QuidEst's page

Unsure if the polymorph matters since the kholos bite isn't a morph or polymorph effect. Had the jaws attacks both been from morph/polymorph effects or if the Beastkin hybrid form was a battleform then it would've been crystal clear but as it stands theres nothing really that says you lose unarmed attacks you already have

Especially since their Hybrid shape is their natural shape.

Hmm. I took "In your humanoid shape, you retain the appearance of your original ancestry." to mean that was the base, but that could be wrong. I also appear to be remembering some PF1 details about "abilities based on the original form".

Well, disregard my post then. Everyone else has this well-covered already!

The way this thread has shifted away from "when is errata coming to fix existing stuff" to "when are we getting new stuff" is something.

Well, we got the answer to the thread's question already, so following up on the juicy tidbit is pretty natural.

Woo! I'm expecting to get more into it once we have a few more of the classes to round it out. 2027 will be a good year for Starfinder - we'll have Mechanic and Technomancer, presumably some brand-new classes, and on top of that, Starfinder: Afterlight.

Beastkin doubly doesn't work, because it gives you a bite through a polymorph effect.

The previous playtests have generally been on Monday, so I just check in then. Since next Monday is pretty close to the start of the month, that's when I'm expecting it. That's just speculation, of course.

Can spells appearance be changed just for flavor or to fit a theme and are there feats that could actually change the type of damage something does? Iceball instead of Fireball? A fireball of balefire that does void damage?

PF2 is pretty restrictive on changing spell damage types. Elemental Sorcerer can change a few spells permanently to fire or a physical damage type. I think there might be some option somewhere to change to a random damage type, but I could be mixing that up with something else.

Iceball or voidball, no. As soon as that's a feat that can optionally be applied, the biggest limitation on something like Fireball is gone. Admittedly, a book called "Impossible Magic" is the likeliest place for something like that to show up.

Changing appearance and flavor is usually chill. As always, talk to your GM about what you have in mind. (Even for PFS, checking with a local GM if it seems reasonable flavoring and wouldn't give a mechanical advantage.)

Speaking of ways to make CSS more fun or easier to use, a new 3rd-party tool was just released.

Mobile View and Cinematic Starship Combat Builder added to Starfinder Encounters

"Why is this spammer talking about Cascading Style Sheets? Oh wait..."

Cool to have a new tool for it!

The AI search said there would be but I wanted to hear from actual people who might know.

As expected, it made that up, and none of that is actually true. Generative AI will almost never have accurate information about anything past its model training date, even beyond its normal unreliability.

We will at least be getting some PF2 Player Core 1 ancestry content, but any other PF2 ancestry material would be unlikely. We will be getting some SF2 Player Core ancestry material, but additions to any others are unknown.

Now, having kitsune and kholo show up eventually is pretty reasonable - both had SF1 versions, and one Starfinder dev is a fan of kitsune. It might just have to be after Starfinder-exclusives are a little more caught up on.

There have been a lot of wrenches thrown in the works, between the OGL crisis, tariffs, and Diamond Distributor bankruptcy. Each of those needed to be responded to quickly in big ways. Paizo had to rework their schedule for years to fit remastered books into the lineup, fit remastering old material in between regular work as much as possible, get the store up as quickly as possible since their distributor folded, and deal with some of their already-ordered books being seized by that distributor while prices manufacturing prices jumped abruptly.

My other gaming hobby company got shut down abruptly by its parent company because of the tariffs situation alone. Most of all, I'm glad that Paizo is still making content I enjoy, and that makes it easier to focus on the positives.

Guardian and Commander, the latest classes, have been great- I've been playing the latter, and the former got a glow-up from the original playtest that bumped it up to a class I consider for new characters. I've seen multiple people rework characters to Animist, and an upcoming campaign segment will have two of us playing Exemplars. I'm eagerly looking forward to both Necromancer and Runesmith. The remaster fixed Witch, added flexibility to Champion, made Alchemist more manageable, made Oracle more accessible to new players, let Sorcerer be better at what a lot of people used it for, made Barbarian actually play like one would expect, and patched up some issues with Thaumaturge that I've personally run into.

In comparison, Psychic, a class I already didn't play because it has too few slots, didn't get changed much but fixed the one mechanical issue I've seen in play, Wizard needs more GM permission to focus on the spells you like, and Oracle is a blander powerhouse with ambiguous spells known. Of those, Wizard is the only one I played, and my play experience actually got significantly improved because of the changes to Conceal Spell.

Over on the store front, I know it's been rocky especially for subscribers, but I'm now getting benefits for purchases despite not being a subscriber- I have eight to twelve free PFS scenarios to pick out over the next ten months. The new "subscriber day" means that I can reliably look forward to when new info will come out, and the new store has fixed longstanding issues with limited payment options.

All in all, I'm not really worried from a consumer standpoint. Worried for the writers and developers of the game with all the stressful stuff going on? Absolutely; it has been a lot, all in a row. I'm hoping that with the last of the remastered classes off to the printers soon and the changes in AP structure, things can get back to a more reasonable pace for them.

I think it would be fun to think of some possible options they could get in a book! Something small but thematically tied to an overall theme, like the newer options for Thaumaturge/Magus/Inventor/Etc.

I could see a subconscious mind for a Starfinder-related book: the Hive Mind! Representing the shared psychic connection that an entire psionic species shares, such as Lashunta and Shirren.

Their key ability score could be Int, or perhaps even it would be the first Wisdom based psychic? I could see their Psyche Action being something that reinforces the "hivemind" design space and tropes- repositioning allies, or giving buffs to flanking!

What do you guys think?

Seems more like a Mystic thing to me, since they had something similar in SF1 and the Mystic already has a shared telepathic network.

Psychic already has The Silent Whisper, and while that's a conscious mind, it's in the same thematic ballpark. If we did get it as a subconscious mind, "connection between people" is usually charisma, although I guess I could see "group intellect" being Int-based. Wisdom feels out of left field for hive mind to me?

If I were to speculate about a Starfinder Subconscious Mind for Psychic... I think I'd probably go for something to represent Psychics created by experimentation and research programs. Int-based one themed around having undergone rigorous training, to fit your Kerrigans and the like.

(I think it's worth noting that Lashunta and other telepathic species don't have a hive mind or anything like one, so the theming would probably be more around the Swarm. We actually see that sort of thing show up as a xenophobic conspiracy theory in Era of the Eclipse.)

Should dogtooth tengue use the beak attack as her weapon implement?

The rule reads, "You can choose only a one-handed weapon as an implement, which allows you to channel energies into your weapon as well as hold your other implements once you gain them." The beak is a one handed attack so as it's written it should work.
Thoughts.
Thanks.

No.

The beak is not a weapon. The beak is also not a one-handed attack- I'm not sure where you got that from.

Ancient elf gives you a multiclass dedication feat, which is pretty slick, but I don't see anything exempting you from the dedication rule; are they just totally shut out from things like avenger or spellshot?

Yep. An elf who focused on a particular aspect to the point of having a class archetype would not represent being ancient by having dipped their toes into another class.

Ancient Elf is really good, but it does run into conflicts with things like class archetypes or free archetype rules. You can talk to your GM about making it even stronger than it already is, but usually the answer is just "don't take Ancient Elf with those options".

John R. wrote:

Was hoping the bell got the mental and emotion traits removed at the very least...but this is still all welcome.

CaptainTTRPG just dropped a video covering the class with the new changes and they actually DID remove those traits. Awesome!

That's great to hear- Bell's effects not stacking with Frightened was one thing, but not being able to apply them to anything immune to Frightened? That was rough.

John R. wrote:

Was hoping the bell got the mental and emotion traits removed at the very least...but this is still all welcome.

CaptainTTRPG just dropped a video covering the class with the new changes and they actually DID remove those traits. Awesome!

Ooh, thanks! I don't know if this matters much, but it also looks like Lantern is no longer a once-per-round light-or-extinguish. It does allow for lighting up at the start of your turn and vanishing into the darkness at the end... but darkvision is already better for that, so it's not unreasonable.

If I had to fix the wall-of-thrall problem, I'd either make them difficult terrain or enemy-only difficult terrain. It simplifies things a bit and reduces the GM headache to a manageable level, and actually blocking passage would require a three-thrall wall rather than the tumble-through two.

It sounds like Thaumaturge got a lot of the weaker options improved a bit, something I was personally hoping for.

(I'm going off of what folks have reported, so any corrections are appreciated.)

Chalice: Since this is the one I played most recently, I was really happy to see the improvements here. Base Chalice's sip option went from "2 + half level" to "level, minimum 3". No longer falling behind what mono-element Wood Kineticist gets for free is nice.

Adept now scales at double level, making a reliable source of low bleed a better investment. Sounds like the only upgrades are still circumstantial at this level, so I still probably wouldn't upgrade Chalice if I weren't planning on intentionally triggering the bleed clause.

Intensify got significantly improved: you no longer need to hit an enemy (so no more restrictive three-action combo, just a more normal two-action combo), just be within 30 feet. Adds level to the temp HP, or double level to the healing from draining the Chalice. Is turtling up that much worth two actions? Usually not, but I can at least see cases where it's handy.

Mirror: The common house-rule is in place- Mirror's Adept ability is now optional, so your reflection only explodes if you want it to. Now a much fairer option to consider, without needing to run it by your GM.

Wand: Boosted damage is now only on cooldown for one round, not 1d4 rounds! The reliability of two-or-three times a fight instead of once or twice is big. Additionally, the base damage changed from 1d4 + stat to 3d4. That's +1 average unboosted damage at first level, but it's +3 to the boosted damage since there are more dice to change to d6s.

Intensify Vulnerability is better now, adding level to damage instead of just 1 + damage dice. That makes the three action boosted option hit harder than a cantrip.

Lantern: Intensify Vulnerability now doubles the area of the bright light (presumably in addition to the old effects?). The Lantern's area of effect is also now treated as an aura, although I don't know if that makes any practical difference.

Call Implement Feat: The biggest reason I used to recommend this is now gone! If somebody is holding onto your stuff and you fail to retrieve it, you can just try again after midnight now. Before, this could become a dead feat even in the rare situation it was relevant. Now, you can reliably plan on eventually getting the object back, allowing for active skullduggery like the old "sell you something I can teleport back to me" or "here, take this scrying focus as a gift" routines.

Paired Link Feat: A solid glow-up, if I'm understanding this correctly. The old version felt like a mostly dead feat- "share touch spells (and Thaumaturge abilities) with one person up to thirty feet" would be situational on a caster, but on a non-caster... woof. Ranged Chalice, mainly? The new version is no longer limited to touch spells and no longer has a range limit. Letting the party caster ignore range considerations altogether when targeting you with spells is very solid, even if it still probably needs normal line-of-effect.

Know-It-All Feat: Reworded for the new Recall Knowledge rules, giving you an extra question.

Thaumaturge's Demesne Feat: No longer references rituals, and doesn't give an elemental sentinel. The elemental sentinel was a bit forgettable as an inclusion and was a bit unclear on heightening, so I'm not too concerned on that one.

---

All-in-all, I'm happy that the class got improvements to most of the options that I used to caution new players about the usefulness of. Some easing up on swapping to passive implements would have been nice, but it's understandable if they remain effectively action-or-intensify to draw.

I think there's a decent chance it's a cool archetype, but at the same time "bringing it back as an archetype/subclass" is still kind of a death sentence to fans of the original. Archetypes just don't have enough power budget for that.

As someone who wanted to like the original... the original didn't have the power budget for what I wanted. "Here, have clouds of nanites! Oh, want to fight with them? At sixth level, you can do damage once per ten-minute break!" The class was already required to use a regular gun or punch people, so an archetype makes sense to me. Now you can have your Technomancer pulling tricks with nanites in addition to magic, your Soldier hosting nanites in their body, and your Mechanic using them for repairs (probably).

It's Vancian casting because it's based on what Jack Vance wrote- casters preparing most of a spell in their head, and completing the spell to cast it. Without that prepared part, it's not "Vancian".

Now, in practical terms, I think plenty of people lump spontaneous tiered daily casting in with it because of the similarities.

QuidEst wrote:

glass wrote:

I am not QuidEst, but....

The Contrarian wrote:

LOLWut? The +3 guy literally has a 10% increase in how often it succeeds.

No he doesn't. He succeeds on 10% of the total possible rolls where he otherwise would not have, but that is not the same thing.

The Contrarian wrote:

You're totally going to have to walk me through that 33% reasoning.

If the +1 character would succeed on a 15+, then the +3 character succeeds on a 13+. That is 8 results rather than 6. 8 is 33% greater than 6.

Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.

And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".

I do want to add, while it's technically correct that in the example given it's a 33% increase, I don't actually like the analysis performed in this way because it's misleading.

It's misleading in the sense that the amount of increase is relative to the target value.

For instance, if the +1 character succeeds on a 4, then the +3 character succeeds on a 2. That means going from 17 successes on a D20, to 19 successes. That is a ~12% increase.

At the other end of the extreme is +1 character succeeds on an 19 and thus +3 character succeeds on a 17. That's going from 2 successes to 4 successes. That's a 100% increase.

Since we don't know the target value, talking about the relative increase in success is misleading (IMO).

But I do have to admit,...

Not quite- the "10% chance of making a difference" narrows the range. If our +3 friend succeeds on a 9 or lower, then it starts impacting the crit chance as well.

That means the lowest number our +3 stat friend could succeed on would be a 10. That's pretty generous for hitting Will DC anyway, so I went with 13.

While they buffed Thaumaturge in places that anyone was complaining (except of wands) just like they did to rogues.

I dunno if that's fair as a comparison- Wand, Chalice, and Mirror's Adept "upgrade" were all things I saw plenty of folks complaining about.

Eh, from what I heard, Psychic had two significant issues fixed.
- Unleash Psyche now applies to initial damage of duration spells, solving issues with Daze and sustained damage spells.
- Psychic Dedication no longer gives most of the class' advantages away for a second level feat. At least to me, that's as much of a "buff" as the refocus change was a "nerf".

And yeah, one cantrip's damage went down while it got switched from physical to force damage.

It all sounds like normal errata, not the class getting nerfed like some folks are saying. I'd have loved an extra slot, sure, but fixing Unleash Psyche not working with so many damage spells was the boring practical thing I was hoping to have covered.

---

As far as Thaumaturge goes, it had some of the weakest options shored up. You can't actually make a stronger Thaumaturge than you could before; you just aren't in quite as much trouble if you pick Wand, and you're not shooting yourself in the foot for "upgrading" Mirror.

QuidEst wrote:

Mine also says updated 1/16/2026, and it is the pre-remaster (based on "flat-footed" and references to the Advanced Player's Guide). So sadly, no early leak. (Although I'm sure Paizo's IT is happy to have not accidentally released it early.)

mine references player core and divine mysteries.

I did not find a lot of changes, but can say that Imaginary Weapon was nerfed to d6

Ah, thanks! Well, I know folks will be very curious to hear what changed in the two classes (myself included), even if it's just reports on things that stayed the same.

My personal curiosities are whether the Chalice implement got any changes, and if Psychic got any notable improvements like "an extra spell slot". That latter one sounds like at least a "not at first glance".

I am not QuidEst, but....

The Contrarian wrote:

LOLWut? The +3 guy literally has a 10% increase in how often it succeeds.

No he doesn't. He succeeds on 10% of the total possible rolls where he otherwise would not have, but that is not the same thing.

The Contrarian wrote:

You're totally going to have to walk me through that 33% reasoning.

If the +1 character would succeed on a 15+, then the +3 character succeeds on a 13+. That is 8 results rather than 6. 8 is 33% greater than 6.

Exactly this. In a more extreme example, if somebody needs exactly a 20 to get a success, getting +2 triples how often they succeed (because they succeed on three numbers instead of one). That's still only ten percent of the rolls becoming a success, but it's very significant because the expected time between successes decreases to a third of what it was.

And, if you aren't looking at increases to the critical success rate, that means it's somebody who is succeeding less than half the time. That's pretty normal for demoralizing, since it resolves against Will DC. But it does mean that the +2 shift has a more noticeable difference in things like "how many times do I have to fail before I succeed".

I bought the Dark Archive pdf as there is a sale ongoing and i still had a coupon.

I can already download the remastered pdf, looks like it was updated two days ago (last updated 1/16/2026)

Mine also says updated 1/16/2026, and it is the pre-remaster (based on "flat-footed" and references to the Advanced Player's Guide). So sadly, no early leak. (Although I'm sure Paizo's IT is happy to have not accidentally released it early.)

WatersLethe wrote:

Unicore wrote:

One mechanical issue I have with trying to represent abilities mathematically in a system where level is so much more relevant is that ability scores only actually matter in a very specific level range

That's just flatly untrue. A +1 vs +3 cha person using intimidate is a significant difference all the way throughout levels 1 to 20.

It's just 10%. It's certainly noticeable, but it's not significant. 9/10 times the +1 guy achieves the same results as the +3 guy.

It makes a difference one-in-ten times, sure, but that's probably at least a 33% increase in how often it succeeds.

QuidEst wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I won't stand for this Zon-Shelyn slander! Zon-Kuthon and Shelyn merged because they both sacrificed themselves trying to save the other at the same time. How is that not a redemption of Zon-Kuthon? Certainly, Shelyn embraced part of his portfolio, but he embraced part of hers. Redemption isn't always from a high-handed and lofty position without getting dirty to meet someone where they're at.

Zon-Kuthon needed saving? Really?

Well, once he sacrificed himself for her, yes, so "at the same time" might not be exactly right.

QuidEst wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

Those search links are including things that are Greater or Major versions of earlier items, which are not a new formula if you have the lower level version.

Ah, fair enough. It's true that I don't see a lot of things there that aren't upgrades to stuff, outside of poisons.

AoN has a a Filter under "Items" called "Show Parent". Which only shows the lowest level item.

The list is 9 entries long with that. All Poisons.

Oh man, that's super handy! Thanks; I've been looking for something like that.

Those search links are including things that are Greater or Major versions of earlier items, which are not a new formula if you have the lower level version.

Ah, fair enough. It's true that I don't see a lot of things there that aren't upgrades to stuff, outside of poisons. You get 46 free formulae- call that half in various common non-mutagen elixirs, one-action foods, and tools, then a quarter in common bombs, and that last quarter going to poisons and/or mutagens, or being left blank if you don't want to touch either.

Since it's about a quarter of the formulae in question, I don't think it makes sense to cut the numbers in half. Getting a slew of common legendary-level (level 15-ish) alchemy items in there to keep high levels fresh would be nice after the change.

Xenocrat wrote:

I can’t imagine not wanting all the bombs, half a dozen mutagen options, 3/4 of the elixirs, a new poison every couple of levels, and a few foods (e.g.Owl Screech Egg). If your GM allows infused items to make bottled monstrosities without the craft requirements those are also easy picks.

I have all the stuff I want.

I have all the Bombs I want.
Nobody in my party has any interest in Mutagens and I use them rarely myself.
And to use the Food, I would have to burn at least half my Versatile Vials just before starting combat. And knowing what I am facing. If their bonus is even worth it, because many get overshadowed by the passive bonuses people already have.

I just unlocked 5 new bombs at level 12. By level 15, I will have used them up (and a 6th) using just Free Formulas. And then I have nothing to pick for 16-19. Again.

There are 27 non-poison, non-bomb, non-mutagen consumable items of common rarity between 16 and 19.

There are another 10 uncommon options to check with your GM about getting access to.

There are 16 poisons in that level range if you really need to round things out.

I know you may have the things you want, but there are a lot of options available for most folks. If you only care about bombs, then you will eventually run out of items, but Paizo isn't designing around that. If you don't want more, that's fine. Paizo doesn't really give much out for somebody deciding they don't need all the versatility at their disposal, so an uncluttered alchemy list will have to be its own reward. Even if they dropped it to one free formula per level, the class wouldn't get something in exchange.

(We don't know when it'll be out, just "later than GenCon" so far. Late 2026 is also possible.)

Tridus wrote:

Honestly I feel like Sarenrae and Desna would be happy for Shelyn that her long quest to save her brother "worked". I mean it's not the ideal outcome of getting Dou-Bral back, but it could have worked out way, way worse than it did.

It might make the triad odd or maybe that isn't a thing by that point anymore, but "the siblings reuiniting in an act of love to banish a great evil" doesn't seem like the kind of thing Sarenrae and Desna are going to be super upset about.

I would believe you if Zon-Kuthon was redeemed, in the same manner as Nocticula... but that didn't happen. Shelyn didn't purify her brother and atone for his sins; she instead embraced part of his portfolio.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I won't stand for this Zon-Shelyn slander! Zon-Kuthon and Shelyn merged because they both sacrificed themselves trying to save the other at the same time. How is that not a redemption of Zon-Kuthon? Certainly, Shelyn embraced part of his portfolio, but he embraced part of hers. Redemption isn't always from a high-handed and lofty position without getting dirty to meet someone where they're at.

My bigest worry about the reprint of magus is that spellstrike will not be updated *enough*

interaction with save spells is awkward and we have a notibly diminished number of attack spells

I advocated for it before, but I will do so again:
I think a successful (critical) hit with a spellstrike should cause the corresponding (critical) failure in a save spell

I dont mind if the spell just goes kaputt in case of a missed attack, that would be the disadvantage of the otherwise improved action economy

(If that wont be the case I will certainly homebrew it for my tables, but the current state of spellstrike feels just awkward)

I think the problem there is that it would allow much higher rates of applying the game's nastiest effects- things like Dominate or Slow, where a critical failure means being more or less out of the fight or worse.

Cori Marie wrote:

Generally books will only get errata into PDFs when a new print run of the physical book is published

Wow that is disappointing. And extremely surprising to hear that you're still on the first print run of the first Remaster Core books.

I've just this week decided to get my friends and I back into Pathfinder since 2020, and was very happy to see I'm two years after the Remaster, expecting to buy actual up to date errata'ed books (or at the very least PDFs), as that first errata list for Player Core is huge.

The flip side of that is that Paizo stocking up on the books in the initial print run (before tariffs hit) means they probably didn't have to adjust prices to reflect the additional costs yet.

How soon stuff sells out depends on how fast folks are buying, so it's not something that's entirely in Paizo's control.

And that's fair. and I appreciate you engaging with all this.

I will also add that this isn't a situation where there's nothing you can do. Removing a bad example will do less to make people think than providing a good example, so if you want, you can put together a homebrew for the core deities to provide a more neutral version. Maybe include some setting implications of that as well for folks that want to apply it to Golarion. Folks are more likely to consider it if you present what an alternative looks like.

Maya Coleman wrote:

LoreMonger13 wrote:

Really looking forward to the Paizo Live to get a look at the revamped Dark Archives, it was easily one of my favorite content additions to the game <3

Anything you might be able/willing to tease about any interesting changes to the classes as part of the Remaster in the lead-up to the stream?

This is actually not planned for a stream since the changes were not large enough for a feature, but I can tell you here what was done!

• All rules updated to the remastered ruleset
• Improved versions of the psychic and thaumaturge classes
• Adventures updated with new monster and item references

That's it! Do let me know if you have any other questions though! subscribers will receive that updated PDF next Tuesday!

Thanks! Mostly I was curious how the Psychic would be impacted, given how the Focus/Refocus system was dramatically changed and ended up making one of the unique gimmicks of the class obsolete (also I'm assuming the store page is showing the Pre-Remaster page previews, as the presence of the 18th level feat Deepest Wellspring still uses language from Pre-Master)

The only other real question I have for those of us who purchased the PDF version of Dark Archives: will our access to the Remaster be updated along with the Subscribers or not until general product release?

Thanks much! <3

Based on what I saw posted elsewhere, not until the street date, but that's second-hand. (Although subscribers will probably answer the most burning questions before then.)

BotBrain wrote:

I would caution getting too hyped about the next playtest being classes. While we are due this years pathfinder class playtest sooner or later, there is still the starship combat playtest that was mentioned. If Paizo haven't changed their mind (and I really hope they haven't, I'd love them to stick the landing on the rules), that is probably the next playtest.

You will see!!!!!

Just wanted to let Paizo know that it's okay to go ahead and release the playtest today. I am ready to see.

I dislike that way of thinking, but I can't explain it without it coming off as a major personal attack (which I don't want to do), so I'm just going to leave it as I don't like that way of thinking.

All that said, I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, or out of nothing. and I leave that bit unsaid because "How we play a game" isn't something I want to disrespect anyone over, especially as you've been completely respectful to me here.

Hey, I certainly can understand that sentiment. There are folks whose interest in the good vs. evil dichotomy is a bit much for me, even if my line is at a different place. But, I am someone who enjoys playing an evil character more than playing a good one, so the evil deities are occasionally useful for me as they are.

I think it's an excellent thing to cover in a recruitment and/or session zero. I'd be happy to play in a game that takes some of the evil deities and applies that same "de-propaganda" treatment that's so useful in understanding the deities of historical cultures. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to ever get away from needing the preface of, "And in my version of the setting..." when talking about it on the forums, though.

I think it's not too hard to see from what some people ask for that there is a demand for some amount of straight-up cosmic good-vs.-evil conflict. Even with the removal of formal alignment, Holy and Unholy stuck around because so many people want that.

Once you have that, your amount of nuance has a bit of a cap.

Now, what I do want is that if gods are shown as having followers, that there be a good reason for that. And, generally, I think that's handled decently well.

Take the core 6 evil deities.
- Rovagug gets a pass: it isn't core because it has followers, it's core for literally being at the core of the planet.
- Lamashtu has a very clear recruitment policy: welcome the outsider, offer power to the disenfranchised, and as a side-hustle, you can pray to her to save your child at a cost if Pharasma is too uncaring.
- Urgathoa is also pretty clear on recruitment: her church will help you live forever, and even do so with a focus on enjoying it.
- Norgorber is all about getting what you want, and even has a far more palatable aspect in the Reaper of Reputation- plus, as an added bonus, his domain is in Axis.
- Zon-Kuthon has Nidal, which I think does a lot to flesh him out. He's a god who answered a desperate people's prayer and kept his word for ten thousand years. The setting doesn't pretend he's all that popular outside of that region, and those that do follow him elsewhere are there for what's advertised: pain and control. There are much healthier deities for that, but hey.
- Asmodeus is very transactional. Power for service or some other payment. Need to prop up a failing regime? Asmodeus is one of the few gods who will do that. Care more about having people under you than whether you have people over you, or simply delude yourself into thinking you deserve to be in charge? Then Pathfinder's Hell might actually sound good to you.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Curious, was this ever confirmed? I know many speculated that Pharasma et al might be chill with thralls, and that this may well be a reason why (I was in the trenches myself at the time) but to my knowledge it remains purely in the field of speculation. Besides which, given that existing fully-formed skeletons barely have enough of a connection to a soul to bother mentioning, I would hardly disqualify thralls on that basis, either.

I remember it from somewhere, but it's not the playtest document itself (I looked)... so I don't know where I remember it from. That means it could be nonsense, heh. But I remember this being a complaint I had about the class right from the outset.

I'd be happy to be wrong about it, though!

Oh yeah, I would have been weirded out too if the class description itself had included "But don't worry, it's only Pharasma-approved imitation undead".

That's how things used to be done, but it took too long for errata to get released that way.

Paizo then announced quarterly errata... Just before the OGL crisis meant they needed to shift to doing remasters.

For the moment, we have occasional errata, with PDFs getting updated on reprints/remasters.

Do we know when some of the information or teasers of the Dark Archive Remaster class changes will be coming out? Or will there be nothing until the book is out?

Subscribers get it on the 20th, and I imagine the PDFs will probably update then too? If there were anything big enough to mention in a preview announcement, I think we would've gotten that already.

Hmm. When I think about what you can reflavor the class to, I do think necromancer is among the stronger flavors for the mechanics. If you're summoning angels, you need more explanation for why you keep casually detonating them, as well as why there are so many weak things on the field. You can do it, but that's more necromancer or construct-master than angel-caller.

I don't really care too much if PFS rulings are made to justify playing it in a party. It's even easier to reflavor "summon" as "raise" and carry a bundle of bones. But yeah, it can definitely be reworked to other disposable summons flavors in a straightforward manner. I just don't think that would be different if it were unholy-only and did cause Pharasmins to throw hands?

I mean, I guess I can think of some necromancer things that would be harder to rework- mostly stuff dealing with dead enemies. That's all "win more" stuff that gets shut down against bosses, though, so I don't really want much of that. But even a permanent undead minion is easily replaced with an earth or air elemental.

Edit: Well, in fairness, it did feel like it was missing something for that necromancer feel to me, which was being able to order thralls about to do minor tasks. At least for me, that's something I'm addressing with Undead Master, a ritual, or a bit of GM flavor permission. But "Pharasma wouldn't hate this" makes just as much sense as an issue, even if it's not an issue affecting me.

... Huh? Rolling closer to 11 every time makes every +1 matter more (for failure vs. success), not less. In the extreme case where you only roll 11, every +1 is the only thing that matters. If you want every plus one to matter less for success vs. failure, you need to opposite of a normal distribution, where extremes are more likely than in a flat distribution, so that success is more like a coin flip ignoring modifiers, and each +1 only occasionally makes a difference, tipping the scale only on unlikely middle results. (Or I guess that's a normal distribution shifted to have its peak around the wraparound of 20 and 1?) But PF2's rules would mean that +1s still matter at those extremes, determining regular result vs. crit. You could also have a swingier die, something more than a d20.

I might be missing a nuance of the probability, but I don't think shifting the distribution around does much with PF2 caring about high, low, and middle numbers for different circumstances.

QuidEst wrote:

Berselius wrote:

Will the Necromancer class feature options similar to the Hallowed Necromancer archetype (aka focusing more on eradicating undead and manipulating both positive and negative energies instead of having the ability to create undead)?

"Manipulating both positive and negative energies", "eradicating undead"- sure. The playtest Necromancer has the "Mastery of Life and Death" feature, which allows the Necromancer to harm undead with void damage and harm the living with vital damage.

And as an Occult caster, almost no spells that actually do anything with Vitality. There's a bunch of strange choices on this class. Given the class theme, you'd think Heal and Harm are perfect spells for it, but IIRC it doesn't get them.

Mastery of Life and Death also still suffers from the targeting issues that plague some of these spells in general, like you could damage undead with a Void dealing spell, but the spell is written where the target is "1 living creature" so undead aren't valid targets and it doesn't work. Likewise there's very few things that do Vitality damage that are even allowed to target living creatures. It's not alone in that (Oracle's Nudge the Scales raises the same problems), but it's wild that it wasn't addressed for this class.

Sure. I wouldn't be surprised for at least a small tweak there from playtest feedback, since that was a popular point of discussion.

I still expect the GM to need to houserule targeting issues because spells and abilities were poorly future-proofed.

Quote:

It's also probably good to keep in mind that "Necromancy" isn't a school of magic anymore, it's just necromancy in the more common sense of the word. "Hallowed Necromancer" probably wouldn't be called that anymore, because its premise that Necromancy being a broad school that contains more than raising undead isn't true anymore. If something is called necromancer now, it's likely going to be raising undead.

Except of course the Necromancer class doesn't "raise undead". It conjures pseudo-undead out of thin air. It has to do that because actually raising undead would make it highly problematic in a lot of adventuring parties, but the idea that we can't have a "hallowed Necromancer" class archetype version due to the Necromancer being too focused on raising undead doesn't really fly when the Necromancer itself isn't raising anything and the undead it is conjuring don't count as undead in the eyes of the Gods for things like Edicts and Anathema.

I mean, sure, it's creating undead rather than literally raising undead. That's a very standard compromise that we see in plenty of games, because actually tracking bodies and having permanent minions tends to bog things down. But you can see how it's still playing to the cultural theme of "necromancer" in a way that Hallowed Necromancer isn't, right? Hallowed Necromancer is very intentionally using the D&D definition of "Necromancer", as in, somebody who practices the Necromancy school of magic.

With regards to a class archetype, my point is not that the Necromancer class is too focused on literally "raising" things that couldn't be anything other than "undead" to ever be good, it is that the class is too focused on making and using thralls to have a class archetype that doesn't involve making and using something on the map. (The original question said "instead of making undead".) A class archetype that makes elementals instead? Sure, although it'd be more reflavoring than I would expect a class archetype in PF2 to do, and I wouldn't expect any such archetype to be focused on eradicating undead.

Will the Necromancer class feature options similar to the Hallowed Necromancer archetype (aka focusing more on eradicating undead and manipulating both positive and negative energies instead of having the ability to create undead)?

"Manipulating both positive and negative energies", "eradicating undead"- sure. The playtest Necromancer has the "Mastery of Life and Death" feature, which allows the Necromancer to harm undead with void damage and harm the living with vital damage.

"Similar to the Hallowed Necromancer archetype", "instead of having the ability to create undead"- no. It's the Necromancer class, and not only is its primary feature creating undead thralls, but all of its focus spells either create thralls or rely on thralls. If you want to fight undead, this class is going to do it by making their own undead and then detonating them in a burst of bone, flesh, and/or void energy. That puts it out of the range for what even a dedicated class archetype could retool into an anti-Necromancer.

I know you're a player interested in playing holy characters and fighting evil (without raising undead). That's probably going to be better served by the Runesmith class. You can certainly homebrew Necromancer to the point where it does what you want, but I think it's initially aimed at players like me who are keen to hit enemies with skeletons and then blow up those skeletons.

It's also probably good to keep in mind that "Necromancy" isn't a school of magic anymore, it's just necromancy in the more common sense of the word. "Hallowed Necromancer" probably wouldn't be called that anymore, because its premise that Necromancy being a broad school that contains more than raising undead isn't true anymore. If something is called necromancer now, it's likely going to be raising undead.

JiCi wrote:

Tridus wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Leshy are really popular so I'm sure it'll happen at some point. But I don't think the thinking is around when it feels right for the character.

But Leshy show up in so much stuff that its bound to happen.

That is if we get more classes. That's also something to consider.

A Leshy iconic can happen, but it's still weird that we haven't seen one ever since they were promoted to core.

AFAIK there's a playtest coming up, and those are almost always new classes. So I think we can expect a couple more classes.

Hmmm...

- Arcanist? rolled into other classes;
- Brawler? that's an archetype;
- Hunter? there's already the ranger;
- Medium? the animist is close to that;
- Mesmerist? I keep thinking that the entire class should be a Conscious Mind for the Psychic;
- Ninja? not necessary;
- Samurai? that can be an archetype;
- Shaman? that's also the animist;
- Shifter? that's the only class I can think of...
- Skald? that should be a "muse" for the Bard;
- Spiritualist? rolled into the Summoner;

Most of these could be exclusive archetypes, just like how we got the Bloodrager, Slayer and Inquisitor.

The Shifter, using Starfinder's evolutionist as its chassis, with various specializations, such as "plant", could work for a Leshy. It's also the only class I can think of ^^;

Does this not assume 1 to 1 parity with 1e, which they haven't been doing for a while now? Guardian and Commander do not have first party PF 1e class equivalents. Runesmith meanwhile has the Mesmerist gimmick of implanting magic into your allies/yourself, and while the name Necromancer has been around a lot this Necromancer in Pf 2e feels way different than any of the ones from PF 1e.

For all we know they could make like an Entropy Mage of Time and make it a Mushroom Leshy. The classes could very well be wildly different from anything we've seen yet and fit Leshy surprisingly well. Or heck, even be something wildly out...

I can name plenty of cool ideas and things I'd like, but it'd be surprising to be right.

Guessing what classes Paizo is going to put out is tricky at this point, and "concepts that they did before that still feel missing" is the best odds you're going to get.

Sounds like it might be a good time to start looking into third-party material, if you have a regular group you can talk with about it.

There's plenty of additional material for existing classes, and it doesn't need to hold itself to some of the cool-moment-limiting decisions Paizo has committed itself to.

Given that Animist is particularly based on real-world beliefs, I think there's especial reason to not go with a "sillier" ancestry.

Do we have a necromancer iconic yet?

They're on the cover of Impossible Magic! An iruxi, which also means we'll be getting some cool non-human skeleton art.

Given this is a general thread about Impossible Magic, possibly revealed in a Paizo Live stream?!?, I’m kinda getting really weirded out about the way Paizo is marketing things.

The current landing page of the site has a Paizo Blog about the Order of the Amber Die, and has for a few days. Why, if the Paizo Live stream has revealed Impossible Magic, does the landing page of the Paizo website not also have a blog with the same reveal embargoed to go up at the same time?!?

It just seems like whoever is in charge of Communications and Marketing doesn’t seem to have the Paizo Blog and the Paizo Live stream aligned.

Which is a long winded way of saying that there are those of us in this community who do not engage with the more “social media” conversant information channels, who prefer to read text and who end up feeling left behind in the information/news stakes *even though they diligently check the site for news*.

I would like this to change so that news is disseminated equally across channels.

They put the store page up around the same time, which has a lot more information than the Paizo Live included.