Saint Evil's page

A bit of a tangent: Will Lost Omens Gods & Magic have new Domains?
Will any of the upcoming Lost Omens books have new Domains?

For Lost Omens World Guide, how much info is given on areas outside of the 10 regions of the old Inner Sea area?

I find the Matter/Spirit (or is that material/spiritual) to be the overlap connection that the Occultist taps into.

Getting spiritual magical stuff linked to objects.

Question for Jason Bulmahn

How many templates (lycanthrope, vampire, lich) are in the Bestiary?

Are they easier to apply?

How many are Undead?

Last year I was an advocate of Fighters getting both legendary weapons and armour, did that happen?

And what is the top prof rank for each class by weapon and armour?

For those with the book: Are there any ki spells in the book for a monk to select?

And for ki powers that an opponent is to make a save against, I assume the class DC is used?

Because although I have yet to get the book I have been following the info flow quite studiously. And I was getting the impression the Monk would use its class DC for effects and that is derived from the choice of STR or DEX.

For comparison, on the casters, does their spell DC differ from their class DC ?

Note: Logan Bonner referencing saving throws was in regards to the Monk making savings and not inflicting saves on others. And WIS was important for Will saves (but like for anyone really)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0U-XEmKPKg

This video is very informative on the US and metric system.
It is very surprising.

Number 90 might like the greenridge district in absalom

and I think number 91 could work pretty good, a bit depending on the bloodline and what he wants to get from sorcerer

Thanks. I am not familiar with Absalom districts. I have high hopes and curiosity with pushing the new MC system. I did learn on a reddit forum of someone making a viable quadruple class.

91
Cornelius Cormaeril
human
noble
Bard MC with rogue and ranger and sorcerer

The dabbler and my first 3.0 character. I want to see if it will work this in this system or suck at everything like last time.

90
Dorusk Ironlaw
half-orc/barrister/Monk MC druid
Weapons: natural, fist or claw
Desire to unify the laws of civilization and nature

As certain Paizo staff like to cite, there are multiple ways to get stuff, only PCs have a somewhat set way.

I expect Demons, and 'Outsiders' in general, to have Divine innate abilities. But I wonder how much that will be clung to. An innate Divine spell NOT on the divine list will bother some people.

Treerazor, from Paizocon banquet slides, as a Nascent demon lord had all primal tags for his stuff.

Paizocon seminar talked about the Playtest. The tpk test had only 2% of tables survive it all.

One of the #MyPathfinderSpoiler showed the Undead bloodline in its entirety. It was Divine.

Is Clone in the final version?

IDK personally but my guess if it shows up, my guess is it will be in the ritual type magic. Like the undead making ones will be.

Only once dead. We all know that full or 1hp is functionally the same. Something on par with you is not likely to be one shot in this system.

Class Archetypes are yet unrevealed. So we don't know what they do. They may change the parent class radically.

Paizo did not put them in the PT as they felt they were okay and did not need testing and/or muddy the test data with them. Like how the optional boost for two flaws at ancestry stage was left out of the playtest.

Advanced guide classes

Ultimate X classes.

Occult classes

Here are 3 links to 3 articles that a paizo contributor has made

I don't agree with all his positions but they are worth reading for concepts of classes.

Resurrection survival rolls? Ooo, what those do?

Derived from your CON score as a percentile chance that the raise/resurrection would work.

If it worked you still lost a permanent point of CON afterward.
If the roll failed the death is permanent. There is no recourse beyond direct Divine Intervention at that point.

I believe the World Guide. The ten for the 'meta-regions'.

Your hellknight example is accurate. I think for that particular, you can go into Signifier from Armiger without the usual requirement of x amount of Archetype feats before being allowed to select some new archetype.

As another bit of info on all those ten Achetypes, all of them can be taken a level 2. Make of that what you will.

Info taken from an episode of Arcane Mark chatting with Luis Loza.

Mark Seifter said so about the GMG having the item quality rules variant in there. Either in place of magic pluses or in parallel.

Well, I did not expect such a thread to evolve when I first started it.

I am thankful things seem to have cooled with some clarity.
Especially with Unicore getting information about GM and design.

Also, semi-derail or clarity, I have never heard of Absolutist style.

I think Simulationist would be more apt. And comes from the GNS model of games. Which stands for Gamist - Narrativist - Simulationist btw

It is interesting in the abstract but a somewhat deprecated model as ALL games use all 3 things. They may vary in emphasis in system to system, table to table, gamer to gamer. But largely all use all. And D&D/Pathfinder tends to be centrist about its GNS.

Items whose power is direct to the creature level.

Kind of the corollary of items that 'level' with a PC.

It’s pretty poor design where 1 failed check derails an entire campaign. I don’t recall any Paizo AP having such an issue (but I haven’t read them all!).

Poor design yes. Also rookie GM mistakes. (Folk will learn. I think I did this 20 years ago.)

Another spot had extended multiple rolling to close a gate to avoided the single roll problem.

Paizo APs have more wealth listed in them than necessary. But chunks are in out of the way areas and/or PCs fail perception rolls. But it becomes a "No Big Deal" due to more than needed sprinkled in them.

I’m really hoping Paizo doesn’t include such nonsense in all future APs.

I doubt you will see any difference in the APs

Ancestries are known, but not all the heritage options.
Backgrounds are there from last week Making a Character preview by Mark. (All 35 in the core anyways)
Class is know but not subpaths of it.

(I am starting this thread as it came up in another and would be off topic there.)

A term that gets used but I think is ill defined.

The definition I could find is this

Quote:

Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost.

That isn’t how skill checks are described in the rules for the playtest core rules.

If you actually want to hear why I think that’s awful feel free to start a new thread. It’s pretty off topic for this one.

So I have started a new thread. However I agree in principal that this approach is bad.

A better definition of the term I heard was in regards to overall plot getting blocked to then progress at some cost.

Of course what is "blocked progress" is open to interpretation. As is the "cost".

[NOTE] a tpk would certainly block progress. But I accept that and make a new campaign.

Fail Forward seems like 'Designer Speak'.

Term gets thrown around but is it well defined.

The last Know Direction podcast had Stephen Radney-MacFarland use the phrase "Designer Speak" in regards to Ryan asking about Action Economy, as a term, being in the Corerulebook.

It is not in there btw.

Although consider the new system for how challenging the lower stuff will be.

Entering the AP at lvl 4 with it expecting level 1 will be easier. The new system of Pf2 also seems to make scaling much easier. Adding or subtracting values up or down can bring it back on par. The AP example would be adding 3 to those initial encounters to even out expectations, but that would keep the distortion going for you. So maybe only slight adjustments.

For the APG iconics, what about Freiya ?

I could see the Firebrand leading into Eagle Knight and Lion Knight and something Galt as I don't know that place well. (A character would then chose which). It seems akin to how HK Armiger is leading into 2 separate option.

I like this paradigm.

Second I don’t think it’s correct to call metamagic and combat feats a corollary. Martial had combat feats but often the best usage of them was casters like clerics who could use them with high level spells. On the flip side metamagic feats are completely useless for martials and not accessible. But now in PF2 it will go both ways. For someone to be good at magic or at combat they will need to find a way to invest in it.

I will attempt to clarify. I was not making some power usage or comparison between the metamagic feats and the combative feats.

I was pointing out how the casters all had access to the metamagics and those feats functioned the same for them. (Sorcerer and Quicken being an exception I am aware of.)
And I was comparing that to the combat feats functioning the same for martial characters.

I am *thrilled* that martials are looking better in the new system. The Fighter in particular in having an identity different from the other martial types. I was an advocate during the previews and playtest for the Fighter being able to get Legendary in both weapons and armor.

See Mechalibur is already putting forth the initial posits for the caster/caster debate.

I see big debates over whether same tradition is best or if two different ones are best and then which two complement best.

A point for those worried about a lack of options in PF2 to think about. The playtest rulebook is 434 pages. The 2 edition CRB is 660 pages iirc. That's more than 50% larger. I don't think lack of options will be a problem. :)

Lack of options is not the topic. Execution of available options is.

Although Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat... it had/(has?) a prereq of Simple Weapon Proficiency which is another to take for the druid. And when

So then elf ancestral feat gets brought up ... but now it compels a racial chooice.

So this is where the Fighter, for multiclassing, gets brought in to the discussion. As a means to get mere proficiency. (And due to the other martial types given unwanted things) But again the delay to acquire.

It is not a desire to 'steal' the Fighter's (or any other martial's toys) cool powers. Class feats are Class powers.

And ironic to me is that Pf2 martials finally have there own styles as shown by how Fighter and Rogue TWF is different.

The combat type, fighting style feats in Pf1 were generic

The Power Attack chain on Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin were the same for all.

The corollary for casters were the Metamagic feats. Now existing as different Class Feats. And variance with in them.

The future may give martial types Focus powers as gets advocated for gunslinger/swashbuckler grit/panache in another thread. (May or may not work in dead magic)

I am reminded of when a big computer game is nearing release, the fans know the content coming in it, and the fans start poking and prodding about the first Expansion Pack when and what will it have.

Have witch Patron in place of wizard Thesis perhaps.

Also don't forget the athame variant for witch but that is a somewhat different familiar.

I don't expect a codification. Published adventures will simply say if any given smith or what you is Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary in whatever skills. Maybe a 'level'.

(I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned finding a Legendary smith early in Age of Ashes.)

Other stats will be ad hoc or for the GM to make up as needed.

*Sighs* I think I'm just gonna bow out now, my game is dead as of next month, and PF 2e & D&D 5e both don't interest me for different reasons. If you want to know them, I gave my story... *points back a few of her posts* I'm a niche case that this game doesn't appeal to and that's fine it's its own game and I respect that, so I'm gonna stop now.

I feel sympathy at your loss. And understand why your posts seem .. ranting.

I did not like the new multiclass at first. And I came from 2e dnd where I liked it but I knew that its system was a bit too OP.

I do wonder how now Fighter with Wizard will be different from the inverse hp aside.

This is a really long thread.

But feelings and passion are involved. And the start post was a broad thing that has raised subtopics.

It is not Combat feats per se but weapon style access (with the bow druid combo discussed.). An elf with a bow is normal.

But as it stands the old system is gone and Paizo has shifted paradigm. Pros and/or cons with that. As it stands with Class feats Paizo focused on castery things or other priorities with Casters and the weaponry stuff is so far on the martial classes. Finite book space. I expect supplements.

WatersLethe is understandablely concerned with this and that 'flavor' choices on weapon style may loose to more math oriented optimums.

People would not post if they did not care.

Another consideration is space. Only 434 pages means that there were likely cuts to just make the document fit.

Possibilities are Feats, class or other, for space.

Rewording of text to shrink it while adding unintended ambiguity.

The system looks good to me as it is very extensible. The class feat system perhaps forgetting certain old general combat/metamagic is something I foresaw.

It will also depend on how much at one time and the length of time of any element that can be retrained.

I doubt a level 20 (or even 10) could swap everything at once.

Also, I view this retraining system as a way to mitigate the level-base versus a purely skills/powers based system.

A History Lesson (well what I know and remember)

Third Edition revised the spiritual hammer spell to be spiritual weapon and hence every deity needed a favored weapon in their stat block for this spell. It was not mandated that a deity had a favored weapon or even used a weapon prior to this.

This addition of a Thematic to cover a Mechanic wasn't necessarily a bad thing since holy slanted characters could now emulate their god in a way. The side effect in 3.0/3.5 was clerics weren't auto-proficient and Pathfinder did so. And what helped lure me to Pathfinder.

My long ramble here leads me to then my favorite setting (Forgotten Realms) getting some strange weapons when deity didn't before.

A cloud of stars for the goddess of magic. Which was then emulated with shuriken.

The moon goddess and her clergy wielded flat smooth maces, for the Full Moon. And a militant order of hers wielded glaives with crescent moon blades.

So emulating an odd 'favored weapon' with a regular one shouldn't be too bad. And by ChibiNyan's post there looks to be support for upgrading poor simple weapon traits into better ones.

Something in the core book has greater cache than a supplement.

Hence Paizo putting in goblins.

And hence a current of back lash against it.

It also gets more and better support.

An example is when new classes where introduced the core races where given alternative favored class bonus options. Non-core races are not guaranteed this sort of content. Some of the non-core may get such options or never.

Some way to hybrid any two ancestries would be interesting conceptually, even if that opens the door to the very wacky.

I don't expect the conflict to be huge. But given the size of the player base and human there will always be someone. (There was one poster on Sorcerer extremely miffed about 'not always arcane')

I can foresee future conflict among the base about which list a given class should use or if it should be patron/mystery subfeature dependent.

The ability boosts and flaws could be used, plus other basics like size and darkvision.

But the ancestry feats would be a guess.

However, from a comment the devs made, I think the planetouched will be modifications of base ancestries and may get to mix the two so that a dwarf tiefling can differ from an elf tiefling or human tiefling.

I liked all the varieties Fiend derived tieflings and I would like to see them make a come back and give some distinctiveness.

A point of difference,

Mental/Spiritual is speculated the 'Occult' list.

That seems very Psychic really.

The occult/Bard list may be Vital/Mental

Mental influence is certainly a Bard them, but Vital may link to their connection with living for life's sake, the joys of life.