Bow Guardian

Nitro~Nina's page

Organized Play Member. 599 posts (663 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 599 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Verdant Wheel

Errenor wrote:

Oh, I've an idea.

The negative energy which is used to create undead is said to give them some perverse imitation of life.
Then we should leave our modern understanding of how poisons and diseases work (which is really easy to a lot of people given recent events), and they obviously don't work like that in Golarion anyway.
Now it's rather simple to imagine that poisons and diseases interact with that imitation of life in a similar way. Poisons and diseases aren't positive or negative, they can't really distinguish between them. But because that is an imitation, and indeed twisted, they can't always have the same effect. Most of the time they don't work at all. But for some creatures like PCs these ailments still function. PCs have also other differences like more power, free will and a chance to be non-evil. Guess they are really unique.

So this has to be my favourite answer in-world. Perhaps PCs retain more of their practical biology and spiritual self-ness simply due to more exposure (and thus adaptation) to varied magical radiation over the years? Sure, your classic Lich has probably seen some weird spells in their quest for immortality, but nothing matches the onslaught of background level magic nonsense that PCs go through on their way to breakfast.

The Raven Black wrote:

Or you are one of the very small contingent used in Urgathoa's experiments for a new kind of undead.

You are the Chosen one.

That said, this plot hook. The Chosen One and you certainly don't want to be. Especially if she's sending anyone to collect the results...

Verdant Wheel

Claxon wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Note that it is only one possible backstory for the creation of a given Oracle. There are many, many others that do not need to directly involve any deity.
I understand that, I just wish that one wasn't really an option. Narratively, as a GM I don't support that kind of story because it makes the gods not make sense to me (unless I'm running some sort of prophesized hero storyline).

Slightly Off Topic:
To me, it makes the gods flawed, which I like. It doesn't make them any less powerful or intelligent, but it does make them characters, which is part of why I love Pathfinder's deities so much. Phenomenal cosmic power doesn't stop you from having the odd whim; it just makes those whims much more impactful to the lives of others. It also brings them decidedly closer to the story, which I personally like but understand that not everyone would prefer.

Some ideas:

Shelyn sees true beauty in a mortal soul and, heart consumed with love, can't help but let loose a flutter of power to help them on their way.

Arazni sees a devout knight of Iomedae dying alone in the Gravelands and, while filled with contempt for his noble, unflinching sacrifice, refuses to let him fall without giving him a way to fight back.

Casandalee decides to outsource some of her divine calculations to a dedicated (and especially bright) follower but drops a bracket somewhere, inflicting her with the Curse of Torrented Knowledge.

Nethys... Has one of his days. You know how it is.

As to the actual question, I feel that Gorum is a good answer as said above, partially because he wouldn't actually believe that this puny mortal could take him. Irori jumps to mind too, but I feel that he'd be more likely to retract his power not out of any moral quibble but because he wants to be beaten fair and square, not giving any quarter.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I was so young those short seven years ago, when first I arrived in Lastwall..."

Sparrow's Story:
Sparrow grew up in the Shelynite faith, never knowing any other family. A loving family it was, but children can be cruel, and she had always felt too big, too unwieldy, her height and might a parody of her name. She was jealous of the elegant devotees of the Bladed Brush that she had always looked up to... Until of course she found herself looking down to them, even as they straightened her form, guided her strikes, and tried to hide their frustration with the clumsy acolyte making a mockery of their art form.

Her great strength, however, did lend itself to her passion, the divine duty of every follower of the Eternal Rose; her craft. Heavy tomes on architecture and sculpture allowed her to channel her frustrations into the one medium that didn't seem to crumble in her hands: Stone. While Sparrow did not hear the kind philosophies of her fellow Shelynites, she resolved that if she could not believe in her own beauty, she could damn well create some.

It was at Lastwall that she met the love of her life, a Desnan follower of the Prismatic Ray from far to the east. Both women had been sent by their respective faiths to aid in the construction of a great temple to the three goddesses Sarenrae, Desna and, of course, Shelyn. It was this elegant artist that first showed Sparrow the beauty of her own strength in a way that she could understand, sitting and sketching the statuesque sculptor as she worked on the most challenging piece of her career. The great gold-and-marble glaive of the statue of Shelyn that would take pride of place in the temple was to be her magnum opus, and she would call that glaive Rosehawk.

But then... Well, this is the story of Lastwall, after all. As Sparrow's temple fell around her, as Shelyn's statue cracked and fell, as the hordes of undead tore at everything that she had seen built by the beautiful artisans she had so loved working alongside... Rosehawk called to her, and she picked up the great stone glaive. For the first time in her life, the weight felt right, the balance steady, and all of that training, all those hours and days of years of frustration... It all clicked into place.

She could do something about this.

And so she did.


One of my very first thoughts on seeing the Giant Instinct Barbarian was of a sculptor that took their weapon from the shattered remains of the statue they themselves had built. This ended up being where the story went, and I absolutely cannot wait to play her. She's also one of my favourite Heroforge figures I've ever designed, which helps.
Here she is!

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a sci-fi setting. I was expecting disabled characters.
I didn't in a million years expect to see this kind of chronic illness represented, to see myself represented in an iconic, from the varying use of mobility aids to the daily problem-solving to never quite knowing how able-bodied I'm going to be.
Absolutely stellar work. Ciravel is brilliant, and I really, truly appreciate her inclusion.

Verdant Wheel

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to second that positivity! I genuinely love the lore of this world and improvements made to certain unfortunate elements of the lore are very much appreciated. Especially those changes that make the gameworld more inclusive and take care to help everyone keep comfortable.

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Wells wrote:

Luis wrote:

Hey, big news on the Lost Omens front!

Presenting Lost Omens Knights of Lastwall, a book all about the Knights of Lastwall and their righteous endeavors to do good, destroy undead, and put an end to the machinations of the Whispering Tyrant.

As much as I'm most excited for the Occultist/Antiquarian... Lastwall synergises really well with both Inquisitor and Warlord sorta characters.

Also, I'm so very excited. Lastwall has such a cool story to me, and I'm always up for learning more about Arazni. Plus, I'd love a really good excuse to yell some Crimson Couplets at the table.

Verdant Wheel

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

It's more a fact that what is being compared is PF2 classes by themselves without feats. Because "of course feats will change things". Just like you wouldn't ever think that to make an actual Wizard you would need to multiclass Sorcerer.

You should not need to multiclass Wizard to make an actual Magus.

You don't. You have the option to multiclass Wizard if you want to play a low-casting Magus with a variety of levelled options like you might expect from PF1, but that's not the base assumption of what a Magus is in PF2. The option is there as part of the class, and can be considered when it comes to determining which concepts the PF2 Magus allows you to represent, but being able to cast scaling elemental cantrips through your magicked-up sword is pretty much the core of the theme of the class on its own.

Verdant Wheel

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

Verdant Wheel

More Gravelands? More Lini and Droogami? More magic? I'm very here for this piece. Lini looks out for her friends.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was really engaging and very fun, and I'm very annoyed about that because come on it's Seltiyel; what am I supposed to do, respect him now??

Jokes aside, I genuinely appreciate that you went all-in and took his edgy nature so seriously while showing how awesome he is. This piece really illustrates what makes Seltiyel impressive while also showing just how much it sucks not to have a party. Or a horse. :'(

Oh, also, the art absolutely rocks. Dangit.


I truly love that this horrible edgelord bastard man features in the same book as the adorable pastel-pink dragon girl. (There's an Imagine Dragons joke to be made here, I just know it.) It'd be fun to see them team up too; Seelah might not be able to redeem him, but just watch him try to be evil around that much adorable positivity. They can bond over their shared love of learning!

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This piece absolutely warms the heart. Especially as someone who's had a rocky enough journey with education and found solace in imagination and also dragons, this is a wonderful read.

I really liked Balazar's story too, don't get me wrong, but I'll always take more.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's brilliant. I absolutely love the robots-as-monsters, mystical-tech aesthetic of Numeria, and Casandalee is definitely one of my favourite deities in the setting (along with Shelyn, Brigh and Arazni). I can't wait to see where it all goes next, especially with Kevoth-Kul and Kul-Inkit being free to really understand their nation through the guidance of the Iron Goddess. It's only so long until some bright spark from Alkenstar catches a whiff of unexploited technology...

Also, the interplanetary elements? Fantastic. Planetary romance is not really my genre but I really like the way Pathfinder handles it with a lot of references to the way Venus and Mars were once depicted in both science and its fiction. That said, I much prefer the beautiful-and-truly-alien sort of Lashunta we see in Starfinder, as much as I understand that their more awkward PF1 traits are an homage to planetary romance tropes. In fact, I suspect that the naked-elves-on-lizards aesthetic and gender nonsense will turn out to have been some combination of psychic meddling and unreliable reporting, handled similarly to the Mwangi updates.

Verdant Wheel

I adore this, every moment of it.

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love this. Makes me very happy to see all of this wonderful acceptance and pride. Also, it's just awesome having Legendary ace representation like Hao Jin. I aspire to look that elegant in flowers.

Verdant Wheel

breithauptclan wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
your example is quite complex, I have to admit, having both Lightning Immunity and an extra Weakness is something that should never show up

Definitely. And that is the simplest example that I could come up with that would show a scenario where the lightning immunity would do anything at all.

PlantThings wrote:
A penalty to AC (Battle), a penalty to strength rolls(Cosmos), and a bonus to skill checks (Ancestors) can respectively exist together with a bonus to AC, a bonus strength rolls, and a penalty to skill checks. I don't see those opposing bonuses and penalties as directly diminishing the curse effects. Instead, they are directly altering the AC, strength rolls, and skill checks respectively.

As long as the bonus and penalty are of different types.

Take the AC penalty from Battle Oracle. It gives a -2 status penalty. So since shields and cover provide a circumstance bonus, that would work fine. So would the item bonus from armor. The Dragon Form spell sets your AC to a particular value, and that part would work, but then the Oracle curse should apply afterwards (same as with Assurance and skills). But Inspire Defence, Forbidding Ward, and Protective Ward shouldn't work because they give a status bonus which would directly conflict with the oracle curse.

That's an interesting way to rule it, and it definitely seems reasonable! I'm not sure whether it was the intent but it seems like a good interpretation of the words we're given.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd definitely argue in favour of resistance working (because there's a set order and your weakness would still apply without being itself mitigated) but not immunity because that really does remove the penalty of the curse. I'd be tempted to allow immunity to reduce the damage down to the weakness as PlantThings suggests (because it means that you're never actually immune no matter what you spend) but I can understand table variation there. In any case, the weakness needs to apply at minimum and chucking feats at the problem shouldn't actually reduce it so much as minimize any risk outside of the weakness itself.

Hm. Actually, no, I might be wrong there. That does feel like mitigating the problem as a whole, even if you're not reducing the weakness itself. But then what does that say about having a high Strength score as a Cosmos oracle? It 'mitigates' being enfeebled at the cost of character options in the same way that having resistance 'mitigates' weakness at the cost of character options.

Is there something sacred about ability scores? The fact that they're on a relatively set progression, maybe? Inherent to your character in a way that a resistance isn't? A Stormborn Orc Sylph has +2 to Strength and half-level electricity resistance, and both seem pretty inherent to their Ancestry and Lineage, so why should one option be allowed to partially 'mitigate' a curse while the other can't?

I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't allow Cosmos Oracles to be strong, by the way. That seems like an obvious case of mitigation being okay, but I'm struggling to say why it's obvious when the resistance/weakness question isn't.

Verdant Wheel

Ascalaphus wrote:
Right now, if your druid multiclassed into a martial class he could take various feats to get interesting stunts, as long as those don't try to do an end run around the raw numbers of the spell. Monk dedication to pick up flurry for example is legit.

I had thought of this, but presumably flurry only works for Wild Morph, not Wild Shape? Battle forms don't appear to get strikes; their unarmed attacks have their own actions and no other attacks (including strikes) are available.

Well, except Pest Form. Pest Form can flurry all it likes so long as you can convince your GM that you can punch as a rabbit.

This is less me trying to 'um actually' and more me hoping that I'm wrong and that druids CAN actually use cool multiclass abilities that specify strikes, but every battle form spell seems to tie itself in knots not to use the word 'strike' with the only slip-up being in the Trample entry of Primal Herd. The 'Polymorph' trait refers to strikes, but not in the Battle Form section.

Verdant Wheel

thenobledrake wrote:

One should not take random one-off mentions of things happening at GM's discretion found in an ancillary book as though they are anything near, or trying to suggest, core rules of the game.

After all, the game had already been played for years by thousands without that random one-off mention being in print, so it really can't be intended to be all that important.

Oh yeah I absolutely agree with this! It's not important at all, but it is a sensible way of looking at things that I feel is appropriate to apply generally in lieu of any more specific way for GMs to handle this situation. Certain objects being damaging to certain weapons removes a lot of the problems with being able to attack objects, and seems like a reasonable ruling based on what we know of the rules and the world, which had me thinking of this example of that actually coming up in a monster entry. I'm not trying to act like that one example should define how anyone plays, and I apologise if that's what I had inadvertently implied.

It was also supposed to act as a counter to the rigid idea that hitting a wall is be impossible in play, even if it's something that almost any character should reasonably be able to attempt to do. Working from that absolute RAW, low-narrative standpoint (not personally how I like to play), a single one-off mention does provide a counter-example. Of course, for some people, that won't change the fact that the game isn't built to specifically handle hitting walls and so they wouldn't allow it outside of that monster.

Verdant Wheel

graystone wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:
So, we see that striking surfaces isn't something that PCs are incapable of... but that it's not unlikely to damage the weapon as well.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The players can attack Huge walking creatures of metal and stone [golems, elementals, ect] with a tree branch [clubs] without damage so the off attack on a wall or door doesn't seem like something that'd damage a weapon. Now maybe extended tunneling might be an issue, but anything les than a mining project should be free of weapon damage if a similar monsters doesn't cause the weapon similar damage.

I would imagine that Striking those monsters typically doesn't involve just smacking their toughest surface dead-on with your weapon. Sticking a magic sword into a structural weak-point, misaligning a joint with a bludgeon and so on seems more probable. Resistances and AC are supposed to model what you can't get through, though I get that there's no weapon damage typically involved there. However, that could be because your weapon is almost never actually in contact with the monster; a few dozen strikes over the course of a minute is not a lot of contact time, which could feasibly reduce the damage to roleplay wear-and-tear that it's easy to numerically ignore. I'm guessing that the Graffiti example is supposed to represent a misjudged direct hit against, say, solid stone, which will do a lot more damage to your sword than a few glancing strikes against a stone golem's armour. Even then, I'd agree, it probably shouldn't be very much damage.

In any case, there's a lot of abstraction and I do get your point, but none of this is quite the same as hitting a flat, homogenous stone wall with a thin piece of metal over and over and expecting to get through. Which I would totally allow with a war pick or something, mind you; it'd just have to be something feasibly designed with breaking through hard surfaces in mind. And it'd take ages, which is probably enough to stop most people doing it for a shortcut.

Of course, if someone shows up at your table absolutely set on playing an adventuring Heinrich Schliemann, you probably have other problems.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From Living Graffiti, of all things...

Bestiary 3:
Backdrop wrote:
When a creature attempts to Strike a living graffiti and critically misses, the attacker hits the surface (a canvas, wall, or so on) behind the living graffiti. This might damage the surface or the attacker's weapon, at the GM's discretion.

So, we see that striking surfaces isn't something that PCs are incapable of... but that it's not unlikely to damage the weapon as well. Obviously, a Bestiary entry isn't necessarily the best place to find answers to this, but it provides a good common-sense response to the tunnelling suggestion: some surfaces are more likely to damage the weapon than the weapon is to damage the surface. I don't care if that sword has a +1 on it, it's not going to act like a pickaxe and it won't like being used as one for very long.

However, if you have a high-level Barbarian with Shattering Blows wanting to smash their way through a wall with an adamantine warpick, that's probably a thing they can do given time! They're strong, ignore plenty of hardness, are using a nigh-indestructible weapon that's a good shape for breaking rocks, and all in all it seems like a reasonable in-world thing to happen. If you really want to dissuade them, you could point out that some walls are load-bearing, or that the dungeon is something's house and very loudly breaking it might be a bad idea. Also, if the dungeon is filled with traps, hacking one's way into whatever high-tension cabling or superheated piping is powering those traps might be a similarly bad idea.

Of course, by a super strict reading you do actually need to gather some Living Graffiti and critically fail to hit them in order to hit any walls, but that doesn't feel fun or sensible. The fact remains, however, that RAW there is a clear example of hitting the scenery with one's sword in a published book, and it would seem RAI weird if that was the only way to do it.

*scuttles back into the shadows*

Verdant Wheel

7 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, a lot of disabled people (myself included) tend to prefer representation wherein a disability has some meaningful effect, informing but emphatically not defining the character's abilities. That's going to be a bit of a spectrum from person to person, as people differ on the whole escapism-to-realism ratio, and there will be complete exceptions too, but I do think that's part of why disabled representation can be difficult to write. Not difficult enough to justify not doing it, mind you, but that's a conversation about a different kind of fiction altogether.

My point is, simply having no effect in-game beyond description might be unappealing to some people who want to represent something of their experience in constructive roleplaying. Not to the point of disruption, of course, but something meaningful, and not because they want to suck but because they want to show that this experience exists and can, despite everything, excel in heroic fantasy.

But how? Amongst the most realistic and resonant aspects of disabled life that can be depicted is problem-solving. It can be genuinely fun working out how to hack around a mechanical limitation, whether in the real world, in writing, or in a game, and that I think is part of what people might want out of in-game representation of disability. As a fictional example, both Avatar cartoon series' and the How To Train Your Dragon movies are golden for this, while media too focused on being InSpIrAtIoNaL tend to miss the problem-solving angle entirely.

Overall, while disability is pretty inevitably going to be a downgrade in some sense, it can also be a huge boon to clever roleplay and planning... But it's gotta be practical. We know that being totally unable to use a staircase is not going to work in a classic dungeon-crawler unless, say, there's a Strong Friend in the party willing to help with that on occasion (which can be pretty seamless). However, just because we're very happy with a little touch of escapism/handwaving/springchairs does not mean that we're comfortable being pushed into a situation wherein that's the only option for everything.

I'm not saying that's what's being suggested, but that's the fear; I do really like Michael Sayre's way of handling it. I think it's great for representation and also probably the only solution that will work uncontroversially for players who mean well but don't see the point. It just might leave room for a bit of jerk behaviour if people start getting annoyed at the decisions you make as-informed by your character's disability, as Kalindlara notes. That said, I'm already away-and-beyond impressed with Pathfinder's communicative approach to disability in contrast to certain other, larger tabletop companies that prefer to play it safe.


This is obviously a lot easier with an even slightly permissive GM willing to work with a character concept, but I'm continuing with the discussion prompted by Kalindlara about what is and is not considered appropriate for PFS. Outside of that realm, the Cursed background clearly shows that the game has room for a character with some mechanical disadvantage without everything needing to get all minmaxy. A similar background that replaced "you're cursed, so you got good at getting rid of curse magic" with "you're disabled, so you got good at improvising" could be interesting, and exactly as not-disruptive.

... Just to clarify, I'm not equating disability with an eldritch curse. Even if it feels like that sometimes. The concepts lend themselves to similar background structures.


(Sorry if this is a total mess; I'm not particularly well-rested but thought I should try to contribute nonetheless. I also love the look of the book!)

Verdant Wheel

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Precursor wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Also, shield of reckoning has the flourish trait, so it would be limited to 1 per round.

The description of Flourish: "Flourish actions are actions that require too much exertion to perform a large number in a row. You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn." Isn't your turn and an enemy's turn distinct turns and therefore outside the scope of Flourish?

One counterargument against me is that this opens up using the Ready action on Flourish single actions at the same turn you use a different Flourish action (unless there is something I missed preventing it). I does cost a reaction and an extra action and continues MAP, so I can only see a few situations where it could be useful, and even then it could be done better by different feats.

I got nothing against the 'once per round' interpretation (would effect very few thing and close some possible exploits) but if that was the intended interpretation why not simply write "once per round"?

To be fair, you also only get 3 actions and 1 reaction per turn, granted at the beginning of your turn. As such, it would make logical sense that Flourish trait options reset at the start of your turn as well, since that is both the logical and balance-wise way to do it. If we limited things to "during your turn," then reaction abilities would do nothing and not be able to be used because you're trying to perform reactions outside your turn, even though you ended your turn without using a reaction, meaning the reaction is wasted; the intent is that things which come on your turn do not occur until your turn comes again. This is also true with positive effects on your character, like Quickened from a Haste spell, or Status bonuses from Bard Composition Cantrips. Compared to a Fighter's "Endless Reprisals" feat, which specifically grants a reaction for use during a creature's turn only.

This means that, for example, if you use a Flourish ability during your turn, you couldn't utilize...

I don't think that this holds; you only gain 3 Actions and 1 Reaction per turn, but nowhere does it say that you must only use them on your turn, nor that you lose them at the end of your turn. Of course, the Actions specifically can only be used on your turn in the initiative order, but the Reaction has no such restrictions.

The Flourish trait is once-per-turn, which is distinct from once-per-round. This might make it a bit of a confusing trait to add to a reaction, but it could still come up through a "gain an extra reaction that can only be used to x" feat that works with an as-yet-unforseen Flourish reaction. That could get silly when up against a single powerful boss, so I reckon that this is future-proofing more than anything. I obviously don't know the intent here, but the distinction between "round" and "turn" important for some rules elements and I don't think it can be ignored here either.

As per the Flourish issue, I think that the Ready action has us covered. I don't think that this interpretation allows you to Ready a Flourish even if you can use Flourishes off-turn, because "Choose a single action or free action you can use" doesn't apply to a second Flourish action that you can't actually "use" at the time of Readying.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making (and encouraging players to make) creative use of weapon traits is an extremely elegant way of making weapons cooler without messing with the gold economy. Damage types too, though I'd also like to see some unique-to-class enhancements that improve upon the traits a weapon already has, or that invent all-new ways for weapons to be interesting.

I'd also very much encourage passing this cool stuff out to the party as a form of pre-buffing, thereby allowing balanced interaction with all sorts of classes from a single character. This could be a fun niche to fill, I think. Of course, they'd need to provide unique benefits in-situation as well, so as to avoid the "stay at home" issue that dedicated crafters may be prone to.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

I sometimes imagine a 5th tradition, based around stories, tropes, hero calling, and music, keying off Society as the knowledge skill. Both the Bard and Medium would be firmly parked on this tradition.

What can I say? Not only was I a literature major, I read both Mercedes Lackey's 500 kingdoms series AND Pratchett's description of story magic at an impressionable age.

What I'd really love is a non-magic not-tradition based around Society and all that entails. A class that operates through an intricate understanding of how the world actually works, not how Wizards and Clerics tell it to work, nor how Bards and Druids claim it should. No, this class would use well-chosen words and meaningful actions to manipulate the fabric of society, which is the only reality anyone actually cares about* anyway. True, if you dress it up right, this "casting" probably looks even more like magic than magic does, but it ain't, not even at high levels when the world itself starts to believe...

Basically, I'm talking a little bit of the Ranger's mastery of surroundings, a little bit of the Bard's storied lore, and a little bit of the Rogue's "inventive" skill use with a whole heap of unique, flavourful ways to coax, cajole, coerce and clobber the world into shape. This is the magician, the con artist, the soothsayer, even the shrewd old lady with commentary so pointed that it's been known to cow minotaurs, who tells the lich just how disappointed his dear old mum would be, and when was the last time he Called?

...Okay, so I failed my will save vs Pratchett reference. The Headologist, The Sizzle-Seller, The Cop With Thin Boots. If you know, you know, and I'm not sure I can do the concept justice in a single post otherwise. I hope I've at least made a Convincing Attempt. Which is a class feat they get, obviously.

(This could also fulfil the "diplomat" idea mentioned above, without being restricted to that alone.)


* Eagle-eyed readers may have noted that this does imply a dependency on other creatures. As such, you may need to ensure that you do, in fact, play this class as part of some sort of story, ideally one that involves other people.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Exactly Jader.

Making encounters while ignoring what your players are capable is a sure fire way of making a boring encounter.

Back to all those trips. If you design a series of encounters without checking whether you players can just go around them. It not the fault of the players for using their abilities and/or resources. Its yours as a GM for not doing your do diligence on what the players can do and failing to adapt when the players threw a wrench in your plans.

And this is precisely why gating permanent flight to higher levels can be a good thing for the GM and thus general play experience. It ensures that said GM doesn't have to consider the utility of permanent flight, and can thus spend their energies better when working with the other abilities that players have. Once that's old hat, bring on the flight; the tools to work with it are far more prevalent at high levels anyway.

If permanent flight were prevalent from a low level, a GM would certainly be able to account for that. They would certainly be at fault if they did not do so. I don't think that anybody disputes this. That could still be bad for a game like PF2, because it would put undue stress on every AP designer and GM who now cannot meaningfully use the bulk of low-level monsters without ensuring that every fight against such a monster happens in a low-ceilinged room. They absolutely could use other monsters or homebrew up their own, but that's additional time and effort that could be spent making fun in other ways.

Again, there are the tools to deal with that if need be, and there are interesting stories to be told in an aerial design space, but they are gated in this system for a good reason. Permanent flight opens some doors and closes others (from a design perspective), and the game currently seems to encourage all of those doors to be explored over time. Time that now exists in this edition, since higher levels are no longer assumed to be post-campaign, at least not by the PF2 itself.

Additionally, if APs have to plan for permanent flight, the risk is run that design becomes diluted, as satisfying and distinct pathways have to be constructed both that account for permanent flight and that follow a more terrestrial route. Otherwise, it could force every party to pick up flight, which I'm sure nobody is gunning for.


All that said, I'd still love to play a system wherein innate flight was prevalent from first level, with the entire system built around that premise. I don't really want that system to be Pathfinder by-default, but I wouldn't be surprised if we got an optional ruleset for it at some point... Or an Adventure Path entirely focused around the idea, which sounds super fun, but I'm glad it's not the default assumption.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You had me at "stuff enhancer". I'm not the right kind of sleep-deprived to respond in full, but I think that this is a really, really cool idea. The Occultist in PF1 had some of my favourite ideas and, while I hope that it manages to make the transition properly, a class really specialising in combat-smithing without being tied to the Occultist or Magus would be really nice.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
One of the recurring NPCs in my campaign is an elf anthropologist who has been studying a particular goblin family for generations.

So, besides this thread convincing me to give in and get Legends at some point, this is really interesting to me. It's such a cool concept.

How does this anthropologist account for the influences brought about on the family by their own observations? Goblins are so culturally susceptible to change; how does the character ensure that their studies are relevant to more than this one family? Not trying to deconstruct or anything, just super curious.

Verdant Wheel

Oh, also, I'd absolutely love a class focused on shape-shifting. Shapeshifting is my number one superpower and I really, really want to play that sort of thing in Pathfinder, especially in a world like Golarion. Whether it be through magic, alchemy, aberrant blood or nanite blood, even botanical im-plants or fleshwarp-gone-wrong... A class that has true mastery of their form in a manner quite divorced from spellcasting or mutagens would be pretty sweet. Like the Shifter, but not actually the Shifter, and not based in Wild Shape necessarily.

Also pls give Zova some love. Let her Iconic look be but one form she can take.

You can sort of do it with the Monk already just by going "Hey, GM, can I give stances the Morph trait?", or even just describing that happening, but that's obviously not quite the same thing.

Verdant Wheel

TheDoomBug wrote:

How about something in the vein of an artificer? A weapons/armor equivalent to the Alchemist. Make or modify weapons, armor, shields, and ammo faster, but their experimental nature means that without daily recalibration, they'll become unstable/unusable.

Things like spread-shot crossbows (turn your attack roll into a AoE reflex save), revolver crossbows (reload less often, but more actions to do it), ejectable blades (probably unnecessary, but cool), spring boots, and magnetic shields (to grab/disarm metal weapons).

I think a non-magic utility character could be fun. "I ain't jealous of them wizards; I can do all that without any hocus pocus."

Late feats/down time could result in modified structures and vehicles. Underwater Airship.

I definitely agree! As much as I genuinely adore the classic mage-Artificer, I feel like that role could, in PF2, work even better within a true Utility Martial tool-user class of some kind. I put down some ideas a couple of pages back, but I love thinking about this sort of design so I may have rambled slightly here:

What if but long?:
I think that this would make for some intriguing characters, be they The Chef, The Engineer, The Smith, The Tailor, using their diverse multi-toolkit to really interface with the practical and not-so-practical applications of their crafts in the world of Pathfinder. Obviously, alchemy's already covered by its own class and subsystem, but I'd love a class that allowed for all sorts of grounded-and-not "this is my career and I'm applying it to adventure" ideas to work, as well as allowing characters to have different hats for different jobs, so to speak. I'd like this to be performed via some flexible system of improving and tinkering with one's mundane creations to buff the party, debuff the enemy, and solve problems with Cleverness and Creativity and Voiding The Warranty. It could be to Lore and Crafting what the Investigator is to Perception and Recall Knowledge, to the Polytool what the Wizard is to the Staff, and to Speciality Crafting what the Bard is to Virtuosic Performer.

What I'd like it not to be is like the Alchemist, because I like the Alchemist and we already have one; this should be a very different kind of utility, more based in quick improvisation and combining different tools to do very silly things that somehow work, rather than handing out or quick-mixing consumables. You'd be doing a lot of temporary bodging-together and you'd be a dab hand with a rope or torch in combat, but I'd imagine that you'd also excel with little preparation. Crafting clothes and armour that provide combat or social bonuses, filling bellies with hearty, enhancing meals, a tower shield with a honking great snare attached to the front...

I guess I'd like somewhere between the Spheres of Power Blacksmith, Scholar and Technician, for those familiar with that system, but with more of a slant on the profession side of things. More artisan or combat engineer than gadgeteer, though very much able to use their tools as gadgets if need be. It's an idea that I think could work really specifically in PF2 as its own class*, while most systems don't have the framework for it, so it'd be a shame to miss the opportunity.

That said, I'd also love a more straightforward Technician-type with the custom crossbows, springboots and all that. The Spheres Technician was one of my absolute favourite things about that system and I'd love that to exist in Pathfinder 2, quite possibly with a wee bit more Numeria and Alkenstar in the mix. All the Numeria-specific options would presumably be Uncommon because Setting Assumptions, but there'd definitely be a class path or archetype to gain access... Oo, perhaps even in a line of classes featuring a Wonder Taster Alchemist, Nanite Barbarian, Scavenger Investigator and Technic Thief Rogue... I'm getting distracted.


*Also, aesthetically speaking, could you imagine a tool-focused Iconic Artisan in Wayne Reynolds' style?? He'd have a field day! So many edges! So many details! So many hangy things!


My only request is that neither of these be called the "Tinker", for reasons that are extremely obvious if you're familiar with the historical use of that word. Long story short, the modern image of the charming travelling tinker sort of leaves out why a word for "tinsmith" ended up being used as yet another slur to levy at travelling people. As most RPG characters are travellers by default, this can get awkward fast, and it's honestly just easier to use words like "Artisan" which are more accurate anyway. The verb "to tinker" is fine though; it's one of those awkward specific word usage things.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
I'd like to be able to plan an adventure without thinking about literally everything a PC can theoretically do at a particular level so that I can spend less time/effort
i would say those people are lazy and likely love railroading

Now. That's a little harsh. Not every GM has the time to plan that flexibly and it's an extra load on every AP and PFS designer if flight's that easy that early. Regardless, almost any GM is already putting a lot of time and effort into the campaign, so "lazy" surely does not apply often.

"Railroading" can be an issue, but "I work better in two dimensions" isn't a good example of it. A railroading GM would presumably be perfectly fine allowing flight because no ability would be able to change the meticulously-crafted railway, no matter what. A GM who wants to set the players an interesting challenge, however, might reasonably find early-level fliers more difficult to work around than is worth their time.

Verdant Wheel

We're pack hunters, for sure, and we work better in groups than is strictly reasonable.

citation: literally everything around me

Verdant Wheel

I'm hoping for an "Urticating Hairs" ability, myself. Perhaps as an option for a tarantula-esque Heritage? Also, jumping spider powers, including an illusory peacock fan for dancin'. We already know they're illusionists, after all.

Verdant Wheel

A class like that would have to be very carefully handled so as to not mess with the players who want to have big fun combats all the time. Definitely could be done, I think, just with a lot of caution, and I for one absolutely love the idea of a class that is to Legendary Negotiation what the Rogue is to Legendary Sneak. It'd definitely need some redeemer-style debuffs through skill checks and such, though all of their in-combat actions being attempts at peace could be a very cool idea. Obviously, it'd need to be more diverse than that too, but so's the example in play; The Doctor isn't always trying to make peace, at least not with the people you expect....


Also, while this doesn't hold for every incarnation, Twelve is already very much here. Just be an Empiricist Investigator, except tell the GM to give you random Expeditious Investigation results every single round whether you want them or not. Oh, also, grab some Venusian Aikido while you're at it, and make sure not to dump Charisma so you can still be utterly terrifying as-required. Jokes aside, just looking through the names of Investigator feats feels like a best hits of his era. Fascinating Performance and Virtuosic Performer (Strings) are an absolute necessity and this is non-negotiable; note that this is not the jokes bit of the paragraph.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

So, this is where Roy's grandpa learned the Spellsplinter Maneuver?

Makes a lot of sense actually :-D

I now want to create Horace Greenhilt for this AP.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see as martial options - things that interact with magic, but aren't actually casting spells.

I'd absolutely love to see more of that style of thing come in throughout the AP. Martial-oriented characters should definitely be supported, though I'm still totally onboard with everyone getting a touch of extra magic just by dint of having studied at a (primarily) magical college. The party aren't going to stay Attendants and Conversants, by the sounds of things, and I'm guessing that there'll be many, many new fun magic toys to play with that maybe wouldn't work as well if the initial assumption didn't involve a little bit for everyone.

Of course, that's up for every GM to GM as they please; I just like that it's a core idea of the campaign.

(Also, if anyone was in any doubt, Spellsplinter itself is already pretty well-represented by the way Attacks of Opportunity work in this edition. Of course, the Fighter's Disruptive Stance class feat is probably the best at acting like the feat we see Roy use, though it working on a bunch of other concentrate/manipulate actions is very cool.)

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also handy for social occasions where bringing a weapon would be rude but bringing a handful of bottle-openers makes you everyone's favourite weirdo. You're like that guy who can open a bottle with another bottle, but without the inevitable sadness.

Verdant Wheel

Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Leshies and gnomes are straight up immortal in lore, so depending on how you choose to define "king", they can work pretty well. A gnome who staved off the bleaching definitely has some cool story hooks as a king in the faerie courts, and likewise, a leshy who lived for a long enough time might have established their domain in the natural world as an actual king of the jungle or what have you.

Gnomes were my first thought when Leshies were mentioned above; I can't believe I'd completely forgot about them before! I've actually been raving to my brother about how cool PF Gnomes are, and some of my favourite concepts to explore in the setting are different takes on how they stave off the Bleaching. My poison-obsessed forensic technician, "Coil", for instance, is basically yer archetypal PF gnome complete with boundless curiosity and frequent hyperfixation... She just also has a veneer of formaldehyde, mercury and quiet confidence quite at odds with their usual portrayal. Who needs to travel when you get to meet cadavers from all over the Inner Sea?

I have a point to that aside; if you can find a well of inspiration that never runs dry (can y'all tell I'm a bio nerd) then you can definitely justify an immortal Gnome. Plus, they come with that Charisma you ordered! It could the ever-shifting, always-something-new nature of courtly intrigue that actually keeps them going, for instance; perhaps their rule is constantly on a knife-edge between "just interesting enough" and "too interesting to manage"...

Verdant Wheel

I elaborate more Here, but the Rogue feat Poison Weapon has its Special benefit scaling with "rogue level", which isn't actually a thing. It's pretty obvious what it means when you're a full Rogue, but it's less clear as an MC Rogue and even murkier as a Poisoner. The latter isn't CRB, of course, but it's what prompted this realisation in the first place.

It looks weird having "an" followed by "MC", but I feel like saying "a McRogue" would mess with the tone...

Verdant Wheel

Okay, good to know I haven't missed something silly. :P Thanks!

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Sounds like something to report in the CRB post-Update Errata thread. At least it's a straightforward fix.

Ah, thank you. Will do.

Verdant Wheel

Aricks wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Bombs are ranged thrown weapons.

(directly from the rules of alchemical items: "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet")

The lack of the Thrown trait means that they don't get bonus damage from strength (since that's all the Trait does for a ranged weapon), but all other instances that you just need a thrown weapon like Raging thrower apply normally.

I don't disagree, but that also means we're back to Schrodinger's Bomb from above, since a Juggler can do Reflexive Catch on the bomb and it still does splash damage, so it both has and has not "gone off" so to speak.

Maybe it just spills a little?

I have to agree with the above assessment. It'd seem weird for "thrown" not to mean "thrown" in a conversational ruleset; I would suppose that the trait itself is absent to ensure that nobody misses the bit about not adding strength, nothing more. Bombs also wouldn't interact with anything explicitly requiring "a weapon with the thrown trait". Not sure if anything does require that, but it might be relevant.

Notably, this still excludes it from working with Flying Blade, as that requires any thrown weapon to have "finesse" or "agile", not just the melee-and-thrown ones that Sneak Attack calls out. I'm much more comfortable (narrative-wise) with bombs working for blatant damage effects like Sneak Attacks and Raging Thrower than I am with something like Precise Strike, so that checks out to me.

This interpretation may (at first glance, at least to me) cause weird interactions with feats like Rebounding Toss, but I think it's important to mention why that isn't the case mechanically, even if it's otherwise obvious in the story. Bombs explicitly explode after hitting anything, so both mechanically and in-the-fiction they no longer exist after the bomb impacts a creature or object. In the same way that the rules don't need to specify that you can't fetch a thrown bomb like you can a knife, they really don't need to specify that you can't make a ricochet attack with a weapon that no longer exists.

As for Reflexive Catch, I'd honestly just flavour it as a spillage, yeah. Something of a lashing of volatile reactants, like from a leaking flask or loose powder sparking at the wrong time. This could also represent why the attack missed in the first place, such as due to unexpected lightness or a powdery loss of grip. It's also true that any Bomber with Calculated and Expanded Splash can take a bomb off the shelf and get significant oomph out of it, so we already know that the infernal things are often stuffed with more explosive (or corrosive or whatever) than is strictly necessary. So it is (to me) relatively intuitive to explain in the story, and there's no strict mechanical contradiction (just a failure effect and a reaction to that failure), but I also wouldn't blame any GM for saying that it still "hits" some part of the scenery as is usually assumed when a bomb misses the target. That's just a bit less fun to me, especially since I love the thought of Goblin Juggle Tennis and everything so-implied.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Poisoner archetype allows you to take the Rogue feat Poison Weapon at level 6. Note that, in this edition, everyone knows what I mean by "level 6" because it's the level my character is and that always means the same thing unless preceded by the word "spell". Essentially, the whole concept of a class level is a thing of the past... Which is brilliant, except that Poison Weapon mentions your "rogue level" in its Special benefit.

Poison Weapon wrote:
Special During your daily preparations, you can prepare a number of simple injury poisons equal to your rogue level. These poisons deal 1d4 poison damage. Only you can apply these poisons properly, and they expire the next time you prepare.

This poses a problem for the Poisoner archetype, as it doesn't grant a rogue level, because, as above, that's not actually a thing. Nobody has a rogue level, not even members of that class, though a Rogue player obviously knows that the feat means "your level" because it couldn't mean anything else. Even in the case of the Rogue archetype, because the rules are a conversation, one could make an educated guess and assume that, as with qualifying for class feats granted by multiclass archetypes, the effective level is equal to half your level.

However, if you agree with that ruling, no such provision exists for the Poisoner archetype. If you don't, you're left with the same conundrum for both the Rogue archetype and the Poisoner. Either you have a "rogue level" of zero by dint of not being a Rogue, or you just do as the Rogue player does and mentally edit out the word "rogue" entirely. Erring on the side of caution, the former option effectively means that they only gain the primary effects of the feat, which are cool... Except that the archetype also grants the Improved Poison Weapon feat, which has vanishingly little point if not for the Special entry on Poison Weapon. It technically saves you a poison on a critfail, but that being the sole benefit for a tenth-level feat doesn't really make sense intent-wise when you get Sticky Poison two levels earlier.

So the intent was, I think, that you get the full benefit of the feat, using your full level as always because there's no special exception. I don't know if that holds up at all, though I also don't think it'll massively throw off balance for anyone.

Is there anything I've missed or got wrong?
Is this a reasonable interpretation?
Third question for comedic effect?

Verdant Wheel

Ventnor wrote:

Another theory about the "layered on casting." Instead of generic or multiclass free archetypes, what if the free archetype that all of the PCs got was the Magaambyan Initiate Archetype (and subsequently, and other archetypes that built off of it)?

I imagine if there was any good place to add more feats to that archetype, it would be in the Adventure Path that was all about the Magaambya.

That's my general assumption, yeah, though I wouldn't be super surprised if everyone had a little more magic from level one. Certainly, I'm sure there'll be more meat to the archetypes (which I already love, predictably), and I suspect that there'll be a proper subsystem for advancement through the academy.

Verdant Wheel

7 people marked this as a favorite.

They're nerds, so they're best at nerd magic, but many of them are also drama kids or nature geeks or idol stans so they have access to those magics too. It's a little weird to outsiders, but they don't want to stay within society's constructed roles. I believe that there's a song about this philosophy in the ancient Mwangi song-story "High School Musical".

...What, you think it's a coincidence that half the Magaambyan art features a song and dance? This entire AP is going to be a musical, mark my words.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm more prone to do this with spells when I feel like the name doesn't super fit what my character would call it. So, basically, most of the time, since I've never played a super traditional caster. I like coming up with my own incantations too, which might be a rhyming couplet, line from a real-life poem or song, or even just the spells name with a sort of eldritch reverb thing. Or a geeky reference; it's only a matter of time before I cast Ki Rush or Fleet Step by yelling "Retreat of the Rinsing Wind!"

That said, when I finally get to play a Punch Wizard Magus, you can count on this trope being in full, glorious, deafening effect.

Verdant Wheel

TheDoomBug wrote:

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.

I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

notXanathar wrote:
So in light of all that, and of whether or not you now think me insane, I would like a number of classes which get tradition right.

Hm. Thank you for this in-depth comment. I don't think you insane, and I sympathise with your point, but I'm also not sure that your description of what a "Tradition" is quite fits with the assumptions of Pathfinder or its core setting. It's built-in that Arcane magic isn't the sum total of what can be studied; it's merely the sum total of what can be written-down and understood through the singular lens of the mortal scholar. Through careful manipulation and study of those techniques, as well as careful study of their underlying principles and how those principles interact with other kinds of magic, you can derive an understanding of other forms of magic (as with Jatembe's philosophy carried through Magaambya), and it's definitely possible for a Sorcerer be marked with the wonky programming of this highly artificial tradition. I balk at the assumption that other magics shouldn't be accessible through fundamental understanding of the laws of reality; that's sort of the Point of arcane magic... As opposed to a true connection with the purity and wisdom of the Divine, a deep and instinctive understanding of the Primal forces of nature, or a spirit-touching talent for understanding the incomprehensible Occult.

Not one of these three necessarily works well with Arcane methods, so I agree in that sense. You can't necessarily impose consistent, scientific methodologies upon ancient Occult understanding, though I contest that you can't achieve some success through careful, open-minded study. For instance, the Polymathic Bard may indeed "study" their craft, understanding that the true heart of their magic comes from the connection of their spirit with those of others; however, that doesn't mean that they can't apply their knowledge of psychology and voice control to their magic, nor that they can't work out some sort of non-standard notation to represent their magic in-text. We also know that Nethys himself achieved true Divinity through mastery of the fundamental principles of magic, as much as the effort split him down the middle. If the jerk had any actual academic integrity, he'd let the rest of us iterate on his methods; what kind of scholar just covers up a bad outcome!? The so-called "All-Seeing Eye" is exactly what's wrong with modern academia and in this essay I will...

As for Witches; while they're certainly taught in a mysterious fashion and are indeed canny negotiators of an occult-seeming pact, it's pretty apt to me that they get to cast different traditions. Witches aren't just taught of esoteric magics; they're actively borrowing magic from something else, using its tradition to cast spells rather than having any great power of their own. I'm pretty sure this comes from the classic folklore of the witch bargaining for power with a devil or false god, whether that power be used to heal, harm, or call down a plague, so really the classic Witch could be considered Divine before anything else (though this is Complicated and I've edited out a big long iffy comment about it). If we're going for a more modern folkloric "evil eye" witch, they do tend to be more Occult-flavoured, but then again you have the lighter-n-softer cauldron-and-bookshelves witch whose familiar is often depicted as a teacher of Arcane-style utility-magic, or the mysterious poultice-and-poison hedge-witch who claims to draw mystic power over from pagan deities or nature itself. Witches are really diverse throughout folklore (even if we keep it to this sort of witch*), but they do tend to have some form of arrangement with other powers and a mysterious companion spirit of some kind, so I quite like that as the throughline rather than having them shoehorned into a single tradition. That would leave us with Witches that never take the forms of wolves or summon dancing devils or call down a storm to light the thatch, and those wouldn't be the witches that I, personally, grew up learning about.

Honestly, in my opinion, the Witch chassis is an incredibly impressive and highly elegant expression of perhaps the most unfairly-maligned and diverse-yet-basically-quite-cohesive concept in all of western folklore. "Lessons" was a masterstroke, emphasising what all these different ideas have in common. It still lets you play your hex-Witch, but the class also allows others to play their dark Tam O'Shanter devil-Witch or smart Celtic herb-Witch. If you don't like that so much, it's very easy to not have anything to do with them.

On the Oracle, however... While cursed in ways oft-misunderstood, the Oracle is, to me, definitively all about their Divine source, given that it's pretty clearly meant to evoke the idea of the cursed prophet from real-life mythology and religion. I'd much prefer any Occult equivalent to be a little more like TheDoomBug's idea above rather than interfering with that wonderful and extremely terrifying idea of "literally the most powerful beings in the universe are Taking An Interest". So I don't agree there either, but I do think that there's a lot of narrative space for what you're talking about in another class.

My apologies if I come across combative at all; I'm glad of the excuse to think really deeply about this sort of thing and I welcome any counterpoints.


* The terms I'm using are through the Pathfinder lens, but refer to far broader and more complicated concepts that are not bound by what we're currently deciding to call them. See Harry Potter's wizards-who-are-girls for an example of the nomenclature not being very consistent.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
In my opinion, anyone who sits next to an enemy, allowing them to use their most powerful 3-action abilities doesn't have a firm grasp of tactics. Given the opportunity, everyone should be moving all the time (or at the very least, not ending their turn within reach of an enemy), if only to force the enemy to waste their actions closing.

My experience is (as ever) somewhat lacking here, but isn't this a little reductive and super subjective depending on how the party does combat? If you have some good buffs, good heals and some reactions dedicated to baiting attacks and defending allies, sticking close-by could be pretty good. Obviously, still gotta ensure that mobility is possible if need-be.

For instance, let's say we have "Good Cop", a Marshal Paladin with the Inspiring Marshal feat, and "Bad Cop", a Braggart Swashbuckler with the Antagonise feat, and they've spent some time cornering "Perp", who doesn't have a class but does have a big scary weapon. The buddy cops each want to use their full turn to Use Feat, Strike, and either Strike again or use a defensive action (or even use Bon Mot if GC's up first and wants to make sure Antagonise works). Now, Perp is heavily incentivised to attack the softer-yet-scarier Bad Cop, but any sort of hit will proc GC's Retributive Strike, while a crit-miss will proc BC's Opportune Riposte. This works with flanking too, especially as our buddy cops can remain flexible and mobile as-needed with things like Ranged Reprisal, Attack of Opportunity and Being A Swashbuckler. It's not like this needs to be their tactic in every round of every combat, but it is a situation wherein forgoing movement can result in a more powerful turn without crippling ones' defences.

That's just an example off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are other and/or better ways to do it; Bad Cop could be a 10th level Duelist Thief instead, for instance, using a Scorpowhip to further punish and de-incentivise attacks against Good Cop. That said, it's an example that illustrates my point: there are probably ways to stick to foes without demonstrating a "poor grasp of tactics".

(Also there's probably a party here too, doing other helpful things. Is just a very basic scenario idea. I'm guessing a Cleric would be useful here, especially one that likes targeting Will saves. Call 'em "Chief" or something.)

Verdant Wheel

Ventnor wrote:
If your ratfolk? Cheek pouches, of course!

I had thought similarly, but for a Gourd Leshy. Obviously Leshies don't make stellar magi (unless you're dual-classing Investigator to stack everything on Int I guess) but it's still a cool look. Especially if you use your actual head-slot to hold yer book!

Oo, maybe a Goblin who grew up in a Gourd Leshy commune of some kind, and wanted to store stuff in their head too! Lucky save with the magic there, or things could have gone very differently...

BretI wrote:
Honestly, I would be tempted to put it in the ear mostly because it would be fun describing sheathing the weapon.

Hah, or behind like a magician! Good place to put a Starknife or other disk-shaped weapon. Or in an earring!

Another fun idea could be a cane. People expect a dinky lil sword-cane but, nope, greatsword.

Honestly, part of me just wishes that there was an upgrade in the form of a a Spirit Bandolier. I just want to play a bola-bombing flame-flinging arcane bounty hunter! I have a whole character design! I just... y'know... forgot to check the specific wording of Quick Draw/Quick Bomber, and I don't think that adding Juggler into the mix is feasible or character-friendly on top of everything else, even with Free Archetype or similar.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...This is just wonderful. I really, really like the characterisation here. More Fumbus is always a good thing, especially a Fumbus being smart and analytical in his own way. Ezren too, the puzzle-loving adventure-scholar that he is; he's not absent-minded, just present elsewhere! The pictographic epiphany is definitely fun too; a lesson there for all of us I should think.

I just love how not-different they are. Distinct, for sure, but it's so clear that this isn't just "smart guy reads while chaos guy does comedy". They're both the smart guy, just with slightly different kinds of attention deficit di-shinything. In any case, having a fellow intellectual must be relaxing for them after dealing with the other Iconics for so long. :P Are there any of these featuring Quinn and Fumbus? I have reading to do.

ALSO THE ART IS MAGICAL. Also alchemical, obviously. Just a couple a' nerds bein' dudes.

lowfyr01 wrote:
Andrew Bud Adams wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Cyder wrote:
Love this story, sadly I will never get to read how it ends or why they are there. I miss Pathfinder novels.
Just because we don't have novels now doesn't mean there never will be, and even in the absence of novels, if enough people asked for it, we might expand this to give the before and after.
I'd read that! ;)
me too^^

As much as I love wondering about how they got here... I too would very much enjoy getting more of this story.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does Friendly Toss add to the tanking potential by yeeting allies out of the front lines as-needed? I have no experience of this in play; I'm just curious and it sounds greatly amusing. Especially if there's a low-hp enemy you can chuck your rogue at to get them out of danger while still being useful.

In fact, this sounds like a fun idea for my eventual Medic Barbarian. I'll save you the wiki-walk; none of it has the concentration trait. I know, right?? Neither does Quick Alchemy, somehow.

Verdant Wheel

Honestly this whole "bullets ignore armour" thing sounds like propaganda spread by Alkenstar. In fact, part of me hopes that's the narrative reference in the new class. :P

I do like the sound of partial armour penetration though. It's more accurate to how they were back in the day. I also hope that they're default Martial but Uncommon, instead of Advanced, because the whole problem with guns is that it's not very hard for an army to get good at using them, at least not in comparison to something as resource-intensive as archery.

Verdant Wheel

scary harpy wrote:

I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

Not a copy of the D&D Warlock; I want Pathfinder to have a new class name Warlock.

I really don't want the D&D Warlock and the Pathfinder Warlock to be similar in any way.

I just want to play a warlock in Pathfinder.

What do you envision such a class being like? I'd love a bit of a darker, fairy-tale inspired casting class, if that's what you mean.

I definitely don't think we need to worry that PF2's just going to port over the 5e Warlock or anything; I think the Witch is as close as we're likely to get, and those two are really nothing alike besides "Patron" and "Familiar" and "I'll use my leftover action to Hex".

I'm not familiar with the older 3.x Warlock, but I hear it was a blaster and that doesn't scream "Warlock" to me. Even though I know it's the iconic Warlock to a lot of people.

1 to 50 of 599 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>