I know this will sound like an awfully specific niche request, but I‘ll say it anyway:
Planet Earth World Guide.
Based on what has been established in Rasputin Must Die (2013 publishing date = 1918 on Pathfinder universe Earth), now would be the perfect window of opportunity to publish Pathfinder material set in the golden 20s, before Pathfinder universe Earth will enter WW2.
I would love to have a book containing locations, creatures, and plot hooks based on real-world mythology (and based on 1E-Bestiaries I know that Paizo has an interest in these too) and also modern weapons and equipment rules for 2E.
Plus a matching Pawn set, containing 1920s era humans and mythological creatures.
From a commercial point of view you are probably right.
Personally, I would still prefer explicitly themed bestiaries (similar to the „... revisited“ series) to the subtly themed bestiaries of today, because I feel it would reduce the number of books I have to carry for a given adventure.
Would it be possible to give each bestiary an explicit theme, after the first one?
To that end, I would be happy to have a bigger core bestiary and much thinner thematic bestiaries. I also wouldn’t mind if some monsters were reprinted across different thematic bestiaries.
Let‘s talk about stat blocks and character sheets.
Here is my personal wish list for PF 2E:
I hope that PF 2E stat blocks will follow the same basic layout as PF 2E character sheets. This would make it much easier for novice players to figure out what is where when they are handed a stat block for the first time (e.g. a summoned creature).
I want to see at first glance which feats on a stat block provide an active ability (e.g. a special kind of attack that is not repeated anywhere else on the stat block) rather than just a passive bonus to something (which is already factored in in other parts of the stat block). Something to help novice (or lazy) game masters to prepare encounters, and make sure they are aware of all the special capabilities that a creature has.
Related to the above, I would like both character sheets and stat blocks to show both the innate statistics (based on class, levels, feats, etc) and the current statistics (including temporary effects from gear, spells, raging, etc.). Today, Paizo tends to give some plain text notes as part of the stat block (something like „the statistics above assume such and such spell has been cast. If not use the alternative statistics below...“). This is already very helpful to figure out if an effect has already been incorporated, but I am hoping for a more elegant and less verbose solution. Also I noticed at my own games that players often forget where a certain bonus came from and whether it is still active or not.
Oh, yes you are right. Missed that at first glance. But still, technically that only prevents you from taking more Paladin levels after becoming a LN/LG vigilante. It doesn't prevent you from becoming such a vigilante when you already have those Paladin levels - and it doesn't spell out whether you become an Ex-Paladin in one or both of your identities.
Think of a Vigilante 1, Something-else 19 versus a 20th level character.
The way it is now, you essentially get the full effect of this ability with a 1 level dip.
Yes, this needs to be defined by the rules.
My favorite interpretation would be: since it can fool divination magic, it can also fool the gods. So you can be a fallen paladin / ex-cleric by day, and a paladin/cleric by night (or vice versa).
The vigilante can start each day in either of his identities, referred to simply as social or vigilante.
This causes a bit of ambiguity to me, where I'm not quite sure what the word vigilante means as a rules term (similar to how the word "level" might mean class level, character level, or spell level, depending on context).
It seems that the word "vigilante" alone usually means "vigilante class", whereas the other thing is referred to as "when he is in his vigilante identity". But I'm not quite sure, especially since the quote above seems to contradict that ("referred to simply as ... vigilante").
In general I would prefer two different words used for the class and the identity, to clear up any chance for ambiguity.
Poor insane fool indeed. It is settled, then. I'll start fleshing out the details.
@The Friendly Lich- Golarion, for simplicity sake
Sorry, what I meant was: where in Golarion are we? (Cheliax? Thuvia? Galt? etc.)
I'm a bit confused by this. Firstly, how do I roll the dice then? [ooc]1d20 doesn't give me any dice result.
Secondly, if we are to put dice rolls in spoilers, breaking the formatting wouldn't matter anyway, because a spoiler that is quoted is turned into "** spoiler omitted **... " anyway.
A few questions though:
Are human ethnicities and languages illegal in core?
Can I apply boons originally earned with a non-core character to a core character?
Can I include a copy of a non-core chronicle from one character to the records of a core character? I'm talking about ...
... the "New Recruits" thing from The Paths We Choose - can a core character be the apprentice of a non-core-character?
Not yet. But I might as well make one up right now:
Along with some other stuff:
Titles: The Dreamer, Erratic Lord
Definitely interested! Here is my application:
Chaotic neutral god of art, beauty, night, sleep, dreams (including nightmares), amnesia, randomness, strangeness and misunderstandings. He is the patron of mortals' sleep. He gives them dreams, but he also the one who makes them forget about them when they wake up. He seeks to make the world a weirder place, because for him beauty emerges from randomness.
Domains: Chaos, Charm, Darkness, Madness, Trickery
How are you planning to handle the map-drawing aspect of the game?
I'm very eager to have one of my characters change from Grand Lodge to the Scarab Sages. Especially now that it is official that the faction will be led by my favorite dragon jewel sage. At what point in time will I be able to take my free faction change?
Can I do it right away?
Or do I have to wait till season 6 officially starts?
Or do I have to do it just before I play my first season 6 scenario?
On June 15th I asked you to cancel my campaign setting subscription, before the map folio.
Despite that, today I received an order confirmation for that subscription.
Please cancel that order immediately!
Two additional interesting facts I stumbled upon during my research:
1. While there is indeed no rule that prohibits dead characters from taking actions, there is a rule that prohibits the players of dead characters to do so:
This isn't in the PRD, but if you have the actual CRB, it says this:
CRB, Gamemastering, Handling PC Death wrote:
When a PC dies, his player no longer has any input into the game [...]. That player has to sit at the table quietly, watching and waiting while everyone else continues to have fun with the game.
So, by RAW, players must sit still and are not even allowed to have fun while their charecters are dead (I need to start enforcing that rule at my table). Note that this doesn't apply to NPCs (so the GM could still make them act normally after they died) and that it isn't tied to the dead condition, but to the act of dying (so a player whose character gaining the dead condition via that family domain ability instead of by dying is still allowed to act and have fun - while the other player whose character doesn't have the dead condition anymore still hast to sit quietly without having fun. At least thats how I would rule it).
2. The Additional Rules chapter lists a few more "conditions":
"Hold portal" and "Arcane lock" are conditions that can be applied to objects (Just like with "broken", I assume objects unfortunately don't count as allies for the purpose that family domain ability)
"Favorable conditions" can double the weight one can push or drag (no examples given - by RAW I would have to assume that "favorable conditions" means invisible or incorporeal - and maybe prone while people are shooting at you).
Difficult terrain, obstacles, poor visibility, and impassable are conditions that hamper movement (probably conditions of the terrain, not of the character).
Thanks for the replies so far! There definitely are recurring characteristics among conditions, but there doesn't seem to be one simple definition that covers all of them:
Most conditions are penalties, but there are exceptions (e.g. incorporeal and invisible).
Most conditions are continous, but there are exceptions (e.g. prone - which should be the same type of thing as kneeling, sitting, or squeezing).
Many non-conditions are relative (e.g. flanking and higher ground), but there are exceptions (e.g. kneeling, sitting, or squeezing).
Conditions are standardized effects that can come from different sources, but so are some non-conditions (e.g. concealment).
For example: "grappled" and "pinned" (from the grapple rules) are conditions (listed in the appendix under conditions), but "tied up" (also mentioned in the grapple rules) isn't a condition in itself - it merely "works like a pin effect".
Also, the tables for attack roll modifiers and damage roll modifiers list liberally mixes conditions (dazzled, entangled, ivisible, ...) and non-conditions (behind cover, concealed, squeezing).
Are there any mechanical effects that distinguish between conditions and non-conditions? (e.g. anything that can affect conditions but can't affect non-conditions)
Are "non-conditions" even a thing? Or would it be okay by RAW to call e.g. "squeezing" a condition, even though it isn't listed in the appendix?
David Neilson wrote:
Yeah, the name of this thing being the "Sky Key" is interesting. It raises the question of what unlocks. Maybe the Elves are not the only race with a bunch of magical teleportation devices around.
An interesting name indeed. Especially when you consider this:
traditionally that convention debuts the thrilling conclusion of one season of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and lays the groundwork for the exciting story arc that begins a month later at Gen Con . The Pathfinder Society is poised to march to Jormurdun, a lost dwarven Sky Citadel
Perhaps dwarves and their quest for the sky, sky citadels, sky keys, and numerian spaceships are all related somehow.
Is there any evidence that magic on pulp earth was stronger in the past than it is in the present time of 1919?
I always assumed it was not so much a matter of magic disappearing from earth over time, but a matter of fictional earth having more magic than real earth. Just like the fact that Cthulhu and Santa Clause don't really live on the earth today doesn't mean global warming made them disappear during the 20th or 21st century.
Well, we know humans on Earth come from West Africa. So, it's possible that, at some point, Leng had a connection to a physical location in that area and that Leng slavers originally dumped humans there. So, it's entirely possible that humans are native to an entirely different planet than Golarion or Earth, and equally possible the Numerian ship was built by humans from that world.
If that theory is true, then the Golarion equivalent to West Africa (as the origin of humans on that planet) should be Varisia.
James Jacobs wrote:
Hah, I knew it! So when are you going to announce the Disney deal officially?
Dave Justus wrote:
Problem is, the same ways we know that are the ways we know humans evolved here on earth and are genetically related to the rest of the life on earth.
For this reason, my pet theory is that humans (along with dogs, pigs, horses, and cats) originally evolved on earth.
Orcs and Dwarves on the other hand are native to Golarion. Fun fact: orcs and dwarves as we know them today are a pretty recent innovation here on earth. Probably Tolkien based his middle earth mythology at least partly on eye-witness reports from people who had seen Imrijka when she visited earth in 1918.
On Golarion people wouldn't care so much about a common ancestor for all life on the planet. Why would they, in a world where outsiders and magical beasts exist?
Still strange that human-orc hybrids are possible. But then again, so are human-elf hybrids (elves are from a planet without native humans), human-outsider hybrids, human-dragon hybrids, and so on.
Yeah, I think the culture that built the spaceship were completely unaware of the existence of magic (or at least was incapable of utilizing it).
Hmm, in that case there really could be a correlation between magic and technical evolution:
The Numerian-spaceship-civilization had the most impressive technological evolution - in an environment devoid of magic.
Earth has shown a slow but steady technological evolution - in a world with some magic (There is some magic on Golarionverse pulp earth, e.g. Baba Yaga and everything from Rasputin must die)
Golarion has a very high level of magic, and human technology there has been stagnant, despite the jump start it was given by the aboleth.
Insofar, I actually revise my opinion and agree with MagusJanus' original assumption now: magic does seem to hinder human technological advancement!
The denizens of Leng enslaved a group of primordial humans who migrated from prehistoric earth to the dreamlands - then sold them to the aboleth of Golarion, who used them as a plaything for their cultural experiment.
I like that idea!
Some more theories on what could have caused the spread of humans:
Desna - she is a weird bug alien from space, but she also is good aligned and takes an interest in mortal life. Plus, one of her domains is travel. What if she systematically spreads specimens of promising species to other planets with compatible environmental conditions?
Leng - Leng is reachable from the earth dreamlands, but also connects to the Mhar Massif in Varisia. Maybe some of the first humans on earth migrated into the dreamlands and from there reached Varisia (and presumably also another world in "a distant galaxy") via Leng.
The Ilee / Apostae - maybe they colonized the universe in their slow moving generation ships. Maybe in "a distant galaxy" there was an unbroken technological advancement over the millennia, from the Apostae-type spaceships to what crashed in Numeria. (There certainly are similarities between the two: both seem to collect weird specimens on their spaceships - and both are using robotics)
So too much magic isn't good for human evolution - but not enough magic isn't good, either?
While we're at this:
... If that entity got out, that means the space ship was running away from it and crashed on Golarion, ...
Judging by all the specimens from different ecosystems that the ship brought to Golarion, my impression was that it was more of a science vessel.
But if they were indeed running away from something, my bet would be on the dominion on the black:
Don't know if the dominion has been officially confirmed yet to be featured in Iron Gods, but: The dominion didn't have any prominent role in the current Osirion AP, despite the strong ties that Osirion has with the dominion. There are of course several possible explanations for this. But one possible explanation would be that the dominion would play a prominent role in Iron Gods - and they didn't want it to show up in two APs in a row.
It also makes sense if you look at the in-universe timeline:
Maybe the presence of magic and a significant number of other species competing for the same space has been a roadblock to human technological advancement on Golarion.
Compared to Golarion, sure. But how would you explain the slow evolution on pulp earth? (even slower than Golarion, in fact)
In real life, this is most definitely the case.
But in-universe, Midnight Lurker's theory has some appeal.
I love fantasy conspiracy theories!
We can probably safely assume that Lovecraftian monsters are everywhere on the material plane in the Golarionverse.
The spaceship crashed in -4363 AR (Source: the new Numeria book).
Much too recent to coincide with the appearance of homo sapiens on pulp earth (the civilization who created the ship that crashed in Numeria probably didn't seed human life on pulp earth).
On Golarion, humans were already civilized at this time, but perhaps only because of the aboleths' involvement.
There are two questions I am asking myself:
1. Who has been seeding human life on (at least) three different worlds on the material plane?
2. Why did one of them advance at a much faster pace then the other two? (much faster than it should have?)
Real-world conspiracy theory:
"Distant galaxy" sounds suspiciously similar to "galaxy far, far away".
I am half expecting that, before the end of Iron Gods, they will announce that Paizo made a deal with / was sold to Disney - and that the human spaceship that crashed in Numeria had jedi on it.
pH unbalanced wrote:
No it wasn't a vote to pick the faction head.But...
... the current faction head offered the pathfinder's aid in helping to implement the strategy that was democratically selected by the members of this secret non-society organization. (At least that's how I remember it from when I played that scenario)
Since he doesn't personally agree to said strategy, it might make sense for him to step down and hand over control of his society faction to the dragon who did come up with it.
I can't help but notice one small detail on the final cover: it doesn't just say "Iron Gods", but "Iron Gods TM".
Wouldn't that make it the first trademarked AP title ever? Almost as if Paizo wants to make more with the phrase "Iron Gods" than just a single AP. Like a whole spin-off game where Androids and AIs are fighting the Dominion of the Black in space...
(Note to Paizo: even if that hadn't been your plan all along, I absolutely wouldn't mind at all if you stole that idea from me now.)
on May 15 I ordered a Campaign Setting subscription (to be started with Occult Mysteries).
On May 16 I received a notification that there was a problem with my payment method.
Since then I haven't heard back from you in any way.
On May 22 I sent you an e-mail concerning this - but didn't receive any reply.
On my subscriptions page, Occult Mysteries shows up as "currently pending" under Example Subscription Shipments, but as "Payment method declined" under My Subscriptions.
Can you confirm that everything is okay now with my order?
A natural 20 on an attack roll always hits, even when the result is lower than the AC.
A natural 20 also is a critical threat.
But can you confirm a critical threat with a natural 20, even if the result of the confirmation roll is lower than the AC?
This is what the CRB says on the matter:
If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.
Is the phrase "a hit against the taget's AC" supposed to imply that you have to beat the AC to confirm the critical?As in: "you must hit by matching the target's AC to confirm a critical threat - hitting with a natural 20 alone without also matching the AC is not enough to confirm the critical, even though it hits."?