Perpdepog's page

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.

I really want a planar witchwarper with the primal tradition. It seems like such a natural fit and fun concept space that for a short period of time I gaslit myself into thinking it already existed and that witchwarpers were anything-but-divine in the same way mystics have three traditions.

Funnily enough my hypothetical planar witchwarper is divine rather than primal, with your paradox being that you are, somehow, simultaneously, both dead and judged by Pharasma and alive at the same time, so you can open portals to the outer plane your soul is supposed to be in.

When I think of primal witchwarpers, which I also agree make total sense as a possibility, I think of a witchwarper perhaps tied to the distant past of the universe who summons up areas of ice age frost, or ancient volcanos, or prehistoric plantlife. That or there is something funky and paradoxical with your genetic code, like you somehow evolved so perfectly with other versions of yourself that you metaphysically touch, and that gives you access to the "nature" of another universe.

I could see a primal planar witchwarper, naturally tied to something like the Elemental Planes, I'm just not sure what the paradox narrative would be, and that's what I tend to focus on with the witchwarper when I think up hypothetical subclasses.

I get the limited staff argument but we are now getting a second book of ancestries before another class. With 20+ out already, that would not have been my call. The prioritization seems off.

Depends on who you ask. This is personal experience, but I've seen many more people concerned with SF2E nailing the cantina, "play as the alien" feel than class selection. The priority may be to give the majority what they're asking for.

Which doesn't surprise me. SF1E had fewer classes than PF1E did as well, but also many more playable species as options, and IIRC a lot of the people worried about losing the cantina were SF1E players intending on jumping into the new edition.

"Untapped potential" sums up my feelings on solarian pretty well, honestly.
It looks really cool, I certainly don't think it's bad, but I keep looking at the later levels' lack of class features, places the Stellar Arrangements used to go, and wondering what could go there instead. Then I start thinking about how, because Stellar Arrangements were removed, the solarian could have a lot more room to play with other aspects of their kit. A solarian who specializes in their Solar Weapon, granting it more features as they level, or one who bulks up the Solar Nimbus into a meatier nod to the old armor feature, or a solarian semi-caster, or one who goes all in on their flare through class features. They'd all fill out the class features really nicely and help the solarian broaden its niche.

Admittedly, none of my musings really focus on the level 1 experience.

I think a concept within Pathfinder is that worship can grant a being divine power, but worship isn't required to maintain divine power. And also the amount of worshippers doesn't translate to amount of divine power.

That's definitely how it seems to work for the goblin gods, at least. Lamashtu and the Bargast Hero-Gods aren't happy about it, either.

Note that, in Golarion, souls do not contribute directly to a deity's power.

I think it's more accurate to say we don't know of a deity who works this way in the Golarion setting. Divine mechanics are very blurry and wibbly-wobbly, purposefully so. That way people can make up the stories they like.

An example from Iron Gods here, spoilered.

Huh that's interesting, because I'm reading their (admitedly limited) entry on starfinder wiki and they sound like they're closer to some kind of beast. I wonder if the loss of aucturn will spur them forward.

We've had beasts as ancestries already, too. Awakened animals, for one. (Anadi aren't, but I really think they should be.)

There is also the text, "your multiple attack penalty doesn't increase until you have made all of your attacks," though I'm not sure how that'd translate into a trait. You could call it Combination, or Sequence, or some other term that connotes a series of moves all flowing together. It feels like something that'd trip up a lot of people if it were removed, though.

We've talked about if she were to play her Paladin char again in 2e, since narratively the option for non-religious Champions has been elided, and deity is somewhat more present in the mechanics than it was. She is open to playing her as a religious character and I am open to finding an alternative, as much as anathema appeals to me. We havent had to decide what actually is going to happen since the opportunity has yet to arise, but maybe this shows how the conversation happens at the GM level. Now that the Guardian is out, maybe the character is simply no longer a Paladin period. We'll find out when we get there.

Slightly ninjaed by somebody mentioning it already, but I'd suggest covenants to your friend if she wants to play a champion. I'm also pretty irreligious, and don't gravitate toward religious characters either, but covenants have interested me since they came out. It could be the term they use, or the fact that your "deity" is actually a group of entities affiliated with a concept, but I see covenants as more of a mutual understanding or veneration, which makes it much more amenable to me. Maybe your friend would agree with that.

If she does, but none of the current covenants sound good, you guys could always take some deity's or covenant's abilities and rework them as a covenant, as well. Though I guess at that point you may as well take that small extra step and allow them to embody a concept, which IMO is also a great route to take.

I like the idea of Taxing. You could even give it a value, Taxing 2/ Taxing 3, to show how many attacks it counts as.

I'm a fan. I'm also of the opinion that constraints can help guide the character creation process. If nothing else they help players figure out a few things they care about, whether they love or hate them, which helps solidify their character and make them stand out a bit more.

And, I mean, folks are talking about how anathema are opt-in from a player's perspective, but that's also true from a table perspective. If the group doesn't like them then don't use them. Or if the table likes them, but wants to alter one or two things about the specific source of edicts and anathema they've chosen, they can agree to that. It's why I see edicts and anathema as guidelines and suggestions rather than hard rules. Getting a table to go along with the idea that your cleric comes from a sect of Pharasma worshipers whose sacred weapon is a whip, or greataxe even, is a bit out there but totally doable.

The only time I'm against anathema is when GMs use them to bully players, or vice-versa, but even then the anathema are just the vector for a behavior that could express itself in any number of ways. We didn't need anathema to have "it's what my/your character would do" debates, after all.

What happens when someone time-travels from lost omens to before Aroden's death? Do they create a zone of non-prophecy while they're in the past or do they become ruled by prophecy while in the past?

You'd have to ask Shyka or Yog-Sothoth about that.

Wait... the flowing of souls extends the life span of the current universe, and thusly I would assume, Pharasma's existence too.

I've never heard of Pharasma's and the current multiverse's lifespans being tied in that way, so I think your premiss is flawed.

I understand Paizo wants to change around their announcement or release schedule, that's fine and normal. But the reason this is somewhat bothering about this particularly book is that was the book we playtested the classes for where they wouldn't even tell us the title of the book for the playtest (a thing that they hadn't done before.)

So some part of this has to be "they are holding their cards close to their vest" because the very title of the book is predicated on something big happening.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It could also explain why we've heard relatively little; Paizo wants the Hellfire Crisis to have time to breathe and let people get invested and explore the new scenarios and APs.

Pharasma is a god of fate, so her staff would organize your eligibility to be resurrected. If she chooses to keep you, the spell would actually fail. And your buddies would not even have the power to bring you back. So it's by her blessing you are revived.

Yeah. Most, if not all I haven't checked, spells that revive a PC have a line stipulating when revivals don't work, and part of that line is always, "If Pharasma has decided that the creature's time has come (at the GM's discretion), or if the creature doesn't wish to return to life, this spell automatically fails..."

Wait, Pharasma's NOT all-knowing?! I thought she was the closest thing the Pathfinder universe had to a Supreme Being, which is why the gods HAVE to respect her judgments (unless you're Urgathoa). And that that's how and why she knows how the Universe will end and (assuming all things go according to plan) is setting up her daughter to be the Survivor to go on and midwife the new one.

She arguably was all-knowing once, given her powers of prophecy, but with prophecies no longer working that's no longer true. She's still likely closest to being all-knowing, deities and their specific domains of knowledge--like Nethys and magic--aside, but my guess is she's now running more on her uncountable eons of experience than anything else.

Edit: Ninjaed.

Nah, necromancy is a fun fantasy staple. "Pharasma says you shouldn't" is what makes Urgathoa fun. Sure, it's evil, but evil characters are enjoyable for a lot of folks. Sometimes, you want to be carried around on a throne held aloft by skeletons.

(And no, nothing indicates necromancy is clawing petitioners, or chunks of them, back from their post-judgement afterlives.)

Not to mention that removing necromancy, the fantasy staple that it is, cuts off all the character concepts people have been thinking up in this thread about how to reimagine, reconfigure, and recontextualize someone's relationship to necromancy.

Heavy armor is pretty specifically design to be capped at +6 item bonus.

I don't want to see anyone rewarded for deliberately building such a character to have -1 dex and getting around that design paradigm. Generally you can only achieve a -1 dex by choosing an ancestry that has a penalty to dex and then choosing not to increase dex ever.

IMO your homebrew here breaks design rules/paradigms.

TBH I'm not as concerned about breaking paradigms, that's part of what homebrew is for, but I do agree that it's really cheap for what it does.

The GM screens have the DCs by level printed on them and are one of the most essential purchases you can make. Even playing online they are worth having on hand to reference.

And, in complete fairness, AoN's GM Screen is also pretty great, all full of little tabs you can expand and collapse as necessary.

Honestly the issue here isn't so much that there is a problem with Monster Core, but that AoN is a mind-bogglingly good resource to have floating around for free. You could totally play the game just off AoN; the main reasons I buy as many Paizo books as I do are because, well I'm impatient and like to read all the new stuff, and because I like supporting a company who allows resources like AoN to exist.

Edit: Which reminds me, I should try supporting AoN, too. They have got a Patreon, IIRC.

A Pathfinder conversion of a level 1 Dragonkin would have access to a Jump Flight feat that allows it to fly 10 or 15 feet, but falls if it is not on solid ground at the end of the movement.

You know what's humorous? This is how SF1E dragonkin functioned. Your flight was effectively jump flight until level 5, when it became full flight. They got a buff in the flight department when they came over to 2E.

Anybody heard any news on this front? I'm mostly curious if there's any news I've missed; I know Redrazors has got lots of stuff goin' on.

The main difference here, however, is that IRL fascists don't openly worship devils. They still think they're the good guys.

I think what would really help here is the historical context of the Hellknights. Maybe it's because I'm more used to Pathfinder Hellknights, but I still see the Hellknights as thinking of themselves as the good guys. It's just that their self-image isn't so much "we are good," as "we are necessary," which has always been the cry of the authoritarian enforcement apparatus.

It's also worth noting that Geb already is the relatively stable, ordered society which accepts regular practice of necromancy and the background context behind the lore factoid that even mindless undead are known to spontaneously attack living things that get too close to them in direct contradiction to their orders. That society already exists and it's where we learned about the inherent danger of being near the undead

--

But a more important point, I think, is that of course it will be trivially easy to come up with any number of arguments why creating and controlling undead is both morally neutral and completely reprehensible. It doesn't exist in the real world where we can study its effects on the trajectory of the soul or negative consequences of its use. Any in-universe argument why it should or should not be considered evil is fundamentally based first on whatever aspects about it we've made up or decided to be true in support of our argument.

The reality is that in this setting, creating undead has traditionally been an inherently evil act (with the unholy tag!) likely because controlling the dead is a classic dark magic trope to have shadowy villains enact to show that they're evil and preying upon innocents. Soon we will have a Necromancer class, which is very likely not to be restricted to unholy. Only time will tell if the lore of the setting is receiving a slight adjustment to fill in a previously unexplored corner, or a major perspective shift on the nature and function of undeath and undeathly magics.

To build off these points, there are other corners of undeath which we frankly don't know about either. There are a handful--not many, but a handful--of undead that weren't considered evil in the Premaster, for example, and we've got no idea whether they interact with the Cycle of Souls/the degrading issues surrounding souls in the same way. These are generally culturally relevant ttutolary spirits in the fiction, like the iruxi ossature, culturally relevant tutolary spirits of real-world cultures, like the nightmarchers, figures tied to practices of ancestral veneration, such as the iroran mummy, or spirits with a very obvious wrong they need to correct, like the revenant, as well as many ghosts.

Incidentally, another of my examples, the last guard, flip-flopped a little; they were LN in the Premaster, but appear to have gained the Unholy trait in the Remaster. This brings another wrinkl into how we view non-evil undead; it's possible that the stats for the last guard were adjusted because you fight them in the context of Claws of the Tyrant, where I can't imagine they're very nice ghosts.

So 1e weapon Solarion also would not have had to spend nearly as much on weapons as other characters (yes the weapon crystals cost something but never as much as the churn of weapons upgrades on my other characters), I haven't seen enough of how that scales in SFS 2 to see if there is a similar hidden benefit to factor in.

You likely won't see a difference. While solarian weapons scale slightly differently in terms of when they can get property abilities, basically upgrades, the actual cost of improving your weapons' direct statistics, to-hit and damage dice, cost you the same as any other weapon.