PossibleCabbage's page

I wand a Fungus Order for Druids. You can borrow some necromancer stuff for it!

I feel like the actual reason is that a lot of people have an idea of what a Halfling is like, and Paizo hasn't come up with a really good diegetic name for these people. I mean, even if we know they call themselves Amurruns and Ysoki the books still say "Catfolk" and "Ratfolk."

There are some advanced weapons that are nice to get with martial proficiency through an ancestry feat. The Orc Butchering Axe or Barricade Buster, and the Dwarven Dorn-Degar or Waraxe are weapons I've considered building a character around. I mean, the Gnome Flickmace was *the* weapon for a while.

On a game-by-game basis, if your players are dissatisfied with the amount of stuff they get to define their character, it's generally correct and painless to just give them more stuff.

The number of feats of each type you get is mostly to avoid overwhelming inexperienced players with too many choices, but since each feat generally represents "a new thing you can do" more than "you are better at a specific thing" you have to really massively increase the number of feats players get before you have to adjust the difficulty to keep the party challenged.

An issue with "everybody gets their ancestry's Weapon Familiarity for free" is the ancestries that don't have one would be at a comparative disadvatage- like there's no such thing as "Leshy Weapon Familiarity" or "Anadi Weapon Familiarity" or "Sprite Weapon Familiarity."

Using the Ancestry Paragon variant is a better solution, IMO.

Yeah, the best form of tanking is probably to control an incredible amount of space with reach games, and to punish people for going where they aren't welcome.

Like an aberrant bloodrager with a reach weapon who gets enlarged and casts long-arm has about as much reach as you likely will want, and you get combat reflexes from a a bloodline feat, so you just get to invest on making those hits count.

I would say the "flowers disappear when the creature does" is a knock-on effect of the part of the Summoned rule that " A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost."

Since there's nothing about the flowers that suggest they expire in a day for a non-summoned one (indeed, the examples are things like "broccoli" which can last for weeks) they are arguably "a thing of value" if they don't expire when the creature disappears.

Szuriel is the Rider of War
What Kind of Rider?
She's an Apocalypse Rider, she's got one of those Apocalypse steeds.

Even if the actual diagetic name were "Riders of the Apocalypse" someone would probably still prefer "Apocalypse Rider" for the singular.

Like "Szuriel is an Apocalypse Rider" scans better than "Szuriel is one of the Riders of the Apocalypse."

Teridax wrote:

As an alternative, might I suggest the following: Undead Sorcerer + Vindicator Ranger

LOL, the vindicator, scourge of undead and other supernatural threats, with undead blood coursing through his veins....

Well, they did make three Blade movies.

The Lumber Consortium is a holdover from Old Cheliax, when some amount of corruption was de rigeur, IIRC they were on the outs with the old Government so they prolonged their power by throwing their weight behind the new Independent Andoran Government, so that the latter felt like they owed the former a favor or two.

That and the fact that Andoran's foreign policy is predicated by "we're a naval power" so they need a lot of wood for a lot of ships. Since they've been preparing for a new war with Cheliax for a while, any action that resulted in "less access to ships, shipbuilding, and lumber" would be disfavored by the Andoran state as it would make them temporarily less ready for that war.

I like the Bloodrager in part because the Barbarian chasis means that you have to get to Drained 4 before you're at the same HP you'd have if you were like a sorcerer/oracle. The fortitude penalty is easier to swallow when you consider the barb starts at expert, goes master at 7, and legendary at 13... whereas the sorc/oracle gets expert at 5 and stops there.

So you're not really that bothered by being drained relative to the alternative, you just only want to do this if you want to be a melee character. The 10th level feat Hematocritical seems pretty fun, honestly.

It's weird to lump Jewish people in with Christians on something that Jewish people had almost nothing to do with, this just seems to me like a way to smuggle in more legitimacy than you would have if it was just from a single group. I know that people consistently overestimate the size of minority groups, but something like the 3.5% of the U.S. population has been Jewish in like every decade since the 40s. A thing a lot of Christians assume is that Judaism basically stopped when the "Old Testament" was finished, instead of realizing that it was a living tradition that just continued in parallel for literal millennia.

The thing one needs to be careful with when adapting myths and stories from different culture is "acting like you own them" (literal "appropriation.") Like there's a meaningful difference between using a Wendigo in a story about how unbridled avarice leads to bad ends and you should absolutely, under no conditions, eat your neighbors during lean times than to use it in something because you like the spooky skeletal deer thing aesthetic. If you don't care about how the original culture conceived of or used the story or the things in it, you can honestly just call it something else (like how it's an "Iron Warden" now.)

I genuinely think that the Horsemen of the Apocalypse were renamed Apocalypse Riders is more likely due to:
- They are not all men
- They do not necessarily ride horses.
- Those things they ride probably shouldn't be considered horses.

than any sort of "people don't read Revelations enough these days."

I mean, the Remastered version of Guns & Gears comes out next month, so what actual changes to the Gunslinger do you think would make the class more fun to play?

I feel like the things that you can't change about the class is "this is the class that is best with Reload weapons, and it can combine more non-strike actions with reload actions than anybody else" which seems like a reasonable parameter for a class.

There was really no a priori reason to identify your Frankenstein's Monster analogue with your Magic-Robot in the first place though.

Having golem be a category of construct was weird, since a lot of automatons weren't in in for entirely arbitrary reasons (i.e. "Golem Anti-Magic is very strong and we don't want it on this creature.") It's cleaner this way, but like any change it's just something to get used to. But now we don't have to wonder, at least, whether this magically animated pipe organ, say, is a Golem or just what it says on the box.

I agree with all of that, but I'm not aware of any plans for folklorically-accurate golems in the game, which is why I'm disappointed.

I strongly suspect Nex's Quantium Golems (who tirelessly circumnavigate the city they're named for in order to protect the city) will remain Golems. We're likely to see more things going on in the impossible lands in the next couple years of release, so we will probably see.

There can still be a Golem in Pathfinder, it's just that Golems going forward are going to hew closer to the folklore of like "The Golem of Prague" rather than "a generic type of magic robot."

Like a Golem in PF2 should be primarily made of rock or mud and dedicated towards the protection of a community. Rather than "whatever a wizard was able to make into a construct". You get different names for your "made of blood, guards your treasure" automatons.

It's like how we're okay with "phylactery" applying to something like a tefillin but we don't really like the idea of it applying to "where one of the most evil creatures around keeps their soul."

Clerics of Ng can do basically whatever they want so long as nobody is 100% sure what they're up to. Ng will never tell you if you're doing it right or not.

"Apocalypse Riders" and "Riders of the Apocalypse" are close enough to synonymous that people in the diagesis would use them interchangeably, probably preferring the former form for the singular and the latter for the plural.

There's also likely to be debate to be had about whether or not a skeletal equine that can unnaturally age you with its gaze really counts as a "horse."

I mean Szuriel is a she and Charon is likely genderless,so "HorseMEN" has always been a misnomer.

I would allow it, but give every other character an amount of "extra downtime" sufficient to retrain three feats.

The admonition of "don't care so much about DPR" is mostly to remind people that white room calculations are not necessarily all that actual gameplay that might involve a wide array of different game states not represented in white room assumptions.

Like the name of the game, from a GM/designer perspective is "give the PCs a bunch of different puzzles that can't all be solved in the same way" and not every combat puzzle is best solved by "the most efficient combat loop for each character executed independently."

When a character is in need of urgent healing to stay in a fight, normally a healing potion is enough. When you really need "someone else will use spells to heal you" is when the Barbarian has dropped and the thing that did that is coming over to where you are next"

Like basically "you do not generally owe other characters your actions for something their actions can do." Healers in this game are not like healers in MMOs.

So Psi Strikes says-

"You siphon residual psychic energies from your spell into one weapon you're wielding"

- So if you have your bow in your hands, you can put that energy into it.

"The attack deals an extra 1d6 force damage until the end of the current turn."

- Compare the Flaming Rune's text of " The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike". While it's weird that Psi strikes says "attack" not weapon (probably because it applies to unarmed strikes which are not weapons) I would say that if Psi strikes applies to like "a staff you're holding" (which it should) then it should also apply to a bow you're holding because the question I have about the feat's wording is "when is a weapon an attack" rather than "can I apply it to a ranged weapon."

If they're going to remaster Dark Archive, I would suggest changing the text of Psi strikes to (bold represents changes) "You siphon residual psychic energies from your spell into one weapon you're wielding or one of your unarmed attacks and when you unleash your mind, the energies flare to match. Successful strikes with this weapon or attack deal an extra 1d6 force damage until the end of the current turn. If your Psyche is Unleashed, this benefit instead lasts until your psyche subsides.

I am reminded of how fuse stance was downgraded from level 20 to 16 in the remaster. Paizo seem to rate players getting to "create" features very highly, even far above the actual power of the created effect.

Fuse Stance would also be fine at like "Level 12". I think just structurally they're worried about open-ended feats like Fuse Stance and Forge New Word potentially becoming a problem due to a feat/spell they print in the future.

Most healing, in my experience, is done out of combat with the treat wounds or a focus spell (like Lay on Hands). When you would use spell slots or other non-renewable resources to heal is "during combat, as needed." So to be a main healer, basically all you need is a good Medicine skill modifier and the Continual Recovery skill feat.

But in terms of "healing with spells" the downsides of the warpriest vs. the cloistered cleric are:
- If someone was inclined to counteract your heal spells they're going to have an easier time because of your lower proficiency.
- You might have some other combat loop you'd rather be doing than keeping people up, which is why you chose warpriest.
- The rare AoO, which is honestly not something you need to worry that much about.

But I've been in parties where the barbarian was the main healer, so a warpriest can do fine.

I mean, whether you're pulling out a blowgun or a tuba, I'm always going to ask the player to make a justification of "how you are storing it, how you are pulling it out stealthily, etc." before I would make a call on "particularly unobtrusive" or "roll stealth" or "you are observed."

Ok i dont know about what happens in your games but when I GM I roll crits against players all the time. The fury line of feats will trigger enough to warrant them.

Crits are not rare occasions.

Sure, but the one Fury feat is once/day (I really dislike class feats with one/day limits) and the other is level 16. I get that the Fury class is the vanilla one where you're just supposed to take the normal barbarian feats, but every barbarian I've played was inspired by one or more instinct specific feat because I don't love the normal barbarian feats.

I think genuinely if you wanted to do something about the Fury instinct, you would want to add some new Fury Instinct feats since the downside of the instinct is ultimately "the coolest Barbarian feats are specific to instincts, and yours are pretty meh."

Like what do the other instincts get with their feats?
Giant
- Large while raging
- Huge while raging
- Reach with a non-reach weapon while raging

Dragon
- AoE breath weapon, once per ten minutes
- Fly speed while raging
- turn into a dragon, once per ten minutes

Animal
- Bonus AC while raging
- Add a trait to your attacks when raging (can change this each time)
- Action compression: stride and strike for one action, flourish trait.
- Apply stupefied after consecutive unarmed strikes (need to hit both)
- Reaction to reduce frightened condition

Spirit
- Reroll a perception or skill check, 1/day
- Reduce Enfeebled with 1 action
- Range attacks targeting you need to make a DC 5 flat check or miss, while ranging
- Str based 120 ft ranged attack, OK damage, 1 action.

Superstition
- 2 action strike to apply stupefied, must have seen target cast a spell
- Counteract a magical affect by hitting it.
- Counteract a magic item for 10 minutes by hitting it.

Fury
- Gain resistance equal to ConMod + Level/2 when crit by a physical attack, 1/day.
- Make a melee strike against anybody who critically hits you inside of melee range.

While other instincts have some feats that are mediocre, the each have a few that basically constitute "a big part of the appeal of picking the instinct in the first place. The Fury feats are basically "make the best of a bad situation" where the first one is very weak and the latter one doesn't come online until level 16. You could absolutely drop a few feats in a sourcebook (like Battlecry) that are like Fighter and Fury Barbarian feats.

I mean, the original point that was objected to could be rephrased as:

"It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid attention from villagers with torches and pitchforks, or nastier powers entirely. It's the sort of manipulation of the energies of death and life that's not likely to attract attention you want from anybody who protects those boundaries, whereas "creating permanent undead" and the like is much more likely to attract attention from well above your weight-class, so it shouldn't really be something inherent to the class.

Like the ritual to create permanent undead and the undead master archetype are still available to you.

Another option is to make Engraving Strike a class feature rather than a feat and remove the checkless melee trace option.

It is kind of weird that you are able to trace potentially complex magical runes on the person who is actively trying to stab you with no possibility of error.

The Spore War PG mentions that there will be rules for "skirmishes with PC-controlled troops", so I'm hoping we finally get rules for naval battles.

I mean, even if Fury was the most powerful Barbarian Instinct from a pure numbers perspective, I would be personally disinclined from picking it just because of its overall lack of flavor, which is not really a problem you want to fix because the appeal of it is (as I understand it) that you don't have any thematic baggage.

I think the math gets tipped towards "it makes no sense to strike, just trace then invoke" once you get tracing trance, where it becomes a two-round cycle:
-Round 1 tracing trance, use four actions trace every damaging rune you can.
-Round 2 use two actions to trace damaging runes and then invoke all of these at once.

You can just make up your own story to work with the class, then.

Yeah, if you have a different setting with a different death deity and undeath deity (who are likely in opposition, but might not be) you can come up with your own understanding of how this works. I personally have such a setting.

It is always easier to tweak existing Golarion lore to make it work with your own homebrew than it is to create something out of whole cloth to justify how something works. So I appreciate PF2 justifying things in its own lore instead of just having flavorless mechanics.

TBH, I think "Faith" belongs in Spirit not in life. Mice have instinct, heart, and vital essence but don't necessarily have faith. A ghost wouldn't have any of those things, but it might have faith.

It just needs to be ambiguous/debatable whether it's Nex or Geb who is truly "better at magic". If you take things out of the Necromancer's "good at magic" spell budget for other stuff, we run the risk of giving Geb the disadvantage here.

It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid divine attention from the likes of Pharasma or Urgathoa. It's not like you really want attention from Tar-Baphon or Geb either.

The sorts of "actually raising the dead" or "making mindless undead that last longer than you have use for them" or "creating intelligent undead" is specifically the sort of thing that will get you attention from powers that want to control or destroy you, so you figure out how to play with the energies of life and death in a way that doesn't create those kinds of problems.

Unicore wrote:

If all of the newly remastered wizard schools just end up being better implemented as individual classes, then I really do wonder if the wizard has a place in PF2 at all any more.

I mean you can look at the Necromancer playtest and the Wizard right now and see they have virtually nothing in common whatsoever other than that they both cast spells.

Really, the only relevant parallel between the Wizard and the Necromancer we need to maintain is "it is plausible that Geb and Nex were each others' rivals"

I don't think so. The problem with the OGL Wizard is "the eight schools" made the Wizard much bigger than any other class in terms of what it was about. It was often said that because of the Wizard needing to be able to do all of the 8 different things, the arcane spell list was greedy.

I think the sooner we bury the "8 kinds of magic all of which are equal" the better. Like Divination or Enchantment doesn't really need to be part of the story, because "knowing the future" doesn't work great in a game about players making choices and "mind control" makes people uncomfortable a lot. "I defend people with magic" doesn't really need to be a normal thing either.

I confess, the mention of Battlecry in the player's guide gave me the impression that Battlecry was releasing during the run of Spore War, but I checked and it's apparently coming in July after the adventure path after Spore War.

How close could you get a primal Summoner with a beast eidolon to the Hunter? Since I think the Summoner sets the power budget for "a class with a really high end companion".

Class: Monk
Rule for which errata is needed: Qi spells, also Advanced, Master, etc.
Issue: Feats generally cannot be taken more than once without a special section that explains what happens when you take the feat a second time (e.g. Assurance says "choose a different skill"). These feats serve to condense legacy feats to save save page space, however pre-remaster it was possible to select both Ki Strike and Ki Rush with two different feat choices, but currently you cannot select Qi Spells more than once because it lacks a special section. Considering there's no reason to make these an either/or choice, and it's clear what the rule *should* be (i.e. "choose a different qi spell") this merits errata since I strongly doubt the intention was to change how this worked in the remaster.

Yeah, it's genuinely weird that the Runesmith is positioned as "a martial class" and then there's really very little incentive to make strikes despite you having the same accuracy as standard martial.

If I might speculate, the fact that they won't yet tell us the title of the book these classes will be in, unlike the playtests for Battlecry or War of Immortals or Dark Archive etc. suggests that the title of the book itself is some sort of spoiler to a metaplot event.

The fact that "Impossible" is in the title suggests that whatever happens will take place in the "Impossible Lands", which is where Nex and Geb are. Since the playtest document does say the unannounced book "will push the possibilities of magic itself" that probably suggests "Archmages are gonna do a thing" Since it's Geb who has been around and Nex who has been absent for a while, you can bet we're going to hear quite a lot about the nature of necromancy in the book, so the Paizo authors are going to justify whatever it is they want to justify about how magic works (it is, after all, magic.)

So I don't really think that preconceived notions of "how necromancy worked in Pathfinder" are especially relevant, except possibly stuff from the Book of the Dead since they probably want to keep that lore canonical.

Yeah, MAP goes away when your turn ends. MAP applies when it's your turn. The question is then reduced to "when is the reaction triggered."

I think, given the break from the OGL, it might be valuable to Paizo to specifically underline how "no Necromancy is not a specialization of Wizardry in our setting."

Like if you want to reskin the necromancer to be "a different sort of disposable minion" character that feels like something you could do with a class archetype.

Like something like "a primal necromancer who leverages the necrotic forces in natural decay and summons disposable fungus thralls" would be a fun class archetype but a bad thing to just build into the class itself.

In general, I would prefer it when magic classes have a specific tie to a magic tradition because that helps inform something about what that tradition is like. If there's a compelling reason to make the class "pick a list" then you can do it, but while I see it for the Witch, Summoner, and the Sorcerer (i.e. "the source of your power could be from a wide range of different things") I just don't see it here.

There's nothing saying a Giant Barbarian needs to take the feats that actually make you large. You can just have a bigger than normal axe.