Silver2195's page

The obvious justification for Shifters is precisely the "borrowed from fiction" thing. People who turn into animals are a common fictional trope, and most of them are not generalized "nature wizards."

Yeah, what people want (at least what I want) from the Shifter is a class that shapeshifts without all the Druid baggage. No edicts/anathema, no spell slots, just someone who is very good at turning into animals.

The basic idea of the Skald is that it's a combination of the Bard and the Barbarian. This differs from other PF1 "hybrid classes" (with the exception of the Bloodrager, of course) because it's not something you can do with PF2 multiclass archetypes; the Barbarian's Rage ability makes it very difficult to do effectively. The Warrior Muse Bard is not the Skald; it doesn't really have anything to do with the Barbarian.

I'll take Popcorn, then.

I’m interested!

Edit: I'm fine with either Bottlespeaker or Fluff Fang.

Imagine if Tolkien had suddenly decided, 'Oh, I believe orcs are depicted as too malevolent in my book. It's clearly discriminatory and detrimental to readers' mental well-being. I'll revise this aspect. Henceforth, orcs in Middle-earth are a proud warrior race who vehemently oppose slavery and rape.' If he had really done that, I highly doubt his legendarium would have become as famous and masterful as it is.

I mean...Tolkien didn't put it in those terms, but in his letters he actually did have some second thoughts about orcs seemingly being inherently evil, pointing out that it seemed inconsistent with them otherwise seeming to be free-willed, intelligent beings.

And sexual violence wasn't a topic Tolkien was ever very interested in exploring.

Are they "redeemed undead" or undead who were never evil in the first place? Since the Crimson Reclaimers do missions deep in the Gravelands, I assumed that a bunch of the Crimson Reclaimers were, e.g., intelligent skeletons who could pretend to be mindless skeletons while behind enemy lines.

This is the first PbP I’ve been able to get into; I’m pretty excited about it. Thank you!

Gortle wrote:

darkvision ... is an important dimension of some stories but for many groups and most adventures it just gets lost in this game.

In fairness, there are LOTS of things that are important dimensions of stories that don't work well in gaming.

My favourite example is the ability to speak lots of languages. This can be pretty much the central contribution of a character in a story. But after a few minutes of linguistic fun language problems are generally just boring as all XXXX in a role playing game.

But there are many others.

I actually can't think of many stories where that's the case. It's much more common for fiction to handwave away language barriers.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I don't like:

The Changeling and Nephilim heritages are still dead choices for ancestries that already have darkvision built in (like Dwarves,Goblins, and Orcs). Since there's the clause to upgrade low-light vision to darkvision, and fully 3/8 of the ancestries in Player Core 1 have Darkvision, you'd think they'd have a clause for "what happens if you take Changeling as a Versatile Heritage on an Ancestry that has Darkvision already."

Do you not take the Heritage for its feats ?

I do not remember players taking this kind of Versatile Heritage just to boost their PC's vision from Low-light to Darkvision.

Sure, but how this works is if you want to play a Changeling and take Changeling feats it works out that if you pick an ancestry other than Dwarf, Goblin, or Orc you get something from your Changeling Heritage that you wouldn't if you picked Dwarf, Goblin, or Orc. So there's an opportunity cost (you only get one heritage) about making your pitborn or angelkin PCs a less-subterranean ancestry.

You can see how they accommodated for some ancestries already having low-light vision, with the clause " you gain darkvision if your ancestry already has lowlight vision." So there's no reason they couldn't have another clause for "what you get if you already have darkvision". They just didn't do that.

The game is generally good about refunding you if you gain a redundant feature through a character choice, so places where this doesn't happen stand out.

I understand, but I do not see what they could give that would not be too strong.

If outright greater darkvision would be too strong, maybe something like full-color darkvision?

I haven't read any of the remaster rules yet, but I'm not opposed to using them if the party wants to do it.

I'm fine either way; I'm just asking because I'm thinking about playing a Cleric, which I might build very differently depending on which ruleset we're using.

By the way, are we using Remastered rules?

I'm likely to apply to this; I have several interesting possibilities for builds in mind.

Silver2195 wrote:

Mostly agreed. It's interesting to note that PF2 and D&D5 both have full-caster Bards and at-will cantrips. But this is coincidental; PF1 and D&D4 also had at-will cantrips, and PF2 made Bards full casters to give all four traditions a full caster class in the core rulebook. (I have no idea what D&D5's reasoning for making Bards full casters was. Bards were the only "Tier 3" core class in D&D3.5; they didn't need "fixing"!)

Probably two-fold:

1. Bards were seen as weak in 3e, and they thought they could use the buff.

2. 5e doesn't have 2/3-casting like in 3e. There's full casting, there's half casting (what paladins, rangers, and artificers have), and there's third casting (what eldritch knights and arcane tricksters have).

"Seen as weak" by who, exactly? Bards weren't weak except in comparison to the (overpowered) full casters.

Jerdane wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

he thought this game was just a copy

Why would anyone bother producing a ttrpg that is "just a copy" of another one? Even aside from Intellectual Property theft considerations?

I don't think such an assumption is too unreasonable. Pathfinder 1e was a modestly-patched replica of D&D 3.5, after all, so maybe they figured that Pathfinder 2e was a modestly-patched replica of D&D 5e?

I would argue more of a modest spiritual successor to 4th edition D&D personally. I find way more 4E DNA than I find 5e. It feels like this game has very little in common with 5e aside from commonly named Classes and uses a d20.

Mostly agreed. It's interesting to note that PF2 and D&D5 both have full-caster Bards and at-will cantrips. But this is coincidental; PF1 and D&D4 also had at-will cantrips, and PF2 made Bards full casters to give all four traditions a full caster class in the core rulebook. (I have no idea what D&D5's reasoning for making Bards full casters was. Bards were the only "Tier 3" core class in D&D3.5; they didn't need "fixing"!)

I'm seeing a lot of debate in the "Remaster dislikes" thread about interpretation of the changes/clarifications to wounded/dying, including whether there was some sort of unresolved internal argument at Paizo over how it should work. Some of this strikes me as wishful thinking from people who just don't like the Remastered wounded/dying rules, but further clarification probably can't hurt.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

except that one time our Fighter insisted dueling that samurai skeleton that turned out to be a level match for him while we watched.

Completely out of topic, but we also had this situation upon us like a year ago. Our Champion ended up in a forced duel with no possible back up against an undead evil champion of our level. We could only talk to her and give her advice from the outside, it was one of the weirdest encounters I've seen. With the champion reaction invalidated and the enemy champion having theirs it was a miracle that she ended up surviving that one.

I'm guessing the Champion was a Paladin of Iomedae? That "refuse a challenge from an equal" anathema is harsh.

I'm not a fan of settings with a straightforwardly knowable afterlife to begin with, frankly. But since D&D tradition demands it, Pharasma fills the role reasonably well.

Gorum is a bit more interesting than people give him credit for (specifically the "he might be a half-orc" angle). He's not especially "playable," though; he's one of several gods with anathema that can easily be interpreted in an unworkable way. The Remaster might be changing this.

Erastil makes sense as part of the setting, but he's even more "unplayable" than Gorum.

Calistria always struck me as too unpleasant for a CN god that allows CG followers.

Achaekek is probably my favorite of the evil gods. He fulfills a valuable role in the setting as the guy who gives Red Mantis Assassins their orders and stops people who find "clever" ways to become gods, but he also has a fair amount of characterization.

Silver2195 wrote:

I also expressed interest in joining via PM, but I’m not super familiar with this site’s PM system, so I’m not sure how noticeable that was.

Hey there! You actually caught me at work last night so while I *did* see and read your PM, I ended up pulled away before I could properly respond to it and then it had admittedly slipped my mind by the time I was able to sit back down at my computer again.

That said, while I appreciate your interest in the game, I'm afraid that this is a private game with players pulled from a pool of friends rather than one that's open to the public.

Fair enough!

Nalinivati also gives 9 spells.

I also expressed interest in joining via PM, but I’m not super familiar with this site’s PM system, so I’m not sure how noticeable that was.

I think I find myself liking the idea of the 4 traditions than how they've actually been implemented and while I don't think we should go back to specific class lists but I do think we need something better than just 4 lists.

Technically, we have five lists, thanks to the Elementalist archetype.

I think it would be interesting to see more classes with Elementalist-style bespoke spell lists. It should be possible to use the trait system to effectively do this without actually writing out long lists, as the Captivator archetype shows. (Technically, Captivator uses spell schools, but I assume the Remastered version with just say either "mental or illusion" or "emotion or illusion" instead of "enchantment or illusion.")

Of course you would have to give those classes other benefits to make up for their limited spell lists.

Silver2195 wrote:

OK, here's something I'm confused about. The wiki entry on the Eternal Emperor gives the impression that it was the dominant religion almost everywhere in Lung Wa, and that it was only after the fall of Lung Wa that people in the Successor States converted to the worship of deities. The Player's Guide for Season of Ghosts (set very soon after the fall of Lung Wa) gives the impression that the worship of various deities is perfectly mainstream. Was there a retcon here, or am I just misunderstanding something?

Edit: The Player's Guide even says, "One of Lung Wa’s chief concerns when they first expanded into Willowshore was to reduce the likelihood of an undead uprising. They solved it by building a cathedral to Pharasma."

I assume that the worship of deities has been a thing that was done in hiding. Bit like Desna worship in Nidal. And when the Lung Wa fell, it gave freedom for other deities to be worshipped.

But perhaps we get answers in Tian Xia world guide.

But again, Lung Wa itself built Willowshore’s cathedral of Pharasma.

OK, here's something I'm confused about. The wiki entry on the Eternal Emperor gives the impression that it was the dominant religion almost everywhere in Lung Wa, and that it was only after the fall of Lung Wa that people in the Successor States converted to the worship of deities. The Player's Guide for Season of Ghosts (set very soon after the fall of Lung Wa) gives the impression that the worship of various deities is perfectly mainstream. Was there a retcon here, or am I just misunderstanding something?

Edit: The Player's Guide even says, "One of Lung Wa’s chief concerns when they first expanded into Willowshore was to reduce the likelihood of an undead uprising. They solved it by building a cathedral to Pharasma."

Calliope5431 wrote:

Well, the fact that they don't actually exist in PF 1e for starters.

Hell's Vengeance is a canon line of APs and it has its final book start at 15th level. I could easily create said cheese Wizard play that module, and have a character that participated in a canon event using those rules. That would satisfy my conditions for that character existing in canon as I don't think a TTRPG should get to pick and choose between what happens at the table and what happens in lore. If we did that half of D&D's settings and thus Golarion which is built from the bones of D&D wouldn't exist.

This is silly. What happens at the table differs wildly by table.

Edit: Is there any tabletop RPG with a substantial number of adventures/splatbooks that actually fulfills your standards of lore consistency?

Interchangeable for Int and Cha based casters isn’t the same as interchangeable for Wis based casters, though. The arcane list being so much longer than the other three doesn’t matter much for Cha based casters (who have a limited repertoire) or Int based casters (who have to add spells to the book/familiar individually), but it’s a big deal for Wis based casters, who know all common spells on their tradition’s list.

Edit: This was in response to Calliope.

3-Body Problem wrote:

The four traditions, especially with arcane schools being removed, are fundamentally incompatible with how magic used to work on Golarion. Any attempt to define them without there being some in universe reason for them having changed in the first place is doomed to failure because all the pieces that must fit to explain things cannot currently fit. I hope Paizo is willing to write the changes they've been forced to make into lore without destroying the already tenuous connection some classes have to their past versions.

I honestly do not see how this can be when the 4 traditions are a basic foundation of PF2.

I think 3-Body Problem means that they're incompatible with lore from some point in the PF1 era. Which they probably are, but so are a lot of things. Drow not actually existing contradicts multiple PF2 APs, but we can roll with it and pretend that all friendly drow were actually normal cavern elves and all unfriendly drow were actually serpentfolk. Contradictions with PF1 material are even easier to politely ignore.

I think an occult Druid/Cleric equivalent could work if they're very careful to keep actual class features to a minimum. It would also be potentially interesting as a concept, someone who has a mystical connection to mind-breaking things but has high enough Wis to stay sane. I'm not sure what the class name would be; Mystic is already used for a Starfinder class, and Pathfinder seems to try to avoid giving classes the kind of clunky compound-word names that 3.5 classes often had.

An arcane Druid/Cleric equivalent would probably be too flexible. I suppose you could use the trait system, or some gimmick like "only spells with a casting time of three actions of fewer," to give it access to a subset of the arcane list instead of the full list.

I also think that this thread: Explain Occult to me should be linked.

And I especially don't want to see this thread devolve into saying that each tradition has 'one true caster' class and all the other classes that cast from that tradition are 'cheaters' and are doing it wrong.

Wait, which is supposed to be the one true caster for occult? Are Bards the ones doing it right and Psychics the cheaters, or is it the other way around?

I see the magical traditions as focusing on two particular essences each, but not strictly limited to them. My impression is that casting spells that involve the "wrong" essence generally involves some sort of workaround, such a specific deity granting a spell that fits their nature for divine casters, or moving physical objects via the Ethereal Plane for occult casters. The arcane list is so long in part because Wizards are especially good at finding workarounds (although they still can't heal because they're not good enough at manipulating vital essence).

Cori Marie wrote:

Asmodeus is, specific portrayals of Asmodeus are stickier.

What's "specific?" Paizo has never, to my knowledge, portrayed Asmodeus as a colossal serpent (though they have done that with Geryon).

Asmodeus as the leader of a hyper-orderly Hell is a pretty different character from the serial killer from the Book of Tobit. Though I guess he is listed as one of the King-rank demons in the Lesser Key of Solomon.

OK, I'm submitting this Changeling Kineticist character: Abadia Summers

I'm interested in this. Thinking about a Gnome Rogue or a Human Changeling (Snow May) Kineticist.

The really interesting question is: would an occult equivalent of a Cleric or Druid (i.e., a Wis-based caster that automatically knows all common spells on its list) be overpowered? I think it would probably be fine as long as "extra" class features are kept to a minimum; the Bard is very powerful, but a lot of the power comes from composition spells like Inspire Courage rather than the occult list. An arcane Cleric or Druid counterpart would be more questionable.

Not that it really matters, since alignment is being removed with the Remaster anyway, but shouldn't a Redeemer be NG instead of N?

Re: Yagyū, isn't Jubei too young to have an adult son? The Player's Guide describes her as "a capable young adult."

OK, here's the second character: Kaya of Northridge

No "boon slots" spent yet (nagajis, katana, and wakizashi are all common in Willowshore), but she's likely to take the Ritualist Dedication in the future.

NPCs friendships/enmities weren't mentioned in this thread but were mentioned in the "discussion" thread. I assume she would get along well with Jubei, a fellow intellectual who shares her cultural/religious background, and that Elizeth would distrust her for some of her esoteric interests (particularly her knowledge of Necril).

I'm thinking about creating a second character too. Probably a Northridge Scholar Nagaji Fighter.

Antonio Jackson D'Angelo wrote:

Relying on squishy pets for benefits is concerning, particularly if there is a spell slot tax just to keep them alive.

Phase Familiar is a focus spell, not a slot, and witches get it for free. Witch familiars also revive at your next daily preparation. If you can get enemies to waste actions and MAP to murder your resurrecting pet instead of your non-resurrecting witch or allies, that may be a win for your group. The only downside is you lose the ability to refocus, and obviously the familiar abilities themselves, until the next morning. How much that matters will depend on the time pressure you're under. (This also assumes nothing else changes about refocusing or reviving. It may very well.)

There's also a lot of familiar abilities which can keep them alive. One simple option is flight, which doubles as a useful scouting power. Rage of the Elements added a bunch of new defensive options, too.

The witch is going to be in an interesting spot that kind of out-wizards the wizard without time pressure. Like a wizard they need to manually add spells to their preparation options. But they also have familiar abilities which can be swapped daily. And depending on your GM's rulings familiars make excellent scouting tools.

It is potentially a bit weird in flavor terms to be sacrificing your familiar frequently, even if it revives the next day. It can potentially make sense for certain character concepts (Homura making Kyubey suffer is funny), but if the familiar and the Witch are actually supposed to be friends it's kind of awkward.

OK, here's my Leshy Kineticist: Enoki

I'm flexible about the heirloom; I'm willing to change it to whichever one isn't taken.

I have read and acknowledge the "Horror and Consent" and "About Your Family" sections.

I'm leaning towards a Leshy Kineticist (specializing in Wood). For background, maybe Close Ties (with Mountain Summit Grass) or Outskirt Dweller.

I'm a bit unclear on mechanical aspects of some of these backgrounds, though. Close Ties grants the Specialty Crafting feat but not the Crafting skill, which is a bit odd. I assume it just does nothing unless and until I take the Crafting skill?

I'm interested. I'm thinking about playing a Druid or Kineticist.

Back to the NPC Index, there are three books in that line so far and each contains 110 statblocks for class-based NPCs between levels 1 to 20.

Warriors (Barbarian, Fighter, Champion, Ranger)
Spellcasters (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard)
Specialists (Alchemist, Bard, Monk, Rogue)

They look very interesting. Now I'm curious if there's any plan to make equivalents for the non-CRB classes, and if so, what the books would be called.

Some PFS scenarios have wave encounters that only allow for 10 minutes before the next wave arrives.

Choosing what you do with these 10 minutes is a real decision.

I think there are some situations like that in some Adventure Paths, too.

I would love to see a class that works like a wizard but with Divine Spells, like learning them in a Ritual book and being unfettered from a god.

Isn't this just a Fervor Witch?

It's a bit strange that the Jann, unlike the Wish ritual, doesn't have the Rare trait.

Reading the Wanderer's Wish discussion really got under my skin. Like, are you guys actually playing with people who would seriously do that? I'd much rather sit at a table where everyone can trust one another not to nuke the campaign for the sake of munchkinnery, and honestly resent how paranoia against said munchkinnery has been baked into so much of PF2's design. It's demoralizing to see that the one time they don't drown a gameplay feature in caveats, people on this forum are already zeroing in on the abuse potential.

This is why we can't have nice things.

The issue isn't even really players abusing it so much as what the potential to abuse it like that implies about the setting. I guess the "growth and exploration" language is the best explanation here, or even "the loopholes here are artifacts of the rules, and it works differently in-universe - maybe wishes have to be granted freely."

QuidEst wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Let's step back a little here.

Wish, even Jann's Wish, isn't going to be able to grant deification. It's mortal magic, it's simply not powerful enough.

Granting apotheosis is explicitly something Wish can do; it's one of the examples.

Where is that stated?

When I look in the bestiary under Janni I see this:

Quote:

Genie nobles with titles unique to their kind (as detailed in each sidebar) rule genie society. Genie nobles are generally at least 5 levels higher than a typical example of their kind. In addition to the increased statistics afforded by their higher levels, genie nobles gain additional spells. But the most wondrous (and notorious) of a genie noble’s powers is their ability to grant wishes. Any genie noble (save for jann, who lack this power) can grant a mortal or undead creature up to three wishes within a year’s time. Many unscrupulous creatures compel genie nobles to serve them, tricking them or entrapping them with magic. However, once a genie noble grants a third wish to a single creature, they are freed from service to that creature forever.

When I look at Wish I see this:

Quote:

You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.

Duplicate any spell from the arcane list of 9th level or lower to which you have access.
Duplicate any spell from another spell list of 7th level or lower. It must be common or you must have access.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
Reverse certain effects that refer to the wish spell.
The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect.

Maybe there's another description that I'm not seeing because I'm using AoN and it's not laid out/referenced the same way but I don't see that call out.

And even if it is called out, honestly I would consider it to be "f#+@ing stupid"...

We're talking about the preview document, not the current rules.

You cannot be a killer robot from the future with a gatling plasma cannon for an arm.

You pretty much can be, actually.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3104

I also prefer the idea of themed casters to generalist ones, but many of your proposals seem more like PF3 things than Remaster things.

Having said that, I think the PF2 framework has room for more classes with more specifically themed supernatural powers (even if they aren't "casters" in the normal D&D sense), like the Kineticist. The obvious one would be a Shifter class. You could also have a "Warper" class that manipulates space, maybe a "Gray Necromancer" class that manipulates positive and negative energy, and maybe something like a Captivator as a class instead of an archetype (the tricky thing would be making it not just a worse version of a Psychic or Bard).

I think tightly-themed casters were generally suboptimal even in 3.x; it's just that 3.x full casters were so overpowered that themed ones were still reasonable options. Note that the only "Tier 3" full caster classes were the Shugenja and Healer, the most clearly themed ones.