Perpdepog's page

JiCi wrote:

Don't wizards in the Harry Potter universe fire simple quick blasts with their wands?

That sounds similar, but with a staff.

Actually, from what I remember, they are always using their wands to cast what are considered full on spells in that setting.

The Gandalf/Saruman slugfest with staves from the movies might be a closer example from media.

In WoW classic some classes would auto-attack with a wand doing chip damage when they were out of mana, which is probably the closest flavor to what I'm proposing.

I tend to think of the wizard from Gauntlet, myself.

Also, responding to an idea upthread, I'm personally not a fan of both making a staff's attacks work like casting a spell and also making runes apply to those attacks; that feels like it's stepping on the toes of martial classes. I would definitely apply runes to the staff's attacks if the attacks keyed off Dex, however, or even if they worked like normal weapon attacks but used the casting stat to hit.

I'm not sure that I agree that 10th rank spells are the determining factor for being an archmage.

For example, (and I'm not sure if there is new better information) but the High Sun-Mage of Magaambya, Oyamba, is only a 13th level wizard (and a 15th level character) according to Pathfinderwiki.

Unfortunately I don't have an easy way to look at all published caster NPCs, their levels, and their roles within the narrative.

I do agree that being "a high level caster" is important to being an archmage, but not necessarily being a 20th level caster.

At any given time there's probably less than ten 20th level characters on Golarion.

That's fair and makes sense to me. I was looking at a more global view, imagining that there'd be a "there can be only one" situation, but that's far from necessary. I do definitely agree that someone should be reasonably high level to be considered as well; it's hard to imagine someone being a level 2 or 3 archmage.

Had I asked for a squire instead of a knight, I doubt anyone would confuse the two or have any issues making different builds for each character concept.

Firstly, when did I confuse an archmage with anything else? Secondly, if you are comparing a squire and knight, then what are you comparing an archmage with to make this analogy?

Is the squire vs knight not also a matter of degree of skill?[/quote[

Yes, it is, which is why I'm confused that you're using squires and knights to prop up your argument. I agree their builds would be different, and that difference would be of degree; that's what I'm saying. Knights would have skills squires possess, being former squires, but would also have abilities that squires do not. What's more, they need to be widely recognized to be knights, just as the archmages in my post would need to be recognized as such. Knights are, in effect, more combat-capable, meaning higher-level, squires who are officially recognized for that accomplishment.

I assume they'll eventually get around to a secrets of magic remaster. Summoner is fairly strong as is. Some of the initial eidolon abilities are pretty boring though. I'd also like to see more stat spreads for the eidolons or even the ability to just choose the stats ourselves. Not sure why it has to be just one of 2 builds.

I think it's some kind of future-proofing; there was a fair amount of optimizing you could do with eidolons in PF1E regarding stats, especially notable with the synthesist.

I wouldn't be surprised if it took up less page space to give pre-defined stat lineups as opposed to needing to write out the system, as well, though I think there should be ways to make a system like that fairly compact.

Ravingdork wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

I would want an Archmage to be able to do things outside of their tradition's normal wheel house.

Well why don't we pull on that thread, shall we?

How might your wizard break with tradition or otherwise expand their abilities beyond those normally expected of wizards in order to claim the title of archmage?

I also quite like the idea of narrowing the focus based on campaign themes, such as the Magaambya and the Runelords mentioned by Captain Morgan. How might archmages from different cultures or organizations differ from one another?

I don't think (generally) being an archmage means breaking from expectations of wizards. Rather it means being a master of magic. The prefix "arch" denotes leadership. It doesn't necessarily mean being the strongest. And it doesn't have anything to do with doing things other mages wouldn't, not necessarily.

A Magaambyan wizard would be expected to use both arcane and primal magic. But I wouldn't say that it makes all practitioners archmagi.

Rather than examine how "archmages" of different cultures are different, examine what is the same between them. That is the essence of an archmage.

I also tend to see an archmage as a matter of degree, not kind--it's hard to be "arch" if you can't cast 10th-rank spells, for example, thus disqualifying any mage below 19th level--but if I had to choose something that an archmage could do, it'd be this. Futzing with magic, tinkering and freely messing about with spells, creating all-new spells, essentially being the best with magic is how I imagine an archmage to act.

I think that's the other issue I have with questions like "how would you go about building an archmage?" I don't really see archmage-dom as something that you are, but more as something you do. An archmage is an archmage because they keep out-maging other mages and somehow acquire consensus from their peers and inferiors that they are the most mage there is. Their unique talents may help contribute to that, but there isn't really an ability or focus that says "you are an archmage if you have this ability" to me, aside from needing to be able to cast 10th-rank spells as a prerequisite to even being considered for the title.

I can't wait for more dragons.

Like a Cyberdragon (Arcane) a dragon that chose to have it's conciousness and soul digitized and put into a machine body. with an electric breath.

A mutant Dragon, (primal) who's breath weapon is EITHER Poison, Acid, Fire, or Piercing, which is determined every time the breath weapon is recharged.

On the subject of the cyberdragon, I hope we see the return of the robotic dragons; those were fun.

I think the playtests got thrown a bit out of sync by starfinder playtests, so it might be a while.

Weren't the Battlecry, Impossible, and Starfinder 2E playtests also fairly close together as playtests go? Or maybe I'm thinking of Tech Core rather than Battlecry.

What about adding the casting stat to damage, akin to how cantrips used to work in the before times?

James Jacobs wrote:

We decide all those things on a case by case basis.

If you don't mind me asking James, what was the decision made on some of the Archdevils? Can Asmodeus and Dispater still be used?

Asmodeus is in Player Core, and Dispater, along with the other Archdevils, are in Divine Mysteries, so no fear there.

I was picturing using Dex, because it's filling the role of an Air Repeater without the thematic clash. I'd be a bit worried about it being too no-brainer if it used their spellcasting attack.

For damage type, I was thinking it would be a best-fit to the staff theme, with maybe fire as a default fallback.

That sounds good to me. I see your point about not wanting it to be too no-brainer-y. Perhaps using a casting stat could be a skill feat or class feat if you wanted to include the option.

Speaking personally I'd use a different damage type for the default, likely either bludgeoning or piercing to represent being struck with magical force. Bludgeoning would likely be my go-to both because it fits with a lot of things staves may shoot, globs of water and chunks of rock and so on, and would also mean that a staff would default smack someone with its one-handed damage at range.

IMO the only real issue is when the spam is also silly enough for other folks to respond to it, which keeps bringing the thread back and makes it harder for the mods to get rid of.

Perpdepog wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?

He was a D&D-made deity that Pathfinder was using, and with pretty minimal changes. While he's certainly got some allusions to Koschei the Deathless, the misogynistic frost giant deity part of it is D&D's work.

Which honestly makes me happy, because it means we may get a more direct Koschei analog in future. He'd be a real fun baddy to have show up in Irrisen or somewhere, hiding things inside of things inside of things inside of a lake.

Irrisen dolls...

After all, those cargoes of Stavian tech might have a stowaway or two.

A steampunk, or I guess electro-punk, lich version of Koschei would go very hard.

Would Resonance be a separate pool from investiture, in that case? I do like the core idea of being able to cast from a wand more than once per day, but if Resonance is added as its own resource, it would effectively give any wand-user lots of free casts from the get-go, which would tie back to some of the issues mentioned in the previous thread in my opinion.

I’d say if there’s an intent here to create a wand-based archetype, that may potentially be a good starting point: casting lots of extra wand spells might be completely fine with the right feat investment, and archetype feats could be a good way to trial different mechanics you’d want out of wands.

The impression I got is that your Resonance pool is split off from your Investiture (I always think I'm talking about Cosmere when I use that word), and it applies to all magic items, I think.

I do agree with Teridax that getting to use a wand a ton of times each day is probably more trouble than it's worth. I'm also not sure you necessarily need to make Resonance locked off behind a feat or archetype. It can just be something you give to your players.

IMO the real question is how to make it important enough to enough builds, which loops around to what you're expecting it to be spent on. Are you thinking only wands, for example?

Also, on the subject of wands and Resonance, I think the way I'd implement would either have Resonance be equal to half your level, rounded up, or maybe turn all your unspent Investiture points into Resonance, so there is a choice between wearing lots of permanent items or triggering temporary ones.

As for wands, what about spending a Resonance point lets you auto-succeed on the check to see if it is broken or not? You can't wand spam all the time, but you do double the efficiency of all the wands you own.
I could also see Resonance being used for a couple other consumables. Spending a Resonance point rather than burning a talisman, for example, meaning that you can keep using it as long as you have points to spend.

I'd be down with it. Are you intending the blasts to key off of Dex, or off of a casting stat?

The other question is, what kinds of damage are you thinking of? I'm assuming the damage type would be related thematically to the staff somehow, but how broad are you thinking of going?

Ravingdork wrote:

They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?

He was a D&D-made deity that Pathfinder was using, and with pretty minimal changes. While he's certainly got some allusions to Koschei the Deathless, the misogynistic frost giant deity part of it is D&D's work.

Which honestly makes me happy, because it means we may get a more direct Koschei analog in future. He'd be a real fun baddy to have show up in Irrisen or somewhere, hiding things inside of things inside of things inside of a lake.

@Teridax, if you implemented wands as you've proposed, how would you change the spontaneous caster's ability with a staff to spend one charge and use a spell slot for a staff's spell? Your wands sound like they do exactly the same thing, so what would you suggest for a new staff-based benefit?

This isn't a challenge, BTW, it's a genuine question. The idea of an item that adds a new spell to someone's repertoire is one I've been surprised we haven't gotten yet. (Well not all that surprised, I guess. General design ethos puts spells at more of a premium in 2E than 1E.)

Also, just throwing this out there, but I'm someone who loves them both some wands and staves.

When both Pathfinder and Starfinder had monthly Adventure Paths, those were the only two monthly periodicals that I subscribed to. When Starfinder shifted from monthly softcover books to hardcovers, I had all 51 softcovers and got the first two hardcovers, but the joy of flipping through a print book when it arrived in the mail every month was gone. It seems to me that there is already a glut of hardcover adventures on the market. After 2 hardcovers, I canceled my Starfinder AP subscription. As mentioned above, this decision may help local stores keep a whole adventure path in stock but it hurts subscribers.

It is more disappointing that the Pathfinder Adventure Path is following in the footsteps of Starfinder because there is more history behind it and (for my mileage) the quality of the campaigns was better. I have the current 220 Pathfinder APs and continued to enjoy them as the premiere monthly periodical in the world of fantasy RPGs. Oh well, it had a good run. Clearly the decision was made years ago and can't be changed now. I suppose that l will continue the subscription for at least one or two hardcovers and see how it goes, but l suspect it will fizzle out like the Starfinder AP.

Anybody have good suggestions for a new monthly fantasy RPG periodical to take up?

Does it have to be physical print? If not then maybe consider the PFS or SFS scenarios. They're naturally a fair bit shorter, but they are still adventures to read if that's your jam, and they've got a bit of lore in them.

The Bestiaries are books from the older, pre-remaster edition of Pathfinder 2e. While their content is still mostly usable with the Remastered rules, it will require some adaptation.

Specifically you'll need to swap monsters over from the old alignment-based system, where alignment was a damage type, to the new rules, which involve sanctifying to Holy or Unholy, and typically do their damage through spirit damage, which affects a larger number of creatures. Thankfully a lot of examples of the types of creatures affected by Holy/Unholy have already been reprinted, so you can use them as benchmarks to figure out what you want to do.

I really wish they had removed the different grades of materials and also the rune-gating, and made precious materials a lot cooler. At least if the effects were awesome the wildly out to lunch prices could be justified.

I ignore rune-gating at my tables so no one has to bother with special materials if they don't want to.

As-is, precious materials are essentially another monetary loot drop that is hard to slot in anywhere it'd actually be exciting without unbalancing party wealth.

Have you experienced any issues with everyone having precious material weapons for dealing lots of bonus damage? IIRC that's the reason for the grades and rune-gating; precious material cost increases because the value of the weaknesses they trigger, and resistances they bypass, increase as the game progresses.

I dunno how much of an issue it'd actually be in play, and I'm interested in making precious materials more accessible in my games because I think they're neat, so I figured I'd ask. (Still need to come up with a new benefit for adamantine armor, too. Being built Tonka tough doesn't help a ton in a game where almost nothing targets your armor.)

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Oh, how does the Dragon Acolyte compare to the Dragon Discipline?

They're more or less entirely distinct. Dragon Disciple lets you take on draconic traits. Draconic Acolytes use a token from their Draconic Patron to manifest a spirit of your patron that can get a lot of abilities depending on what feats you take.

Yeah. Draconic Acolyte focuses on "manifesting your dragon" as a kind of resource. You call up a ghostly echo of the dragon you draw your power from and it grants you some benefits, and certain feats need you to un-manifest it to activate them, a bit like kineticist Overflow abilities. There are some slight overlaps; Draconic Acolyte has an ability that is similar to the new Dragon Claws focus spell that Dragon Disciple might give you, for instance, but the two archetypes are much more different than I'd originally thought they'd be.

Seems to me like Conspirator Dragons simply want to cause chaos among society in order to get a good story...

Ladies and gents, I just found who were the ancestors of Starfinder's influencers XDD

Mostly they wanna eat. It seems like Draconic Codex is making dragons a lot more magical, and part of the lore is that occult tradition dragons tend to feed off intangible things, like conspiracies unfolding, or fear. The older they get the more and bigger effects they need to have, as well.

JiCi wrote:

Are dragons now "neutrally aligned" or are there still traces of "this dragon is 100% evil", while "that dragon is 100% good", barring planar citizens which may adhere to the plane's own morality?

Some Dragons definately lean towards one end of the spectrum or the other. Mocking Dragons have kept their Chaotic Good characterization, undermining tyrants and humiliating bullies. Bog dragon's MO of raising heroes as bog mummies to tell tales of their glory over and *over* is pretty sinister, and the example of a "Good-aligned" Bog dragon had humility knocked into him by Old Man Jatembe. Most Executor Dragons serve good deities, and for unclear reasons *never* serve those who dwell in hell. Forest Dragons are still very possessive and territorial.

You can also get a feel for a dragon's general ethos by looking at the example dragons they tell stories of. The conspirator dragons are all super OK with manipulating others around them and stirring up trouble, for example, and don't seem to mind too much who it hurts. Their general write-up paints them as leaning toward more evil alignments, if not stating they're evil outright.

Also, been flipping through the book, and I'm really liking the re-imagined time dragon. They don't breathe electricity anymore, for one thing, which always felt weird to me. They have a slowing, time-dilating breath weapon, instead.

Just found a new favorite thing; the page of description and field notes that fronts each dragon's entry in the bestiary.

That is so profoundly helpful in helping folks who can't see the art, like myself, know what each dragon looks like!

Another potential issue I could see is a kineticist creating sappling after sappling of duskwood trees.

My subscription says it has been ordered but I don't have the PDFs yet!?!

Check your account through the new store interface if you haven't already; the new PDFs don't seem to show up in the old library, but do through the Paizo store.

Or, if you've done that, reach out to customer service. I think they're having teething troubles with the new storefront. I somehow wound up with the book even though I never ordered it, for example, and had to reach out to them to get it corrected. (Not that I at all minded getting a free book, mind you.)

LinnormSurface wrote:

What are the draconic pacts like, and what sort of stuff do they give you? I'm imagining they're related to Pactbinder, but it'd be interesting if they were a separate system instead.

They are invested items starting at 6th level and there are different pacts every 3 levels. Each pact grants a unique daily ability that sales with levels.

The lowest one gives a 1d6/level breath weapon.

Each pact allows your bound dragon to do something to or through you.

They all have a penalty if someone breaks the pact.

They're formatted very similarly to the infernal/Thrune contracts we saw in some earlier books, if that helps anyone conceptualize them. There is some extra language about the bad stuff that can happen to you and the dragon should either of you break the pact, which I don't think was in earlier pacts.

Akashi Zetsugou wrote:

Hello! First time poster here, I had a question in regards to the item Amphisbaena Handwraps, are they intended to work with Talismans or Weapon Property Runes or neither? Any help would be appreciated!

For weapon property runes? Definitely.

Quote:

Amphisbaena handwraps can have weapon runes etched onto them, similar to handwraps of mighty blows.

Treat these as handwraps of mighty blows for rune purposes, which can have property runes.

For Talisman... RAW, no. They're not weapons and the item doesn't say they inherit the handwraps ability to have talisman. I suspect a lot of GMs would allow it, though.

I don't think you can etch property runes onto them because they're a specific magic weapon. You can etch fundamental runes onto them, though.

Admittedly this is a gray area, because handwraps of mighty blows aren't technically weapons, they're a worn item, so I could see someone arguing that at the table.

Horde of Underlings on any list has me grinning ear to ear. Clerics summoning a horde of cherubs at endgame sounds tight. Or a druid unleashing a pack of wolves. Or a psychic manifesting a mob of psychic echoes. The possibilities are endless! Bypassing the to hit struggles of traditional summon spells is the cherry on top.

Very excited to snatch this book up in a couple weeks.

It sadly doesn't do energy damage, but it's still super flavorful and fun. I do really like how it expressly lets you flavor your minions, using skeletons as one of the examples; it looks really cool.

IIRC it also doesn't require saves, it just does the damage, so it's an easy pickup for martials dipping into some casting, or someone like a magus or summoner. Summoning echoes of your eidolon would be really cool.

So what is this "Deepening Devotion" Dragon Acolyte Spell?

It's not a spell, it's a feat. Basically it lets you bump up a degree of success on a spell of the tradition your dragon powers come from. When you first get the ability you can only use it on critical failures, I believe, but Deepening Devotion lets it apply to failures and successes as well. It's a bit niche, IMO, but still pretty darn potent for a 10th level feat.

I was expecting Draconic Acolyte to be a reprint of Dragon Disciple, but they're really pretty different.

The big alteration to summoners I'd like to see, aside from just new stuff, is a reworking of the feats that give you monster actions like Grab and Knockdown and similar. The Remaster changed how those monster abilities work, which changed how those feats work, and has made them a lot less deserving of being level 10 feats IMO.

I really like how asuras were re-invisioned. It sounds like they got the Fiend-to-Spirit conversion treatment some other families have gotten, and now they can do interesting things with the dichotomy between Holy and Unholy which sound really cool.

Perpdepog wrote:

NoxiousMiasma wrote:

I'm pretty happy we got new alghollthus - the loss of the aboleth meant that there's a very awkward level gap in the MC1 options - how exactly am I supposed to use a level 4 and level 14 creature in the same fight? But the new ones fill in that level gap nicely (one's the right level to be a boss with ugothol minions, and the other's got some cool tricks it can do with an ugothol)

Other than that, they took the opportunity to get weird with a lot of the new celestials in a way I really like - interesting inspirations from real-world mythology, so there's a cherubim/putto, a bodhisattva, and an Asian-style Heavenly Maiden in the angels, while the archons have an Buddhist-style aescetic monk. Unfortunately all the agathions are reprints, but you can't have it all.

And the dragons are all great, of course!

Are they reprints? I didn't think agathions had made the jump over to PF2E yet. I kept expecting them to show up in a bestiary and it was increasingly looking like angels had taken their spot as the NG outsiders.

They were in Bestiary 3.

Ah cool. Well I'm glad they've made the jump to Remaster regardless.

I've also just found out that there are apparently Worms that Walk in more fightery and roguish flavors now; that pleases me greatly.

I'm pretty happy we got new alghollthus - the loss of the aboleth meant that there's a very awkward level gap in the MC1 options - how exactly am I supposed to use a level 4 and level 14 creature in the same fight? But the new ones fill in that level gap nicely (one's the right level to be a boss with ugothol minions, and the other's got some cool tricks it can do with an ugothol)

Other than that, they took the opportunity to get weird with a lot of the new celestials in a way I really like - interesting inspirations from real-world mythology, so there's a cherubim/putto, a bodhisattva, and an Asian-style Heavenly Maiden in the angels, while the archons have an Buddhist-style aescetic monk. Unfortunately all the agathions are reprints, but you can't have it all.

And the dragons are all great, of course!

Are they reprints? I didn't think agathions had made the jump over to PF2E yet. I kept expecting them to show up in a bestiary and it was increasingly looking like angels had taken their spot as the NG outsiders.

What are some changes or new additions you've seen or heard about in Monster Core 2 that you like?

From what I'm hearing so far, I really like the new golem; it sounds much more in-keeping with its source material.

I've also heard that passages that used to say things like "this effect can only be reversed by the effects of Wish" have started to sub in Manifestation, instead. If true then that's good news; spending 100,000gp and succeeding at such a ridiculously hard ritual seemed, well, ridiculously hard.

Are you set on copying PF1E wands exactly as-is over to PF2E? Asking because I think you could make it work by lowering the number of charges. Make the number of charges five or ten rather than fifty, and now the wands can be priced more cheaply and there is at least some discussion over whether you want them or the default PF2E-style wand. Would you rather have a magic stick that can cast a spell once a day, every day, forever, or a magic stick that can cast a spell five or ten times whenever you want, but then becomes a normal stick? (I think it's still in the second wand's favor, at least in general--I'm actually a big fan of PF2E wands--but the competition is closer at least.)

It sounds like we will get a mirage archdragon! I wonder what level those will be and if there will be different levels among all other archdragons.

My guess is that they will be different levels. Archdragon sounds like the new Wyrm/Great Wyrm categories from the previous edition. Could also be something to do with mythic though; that'd be awesome.

Maybe make a general feat that requires an extra action like Trick Magic Item but requires no skill check to cast beyond the first use. Then maybe add a flat DC 5 check to see if the wand becomes non-functional for the day or breaks altogether.

I like this idea of some kind of check associated with the wand, one that goes up as you use it more. I don't think you should need a feat investment, though; from what I'm gathering the intent here is for this manner of wand to replace scrolls.

I'd instead consider an action, call it Manipulate Wand or whatever, that you perform to prime the wand for a casting. Depending on how worried you are over action economy you can either always make it cost an action, not cost an action at first but cost one if someone uses a wand multiple times in a single encounter, or make it a check with a sliding scale of action investment. Something like,

Manipulate Wand (one-action)
Concentrate Magical Manipulate
You prepare a wand to cast a spell stored within. Make a skill check based off of the spell's rank and the magical tradition of the spell stored in the wand--Arcana for arcane, Nature for primal, Occultism for occult, or Religion for divine--defaulting to the skill associated with your magical tradition's spell list if the spell appears on multiple lists.

* Critical Success: you cast the spell from inside the wand. Manipulate Wand becomes a free action.
* Success: you cast the spell from inside the wand.
* Failure: you fail to cast the spell from inside the wand, but are able to conserve the charge used to cast the spell.
* Critical Failure: you fail to cast the spell from inside the wand, and the charge you spent on the spell is lost.

A progression like this means that using a wand will sometimes cost an action, like pulling out multiple scrolls would, but not if you critically succeed. I could also see swapping out not losing charges with not wasting the action for a failure condition as well, or, if wands only have five or ten charges, making critical successes instead cast the spell without expending a charge.

Aw yee. And just in time for me to be finished with some major projects. Time to celebrate by beggering myself with Paizo content!

Squark wrote:

Dracomicron wrote:

Planning some truly gnarly undead SFS characters since this book just showed up on Character Options.

The Adventure is there, and if you own that, you've been good to go for about a month. To reiterate: This new Player's Guide has not yet been sanctioned. We do not know if the added backgrounds and Stitch Flesh will be SFS legal, and it is not 100% certain the character options reprinted in this document will be available if you do not own the adventure.

The book was an instant order for me. I've been waiting for playable corpsefolk since 2017.

It's in my cart, just waiting for the gold program to start, lol. I didn't realize this until PF2E, but I am apparently a sucker for undead PC options.

Also, on the subject of corpsefolk, I'm thinking of giving them a custom feat that lets them get into the Zombie archetype as an ancestry feat, perhaps around levels 5 or 9. It just feels too appropriate.

There are some spells I'd still rather buy as PF2E-style wands, specifically those at lower level that I'll be casting every day. You'd save money in the long term.

Aside from that, IMO the only real thing you need to consider is price, because you are effectively bulk-purchasing scrolls as a single item. The price of the wand, and how many charges it's got, will determine it's desirability.
(I guess you also technically have to calculate the bulk difference too, but that's much less of a concern unless you and your group really like tracking bulk.)

Oh, nice! Much thanks; I recently picked up Green Ronin's Cthulhu Awakens and it's got me in a big cosmic horror/Mythos RPG mood.

Just kinda echoing what others have said, but I agree with them; the exemplar shines as a flexible force multiplier. They can pile on some damage with others to lay down extra hurt, buff their friends, and debuff enemies, swapping about as needed to make sure what everyone is doing is better.

They kinda remind me of summoners in that respect, actually. Summoners are also force multipliers, and rely on the fact that they're in two places at once to boost people nearby with either flanking or spell support. Exemplars trade out that flexible mobility for a flexible set of powers, meaning that while they can't be as everywhere at once as summoners--and even that is arguable depending on your ikons--they can swap in a new power set to help with whatever is going on that turn.

Perpdepog wrote:

NorrKnekton wrote:

I do not think the wizard could archetype into druid and "tutor" themselves into translating primal cantrips into arcane cantrips.

If you're talking about cantrips on both the Arcane and Primal lists being selected by a multiclass druid, then scribed into their wizard-class spellbook, I'm not actually sure what prevents it. The closest I can think of is the bit about "remaining in conversation" with your prospective tutor, that sounds hard to do when it's just you, but I could see talking to yourself flying in some circumstances.

It'd be a slow process, but I think you could potentially do it?

It's only from a rules perspective that it is wonky, it makes absolute sense from a world perspective. Even if a GM forbids selftutoring it doesn't stop the absolutely rules legal method of crafting the scroll or cantrip deck and then learning it as a wizard spell from that.

I may need to do some of this in a game I'm in. I have a wizard character who would definitely spend months or potentially years learning the ways of druids or clerics or whatever just so he could pilfer any overlapping spells. They just love knowing spells that much.

I do not think the wizard could archetype into druid and "tutor" themselves into translating primal cantrips into arcane cantrips.

If you're talking about cantrips on both the Arcane and Primal lists being selected by a multiclass druid, then scribed into their wizard-class spellbook, I'm not actually sure what prevents it. The closest I can think of is the bit about "remaining in conversation" with your prospective tutor, that sounds hard to do when it's just you, but I could see talking to yourself flying in some circumstances.

It'd be a slow process, but I think you could potentially do it?

Looks like the Whispering Way did come first, after all, at least according to GM Core.

The Song of Silence is a modern remix of the ancient Whispering Way that once spread on Lost Golarion. It teaches that Pharasma's judgment is a revolving door leading to an eternal cycle of suffering, and the only way out is undeath. The Song of Silence is prevalent on Eox, where dying mortals beg undead gurus for a surefire shot at immortality.

HenshinFanatic wrote:

We already know which traditions each of the Imperial Dragons are tied to.

Arcane: Sea and Underworld
Divine: Sky
Occult: Sovereign
Primal: Forest

I don't recall ever seeing this be said. Do you have a source for this information?

The source is their statblocks; those are the traditions tied to the effects they use and spells they cast.

Primal dragon with link to metal and "spark".

Lightning rod dragon

Galvanic dragon? Actinic dragon?

If you can track down that info I'd love to see it. The Whispering Way being extraterrestrial sounds super cool.

I took it as figurative language. The undead are doomed, not Doomed. While it's true that you are definitely doomed if your Doomed value goes up to Doomed 4, you don't need to be Doomed 4, or even Doomed, to be doomed.

I'm super looking forward to the store update. I've got an ever-growing collection of new books in my cart specifically so I can get in on the gold program when it launches.