5th of a 6-issue AP instead of the 2nd of a 3- or 6-issue AP.

Another thing I'd be keen on is either a weapon or feat that allows for spear and shield with reach (hoplites, phalanx formation etc). Like the Shield Brace feat of 1e. Make it a 1H martial spear with reach, but only usable 1handed with a shield.

I'd love to see support rules for flying cavalry. Using the mount rules for Hippgryphs, Griffons, Manticores, Pegasi, Rocs - all of that.

Also a way to add the mount special ability to any mount.

I desperately need rules for monstrous animal companions. Similar to the Monstrous Mount feats from 1E.

Please give me my Griffons, Pegasi, Unicorns, Manticores and Hippogryphs!!

Does anyone play with "FA-lite"? I have yet to GM my first 2e game (1e campaign still wrapping up). I plan to make FA default, but only give an extra feat on levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

If the levels for FA feat don't work for character concept I can work with the player, but this seems more manageable.

Wat do people think?

Feyblood and Shadowblood options as versatile heritages.

The extra things TWFers pay are not significant to a degree that requires errata or pressures Paizo into changing their mind. They're insignificant to most users, as the overwhelming majority of this thread's responses indicate.

Emphasis mine - overwhemling majority is not something you should assume. I don't believe he is beating a dead horse. 2E is still quite new and there are areas that could be improved.

N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification. I agree with those points on the whole. I'm flexible to the outcome - whether it be a hard ruling for Quick Draw, or drawing weapons in general, or whether it be a new option that works better for TWFs. e.g. "Double Draw" a feat that allows you to draw or stow two weapons in one action.

But either way, I would also like either a ruling, or a new option as I also believe the current steup is not supportive of TWFing.

This. Is. EXCELLENT!

While I like the doc VestOfHolding linked for all classes. This one specifically is WAY better as it is grouping the feats by theme, which makes it really easy to plan.

Well done.

So is Remko Troost in charge of all the Starfinder Iconics like Wayne Reynolds does the Pathfinder ones?

Can't deny that even I, as someone more into setting than into rules, got curious about the elemental purist, and also about the planar sneak rogue.

What does planar sneak even implies to you? Did we get any information about this archetype?

Maybe it will be the only archetype that allows you to sneak attack elementals, proteans and aeons.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

My favorites to read and write about are the chaotic gods, and the gods who are a little bit rebellious and/or buck tradition to do something different. The way we have a female sun deity, for example, or deities like Desna or Milani or Nocticula or Calistria who in certain ways are rebels against the status quo and aren't perfect and make mistakes but do their best to be true to their nature anyway.

So decidedly not Pharasma XD I suppose for me its the idea of a god who is to some degree above the petty squabbles of the rest of the gods that I enjoy in Pharasma. I do like Desna though I must say :P

Actually, a non-evil death deity is very much a deity that bucks tradition. So yes, Pharasma falls into that category.

I used this exact same notion for my homebrew back in 2001. Female Neutral Death deity as all the other campaign settings were evil death deities. Pharasma is from your homebrew but renamed isn't she?

MMCJawa wrote:

So how similar will this book be to the Books of the Damned series? Are the Eldest going to get a similar treatment to the demigods of those other books? Any new Eldest?

It is very similar to the Books of the Damned and Chronicle of the Righteous. There are no new Eldest, but they each get a full write-up with obediences and such.

That is super excellent. I love those books and now this is a must-buy.

But I wonder Mark, if it is meant to be a sister book to the three damned and CotR, why was it not given a title that has an in-world equivalent artifact, like the rumoured Concordance of Rivals? It's current title makes it sound more like a gazetteer on the First World.

My advice is to check out the feat Shield Brace from the Armor Master's Handbook.

Combine this with any spear and you get a good Phalanx Fighter without needing the fighter archetype. I suggest the Longspear for reach goodness.

To complement this, add the feat Phalanx Formation from Melee Tactics Toolbox and maybe Improved Shield Bash or just Improved Unarmed Strike for foes up close.

I've been wanting to have a good approximation of the phalanx for years, and I wasn't entirely happy until Shield Brace came into being.

If you find anything else that works better, post it! I'd love to hear other ideas as well.

Joseph, You should transfer your entire post into a review.

Mythraine wrote:

Richard Pett wrote:

Mythraine wrote:

FGG'ers and/or Mr. Pett:

To confirm, does the proposed Stretch Goal Blight Player's Handbook include all the system-neutral information from the Blight Player's Guide as well as the player-specific rules from the Blight GM Guide?

I've cast a binding and impossible to ignore summons on Vaughan, so hopefully he'll come along and answer that Mythraine. I'm not sure right now what the guide will exactly have from what I've provided.

Rich

Thanks Rich,

Were you able to get an answer from Greg? I'd love to get the system-neutral info as well but not sure if it's included in the Blight Player's Handbook.

Hey Mythraine, I helped as a developer on this...the Blight Player's Handbook does not contain all the material in the Blight Player's Guide. One is a rules book and one is a flavor book (ie. a gazetteer type of thing).

Thanks Jeffrey,

I got in just in time to up my pledge to get both players guides then!

FGG'ers and/or Mr. Pett:

To confirm, does the proposed Stretch Goal Blight Player's Handbook include all the system-neutral information from the Blight Player's Guide as well as the player-specific rules from the Blight GM Guide?

I am very confused about the dual strike ability of the two-weapon trick. It requires improved vital strike as a pre-requisite.

The goal of dual strike (as far as I can tell) is to gain more damage from the single standard action when you're unable to TWF effectively with a full attack action.

However, improved vital strike provides the same function. So why have the pre-requisite that gives the same functionality as the ability gained? It seams like a large feat tax for no benefit (as you'll need both vital strike and improved vital strike).

Unless the two attacks from dual strike can be combined with improved vital strike. But it doesn't look like they can.

Can someone (possibly the feat designer) shed some light on why the pre-requisite is required or if I've missed a vital point?

Splendid, thank you Mythraine. I'm really glad you mentioned Dance (as well as the Styes of course), the Hell's Rebels AP is awesome and was great fun to be part of, but has had very few reviews for its parts yet. I guess the quality of work Paizo puts out now means there are less reviews, but I still miss the amount of feedback that there used to be, it's always useful.

Oo, don't tell Logue that, he'll try to invade the Blight:)

Huzzah!

I guess I'll have to review Dance of the Damned then!

Backed.

Richard, your adventures have been some of my favourites all the way back to The Styes and more recently, the excellent Dance of the Damned.

Plus I love the modularity of FGG's Lost Lands. Razor Coast has been fully integrated into my homebrew and I am scheming for the perfect city to soon become The Blight.

Very much looking forward to this.

Can someone fully spoil the Constable archetype for me? <3

I will be getting this book when it arrives at my FLGS, but I fully agree with Secret Wizard. The Constable is just too enticing to wait.

So +1, a full spoil if possible please.

I LOVE options for mount-less cavaliers. I know it is counter-intuitive for the class, but I've been waiting for viable alternatives to 3.5's Knight class ever since PF came out.

More of these please! Maybe a journey-man knight archetype?

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'd like to see BoS options for characters specifically lacking a shadow-infused bloodline... like from an ancestor's ill-conceived wish or bargain with a shae, or an parent/grandparent being revived after falling to a shadow's or owb's attacks, or being trapped for a period on the Plane of Shadow. Maybe a shadow-tinged "racial rebuild" feat (like the Feyborn options from Heroes of the Wild)? Maybe a "shadowdancer" or "shadow ninja" virtual multiclass?

These all seem like they could be potential causes for a sorcerer's shadow bloodline (or Eldritch Heritage, etc.)

That said, I welcome more stuff in the vein of the Feyborn options. Those were solid gold, and I'm still sad that Fey Thoughts isn't PFS-legal. ^_^

I third this. The fey alternate racial traits in Heroes of the Wild were amazing. I would love shadow alternate racial traits in this book.

I agree pretty much with Kudaku.

Angels and Fiends were fantastic because they had an entire book dedicated to one race with heaps of crunch and fluff.

After setting the bar with Angels and Fiends, everyone was expecting the same treatment for other half-human races.

But with Night we got mostly Vampires when everyone wanted Dhampirs. If the variant Dhampir races had been omitted, I think it would have gotten even worse reviews.

Moon was pretty good, but introducing a new race has it's issues as well.

With Elements there wasn't enough crunch for each race for a Player Companion line. Angels and Fiends could get away with more fluff because they were only one race. But with Elements, I think people wanted the same amount of crunch for EACH of the five races that Tieflings and Aasimar got. Obviously that was never going to happen in a 32 page book. But I would have been immensely happy if Elements was mostly crunch (say 4-5 pages per race) and then just the bit on the City of Brass and an overview of the planes for fluff.

In a post above I asked for options for other races which kind of contradicts what I have said here. That's because I'm not sure if Wayangs and Fetchlings have enough excitement to hold their own book. However, I would love to be proven wrong and have the entire book just for actual shadow races that is as good as Angels and Fiends.

BTW, I adore the Blood of series. Much like I love other series (XXX Tactics Toolbox and hopefully Streets is as good as Heroes of the Wild). So I'm very much looking forward to this after an extended break since Blood of the Elements

I really enjoyed the ACG when it came out (LOVE the Slayer and really want to play a Hunter amongst others), but I was waiting for the second printing due to the errors (both Ecclesitheurge and Bolt Ace were super interesting, but I held off until they were 'complete').

Now the ACG errata is out, I can't wait to buy a copy of the ACG and get into all these idea's I want to play.

With the generally positive reception to Unchained (I am using almost half the book in regular gaming) OA at the moment, coupled with the open process and admission to the ACG's original errors, my confidence in future books is increasing.

A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.

I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.

The War of the Skies adventure path! Aerial combats, dirigibles, gryphon riders, cloud castles, dwarven Sky Citadels, etc.

This sounds fantastic.

+1

I found this one, which is a good replacement for INTWISCHA

LINK Dungeon Index

ADDRESS http://www.thentao.com/Dungeon-Index.xls

I actually agree with Morzadian. I won't go point for point, but a clarification on if the new rogue abilities are universal with other classes who have access to the ability with the same name (e.g. sneak attack for Slayer, Nature Fang Druid, Snakebite Striker etc). Or if (like I hear that the new unchained Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge vs. the unchained Rogue's uncanny dodge are different), there will now be slightly different variations of abilities that have exactly the same name.

@chbgraphicarts I note you would agree with the latter, but a clarification would be nice all the same.

Additionally, is trap sense upgraded to danger sense for all classes that have access to it? (e.g. Slayer through a talent and Investigator).

Both sneak attack and trap/danger sense are actually off-topic. So back on topic, it seems perfectly fine that finesse training only applies to one weapon at 3rd 11th and 19th.

Third Party Publishers: take note.

Before I buy any Pathfinder product, I check to see if Endzeitgeist has reviewed it first. If it reviews poorly, I don't buy it.

I learn about most 3rd party offerings through Endzeitgeist's website.

Takeaways: Endzeitgeist's reviews create customers. Please continue to support him.

Thanks Endzeitgeist!

I'm a rare poster but constant reader of both these boards and EZG's website, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

I have yet to be proven wrong by EZG, and my two favourite purchases due to his reviews are magnificent - The Expanded Spell-less Ranger and Companions of the Firmament.

Keep it up Endzeitgeist!

I've always liked the image of the spear and shield as well. Roman hoplites and the Greek phalanx have always been cool to me.

I used the Talented Fighter from Rogue/Super Genius Games to cherry pick the best from the Phalanx Soldier and Polearm Master archetypes and it worked really well.

By level 2 I could have a fighter wielding a longspear in one hand and shield in the other AND as an immediate action 'choke up' the spear to threaten 5 ft at -4 penatly (which reduces to -3 at 6, -2 at 12 etc).

I fully agree with DeathQuaker.

When JJ kept mentioning the class names must have real world equivalents, I thought it was a brilliant idea! I always hated the 3.5 classes like "hexblade", "factotum" and "dragon shaman". Really crappy names.

BUT THEN, Paizo decides to change they're mind. Bloodrager and Warpriest are the worst.

My favs from DQ's list

Bloodrager: Berserker. Yes, VERY barbarian-esk but so is arcanist and wizard. Bloodrager is crap.

Warpriest: Templar. Evokes the EXACT right image. Warpriest then begins the bloat of Warlord, Warlock, Warmage, Warwar etc that 4e succumbed to. Blech.

The others have alright or GREAT names. The best is Shaman, Swashbuckler and Slayer.

I hear Paizo won't budge on the names which is a real shame.