Laori Vaus

RiverMesa's page

73 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of some ancestries (or anything else really) being common/uncommon by default gives the GM an indicator of the devs' default intention - even if you can make something normnally uncommon be common or vice versa, you at least know how you're diverging from the assumed baseline in that regard, as opposed to having to figure it all out on your own, with the system shifting all the burden onto you.

I imagine any kind of non-Inner Sea regional book will likely give advice on core ancestries' assumed rarity in the region in question - catfolk would likely be common in South Garund even if they might be uncommon in Inner Sea proper.

That said, I think kobolds and orcs should be common (though I can begrudgingly see the argument why they shouldn't be), though I'm unsure about catfolk and ratfolk - tengu should be probably uncommon however, as should all the heritages, with the possible exception of tieflings.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a tangentially-related note that I don't know if anyone at Paizo is able to answer, is the GMG still scheduled for January or has it been definitely pushed back to February?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince Setehrael wrote:

A thought I just had and am now even more excited to see. Though it will be a while before we see, cause we would need the mythic system.

But a 2E stated Baba Yaga!!!

I vaguely recall the devs saying somewhere that they are considering making the patrons a bit more "rooted in the world", tying them to specific entities rather than vague concepts.

Incidentally, Baba Yaga was the given example.

On one hand, I personally imagine that the witch will have an occult baseline spell list, but with patrons granting access to spells from other lists (and making them count as occult)...But on the other hand, I really like sorcerer's tradition-determined-by-bloodline shtick, and the witch would seem like the perfect opportunity to allow for that as well.

Either way, you will probably be able to make a prepared occult caster with the witch - it's just a matter of whether that'll be the only option or one among many.

For hexes (which for irrational personal reasons I would personally want to see changed into something like "charms", if only to reduce the "vaguely evil" connotations of the class), it's very likely they'll be some form of focus spell - what exactly, that I don't know, but I'll be happy with almost anything, really.

Also! I hope we get to see a sketch of Feiya in the APG playtest document (alongside the other 3 iconics, but this is a witch thread), and what her revisited design is like.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Wizards is nowhere near as reliant on D&D's financial success as Paizo is on Pathfinder (which is to say, WotC could straight up cancel D&D tomorrow and be totally fine since so much of their profit comes from Magic) - thus the former can kinda just ride it out on sporadic supplement releases and (let's be honest) D&D's immense brand recognition, while Paizo needs to continually support their game to stay afloat - thus we have several product lines and some kind of substantial release basically every month (even if it's 'just' another AP book).

I know they don't make this kind of information public, but I do hope that things are going okay for them, though by the sound of how the core books seme to be selling at least, it seems to be the case.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do hope Paizo slows down just a bit once they get all the 'critical' books out (GMG, APG, Bestiary 2, LO Character Guide, LO Gods & Magic).

I understand the desire to get that critical mass of content out since that's kinda what people who play Pathfinder want, I just don't want Paizo to crunch their staff or have any of the books be of subpar quality in order to accomplish that.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You'd think there'd be some kind of arcane equivalent to Rahadoum somewhere...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the idea of ethnicity-as-ancestry, that idea is already somewhat being implemented in the Lost Omens Character Guide through ethnicity-specific ancestry feats.

Kinda literally asking for a friend here - Rougarou (the not-quite-werewolves from Bestiary 6), kitsune and gnolls (as confirmed as those are already).

For myself, while I'm not sure if anything like this exists in established lore (or if such a request is appropriate for this thread), but the pitch is that of "vibrantly-colored bird people". Most birdfolk in D&D tend to be based on things like crows and ravens or maybe eagles (the trifecta of tengu, kenku and aarakocra) and thus aren't exactly sparkling with color, but it would be interesting to have an ancestry that takes inspiration from toucans or peacocks or parrots.
A good addition to the eventual south Garund region, me thinks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, their CRB description doesn't really mention anything about being "evil" in any capacity.
Doesn't exactly say anything about "friendly", either, but...

The Core Rulebook wrote:

Industrious and fecund, kobolds thrive anywhere they
can, often dwelling in narrow confines and twisting
burrows in the hinterlands of rural regions or spreading
throughout the sewers of urban centers. These small,
reptilian humanoids share many traits with dragons—
but courage, might, and an intimidating presence are
certainly not among them!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With the four magical traditions in place, I can see a series of books akin to 4e's "______ Power" line (Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power, Psionic Power).
Though it need not all be spells, but other things that are thematically connected to those traditions - rituals, monsters, magic items, the sorts. Ideally also something for noncasters so they don't feel totally left in the dust, player options-wise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I would love to see something like Ultimate Campaign, which was my favorite hardcover. Instead of focusing on new classes or feats or general game bloat, I'd love to see rules that expand what can be down in the game. Kingdom Building, rules for research, material usage of magical beasts... I would love to see Ultimate Campaign with some new stuff.

We know at least some of those subsystems are coming in the Gamemastery Guide, though a book dedicated to them would be pretty sweet regardless.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, let's maybe not delve into "this thread gets locked" territory with some of this discourse.

Either way, it seems somewhat evident that Paizo is well on their way towards having non-evil gnolls (as per LOWG), very possibly setting up the groundwork for a playable ancestry, and it'd be hardly the first instance of that in 2nd edition (or Pathfinder in general).

After all, we have goblins in the Core Rulebook now.
We also have lizardfolk and hobgoblins coming soon (two ancestries with at least some history of being portrayed as kinda nasty), plus orcs and kobolds after that.
And it's probably fair to say they will be portrayed in a way where there's at least some places around Golarion where they aren't kill-on-sight material (Lake Ocota orcs in the Mwangi Expanse, peaceful gnolls in Nantambu - hell, even the CRB mentions Belkzen orcs having to try "other means of securing their lands" , and kobolds being "industrious and fecund").

And yes, it ultimately results in a more nuanced and cooler setting if you have several different cultures with different values and traits for the various ancestries than a blanket "oh they're all [insert alignment]". And it feels that Paizo seems to recognize that, so I think we're safe.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Will we see sketches of the updated Advanced Player's Guide iconics in the playtest document, or maybe in some blog posts leading up to the book's release?

It was really fun following them prior to the 2e playtest, so I was wondering if something similar was planned for the 2e Advanced Player's Guide.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Oh, because I forgot to post mine: hefty books each for Tian Xia, Arcadia, and Southern Garund presenting them as campaign settings unto themselves just like the LOWG, with a bunch of new Ancestries and Heritages to fit.

Casmaron and Sarusan too.

Sarusan in particular strikes me as a blank canvas considering the whole "undiscovered mysterious land" shtick of its, though much like everything else I hope we avoid a colonialist outsider perspective of it.

Plus you don't exactly see "Aboriginal Australian fantasy" very often.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I specifically hope that the nations of Tian Xia are grouped up into thematically/geographically cohesive metaregions a'la the Inner Sea.

There's 25-something nations/regions in there (though the precise number might change in 2e), which while not AS many as in the Inner Sea, would still be a lot to try and take in.

I don't know enough about Tian Xia or what Paizo plans to do with all those nations how they might be broken up, but it definitely feels like there's room for 5-7 regions, and hopefully enough nuance and variety to each.

I also hope that the introductory book to that region is called "Lost Omens Dragon Empires" or something along those lines, because LODE is a very aesthetically pleasing initialism.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Did they say anything about introducing new Class Paths?

That would possibly include the Inquisitor or more Champion types

They didn't really say anything one way or the other, but I'd be highly surprised if there weren't any.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, by technicality of running Fall of Plaguestone first, it's likely that the campaign will at least start in Old Cheliax/Shining Kingdoms, though who knows where it'll go from there.

That said, I would love to run a High Seas campaign eventually, so I'm hopeful that the GMG has some kind of naval rules in there to support that.
(And of course, things like the pirate archetype in APG will also help.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

I would love a book that focuses on crafting magical and wondrous items, setting up mad scientist style workshops, and gathering crazy ingredients.

Something like the Dwarf that sets up a forge inside of a volcano that has a thin border to the plane of fire and powers their furnaces off of the magma.. or a Lich that puts together a Frankenstein style laboratory to create their Undead.

Would love to see adventure hooks based on digging into a long lost mine near the world wound to gather a special mineral or venturing into the plane of earth to get a special type of coke or coal to make a magic item.

Ways to get high end crafting tools and facilities and adventure hooks to get people out of their workshop beyond "I buy 1000 GP worth of materials to craft this item."

I was thinking of something very similar, but centered around alchemy instead. Like an "Ultimate Alchemy" of sorts.

Could even combine it into something like an "Alchemy & Artifice" book.

Bonus points if it's an LO book and is thus strongly informed by Golarion lore (granted, even core line books are strongly informed by Golarion now, but still).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So while no specific examples were given, we know for damn-near certain that there will be new spells in the book.

And I hope one of them is dinosaur fort.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So everyone is very vigorously discussing the big thing coming in the APG - the four new character classes.

However, we know that those are not the only things coming in that book worthy of being excited about - we still have ancestries, archetypes, spells, equipment and who knows what else in there.

So, what do you want to see from the APG that maybe hasn't been talked about yet?

For me it's certainly more class feats and class paths for the core classes (as well as class archetypes but by the sound of it not many are there) - neutral/evil champion causes, more sorcerer bloodlines, maybe-the-oft-mentioned ranger focus spells? Make use of that sweet sweet design space.

Beyond that, rituals - currently they only go up to level 8 (obtainable at level 16) but they should technically be able to go all the way up to level 10 (obtainable at 20) much like spells do, and there's quite a few missing classics that would make for excellent rituals - reincarnate and create demiplane come to mind here especially.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides, there are plenty of monsters weak to bludgeoning and resistant to fire (and vice versa), and the damage is magical either way, so it's not like fire is strictly above the others in this case.

If anything the old setup was stranger - why was earth associated with poison of all things?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a discussion I had with Keftiu elsewhere, the idea of "what if Mongolian horse archers, but it's horseback spellcasters instead" came up, and now I'd love to see such Hongali horsemages (since Hongal reads strongly as fantasy!Mongolia), ideally as an archetype.

Also, death worms. Whether in an outright Tian bestiary (or in the back of books of a Tian AP) or just a normal bestiary, you gotta have the olgoi-khorkhois.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Historically, Pathfinder's idea of a witch has been strongly tied to the "patron and familiar" shtick, but it is pretty difficult to deny the prevalence of the "spellbook" and "herbalist" types in the broader understanding of a 'witch'.

One way or the other, the witch ought to be a prepared, possibly primarily occult spellcaster, however I think it would be good to give them a choice of...Calling?

With choices of "patron bestowing knowledge upon the witch via a familiar" as a throwback to 1e, a partly-arcane "not-quite wizard" caster with a spellbook, and a herbalist with alchemy and primal spells thrown into the mix.

I certainly want there to be an option to play a witch with a spellbook - while cool, the familiar+patron idea always felt weirdly idiosyncratic and somewhat at odds with the common idea of a witch, so 2e might be a good opportunity to expand on what the witch is conceptually, while still keeping it distinctly 'witchy' and 'folklore'sy, without stepping too hard on the toes of the scholastic wizard and primal druid.

Just my 2c.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another one for support for playable gnolls.

One thing I would really love to be addressed though is the whole "demon-worshipping, cannibalistic savage clans" thing of theirs.
While the move away from "tribes" to "clans" is a good one (it's less troublesome language), it would be nice to hear about some clans that completely buck those trends, considering that the likes of goblins seem to be going down a similar path.

It would be really disappointing to see gnolls be treating as an Always Chaotic Evil ancestry, especially when a lot of other ones are getting an ostensibly better treatment in 2nd edition (goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk).

A lot of people got really burned on 5e's treatment of gnolls (which is to say, being portrayed as so evil, cruel and violent as to not get a playable option, in a book that had an entire chapter on playable monstrous humanoids (like orcs and kobolds)*, who were playable and even quite decently portrayed in every prior edition), so I hope that Paizo doesn't repeat that mistake whenever they end up taking on gnolls.

* - though to be quite honest that whole part of Volo's Guide to Monsters was an absolute trainwreck beyond just "where's the gnolls tho", but that's neither here nor there.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Also remember that we have literally one major book of player content right now. Paizo themselves have stated that most things that you could do in PF1 but cannot do right now are more a result of limited book space rather than a conscious "we don't want you do to do that kind of thing anymore" decision.

Plus you can honestly do quite a lot more with just the 2e CRB than you could with just the 1e CRB, even if the path you take to get there is a bit different.

But really, none of that seems to fly in the face of lessening player agency.

So, relax.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hear hear!

Seeing the approach Paizo is taking towards less bigoted (and frankly more interesting as a result) writing, it's exciting to think about exploring some truly non-European fantasy in the setting.

It would be especially good if
1) a similar metaregion structure was applied to non-Garund/Avistan continents (honestly, that structure is really good for learning and for running campaigns, it would be a shame to just have a south Garund book look like ISWG again with an overwhelming nation-by-nation look with no rhyme or reason to it)
2) each continent got more than one book each (though with how much content there is to cover that's maybe wishful thinking but hey)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
avr wrote:

A couple of levers marked 'Are you sure?' and 'Are you really sure?' aren't noticeably more helpful to a GM than Rule Zero. There are some very different reasons why things would be uncommon (like being overly useful in an investigative game vs. being from a non-European culture vs. using the alignment system) so it's not that useful as a category.

As far as schmoozing required/not required goes, would you require it for a +1 darkwood bow when you wouldn't for a +3 major striking bow? There's probably no more of those 40K bows in most worlds than there are of the 1.5 K darkwood ones. Only the darkwood bows are 'uncommon' however.

Basically I think it could have been useful but as it is, isn't.

I find it much smoother as a GM to allow stuff than to disallow.

If I go "no, bad wizard, you can't take teleport" the player will feel cheated when the rules assume that you do have access to teleport.

On the flip side, in a setting that doesn't assume teleport to be widely accessible, I'm sure the player will appreciate when checking the loot of the bigbad contained a spell book with teleport in it.

I mean, Teleport in particular is, by default, labeled as uncommon (which is available but not "every 12th+ level wizard has it"-levels of available, I think), so that's either on the player for not knowing that and assuming it's widespread, or on you as the GM for not communicating that to them beforehand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Has there been any word on how rarity will be indicated in 2e? I really did not like the color system used in the Playtest.

Via traits (listed right below the name of a particular thing), it seems.

Anything without a rarity (uncommon, rare or unique) trait is implicitly common, and while the boxes themselves are colored (I forget what colors they use exactly), a spell like Anti-Magic Field might have Rare and Abjuration as traits (as opposed to just Abjuration and an orange-colored level box as it did in the Playtest).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who intends to run a campaign in her own setting as opposed to Lost Omens, and also wants to convert Eberron to PF2 at some ponit, I had a similar concern (in my case itwas with goblins - for how much I adore them, I don't want them to be Like That in every campaign, but a number of their ancestry feats and heritage options are rather idiosyncratic to LO goblins).

Luckily it seems that PF2's modular design will allow for this fairly easily.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AFAIK yes, NPC classes are gone, but between backgrounds, archetypes, templates and the general-purpose monster/NPC-building stuff that's coming in the GMG, there's ample room for making varied NPCs still.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
The art in rulebook looks WayneReynoldsy which we do not like. Art in DD looks like standard mish-mash from APs which is ok for me.

Honestly, I really enjoy Wayne's art in the rulebook - it's very distinctly Pathfinder, and despite being deliberately sketchy (apart from the cover and reused artwork), it really brings the rulebook together.

Conversely I'm not a massive fan of the DD artwork - I haven't looked through the full book yet admittedly, but to me, the book ends up feeling a lot less...cohesive, and a little more forgettable.

This is by no means intended to disrespect the actual artists behind it all though - Wayne Reynolds or not, individually the pieces look great and it's never bad to see a variety of illustrators, but personally I prefer the more uniform look of the rulebook.

Ultimately this is a highly subjective matter though, and I wouldn't say that either current-day or older Pathfinder stuff looks 'dated' - especially since it's not like art has an expiration date, and doesn't age the same way video game graphics or (especially 3D) animation might.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So right now, the spell lists section of the playtest is...uh, a mess, the way it's formatted.

It *very* much reminds me of the D&D 5e's PHB spell list section, in a bad way - not meant as an affront on 5e, but they're kind of chaotically listed across the pages in tight, irregular columns. On top of that, they lack the short descriptions that PF1's CRB spell list had - which were a great way to quickly get the idea of a spell across, particularly while just looking at what your class has to offer - all the PF2 lists give you is the name (and whether the spell is uncommon and/or heightenable), so there's much worse 'discoverability' in that regard, where you see a neat name and/or a description that captures your interest and makes you flip over to the actual spell's description to find out more.

Heck, while scrolling I'll often time lose track of which list I'm actually looking at because the name of the spell list is on another page or some such. Again, the PF1 rulebook didn't have this issue because each section was clearly labeled as "X-th level Class spells", and it was just generally structured in a more 'natural' ways, compared to the thin columns of the PF2 rulebook.

It's especially disappointing since on the whole I find the Playtest to be decently organized (though I know that's a somewhat contentious issue, with people holding some very polarizing opinions on the matter), with some outlier sections, this being one of them.

I'm no graphic designer, but I genuinely believe there is a better way to structure the spell lists in the rulebook than what exists currently. Whether that's straight up tables, the PF1 list approach, or something else entirely, anything would be better than what's in there right now in my eyes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else, there should be a list of common/recommended/suggested Lore skills and/or better guidelines as to what counts as a "narrow topic" for the purposes of the skill. How not to go too broad, or too narrow. Right now it's very unclear and easy to misjudge unless you stick to the pre-existing Background Lore skills.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The colors are rarity indicators - black is common, red is uncommon, orange is rare and blue is unique.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It better be a Playtest-only omission - creating undead is something that's very iconic to (or indeed, the very basis of) necromancy in fiction, so it feels very jarring to not have as an option.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On one hand, it's just a playtest, and just a tabletop game. I shouldn't have to get this excited...

But on the other hand...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rarity 'mechanic' seems like one of the better low-key additions to the system that quite elegantly solves multiple issues at once - preventing overloading newer players (myself included) with tons of options, making more powerful options limited but in an organic "you gotta work for it" way, plus the worldbuilding implications.

How well it actually accomplishes all these in practice remains to be seen, and it's certainly not the single best or most major change between the editions (though nothing really is, to be fair, apart from maybe the action economy), but so far, it looks really nice, especially for how simple it is.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not something anybody expected I'd imagine, and while most won't find it all too interesting eiter, I think it's something that will be very useful to have in the long run, once post-release sourcebooks and people's own homebrew settings start rolling in, and some need to filter out the esoteric content in a meaningful way arises. My (as yet non-PF) group definitely falls in the "PF is too overwhelming content-wise" category (myself included to a large degree) so this is definitely a great framework to have.

Good on you for this one!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I'll take an overt amount of positivity and happiness over too much cynicism and unhappiness any day of the week, but I do think that excitement and hopefulness shouldn't completely drown out genuine and critical discussion.

The problem is that right now it's kind of difficult to have said genuine and critical discussion without having the full playtest rulebook to argue over, only bits from blogs, interviews, podcasts and people's experiences from cons and such - which are good, but still only at best good for speculation.

I too would like to "examine the whole", if I had the whole to actually examine.
That's always the problem with discussing almost anything pre-release (especially something as big and potentially ground-breaking as a new edition of an RPG, as opposed to, say, yet another splatbook) - you lack the full information on the subject matter so you fill in the blanks (of which there are still many as far as PF2e goes), and everyone fills in those in their own unique way, so discussing things without misinformation or huge personal bias getting in the way is nigh-on impossible.
Luckily it's 'only' one more month of us existing in this weird state of flux before we get to dive deep into the playtest.

On a tangentially related note: this isn't Paizo's first such public playtest (though it's certainly their most ambitious one), if I remember right?
Broadly speaking, how did they handle it for Starfinder (or, if anyone here was around for that, Pathfinder 1e)?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Re: No spellcasting.

Honestly, as far as spellcasting classes go, thematically I feel like the Ranger is the one that
a) it makes the least sense on, compared to many other classes - you couldn't take it away from a druid, paladin or especially wizard or cleric without basically ruining the class, but a mundane ranger seems very doable, especially considering the next point:

b) is the most easily replaced with more thematically (and mechanically) apt alternatives - be it animal companions, traps/snares, or all the other survivalist-ish stuff that rangers get/got throughout the editions (whether it's favored terrain/enemy, or natural explorer) that is ultimately non-magical in nature.

Again I fully realize I might be biased (but so is pretty much everyone else in these discussions, one way or the other), but I'm really not attached to the idea of rangers/hunters/slayers/woodsmen using magic (either within the context of D&D-heritage RPGs, or in fantasy fiction at large), and I'm fully convinced that you can absolutely make the class feel distinct and strong, without resorting to giving it magic.

That being said, I do hope that the option for spellcasting arises quickly after or even during the Playtest (though that doesn't seem all too likely), but I'm totally okay with spell-less being the de facto default, and what we get to play with during the Playtest, starting next month.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one am excited about a by-default spell-less ranger (and traps/snares!) - not only because my first (and so far, only) PF1 character is a trapper, but also because magic never felt 'core' to me to the Ranger at all (indeed I would say it almost runs counter to it), and snares sound pretty fun as well, although I do hope they're not clunky enough (be it in actual effect, difficulty of application, or cost) as to not be worth it.

(I'm coming over from D&D 5e and have been lowkey following PF for a while, have mercy on me and my newbies's PoV.)

We shall see how it all plays out in practice, though, but personally I am looking forward to the ranger, and hopeful.