Steelbro300's page

Given my previous thoughts on this line seem to have panned out with regards to Dark Archive and Blood Lords AP, I'm gonna stick to my guns and keep hoping for a martial warfare themed book. Maybe they'll go all in and outright call it "The Art of War".

Could have warfare themed casting and spells as well, meaning some of these gishes could fit. A class archetype that allows casters to give up full casting for the Magus bounded style plus some ribbon abilities might satisfy a lot of these wishes personally.

Hasn't been mentioned for Secrets of Magic so I doubt it, we know most of the archetypes that'll show up. There might be some spells that help the fantasy, I remember I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned they know that the necromancer trope isn't really filled.

I'd be astounded if it doesn't show up in the Book of the Dead though.

James Jacobs mentioned on Paizo Live 4 (somewhere around 01:57: https://youtu.be/SzhvMkd36Mw?t=7000 ) that an Adventure next year will be a sequel to an AP and a sequel to "at least one other stand-alone adventure we've done". Any guesses what AP/Adventure pair might fit this?

I am running this module and added some of the encounters in troubles in Otari. This extra exp has allowed the party to level up slightly faster to to lvl 2 and they have not encountered Mr Beak yet.

On a side note I did create random encounters for lvls 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6, along with exp and variable loot.

While P2 does not lend itself to random encounters it does help with some RP as now if they camp within the ruins, things can come 'wandering in'. This messes up the exp gain a bit but its not a big deal.

I'd appreciate any tables you share! I'm interested in doing it this way as well, almost considering setting up a hex map with all the locations from TiO on there. But yeah, the denizens of the dungeons moving around is something I'm definitely interested.

Has anyone figured out or drawn up a timeline of events for the whole adventure? I was reading the backmatter and got a bit confused with Quara until I realized I'd skipped over Belcorra being a ghost when they talked. I know about the one in book 1, but that doesn't include the happenings on lower levels and stuff in town.

D'aw, silly foxtato. You didn't have to thank me publicly like this. Being friends with you is more than enough.

I want to thank you as well! That Hao Jin article explicitly speaking about an asexual experience really hit home. I started identifying as aroace in the beginning of 2020 after years of calling myself bi cause I never knew it was "an option", and seeing something in print - a legendary sorceress no less - was huge for me.

Most surreal of all was having aced the Paizo design test last fall.

Ha! Love that you snuck that in not but 50 words after coming out. Congratulations on your success and getting to know yourself better!

Xethik wrote:

Any more info on the Living Hair feats? What sort of bonuses do they grant to your hair? What are the level ranges?

These books all sound great, looking forward to seeing more.

4, 6, and 8.

(4) Skillful Tresses lets your hair perform various tasks like simple interact actions.

(6) Deadly Hair boosts the damage to D6 and gives it the Grapple trait.

(8) Hexed Locks gives your hair the reach trait and lets you deliver hexes through your hair. (Requires a successful hair Strike to deliver the hex)

I figured something like "Skillfull Tresses" would be coming eventually, seems like a copy of the Skillfull Tail feats from Ancestries/Heritages? I really wish the base Living Hair feat was like this instead of needing to sink two feats to get this, or even better, I would have loved if you could use your hair for more stuff, perhaps like pulling out potions and scrolls, almost using it like an extra hand. Think Entrapta from She-ra. Might just rule it that way in my games if anyone wants the ability.

1-10 Urban sandbox thieves guild.

Think kingmaker but the “wilderness” is a single city and each neighbourhood has it's own flavour, gangs and legal obstacles.

As much talking and skulduggery as combat. I’d really go ham on non-combat encounters that have repercussions for failure (one of those might be a potential combat). When making my own encounters I like to go by a guideline of: social, stealth or combat, each encounter can be solved by at least two of the three.

Multiple choice finale depending on player choices. Do you end up as ruthless crime lords or Robin Hood folk hero's?

Would be a huge fan of a sandbox thieves' guild adventure and 1-10 would definitely be the way to do it! Doubt they'd go as far as you're suggesting though, that wouldn't fit in their monthly scheme. More likely for a stand-alone book, and from a third party at that.

Recently had a strange encounter in which a succubus lied to the party, saying that she was a simple human researcher that had been held captive by the other monsters in the dungeon for her knowledge.

She crit succeeded her Deception check against the party, and so I told the players that she seemed absolutely sincere when they asked if she were lying.

Even so, the players were extremely skeptical because she was found tied up in an opulent chamber, whereas even the monster's apparent leaders slept on straw beds elsewhere in the dungeon. It just didn't add up. So, despite her lie that the monsters had attempted to bribe her initially with the gifts, the player characters kept asking over and over again who she really was even though--as far as their characters should have been concerned--that had already been established.

Bolding mine, to show the "clues and in game information" they were using to conclude that while the NPC didn't seem to be lying, something didn't add up.

Just because someone is a great liar and you can't catch them in the act, doesn't mean you trust them.

Ravingdork wrote:

What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?

This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:

She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.

Now [i]that's[/s] metagaming!

I kid, but if the players figure out your plan don't just change it so that they didn't figure it out. That's just like a TV show finding out their audience correctly theorized the ending and then changing it the next season just so that it's surprising.

At least, don't do it all the time. Being "right all along" is a great feeling to let them have. They're wrong so many times already, no need to force it so that they don't "win"

On the topic of Lie (and any other social skill check) against PCs, there is precedent in the rules with regards to the Diplomacy and Intimidation actions in the "Changing Attitudes" side-bar, and I do not see it as a stretch to also include Deception in the advice even though it's talking about the loose attitude mechanic. https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=7

"No one can ever change the attitude of a player character with these skills. You can roleplay interactions with player characters, and even use Diplomacy results if the player wants a mechanical sense of how convincing or charming a character is, but players make the ultimate decisions about how their characters respond."

So 'allowing' players to decide themselves whether their characters believe the lie or not is not just age old GM advice, but almost outright recommended by the book.

Almost without fail, rolling social checks against PCs will lead to a bad time at some point down the road. I agree that the Lie action is wrongly worded, it should not be "the target believes your lie" but "the target does not notice any signs of your deception" or something like that. In the opposite direction: "You don't see any tells, they seem to be truthful" should be the result of a successful deception check against you.

My 'issue' with Golarion (and most published settings) is that the lauded pros are in turn cons for me. It's all already written, so I don't get the fun of creating it myself and to top it all off I'd have to force myself to read lore (as opposed to stories, which I love). Players can explore it without you through wikis and such, and they can even surprise you... but I hate that. I should be the one they go to with questions about the campaign so we can discuss and build together. You can play any story in Golarion because it has everything... but I don't want half those things in my game, so that does nothing but hinder me!

I'm gonna be running an AP for the first time soon, to see if I'm right about my feelings. Though I'm already planning a bunch of changes because if I didn't do that I wouldn't feel like I was playing the game, so is it even gonna be a fair test? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's about control, ownership, and fun, I suppose. We all get fun from different parts of the hobby.

Is there anyone talking about "truename"?

I didn't see much spoilers for this except that it's Rare and mostly a GM thing. It involves some way to research (probably the Research subsystem in the GMG) and benefits.

I'm betting something like "if you know the True Name of a creature, that creature doesn't benefit from the incapacitation trait for spells you cast that target it." Because it's perfect flavour-wise for what True Names usually do in fiction. It might not be the only thing though, as that would only benefit against higher level creatures.

Deleted an earlier post I made, but I’m curious if there’s a pattern in releases. Beast books seem one obvious type. Genre books like Guns and Gears seems like another. To me, that leaves “playstyle” as a good third. Stuff like Ultimate Magic/Secrets of Magic, Ultimate Campaign, and Ultimate Wilderness.

I know there’s not a lot of daylight between “genre” and “playstyle”, but that’s kind of what I’d seen them aiming for with their July releases. A book that can bend a campaign’s play into one direction or another, but could be used at almost every table, where the steampunk vibe of G&G cannot.

I'd be a big fan of this! I think you're talking about something like the Galaxy Exploration Manual which they just did? I'm a sucker for anything sandbox, and I'd definitely be in for some deep wilderness rules.

Following cause this is something I'm probably gonna go through soon as well!

My main fears with it is similar to yours. To make it good, it's probably going to involve a near equivalent amount of work to homebrewing, so why lose out on the ownership, familiarity and control that comes with homebrewing? I also feel like I'd get a tad perfectionist with it and spend even more time prepping, and that I'd get burnt out halfway through and then am unable to derail it without losing the point of running published adventures completely.

The themes of almost all the APs so far *have* been really tempting though!

I'm imagining another one of the themed rulebooks will be announced at this year's gencon for the next year, and I bet it will have classes again as I don't think they're gonna stop completely on putting those out yet! I got a lucky guess on calling Undead cause it's probably the most open theme for a bestiary, but for a rulebook, I totally expect to be surprised and be totally off base on my occult (which would fit blood magic) or martial warfare book guesses.

I think we can all safely guess that the AP after Frozen Flame will be a Nex/Geb one though! After that, an Arcadia or Tian Xia Lost Omens book would make sense to me considering where we're at right now, but it could also be tied to a rulebook like G&G is tied with Alkenstar.

Really hoping for some lich PC options, myself. I've always had a silly character duo idea rattling around of someone adventuring with their cantankerous lich grampa.

I said "I wonder if there is a ritual to become a lich in The Book of the Dead?" in the discord Q&A and Erik Mona did say "That would make a lot of sense to include!" So I think we can safely hope!

The Pathfinder Society Grand Lodge from Pathfinder Society Guide + Wynsal Starborn from Pathfinder Legends + the Agents of Edgewatch AP + the A of E Pawns + The Grand Bazaar (which is in Absalom) + all the NPCs in the GMG + NPC Battle Cards + all the ancestry and class options from the Advanced Players Guide, Secrets of Magic, Guns & Gears & Ancestry Guide + 440 pages of Absalom, City of Lost Omens = one HUGE urban campaign. Wow. Did I miss anything?

Dead God's Hand also ties in! Shove in a bunch of Kobolds from Little Trouble in Big Absalom too why not.

I wonder if it will have character options beyond ancestry/heritage stuff.

I am most excited about the monsters! A chonky book of just undead, when we already have the staples, I can't wait to see what they cook up!

Romão98 wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

Is it just me or is the cover new? I dig it.

Wow i just saw and I like it! Maybe this symbols represent the megical schools. I count just 7 instead of the regular 8 schools.

The would-be 8th one was probably omitted to make room for the "Second Edition" in the upper right corner pocket.

From the 7 I see, 2 I can confidently guessing is in which school. Upper left corner pocket is adjuration, and right side pocket is necromancy. The rest are a toss-up (I thought bottom left corner pocket was divination, but the eye in the top side pocket could also be it, too. Or maybe that one is enchantment. Who knows???).

I bet the hidden one is the illusion school.

I imagine these are the last hours where we can get our thoughts in before an announcement at PaizoCon (I imagine it'd be at the keynote, I believe that's how it was last year).

My biggest thoughts are on a Warfare themed book. A lot of people have wanted a Warlord class or something along those lines. It could fit various subsystems, weapons, archetypes and even spells. Though, Kingdom Building is something Kingmaker is handling, so I don't know what would happen between these two.

That said, I don't think that one would be early next year. I'm imagining an occult one first cause y'all coming from 1e seem to love that stuff! This would probably have one or two Occult classes merging ideas from all the ones from before, or splitting them into Archetypes. What I'm not sure of is what else would go in the book, though I'm sure there's a lot!

Hmm... Could be we get a merged themed Bestiary + player options book. First blind guess there would be Undead, but I'm not familiar enough with the bestiaries to see anything missing. A planar book would be perfect, but not this soon into the game I'd imagine, since they seem to be focusing heavily on Golarion.

I thought about this for a while before responding, the black door is an interesting example even though I brought it up, I think that ultimately it depends on whats intended to be on the other side. Most likely I would frame opening as something yields a new lead, separately from opening it-- so if the players encounter it and can't open it, later on they might receive a key, once they have the key they'd probably get a "Open the Black Door!! (Level 15)" lead.

So I guess in that context they'd just get the information, but also I'd smooth over the dissonance by trying to foreshadow whats on the other side, like maybe the key has a letter in the chest with it that talks about the hunt for a legendary treasure, and about a madman raving about a black door and a terrible curse that brings low anyone who isn't strong enough-- then the lead would functionally just be a meta-game clarification of what that means.

If the door can be opened via something within the dungeon, then I'd let them open it, and then as soon as its open I'd try and foreshadow whats ahead, or let them feel that there are dark and powerful things beyond, and then hand them the level 15 lead to "Explore Beyond the Black Door!". This would require any mission to get it open to be worthy of its own quest, which wouldn't be too hard, since dungeon restocking is a thing, and they still have to traverse the hexes to get back to the dungeon in the first place.

See, I think what it comes down to, is if opening the Black Door is primarily a challenge with a reward just sitting on the other side, or the start of whats functionally its own new exploration. If its the latter, we can wait until the door is open and then let that be its own lead, but if its the former, then it isn't necessarily higher level or anything.

This all makes sense to me! You're sort of taking a hint from MMOs, which West Marches kind of mimics, by giving them quests with tagged levels. I also agree about the difference between whether what's behind the door is a challenge or just treasure, as well as whether opening it is a question of finding a physical key or just solving a riddle. Foreshadowing and telegraphing is already key, it being the answer here as well fits very well. Thanks!

Instead, there are 'leads' which can really be anything-- a treasure map some of the players found in a prior adventure, something off the public rumor table, something someone noticed in an adventure and made public information (Like Robbins Black Door example), even a hook from a player's backstory. Really anything can be a lead, it doesn't even require a GM to pre-create it as one (although a GM has to be willing to run with it, at the end of the day.) But because we're formalizing it, it will gain a level somewhere along the way (either when its placed on the public table, or when a player approaches a GM about making it one, before assembling a group.) That level corresponds to what Ben Robbins referred to in his 3e West Marches about things getting higher level as you radiate outwards from town, and telegraphing pockets of higher level danger so players don't just stumble into something out of their league.

When the GM is prepping the content of the lead, that level is the level used for the encounter guidelines, and all content and treasure (loosely, our treasure is going to look very different from the standard, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) is designed as if for a party of four PCs of that level. The level of the lead doesn't depend on the PCs, and PCs are welcome to freely choose to pursue leads (read: enter adventuring spaces) completely independently of their level at their own risk.

Hm. I suppose we would already be setting danger levels to regions, dungeons, treasure rooms and the likes, so being open about them is much the same as being open about the level of the creatures they encounter. It makes sense, but I admit it feels wrong for some reason and I don't have the words to describe it, but that might just be because it's a new thought. Would you do this even for that Black Door you mentioned, where they have absolutely no idea what's behind it? I understand and agree that informed decision making is king, but if they have no method of determining what's behind the door it feels wrong to give out that information. Does the level of the player asking to follow up on the lead have any bearing on what you end up setting it at?

Seems to me that getting in over your head is a big part of the sandbox, with combat as war being meant to mitigate that. Giving the players this information so far ahead of time seems to play against that.

Do keep us updated about this campaign! I'm really interested in how it turns out, good luck with it, already sounds like it's gonna go great.

Hmm, what's interesting about that is that some people would say the exact opposite-- that scaling (or a lack of vertical progression at all) is essential to sandbox play.

Really? I've only seen people say that this is the biggest problem with PF2e for a true sandbox, and that they think Proficiency Without Level is necessary for it.

Personally, out of the abstract, when I run this dungeon it'll probably be in the context of a West Marches Hex Crawl, the DCs will likely be set not to the party's level, but to the level of the lead itself (the players will form a party and decide to go on the voyage knowing the designated level of the lead so they can make an informed decision) and the other obstacles in the adventure. The reason this works in my eyes, is because what's there IS there, but the statblock of the creature itself doesn't tell the whole story-- its 'perception' probably isn't what's meant to be used while its lying on its treasure hoard in a deep slumber, until it wakes up, the infiltration mechanics I designed around it to emulate its sleeping state, and the idea of lower level creatures sneaking around its dungeon, is "what's there."

I'm aware, I've seen you mention this upcoming campaign. :D It's a style I'm interested in running in the future too, but I've not decided on a system yet, which is why this interests me. Another poster, kenada had been running one of their own , but moved onto OSE for a multitude of reasons (I asked them in the reddit post), though they still believed PF2e can work for this style. They mentioned this problem with DCs as well. I just looked into it again and they seem to be using Worlds Without Number now, which I think is the main contender for me should I go ahead with running a West Marches game myself.

Moving on, what do you mean "level of the lead"? Will you not be following Ben Robbins's method of leaving it up to the players, or will you let them decide "let's go to that tower we saw two weeks ago on the lonely hill" and outright tell them the level it's meant for? I don't see that as very "Combat as War", as I see that it should include them taking on challenges they have no hope of defeating but managing with clever play. An example could be Gandalf and the Balrog, where the party broke the bridge to get rid of the monster. Though I suppose that example works in PF2e anyway... Much to think about.

The perspective shift isn't about scaling the challenges to the PCs, its about using mechanics appropriate to the role the creature plays relative to the PCs. The Dragon is not something they can take in a fight, period, so the mechanics it uses aren't about fighting-- there's an infiltration mechanic about not waking it up, and when it does wake up, a chase mechanic that uses DCs based on the obstacles PCs encounter while fleeing. That seems like sleight of hand, but its just a different way of thinking about interactions built into the game, especially the GMG subsystems. This way, whatever the designated danger level of the Dungeon, I can include things outside of that while allowing them to play a different role beyond 'arbitrarily killer fight you can't run away from because the mechanics don't support it.' Waking up the dragon is a failure state, and then they need to reach another failure state (failing the chase) for it to kill them.

Its a somewhat 'gamist' conceit, but its one I'm comfortable with. It'll also make it very satisfying when the PCs come back at a higher level after exploring the majority of the dungeon walking on eggshells, and can actually slay the dragon and claim the bulk of the hoard.

I've reached the same conclusion about it being a question of framing, perspective, and multiple fail-states. Still seems to me to be "sleight of hand", if you scale to the party level whenever they show up. I'll wait for what you mean by "level of the lead" though.

Steelbro300 wrote:

I agree that it's possible to play this way, but what's your solution to the high scaling in DCs? You mention a sleeping dragon. If it's sufficiently high level that they don't want to fight it, it probably has quite the high Perception modifier? Similarly with Recall Knowledge, the players can't make smart decisions if they don't know what they're up against, and the book saying the RK DC should be level-based makes it very likely they fail or critically fail the checks.

I think I'd personally try to figure out a better way for RK DCs. Especially for creatures such as Dragons which have lower level versions with lower level RK DCs. I'd say the DC should remain an easy one for the creature's lowest level version, except maybe for the unique features that only show up at the higher levels. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Oh sorry, thats what i get for referring to ideas without explaining them, its meant to be a dungeonwide mechanic using the victory point mechanic and some of the infiltration rules (like awareness points)

They set the DCs around the level of the party, generally i base things like this around the idea that a creature that is a tough combat challenge, isn't as tough a challenge in all areas.

That dungeon is based off the lonely mountain, as depicted in the Hobbit movies, in the center of the dungeon there's a treasure room where the dragon sleeps on his hoard, this room also interconnects with the many areas of the dungeon. PCs can circumvent the treasure room by dungeon passageways that interconnect the whole dungeon less directly.

These passages and rooms are home to other denizens who pay the dragon tribute to have permission to live there, the dragpn doesnt super care about them but his reputation is a form of protection all its own and their tribute adds to his treasure-- players will interact, fight with, etc these denizens as they explore the dungeon.

Meanwhile the GM will track the dragon's level of wakefulness using victory...

Sure, but this reaches a similar problem. If you're using DCs based on the party level, then I think you miss the point of the sandbox being "what's there is there", i.e. independent of the players. I feel like setting any DCs to "party-level" is the antithesis of this style of play, and yet at the same time is key to PF2e.

I agree that it's possible to play this way, but what's your solution to the high scaling in DCs? You mention a sleeping dragon. If it's sufficiently high level that they don't want to fight it, it probably has quite the high Perception modifier? Similarly with Recall Knowledge, the players can't make smart decisions if they don't know what they're up against, and the book saying the RK DC should be level-based makes it very likely they fail or critically fail the checks.

I think I'd personally try to figure out a better way for RK DCs. Especially for creatures such as Dragons which have lower level versions with lower level RK DCs. I'd say the DC should remain an easy one for the creature's lowest level version, except maybe for the unique features that only show up at the higher levels. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Steelbro300 wrote:

Answering rules questions on Twitter should not be the default at all. I mean, look at his Shield Master rulings. Anyway, much better to not answer directly and go through official channels like errata if necessary.

What shield master rulings? I totally agree that's a poor format for answering rules questions. A great many people don't really bother with the hot garbage dumpster fire that is Twitter.

Basically, he changed his ruling about whether you could do the Shield bash before you Attack. My point was that answering rules questions and treating them official on Twitter (or a forum) is not a good idea. I'd be fine with changes to rules, but put them into official errata!

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

snip...

I'm going to probably write a guide on how to perform this kind of game content in the system.

I'd be happy to read that when you are done.

Sign me up as well. :D

I also agree about the encounter signposting, which should really be done a lot more often! Snares being one example, Prepared spellcasters another.

Answering rules questions on Twitter should not be the default at all. I mean, look at his Shield Master rulings. Anyway, much better to not answer directly and go through official channels like errata if necessary.

To add my anecdote to the list. I also used to write narrative backstories, but have stopped. My character documents are now just a couple pages of bullet points and pictures. I keep the concept short at the top, then list the appearance and visible objects, short and long term goals, fears and flaws, and then flavour stuff that I want to integrate into the character like favourite foods and maybe a morning ritual the other party members would notice.

I usually follow this list: https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/4y9zit/how_do_i_develop_persona l_plotlines_for_my/d6mej6u/

What I like most from that is to write at least three NPCs, related by blood, love, and honour, one of whom is a rival or has an antagonistic relationship with the character.

Then if the GM wants to, we can collaborate on things they want to incorporate. Like perhaps the character's home town, or the organization they're a part of. In my homebrew games, I often ask my players to help write stuff like this.

And these two quotes are great for those looking for expanded options:

"Change how you cast spells entirely, with options like channeling powerful emotions as a source of magic, casting exclusively elemental spells, tying your gear directly to your soul, harnessing the magical potential of true names, and more."

"Ley lines make certain locations more magical, and pervasive magic can put magical power into every creature and place in your game world if the normal amount of magic isn’t enough!"

Yooo I wonder if "tying your gear directly to your soul" means getting scaling DCs on items as you level.

Very excited for the "ley-lines". Well, very excited in general.

One is that maybe people have a complexity cap. If they spend their creativity creating an interesting backstory, there isn't much left for piecing together interesting stuff for the character mechanics itself. Alternatively, if the person spends their time and energy on the mechanics and story of the current and future character, they might not have much left for backstory.

I do think it's something along these lines. Rather than a complexity cap, I'd call it being enough stuff to seem "sufficiently interesting". Unique ancestries and combinations come pre-packaged with stuff that stands out, and also with a lot more specificity by nature of being more niche.

Meanwhile, people who play humans or other common ancestries, are 'forced' to come up with the interesting part themselves, to reach the same level of sufficient uniqueness. I do think that people that tend to play these kinds of characters just prefer that sort of control over what makes the character tick, a complete blank slate, rather than having to conform to the image evoked by the stranger ancestries. Could be a confirmation bias though, since I am firmly in this group.

Basically, as AnimatedPaper mentioned the "10 things" method. Most of those 10 things are taken up by "I'm a fleshwarp" and the addons to that. While for a human character, you have more space that you can/have to fill.

I'm curious about what spellhearts actually do. Like a fire spellheart gives a fire spell, adds one dice of damage to fire spells, and gives 5 fire resist? Idk I'm spitballing here. Really interested to see what the heck they are

This is what I'm expecting. Not outright +1 item bonuses to spells, but something that improves a small subset that you want to focus on. Sort of like property runes maybe, but for your magic.

If the players skip encounters and get no loot, then they have deal with those consequences by not being equipped to fight harder challenges.

Moving the loot means that their choice to avoid fighting was meaningless because they got the levels and free loot for doing essentially nothing--especially since you categorized their skipping of encounters as lucky.

If the game didn't have mandatory math items, I would agree with you. But under this paradigm, this would be punishing them for being lucky/smart. Math items aren't a reward, they're a required part of character progression.

If say, you were using ABP, then yeah! There would be pros and cons for avoiding encounters, but even then, not all treasure is picked off of dead bodies, so they'd have other ways to get rewards too.

411 posts later...

I do miss the darkness of the early days of Paizo, which were kind of a lawless time. I personally just really like dark content. That isn't some criticism of people who don't - to each their own.

But I'm also glad that Paizo has moved on. They're including more folks at the table, and that's a fantastic thing. I wouldn't say that there's nothing "dark" or "edgy" being published by Paizo these days - far from it - but it's being done with more consideration of a broader audience.

Running RotRL for kids would require heavy editing, whereas Age of Ashes would require less (but still some depending on the age).

Do I think that the quality of Paizo's writing is suffered? Not at all, just because something appeals less to me doesn't make it bad. Though the last couple of AP's haven't been particularly exciting to me personally, I am very excited about Strength of Thousands.

Even as an eternal pessimist, this really is the best of both worlds. Because smaller publishers can take up the mantle of "edgier" publications while Paizo reaches a broader audience. And if it's not your cup of tea, you're not saddled with trying to play around it.

I haven't read it fully, but from what I hear Agents of Edgewatch has plenty of dark/edgy parts. Like the titular Dreaming Palace in the first book.

Gortle wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

One thing you straight-up cannot build in PF2? A magic-primary character who isn't defined by daily powers.

Focus spells are about the best you are going to get here. I now they aren't perfect. But say a Storm Druid with Primal Focus level 12 - so he gets 2 focus points back per ten minute break. Its not ideal but it a couple of good repeatable blasts almost every encounter. Other classes with a decent attack spell as a focus option can do the same.

Oh, sure, you have focus powers, and you have cantrips, and it's better than the 3.x wizard who was strongly encouraged to go get himself a crossbow, but...

Basically, I hate juggling daily powers. Juggling a bunch of different levels of daily powers, where every meaningful thing you do reduces your options for the rest of the day is *even worse*. If I want to play a caster, then I *must* engage with the spell slots system, and do so deeply, or I am crippling myself. If I want to play a viable caster, and have them *not* be someone who has dramatically more power and more options available at the beginning of the adventuring day than at the end, I *cannot do that thing*. "Spellcaster who does not somehow carry a significant pool of power that refreshes daily" is a character concept that PF2 simply does not (currently) support.

I didn't play PF1e, but it sounds like this might be what Kineticist ends up being? I can imagine a caster class that doesn't use spell slots, but has 'martial-like' feats producing magical effects instead of feats of strength.

Fingers crossed for more Arcane specific spells in SoM! Though, there's a lot I want to see in that book and I'm starting to wonder how much of it can even fit...

I'd really like a Warlord or maybe Commander, but I love Herald as a name even more! It being a CHA martial would be great, since we already have Investigator (and now Inventor) as INT martials. I could imagine class paths for each of the Charisma skills, and was actually hypothesising a class whose shtick was using their actions to "Order" their allies around. Either by letting them use a reaction immediately or maybe as a status bonus to that action on their next turn. I think the Warrior muse bard does this a bit. Could also be "marshal, the class", with auras and stances.

Shaman being a spirit-speaker also really intrigues me. I wonder how it would work though.

I'd also be really excited for anything rune based, I'd forgotten we're getting that in SoM so now I can't wait even more.

Ooh this reminded me of the RWBY episode with the Apathy, and translating that into an adventure and monster could definitely work...

Also on closer look Stheno DOES have occupational name: It says Stheno Harpist

Yeah I was about to say this. The Adlet, however, does not, which struck me as odd. I thought maybe they'd be similarly evil as the Serpentfolk but I think even those got occupational names. And this entry says they aren't that sort of evil. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, don't discount the fact that your GM might just only be putting Severe encounters against you (or is running an early adventure path).

Severe encounters should only be for bosses. Low and Moderates should be the average encounter. And less single enemy fights, cause those are usually less fun.

I'll admit something too, that sounds like a hell of a lot of work for something that should be pre-made, damn.

The idea of wizards approaching magic with a scientific progress mindset only works in game if every wizard is very self serving and not interested in raising a general understanding of magic and its applications forward.

What? Why do you say so? Scientific progress is *predicated* on being "interested in raising a general understanding of" the world. Research is incremental on that which came before. That's the very opposite of self serving.

"I figured this out on my own," is a good way to put it, I think!

Personally, the wizard has always been the most compelling for me *because* it is not beholden to a higher power, or the natural world, or connected to powers they do not understand. The arcanist learns their abilities through hard work and study. I've always liked maths, and the imagery of applying pure mathematics to the world and obtaining magic, is very satisfying for me. This is in general though, not specifically for PF2e. I like how the Magicians by Lev Grossman makes it a PhD level course, for example.

It probably stems from the same spot that makes me drawn to almost always play humans. Wizards (and most martials) are the normal folk who worked for their abilities.

I agree with WWHsmackdown in that the Sorcerer in PF2e kinda steps on those toes for me, getting access to the same spell list and a spellbook as well.

I want more archetypes that are specifically for casters! Maybe themed to the schools of magic, so that specialists wizards can specialise further, but keeping the option open for other classes too. I'm thinking Evoker, giving stuff like metamagic to shape the AoEs and your Evocation spells, a Conjurer to boost summoning, etc.

Rules are not clear about the Corgi/Witch familiar (as you cannot have two familiars), so you'd have to ask your GM if you do the sprite thing. In my case, just going to treat the Corgi as my witch familiar (and spellbook!) and give it enhanced familiar (similar to how the Familiar Master archetype handles the matter).

You could also just take a different Ancestry feat and flavour the Witch familiar as a Corgi.

I'm astonished that these conflicts exist in a system that's so stripped down compared to its previous edition, especially so early in this editions life with so little released as of yet.

If it is the case that you simply don't get any benefit from the rogue racket because of your preference of ancestry, that's poor design and just feels bad! Looks like I may have to rely on my GM ignoring the RAW again for this one (assuming the RAw is that you do gain no benefit from the racket's dedication feat).

All the Ancient Elf does is give you a dedication. Your "preference of ancestry" is wanting to start with two multiclass dedications, which is clearly stronger, and almost certainly not intended. Just choose another heritage and say you're old.

Would you feel the same if Ancient Elf said this:

"Gain a multiclass dedication. If you can't for any reason, you gain the benefits of any other Elf heritage."

Heh. In English, the form -mancy refers to divination. So "geomancy" is a form of divination (and so is necromancy). In Pathfinder, not so much.

"Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

To be fair, I don't think any fantasy fan would think of "fire divination" when they see pyromancy, same with necromancy. These words just mean different things in the fantasy genre.

Highly doubt that yeah. The way I interpreted was something along the lines of the subsystems in the GMG... They said the environment affects your casting, so maybe lightning spells leaves water charged, fire spells will leave burning areas, etc. Or if there's a storm brewing then your air spells are more powerful.

Basically, no clue!