Perpdepog's page

Of all the things I dislike about PF2 Mythic (and it's a long list), Mythic Proficiency is the top of the list. It literally warps the game by undermining the entire skill proficiency system.

Sure, my character failed "Magic for Dummies" and doesn't know what a spellbook is, but I spend a point and suddenly my Arcana proficiency is exactly the same as the Wizard who has put major investment (both narratively and mechanically) into being very good at that. Hell, if I know I'm going to do that ahead of time (like casting a mythic ritual) and go buy an item to boost the skill, the only difference between us is INT scores.

This one really irks me because my current Oracle is actually Legendary Arcana, my second highest ability score is INT, and for character story reasons I've put a lot of effort into being a very good arcanist (despite being a Divine caster). Someone who did nothing with it all game spending a point and suddenly having a higher proficiency than I do is super frustrating. (Likewise that character is still untrained in Athletics at level 19, and it would undermine the tradeoffs I made on that and the downside of it if I can just spend a point and suddenly I'm smashing adamantine doors down.)

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when PF2 a system puts real effort into letting characters that invest training into being good at something be better at it than those who don't. Proficiency gates are also one of those things and mythic proficiency bypassing them entirely is BS, but also necessary because as you noted there's cases where the check is literally impossible without it.

And the inverse-scaling on it, of course: mythic proficiency is absolutely nuts at low level and turns into a +2 at high level if you're good at the thing in question.

While I wasn't that concerned about it at first, and still haven't run mythic, so I have zero first-hand experience, the more I've thought about it and the more posts from folks who have played mythic I've seen, the more I'm also convinced this is a pretty big, un-fun problem.

Also, presumably not all druids create leshies, let alone many leshies.

Yeah. If we are going based off the orders as a sample, assuming equal representation and being generous, then roughly a third of druids would be expected to create leshies, since the Cultivation and Spore orders make familiars like Leaf does. If we're not generous then that proportion drops to a sixth, since Cultivation and Spore can largely be seen as sub-sets of Leaf. This is also not counting any sub-sets of the other orders that could further muddy the field, or other orders, like the now-canceled Iron Order we were going to get in Rage of Elements, that have nothing to do with leshies or plants at all. (Conversely, whether we count the total number of orders as six, nine, or some other number, it's pretty reasonable to say that some proportion of all of the druids in those orders are dedicated to making more druids.)

Usage:

# Generate Paizo BBCode output
textbuilder2e.py character.json -p paizo-static --stdout

# Generate plain text
textbuilder2e.py character.json -t static

# Read from clipboard, copy result to clipboard
textbuilder2e.py -c --copy

Free, open source, no dependencies beyond Python 3.10+.

GitHub: doctor-duus/textbuilder2e

Happy to take feedback if anyone finds it useful!

Linkified for others' convenience.

Yeah this is some very cool stuff! This feels like one of those things you don't even really realize you need until you're half-way through writing out a statblock, and then the forums or wherever eats your post, lol. Much appreciated, and I'll be sending this to folks I know to spread word.

Finoan wrote:

Being martial primary and spellcasting secondary opens things up a lot. At that point, the choice of light or no armor holds more weight. You can add a spellcasting archetype to a martial character fairly easily.

Monk is probably the best choice for no-armor. Getting Monk to use a staff wouldn't be terribly hard. Using a hammer would be more challenging.

Thaumaturge and Exemplar come with some mystical abilities of their own without any spellcasting archetype needed. They will want armor though. Light armor at least, maybe even medium armor.

There are several other light armor martial classes that would work fine too. Rogue and Swashbuckler come to mind. Like Monk, getting them to use a staff wouldn't be too hard, but having them be effective with a heavy weapon like a hammer would be more challenging.

If you want to step outside the box a bit... Barbarian: Elemental (air) with Kineticist archetype. You would probably want medium armor, but you would get the hammer and some air Impulses that can look a lot like telekinesis.

These are great suggestions! Do you think it would be worth taking a class outside of Monk if I wanted to have the few spell features I described?

Yes, especially if you're primarily taking it for things like barriers and other spells that don't care too much about your casting stat or proficiency. I wouldn't sleep on the monk's qi spells--some are pretty good and fitting for what you're talking about--and the monk's spells run off wisdom, so you may want to look specifically at classes that also run off wisdom so you're not having to spread your stats out too much.

Those classes are all divine or primal, IIRC, which unfortunately don't have the widest selection of telekinetic-like, force-based spells on them, but there should be a few that you can use to fill in the gaps of how you're imagining your guy's spells will work.

I'm also more in favor of all of the heritages remaining separate. I think they could consolidate all of the geniekin into a singular heritaege and leave all the baseline benefits in the heritage, but it'd either require homogenizing the different geniekin even more than they already are, and I also feel that going in the opposite direction would be preferable, or it'd make the heritage text itself rather bloated and messy.

It was, according to Archives of Nethys, yeah.

Incidentally, High Seas content is already up on AoN; kudos!

So in this upcoming Starfinder game, I found out about Novians and immediately fell in love. Tiny little balls of anger with the personality of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas just tickle me pink, but... I have so many questions. So many.

Primarily... how do they wear armor? Like, I want to play a Soldier, which wears heavy armor so how does that work? Are they just... encased in a metal sphere with eyeslits? Normal shaped armor that they puppet with their tendrils?

Either of those explanations would work, IMO. I also like the image someone suggested of them being encased in rings or orbits of armored plates that spin close to their cores and offer the same level of protection. I personally like the armored ball, dyson sphere look, myself, but I like my characters looking a little goofy sometimes. If their armor does follow a more conventional bodyplan you could instead frame it as the Novian acting as the core or power source for a very small mech or weapons platform; you can have whatever shape you'd like as long as it doesn't grant a mechanical advantage.

How do augments work, if they even work at all? They've got such unconventional biology that most of them just don't make sense, and the ones that do don't seem like they'd be able to interface with them at all.

I think it'd depend on the particular augment style you're looking at, but cybernetic and magitech augments seem fairly easy to flavor. I imagine they'd look something like nodes or "stations" inside the Novian's body, or as orbitals spinning around it, linked to and drawing from the Novian's core energy, which is why they can only handle so many. Actually the latter description could also work for biotech augments; just flavor them as astrophagic life forms but scaled way, way, way down, and grown into the desired shapes to get the desired effect.

How about carrying stuff? The book mentions that _some_ Novians have random object orbiting around them, but does that apply to all PCs, or just some of them? There doesn't seem to be any ancestry feats that addresses that so I'm guessing that it's all PCs, but it's hard to be sure.

That looks like it's mostly flavor to me to represent your carrying capacity and the like. As with the armor you don't need to worry about it too much as long as it's not presenting mechanical advantages, giving you effectively extra hands or anything.

Perpdepog wrote:

What are the names of the archetypes visible in the table of contents?

Impossible Magic archetypes are the four multiclass archetypes, Captivator, Hedge Mage, Living Nexus, Soulforger, Spellshifter, Veil Dancer, and World Rouser.

Captivator and Soulforger are definitely remasters.

Looking at SoM/Grand Bazaar archetypes, World Rouser could be related to Geomancer, Veil Dancer could have some Shadowdancer/caster elements, Spellshifter might be Spell Trickster, and Living Nexus might be Wellspring Mage. Hedge Mage at least is definitely new.

Nice, thanks!

I'm looking forward to seeing what those archetypes are. I have nothing to back this up but Living Nexus makes me think something like the 3.5/PF1 Mystic Theurge, an archetype a caster takes that gives them some abilities to cross over with their diametrically opposed tradition of casting.

Also, I guess this puts the nail in the coffin viz speculating whether this book was going to remaster any of the archetypes fromBook of the Dead or Impossible Lands.

What are the names of the archetypes visible in the table of contents?

The pdf page is now up in the store. :)

Thanks a bunch for mentioning this! I'd missed the release; finding new releases on the new store is much harder than on the old one for me, for some reason.

Just wanted to say I am delighted to notice just now what autocorrect thought I was trying to say instead of "necrotic power". Undead minions fueled by the pure distilled essence of anxiety and depression stored in the bones.

I was about to ask if you'd written it that way on purpose, haha.

Though that does give me a fun idea for a necromancer, likely a puppeteer focusing on spirits, who really puts the psychologist in parapsychologist.

If it retains the lore from the playtest that you prepare your spells from a "Dirge", a dark song of deathly power that resonates with your soul, I do think there's some fun idea potential in how you conceptualize that tune.

Are there dramatic classical strings and organ to score your gothic Dhampir master of spirits?

Jangling xylophone for a Dance of Skeletons?

Thundering heavy metal for a leather-clad Talos punk attacking people with arcs of blood?

Or an ill-tuned banjo for your too-clever swampland hick and their band of bog bodies?

For some reason the first thing that came to mind for me was synchronized tap à la Riverdance and becoming the spookiest of all the Michaels Flatley.

My guess is that either the grim fascination bonuses that thralls get, or the action compression of the necromancer's thrall-manipulating abilities, or both are what are going to either be left out of the multiclass entirely, or require more feat investment. I'm leaning toward action compression being left out, since action compression does tend to be what lets classes be flexible with their gimmick and really rely on it as a core piece of their kit.

Agreed. Had an investigator in Night of the Gray Death, and they were absolutely amazing at gathering up info and clues and advantages for later discoveries.

If we're talking reflavoring and possible alterations, how about a necromancer who leans into a different aspect of occult spellcasting, a.k.a., Calling Cthulhu for Fun and Profit. Reflavor all your thralls as tenticals or other eldritch limbs, and take loads of spells that dish out mental damage and slap on status debuffs. You could even keep the focus on void damage as well and call it energy from the Dark Tapestry or something.

As do I. Book of the Dead is also one of my favorite books, and it's pretty solidly my favorite of the boutique bestiaries.

I especially want to see how the undead archetypes and skeleton ancestry would look after a nice remastering. The skeleton in particular needs some way to gain the Advanced Undead Benefits, which they can't currently acquire. I know folks also grumbled that some of the undead archetypes felt a bit lackluster, Vampire and Lich specifically as I recall, and while I had no problems with them I'd be interested to see if they'd get a power bump as seems to happen with a fair amount of Remaster content.

Not to mention there are some genuine errors that could use fixing. The Hallowed Necromancer archetype has got some weird proficiency requirements, IIRC, and a couple of the monsters in the bestiary section in back have got a few small errors in their stats here and there.

One of the biggest questions for me about the argument that people can use necromancy to do good things is that it just feels like necromancy is never actually stronger or easier or safer magic to use than just animating inanimate objects. So at some point necromancer characters are making an active choice to just use dead bodies for some kind of reason, that is probably always worth questioning.

I think a lot of this perception is thanks to how 2E treats summons and minions as opposed to 1E. 2E is, in general, a lot better at communicating how dangerous undead are versus constructs. Its systems also reduce or remove a lot of the benefits of creating and controlling undead versus constructs.

Controlling undead, at least the basic skeletons and zombies that most often come to mind when someone thinks of "doing good things" with necromancy, was pretty easy to do in 1E. Animate Dead was a spell that showed up on several lists, typically at level 3 as opposed to Animate Objects being level 6, and it created permanent undead servants that were under your total control up to a limit of your hit dice as opposed to temporary minions you needed to cast other spells on to keep around. They were also relatively cheap to creat--they were even cheaper than the cheap constructs that Set mentioned, IIRC, meaning that you could assemble a workforce for relatively low funds, and which could output a large amount of labor. There were also no mechanisms for the undead breaking free of your controll, at least not non-intelligent undead, so unless you got greedy and tried to make more than you could handle you were relatively safe. Contrast that with constructs, which were expensive to build--clockworks in particular were just, more expensive to make for some reason--needed the creator to generally be a higher caster level, and could often be harder to repair since you couldn't huck negative energy at them to restore them. Oh, and some of the most famous constructs, golems, could go berserk sometimes and slip out of your control, making them feel a lot more dangerous to build and keep around on top of being expensive to make, and surprisingly fragile in combat scenarios to boot because of how you needed to be much higher in level than their CR to be capable of making them.

Contrast that with how 2E treats summons and creature creation, where it is the level of the creature that matters rather than the category of creature it is. Summon Construct and Summon Undead show up at the same spell rank, so it's not like one shows up earlier than the other. Ditto for the creation rituals Animate Objects and Create Undead. Control over a minion only cares about whether they are four levels lower than you, and constructs and undead haven't got different rules for one being under your control versus another ... though I believe the creatures formerly called golems can still go berserk sometimes.
Different categories of creature don't arbitrarily cost more or less than others of a similar level now, either. You could get something like over a hundred skeletons for the cost of a single medium animated object in PF1E. Contrast that with 2E, where creating a skeleton guard costs as much as making an animated broom, meaning the main difference, in terms of resources, between creating a skeleton guard versus making an animated broom is that one requires you to have a broom on hand, while the other requires you to find someone who isn't currently using their bones to their fullest potential. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Create Undead is also just a lot more dangerous, narratively, than Animate Object is now. The Animate Objects ritual creates minions that will simply stand in place as opposed to Create Undead, whose un-controlled creations "maraud the local area" and are "still horrid and evil creatures," meaning that, yeah. Someone animating objects as opposed to animating corpses is a lot harder to justify outside of some real sketchy reasons.

There's a Paizo adventure where you have a typical tomb filled with skeletons scenario... except the place you're in can't have undead, those skeletons are actually bone mechs built by tiny bone eating scavengers from the abyss.

I ran that adventure, and it was indeed very funny to see my party flail against what they thought were undead for a hot minute and almost get overwhelmed by bone charriots. They also struggled against a caterpillar; ah, low-level play, never change.

Perpdepog wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Considering animals are sentient (ie capable of sensing their environment and having feelings) I'm not sure it's entirely possible to make undead from things that weren't sentient at one point. Non-sapient however might be a useful term for fantasy creatures that aren't animals but have nonhuman intelligence.

Zombie jellyfish are go? Though I suppose you could make arguments that their cnidocytes do respond to touch.

Ah! How silly of me!

I mean, technically jellyfish do have sensory organs and are capable of detecting certain changes in their environment communicated through their nerve net, and some jellies have eyes of a sort, but I definitely over-generalized on animals being necessarily sentient! One only needs to consider sponges to prove that concept a farce.

... Of course you know this means we need a new Grim Fascination; "Jelly." It's the only reasonable thing to do now.

Awakened sponge--as sponges are animals--puppeteer necromancer with jelly thralls and the Wanddering Chef archetype.

Considering animals are sentient (ie capable of sensing their environment and having feelings) I'm not sure it's entirely possible to make undead from things that weren't sentient at one point. Non-sapient however might be a useful term for fantasy creatures that aren't animals but have nonhuman intelligence.

Zombie jellyfish are go? Though I suppose you could make arguments that their cnidocytes do respond to touch.

Glaukos wrote:

I'm still waiting for the stellifera to be updated to SF2. Tiny psychic cuttlefish who use telekinesis to, in effect, make encounter suits out of water.

While I highly approve of all the Leshy talk, I must emphasize that this is the #1 species I want to see make the jump to Starfinder 2e.

I'm really looking forward to them too. They're a really cool ancestry, and SF2 has likely got more levers and knobs that can be pulled and twisted to make their water body something that you can get fun uses out of that doesn't also arbitrarily make them the literal strongest ancestry in the game.

I remember this from long, long time ago in the old D&D Basic,Advanced,Expert,Master,Immortal sets. There were hive mind swarms(Kinda like rat kings) that are thinking beings. So a swarm of rats who have higher IQ the more there are?(Can cause stealth problems if there are a lot of them.) smaller swarms can be split off but have less brain power.

They're also in PF1; "hivemind swarm" showed up as a template in the final bestiary.

I CHOKED ON MY TEA /GEN

My work here, is done. :P

In point of fact I actually prefer a slightly different concept of how Summons work which I brought over from a headcanon I formed in 1e, but that's just something I can make true in my home games. I am bit one GM who only needs to make sure my content is appropriate for my table, and not a company that needs to make content that's appropriate for tables across the world.

I also like a slightly different take on summoning for my games, though the difference is largely academic. I think of summoning spells as mini-contracts that let you project an echo of an extant being that essentially feeds them the experience of being summoned by you.

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay... I weirdly want a new Grim Facination: Ash (it would fit that last necromancer i made better)

your focus spell would essentially cause the Thrall to explode in a 15ft cloud, causing Obscured Vision, except to you (with maybe a feat later on to let your allies see through your ash clouds) and the Thrall improvement is that any damage the thrall causes, either through strikes or by being consumed for a grave spell, may be converted to fire damage.

I like this very much. Hope Paizo could add it so that I can use it in PFS.

Same. Though I'd reflavor it as dust and burning grit myself; I've been wanting some more mummy undead options for a while and that sounds exactly like what I was imagining.

Getting back on the topics of mechanics of the Necromancer and its hype, I just came across a small post by Know Direction with another awesome tidbit.

Seems there is a 6th level feat that gives Necromancer an extra spell slot, always at your highest rank, that can only be used for Summon Undead. Apparently it does something else too, but they said they had an article next week that will cover it in more detail.

Whatever else it does is bonus to me. An extra spell to summon undead at highest rank...yes to more to add to my growing horde! I'm going to find it likely hard to pass up, but man all the feats I've seen so far are between good and phenomenal. No duds so far, so can't wait to see what else is coming!

I hope we get some cool ways to Sustain all of these spells and things; necromancer feels like the class that'd have some fun mechanic for that. I like TRB's idea of spending thralls to make it easier. It shifts the focus from action economy to resource management, which is an interesting change in pressure.

I wonder if this book is going to reprint any archetypes from Book of the Dead in it. I mean, if there's a section for necromancers then it does kinda follow that the Hallowed Necromancer, Reanimater, and Undead Master could get a look in as well.

My question is, are the "Shreds of a soul" sapient? Do they have the capacity to consent or object or even experience suffering?

The answer to your questions,at least according to the soulbound doll, is yes. Fragments of souls can become sapient, autonomous beings with the ability to consent, and can be harmed. I guess you could quibble over what does or does not "count" as suffering when it comes to a construct, but soulbound constructs do at least show that soul fragments can be considered their own, individual beings.

Also, completely unrelated to anything being discussed, but I still find it very amusing that the writers of Monster Core managed to sneak in pokémon natures as the soulbound doll personalities.

Agreeing with Baarogue.

The rule of thumb that I use is: If you could rebuild the character over from scratch without using any Retraining, then the result rebuild is valid for retraining your existing character to. If you couldn't build the character the way you want without changing things as you go from level to level, then you can't use Retraining to get to that result.

It's one of the quieter benefits of using a system like Pathbuilder to help with characters, IMO. It lays everything out by level for you so you can see what you could take, and when.

Sorry if this has been brought up before.

I just noticed that the Lancer, Crescent Cross, and the Rotary Bow are still listed as in the Bow Group in the Remastered Treasure Vault despite their text saying they're crossbows. I know that the Crossbow Group didn't come about until the Remaster, so I'm assuming this was something overlooked in the conversion from legacy since the Sukgung is also listed as a Bow, when it was made a Crossbow in the Tian Xia character guide

Just to collate all the info from this thread on the topic, in the Rules forum, this may also be true of the gauntlet bow, repeating crossbow, and taw launcher.

A viking-themed hallowed spirit necromancer, traveling from town to town in order to collect the dishonorable dead for one last chance to sacrifice themselves in glorious battle and earn their redemption. I'm thinking a reaper merely for the image of a painted brute of a priest with rune carved knucklebones tied into his hair and advancing with a sword and shield while flanked by a wall of furious viking ghosts.

It would be very easy to do something similar with knights and need only a slight tweak to their moral code to make it work.

The knightly flavoring puts me in mind of a Godbound character I made a while back. A friend wanted all of us to theme characters around myths and legends from Earth, and mine was called "The Once and Future King."

When you're joining forces with people who see all Hellknights as enemies to kill on sight and go on an infiltration mission through a Hellknights' camp to help the enemies of said Hellknights, I think we are drifting way beyond the Measure and the Chain.

As Cheliax entered its war with Andoran, Her Imperial Majestrix Abrogail Thrune II declared all the orders of Hellknights to be under her direct command. Certain orders that already worked closely with House Thrune, such as the Order of the Rack, fell in line without complaint. Others see the very suggestion as an affront to their dignity and to the history of the Hellknights.

More cynical sources note that Hellknights complying with the command are largely those based within Cheliax, while those abroad freely voice their complaints. This trend is generally true but doesn’t explain those like the Order of the Scourge in the heart of Cheliax standing against corruption at great cost and personal risk.
With these divisions, Hellknights might find themselves across the battlefield from their siblings under the Measure and the Chain. However, the Chain is quite clear on how to handle Hellknights who have erred:
no mercy.

Emphasis mine.

Considering that there are Hellknights who actively oppose Thrune in the Hellfire crisis, it seems like you can just be one of those and then any absurdities make sense.

IIRC it's about half of the seven major orders--the Godclaw, Nail, almost all of the Scourge, and half-ish of the Chain--oppose Cheliax in the Hellfire Crisis, so it's not even all that difficult to find orders to join. And that's not even including any of the minor orders, like the ever-based Order of the Torrent, who would also make sense to play.

Perpdepog wrote:

New idea, a holy spirit necromancer, likely a reaper, who worships Ragathiel and whose thralls are the spiritual remains of the victims of whatever baddies they're fighting that day.

Roadlocator wrote:

Teeth are basically bones right? Sprite with the Bone fascination. The tooth fairy ain't giving out coins no more

Ooooooh, that's a fun one! I'm imagining them being a reaper; hopefully there are plenty of feats to let you debuff enemies by "pulling their teeth out" and ways to consume thralls to empower yourself; Golarion's tooth fairies eat teeth to become more powerful.

Also, just to get the "well, actually" out of the way, no. Teeth are not technically bones.

Unless they're going to make a fascination for specifically teeth they're close enough for me

Agreed. Like I said, it was just to get the "well, actually" out of the way.

Theming bones as teeth also has me thinking of a necromancer for Myth-Speaker, probably a puppeteer who uses either skeletal or spiritual thralls, whose combat routine is repeatedly "sowing the dragon's teeth." They create Pathfinder's version of Spartoi, Speiroikos, to fight on their behalf. Maybe give them a high diplomacy or intimidation so they have a flavor reason why they keep convincing their thralls to attack only the enemy, instead of everybody.
Heck, if your group is open to 3P you could play with Battlezoo's dragon ancestries and sow your own teeth!

Even though the backstory leans toward a ghost, I’m personally more drawn to the skeleton. Any suggestions on which to pick—ghost or skeleton?

Por que no los dos? Though I'd only do that if it was meant to be a lighter campaign.

Oh, and while it's not out yet I'd highly recommend Tech Core when it comes out. It's also going to have some ancestries in it, the Mechanic and Technomancer classes, and lots and lots of technological goodies.

New idea, a holy spirit necromancer, likely a reaper, who worships Ragathiel and whose thralls are the spiritual remains of the victims of whatever baddies they're fighting that day.

Teeth are basically bones right? Sprite with the Bone fascination. The tooth fairy ain't giving out coins no more

Ooooooh, that's a fun one! I'm imagining them being a reaper; hopefully there are plenty of feats to let you debuff enemies by "pulling their teeth out" and ways to consume thralls to empower yourself; Golarion's tooth fairies eat teeth to become more powerful.

I haven't got a name yet, but I've been thinking of an Ustalavic necromancer from the University of Lepidstadt or the Sincomakti School of Sciences interested in studying vitae. They've got absolutely no facility with nature spirits or druidry, or indeed primal magic, of any kind, so they instead study "the seat of life": the blood. They have yet to achieve life ex nihilo, or really any life at all, but with their various elixirs and command over blood they are planning on changing that.

I'm imagining some combination of necromancer and alchemist, likely one who hands out mutagens to the rest of the party and then supports them with blood thralls, or maybe who collects samples with a massive syringe on the frontlines to study later.

I think it's pretty safe to rule out the Rare tag for Necromancer, seeing how there's an entire school dedicated to training them. That would make them at most the sort of regional Uncommon that Gunslinger and Inventor are, although I suspect that necromancy is more widespread than that.

TheTownsend wrote:

Much as Necro is my favorite of the two, I'm curious how the Runecarver shook out. I don't remember the playtest for that one as well but it seemed a little strained on hands and action economy. I suspect a pretty big overhaul is coming and I'm fascinated to see what shape it takes.

I'm glad we'll be getting some information on it soon. It's a lot harder for me to speculate on character ideas, since at least some of the runes are changing. I feel like having a "signature" rune or two is pretty key to settling on a Runesmith character concept for me.

I don't know why but I didn't click with the runesmith during the playtest. I think it's because necromancers have become one of my favorite 'mancers out there and that excitement overshadowed me looking into runesmith much. Really looking forward to the revised version getting me hyped for the class.

I also hope that they keep the ability to chain runes together to form larger effects. I think they were called diacritics in the playtest? I'd love to make a character all about that kind of combining and augmenting of runes who sneers at all the lazybones wizards in the Ars Grammatica school because they don't even bother breaking their spell components down into semantic thaumophemes to learn how they work.

I've been wanting an intelligent armor ancestry of some sort ever since Battlezoo created the Intelligent Weapon ancestry for Classic Creatures.

Honestly the books you're scoping are pretty much it, yeah. You could also pick up Alien Archive if you want a bunch of pre-made critters to use, but pretty much everything you need to make a campaign is contained in those first two books you mentioned.

Wait…which ancestries are…nuts? Like sapient, sentient nuts? All you’d need is some seeds, raisins, a bit of honey and you could walk into a Muesli…Bar.

I’ma make a Cashew Luminary. Now that is nuts!

A leguminary, if you will.

Sure! Most of the information can be found in Guns and Gears from pages 213-215. Though curiously, I don't quite remember where the tidbit about celestials being experimented on was mentioned, as that aspect alone does not seem to be in Guns and Gears. So I'll need some time to track that down, or see if that was a simple misremembering.

I don't recall any talk of celestials being bowned into constructs, though I do remember the fiendish ones. The Fiend-Infused Golem template comes from PF1's Cheliax, the Infernal Empire, and talks about the difficulties in binding fiends into golems.

As a reminder, there is a thread for folks to discuss ethical forms of undeath already.

Pallemi seems an interesting character, a person displaced in time and unusual in species. However, I am perplexed that iconic runesmith's backstory mentions runes only secondarily.

It's less perplexing if you also incorporate Pallemi's dabbling in the different traditions of magic and the focus on the essential underpinnings rather than specific spells. That's also pretty core to the runesmith; crossing the boundaries of a singular tradition of magic through the use of multiple runes is how they stand out as a class when spellcasters can already make runes of their own.

LoreMonger13 wrote:

BotBrain wrote:

Also - if I'm not mistaken this is our first rare iconic! Truly exciting possibilities moving forwards if this keeps going.

By Ancestry, yes! Though technically Nahoa was the first Rare Iconic because of Exemplars being a Rare class ;P

Actually, Jotunborn are also rare, so alas that distinction goes to Grimmyr.

Just to clarify, you mean Grimmyr was the first rare iconic by virtue of ancestry, yeah? Just double-checking because War of Immortals came out before Battlecry!.

Love Pallemi! Robots so often get used for allegory for neurodivergence, it's fun to see a character who's clearly implied to actually as much going back to when he was still human!

Yeah that was a concern of mine when I heard we were getting a mechanical iconic, and so learning that's just how Pallemi gonna Pallemi was a nice touch.

However, you will absolutely want to replace any Golem enemies with their equivalent Remaster counterpart. Golem Antimagic is not all that much fun to play with, and the Clay Golem's curse is pretty unmanageable (the Clay Effigy curse is much more reasonable).

This especially. AoA's got a couple encounters, and they can be brutal if you haven't lucked into prepping the right damage type.

Seconded. Though I'm also hoping for more cantrips in general. I love cantrips; there is something about all-day spells that really helps define a particular caster's flavor or style in my mind.

Sounds interesting; I may need to wait until I've got more funds I can throw around, but it's on my radar now for sure. Have they got any smaller/cheaper offerings? I like checking those out before making larger purchases to see how a 3P dev's ideas about balance mesh with my own.

I could also see impossible spells letting you do something much more quickly than usual. A spell that mirrors the effect of a ritual, for example, save it happens over rounds rather than hours or days, if not sooner, and that doesn't require you to make a check to have it happen.

I've said before I'd love a dedicated rule book called something like "Last Omens" giving those rules for porting the PF2e classes in, and maybe future specific subclasses.

That's a real good name.

Just as a reminder, particularly if anyone is planning on using geniekin as foes any time soon, ifrit were renamed to naari in the Remaster; ifrit are now what the genies who give rise to naari are called rather than their prior name of efreeti.

Aristophanes wrote:

AHHHHH!!! I CAN"T TAKE IT ANY MORE!!

"PIE AND PUDDING" ARE DESSERTS!!!!
"THE SAHARA and THE GOBI" are DESERTS!!!

Sorry...I feel better now.

I likely wouldn’t eat a chicken pot pie or a Yorkshire pudding for dessert, but I certainly wouldn’t say no in a desert!

Tough call.

On the one hand I live in a desert, and eating something really bready and thick can be absolute Hell if it's hot out.

On the other hand... I'm having genuine difficulty thinking of circumstances when I would say no to a chicken pot pie or a Yorkshire pudding, or maybe a Yorkshire pudding filled with pot pie filling.