ShadowKni9ht97's page

For the people who have this book, what stands out for you ?Which of the three new races in your opinion has the most possibilitys ?The same question for the organizations? Just curious on what people think.

I haven't spent copious amounts of time diving into the new races, but I know for sure that from a popularity standpoint the Leshy race is gonna be a favorite for a lot of people for one reason or another. I personally believe that the most interesting thing about the race is how far from human it is. Even Hobgoblins and Lizardfolk look humanoid to some degree. Leshy are literally just living plants, which gives them an extremely unique existence. Imagine the combinations of any of the classes outside of Druid/spellcaster. A barbarian fungus leshy, a fighter gourd leshy, an alchemist vine leshy. A rogue vine leshy. The image in and of itself is definitely going to bring joy to players, as it's just so different to plays something that isn't even close to flesh and blood. Even the elemental races are humanoid to some degree, as they are not elementals but more like humans tainted with the power of the elemental plane. Imagine literally being a ranger fire elemental, or a champion water elemental. It's just totally different.

Gameplay wise, the leshy are... interesting. They get 8 hit points and an automatic ability boost in Constitution, which means they're not frail. They get another boost in Wisdom, and a flaw in Intelligence. So, Alchemist and Wizard are not classes they would exceptionally excel in naturally. Yet, with their ability boosts, as well as some of the ancestry feats I've read, they can get some interesting combinations of what they could be. Even though they're small, there is really nothing holding them back from being a tank. They are on the same level as humans when it comes to HP and get the auto Con. boost. Nothing says they can't wear metal armor. Lore wise, they don't fit into the physical brawling catagory, but the picture of the gourd leshy kind of makes me thing of a leaf version of the Gorons from Legend of Zelda. I don't know why, not a whole lot of comparison, but they do. Small gorons.

As for the other races, I never really looked into them immediately, which is telling of the draw the leshy race has from a superficial standpoint. Hobgoblins don't bring a whole lot to the table in terms of uniqueness in physical appearance or lore. They're just taller, stronger, more militarily disciplined goblins. While this makes them different, how does it make them that different than, say, any other militarily obsessed nation? I find them interesting from the standpoint of how they create this unique bridge of discipline and monstrous culture and history. In the same way that the goblins have been demonized and ostracized, so too have the hobgoblin race. So, if you were realloy looking to play a goblin that actually could fit into the more physical, martial classes, hobgoblins your boi.

Lizardfolk drag the Dragonborn from DnD without the dragon. Though I do wonder if we will ever see genuine dragonborn in 2E. Regardless, lore wise, the Lizardfolk are seen as a more cold, calm, and wild race. They live on the fringe of society cause that's how Lizardpeople do, and so they make for another "monster" race that have been tentatively accepted into the folds of adventuring. They bring a lot of interesting creature/animal abilities to the table that make for unique experiences as certain classes. They have multiple avenues for combat abilities, like using their fangs and tails, while also being able to call upon other lizardy abilities, like using their scales to blend or sticky hands to climb.

As I stated before, I think the leshy are the most interesting, but I'm not disappointed in the lizardfolk or the hobgoblin race. It's more about the fact that the lizardfolk and hobgoblins are what you would expect from tall goblins and lizard people (though the hobgoblin military culture is a unique trait that I find enjoyable to play to or against). The leshy are just such a unique spin on things, and I find that part of them highly enjoyable when considering how they can be played in an in-game social setting, though I don't discount the hobgoblin and lizardfolk in the area. The leshy are just farther ahead. Gameplay and mechanically, all the races that have been added live up to an interesting potential, and I look forward to experimenting with them.

The interesting thing in this new guide is that they make honorable mentions of all the more well known ancestries such as Aasimars, Tengu, and Teiflings at the very end of the new ancestries. Does anyone know if this is going to be an ongoing series, where we get a book 2 like how bestiaries are "Bestiary" then "Bestiary 2" or if they're going to incorporate this in a different format? And if you do have those answers can you please point me to where you got them so I can stay in the look instead of constantly asking questions on these forums?

ShadowKni9ht97 wrote:

So, there is apparently a Soulbound Doll that has to be fought in game. It says that the doll can be found in the 6th Bestiary. Does anyone have any advice as to how to translate it to the 2E?

It's an elite soulbound doll, and the rules for elite are found on page 6 of the 2nd edition Bestiary.

We're trying to figure out how best to indicate this in future stat blocks. My preference would be like this:

Elite Soulbound Doll (Pathfinder Bestiary 304, 6)

OR maybe we just don't cite the page reference for a creature at all...

That is genuinely confusing... looking it up in the book with the explanation, it makes sense. However, intuitively, it does not. I thoroughly appreciate the page reference for the creatures in the adventures a ton because it allows me to immediately look them up without too much searching. It is a wonderful benefit, even if it does only save a few minutes. As a layman's suggestion, I would advise either completely removing the page referencing where the rules for elite creatures are because it creates that layer of confusion, or specify that the secondary page number is where the rules are at. For example,

Elite Soulbound Doll (Pathfinder Bestiary 304, Elite Rules 6)

That would have cleared up a lot of the confusion because it would not leave the reader with any room for misinterpretation. I originally wanted to put down "Modifiers" instead of "Rules", but then the word "Modifiers" with the number 6 could be misinterpreted as a modifier in and of itself. But the above use of words in the Adventure Path would have assisted me in understanding what the second number was for.

ShadowKni9ht97 wrote:

Where is the adventure that concerns Lastwall in the Pathfinder saga?

Tyrant's Grasp.

Wait, so if all the lore for PF2 comes from the hero's succeeding in their quests, then it is in fact a scripted loss as a whole for the heroes? In the PF2 Core Rulebook, one of the first pages gives a glimpse of the official heroes used throughout the PF series, and I'm guessing it was supposed to be this final confrontation between the Whispering Tyrant and the PCs. Once I have the money, I'll buy the adventure path, but if anyone has answers for now, they would be appreciated.