Perpdepog's page

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.

JiCi wrote:

Still no news about the Dragonet...

Here's hoping for the next blog post to cover that :)

It could happen, though it'll likely be coming out at the same time the book is. Paizo.com's going to be down for a few days while they revamp their store page starting on the 3rd; they're likely to be down on the 4th and 5th as well.

Wow, OK, so I was apparently super wrong about this. Could of sworn they came out at the same time, but looks like Draconic Codex isn't released yet, and isn't in PDF form until December 3rd.

The Raven Black wrote:

While I initially dismissed the OP'S idea, the more I considered it, the more intriguing and even tantalizing it became.

My first idea, when considering above the cut PCs who would start adventuring with initial power greater than usual, was the usual "play at higher level" piece of advice I usually give when people complain about PCs not being strong enough in PF2.

But this does not answer the OP's idea of powerful PCs with low complexity, because level and complexity are indeed deeply tied in PF2.

My proposal then would be to basically build PCs as NPCs.

The NPCs creation rules give us the target scores for key numbers in the game for each level.

A system that allows PCs to be built with 1st-level complexity while hitting these target numbers should work fine.

Maybe with additional stat boosts and Proficiency increases from the start and some homebrew rules to give PCs the numbers required.

Basically, just choose the equivalent level of your starting PCs, build them as 1st-level PCs and raise their numbers to be on par with equivalent level NPCs.

This could also work for a "Monster Mash" style one shot where everybody plays as and/or designs a monster and a short adventure is run.

Do you dare enter THE MONSTER DOME?!

Still no news about the Dragonet...

Here's hoping for the next blog post to cover that :)

It could happen, though it'll likely be coming out at the same time the book is. Paizo.com's going to be down for a few days while they revamp their store page starting on the 3rd; they're likely to be down on the 4th and 5th as well.

Elric200 wrote:

James, could Pazio look at fixing mythic animal companions make them mythic tracking their masters. The Mythic Beastmaster is just weak compared to the other destinies. Could you also look at making a mythic rogue destiny the rouge is completely lacking in Mythic.

Mythic for Rogue... basically making a Carmen San Diego? Giving them the ability to steal Theoretical things, steal themselves, cross their name off of Pharasma's list, etc.

I remember you pitching that last idea before. It was cool then, too, and IMO really fits with the metaphorical, fable-like feel mythic is going for.

I believe there's a trickster mythic destiny on Pathfinder Infinite--I've been really getting into Pathfinder Infinite lately--but I've got no idea what it's like.

You know, Teridax, a lot of what you're talking about are design decisions I've seen before, just in other systems, ones which tend to be more generic and try to cast a wider net in terms of genres they want to help facilitate. The one that comes to mind offhand is AGE, but I think the Plotweaver system, the one which powers the Cosmere RPG, will also fit this mold once it's released.

This isn't a criticism. I like both of those systems; AGE is my current comfort read when taking breaks between studies and teaching. Just an observation and a suggestion for places to look should you want to move forward and fiddle with some stuff.

Answer the Second: She never really got around to thinking about him, having had more dangerous and more important things on her mind during Return of the Runelords.

I bet that really cheesed him off, too.

... Well, would have if he'd not been stuck in Gallowspire at the time.

Perses13 wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Ajaxius wrote:

Claxon wrote:

but all you've done is add a weapon to the game that 99% of characters wont use.

Ah, yes, the thing that already happens every time a new book comes out with 10 more weapon options ;)

I'm curious about Paizo's rationale behind this. I don't think a lot of people care about new weapons because, if we are honest here, most people use the common fantasy staples like longswords, daggers, greataxes, and the like. When, for example, a weapon like the boaring pike releases nobody cares about it unless its better than similarly flavored weapons since most people don't even know the difference between that or a regular longspear.

I personally wouldn't mind if most weapons were coupled together and we kept the weapons that feel distinct in mechanics or flavor like chain swords, sais, etc.

Most new weapons that come out these days seem to exist to give some sort of mechanical flair to a culture, ancestry, or organization. Your boarding pike example is from the PFS Guide, and is a way for someone to say "I'm from the Arcadia Mariner's Lodge." Those that aren't that seem to be ideas to give people character ideas, like the battlelute. While most folks don't look at the weapons list before making a character, I know I wouldn't have thought to play a halfling chef/assassin if Paizo hadn't released the frying pan as a weapon.

That said, the weapon system is definitely a sacred cow that exists because its the way Paizo's always done it and to keep continuity with PF1/3.5. I've recently played and enjoyed Draw Steel's system which boils weapons down to categories like Light, Medium, Heavy, Bow, Polearm and lets you flavor how you like.

Oh, I agree weapons like the flying pan should exist and that the weapons in other systems like Draw Steel wouldn't really work in PF2e as is, but I think there's no reason to have the clan dagger, dagger, karambit, main-gauche, and war razor as weapons when they are all...

I'm partial to a mastery system, myself. Let everyone use all the weapons, but weapons will have very simple profiles with minimal traits unless you are a martial class or otherwise have some special training. Then you have one, maybe two tiers of improvements a weapon can have to its traits or other statistics.

NorrKnekten wrote:

Its rather clear that only spontanious casters needs to learn spells at the rank they want to cast it. Prepared casters can prepare spells of any rank in any slot higher than its rank.

No disagreement, but a caveat to expand Vlad's understanding: spontaneous casters will get some number of Signature Spells as a class feat. Spells designated 'signature' need only appear in the repertoire once, then they can be cast at any rank. The signature spell text varies slightly by class but here's the gist of it from the Oracle entry:

"You don’t need to learn heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead, you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a signature spell at a higher rank than its minimum, you can also cast all its lower-rank versions without learning those separately".

To help understanding even more, it's possible they're getting learning a spell and preparing a spell conflated.

Spontaneous casters do need to learn a spell multiple times, at different ranks, unless it's a signature spell, like Easl said.
Wizards and other prepared casters only need learn a spell once, but they do need to prepare it multiple times, at different ranks, if they want to cast it at multiple different ranks. Preparing a 2nd-rank and 4th-rank Invisibility spell so you have one which lasts ten minutes and can be used to explore, with a higher-rank casting intended to last through a combat without being seen, for example.

These look as cool as I was hoping they would. Sadly doesn't seem like Demiplane is super accessible to my screen reader; guess I'll have to get the AP volume if I wanna read them.

(Or wait until they're on Pathbuilder or AoN, but I don't wanna.)

If something like this happened in my gaming group it'd get added to our greatest TTRPG stories collection pretty quickly, lol.

This is the perfect kind of product for 3pp, really. Paizo doesn't have the cycles to support the variants they have already. They routinely have issues where a variant collides with the normal rules, and the expectation is "the GM is using a variant, so house rule as needed to resolve it". Free Archetype is a good example of this (RAW it's incompatible with Ancient Elf and can wind up in cases where you literally have no valid feats to pick with certain archetypes) and it's an incredibly popular variant.

And that's fine when a variant is a half page in a GM book, since the book isn't really about that and the variant is basically "as-is". But an entire book of variants is going to come with expectations that these things were thought out and will be accounted for, which absolutely won't be true given how variants are handled (and how much outstanding stuff needs errata already that is more important).

Automatic Bonus Progression is another example where it causes a bunch of its own issues, to the point that some folks made a variant of the variant called Automatic Rune Progression which has gained a lot of traction by addressing those issues.

I'm also not sure how well a giant variant book would sell, and books are expensive to produce.

But a 3pp PDF supplement on DriveThruRPG/Infinite? This seems like a great candidate for that: it'd probably be made by someone that actually wants it in their game so it'll probably be tested, the cost to create and distribute it is vastly lower, and people know explicitly that it's an addon and they might need to deal with edge cases.

Hell, OP could probably be the one to do that! There's ideas already in the rules for how to house rule this. If OP wants it, they could try some out, create those rules, and either package them up or just post them for others to use as a free homebrew. If this is actually what's holding back PF1 players (as OP says), then it would draw enough interest to be worth the effort.

Longtime PF1 players should be well accustomed to 3pp at this point since PF1 had a thriving marketplace for that for a very long time (and I think for some folks it's still viable today), so its not like it needs the "official Paizo" blessing to be valid if it solves the problem.

I'll just leave this here.

The target for Dispel Magic is "1 spell effect or unattended magic item", and similarly the target for Detonate Magic is "1 magic item or spell effect". Class features aren't spells, so despite sometimes being magic, their effects aren't spell effects.

To add on to this, class abilities aren't magic items either, not unless it explicitly says so. I could see some cases where that might be true, such as the champion's Blessing of the Devoted giving you runes, thus making the items magical items, though.

Tridus wrote:

Rarity in PF2 is used for too many things (which is a different issue), but the idea is a massive improvement over PF1's "an AP published a spell that a Runelord knew 10,000 years ago which means RAW a random level 5 Wizard can just get it at level up" approach.

As much as I miss free access to some utility spells, I am very, very glad that no PF2e GM is ever going to just find out their player took Blood Money because they saw it on Nethys... and then find out oopsies, the wizard ruined the economy at level 3 with blood money and masterwork transformation haha isn't that crazy guys what a fun game c:

Yeah. I think the closest we have to a spell like that, incidentally from the same diegetic source, is Chrysopoetic Curse, and that spell, while granting wealth, does it at a much slower rate.

Besides, weren't skum basically a way to have Deep Ones in D&D? Now you've got the ACTUAL Deep Ones and don't need that kind of a substitute!

I hope we get those Mythos-inspired ancestries back someday. Deep One Hybrids, maybe as a versatile heritage, Yaddithians, maybe some templates, like the Child of Yog-Sothoth from Strange Aeons re-imagined as heritage options, some nod to how ghouls function in the Mythos, all that stuff would be cool to see.

Perpdepog wrote:

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure exactly how many of the alghollthu are workable in ORC from either PF1E or 3.5, but I do really like the idea of presenting them in a book as some kind of society block or faction. It's just that they're a faction in a war, political struggle, land dispute, whatever you want to call it that doesn't really factor in most playable ancestries as worthy of consequence.

It's a specific subset of cosmic horror that focuses on alien factions battling each other and not really caring about the everyday people who get ground up in their machines of conflict. I think presenting an aberration-focused book in the style of raving reports about these factions--the Alghollthu, the Dominion of the Black, the Old Cults, whatever wormy faction neothelids are part of--would be an awesome way to introduce lots of themed aberrations to new players, and give them a new coat of paint, or slime, while we're at it.

The only alghollthus we lost to the OGL are the aboleths and the skum. All the rest are ones we invented, and we can make replacements for those two pretty easilly.

Awesome to hear! I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to re-use the name ulat-kini, though? I know that's splitting hairs to ask; I just like the name and like saying it.

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure exactly how many of the alghollthu are workable in ORC from either PF1E or 3.5, but I do really like the idea of presenting them in a book as some kind of society block or faction. It's just that they're a faction in a war, political struggle, land dispute, whatever you want to call it that doesn't really factor in most playable ancestries as worthy of consequence.

It's a specific subset of cosmic horror that focuses on alien factions battling each other and not really caring about the everyday people who get ground up in their machines of conflict. I think presenting an aberration-focused book in the style of raving reports about these factions--the Alghollthu, the Dominion of the Black, the Old Cults, whatever wormy faction neothelids are part of--would be an awesome way to introduce lots of themed aberrations to new players, and give them a new coat of paint, or slime, while we're at it.

The Alghollthu play an important role in Golarion’s history and it is my hope that we will see this creature family explored in greater depth.

...it is my hope that we will see this creature family explored in greater depth.

...explored in greater depth.

... greater depth...

I see what you did there.

Also I second the Big Book of Aberrations with loads of lore about our favorite slimy overlords.

I like that idea as well. Giving spellbook spells an elevated status in various mechanical ways would allow the Wizard's spellbook to feel even more special, and the same could apply to the Magus's own spellbook or the Witch's familiar. This I think is one of the reasons why I'd like those classes to prepare more easily from their spellbook, as that would make those spells a bit more special. It's also why I don't think those spellbooks should remain allowed to grow indefinitely, though, because there's always the risk of a Wizard with a full spellbook having vast amounts of that kind of power, or too little if they don't transcribe many spells.

Yeah. If you alter spellbooks so that they grant spells something above and beyond what spells can normally do then you need to limit the number that can be specifically inscribed into the book. I imagine it'd be limited to the spells you learn on level-up, with an ability to swap them out like you can spells with other classes.

Really excited for the rune dragon. I like how its method of fighting feels really similar to the runesmith class; hopefully there is some acknowledgement of that connection in either the dragon's or runesmith's lore, like the first runesmiths being disciples of rune dragons.

I think you could still get some flavor out of spells in a spellbook if they weren't necessary for casting.

Spitballing, the spellbook would instead become something much more like a reference text, with magical principles and general formulae laid down that grant the caster understanding of how to cast spells of their particular rank. Specific spells being written down in the book would, in this scheme, act more like specific shorthand instructions for using or deploying the spell, justifying the wizard being able to substitute it in, or easily attach a spellshape to it, or whatever it turns out the benefits of having spells in a spellbook would be.
You could extend the same flavor to other classes, such as witches, as well, save that the general principles, mystical diagrams, and energy conversion tables would e exchanged for the familiar giving them tutelage each day and guiding them through the appropriate exercises to align their mind to their patron's goals, with the noted spells being specific gifts or what have you.

I'd personally lean more to a level +1 creature and throw in a few more baddies rather than a level +2 creature. Having more guys on the field does mean they aren't as likely to get swept through sheer action economy. Then again, if your campaign is going on long enough, why not try both? Varying the kinds of encounters you throw at your party, which it sounds like you're already planning on doing, has two great benefits; you get a feel for places where your party struggles, and where they do well, and it gives you more interesting things to play with.

I'd also suggest being a smidge looser with the encounter budget. Not a whole lot looser, but if you go 10 to 20 points over I don't think it'll hurt too much. And yeah, I think introducing a hazard is a good way to liven up a fight against a singular enemy. I'm not really up on how 5E works, but what I heard about lair actions sounds like a great idea; I say steal it.

Tridus wrote:

I'm not sure I've ever seen a wand get used enough times for it to have been cheaper than buying the scrolls,

There are a few exceptions. The most obvious is L2 Tailwind. But any spell that one throws every single day counts.

Summoner's Precaution is the one that comes to mind for me. It's only useful to summoners or anyone who takes the archetype, but it's such an obvious choice that I never regretted buying the wand when I played my summoner. Even if you never use it it's still nice to know that buffer is there.

I think it's more the fact that one of your players is a life oracle, and another is a champion. Those two classes are going to have an easier time against undead foes, for sure.

There's also the fact that, while you have more enemies than your party, they all appear to be lower level, which lets the abilities your oracle used really shine, making damage and crits more likely.

I'm with you in saying this isn't a bad thing, but it's something to keep in mind going forward. Consider having one higher-level boss, who is a few levels above your party's level, and perhaps more crappy little gribblies who are a few levels below to help with your encounter budgeting. Your oracle may blast through them with Heal spells, but that's OK. I imagine they picked that setup so they could have cool moments like that, and it's nice to let them. You can also have more intelligent undead and baddies clock the oracle as a problem and go after them, forcing the oracle to move or get womped, meaning they won't have the actions for a three-action Heal.

There's also the fact that you just haven't got a ton of big-ticket abilities on monsters at that level. If you really need to stick with your undead theming you could always reskin a creature you like, give it the Undead trait and most of the typical undead immunities, and be good to go.

Once again, "it's not as bad as it used to be" is being used as an excuse.

Then it's one that carries a lot of weight for an excuse. Drawing attention to the kinds of games "ivory tower game design" was coined to describe, by the guy who had a hand in making those games, seems like a pretty apt tactic in figuring out how ivory tower game design manifests itself.

If anyone is interested in a system of template-based summons I'd recommend Magic+. It has a pair of linked systems, Aspect Morphing and Aspect Summoning, that pull from a series of templates and features to build battle forms and summons. It looked pretty fun and functional from the read-through I did, though I haven't done a deep dive. IMO still worth checking out, though.

I agree, but the fact that summons can be buffers and roadblocks is a problem in a game where buffers and roadblocks can be incredibly powerful. I think part of the problem here is that we expect summons to be more than just a big wall of HP that gets in the way, but aren't necessarily acknowledging that spells like wall of stone are amazing precisely because you're creating this wall of HP that gets in the way. Even if we put aside the edge cases, that's still very strong.

This is why we're not allowed to summon troops, I suspect. They take the concept of "wall of HP" to a whole other level with being able to shape their area, and with the thresholds of damage that mean they can't be defeated in a single hit.

I was going to say I'm surprised they didn't insert language suggesting you treat it as equivalent to the Bane Rune, but then I remember PF2E doesn't tend to do that, and that the Bane Rune was published in Secrets of Magic.

The Raven Black wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Bluemage81 wrote:

How do you all merge different versions of monsters in Legacy and Remaster? Or do you just stick with one or the other?

Absolutely. I don't care about some being 'old' (unless mechanics is broken now or I don't like it). I will use both kinds of ghouls in the next game in one encounter for example. Because I like all: paralysis, disease and the new curse.

It's a pity they can't turn off their stench. Not very stealthy. Well, they would have to deal with it.

Stinking environments FTW.

Yeah, sure :) But what if you can't tune environment for them? Also new ghouls it seems were supposed to be a little more sociable. It's hard though when you stink like decomposing abattoir.

So social phase will be a bit short.

Isn't it only ghasts who are distractingly stinky? I know ghouls don't smell good, but I always imagined it as something you could mask with enough bathing, soaps, and perfumes, at least for a bit.

Or I guess breath mints; I tend to imagine most of a ghoul's stink coming from their love of eating bloody or rotted meat.

I believe rations and R2E meals are in the playtest document. Not sure if/where they got placed in the final releases, though.

Off the top of my head, if the cap were raised by even just one level, then you could summon Lesser Deaths with summon undead and completely wreck certain encounters with their Aura of Misfortune. Even for a 10th-rank spell, an automatic -5 on average to all d20 rolls I think is quite strong.

That's a good catch, yeah. Lesser Death is at least Rare, so I don't think that you could select it as a possibility without GM buy-in, but it's exactly that kind of stuff I'm wondering about.

The Raven Black wrote:

Because of the elven immunity to dnd ghoul's paralysis, I always thought it was a nod to LotR where even the dwarf Gimli has terror paralysing him from entering the subterranean way guarded by undead, whereas the elf Legolas feels no such fright.

Maybe post-hoc, but originally that trait appeared in Chainmail, D&D's fantasy-war simulation predecessor. Elves were expensive, but were just as susceptible to ghoul paralysis which proved too big an Achilles heel for game balance so they made elves immune to ghoul paralysis. Since proto-D&D used Chainmail creatures on a smaller scale (I believe in a sewer even), the abilities carried over as part of the lore. (No citation available, but I believe it was from a printed interview.)

That's interesting. And that's what I was referring to; there seems to be this gap where ghouls were referred to as flesh-eaters, sometimes living, sometimes undead, sometimes spirits, who didn't have paralyzing abilities ... and then they pop up in fantasy TTRPGs with the ability. (Unless there is a source in some legend someone knows of?)

I prefer the curse, myself. I especially like that you have to lean in to the curse to keep it at bay, but doing so ultimately dooms you.

That does sound like something that sorcs should be able to do, though, just on a narrative/thematic level. Call on the funky blood from your freaky family for fun and profit.

I know I always force my player monks to only use kick unarmed attacks when using Flying Kick and Fist attacks when using Elemental Fist and One-inch Punch. I wouldn't want to ignore flavor text cuz it would NEVER lead me wrong... What kind of madness would ensue if they could punch with a flying kick! :P

As my PF1E monk would say, "What is the fist, but the foot of the arm?"

Out of curiosity, what is the most broken, un-fun thing someone can think of doing if the cap on the levels of summons was raised? Strong/powerful is also a good answer, but I'm more wondering about busted or potential game warping stuff, just so we have some understanding on how bad summoning could be if it was adjusted for a home table. Since Paizo isn't likely to change the rules for summoning spells any time soon it seems smart to consider the drawbacks as well as the benefits.

My gut says that the broken-ness would reside somewhere in monsters with spell lists, but I don't know what specifically, and I am asure there are worse combos people can think of.

I feel this thread belongs to the Pathfinder General board rather than the Lost Omens setting board though.

Depends on if we're looking at this discussion primarily from a mechanics or themes standpoint. Harpies is a good example because it's kind of both; the remastered harpies are designed to tell a different story than the premaster ones. Remaster harpies emphasize the harpy's ties to dangerous winds, punishment, and nods to their appearance in the myth regarding King Phineus, while premaster harpies nod more to the ties between the harpy and the siren.

Another good example is ghouls. Premaster ghouls infect others with their disease-tainted bites, while the remastered ghouls instead transform others via a curse. The first have more to do with zombies in popular media--I'm not sure where the paralysis comes from--while the remastered ghouls position themselves closer to various cultural taboos around cannibalism.

I feel that's a fantasy that would probably be better-served by giving that versatility to the Wizard, rather than the arcane spell list: while Wizards are meant to be versatile students of magic, they're also not the only users of the arcane tradition, as we also have arcane Sorcerers, Witches, as well as Maguses and Summoners. The more power you pump into the spell list, the less power that leaves for those classes' unique features, which would make it especially hard to balance choose-your-own-tradition casters. This isn't to say that the arcane tradition couldn't use a bit more love right now, and I think it could do with many more tradition-exclusive spells, but I'd personally want the arcane list to have a sharper identity, rather than be the do-everything or do-everything-but-heal tradition.

I think we're seeing this become the case, too. At least, if I am recalling correctly Rival Academies has a few wizard schools that grant spells from outside of the arcane tradition. I want to say the Magaambya wizard school and the schools for the Runelord do? It'd be a nice trend to see continue.

Placing out-of-tradition spells into the curriculum has the twin benefits of making the curriculum stand out more, and feel less like a limitation of the wizard class, while also keeping access to extra-arcane spells sharply controlled. Yeah it'd basically make them indistinguishable from a cleric's granted spells or a sorcerer's bloodline, but those features work for a reason; it's a good formula.

Glad to hear the mythic destinies are fun, and also they're in this book. I'm surprised the description doesn't include them; you'd think that would be a big selling point.

Wouldn't PF2 classes being options unlocked via whatever their play credit system is called an ideal solution?

I'm all but certain that's what'll happen once that becomes a thing, but it's more the time requirements on the back end that are the bottleneck there, IMO. I doubt they want PF2E classes overshadowing their own, or interacting funkily in some way with the rules, like this investigator + sniper rifle combo I keep hearing about, so they'll likely want to make sure the options they do allow work within the SFS framework and aren't too disruptive. That's going to take time to figure out.

Ectar wrote:

I see it this way:

The devs changed the soldier and operative specifically so they wouldn't be "the fighter in space" and "the rogue in space". All well and good.

However, in games without the Pathfinder classes, such as SFS, you no longer have a fighter or rogue. The soldier kind of covers fighter, but not really. Likewise, either the operative or envoy kind of cover rogue, but not really.

There's just big holes in SF2E's class design space that the devs have plugged with the existing Pathfinder classes, if you're in a game where you're allowed to play them.

Do you think this might be something that comes from expectations about SF1E? I've only played 2e, and I feel like the game does a pretty good job laying out the classes. The Operative & Solarian are the single target damage classes, while the Envoy and Mechanic are the skill-based utility martials. Fighters and Rogues.

I think it's issues of expectation from both SF1E and PF2E. SF2E is at an unfortunate intersection of being a sequel to an established game, and also a recontextualization of an existing game, so you are going to have twice the number of people wondering why they can't do the thing in the game they know in SF2E. SF1E players wonder where their generic options went, because that's how operative, soldier, and to a lesser extent mystic and technomancer played, and PF2E players are going to wonder the same things, but swap in the fighter, rogue, and various casters, because those are playable in PF2E.

I'm also in the camp of hoping some PF2E classes make their way over to SFS, even though I don't participate in organized play, just so people have more options. It's mostly a non-issue for home games, but I can see how organized play folks might be frustrated.

That being said, I also wouldn't necessarily anticipate that happening any time soon. As someone already mentioned, odds are that the Starfriends want SF2E to stand on its own for a while, to differentiate itself and be more than "Pathfinder in space," even if that is undeniably a big chunk of its DNA.
There are also the balance concerns people brought up, as well as Starfinder's classes being swamped out by Pathfinder's ones. Even if some people in this thread aren't overly concerned about them, the fact is that our scope is necessarily going to be smaller than that of a designer or developer. Those balance and pain points are things they do need to take seriously, particularly for a game with more standardized rules, like SFS has.
Which brings me to the last reasons I don't expect to see PF2E classes in SFS any time soon; the SF2E team is relatively small. Yeah, they can lean on the PF2E side to help figuring out balance concerns, but that is more energy they have to expend, as well as time taken away from other projects. I doubt that figuring out how to backport PF2E options is ranked as more important than coming up with new options for SF2E, or administering SFS, or any of the other plates they've got spinning.