NECR0G1ANT's page

I take it all back. Looks like there will be metallic kobolds after all.

I'm very curiois about this. They won't be in Bestiary 2, will they?

Actually everyone that I’ve seen write positive things about Assurance thus far actually has a player using it at the table (MaxAstro, myself, CM) and I’m willing to bet the ones speaking negatively of it haven’t even seen it used for this purpose because you’re saying things like CL-1/2 are meaningless...

I don't recall saying they're meaningless, just that debuffing such enemies makes less sense than damaging them. 'Dying' is a better condition to inflict that 'Prone' or 'Grabbed'.

IME, you fight level- enemies with pure damage and level+ enemies with debuff + damage. Assurance best used against level- enemies, so it still isn't a good strategy.

I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.

It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.

I find amusing that people are mostly talking statisitcs and hypotheticals when the OP and the thread title asked for Actual Play.

I guess Actual Play experience that level- enemies are better killed than debuffed don't count as Actual Play...

What if the pcs fail at the checkpoint and decide to fight the guards there are only 2? There doesnt seem to be any provision for this.

They are imprisoned and need to pay Reputation to escape. Also, the refugees with them are captured, so the PCs might fail the Secondary Objective and receive fewer Treasure Bundles.

It's always a better idea to just bribe the guards, and the Scenario encourages that.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Hopefully it's enough to put to bed the notion that players shouldn't expect to fight enemies of a higher level than their PCs, or that GMs are advised by the CRB not to use such enemies when building encounters.

None of the people you were arguing with said that.

I think the source of your confusion is that you cut off part of my post by accident.

Midnightoker and MaxAstro mistakenly believed (still believe?) that the CRB advised against challenging players with 'Level+' monsters. They had misinterpreted encounter-building guidelines in the 'Different Party Sizes' section on p. 489 to apply to all encounter, not just ones for larger parties.

I pointed out their mistake, and that Plagestone contains numerous encounters with such monsters. DMW added there were also many more such encounters in the Age of Ashes books, and that anywhere from one-third to one-half of encounters have 'Level+' enemies.

Honestly I don't care if people think Assurance is better than I think it is, or if they think it lets them pick locks without Theives' tool,n since there's no real harm. But I do care if otherwise thoughtful people get the wrong idea on how to build encounters and inadvertently spread misinformation.

If you're ever confused by what people have said on forums, it's helpful to look over their old comments ;>)

Going through Plaguestone and the first three volumes of AoA, the percentage of encounters involving enemies of higher than PC level is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2, never actually hitting either of those numbers (call it 35%-45%).

In all those books precisely one encounter (in Plaguestone) features multiple overleveled foes (two level 3 foes vs. a level 2 party). To be clear, that's significantly less than 1% of encounters (and only 4% even in Plaguestone itself).

There are lots of opportunities to fight things equal to or below your level. Indeed, given that many of those 35%-45% of encounters involving overleveled foes also involve lower level minions of some sort, such enemies are available the vast majority of the time (I'd say at least 80% of fights involve some on-level or below foes).

Thank you, DMW, for your analysis. You're a much more patient man than I.

Hopefully it's enough to put to bed the notion that players shouldn't expect to fight enemies of a higher level than their PCs, or that GMs are advised by the CRB not to use such enemies when building encounters.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.

No one stated they do not happen outside of that scenario.

Yes, you did.

The rules aren't "never use CR + X" they are "CR + X is not the normal encounter".

But that's pretty obvious in the below table anyways, which clearly indicates anything above CR (and even CR in some cases) is a "boss":

I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to to challenge players

I should say facing a CR + 2 at level 1 should be unlikely.

You seem to think that every time the PCs face an enemy with a higher level, it's a boss encounter, and Assurance's weakness against those enemies doesn't matter because such enemies are infrequent. I'm telling, from Actual Play of an official adventure, those encounters are frequent.

I think your stumbling block is you keep thinking in terms of CR, which doesn't exist in 2E. 2E has XP Budgets, Party Level, and Encounter Threat Level. No CR.

In any case, I hate having to cite quotes from earlier in the discussion. Build encounters your way, I'll build them the developer's way.

I mean, you keep bringing up Fall of Plaguestone.

I could just as easily point out that Age of Ashes, through the first two books, is completely chock full of encounters with lower-level creatures. The second book especially likes to throw groups of level-3 creatures at the party.

The final boss of the book is level+1 and has level-2 minions.

I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.

For context, others were arguing that encounters with 'Level+' monsters are infrequent outside end-of-book combats, and that the CRB specifically says so. I argued against both claims by citing Plaguestone, which is an official adventure written by one of the authors of the CRB, and its frquent combats with solo 'Level+' monsters.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

The guideline under 'Different Party Sizes' apply specifically for building encounters with more than 4 PCs. That guideline isn't repeated elsewhere in the book and, as mentioned, official adventures written by one of the developers, for 4-PC parties don't follow it.

Except calling them "bosses" and this quote at the end of that section, that is entirely agnostic of any party size difference

Quote:

Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.

And it's pretty obvious that you don't send four CR + X against a party of four unless you want the PCs to TPK/Lose.

YMMV, clearly.

Midnightoker, you keep quoting the 'Diffferent Party Sizes' section as though it applies to ALL party sizes. It doesn't.

'Bosses' can mean 'solo enemies' or 'higher-level enemies'. Think them as mini-bosses, if that helps.

If you want to make Assurance more viable by not using 'Level+' enemies against your your PCs, that's fine. I merely point out that your claim that there is a guideline advising such is false AND that the authors of this supposed guideline don't follow it. Read Plaguestone yourself if you don't believe me.

And it's pretty obvious that you don't send four CR + X against a party of four unless you want the PCs to TPK/Lose.

Yeah, it's so obvious I don't know why you're suggesting the equivalent of at least 2 Severe encounters combined. Did someone else mention it before you or are you using a strawman argument?

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

...the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.

I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...

I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?

It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.

The guideline exists in two places.

First, table 10-2 describes every creature of higher level than the party as a "boss", and typically bosses are not something you fight multiple of in one encounter.

Secondly, the section of pg. 489 regarding different party sizes suggests that it's better to make encounters more difficult by added more creatures, rather than making a solo creature stronger.

It's true that encounters with multiple higher-level monsters are rare (and at least Severe), but again I've seen them in Plaguestone. But my argument was that encounters against tough solo monster are more frequent than others suggested, and Assurance is bad in such encounters.

The guideline under 'Different Party Sizes' apply specifically for building encounters with more than 4 PCs. That guideline isn't repeated elsewhere in the book and, as mentioned, official adventures written by one of the developers, for 4-PC parties don't follow it.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".

If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.

I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...

I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?

It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.

It was written while the rules were still being formed. Pretty sure they've talked about how intense it was to try to write both at the same time, and how the adventure came out over tuned.

I don't see your point. What does the Fall of Plaguestone being written concurrently with the Core Rulebook have to do with a nonexistent guideline against solo enemies that are higher-level than the PCs?

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I notice that troglodytes and serpentfolk both once ruled vast empires during the Age of Legends and worship a Chaotic Evil patron deity, but are now in decline. What are some of the differences between the two people?

Serpentfolk are more powerful overall, and less "faith-centric" than were the xulghath societies. The serpentfolk empire once encompassed all of Sekamina, and indeed that was the name of their empire in ancient times, whereas the xulghaths never quite managed anything on that scale.

How does each view the other?

I notice that troglodytes and serpentfolk both once ruled vast empires during the Age of Legends and worship a Chaotic Evil patron deity, but are now in decline. What are some of the differences between the two people?

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?

Without looking too much, this text indicates it with building encounters appropriate to the party:

Quote:

It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters to add more enemies or hazards, and the XP decrease from fewer characters to subtract enemies and hazards, rather than making one enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.

I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to challenge players, as they are more snowball-y encounters that can result in unwanted outcomes (as players go down to attacks, more players are likely to lose as opposed to an even CR situation, where level appropriate enemies don't have elevated saves/rolls/etc).

The book section you quoted is under the 'Different Party Sizes' section on page 489. It recommends adjusting difficulty for extra players by adding extra monsters. It does not recommend against challenging a party of 4 PCs with 'Level +' monsters.

This bears repeating: Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it say to avoid challenging players with enemies higher level than the party.

The "unwanted outcomes" you mentioned are part of the intended experience. If you want to make combats easier, just lower the encounter's threat level.

You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".

If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.

I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...

I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?

It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.

Aratorin wrote:

Looking at your Level 3 example, an Animated Statue is something that you're counting as being successful against. Except that you're unlikely to fight a group of Animated Statues at level 3. You're more likely to face a single Animated Statue as a boss at 1, in which case, if you do have Assurance in Athletics, you will be failing.

Uh, I'm fairly certain CR 3 means a fight for 4 level 3 Characters.

So you'd fight one as an even level encounter at level 3...

Your assertion that you'd fight an Animated Statue at level 1 isn't really something players should be doing.

Quote:

You'll need to weight the results based on how likely it is that you'll actually face the monster at the level you're comparing values to.

I'd say facing a CR + 2 at level 1 should be unlikely.

A CR 3 at level 3 is expected.

A Level + 2 encounter is considered Moderate, and should be expected. So an Animated Statue is a reasonable encounter for a Level 1 party of 4.

And Aratorin is correct. A Level 1 Assurance Athletics will fail even though Reflex is the weak save of an Animated Statue.

They didn't. Every analysis on the subreddit is against monster rules and not the actual monsters in the book

No, there are some you just haven't seen. Check for the post 'Fighter: Guisarme vs. Flickmace' and the top comment. Or not, whatever.

At CR 3, you can target 37% creatures with Assurance Athletics if you pick the right save.

If that target has a single condition that affects Save DCs (such as Frightened, Clumsy, Sickened, Enfeebled, etc.) you can target 65% of the creatures with Assurance Athletics.

And that's a CR 3 vs Level 3 PC with Expert Athletics.

And I can't speak for everyone, but conditions are happening more often as you go up in level.

At some point, I'm going to have to index every creature, and I expect the numbers will vary across CR, but the ability to apply conditions as you elevate in CR also goes up. And I want to evaluate the number of creatures that can be targeted with Assurance while a condition is applied.

A -1 is bad, a -1 that means a PC can tax an action every turn to stand up or escape is a fight ender.

Check Reddit for such an index/analysis, someone beat you to it.

One problem I see with using the Bestiary stastics to extrapolate the overall efficacy of Assurance is that many of Paizo's published adventures use bespoke monsters that don't appear in the Bestiary. A recent PFS scenarios had the party attacked by a group of high-Reflex assassins, for instance.

A better source might be the Monster Creation Rules in the GMG.

If you have Assurance, Athletics us pretty great. If you don't I'd favor intimidation. MAP is killer.

Assurance Athletics to Trip isn't reliable against level DCs like Trip. Basically, your enemies need to be lower level or have bad Reflex DCs for it to work. Here's a link to an Assurance Athletics actual play discussion.

I'd go with Intimidation.

Assurance against a leveled DC is bad. In order for it to work, you must:

1) target a low-level enemy (not the best choice for a single-target debuff)

2) target an enemy with a really bad save (requires either a successful Recall Knowledge to know the save or you risk wasting an Assurance attack)

and/or

3) target an enemy that has already been debuffed (requires teamwork, time and assumes a successful debuff)

The fewer apply, the less likely Assurance will work. I'd stick to Assurance (Medicine) and different combat actions.

IME, the enemies I most want to debuff are higher level than my PC, so Assurance is no good for me.

Here's an idea to get you started.

Play as an elf. Grab Nimble Elf and Fleet. Use a Sai as your main weapon. Then take feats like this:

1. Nimble Roll
2. Monk Dedication
4. Monastic Weaponry
6. Gang Up
8. Monk Moves
10. Monk's Flurry

Your tactics now look as follows: Start combat from ambush. Run 50 ft. to the nearest enemy. Stab them in the kidneys twice (inflict the -10 ft. speed debilitation). Run 50 ft. back. Repeat throughout combat. You inflict sneak attack on any enemy, as long as they're engages with another party member.

Who needs defenses when the enemy will never reach you?

This is an interesting build, but the Monk Dedication requires 14 STR at 1st level, which is really bad for a Thief Rogue.

In general what might a Sarenite think of Marcon? On the one hand I know Sarenrae is big on redemption. On the other hand, I know that at least in PF1 Sarenrae really did not like undead. I'm considering which version of the boon is more in character for my GM credit sheet.

Sarenrae is all about redemption, so I think a PC follower would work with Macron.

I'm not so sure about what Pharasmin would do.

Does the metaplot tag indicate that this is part of a series, or is that referencing an ongoing plot of the season?

The latter.

You know a scenario is the former if the title is like 'Ongoing Series Part X, A New Subtitle'

The above scenario is both sequel and metaplot scenario.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I'll be running an adventure in Xin-Edasseril soon, taking place about 8 months after Return of the Runelords. How widely is Taldane spoken there? I assume Thassilonian is still the main language.

Not widely at all. Thassilonian is the primary language there.

How would you describe the sound of spoken Thassilonian?

I'll be running an adventure in Xin-Edasseril soon, taking place about 8 months after Return of the Runelords. How widely is Taldane spoken there? I assume Thassilonian is still the main language.

I haven't been able to locate an answer (or even the question) anywhere else, so I wanted to clarify: the sun blade focus spell still does full damage on a miss?

No it doesn't. Here's the link.

You'd give them 68 or 69 gp worth of loot in place of 160 gp worth?

Better loot they can use rather than loot they can't.

Plus I thought a shadow rune is only 55 gold.

The controversial Lore Warden and Dusty Rose Ioun Stone nerfs - Pretty questionable if one of the few options making the very difficult to execute combat maneuvers was really required. It was also one of the few archetypes that helped fix the tragic fighter = no skill points problem.

My favorite PFS 1E character was a Lore Warden that I played even after the nerf.

The nerf did clarify language and make the archetype less attractive for those who were only dipping, which was good.
It also made the 'Know Thy Enemy' ability useless until level 15, which was bad.

it might be time to ask what this conversation about witches spell list (whatever that is going to look like) has do do with the OP. I guess if the witch does not have the arcane list at all, folks will feel like wizard's niche is more protected?

OP here. The discission is fine, although I don't quite follow the exchange between Midnightoker and Rysky.

Denying the Witch access to the arcane spell list in a possible solution to overlap, although I think reducing the witch's number daily spells and boosting their hexes is better. The two are also not mutually exclusive.

One spell list or not, I don't see the answer to the question "will the arcane witch replace the wizard" being yes, so it is probably not that necessary a tangent to jump to.

The key things that the witch will not get is access to, based on the playtest, are a broad range of metamagic feats, or hopefully any class ability that feels like academic study focus of the wizard thesis.

As a wizard player, I don't think metamagic is class-defining for wizards because *most* metamagic feats are 1) bad and 2) optional.

Also,the metamagic arcane thesis doles out the bonus metamagic feat too slowly to be a good pick.

If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.

My original post pointed out that arcane witches are an INT-based prepared caster that have the benefits of arcane bond + arcane school but with less restrictive spell selection.

I'm sure you already know that sorcerors are CHA-based spontaneous casters with bloodline abilities that are very different than a wizard's class features, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The Wizard being boring is not a Witch problem.

Correct. It's a design problem that I hope the designers solve, but not by releasing a different class that does everything better.

When I started reading this story, I thought it took place in present-day Golarion and what Shalelu initially thought was a goblin raid was actually a 'burn-the-place-for-the-insurance-money' scheme the goblins cooked up with the farmer.

Fantasy has this bad habit of treating different species as monolithic. All lamias are evil. Almost all Avistani orcs are evil. Almost all elves are chaotic good. Humans are the only ones who seem to be molded by their life experiences, as they should, everyone else is seen through an essentialist lens that goes back to Tolkien at the least.

I recko Paizo's moving away from the notion that you can judge someone by their ancestry or 'species' or whatever you want to call that category.

That said, you can always have people of any category serve as antagonists - human bandits, goblin raiders, elf pirates - as well as PCs.

IMO it's the right balance.

I'll be running this in March and heard from a friend that played it that it was extremely deadly. They quit due to a TPK near the end of chapter 2. After his group played it, they discussed afterward that maybe they should've all started at 2nd level. I'm considering starting my group's PCs at 2nd level. Thoughts?

That will effectively reduce all encounters by one step (Severe to Moderate, etc.) That means each encounter would give fewer XP, unless you'd be using milestone leveling.

I share your concerns. I'm trying to get credit for an adventure I ran at a convention back in November 2019. It's been like pulling teeth, and I understand how reporting errors could causw someone to quit Society GMing out of frustration.

... if my character concept was a mighty wizard, then going with a character whose spells are from some entity and he curses targets with hexes is going away from he's a wizard. The same way a fighter in a green outfit and a bow isn't just stepping on the toes of a ranger even if they share the fighting styles such as archery or dual wielding.

A fighter and ranger have different feats, proficiencies, anf class features that differentiate the two. This isn't as true for witches and wizards since those two will cast mostly the same spells. The witch's hexes are very similar to the arcane school focus spells.

Witches aquire spells differently than wizards, but that's flavor only. Needs crunch.

Ganzi are described as being created through "generations of exposeure" to the energies of the Malestrom; and stated as having similarities to Protean, but aren't directly related to them and are in fact simply born from mortal intermingling.

Aphorite are literal creations of the Axiomites, built to serve as their mortal proxies. After their initial creation, they eventually started to be born into the universe naturally; but through the union of other Aphorite and not Outsiders/Immortals with mortals.

Planar Scions are described as the result of Outsider/Immortals "pairing" with mortals. So, technically neither Ganzi nor Aphorites would really fit that description. That being said, it is questionable whether Duskwalkers are true Planar Scions themselves. They are the result of souls within the Boneyard being reincarnated by Psychopomps; which is to say, they aren't reproducing with the Monitor race of Pharasmas domain.

Urobians are described as being "Monitor scions". Thus, theoretically, they can be created through mortals and Outsiders/Immortals mingling. So they may not be related to the three aforementioned planar races. Or Urobian is a catchall and not a true race. Or, it was a dropped concept. Curious to see if they are mentioned within the Duskwalker portion of the APG at all. Would answer the question here.

EDIT: Correction, the 2e Bestiary states Planar Scions can stem from the results of planar energies, magic curses, or the intervention of divine beings. So their all Scions, but maybe aren't Urobian?

I think 'Urobian' just refers monitor scions, like aasimar means celestial scion or tiefling means fiend scion.

QuidEst wrote:

Were, past tense. "Outsider" isn't a category anymore, owing to the confusion with "outsider".

<blinks> Say what?

There is no term for "outsiders" as a general category for 2nd edition. The closest would be "extraplanar creatures" but that only works if you assume that you're speaking form a Material Plane viewpoint. You could say "Outer Planar Creatures" or the like, I guess, but that excludes all the rest.

To be fair, if I wanna play a wizard, I'll play it for being a wizard.

Having a patron isn't appealing to me, so the witch can only replace wizard only if I'm powergaming and pick the class for the spell slots?

All classes should be mechanically distinct from one another; thematic differences, like those between an arcane witch and familiar wizard that you mentioned, are important but not sufficient by themselves.

A strength of 2E is that players have many viable options for creating their character due to class balance and each class having unique features. That advantage is lost when the differences come down to just flavor.

The point of my original post is that the playtest version of the arcane witch overlaps with, and slightly improves upon, the wizard. That's bad and I hope it gets fixed.

Valuing mechanical difference, or achknowledging imbalances, does not mean one is "powergaming."

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Do you see Rovagug as an ascended qlippoth lord, the way Lamashtu was/is a demon lord? Or his he a qlippoth the way Asmodeus is a devil or Sarenrae is an angel; similar to them but also predating them?

The latter—Rovagug was one of the first deities. But unlike the case of Asmodeus or Sarenrae, who basically set the mold/rules for what is a devil or angel, there were already qlippoth at that point. When Asmodeus and Sarenrae came into being, they were, respectively, the first devil and the first angel. Mythology is unclear as to when more angels and devils came along, but the fact that they're there is a big part of why humanoids in Pathifnder look the way they do. Had Rovagug been more involved in creating reality rather than just destroying it, the core races would look a lot uglier, in other words.

Well, thank goodness for small favors.

I loved the Windsong Testaments, by the way.

Do you see Rovagug as an ascended qlippoth lord, the way Lamashtu was/is a demon lord? Or his he a qlippoth the way Asmodeus is a devil or Sarenrae is an angel; similar to them but also predating them?

3.) Provide ACP rebates if costs of boons decreases in the future.

I doubt Paizo would devote time towards building a rebate system. It seems like a lot of effort for the benefit of players who purchased boons before any price decrease.

I don't think such players are disadvantaged at all, since they were able to play their Uncommon ancestry characters for a muvh longer period of time than people who would have waited.

In pf1 it kinda didn't work well at all. If you weren't a hyper con goer, you pretty much didn't have anything except the BASIC bonus races that everyone had access to. If you didn't GM a ton at Gencon or at any big con, you didn't really have anything special. You had just about as much as anyone else at any time. If you didn't do cons, you didn't have anything special. And that was extremely difficult for society players with the many many options that said "you need a boon" which meant "you need to go to every con and gm as many slots as possible or you'll NEVER get what you wanted, because nobody knows what boon will ever be anywhere"

It was really unfair to non con goers. Which is why they did this new system. It might be SLIGHTLY less good for convention GMs but I'm sure they'll get other boons in person probably.

There was also the Regional Support Program every year. If you GM'd a dozen scenarios, you get that year's race boon. Not that the current system isn't an improvement.

Thod wrote:

I really think people need to put the cost into perspective.

Okay. As mentioned above, playing once a week for a year will get you A Leshy OR AN Iruxi and playing for two years will get you A Hobgoblin. Life being what it is, two sessions a month is a rare treat and once a month is the norm. So that's 2-4 years for a Leshy or Iruxi and 4-8 for a hobgoblin. As Wei Ji mentioned, that's a long time to play your second choice.

As for GMing at a con, I have one local con (an hour or so drive one way) I could GM at. Anything else is time off work, hotels, and associated expenses. That's not really doable. I haven't GMed since AD&D and I didn't really enjoy it or do a good job I feel.

Paizo seems to have a idealized view of how things can be earned that doesn't match up with reality from my perspective.

Race/Ancestry boons have always been rewards for GMing because the Oranized Play team wants to encourage people to GM, for obvious reasons.

New to PFS2 is the fact 1) you can choose the ancestry boon you want, or even a non-ancestry boon and 2) people are rewarded for playing, not just GMing. Both are great improvements.

People who do not (or cannot) play often or GM ever are rewarded less than those who do. That's the nature of a reward system like the AcP.

As I mentioned:

I didn't like restricted races in PF1 either. This is a chance to change things.

I play primarily in PFS games. Hence wanting the change.

A new edition is also a chance to start GMing, and then you could unlock character content faster.

@Wei Ji the Learner, if you refuse to participate in PFS2 unless you can immediately start play with an Uncommon ancestry, you'll be waiting a long time. In fact, you won't ever play unless transferable AcP is implemented or tengu are declared Common.

Is playing as another ancestry really worse than not playing PFS at all? I guess you could just GM until you get enough ACP.

Based on what I've been told, Regional Support Program games will also be considered premiere. Because of this the only difference between a weekly RSP gaming store game and a con game is that the scenario being run will be sponsored by Paizo for the con. As far AcP is concerned, there will be no incentive or benefit for running con games compared to RSP games. Even when you compare regular games to premiere games, the difference is quite minimal.

This is news to me. Where did you hear it?

And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.

If you haven't used the Familiar and Master Abilities, you're better off switching theses. Although the ones you mentioned are worse, IMO.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

graystone wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)

Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)

Don't leshies have an INT penalty? Maybe they don't retain 10,000 years worth of information very well.

"The heritage itself is meant to represent an elf who, over the course of their centuries of life before they finally decide to focus on a specific class or career, had something of a "false start" if you will from another class."

I'm not sure what int would have to do with it at all [we're talking about an 8 vs a 10]. If anything, a lower int would seem a good reason for having that 'false start' and not picking up the the first class.

Well, IMO INT means learning (as expressed by # of trained skills and esoteric topics like Arcana, Occultism, and Lore). I was suggesting that a leshy might not learn as much over as an elf does over their pre-adventuring lifetime. A leshy has an INT flaw, and elves have an INT boost.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

And if that is enough, it begs the question why dwarves, gnomes and halflings don't benefit ;) :P (next up, ancient heritages for all -grins-)

Look at the leshy once... "As spirits, they do not age" so your 10,000 year old 1st level leshy can't figure out what a 200 year old elf can? ;)

Don't leshies have an INT penalty? Maybe they don't retain 10,000 years worth of information very well.