Perpdepog's page

I don't think they'll fully drop their physical books because a good chunk of D&D's cultural cache is purely aesthetic and the books make for a good luxury item but we can already see the way the wind is blowing with stuff like D&D Beyond.

This is also my guess. There are people who will pay for physical books, but they're going to be billed more as collector's items rather than the primary method of interacting with the game, which I suspect is going to go more digital.

So, for those who have read it, I'm curious. Does the Remaster move the sorcerer up or down in your favorite classes? Just so you know, I'm not a math player; I play to have fun, so I'm by no means efficient. I enjoy sorcerers, so they've always been near the top for me.

It stayed pretty much the same for me, but that's because the sorcerer was the caster I'd reach for most often if I wanted a purely caster-y character. I like having lots of spells, but sometimes prepared casters like the wizard were frustrating for me to keep track of; spontaneous doesn't have that problem.

I'm a tiny bit sad that Imperial got changed. The new version looks real good (whether it's too good or not has yet to be seen but it's definitely powerful) I just enjoyed having the more generally skill-focused sorc. It made them feel more wizardly, which was what I always thought that bloodline was about.

I'm happy with the changes. I like that sorcs got blastier. I'll miss being able to pick up a spell off another list, I have a few sorcerer ideas who would have benefited hugely from it, but it's not the end of the world.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm just glad the homunculus is a thing now. It wasn't, either in the alchemist feat or as a specific familiar, for the longest time, and I was frustrated by that, especially when it was in the bestiary and is so strongly linked to alchemy.

I've also got a mad scientist-type character from PF1E that I've been waiting to port over, and the homunculus was a fairly important bit of their character narratively.

Even worse, the old poisoner familiar ability required a "homunculus" familiar (similar to the new one) without a way to have one lol.

I knew there was a place I'd seen the name outside the bestiary, just couldn't remember where.

Does the champion have a feat that lets them replenish all their focus points with a single refocus activity, as we've seen in some other classes?

Yes, showing up at 12, like the same kind of feat does for other classes.

I'm just glad the homunculus is a thing now. It wasn't, either in the alchemist feat or as a specific familiar, for the longest time, and I was frustrated by that, especially when it was in the bestiary and is so strongly linked to alchemy.
I've also got a mad scientist-type character from PF1E that I've been waiting to port over, and the homunculus was a fairly important bit of their character narratively.

Something I forgot to ask: did they come up with an ORC-friendly substitute for the Holy Avenger, especially now that Champions have kind of shed the Paladin chrysalis at at last?

It initially looked like they were going to introduce special weapons for each type of Champion, after the Blessed Reformer came out in Treasure Vault, but with the Remaster's changes things might be up in the air for the "iconic knightly weapon that reaches its full power in the hands of a pure-hearted knight" trope ("pure" not necessarily meaning "good" in this description so much as "upholds whatever code of conduct they've sworn without compromise").

It's not tied to champions specifically, but there is a new magic longsword, at the same level, called the Chalice of Justice. It's treated as a couple different precious materials and once per day you can actiavte it to heal some and do extra damage, with the healing being more effective if you're Holy.

WotC also sent Pinkertons (Private police infamous for violent union busting) to a MT:G fan's/content creator's house after WotC accidentally sent him cards before release date and made videos about them.

Small clarification here, those cards were provided by the guy's LGS, not by WotC themselves. The difference between the set the creator wanted and the set coming out afterward was something like one letter on the boxcode and the LGS got them mixed up. Totally reasonable thing to do that in no way warranted the Pinkertons. Then again I'm not sure anything really warrants the Pinkertons.

I wonder how the alchemy changes are going to affect the gunslinger's Munitions-based feats.

Perpdepog wrote:

Roll for Combat just had Thirsty on to talk about SF2E's release. He talks a bit about starships during the talk. All I can really recall is him talking about how they're taking their time because they want starships to be done right, and that they've learned some lessons from earlier attempts and similar systems, but IIRC there's no indications of when they'll be coming.

The whole stream is pretty fun listening to; having Thirsty and Mark in the same talk is a bit of a treat.

Do you have a link to this? I looked for a recent stream and have been having trouble finding it.

Sure thing. Here you go.

Arcaian wrote:

RaptorJesues wrote:

seems like dueling dance has been removed? I guess thats incentive to use a buckler but still, feels pretty weird

The free-hand riposte feat now gives you panache when the enemy misses you in addition to the normal benefits, so Dueling Dance would be a meaningful increase in power if it applied to that as well. It seems like they're trying to encourage bucklers being more defensive, with free-hand being more offensive.

Elegant buckler also gives panache when someone critically misses you.

Which is odd, because the other level 1 feats that enable similar styles, like Extravagant Parry and Flashy Dodge, enable panache on a regular miss and don't require a crit fail.

Honestly, I'm not sure I would call the new oracle a remaster of the old oracle. It's more of a replacement than a remaster.

It feels almost like a beefy class archetype to me, yeah.

I think this new oracle is more for me though, I have to admit. I really like the flexibility it gives, letting me describe how my curse grows throughout my character's journey. That's real neat. I also like that I on't have to touch my curse much if I don't want to.
I'm debating turning my dry lich cleric turned mummy primal sorc into a flames oracle of some kind. I'd need to see how many spells I'll be able to poach.

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Operative is probably getting a significant rework in SF2e. A preview document showed that they will have 4+int starting skill proficiencies which is considerably less than PF2e rogue and there has been no mention of anything like the Operative's Edge class feature which was a huge culprit in them being the universal skill monkey.

I think the assumption is that Operative is being reconceptualized as a specialist class with a few niches they can fill and a solid single-target damage through their 'Aim' ability. Given that they are an 8HP class and start at expert with certain weapons, it's looking like they are a hybrid of Gunslinger/Rogue.

Pretty much, they are explicitly no longer a skill monkey, but a "skill specialist". The most important skill being apparently "killing you".

It definitely only gets the normal amount of standard skill "upgrades" as the vast bulk of classes. Instead the specialist parts seems to come from at least one feature called "specialized skill set". Presumably some variation of the PF2 Swashbuckler's "Stylish Tricks" - pick a skill of a small pool determined by your subclass, which you will get free upgrades and skill feats for.

Also according to the preview, it retains superior mobility.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the Specialized Skill Set shakes out, especially with the loads of skill feats Thursty--think I misspelled it as Thirsty before, and hope I'm spelling it right now--has teased. I'm also hoping we get some more feats like some of the high level rogue ones that let us become downright cartoonishly good at a specific skill.

And the mobility is very welcome. Means you'll have smoother turns moving up in cover and taking pot shots.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm also pretty sure that the 1d4 was inserted so that people could still, potentially, FoB more than once a fight if they got lucky, since the standard cooldowns graduate from 1/round, 1d4 rounds, 1/minute, 1/10 minutes, 1/hour, and 1/day.

The lowest of those is what the monk already has, and made FoB real easy to poach, while 1/minute means you're only ever getting to use FoB once per fight. Every 1d4 rounds is the rough medium between those two.

I just don't like the random part of it, if it was 1 round, or 2 rounds, or 3 rounds then you could plan a loop around it but 1d4 is a bummer.

That's fair. I don't think it's bothered me because when I see 1d4 rounds my mind translates that into 1/combat, so I plan for that. If I get to do it more than that, cool.

What is the result of the cursebound condition for the Bones mystery?

This is me paraphrasing, so I can't give you super concrete details, but it's something like both Vitality and Void damage can hurt you, an you gain some weakness at two stages, and the other two stages give you fort save penalties.

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel there is a heavy trend in Remaster to kill what were previously the obvious power archetyping options, like Monk MC for FoB, Sentinel to get Heavy Armor for Barbarian, Sorcerer MC to get Dangerous Sorcery.

Which makes the fact that you can still get Champion reaction at 6 all the more puzzling.

And with no caveats, from what I understand. I think it was Swing Ripper who pointed out that bumping the feat up in levels might have been too disruptive to lots of PFS characters, which could be why Paizo didn't do it.

Thurston Hillman wrote:

Soldiers get Legendary Class DC Proficiency.

I don't know why but my first thought after reading this was: "What's this?! By God, it's Bernie Sanders with a steel chair!"

I'd watch that. Heck I'd pay to watch that.

Also, I find it a bit amusing how the majority of classes that go to legendary in class DC are Con-based. It's like you need to have a high constitution in order to class as hard as you possibly can.

Tsubutai wrote:

Monk archetype imposing a 1d4-round cooldown on Flurry of Blows was a pleasant surprise.

Less exciting than a minor boost to monks FoB at around 10th level, TBH.

It being a 1d4 round cooldown instead of a static length cooldown makes it annoying to plan around, to boot.

I think that was the point. Now people who take the monk archetype aren't going to be as consistent with FoB as monks are, making monks have a bit more of their kit to themselves. I'm also pretty sure that the 1d4 was inserted so that people could still, potentially, FoB more than once a fight if they got lucky, since the standard cooldowns graduate from 1/round, 1d4 rounds, 1/minute, 1/10 minutes, 1/hour, and 1/day.

The lowest of those is what the monk already has, and made FoB real easy to poach, while 1/minute means you're only ever getting to use FoB once per fight. Every 1d4 rounds is the rough medium between those two.

Zalabim wrote:

Wouldn't that same language allow a bomber to use one action to draw and strike with their field vial bomb, but Quick Bomber says "You Interact to draw a bomb, draw a versatile vial, or use Quick Alchemy to create a bomb, then Strike with the bomb." So, it looks pretty confirmed that versatile vials are a thing you draw when you want to use them.

Actually it's only optional to put versatile vials in your Alchemist’s Toolkit. So the language in Quick Bomber would allows you to perform a 1 action throw Versatile Vials regardless of if you have them in your toolkit or not.

Or IF you have your toolkit at all (if it’s stolen, you’re captured, or you have to remove it for whatever reason) because the remastered Alchemist regenerates Versatile Vials regardless of the presence or absence of your Alchemist’s Toolkit after all. Which would give that verbiage on Quick Bomber it’s own (very very specific) niche under this rules interpretation allowing you to still perform a 1 action strike with Versatile Vials even if disarmed of your toolkit or having not store them in it.

(sidenote, I’ve gotta admit I kind of love how the new Alchemist enables the fantasy of a captured/jailed alchemist with enough time scrounging for supplies and building a small handful of makeshift improvised bombs/vials. It’s just fun.)

I like how it also feels more like the PF1E's alchemist using quazi-magical methods to make their alchemics, using their own personal stores of energy to help with the catalytic processes.

Roll for Combat just had Thirsty on to talk about SF2E's release. He talks a bit about starships during the talk. All I can really recall is him talking about how they're taking their time because they want starships to be done right, and that they've learned some lessons from earlier attempts and similar systems, but IIRC there's no indications of when they'll be coming.

The whole stream is pretty fun listening to; having Thirsty and Mark in the same talk is a bit of a treat.

I felt mildly happy for Sorcerer, then I found out what they did to Crossblooded Evolution and laughed until I cried. (It doesn't grant you an off list spell anymore - you get a second blood magic effect.) Oracle supremacy for cross tradition spells, I guess.

Well, dang. That does make me a bit sad. I have a 3.5 dry lich cleric turned PF2E primal sorc I was looking forward to remastering. That's going to be harder if I can't get Harm and make it a signature to keep my guy on their feet.

I'm a gunslinger fan, so the one big attack per round appeals to me, but I can see the disconnect if you're imagining your swashbuckler, say, making their sword flash around them in a whirlwind of steal and striking loads of times rather than bouncing around, throwing out quips, and striking every couple seconds.

As for the buffs, I'm not sure if I'd have implemented all of them myself, nobody ever played a swashy in a game I've run, let alone expressed disatisfaction with one, so I've never needed to really consider it, but I like that they're there. Bravado is by far my favorite. It feels like such a clean mechanic to me. If it'd just been Bravado and an additional skill pick, or Bravado and the additional +1/+2, I'd have been eager to play the class.

Edit: Just realized my last sentence there made it sound like I wasn't eager. Just want to clarify that the extra stuff swashies got makes more interested, not less.

Well said. I haven't thought of anything useful to contribute to this conversation, so perhaps instead I'll simply contribute my agreement and interest in a potential future (or existing) autistic iconic.

Part of me wants to say I could see Thaleon, the iconic Psychic, as a neurodivergent rep of some description, albeit I wonder if "autism/adhd gives you weird psychic powers" is necessarily the best way to handle a first neurodivergent character reveal.

That is a concern, yeah. I mean, the Supercrip--the term I know for that sort of character-is a thing all over, but it's especially easy to fall into in a fantastical setting like Pathfinder has. Complicating that even further is the fact that supercrips aren't a negative to everyone, or wholly negative/negative all the time. I can think of a few examples that I personally love, and others that make me roll my eyes.

Not effectively using nonverbal communication literally is the disability.

What the vocational rehab people told me is very much the equivalent of telling Perpdepog that they "just need to learn to see better so that they can read like a normal person. That is what is expected at vocational rehab and that is what is expected by your employers."

And the worst part is - when I bring this up to most people, they side with vocational rehab and tell me that I am the one in the wrong.

I had something I was going to say to build on this, but now I can't recall what it was, or how it'd be constructive, so I'll just do what Sibelius Eos Owm did and share my support by putting down the first two thoughts I had.

Perpdepog wrote:

Daniel Fletcher wrote:

Would porting arcanist casting from PF1 for wizards break the game?

Do you mean flexible spellcasting?

More or less, but without requiring a feat and not lowering the spells per day. Wizards’ class features and feats feel weaker than other casters, I’m curious to hear from people more experienced with the system if “baking” in flexible spellcasting would break the game.

I think it depends on what you mean by "break the game." Does break the game mean distort the current assumptions of the system? Yes, that'd do that. Flexible casting is basically all the upsides of both spontaneous and prepared casting rolled together.

Would porting arcanist casting from PF1 for wizards break the game?

Do you mean flexible spellcasting?

I'm looking forward to messing around with the mutagenist, myself, which is something I don't think I've been excited for previously.

Arcaian wrote:

You could go up to a Greater Accolade Robe for a +3 Arcana bonus for your maths there, or arguably a Major Cognitive Mutagen if you've got enough to keep drinking them for the whole 24 hours, which would boost it by a further +1 or +2 respectively. I'm not sure what source of a status bonus one could get that would last the full time; an Amped Guidance might be the best as a reaction, giving you a further +2 if it would help. That's getting you up to 1d20+42/+43 vs DC 45, which is a pretty good check! But yeah, regardless of what you do, you're not going to be able to guarantee that critical success result.

Speedy Rituals from Ritualist, unless there's been a change, can get you down to 1 hour, so 6 Wands of Heroism can get you a +3 status bonus. This also conveniently matches the highest level mutagen length.

Are any of these options able to work in downtime? I understood that downtime uses different rules for what sorts of bonuses can apply.

Even if it was on purpose I’ve removed it from my games. Rogue is already an awesome class and it doesn’t really need it.

I'm thinking of leaving it in the one I'm currently running, but that's mostly because our rogue has had real bad luck with fort saves so far. Poor guy spent a dungeon and a half sick as a dog, a dog with Swamp Guts.

Yeah. We know there is an errata schedule, and with all the Core books done, and the Remaster in full swing, I expect folks are looking forward to having more reasonable schedules they can cleave to again.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if we hear about a correction later on, when we're meant to get our second load of errata for the year. I'd be a bit more surprised if it was intentional, but that's mostly because it breaks an established pattern, not because I think it's breaking the game necessarily.

Also possible is for the new version of the Infused trait to add Coagulant to all HP restoring alch items.

That seems more plausible to me. For one thing, that's exactly how it works now when a chirurgeon gains their perpetuals at level 7, and for another, it's just much less of a headache to use that mechanic than retroactively altering an item that was already printed so soon after its release.

Generally good news!

I love the idea of the guardian and am excited to see what avenues they explore to breath life into it, and the extra scrutiny taunt is getting.

I am of the opinion that the guardian doesn't need more damage but then again, I think it should be stunning, sickening, and generally handing out conditions with its class DC as its way to apply offensive pressure. Something like a crushing grab feature where you disable opponents and deal Ability damage with it. But if Taunt gets brought up to a valuable level (ideally with a less polarizing name/theme) I could live with that.

That's how I'm hoping to play my potential guardian, a lot like a monk, but swapping out a monk's mobility for sheer tankiness, but still focused on battlefield maneuvers that make it real hard to move past me to my allies.

Oh I'm not trying to sell it; I'm just excited for it. I'm usually a player, so don't typically need to use NPC books, but I get loads of enjoyment out of reading them and I've lifted stuff from them before when I am GMing.

PF2E's ability benchmarks are a lot easier for me to groc so I'm expecting this book to be even handier in this regard.

Thanks a bunch, Finoan, for being able to write this thread, and to point out possible pitfalls, as well. Lots of those are unconscious and drawing attention to them in a constructive way, like you've done, is something we need more of.

I should note that I'm sort of speaking more from a general disability awareness standpoint, not specifically awareness of autism, but some of Finoan's advice, especially,

As for what to portray on any one character, it should be an accurate mix of both beneficial and negative traits. Focusing only on the positive will cause an inspiration porn effect and make people think that being Autistic is easy, and focusing mostly on the negative will play into stereotypes and make people think that being Autistic is hopeless.

Is great advice to keep in mind for any character with a disability.

(As someone who is blind, but not autistic as far as I know, I hope I am coming across as someone who is in the same camp, even if not necessarily in the same tent.)

DangerMouse99 wrote:

Ronald the Rules Lawyer just released a video on the remastered Alchemist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbufOX8_aZg

Why do I bring this up in the Barbarian thread? One of the things he revealed is that the Bestial Mutagen no longer gives an AC penalty. To me this indicates that Paizo has decided that trading AC penalties for increased offense is no longer a good trade-off in most situations, so Rage losing it's AC penalty is most likely intentional.

That's interesting! Thanks for pointing that out.

The AC penalty did make the barbarian feel a whole lot more like a glass cannon than I think they should. I'm receptive to moving away from such penalties. Maybe Weaknesses would be a better way to handle it in future designs, so you don't eat so many crits.

I like the concept though I'm trying to imagine how that'd fit thematically with the barb. That's a cool space to explore for some feats though, leaving yourself wide open and taking more physical damage in exchange for doing a big swing or something.

Perpdepog wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

Or be like the Polish 22nd and adopt your own Wojtek.

Hey, Awakened Animals are a thing now, so you could play Commander Wojtek and validate your rank. :-)

My playtest commander was Commander Hardapple, pronounced Har-DOPPLE, who was an awakened warhorse warleader which wore a dummy on their back to pass themselves off as a human on horseback.

Perpdepog wrote:

Arcaian wrote:

I've got the screenshot open in front of me, and the specific language is:

- Infused poisons can ignore poison immunity
- If it would be more beneficial for you (GM call, typically due to weaknesses or resistances), your infused poisons can instead deal acid damage instead of poison damage
Their field vials also get the choice to do poison damage if you want to, and can poison a weapon or piece of ammo to deal the initial damage of the vial as an injury poison (later they also take persistent damage equal to the splash damage). Later they get poison resistance (half level), and finally they get the ability to potentially poison two enemies from one strike; when someone fails a save against one of your infused injury poisons, you can choose for it to spray to an adjacent creature, who is also exposed (but you can't do this a 2nd time for 3 targets).

Does the poison immunity get converted into poison resistance, or anything like that?

If not, then we have the amusing case of PC undead with the Advanced Undead Benefits being more resistant to a toxicologist's poison than "true," monster undead are, which is pretty amusing. Not likely to ever come up in play, but still fun to think about.

You straight up ignore poison immunity and use the best (for the alchemist) between Poison and Acid resistance.

So, your worst opponent is someone that's highly resistant to both poison and acid but not immune to poison.

Even against that though, you can probably still find a poison that deals non-poison damage to circumvent those resistances.

That's fun! I think there's one that's meant to boil or chill the blood from Treasure Vault but I might be misremembering. And, of course, there's always the poison that makes your target grow an arm that starts punching them in the face.

I don't mind dirty trick having the attack trait. Sort of feels like the cost of being the most SAD style. Hopefully there's more to it than just dirty trick though.

And it stacks with Off-Guard or being Prone, which is still pretty great. Plopping down debuffs that I get a +1 bonus to, that activates my panache, and doesn't require any extra Cha or Str investment is pretty nice.

Thief rogues are going to love it.

I've always had an interest in divine ascension as a fantasy/rpg concept and the Wish ritual now expressly permits it for Pathfinder. I could not find any official word to clarify the intention behind it on the level of divinity achievable.

Is it like Nethys that a fully successful casting grants apotheosis into a true deity? Is it like the test of the Starstone that raises you no higher than a "living" god (also known as a demigod)?

As far as I can tell, the answer is pretty much "ask your GM." Wish has gotten even more handwavey as a ritual than it was as a spell. It's also very likely to either be the culmination of a campaign, or at least the culmination of a PC's story, so the actual particulars of how it functions are largely going to be a matter of table preference.

It would be a really fun campaign to run or play in, I'd think. Characters needing to climb to the heights of power to even attempt the ritual, and then needing to acquire the components to perform it, probably look for some more clement circumstances to perform the ritual in, and, assuming the goal is to become divine, safeguard against outside interference and circumvent any earlier safeguards put in place to stop someone from doing this very thing. Finding a way to undo an earlier wish made to prevent someone from wishing to be a god, etc. I think that'd be lots of fun.

Have you seen how the NPC gallery looks like in Gamemastery Guide? The only way NPC Core has less new content than your hypothetical 6 classes PC3 is if it's 60 pages. It doesn't even have anything with 2 digit levels!

Specifically, no NPCs in that guide go above level 8. It's also entirely possible that, on top of having an NPC gallery at least twice as long as previously--likely more given how higher-level creatures have a greater number of, and more complicated, abilities--we might be seeing some other options in the book as well. Thematic items and character options for defeating said NPCs jump immediately to mind, such as PF1E's Monster Codex and Villain Codex.

I've got the screenshot open in front of me, and the specific language is:

- Infused poisons can ignore poison immunity
- If it would be more beneficial for you (GM call, typically due to weaknesses or resistances), your infused poisons can instead deal acid damage instead of poison damage
Their field vials also get the choice to do poison damage if you want to, and can poison a weapon or piece of ammo to deal the initial damage of the vial as an injury poison (later they also take persistent damage equal to the splash damage). Later they get poison resistance (half level), and finally they get the ability to potentially poison two enemies from one strike; when someone fails a save against one of your infused injury poisons, you can choose for it to spray to an adjacent creature, who is also exposed (but you can't do this a 2nd time for 3 targets).

Does the poison immunity get converted into poison resistance, or anything like that?

John Mangrum wrote:

I have no idea but my gut tells me to put a chip down on a Gen Con 2026 release.

I think that's the street date for the final product. I would hope that space combat rules before then.

I think that's realistically around the earliest we could expect to see them. It seems unlikely that we'd be getting those rules for playtesting before the actual game has come out, and SF2E is getting its full release at GenCon of next year. Given how long playtests take to make, about eight months to a year off from the previous playtest sounds about right, and that's assuming that Paizo releases the playtest almost immediately after SF2E is out.

Commander seems to be shaping up to be great.

Guardian still sounds like it wants to be martyr the class.
Hope there's lots of great martial options in the book overall.

I'm especially looking forward to any new archetypes we get. I'm hoping for lots of archetypes themed off of various military organizations, like Nirmathi Rangers or Druma's Blackjackets. Possibly some animal companion options too, some forms of specialization that make them better in armor, or that turn them into chargers.

We might also get a handful of monster statblocks, which could be cool; a range of troops would be nice to have for general use.

Do we know if a playtest pdf is on the way?

Originally I thought a PDF was coming out Aug 1st, but I'm not seeing that now, just the printed rulebook that you can order.

pH unbalanced wrote:

If you do give the Commander a mascot, I hope the option remains to have the mascot be a mount. I found that part really useful and thematic.

The idea is that it doesn't really need to be specifically limited to a mount. It could be, but also like, why not a falcon that carries your squad's pennant or a hunting hound that helps your River Kingdoms commander hunt bandits through the forest?

Or be like the Polish 22nd and adopt your own Wojtek.

TheTownsend wrote:

Baby Vesk! is turning… Thirteen? Bit of a runt for her age but who am I to judge?

Maybe instead of years the candles count the number of victories they had in the prior year?

This is not canon and is just meant as an amusing idea.

"It is upon this day, young Sarangali, that we gather to note the anniversary of your birth, and to celebrate your many victories. From the tests you have conquered, to the foes crushed beneath your might upon the courts of dodgeball, your accomplishments are many and worthy of praise. Now, fetch the celebration doshco and slay this cake that we may feast!"

It also sounds like a lot of the benefits panache used to grant are things you just have now, too, including your minimum precision damage. Panache seems to have been changed into a slight buff state you expend for finishers or other feats that require it rather than having so many of your class' buffs tied to having it at all, which is neat.

Perpdepog wrote:

AAAetios wrote:

Only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, but as a Wizard player I’m extremely confused by why every other caster got so many buffs in the Remaster while the base Wizard chassis actually ate a minor nerf in PC1.

In PC1 Druids were left untouched (slight buff via cantrip changes and focus spell changes), Bards received a pretty big “indirect” buff thanks to focus points changes with Warrior getting huge buffs, Clerics received the buff to Font, and Witches had all of their familiar abilities and Hex cantrips buffed.

Now for PC2 we have confirmation that Oracles have become a 4-slot caster with tons of bespoke Cursebound Feats, and Sorcerers get Dangerous Sorcery as a class feature and stronger Blood Magic Feats.

Between all these QoL improvements for all casters as well as the several buffs, I wonder why they felt that Wizards needed a restriction added? I don’t think Wizards were weak before all these changes, and likely they still aren’t, but did Paizo think they were overtuned in some regard?

My guess is less that Paizo thought wizards "needed a restriction," and more that it was difficult to figure out a system that was a broad as the spell schools, which are an OGL-ism and had to go, that could be planned and implemented in the time that was allotted.

Perhaps, but why was just lifting the restrictions not an option? In the case of the other casters, it feels they lifted restrictions (Clerics no longer need Charisma, Oracles lose a lot of the fiddly bits from Premaster), so why leave a restriction in place at all? Why not just let all Wizards have all 4 of their per-rank slots, and make school choice just affect focus spell choices alongside some flavourful Feat (aka the way the Druid is treated)?

Because that's already what the druid is doing, perhaps.

This sounds so exciting; thanks, guys! I got to do one session with a playtest awakened animal commander, and they were a pretty big hit at the table. I'm already looking forward to getting to update them.

I'm really looking forward to the commander having more tactics. That way even someone who dunderheads like I did will have some for most situations, just in case they forget that they're fairly easy to swap. I also really like the idea that Master Tactics will be 1/10 mins, and Legendary Tactics will be 1/day; that makes them both feel more special, helps reduce load, and has the side-effect of letting those tactics be more powerful while still encouraging you to really learn your bread-and-butter tactics you intend to use a lot.

Also glad to hear the guardian's Intercept Strike is going to be a bit more mobile. What has me super excited are their more generalized resistances. That's not a space that has really been core to a class before, barb is probably the one that comes closest, and I'm looking forward to the pseudo-HP bumps they grant. Also add my voice to those glad that we can yell, "Get down Mr. Wizard!" in the heat of combat.

I'm sad that there's not an option for "Guardian that isn't based around taunting" in the cards.

Hopefully, with Intercept Strike having a larger zone of control, you'll be able to not lean on Taunt as much when the class comes out.

Only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, but as a Wizard player I’m extremely confused by why every other caster got so many buffs in the Remaster while the base Wizard chassis actually ate a minor nerf in PC1.

In PC1 Druids were left untouched (slight buff via cantrip changes and focus spell changes), Bards received a pretty big “indirect” buff thanks to focus points changes with Warrior getting huge buffs, Clerics received the buff to Font, and Witches had all of their familiar abilities and Hex cantrips buffed.

Now for PC2 we have confirmation that Oracles have become a 4-slot caster with tons of bespoke Cursebound Feats, and Sorcerers get Dangerous Sorcery as a class feature and stronger Blood Magic Feats.

Between all these QoL improvements for all casters as well as the several buffs, I wonder why they felt that Wizards needed a restriction added? I don’t think Wizards were weak before all these changes, and likely they still aren’t, but did Paizo think they were overtuned in some regard?

My guess is less that Paizo thought wizards "needed a restriction," and more that it was difficult to figure out a system that was a broad as the spell schools, which are an OGL-ism and had to go, that could be planned and implemented in the time that was allotted.

I have no sources for this, and lots of gut feeling, so take this with a tablespoon of salt, but the most I've heard about starship playtesting was that Paizo was going to be playtesting something that isn't a class in the near-ish future. No idea where that rumor came from, but if it's true then doing a starship playtest would make a ton of sense there, especially if both games are working on some kind of more robust vehicle subsystem. PF2E works on naval combat while SF2E does space combat, etc.