QuidEst's page

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.

Really.

I'm happy to see non-core iconics, and if that means not artificially rushing a leshy iconic, that seems okay. That doesn't mean leshy is unpopular - we regularly get shown them in NPC art for adventures or books. The last three Paizo Lives have featured new leshy art.

It's pretty early, and we don't have a dedicated SF2 setting book yet. My uninformed guess is that it's just not covered yet, since it's an easy thing to drop when space constraints rear their head.

Squark, I submit that the phase you highlighted applies specifically to 'a photocopy of relevant pages'

It does not. There would need to be no comma after "pages" for your interpretation.

The Shirren Eye Rifle can't glitch. and what are the relative costs of the two?

Assassin Rifle is also analog, and only 20 credits more.

The Space Pirate archetype is "italic and conditional" in a way PF2e is.

Finoan wrote:

It's also kinda debatable whether Fatal or Deadly does more damage at higher levels.

How is this debatable? Assuming the Fatal die is at least as high as the deadly die surely the fatal is always at least as good?

No. If the Fatal die is the same as the Deadly die, Deadly eventually adds two and even three dice instead of the one that Fatal caps at. Normally, Fatal makes up for that by boosting the weapon's base damage dice two steps, but in this case, it's only one step and it's only boosting the base dice to d10, which is what the other weapon normally has.

Shirren-Eye Rifle was pretty similar to Assassin Rifle before the errata, but now it's been dropped a die size and Deadly d12 swapped for Fatal d10. Assassin Rifle had Fatal d12 swapped for Deadly d10, while keeping the damage die. If I wanted to deal d10 damage, I'd just use Assassin Rifle, especially since Deadly adds more dice.

Is Shirren-Eye Rifle meant to be Fatal d12, a crit-fishing sniper rifle that does lower base damage but more on a crit at certain levels? Or is it just a worse weapon?

Is there any idea on which book they will be included in? Perhaps a Book of the Dead Remaster?

They're new classes, so it probably won't be a direct remaster of an existing book. This might be easier to answer on Friday, though, after Paizo Live discusses a new book.

Reminder to wait to buy weapon/armor upgrades until you're one level past the item level. Buying them on-level means being permanently broke.

I generally like to load up on flavorful first and second level permanent magic items as soon as it's feasible, and then you can swap them out for more useful upgrades.

The level 2 Battlecry! items are a good choice, a Cloak of Feline Rest, and a Purifying Spoon. Those mostly aren't ones that make an impact on combat, but they do help a character feel like a proper adventurer.

So...

Back on topic:
I'm also guessing that the book will feature the Remastered versions of Summoner and Magus.

...Also, I want Synergist to stay in 1st edition. We do not need it back.

So long as we get Synthesist, I don't mind if Synergist stays in 1e. Eidolon abilities are much better suited to a player character than familiar abilities.

While the books aren't printed in the US, Paizo just isn't a big enough company to already have warehouses receiving the books in other countries. And, unfortunately, any response they could have had was shot in the foot by their distributor declaring bankruptcy and seizing any stock in their warehouses.

That's still definitely a lot for shipping, and it sucks that they aren't set up to collect the newly established Canadian tariffs yet like the longstanding European VATs, so it's good to let folks know that their local game store is going to be cheaper.

I think it's a little unfair to call it "gross negligence", though. A lot of companies here in the US have been folding because of the tariff impacts. The other RPG company I follow had its staff fired down to a skeleton crew by its parent company and development operations suspended indefinitely.

Oooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.

Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.

Steed Form is a Level 2 feat... but ALL Eidolons are Medium... and you need to wait until Level 8 to get Hulking Size... in order to get your Eidolon as a Large creature.

Why don't ALL Eidolons have Small, Medium and Large version, from the get go?

It's possible to ride a medium creature, and the feat is level 2 for those cases.

I'm reasonably confident that there is not, no. Paizo has not really delved into pre-earthfall. The actual changes were the loss of the land bridge and the creation of the Inner Sea, so you'd just need to take one of the maps and fill in the Inner Sea.

I’ll repeat:

OSWPF2 wrote:

But there is a strange disconnect for those of us - who do not consume social media and diligently peruse the official Paizo website for information - being completely bereft of what is essentially basic information. I’m not sure how your Communications and Marketing strategy is set up, but let me say it is failing me!

I read blogposts. I read threads. All on Paizo’s *official website*. That kinda seems like it should be enough.

It is enough if you want to be informed about everything Paizo is releasing before it comes out.

If you want to get all the information they put out as soon as it's available... yeah, some of that is going to be elsewhere first because there's no one place where everything goes first. The monthly streams do make a point of including some early spoilers, and external publications are more likely to run articles that serve as free Paizo advertising if they get some exclusive info.

As for stuff the site gets first, the paizo.com blogs often give much more info as we get closer to a release, and the store pages usually have some early important unannounced details as well as now including a few pages of previews around the release date.

In any case, someone did a spoiler breakdown on reddit here if you want to read more about the new beginner box, adventure, and AP before it's time for their respective blog posts.

---

On the topic of the new AP direction, I'm excited to see how it plays out in Bastion of Blasphemies! That will probably be the first of the new style I'll be checking out, since I'm afraid I'm one of the folks still a bit burnt out on Cheliax and Andoran from 1e. Folk horror is also very much in my friend group's wheelhouse.

brgoss wrote:

Just watched the youtube upload for this month's Paizo direct, and I'm excited for the Bastions AP coming out.

Has there been a blogpost on this site detailing this “new AP”? If not, then I humbly ask that Paizo makes such announcements here, on their website, rather than elsewhere.

It's not coming out for another ten months or so. I think they like to keep the blogs for things that are a little closer to release, so that people following them don't get overloaded with stuff they can't actually get their hands on anytime soon.

I'm looking for a serious answer.

You already have the answers, though.

- If you just look at the spell, "at least" means you don't need to worry about the negative, and the weakest souls can be stored in anything.
- If you feel you need guidance for how to handle level-scaled costs for creatures below level 1, or you're worried about rules abuse, the ritual rules are a good guideline.

Given what a niche case sealing away such low-level souls is for such a high-level caster, it's neither likely to be addressed nor likely to be a problem.

If you want to make a high-level caster that collects weak souls without affecting the budget, you just talk to the GM when asking for access to the uncommon spell.

So, the practical answer is "Yes, but check with the GM if it ever matters".

Spamotron wrote:

Another oddity is that we were promised a playtest for the Starship Rules in Tech Core which most people predict to also be released at GenCon. Given times to print even if we see it in January they’re cutting that awfully close.

We were told there would be a playtest for the Starship rules, but if I remember correctly, the Starship Rules aren't going to be in Tech Core.

We were told they wanted to do one, which is different than necessarily having the time to pull it off.