Watery Soup wrote:
You can scroll to the bottom of the page, it should list your purchased boons. If aasimar heritage shows up there, then you purchased the boon.
Thanks, I would never have guessed it would be buried down there. It says I haven't purchased any boons, so I'm going to cross my fingers and re-purchase it.
Gary Bush wrote:
You have access as in being able to actually get the boon or access in that you can see them? Because everyone can see them. What matters is actually being able to get the boon.
As in the "Purchase" buttons are enabled and I don't want to click on something I shouldn't be able to buy, so I don't know if it'll actually work.
I seem to have access to every single quest and AP boon, despite playing only 4 quests and no APs.
I also seem to have access to multiple conflicting boons for scenarios that have multiple outcomes.
My AcP balance also looks like the aasimar heritage purchase I made a while back never happened. Should I sit tight and hope the site eventually remembers it again, or re-purchase?
A quick look-through of AoN shows that the wording people are hung up over (“any common spell from this book [Core]”) is only present in the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid Spellcasting class features, all other spellcasting classes have different wording (more specifically “You choose these from the common spells from the [tradition] list”). Granted, I don’t own a PDF of the Core itself, so I can’t corroborate that AoN’s wording is also true for how it’s written in the Core itself.
I have my PDF handy, so...
You choose these from the common spells from the occult list (page 311) or from other occult spells to which you have access.
At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.
At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the primal spell list in this book (page 314), or from other primal spells to which you gain access.
You choose these from the common spells from the tradition corresponding to your bloodline, or from other spells from that tradition to which you have access.
You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to.
Sorcerer and Bard kind of read to me like they were supposed to be the same as the others but were missed in editing.
At a quick glance, none of the classes say anything about the CRB specifically when talking about the spells gained at later levels.
Is there any chance of a rethink on the home region/ethnicity restrictions? I was thinking about trying out 2e GMing soon, but I am wavering at the thought of having to tell an eager new player that they can't have a character who is the equivalent of Native American or who is from the equivalent of China.
I mean, yes, if someone wanted to have a character who originally hailed from Arcadia in 1e, then they didn't have a lot of material to work with, and they couldn't officially list an Arcadian language on their character sheet, but the concept wasn't outright banned as far as I can tell.
I use a lot of randomization in setting up my characters, because I've noticed that I tend to gravitate toward samey characters if I don't. For PFS2 I wrote a program that picks a random ancestry, heritage, background, and class specialization, and applies semi-random boosts (making sure boosts get allocated to get the key stat up to at least 16). This is how I've wound up with an elven wizard who spends a lot of time in melee and a warpriest of Desna.
For my third PFS2 character, it was a mixture of mechanics and randomization. I knew I wanted to try out the witch class, and use the Hao Jin Tapestry Refugee background, and either use a versatile heritage or one of the boon ancestries. I now have a musetouched aasimar goblin.
For those of us, like me, who can't make up their mind where to start, I've made a random 2e character generator. It uses the core rulebook only, and I have no plans to expand it, but I lay out the method it uses there so that you can apply it to whatever pool of ancestries etc. you want.
Now, if you'll excuse me, it looks like I have an arctic elf abjurer to finish putting together...
So, how would I go about running some PbP games? Kind of want to try it out!!
1. Play in a couple games to see how things work2. Check out the Online Support Program (see the links above this thread) and decide if you want to participate
3. Figure out where you're going to host signups and maps
4. Buy the PDF of a scenario you want to run
5. Start a campaign thread
6. Post a call for players in this thread
Including the welcome boon would be a great idea. There's another thing I didn't know about until well after I joined. :-(
A few words about the encouraged play style would be good too. Part of that would be explaining what "Explore, Report, Cooperate" means in-world, but another part is setting expectations for people used to home games. Like emphasizing that the party as a whole gets a group reward for completing the scenario, regardless of how they complete the scenario.
* Overview of character creation (but also mention pregens)
Should not include:
* Details of GM reward programs
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Look at where the character is from/where they are and determine what sort of languages are common in that area dependent on culture, political and economic power, etc. of the regional states. It requires a bit more work but does a much better job of making the world feel grounded and fleshed-out.
I'd argue they should be more broadly available than that. Adventurers are the sort of people who like to travel, so why should absolutely none of them ever have been out of their home region long enough to pick up a language not spoken there before their adventuring career starts?
Your numbers of spells known as a bard is always equal to your number of spells you can cast.
This seems to say it can be higher:
Page 64, Spell Repertoire wrote:
Though you gain them at the same rate, your spell slots and spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn’t give you another spell slot, and vice versa.
So you learn a spell every time you gain a slot by leveling, but you might be able to increase the number of spells you can know by other means (though there don't appear to be any available in the playtest rulebook).
I'm just noticing now how much language learning is limited in the playtest compared to 1e. No Linguistics skill, maximum 1 extra language if you have high Int, Potion of Tongues is hella expensive. I'm not going to complain about that here; I think if it's been dialed down too far that's something that's only going to emerge after a season or two of 2e and seeing if there are too many mismatches between what a scenario makes use of and what a party can speak.
But here's one thing that immediately doesn't make sense to me: languages spoken by many nonhuman races are common, whereas all human languages but one are uncommon. I feel like it shouldn't be harder for an adventurer to have visited the massive empire of Kelesh or one of the large number of Lung Wa successor states than to have lived among giants or ogres, for instance, long enough to have picked up their language.
I'm not arguing for all regional languages to be common, but the ones associated with major political entities ought to be.
Again, I went through the detailed walkthrough on pages 19-20 as I did this and it said nothing about such a restriction. If it's buried somewhere else in the rulebook (add me to the list of people complaining about the amount of flipping back and forth it requires), then could some developer reading this please make a note to include it in the final version of the walkthrough?
As much as I love what you've made, I feel obligated to point out the boosts rule where if gained at same time, multiple boosts would have to go to different stats, so the three instances of Intelligence boosting from the free boosts wouldn't be legal. Probably doesn't change too much, though.
I thought that would be the case, but page 20 just says "as you see fit".
The new character creation system feels like the fight to avoid samey characters will be tougher than ever, but let's see how much randomization will help us out.
1. Start with either 10s or 4d6-minus-lowest.
3: Animal Whisperer
18: Street Urchin
So, for a start... [Edit: the dice seem to have managed to reroll themselves. Added the original results.]
Ancestry: 1d6 ⇒ 2 (6) Human
Stats so far: Str 12 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 14
Class selection is a little more interesting because you want to pick something where your key stat isn't 18 already. So let's look for one that has Intelligence as a secondary... uh... damn. All right, let's at least embrace the opportunity for skill-monkey-ing and make them a bard with the Polymath muse.
Character story: Advika was born in Vudra and claims to have visited every one of the more than 100 kingdoms by the time e was 12. E comes from a family of travelling entertainers, and inherited a full measure of wanderlust from both eir parents. After striking out on eir own, e travelled with Keleshite caravans for several years as a guard and jack-of-all-trades and became comfortable with the company of animals as well as humans. Now e may be found with an adventuring party or exploring by emself, practicing a cheerful tune for the entertainment of only a pack animal.
[Edited to change pronouns after it occurred to me that if I'm going all in on the character concept of someone who is pursuing enlightenment in all things, e ought to be enby and pansexual as well.]
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I think in this situation you would take a "kidnapped by pirates" background, and just have the farming part in the story background. Look at them is your most formative experience.
And is there going to be a "kidnapped by pirates" or "escaped slave" background available?
There's a thing that bothers me about the general approach, too. It's assumed that a character was a good fit for their previous career, leaving out all the misfits and malcontents that you'd expect adventuring to attract.
Consider this for a rogue's background: He was born on a farm and expected to help out from an early age, but he was a total slacker and sometimes put even more energy into avoiding his chores than doing them. He ran off to the nearest city, but was unprepared to survive there and quickly found himself kidnapped to fill out the crew on a pirate ship. Even there, he put in the minimum amount of effort and was forever trying to find a way to sneak extra rations of rum. Eventually the pirates gave up and sold him off as a slave. Once he was no longer confined to a ship, it was easy to find an opportunity to escape, and he joined the Pathfinders in part to stay one step ahead of anyone trying to settle past grievances with him.
This story explains why a 1e character could start off being good at Bluff, Disable Device, and other traditional rogue things. But the only 2e background that matches on a story basis is farmhand, which I'm pretty sure will not be helping with any of those.
I know there are people who want their characters to have been awesome at everything they've ever done, and I'm not arguing that characters like that shouldn't exist. But it would be no fun if I had to play a character like that all the time too.
Will each spell have a descriptor of what the material component will be? Or will we assume that material components are just some sort of arcane focus? I don't need the GM saying "oops, you forgot to buy your widget doodad - so you can only use 2 actions not three for your spell."
I'd really like to know what's up with material components too. This is at least the third thread where I've seen this raised and not answered...
My current primary character is a dwarf wizard from the Five Kings Mountains. She grew up in a mining family; she was never good at the physically demanding parts of the job (low STR and CON), but she was good at sorting and finishing gemstones (high DEX and INT). She was apprenticed to a jeweler and spent a long time in the trade (day job: Craft (Jewelry)), dabbling in the arcane as a hobby.
Blog post wrote:
So, what fits that? Miner could be considered a type of laborer, but that probably comes with a STR boost that's completely the opposite of what she has now. Scholar? Sounds like someone whose primary activity was research, which hers wasn't. Merchant? Probably going to focus on the mechanics of money and doing deals, not craft (and her CHA is terrible).
2 boosts, a feat, and a lore of my choice, though? Easy: INT, DEX, Specialty Crafting, and Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledge (Planes) (she has a particular interest in the Plane of Earth).
I've thought it over for a couple days, and... being trapped in a limited selection of hoary fantasy tropes is a dealbreaker for me. One of the fundamental things I love about RPGs is being able to get creative with my characters' backstories.
I recall something was said in a previous blog entry about having a random character creation option, so I'll hold out hope until the playtest release that that provides a way around the pre-defined backgrounds.
If that were the case, there should be a specific material component mentioned in the spell text, right? Maybe I've suddenly been struck blind, but I don't see one.
In light of recent discussions, there seems to be one very big thing missing here:
For instance, clerics can use a divine focus to satisfy the Material Casting action, sorcerers use their magical blood, and bards can use instruments that change up several aspects (for instance, even if you're gagged or otherwise unable to speak, you can play your violin to provide the Verbal Casting portion).
And wizards... still use specialized components, or what? Nothing specific is mentioned in the spell text, so is there a whole separate component system matching them to the spell type or something?
I got a chronicle sheet at a con a few days ago that I'm only just now getting a chance to look at in detail. It's got an item with no cost listed. How is this resolved, in general?
In this particular case, the scenario was #5-15 Destiny of the Sands, part 2 and the item is
So all you're asking is "Please put Seelah in the front cover instead of Seoni"?
Well, if she isn't stuck in boobalicious armor, and if she gets to strike a pose which is consistent with a humanoid musculoskeletal system, and if she isn't subjected to a composition like the one at the start of Chapter 9 where her rump is emphasized more than her face, and if a million other ways of diminishing and objectivizing women don't happen, then sure, that's one option.
I think that's a reasonable request, though I don't know if you phrased it in the best way
One learns after a while that no phrasing is ever considered truly acceptable when raising these issues, unless it involves total silence.
The female players in the circles i play in are ok with that. In fact they never give it a thought.
By definition, anyone playing Pathfinder is someone who's managed to get past the cover. What you can't count is the number of gaming-inclined women who look at that image and go, "....ehhhhh maybe this one isn't for me."
I'm not calling for a total ban on sexy sorceresses. I'll be happy if they could just not be the image that represents the entire game to the potential new player. It would be great if when I enthuse about Pathfinder to female gamers who haven't tried it, I didn't have to include "and BTW please disregard the cover."
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
You my friend, have a very low threshold for what constitutes as cheesecake, especially if you consider Seoni's pose on the OPF CRB to be an example of that.
It's not as bad as the 1e CRB cover, certainly. But the 1e CRB cover is what I'm asking to not have more of.
And for equal opportunity, ladies get Raijin rocking the shirtless look
That is not equivalent to what's happening on the 1e CRB cover until he's being posed and highlighted in such a way that the viewer is being encouraged to stare at his groin.
Since everyone is posting what they most dearly want to see in 2e even if it is clearly impossible, here's something I'd love:
Could there not be so much artwork of the "fully clothed man in anatomically plausible pose, woman in skimpy outfit or weirdly shaped armor contorted into a position designed to show off her female attributes" type? Like maybe at least not have it right on the cover of the one rulebook everyone has to buy?
(I see the playtest cover art is already visible, so I accept that the battle for sensibly dressed women is lost until actual 2e.)
David knott 242 wrote:
So I guess the real question would be this: Once they discover that a number of options in a previously published book are crappy, how do they dispose of them?
That's the point of having a year-long playtest, isn't it? Complete freedom to throw out anything that doesn't work as well as planned.