Search Posts
From the looks of it the bestiary section will include remasters of some fey, hopefully the ratio isn't too bad. And if it is well at least I get to be excited for a theoretical Monster Core 3. Considering their page count, my guess is that each of the Yestereve Revels will include some player content, similar to the schools in Rival Academies. I already get annoyed at the stories and lore in rulebooks, if a full quarter of this book was Golarian lore I'd be mad.
After the necromancer I would kinda love more specialty casters like it, 2 slot casters with a fair amount of their budget put towards bespoke abilities which enhance their themes with high flavor feats. Have the magic tank as the sort of fair use Abjurer, a dedicated enchantment/illusion class, ect. By virtue of their design, spellcasters tend to be generalists, so giving classes or class archetypes that let you play more specialised ones would be the go moving forward I think. Necromancer has been the most excited I've been for a class in a while, because everything about it screams necromancy, not just generalised caster of x theme.
Oh Cyrad just reminded me! I kinda wish there was an optional rule in the game to just allow any ancestry to optionally boost their size up or down by one (to a min of tiny or max of large). I feel like at this stage we've seen enough tiny and large content to confidently say that they don't really have a significant boost in power (or at least it's compensated by the disadvantages), and means that size changes needn't be heritage locked. Play a small draxie or the tallest halfling! Also it's weird that you can't play a small human, especially with characters like Tyrion being such iconic figures in fantasy fiction.
With wizards I really love the thematics of their thesis being their kind a lens of analysis through which they view spellcasting, and it does a lot to sell the idea of being the studious types compared even to other int casters. They just don't go far enough mechanically by being just level 1 features. I wish that the power budget of arcane schools had been added to the thesis in the remaster, or at least adding some thesis specific feats. Arcanist style exploits like The Raven Black suggested would be a step in the right direction, or something like the SF2e technomancer (which is more experimental spellshaping wizard than the experimental spellshaping wizard, hence the problem). Somewhere in the middle would be my ideal I think, with each subclass letting you "break the rules" in its own way, with some more general exploits for all wizards. Arcane schools aren't essential for the fantasy I feel.
Sounds neat, I just have pathfinder stuff at my tables though for the most part and I know plenty of others are the same. I have enough grief trying to scrub golarian lore from options for my homebrew setting without trying to de-sci-fi options as well haha. If a player was really hyped for a specific concept I might consider it but they are ultimately two different games and I like to treat them as such.
For me personally I don't really care about the specific writers, its a consumer decision. If you publish stuff like this on one hand but then try and present me with more palatable content with the other, I'm not just going to pretend they don't both fund the same company. I don't really know anything about Professor DM, I don't know about most of the names on the front of the books I read unless I'm given a good reason to. I know that if I send money to this company going forward I'm going to support whoever did approve of this and published this book though, and implicitly I'd be in support of it too. So unless they course correct (unlikely with the seeming success of Deathbringer), I won't buy from them anymore. Anyway apologies for derailing the thread with battlezoo/Deathbringer talk. I can't remember if I've mentioned it but a fungal ancestry other than the leshy heritage would be cool. Could have an anti-undead culture to represent their desire for things to actually decompose?
I doubt paizo will give us sphinxes but maybe maftet in a theoretical golden roads book? I doubt paizo will go as far as battlezoo with ancestries (dragons, sea serpents, ect) but with whats announced I'd say a fair chunk of the battlezoo portfolio would be within paizo's wheelhouse with where they're heading. And until then I still have the things I've already bought, don't need to send them more money but no point wasting what I've already got.
Oh. Wow, you weren't exaggerating. What is her spine doing? It's every woman on the page! It's not even just being cheeky anymore, it just keeps going. The fact that I don't even known what piece of art you're referencing is very telling.
I mean battlezoo dragons kinda set the standard of "anything can be playable and balanced in 2e if you aren't a coward". I don't really want to support them anymore [...]Wait, why not? What happened or what'd they do? Latest kickstarter of theirs, Deathbringer, has been pretty dicey. The misogyny of its art and marketing copy has been what's stood out to me, there's been discussions of racism (the racist content may have been taken down, I don't recall), and its also attracted a lot of attention from the less than welcoming side of the hobby. If the company is fine with what they're selling in Deathbringer I really don't want to buy their PF content going forward.
I mean battlezoo dragons kinda set the standard of "anything can be playable and balanced in 2e if you aren't a coward". I don't really want to support them anymore but with Paizo seeming to be more open to making playable "monsters" I'm hoping I won't need them anymore. I doubt we'll see official true dragons but gremlins, gargoyles, and oozes is definitely going in a direction I'd like.
That's what I was meaning. There isn't really a good shorthand for "class that gets a mix of martial and magic progression" yet. My instinct is gish but gets confusing when people already talk about necromancer or animist gishes. As much as I would love a dedicated primal elementalist class I doubt we'll get one when that theming is already so wonderfully delivered by the kineticist. Maybe some sort of aura support class? Summon a nature spirit that gives buffs/debuffs in an area while you sling primal spells. Gives a primal take on a conjurer to boot.
I agree with moosher that some sort of trickster class would be a welcome addition, and I've wondered if that's why they haven't remastered Spell Trickster rogue yet. Adds another bounded caster (we need a new name for them. Martial Caster? idk).
As for other spellcaster's while necromancer has definitely relieved the pressure there are still a lot of unfulfilled conjurer fantasies that people can't really do. Could either go class archetype for necromancer or a new bespoke class, but it would need to have a new take on summoning in that case.
PF2e is already so close to having dungeon turns, make it official paizo!
Wouldn’t it be cool to have vehicle runes that could make your wheels fire and leave a trail of flaming ground behind for a round or slippery ice and do extra damage when you do stunt damage with your vehicle as a prop? I kind of expect if the ship rules in SF Tech Core are well received we'll see a version of them back-ported to Pathfinder for a more nautical vibe. Or if not then plenty of homebrewers will.
I am kind of excited when this tome got announced, and not just for the gargoyles ! I wish there was a source book on the Darklands where there was a full spec of playable races and maybe a campaign going from 1-10 in the Darklands. I would be super hyped. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been anything announced to that effect. Apparently Vaultlines assumes that the characters are from the darklands, and while that is definitely doable with current options (and I'm sure there'll be lore expansions for human settlements or whatever) it feels strange there isn't a darklands adventure to lead into it or a sourcebook with more darklands options. I guess you could use Sky King's Tomb but that feels quite specific (read as dwarfy). Here's hoping Tome of Dungeons helps in a year lol.
No, but imps can still fly, attack, fly away. If you don't have a reactive strike you're cooked. It's a double standard imo. Enter the humble prepare action
You don't need to talk down to me, I know why people are focused on stunt driving in spite of the mechanics of the class. The class, taken in the totality of its mechanics, doesn't want to be a stunt-driver, and so trying to force it to be one just because of a dumb name is silly. Its like forcing monks or magus to be religious; makes sense with the name but clearly that's not what the class is about. The name likely won't change and I hope they don't expand the vehicle part of the class because frankly I don't think it meshes well with 2e vehicles as they are. Having that be baked into a class would be annoying and take page space away from feats and features that would enhance the class that is there. As for looking at synonyms for daredevil you are missing the point or being intentionally rude. This is a class about maneuvers, about throwing a guy into a wall or stack of crates in a surprisingly cinematic take on 2e martial combat. An alternate name would be focusing on that (but like I said, the name likely won't change so it's a moot point).
As a GM I'm reaching the point where I'd be up for a variant rule for PF2e that more freely gave out flight provided it is made clear how the GM needs to adjust encounters (more archers, adjusting terrain, ect). Like I think it was the right move to have the current baseline but I"m personally willing to put the work in to allow level 1 flight in PF.
Vehicles have kind of always been a sore point for me in 2e, and not something I've been jumping to include so I am all for excising it from the daredevil. Honestly feels like it was included more because of the name of the class than the actual mechanics of it. On that note I don't agree about the idea that it fits better in SF, I get the vibe people would be more happy if it just had a different name. It feels like 2e's take on the brawler but focused on the maneuvers rather than the unarmed/close weapon fighting, hence the name change.
Nearly all classes can be basically summed up as Martial or Mage so acting like the daredevil or slayer uniquely step on the toes of other classes is a non-starter in my mind. They are both mechanically unique and that's kinda the most important thing to justify them as being classes in the game. And the name daredevil is a little silly but 1) I can't really think of a better one and 2) This game still has the Monk so you can't pretend dumb names haven't been around since inception, even if it was grandfathered in. EDIT: Oh and the thing I totally forgot to say, while the playtest wasn't the greatest in the world paizo has yet to let me down on a final release of the class (save for some light errata). Until they do I'm not going to doom over a playtest document.
Cambion is the remaster/ORC name for fiendish nephilim, aka tieflings. I don't believe it comes up in rules text but it is mentioned in the lore overview of nephilim. Additionally celestial nephilim tend to be called empyrean instead of aasimar. Most people still call them tieflings but I am all for leaving D&D lingo in the dust and loosening their grip on the hobby. EDIT: Egg on my face for not refreshing before posting lol
I'm a little surprised the iconic slayer seems to be a cambion when gargoyle is right there, not to mention any unannounced ancestries, especially with the trend in the last three rulebooks having an iconic tied to an ancestry feature in the book (nephilim for WoI, jotunborn for BC, and automaton for IM). I just sort of assumed the trend would continue
I'm probably too biology brained because I see 99% of flying creatures in fantasy and know they couldn't fly, just add gargoyles to the list haha. I do like the idea of them being tied to flying islands though, will probably knick that for my setting regardless. I feel like one of the big things for gargoyles is being ambush predators, so I'm hoping they combo well with rogue. Maybe having some hide in plain sight feat as long as you're in earthy or rocky terrain? Or they'll just get free access to Terrain Stalker as a feat, who knows.
What we need are ancestry building rules so we're not all stuck needing the Paizo devs to make obscure stuff for us. I mean just stealing heritages and feats from other ancestries its pretty easy to cobble together a new ancestry. While I wish paizo had given general advice on homebrew in GM Core, ancestries are pretty easy to whip up. The fun parts of new ancestries tend to be in the original feats or heritages which would fall outside the purview of ancestry building rules and into dedicated homebrewing. That's certainly whats got me excited for the gargoyle and ooze.
Tone of a game is up to GMs yes, but the writers of the books set the baseline. Yeah people can crank up the nasty but there is a set level of expectation for the game based off of a combination of the mechanics (you gotta be okay with characters dying in the story) and the presentation (players are generally good guys). Specific products might adjust this baseline, such as APs, but the writers still decide that and tend to be optional. The other aspect of this is that its not just about saying "don't be ableist when you play this disabled character", there is a lot of nuance in how to do that and also requires an understanding of what is being represented. Accidentally misrepresenting a mental illness still has a harmful effect, even if someone goes in with the best of intentions. Unless paizo will accompany such a character with extensive advise on representing that specific condition I wouldn't be comfortable with just trusting every single GM. Bringing this back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with depicting a gargoyle with OCD, but making it baked into the ancestry would be irresponsible without an unrealistic amount of extra advice on doing so respectfully. Now considering paizo's track record in 2e so far I highly doubt they'll do that so its kinda a moot point.
I'm not telling you to be offended, but we are talking about something that can potentially be published for general use. You have to be careful about how things are presented lest you end up with the situation I put forth. Also I never said that you can't play a person with mental illness, but for a publisher to encourage it without all the additional safety guidelines that go along with that sort of thing is inviting harm to people with those illnesses. There has been a lot written about how this can be done well and respectfully but that's part of a larger conversation that goes beyond gargoyles or ToD. I haven't read or played VTM so I can't speak to how that faction is. I certainly have a knee-jerk reaction to how you've described it but I'm not going to make assumptions here.
I don't see it as problematic and sometimes the bad guys have mental illnesses. Making it so they never ever have them would just be the same problem in reverse wouldn't it? "Only neurotypicals are bad guys!" There's a lot of good villains in media who are Obsessive and Compulsive (And in real life). A villain with OCD is fine (although I'd probably steer away from it specifically for a TTRPG. Lot more room for GMs to, accidentally or otherwise, be really ableist). An entire ancestry having OCD, and an up to this point mostly villainous ancestry at that, is not. I do not want a bunch of people pantomiming the very real condition I have and then going "its fine because I'm playing a gargoyle". Also, frankly, you do not speak for people with OCD.
That's what it was, thanks! None of those three seemed very Chelaxian to me so it didn't occur to me they'd be there of all places. Well, that'll be something to look forward to in October! I assume there'll be fetchlings in Nidal, bugbears in newly founded Scorchhome, and Strix have long had conflict with Cheliax (it's part of why they're so distrustful of humans, they've consistently interacted with the absolute worst of them). I believe their largest population is in Devil's Perch, which is now in Ravounel.
Fetchlings, Strix, and Bugbears will be in the LO: Cheliax book in a couple months! Here!
Oh the other thread was killed? Bummer. As a person with OCD I don't love how they have been displayed to this point in that regard, especially with them starting out as villains and now being reformed/expanded on. Like there is a way that it can be done tastefully but starting with "these MONSTERS are OBSESSIVE and COMPULSIVE" reads very poorly. I imagine Paizo is aware of this and wouldn't carelessly reproduce that in the ancestry but thought it worth mentioning. I would like to see them go in the direction of the sort of thoughtful and methodical stone creature that buck the stone stereotype by being quick moving and flying, and the slow earth is more in the mind set which then comes off as contemplative rather than obsessive. In my own game there is a community of gargoyles who have sorta become defacto historians for this city that has been passed back and forth between different kingdoms and empires. Thanks to being largely ignored/blending in to the architecture authorities have not cracked down on them for recording history and events that would be inconvenient for different regimes. There's also a journalist in the know who likes using them as a source.
I personally don't get why ogres couldn't be reformed but acknowledge they are somewhat polarizing, hence my suggestion they might go troll instead (the monster core descriptions are definitely more kind to them than ogres). As someone who wasn't around for the bad old days, it was the original runelords AP that gave people such strong feelings about ogres right?
I mean could do harpies as a heritage of strix, similar to what we've seen for cecaelia or tsukumogami. If I were to wager some guesses at what we might see in tome of dungeons in addition to gargoyles and oozes, and assuming 6 ancestries like Howl, I'd predict: Xulgath - For the same reasons other have listed.
I'm personally an ogre-truther, I know they have a... reputation in Golarian, but modern PF loves redeeming the previously irredeemable! I think it would do a lot for a having a more generic "big lad" ancestry compared to the jotunborn (which I love but is quite thematically specific). Throw on an elemental heritage and you can even get the elemental giant theming! Bringing remaining things over from 1e would also be nice, its just the question of what they're willing to (like I doubt the mythos ancestries would come over as playable for instance).
Haven't done a tonne yet, but allowing a struggling thaumaturge in my party to use a rotating pistol instead of a PF gun has made them happy. I'll probably work on make a thematic/mechanical conversion of the SF classes and items to PF at some point to make it easier to use in my games (technomancer becoming an arcanist, area weapons to be Pillars of Eternity style magical implements, ect).
To be clear I don't want them to be condensed either, but from a publisher / page count perspective it makes enough sense that I can't rule it out as a direction they'll go.
From the looks of it we're not likely to get any BotD content in Impossible Magic, which feels a bit odd with necromancer being able to get an undead familiar but who knows. Might still get undead eidolon with the summoner though? With monsters from BotD having started to be cannibalized by Monster Core and Monster Core 2, not to mention all the OGL-ism as others have brought up, I doubt it'll get a straight remaster. Monsters that don't make it into a theoretical MC3 probably won't return outside of Lost Omens or an AP. Best case scenario I could see is something like Draconic Codex? Remaster some beasties that didn't make it into a MC, bring back popular player options like the archetypes or minions, while leaving anything OGL like old style ghouls or references to necromancy as a school of magic out easily without having to restructure an existing book + rewriting the fiction in it. Even then I'm not betting on seeing that any time soon (maybe when the inevitable Tar-Baphon story event rolls around).
I'm sure they'll get remastered at some point, but its hard to tell where (like I would have bet money kitsune would be remastered with Tian Xia but no dice). Like I'd love to confidently say that Golden Road or a theoretical Casmaron book would have them but who knows. It'd be more likely if they get the nephilim treated and are condensed into one heritage. Honestly with all the pre-master ancestries I think there is more than enough to justify a "Ancestry Guide but Not" similar to the relationship between Gods and Magic vs Divine Mysteries. That said haven't heard anything to that effect and the active remaster period seeming to have closed so I'm not expecting it.
Not having the actual create thrall cantrip is interesting. The dedication feat is pretty good but doesn't seem op. Definitely a tad bit of power creep on a spellcaster dedication but I don't really mind, it doesn't look like a "must take".
Captivator and Soulforger remasters are appreciated. The new archetypes all have super evocative names, makes me really excited to see how they are! With 2 pages for Automaton looks like it'll probably be an expansion of the ancestry rather than a reprint which is nice.
I could see a fleshwarp flesh necromancer whose thralls are parts of its own body that it is sloughing off for maximum ick factor. Riffing off the samsaran idea a bit, a ghoran who has been hoarding their old bodies for fear of them being eaten by others who has taken to animating them to help defend them. Pairs well with the occult charms and enchantments utilizing the lovely fragrances of their old bodies. Maybe a shisk osteomancer using bone quills? Would need to massage the idea a bit to give it a bit more oomph.
In general 2e seems to have moved away from top-down "this is the Canon™ truth of the universe" to more in-universe commentary and theories on what that truth could be. I am usually pretty down on the in universe fiction included in rulebooks but I wouldn't mind the inclusion of an in-universe debate on necro-ethics in IM, similar to some of the stuff we saw in SoM. Paizo can have it's cake and eat it too, allowing the differing in-universe perspectives to do the heavy lifting. Want to have a character that thinks Pharasma is a wrong or a lier? Cool! Want to have an edge lord who thinks they're doing a little evil to stop the big Evil? Great! And that can spiral out into the opinions of non-necromancers and how they see it. It'd be a win-win and maximize character concepts, which I'd wager is what Paizo will prioritize.
I'm really looking forward to getting these little drakes! I am curious whether we'll see statblock forms for the new dragonets at some stage like we have for the fey dragonet?
This isn't 100% confirmed but was *suggested* by some wording in a recent Paizo live that there may be more/another ancestry in Battlecry! in addition to the Jotunblood. I wouldn't have the faintest idea what that could be, if we're looking to the past maybe Gargoyle or Wyvaran (if they haven't been rolled into Dragonblood VH)? Or some as of yet unknown ancestry? If we're looking at an Inner Sea war something weird or funky like a copyright distinct Bladeling (sorta a War Nephilim) could be interesting. Maybe a rehash of Strix if Cheliax is being focused on?
I wonder if we'll get other 1e Pathfinder wizard subschools as classes? I think my GF would absolutely love to get an Enchanter class (especially one that gives the ability to afflict mind-effecting abilities/spells on creatures that are otherwise immune or mindless). I have been thinking about this a bit. An Abjurer could be really fun as like a magical counterpart to Guardian, or maybe a conjurer/teleporter type class? IDK just a lot of fun conceptual spaces that could still be explored! I know I'm already considering how a class archetype could switch necromancer to a sort of summoning type horde caster but I'm definitely getting ahead of myself.
Between the Necromancer, the stream mentioning some things with regards to true names with Runesmith, and still not having word on remastered Secrets of Magic or Book of the Dead I reckon this book will remaster some content from those two books alongside new things for those of us that already own them. With how much ogl-isms were in those two books I wouldn't be surprised if they had to be scrapped rather than remastered like Guns and Gears was. Until a spoil-sport at Paizo tells me otherwise this book will 100% be called Book of the Magic |
