Pinstripedbarbarian's page

Finally, my Pizza Rat character can become a reality without breaking the ACP bank.

I'm so sad to hear this. Jack was such a great guy. I met him and a bunch of the SkalCon crew at PaizoCon one year when I ran a table for swat. Truly a table I'll never forget.
I had the pleasure of running a table for Jack three times and playing at the same table as him three times as well. Wish it could have been more.

I like every ancestry getting the option. Makes certain classes more accessible to certain ancestries without a bunch of extra steps. My halfling barbarian, for example, no longer has +Str +Dex -Int (+Dex +Wis +Str -Str; +Str -Int -Wis) and is instead just +Str +Dex. I really like it because it doesn't remove the stat options, as I do enjoy that mechanical difference between ancestries as well. A good compromise I feel.

I DON'T like getting rid of voluntary flaws for an extra boost. Not only does it actively remove options from a lot of ancestries (Human has been discussed a lot here, but also Orc, Tengu, Kitsune, etc.), but there are characters I have where the new double boost doesn't help. My dwarf wizard can be +Con +Int now, but he can't take +Dex +Con +Int -Str -Cha (+Con +Wis +Int -Cha; +Dex -Str -Wis). Might seem like a minor change, but that's potentially a big difference in the long run.

I'd say restrict it so you can only take either the double boost option OR the voluntary flaw option. Letting anyone take 3 free boosts and 2 free flaws is a little excessive, but only one or the other would allow Humans, Orcs, Tengu, etc. get 3 boosts, keep those fringe cases where double boost doesn't fit a character's goals available, and still open more options for the majority of ancestries. PLUS Human would still get something unique as the 3 free boosts 2 free flaws would work for them since the double boost is their standard anyway.

Or at least make the old voluntary flaw system optional if it can't be an alternative. I'm definitely keeping it as an option (for an ancestry's standard stat spread, as I described above) in my home games for sure.

I've been waiting for this post for so long! So happy to see it

Tapi bellows "I AM TAPI, LORD OF FIRE! MY HOLY FLAMES SHALL INCINERATE YOUR KING OF THORNS AND HIS WRETCHED FOLLOWERS SHALL CHOKE ON HIS ASHES!" and ◆◆ calls forth a raging inferno around the party, lighting nearby trees on fire.

I imagine this would be coupled with a Deception check of some sort? If so I'd like to use my +2 boost on this check. If you want to consider it Impersonating a fire mage, I can use Performance +16 (+17 with the boost since I already have +1) to Act it out. If you'd rather just treat it as a Deception check, I have a +12 (+14 with the boost).
Either way, if it takes an action to be convincing, that finishes my turn. If not, I'll couple it with dirge to add to the terror.

93) This earth elemental is composed mostly of rock. I bet it didn't think I'd have rock's one weakness... PAPER!

94) Oozes leaving slime and goo everywhere? With SHAMWOW you'll be saying wow every time!

95) This runelord of pride can't stand up to my secret weapon: his own highschool yearbook!

I like the class having a tie to Recall Knowledge and even having a core class feature tied to it, but not relying on it.

If the ability was to make a check using the skill you'd Recall with (and the Charisma thing) and not actually making a Recall check, it might work better? The success conditions can even include the Recall info.

I understand the tactic of withholding with your dollars and your subscriptions, and you should do what you feel you need to do, but it’s the people who help us keep the lights on that every organization listens to the most. If you like playing Pathfinder and Starfinder, games with diversity and inclusion baked in, I invite you to consider being one of those people.

WOW. Seriously? Right after saying "lost trust has to be re-earned" you tell us that you won't listen to people who aren't paying you? Boy, I sure am happy you extended that invitation for me to pay you money to listen to my concerns with how your business is run, Mr. Shanks. Thank you for the amazing opportunity.

You're aware our trust in you is what has to be re-earned here, right? Not the other way around? Saying "Don't take away our money! We won't listen to you if you do that!" in a discussion about treating workers poorly and underpaying them is in truly astonishingly poor taste. Holy cow.

Address the issues, fix the problems, and set up a good solution moving forward. Then, people might want to "help keep the lights on" again.

Gotta love the conflicting trolls in this thread.

One demands you do NOTHING to support a company if you have any problem with them regardless of circumstance or context.

The other seems to ignore or refuse to believe in the long history boycotting, voicing concern with monetary repercussions, and anything else mildly related to management-employee-customer relations and resolutions.

Can you lot just fight amongst yourselves for a while and just send the winner back? It'd be easier for all of us.

If a company loses that many subs in a single day, in response to an issue that a bunch of its customers are complaining about, that's the customers' statement. They have every right to make it. The company's reactions (or lack thereof) are the response. That's dialog between customers and a business. If customers demand better conditions for the employees and the company reacts by saying nothing and then firing a bunch of those employees, how does that make them look?

Anyway, back to this actual thread: yeah that response absolutely sucks. It addresses nothing. There's a lot of testimonial stuff floating around right now from a lot of sources, and the official paizo response boils down to "Did not!"

Seriously, the public doesn't have a lot to go on in an official capacity, but that tactless response seems better at supporting the accusations than defending against them.

Tapi will try to help another table by sharing what he knows about the occult objects in the magical supplies.
Occultism for Provide Knowledge: 1d20 + 15 ⇒ (19) + 15 = 34

Man, that's a good long time. I'll be sure to get one finished in the next month then put off any others until the week of submission. Just like last year.

I somehow neglected to actually post in this thread.

Before I go into likes and dislikes, I want to say I love that Mark is reading through this and taking so much to heart.

In 1e, I loved all the weird things you could do with Summoner. The DIY, build-a-bear set up was perfect for making the perfect character to go with a concept. When 2e came out and every character was like that in a way, I was over the moon.

I like that 2e has pulled in the reigns quite a bit in general. Summoner, obviously, would be hit with the nerf bat pretty hard. Not without reason. 1e Summoner was broken and we all know it.

Folding evolutions into feats actually works great for me. It's a built-in way of balancing the character between Summoner and Eidolon; you only have so many feats, so you only have so much to pump up you and your summonbuddy. It naturally leads to good diversity in builds as far as focus goes. Evolutions would need to be stronger or at least scale more.

That said, Eidolons do feel pretty bland. I know there will be plenty more evolution feats, but beyond that we need some more choice at level 1. Your "breed" of eidolon is nice, but I'd like to be able to make two Beasts be notably different without waiting until level 4. If the attack options expand, I think that'd be huge. Something like a list of weapon traits and getting to choose two attacks between a d8 Strike, a d6 with one ability, or a d4 with two. Unarmed Evolution is amazing for this, and I'd love to see more feats early on that offer customization like this by adding more weapon traits to the list (or increasing damage dice in the case of size increase maybe). I think an ability (NOT a feat) at a low-ish level that lets you pick a movement or sense upgrade would be super helpful and flavorful.

I also think each form needs a special action or two. Beast and Dragon are infinitely more interesting in combat if only because they can do more than simple Strikes. Alignment damage and a reaction are nice, but a beastial charge and a draconic frenzy are so much more fun in combat. Unique abilities for every form might be a tall order, but a small pool of them which for forms have options could work. A "Power Attack" ability could work for Beast or Dragon. The "Sudden Charge" thing could be for Beast or Phantom. Sort of like each deity having a selection from the pool of domains. Again, more customization.

Right now, fun in combat is something that the class needs more of. I have full confidence that any class lead by Mark will have its numbers shake out fine, so spicing it up with weird abilities shouldn't make it overpowered like its predecessor.

A major culprit here is the spell casting. I'm glad this 'window casting' got playtested because personally I hate it as is. I'm all for Summoner (and Magus) getting reduced spellcasting for balance, but I have never yearned for level 1 spell slots so much. I think 2/level would still be a big reduction from other spellcasters while having enough to have functional backup/utility/emergency spells.

I really like the idea floating around the forums of the Summoner "paths" being split up among different playstyles. Synthesis/Master Summoner/Eidolon Caller would be such a great way to express everything great about the class without letting someone DO everything at once. Kind of like how Alchemist has Research Field as a focus but you can dip into others. I would love to see a Summoner that doesn't get more a Familiar than an Eidolon and a Summoning Font with a bunch of feats to add effects to summon spells like Ostentatious Arrival. Or one that doesn't conjure things at all but has their otherworldly companion that they can boost up in crazy ways with tons of evolutions.

In the end, I'm excited to see Summoner come back. I hope the final produce is as flavorful and versatile as the original with a better restraint on power level. And that it has more than 4 spells per day.

Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

This sums up my feelings on the issue perfectly. I love how much simple a bunch of situations are now; if you faint, if the eidolon dies, if the eidolon goes past its 'leash' distance. The Con thing is the only really weird part to me.

Having slept on it and rolled up a couple characters, I can still say 2+2 = not enough.

Magus just feels like a fighter with less accuracy that gave up on wizard dedication halfway through.

Summoner looks like it could function fine with only 4 spells, but gosh it'd be boring. It's like playing a fighter... with worse proficiencies and no special attack feats.

There are some fun things Magus gets to augment Striking Spell, but 4 times per day isn't enough to justify them and cantrips don't hold up. For Summoner, you might summon stuff, or you just buff your Eidolon. The rest of combat is cast Inspire Eidolon, sustain your summon if you have one, and let your Eidolon attack with the rest of your turn. You can't really even attack on your own since your Eidolon does it better and you share MAP.

I still think 2/level/day would be solid. Maybe 2/level/day and one has to be filled with the appropriate kind of spell (damaging spells for Magus, summoning spells for Summoner)? Low level spells' usefulness drops off, but having the option and rarely using it still feels loads better than not having the option at all.

Another option I thought of: what if Magus didn't get any spell slots at all? It doesn't really feel like a hybrid of casting and combat as is. If pumping up its spellcasting isn't the answer, maybe taking them all away would work better. Champion and Ranger already lost their spellcasting from 1e and got Focus Spells to replace them. Monk got them too for their SLA's. They're all primarily martial classes that can absolutely still be magical.

If Magus didn't have regular spellcasting but had really kickass combat Focus Spells, it could still fill that hybrid-niche. Maybe keep cantrips? Or a Focus Cantrip that's only damage? I dunno. Give it a basic damage Focus Spell, something akin to Elemental Toss so it has a solid damage option for Striking Spell. It'd make Striking Spell way more usable. You'd lose a lot of versatility for focus and function. Personally I'm happier using archetypes as a method to get versatility than basic usability.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.

Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.

A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.

A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.

That's what gets me. As I understand it, Magus's identity is to be the hybrid martial-magic class, right? Not to be perfect at both, but to combine and be competent in both, hence master and not legend in armor, magic, and weapons.

Thing is, many classes can replicate this by dedicating half their feats, AND they still have their own identity while adding this complete new toolkit. Right now, to be on par with other classes at its own primary function, Magus needs to dedicate as many resources to catch up rather than customizing and focusing on its own kit and class feats.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Unfortunately we then are at the point where it's not really a complete design if it needs to spend half its feats on an archetype to be good. In fact, that sounds a lot like an archetype.

NGL, if they made an Eldritch Knight mirror to Eldritch Archer with a melee eldritch strike, it would eat this entire classes lunch, while being more versatile by being compatible with more than one tradition and casting style, having more minor magic for flavor because the character who took it would either have a bunch of multiclassing feats or be a full caster, it would be very fun and effective.

This. All of it.

Up until yesterday I fully expected Magus to appear as an archetype. Just like Cavalier went from full class to the "...on a horse!" archetype, I figured Magus would be the "...but as a spellsword!" archetype.

Eldritch Archer's biggest drawback for me is requiring expert proficiency with bows. It means you either make one with a martial class and subpar casting or you wait until high levels to actually access it. If an "Eldritch Knight" happens, I hope it doesn't require expert anything. Trained in martial, sure. Trained in light armor, fine. Even medium, sure.

If Magus wants to be the "Eldritch Knight" there needs to be some change. More spells, tailored focus spells, better action economy... lots can be done to make a good old fashioned Spellstrike that feels good to use.

Alrighty, from the top:

Proficiencies etc: Seem fine. Right between Fighter and Wizard in most cases, which is perfect.

Spellcasting: Absolutely awful (I'll come back to that).

Battle Spells: These have a lot of potential. The Rune stuff is expected and seems fine. There'd need to be a lot of really outstanding spells here to make up for the slot-starved spellcasting though.

Striking Spell: ...why isn't it like Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot? 2 action ability, cast a spell, deliver with stabby thing. At least it isn't restricted to certain weapons anymore. Magus used to be all about action economy rolled into a cool mechanic, and now it's the same mechanic with more limitations and no increase in action economy. Making it Metamagic cuts off a lot of options, especially when it doesn't even give the Strike action built in to the Cast. Bonus points for building in unarmed attack support though!

Magus Synthesis: Wonderful approach to the class. I love that the flavor of the class has evolved from stab-with-shocking-grasp to merging spellcasting and combat in various forms.
* Shooting Star is ok, mostly since it's available at level 1 for supporting bow-mage builds. I'd still prefer it to be closer to how Eldritch Archer handled it.
* Slide Casting is the real winner here for me; here's that action economy I was hoping for, and it's done so well! A simple method of mechanically empowering the character in a substantial way with cool flavor.
* Sustaining Steel seems... weird. It helps with survivability, but Magus is still an 8hp class with medium armor, and since it requires a two-handed weapon you can't use a shield with it. So... not a lot of synergy I guess. Very cool idea! A little lackluster in execution.

Feats:
* Arcane Fists: always good to see easy ways to vary your builds.
* Raise A Tome: Silly, fun, but possibly in need of a little... more?
* Spirit Sheath: Great ability, very useful, and super fitting.
* Bespell Weapon and Bespelled Persistence: Fitting, but nearly useless with your four spells a day. Also potentially messy with Striking Spell?
* Spell Parry and Capture Spell: Very cool! Fitting for a master of manipulating spells in combat.
* Spell Swipe and Cascading Ray: Fun and thematic but... if most spells take two actions, and Spell Swipe also takes two actions, you aren't using the two together very often.
* Comet Spell, Healer's Steel, Portal Slide: Great extensions of their respective Synthesis form. Hope to see more things like this to spice up the different forms.
* School Shroud: SUPER cool ability... let down by that pesky 4 spells per day. I feel it should specify the level of the spell effect you get.
* All the 18+ feats: Fine enough capstones, but honestly a lot feel like they are just trying to fix things that the class is shaky at.

Now, the spells... Good golly gosh I hope this doesn't stick. I don't care how good cantrips scale, I don't care how amazing the class's focus spells might be; if you get the most versatile spell list and only 4 slots per day, you might as well just not have it. Personally, I'd rather the class be all cantrips and focus spells with no slot-casting more than its current set up. What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels. It still puts the class well behind existing spellcasters without utterly crippling it.

I've seen a lot of comments about how multiclassing or taking an archetype to get a handful of additional spells can make this really excel. That's great. I don't want a class that requires dedicating to a DIFFERENT class just to function.

I feel like this iteration of Magus scores around a C- (sorry, am teacher). It's got great ideas, but it doesn't see all of them through. It has amazing flavor, but it's very spotty at actually using it. It tries to strike a balance, but in doing so it sacrifices a lot of its uniqueness.

My first reaction is a very big thumbs down for this. It feels limiting, and I can see it confusing new players quite a bit. That said, I haven't playtested it as of yet, so grain-of-salt this.

I personally would be much happier without losing lower level slots. It just feels clunky and sad as is. 2/level is totally viable. Every other spellcaster gets 3 or 4/level. Trading the spells for an eidolon / combat casting is fine, but losing so many is crippling. Right now though Magus looks more like a Bloodrager with less health and Summoner looks like an Eidolon cheerleader rather than its own class (but maybe that's what's intended?)

Both could do a lot better if they had really tremendous focus spells (Summoner has a couple already), but even then I'd dislike 4 normal spells per day total. 2/day/level and some kickass focus spells would feel way less restrictive.

I rotated both the double-spread images, and that was able to address my issue. Dunno if you can do likewise.)

I tried doing this on my lunch break without any success. I don't really have any editing software. When I have more time tonight I might try again. Either way it looks like an oversight to include the double-page at the beginning and end that messed up the formatting.

I'm not 100% against locking curses and mysteries, but like I said in an earlier post, I'd much rather see mysteries "gated" behind curses much like donations are to deities. They already have domains listed to each mystery (which I don't really like anyway). If you swap the list of available domains with a list of available mystery benefits/curses, you'd get the mix'n'match of the old system, reigned in a bit, and thematically a better fit.

Hell, the Witch lets you 'design' your patron; why can't Oracle 'design' their mystery? Limit the options with prerequisites even, but don't hard lock everything. PF2 has so much emphasis on customizability. It's what I enjoy most in there new system. I would hate to see one of 1e's better examples of customization become one of the worst.

Did anybody ever pick any curse that actually made you weaker in PF1

Yes.

My roommate played an Oracle Samurai with Clouded Vision that he acted out as full blindness for flavor. I have a dual cursed Haunted Deaf Oracle that can only hear the voices in his head that give him bad advice. There are plenty of folks that will take "wrong" options for the sake of the character.

And even then, that's not really the point, is it? None of that will be a problem in PF2 if the curses are balanced. I saw more than my fair share of Haunted and Tongues Oracles in PFS because they were seen as easy-mode-curses, but there's no reason those same options (if they return) couldn't be made harsher for the sake of balance.

I have mixed feelings about Oracle curses and mysteries being fused. The flavor of a power both inhibiting and empowering someone at the same time is very cool and really emphasizes the shift towards that power. On the other hand, I really liked the mix and match aspect of the old system. I had a burn cursed Oracle in 1e that was a Lore Oracle because he burned down an ancient library, and while I can fake that with bard dedication, I can't tie my mystery and curse together in a way of my choice anymore. I'd much rather have a choice in mystery, even if those are limited by curse like how domains are limited by deity (Clouded vision might be Flame for smoke and Waves for mist blocking vision, while Wasting might be Flame for being burned or Battle for scars and wounds). In a related note, I hope domains DON'T stay in the Oracle's kit. Replace those with curse or benefit options for more dynamic choice related to the class's themes. As long as curses are balanced better than 1e, that shouldn't be a problem.

Moving on to Witch, at first I was disappointed to see it was not the prepared Occult class. After realizing the bigger emphasis on patrons, I actually like the sorcerer-esque varied traditions. I like the idea of fey patrons giving primal spells and genies giving arcane. I wish there was a stronger mechanical tie to the patrons' nature; it can still be a mysterious patron (though I don't know the reasoning behind that particular part of flavor) and still be clearly from a fiend, elder thing, or whatever else. I agree with the sentiment that there should be some hex focus-cantrips like bards' compositions, even just one per basic lesson. Also PLEASE tell me there will be divine options in the final version. A demon pact or devil contract is too perfect for this.

I'm now picturing a damai finding a "small" red dog-like kaiju in its infancy and raising it as their pet.

I wish I could make it out there. Maybe next year! It's been too long since I've seen Swat in action. Hope you guys can make it out to PaizoCon next year!

SkålCon!!!

I got my Starfinder scenarios but still waiting these.

Not in the Core Rulebook? I understand that.

Not in the Bestiary? I don't understand that as much, but okay.

Not in anything for the first few months? Not even available as a pdf to save on space in the main books? Not even by the first wave of books after GenCon? That's... lame.

That's exactly the sort of development I love to see in these storylines! Not only do the characters' actions have impactful consequences, but they're COOL consequences that are fun thematically and mechanically. Story evolution from choices? Fine. Story evolution that also gives new options for players? Great!

TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.

Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

The next round, the monk combined 2 ki powers to leap 75 feet straight up, landing on a wvyern and flurrying the rider. Another rider flew over to try nd help fight this crazy monk.

Was this via Wind Jump? Or some crazy combination of feats and items that increased your Athletics that high?

It was a Class feat lvl 10 of the Monk that let you get fly speed equal to your movement speed, Monks Incredible Movement class feature gives a lot of movement speed.

Indeed. This combined with a ki rush let him close the distance extremely fast.

(We might have miscalculated distances, or he must have had Wind Jump already active for him to Ki rush fly >> fly >> flurry all in one turn, now that I think about it. But that feels like quibbling and doesn't detract from the broader scenario.)

Looks good by my calc. Wind Jump 1 action, Ki Rush to move up to 90 ft (25 human speed + 20 monk bonus)*2 1 action, FoB 1 action.

Nicely done for that monk.

I was curious because of the "straight up" part since flying up counts as difficult terrain making it half speed. It is sort of quibbly, and I don't mean to pull away from the broader scenario. It's still possible with Haste or using wall run / wall jump. I was just seeing if I missed a way to jump crazy high that I could use for the dragoon I'm building for pfs.

I also adore the kineticist. It's so flavorful and variable that it lends to really fun and weird builds. I think the element-manipulator-class will show up in 2e, but likely as part of another class. My hope is that the Elemental bloodline for sorcerer will emulate it close enough.

For my playtest group, I brewed up a druid order for it. Metamagic feats for infusions, beefed up cantrip damage for blasts, and the ability to overspend spell points by taking unhealable damage (like Quicksilver Mutagen). I think it might work better with more spell/focus point outlets or on an elemental bloodline sorcerer (or both).

The next round, the monk combined 2 ki powers to leap 75 feet straight up, landing on a wvyern and flurrying the rider. Another rider flew over to try nd help fight this crazy monk.

Was this via Wind Jump? Or some crazy combination of feats and items that increased your Athletics that high?

My favorite introductory module is Godsmouth Heresy. It's a traditional dungeon crawl with a bunch of flavor and lore behind it to explore (gotta love Kaer Maga). Lots of opportunities to expand into home games if you want. Plus the majority of encounters are already in the playtest bestiary, and there are close approximations for most of the rest.

Sad to see Bleachling gone as a heritage. I loved the flavor behind it. Suppose I'll make my playtest gnome a Chameleon instead for coloration stuffs.

IIRC hags were arcane casters in the playtest bestiary, so I'd assume they will be an arcane bloodline, as much as occult would make sense.

Ah well, I'm a little sad to hear it but thanks for the info. I'd love for classic monsters to really carve their niches into the "new" spell lists to give things more identity. Witches being occult seems to make sense for a lot of people, so Hags following suit would be great.

I'm pleased that I'll be able to make 8 Wis characters again for Society play.

This was my first thought as well. As someone with a dozen bards in organized play each with a maximum Wis of 8, a small part of me died inside when I had to start making them wiser.

Roleplaying is not the same as demanding physical tasks. You can roleplay without reciting dialogue, and that can absolutely warrant a bonus to any skill check. Describing how you go about finding a safe spot to camp might give a small bonus to a Survival check to survive in the wild. Explaining what you hide behind and when you move could help a Stealth check if the situation would apply. Listing the explicit ways your character will eviscerate their enemy using rusty implements might give a small bonus to a demoralize action. Roleplaying, with our without dialogue, can add to the game.

Anyways, this is getting off topic from the future of Pathfinder. I do wish Charisma could do something intrinsic to characters like the rest of the stats. Resonance was an interesting attempt, but it felt especially rough on certain classes and races. Maybe something similar in nature will come about in the future to give a good reason for off-stat classes to take it.

Iomedae, Cayden, and Norgorber... Obviously the fourth they refer to is the Living God Razmir! Long may he reign!

Can anyone tell me about the Ashen Forgemaster? Undead Salamanders sound interesting.

Ooh pick me! I designed that one!

Not sure what all I'm allowed to say about it, but someone already pointed out it's CR, type and subtype, etc. earlier:

Without really spoiling anything, the creature's concept is an extension of part of the Salamander bestiary entry. I came up with the creature before knowing what project it would be attached to. However, even though it isn't necessarily something exclusive to the Runelords in theory, I definitely pitched the idea because I thought it would fit the general theme and motivation behind Thassilon.

Just here to say that feat support for dual Wielding rogues has already been confirmed for the final version by Paizo.

I must have missed that somehow. Good to know!

Something else I thought of:

Sorcerer needs an elemental bloodline.

The basic chassis is simple. Primal spell list, choose an elemental similar to choosing a dragon, give them an ability to change energy types of spells like before. I toyed with a homebrewed list of spells for such a thing, but I ran into the issue of finding either appropriate spells for each element at each level or finding spells that would comfortably for all elements regardless.

With the talk in this thread about Kineticist, I wonder if that would fit an elemental sorcerer cleanly. I thought about it maybe being an order for druids based around cantrips. Give them metamagic feats that work like shape or form talents for cantrips, make the order power itself give cantrips better damage, stuff like that. On a Sorcerer you could do something similar, but it might be clunkier to put into a bloodline power than a metamagic feat.

I certainly think Kineticist should get a place in 2e, but I don't think it needs to be its own class. Don't get me wrong, I adore Kineticist. It's one of my favorite classes in 1e. It's just that the DIY, Lego brick, Ikea nature of 2e lends itself to folding old concepts into existing classes, like how Oracle can be emulated with a Divine sorcerer or Bloodrager can be a barbarian with sorcerer dedication.

Bards: More skill and knowledge stuff. Right now they feel so focused on compositions that they lose out if they try to make something akin to the Archivist or Archaeologist of 1e.

Rogue: DUAL SLICE. Why the hell is rogue lacking a feat that enhances multi weapon fighting? Make it only for finesse rogues if you don't want brutes or swashbucklers using it. Make it a later level than fighter/monk/ranger gets it. Make it so it does fewer dice of sneak attack of you think that's too powerful (even though it's really not). Just PLEASE let rogues get it without having to multiclass. Dual-dagger-wielding thieves or ninjas are very iconic to fantasy adventure games, and it's a shame they can't embrace that in 2e.

Paladin: let them be something other than strength based heavy armor characters. I'd also love to see more alignments accessible.

Ranger: make crossbows better!

See, I'd much rather take Bloodline Heightening than several of the 10th level powers. Dragon Wings on a bloodline that already has Fly baked in is a little disappointing, for example. Which to me is a good example of why Bloodline Heightening should be a feat you opt into, aside from the reasons Landon mentioned. I don't really think there are that many sorcerer feats that outweigh it either.

Now, you could definitely make a case for it coming online sooner. Realistically though, it does nothing at 2nd, probably does nothing to very little at 4th, might get some very niche use at 6th... I think it doesn't really seem worth a feat until 8th level, when there's 4 different spells it might affect. (Keeping in mind not every spell can be heightened, or gives an effect every level it is heightened.) I'd say 8th might be about right, maaaaybe 6th, but considering there aren't a lot of 10th level feats available and it is a feat that gets better as you level up I can see why it wound up where it did.

As a specific example, the Imperial Bloodline gets a lot of mileage out of the feat, and 10th level is a neat place for it to kick in-- Dimension Door REALLY spikes in power when it is upped to 5th level, and Dispel Magic at 3 different levels is nice. At 4th...

I agree that it shouldn't be free (see why last post on why my mind changed). I also like the opt-in nature of things in Ikeafinder, so having it as a feat that makes that particular character more in tune with their bloodline where another character might reject it completely is perfectly fine.

You're right that at 2nd does nothing and 4th does little or nothing. Remember though that the ability to spontaneously heighten things comes online at 3rd level, when casters still barely have a use for them in most cases. The usability isn't entirely the issue. And if your bloodline doesn't offer anything good to heighten until later, you can delay taking the feat; the opt-in nature makes it so it can be your 10th level feat if you want. Right now it's not so much rewarding characters that would wait anyway so much as limiting characters who could use it early but also want other feats.

In another light, limiting feats to later levels encourages multiclassing feats. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the new multiclass system. However, as other threads have pointed out, multiclassing is almost too good of an option for some classes where low level feats are subpar.

One example was a Bard could take extra cantrips or just multiclass into another spellcasting class to get cantrips AND a skill or two AND potentially other abilities. Since Sorcerer shares a primary stat anyway and offers any spell list it wants, this is kind of lopsided. Bloodline heightening is a great way to add something cool and useful at lower levels that scales with your character, making it appealing without being overpowering.

I posted a similar thread wondering about an Alchemist Dedication update. I have a couple of character concepts that used the old version that I can't use currently, and the changes aren't straightforward enough to just convert to the new version. I hope they have a completed updated version of the file released or something, which would explain why none of it has changed in the resonance test or 1.6 files.

Paladin also needs an updated dedication feat, but it would be easy enough to fake for now. You would need to choose a deity and a paladin code, get their anathema rules, then you get paladin's reaction 1/day matching your chosen code. And probably make the proficiency section match what fighter dedication says for armor. Just change "retribution" to be for any paladin's reaction ability and the rest lines up fine.

This has been my favorite update so far.

I kinda of like the build-your-own familiar aspect, but when you only get two abilities (without spending another feat) and EVERYTHING is in those two abilities, they feel lackluster. I'd be totally fine with the current list of options if each animal had something like what they did for animal companions. Each familiar type gets something on top of the two abilities that makes the choice beneficial (rather than now where it's irrelevant at best, impeding at worst). Something simple would do:

AMPHIBIAN
Your familiar is an amphibian, such as a frog or newt.
Skill: Athletics
Ability: Swim Speed of 25 feet.

BIRD
Your familiar is a common bird, such as a raven or owl.
Skill: Acrobatics
Ability: Fly Speed of 25 feet.

RODENT
Your familiar is a tiny mammal, such as a rat or squirrel.
Skill: Stealth
Ability: Scent

I'm betting lots of people only see familiars as either bonus cantrips/spells - so familiar abilities are forgotten when you get 4th level spells - or a way to deliver touch spells - where you might take a fly speed or increased movement speed. Barring special circumstances like campaign setting or animal choice locking your abilities, things like climb speed, swim speed, scent, and even darkvision probably won't be used much. If every type of familiar got a different mini-entry like animal companions, the flavor of the whole thing would be much richer and rewarding.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are too many instances of "the GM sets the DC" with zero explanation. It would be far better to give a DC in the book or give a way to use the difficulty-by-level chart of DC's. Then, let the GM's adjust DC's accordingly. This way, the GM choosing the difficulty for the chart is already a clear, simple way to allow GM's to adjust the DC while giving them some parameters.

Super serious conversation time.

A common term I've heard for years in Pathfinder - be it in Society play referring to agents, or simply the playstyle of a lot of people - is "murder-hobo." I'm sure most people have heard this before or at least understand why we'd be called such. But soon, we'll be in space, travelling on starships, going onto spacestations... The "hobo" part might not hold up anymore.

I personally propose we use the term "Murdernauts" in the future for any Starfinder shenanigans.

What other colloquialisms from Pathfinder do you think need sci-fi-ing for Starfinder? Things like "lawful stupid" could stay probably, but I'm sure lots of things we say frequently could use a space-y version for fluff and fun.

Pathfinder Swat sat down for Bid for Alabastrine this morning. 56 minutes later we make it out of the briefing. The Gm has lowered his head in laughter/pain/joy/disgust a dozen times.

58 minutes later, the first combat is over, the Perp's handcuffed and it is time for the union break. When the coffee and donuts landed on the table the gm was just speechless and started laughing again.

YOU GUYS WALKED UP WITH AVIATORS, A THEME SONG, AND DONUTS. WHAT WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT

Spoiler:

The aspis just tried to bribe the cops.

Cheers to the people of Druma and your new protectors. That Aspis rat didn't stand a chance.

#DrumaLodge4Life

Ri'chard Beckett wrote:

And one word about my mom and I'll be sending IA a formal harassment complaint.

Go a head and complain all you want. Your mom doesn't.

Don't worry, IA is already very intimately aware of Ri'chard's ma.

Seriously, Swat was one of the most memorable moments I've ever had GMing. We need to make sure to get at least one table together next year, if not sooner!

Fortunately, the GM was awesome and a couple of our players... well...

Hopefully that one poor, poor, poor Mister Explodeypants will get better in a next life.

Hey, when you get one of the writers to get out of bed and come down to see for themselves how you guys break the scenario, you know you're doing alright.

I only wish "Anybody want a peanut?" made it into the list of quotes.

Wow. I came to make a Princess Bride reference, and you folks have gone above an beyond. You've made my night. Thank you all.