Voss's page

You can also sign up through the Paizo Newsletters option we use for social media, but this is not linked to your Paizo account. Even if you've signed up for both, you'll only receive a single email from Paizo.

Thanks for this, the newsletter link worked for me after changing my account settings didn't.

I'm puzzled by the approach in general, though. I don't get the week delay between each chapter for folks who sign up later rather than a catch-up bundle or a quick series of emails.

Or doing it through email at all, rather than a regular update on the website (either on the blog or a dedicated fiction section). Or just selling books again.

Its an irritating method of getting access to authors I genuinely like. Glad to see their work, but I'm irritated at Paizo for making me jump through wacky hoops to get it.

To add to Deriven’s OP - for those porting over from PF1 - what is different - what can’t you do any longer that you could, or if that is boring/obvs what can you do now that you couldn’t?

No ley line guardian (or other archetypes) Can't trade a vulnerability out for a class feature that -can't- be stabbed in the face.

I think folks are overcomplicating this;

Arcane= Standard D&D Wizard spell list with a very small number of cuts (finger of death and the like)

Divine= Standard D&D Cleric spell list with a large pile of buffs cut

Primal= Standard D&D Druid Spell list + wizard damaging spells

Occult= Bard spell list expanded with the cleric/wizard support overlap plus force, tentacle and color spells, because Lovecraft.

All the bits about essences and whatnot is just window dressing and post hoc justifications.
Cleric buffs were problematic for PF2 so they got cut.
Druids spells were lacking, so they got a layer of blasting.
Wizards got to keep most of their stuff because they're wizards.
Bards had to get expanded to 10 levels, so they got 4 and a half decades of the accumulated D&D weirdness.

Voss wrote:

Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting.

Scratching my head at this assertion. There's nothing particularly setting breaking about casting a spell to call up a big thing for a short duration.

Its the FF limit break aspect. Where its an entity that isn't actually an entity for the sake of a big flashy visual effect and then it swans off to wherever it doesn't exist.

There really isn't anything like it in the setting, whereas keeping it as a normal spell effect (albeit over two rounds), lets people get creative with how their spells look and behave, rather than just triggering the same battle music and cutscene that you just want to skip after the 4th or so time you cast it.

And since its a pen and paper RPG, you just innately skip all that anyway, so the strong visual tie to an overly specific 'non-entity' entity doesn't actually give any benefits in the first place.

A fixed manifestation to a new type of thing for the world simply has more drawbacks than benefits.

Hmm. A lot still seems up in the air about Magus and SUmmoner, almost to the point that it sounds like they're going to be redone from the start and built back up.

Not sure you should rush them out in a book with the way you're talking about ideas.

---
Incarnate spells- I'm just puzzled by the 'Mega summoning, pseudo-creature' flavor text. It seems pointless and, frankly, inaccurate.

The example shown is a 3 action 2 round spell with a big area. Its a big, powerful necromancy spell.

The idea of multi round spells with a high initial action cost isn't bad, I'm just not sure there's any benefit to limiting the flavor this way. Especially since there are already spells with lingering or subsequent effects.

Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting. I'm not sure how you link sudden final fantasy summons to Golarion and existing material, whereas a big fireball that blinds people with infernal smoke the next round doesn't need complex rationalization as to how it works and why it exists.

They seem like summoners to me.
Not sure how training and concentration factor in, they certain aren't required, nor are eidolon a 'psychic projections'

I'm not sure what the issue is beyond summoners don't really want to use summon spells, which is missing the Shakespearean rose for its 'any other name,' imo. Druids are nothing like their historical namesake, clerics don't clerk, etc.

Voss wrote:

but first time around you can make perfectly valid choices with no mistakes and still end up being punished for it.

It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life. - JL Picard

Pithy. But I don't find it makes for a very fun _game_, so I avoid classes centered around that kind of choice.

Voss wrote:

I also tend to prefer spontaneous to prepared casters to avoid hitting the 'Ye have chosen... poorly' problem.

So choose poorly once and stick with it?

I like spontaneous casters for younger players, inexperienced players, or players who for some reason or other don't feel like spending a bunch of brain power re-choosing their spell list for the day. It speeds up game play.

Personally I like prepared casters because if I choose poorly one day, I can learn from the mistake and choose better the next morning.

Er, no. As others have mentioned, it involves making more generally applicable choices.

---
As for 'learning from mistakes,' I've never found that particularly applies. Too much revolves around the adventure and the DM. If there suddenly aren't any more undead past point X in the adventure, your anti-undead and various restoration spells no longer matter. There was no mistake, the gears just shifted without warning.

Too often 'didn't prepare appropriate spells' is a metagame failure of 'didn't successfully read the DM's mind.'

Its the same reason I always disliked 'favored enemy' for the ranger. If you're playing something like Kingmaker, choosing anything but fey and magical beasts is largely a waste of resources, especially long term. But you still have to deal with that chapter that centers around undead and giants. Second time around, its trivial to metagame, but first time around you can make perfectly valid choices with no mistakes and still end up being punished for it.

I tend to use up low level spells. Its high level spells I try to hang on to, in case the next encounter is the Big One (or goes awry).

I also tend to prefer spontaneous to prepared casters to avoid hitting the 'Ye have chosen... poorly' problem.

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

The Fighter succeeds on his save, taking 15 damage, and the Cleric fails, taking 30. One fireball, 45 damage in total.

Compare that to the same scenario where Summoner and their Eidolon get tagged by that same fireball. The Eidolon succeeds on the save and the Summoner fails. The Eidolon would take 15, and the Summoner 30... and then the damage the Eidolon would have taken becomes ZERO. The same fireball, the same saves, no Evasive style avoidance, 30 damage.

Just to continue the analogy, we'll assume everyone is level 6.

The fighter has ~80 HP (only 14 con)
The cleric has ~62 HP (only 12 con)
The summoner+eidolon have ~86 (16 con beasty!)

Aside here: the beast's CON score has no effect on the HP total. The HP pool is the Summmoner's and uses the Summoner's Con modifier. The eidolon shares _your_ HP, and has none of its own.

I don't have a problem with 4 slot casting. I think the main issue is that people still see both of these classes as casters. While they can cast spells, casting spells isn't their main shtick.

Problem is, it isn't clear what their 'main shtick' actually is.

I see both the new classes like monk, champion, or even a druid who takes a bunch of focus spells. Hell, because they use focus spells over spell slots those classes are likely going to be doing more casting than a magus or summoner over the course of the day.

And the problem here is the focus spells for the magus and summoner are either rather indifferent or nigh mandatory.

Magus potency, their basic spell, depends entirely on whether or not you have item runes- its great if you want to pick up and swing any old thing, but redundant if you have what's expected of you by the game's math.

Hasted assault goes the other direction- use it always if you have focus to spare. Except of courses its real late in the leveling tree, most campaigns will never get there or will be wrapping up at this point.

Summoner has the opposite problem- their focus spells are 'math fixers,' that should be used whenever they can, _if_ you can find the spare actions to do it. But they don't actually give the class a role, beyond 'the eidolon is far more important (and more interesting), than that mobile anchor who wanders around in the back somewhere). I like the idea of the summoner, even some of the implementation here, but the caster feels like a real drag on the gestalt character's ability to act.

Yeah. Design needs a direction first, feedback later. 'Feedback' first means getting lost in the desert really fast.

Interesting. I think it highlights that losing the utility of low level slots is too high a cost. The top level slots aren't actually worth that loss- with both classes I'd be much happier the other way around. More lower level and feel free to snip the top end. At least they wouldn't feel quite so lacking in options or ability to contribute outside X fights per day, where X depends entirely on how quickly you dump your few spell slots.

Especially in areas that aren't fights.

Lack of legendary doesn't bother me at all.
Getting expert and master so very late, on the other hand... That's really bad.

Voss wrote:

Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.

And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.

That might not be enough. Having to spend 1 action / turn to compete in melee and not having a fourth action might make them not competitive option compared to martial classes. I would be more in favor of getting the bonus given by Boost Eidolon if you're merged with your eidolon (I assume synthesis would be a class path and not a feat).

Oh, I don't disagree- but assessing focus spells is a huge problem for me personally, they never seem like they do enough (the oracle was and is a huge problem, as I'd almost never consider casting a focus spell being worth the penalties invoked)

So, yeah, conduit spells likely need tweaking, but I'm definitely not the person to do it.

But synthesis bringing the hammer down on everything else your class does seems obviously way too much, especially given how limited you are in 'everything else' just to have the eidolon at all.

Just the action cost to go in and out of synthesis makes it rather prohibitive to even attempt janky things in play.

Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.

And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

Having cantrips isn't noteworthy. -Any- character can have cantrips through class, ancestry or dedication feats, either at level 1 or 2. They all scale and they're at the same attack bonus as the magus until 11th level (or higher with more feats, except cantrips from other classes obviously get higher attack earlier than a magus). That magus is actually pretty bad when it comes to keeping up with cantrips, beyond having several with no additional investment.

Medium armor proficiency is actually more difficult to get that early (or it was, since there is an archetype for that now)

So what happens if someone casts darkness?

"Can't be obscured either magically or via mundane means, as it either shines through the magic or appears over top of whatever you use to cover it"

Presumably if its on the bottom of your foot, the sigil glows through the top.

@Krispy- I find guidance as to what game effects are to be useful.
Does it inflict penalties to stealth? disguise? Can you signal someone from a window?

Identifying an attached creature is great from a metagame perspective, but the implementation has an large amount of game world effects that simply aren't addressed.

The default game set up makes low light and darkvision a big deal to get a hold of, for many characters is either a starting ability or a never ability. A constant light effect is similar, especially if it always kills a stealth approach to problem solving.

It'd be like Superman wearing the big S crest all the time, even while doing the Clark Kent reporter thing.

Full caster is a bit much to claim. Casting Expertise is coming 4 levels late and your casting stat is also behind, and 4 spells total (6 with a nigh-mandatory feat) is a lot of lost magic ability.
Mastery comes so late it doesn't even matter.

Martial weapon and armor progression is nice, but they're sacrificing a lot for that.

Voss wrote:

I can't quite figure out how 'sustaining steel' is supposed to work at all. Unless its a one action Verbal spell, you've got to move, change grips and then attack... you're two actions into the next turn at that point, and if it misses, you've got to deal with the MAP on both the next attempt AND the spell attack, or else you've burned one of your tiny, tiny handful of spells and two full turns of actions for jack/squat.

You can cast somatic components with a 2-handed weapon. You just need to be able to move your hand, but you don't actually have to change grip (Note that Sustaining Steel is still very very bad, this is just one small area where it gets less bad)

Ah. I'm misremembering, it seems. Either from the playtest or just other editions. Or conflating it with the bad version of Eschew Materials that wizards and the magus get.

But yeah. Even still. That's a paltry number of temp hp that doesn't even last. It doesn't even compare with sidestepping the action economy, its not even on the same plan of existence.

Its actually not even clear that the sigil doesn't glow even when the Eidolon isn't manifested. Your link remains, see 'your connection also allows you to communicate... at all times, even when they aren't manifested.'

I think I know what the intent here is, but as written, you've got a constant night-light on your body that shines through every layer you put on top of it. Forever.

... can you read by its light? Do you never need darkvision?

Edit: They do gain your skills just noticed that was under skills on eidolon.

Well so int does do something for your eidolon as it can recall knowledge and use other things.
Still not as worth as cha or wis.

Yeah. It makes the 'Dual Studies' feat (level 1). Really weird. It specifies you each get a trained skill.

But going back to the general rule, it can use yours... So effective both get one of the skills, and then the Eidolon gets a different skill that the Summoner can't use (without learning it personally).

@Deriven- the benefit is they can roll separately. You're recalling your knowledge and the Eidolon is recalling theirs. Since you're in constant telepathic contact, even when unmanifested, any purely mental skill is eligible to be rolled for each creature.

With the way synthesis works, I don't think there's any way it can (I don't think using Synthesis to Manifest allows for the teleport option, ie- the Eidolon has to be unmanifested to use synthesis).

I think effects like Mage Armor should transfer with Synthesis, but that isn't how it works at the moment.

Ressy wrote:

It really feels like the Magus was balanced around taking Wizard dedication.

Wizard also gives you access to a focus spell that works fairly well with Striking Spell in the form of Force Bolt, which is something the current Magus lacks.

All in all, I'm a bit afraid of the fact that Magi have so many abilities that synergise with spells and so few spells at their disposal that a spellcasting dedication overshadows a large part of their native class feats.

Yeah. I'm not 100% convinced the 2/2 casting is outright bad, but I do feel like the Magus is done better by taking a fighter and throwing the standard array of multiclassing feats into the mix. And that's definitely a bad impression of the class.

Multiclassing a non magus provides more flexible, more effective, and honestly more interesting. I don't care at all about missing out on 9th level spells at the top end. That isn't where most gameplay happens, so I don't expect to reach those spells with any class.

Spell strike seems great for people who like to gamble but too often (especially for the poor two-hander specialization) You're going for one big attack every two turns, and if it whiffs, you're not contributing at all, and probably won't next turn either. Piling up actions in attempt to be two other classes simultaneously just doesn't seem workable.

The magus also feels like Martial Caster at 6th is an absolutely required feat. I can see a delay for spell countermeasures in some cases, but by 10th at the latest, its seems required to get extra haste spells in. Energize strikes, by comparison, is a joke. Trivial damage bonus for juggling yet more actions you don't have.

-------

Summoner I'm far less certain about. 2/2 spells feels like far too few, and the class is very feat starved so can't really go into multiclass feats to cope.

Surprisingly I like this version of the summoner, but I think its struggling to keep up. A few too many investments, and too few options. I definitely think the eidolon should be able to cast conduit spells, and if it can cast all the summoner's spells (or be used as the origin point) it solves a lot of issues (particularly with synthesis).

Tandem move is another feat that just seems required (and perhaps should just be an inherent part of the class).

Some reactions would help, as too often even Act Together and Tandem Move, any turn where the summoner wants to cast, its effectively a null turn for the Eidolon. (since Act Together can't be used for multi-action 'activities'

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So basically an animal companion is more superhuman than an eidolon along with an attending character being vastly more powerful than a summoner.

All NPCs have inflated stat modifiers, without a proper ability score. That's the scale Animal Companions on.

Eidolons are on the player scale, which is not directly comparable.

That does not make them less superhuman.

The numbers go into the same combat system, so they are directly comparable.

If their bonus is lower, they're objectively less superhuman.

I can't quite figure out how 'sustaining steel' is supposed to work at all. Unless its a one action Verbal spell, you've got to move, change grips and then attack... you're two actions into the next turn at that point, and if it misses, you've got to deal with the MAP on both the next attempt AND the spell attack, or else you've burned one of your tiny, tiny handful of spells and two full turns of actions for jack/squat.

Ascalaphus wrote:

If alignment damage works on everyone then it quickly turns into "just damage".

Is that really a bad thing though? I mean, Slashing, Piercing, Fire, Sonic, Electric and Cold are all 'just damage' too and it doesn't seem like much of a problem.

As written, the function of Aligned damage and spells like Divine Wrath give players a perverse incentive to game their alignment when that should be one of the most personal and story-focused aspects of chargen.

I don't really agree. Alignment is, and has always been, just a tag.

Alignment mostly exists to create arguments about what a character 'should' do when bereft of actual motivations, habits and preferences.

---
As the game doesn't really bother to explain what 'good' and 'evil' damage actually do or how they hurt people, immunity to it seems fine. I'd assume a character is equally immune to 'blueberry' or 'truth' damage types.

Those are dimensions, not resolution.

How large a image is doesn't say anything about the quality of the image. 300 dpi vs 900 dpi (dots per inch), for example, is a huge jump in image quality. But also dramatically affects file size in terms of megabytes

Making transmuters feel bad about their life choices, mostly.

There are mundane uses for it (marking travel paths, mazes, 'I was here' messages), but you can frankly do that with a knife, so... whatever.

Mostly Squiggit's answer. Its the lowest level warning of what happens to flavor & utility spells in a combat-math-over-everything edition.

Well, I said 'classic D&D' for a reason. But yes, there was a bit of pruning, however wizard definitely got the least (beyond the global hit to buff spells)
----

But the essence thing is easily fudged anyway.

Fireball is an arcane and now primal spell, but isn't on Divine and Occult spell lists. Fine

But...
Flamestrike is an divine spell and a perfectly fine way to divinely blast people with fire. If you wanted to do a third level version of flamestrike (maybe lightning themed for a classic Lightning Smite cliche) I can't think of any reason that wouldn't be fine from an essence perspective. In fact, I'm not sure why there aren't 1st-4th level divine smites already (obviously 5th-9th exist, because you can heighten flamestrike). From an essence perspective flamestrike is apparently perfectly fine, so there isn't really a reason not to have more divine blaster spells.

Similarly, occult has magic missile and phantom pain. A 3rd level 'forceblast' or a 5th level 'wave of agony' that does mental damage (basically a reskinned cone of cold) seems entirely on the essence brand.

You might need to jiggle some numbers around, but there is a lot of wiggle room based on what's already on the various spell lists.

Hello Everyone. I’m trying to introduce some new players to Pathfinder 2e, but something that is causing some confusion is the differences between the 4 magic traditions. Pathfinder 2e divides magic into 4 traditions (Arcane, Divine, Occult and Primal), but there doesn’t seem to be a good explanation of the practical differences for each tradition. Yes, the 2e SRD says that Arcane Magic is “built on logic and rationality” while Occult Magic “seeks to understand the unexplainable, categorize the bizarre, and otherwise access the ephemeral in a systematic way”, but from a gameplay perspective, that doesn’t really explain what types of spells Arcane magic would have that Occult would not.

The most obvious practical difference between the 4 magic traditions is that Arcane magic doesn’t have any healing spells, whereas all of the other schools do. The SRD also states that Arcane magic has the broadest spell list, but doesn’t elaborate on what types of spells that would include. I rather not tell my players to read the entire spell list for each tradition and figure it out for themselves. Can anyone provide a practical explanation as to what type of spells each magic tradition contains?

Its basically the classic D&D spells that have been around for ~45 years. There really isn't much more to it than that on the practical level.

Arcane = Wizard, more or less unaltered
Divine = Cleric, minus some of the major buffs from 3rd edition/PF1
Primal = Druid + blasty wizard spells
Occult = Wizard & Cleric support spells plus tentacles, colors and some strays (because Cthulhu).

The essences explanations exist, but if you change the flavor text of various spells (ie, make them do the same thing in a different way) you can add or subtract various spells from the lists they're currently on.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Bouncing off an earlier comment, I think one of the things really holding alchemists back is that consumables are really weak. Like, unless they're free I'd never even consider buying most of them.

Alchemical consumables are fairly weak relative to their cost (IMO) with some small exceptions. Though arguably this is because they're balanced around the alchemist making them rather than someone else buying them, the ability to purchase them is more of an afterthought.

I think that's broadly true, but... personally, there needs to be more to a class than the discount version of a shopping list, and more to class feats than making the discount store purchases 'less bad.'

I've seen people argue that the PF1 Alchemist got too much (multiple stacking buffs out of different resource pools), but the PF2 version really lost too much.

It feels like the old 'Expert' NPC class with a weak theme.

Most Anathema lists have a mix between the petty minor stuff. and the "the GM is angry that your paladin is eating babies".

Well, a lot of the core 20 actually... don't. You're kind of assuming that lying doesn't matter too much, but the anathema write-ups put it on equal footing without any real distinction.

But many of them are related ideas that seem equal, not 'lesser' and 'greater' anathema. Pharasma is pretty much: don't mess with the dead, Abadar's are: don't steal, don't mess with courts, Gorum wants every conflict resolved with a test of arms, Torag wants honesty and genocide, etc.

The real trick are the deities that can derail a campaign because of their anathema. Pharasma can be a problem if someone stuck their plot macguffin in a tomb, Gorum is just a constant problem if some of the party wants to talk, Cayden's followers can constantly go off on tangents if slavers wander by.

New comic is up, and all I can think of is 'Roy would be excellent at CinemaSins.'

Seems to be channeling the audience on the god talk.

What's missing from the rules is a formal discussion of the player's choice in what is used for Init prior to rolling.

That doesn't seem to be missing- it is _never_ the players choice, as quoted above.

Though I don't actually see anything that says that the initiative roll would not be a new, separate roll.

The typical perception check is specifically for initiative, not to spot anything. The example for not using Perception (if you were Avoiding Notice during exploration), simply states you'd roll a Stealth check. Or Deception/Diplomacy if social encounters. None of those skill rolls suggest they do anything but set your initiative number.

Squiggit wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

extreme RAW reading

It's not really 'extreme' though.

But it is though.

1) it is an absurd effect
2) ignoring it does nothing to boost a PCs power
3) enforcing it just punishes the PC

That's all pretty subjective. The spell, on the other hand, is very clear- it only moves the caster.

There are two very easy options:
if you don't want the spell to fail, don't have a familiar.
or
if you don't want to leave the familiar behind, don't take the spell.

Given how hard Dim-Door was hit with the nerf bat for 2e (much shorter range, line of sight only), it isn't exactly a go-to spell anyway. There are much better spell options for mobility, several of which are 1st level.

Some context might help. Are you referring to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles villain? Monking about with some rogue feats (or the other way around) seems like it works fine for most values of 'reasonably close.'

I'm not following the last bit. The assumptions about elementals in D&D/PF aren't racist, they're usually considered rigidly neutral and indifferent, with the summoner being the factor as to whether they're foes or not.

Far from subverting anything, this scenario just sets up the idea that you can and should murder hobo everything that isn't the obvious damsel in distress.

So the monster can hit when it uses a 2 action ability. Simply put, a monster gets less chances to get it right than a PC. AC in general is going to be better than Saves, and monster creation guidelines reflect this.

That doesn't actually make sense. PCs are going to fight dozens if not hundreds of monsters over the course of the game.

Monsters with better numbers makes it unreasonably hard for PCs to win, when they should have an edge. They're the ones expected to win almost every fight, after all, while it doesn't matter if any individual monster (or pack of monsters) survives.

The monsters just need to put up enough resistance to make it feel worthwhile- if the monster numbers are consistently higher, that leads to 'near TPK' too often to be reasonable. More monsters is the better solution to 'enough resistance' than 'every monster is just better'

Deadmanwalking wrote:

But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.

That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.

Asgetrion wrote:

IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.

The worst? Really?

Not the worst, personally, but pretty bad.

The most likely scenario is the targets and the assassins are all dead at the end (because the assassins turn on the party afterwards).

So... there's no hook. Some random strangers are dead on the road, and the PCs aren't motivated to really do anything afterwards.

Its actually worse than just finding the aftermath of the murder, because the players are going to feel like they can't trust the situation- ie, hauling the girl's corpse along to wherever the PCs are going has a high likelihood of going wrong.

The best reaction is to check for any convenient bags of gold and walk away.

Zero the Nothing wrote:

This looks good. I hope Paizo has plans to work with Owlcat on an isometric Starfinder game.

Or Harebrained Schemes, failing that. Their Shadowrun formula would make a really good fit for Starfinder, methinks.

Eh. I thought the episodic, mission based setup was a poor fit even for a Shadowrun RPG-lite, let alone for a big Starfinder AP.

Plus their UI and stripped-out options made me grind my teeth in frustration. Nothing felt anything like the PnP version, especially not a street samurai. Nothing quite like a cyberpunk punk game where cyberware feels pointless and temporary.

Well, increased reactivity is done, +1 Archetypes per Class is confirmed.
Short goal, too, just $40K (since a lot of the archetypes are just swapping abilities around, this is comparatively easy)

Confirmed for fighters (in addition to the 3 in Kingmaker):
Armiger (future hellknight)
Dragonheir Scion
Mutation Warrior

And they'll be making new archetypes for some classes, since some classes don't have a lot of archetypes and some just plain don't work in a video game. [Rationale which also nixes Vigilantes, in my personal opinion. Secret identities and a lot of social powers are a divide by zero error, particularly as the Commander in Wrath]

Example: Slayer- Arcane Enforcer. Still non-casters, but have arcanist-type exploits. [Energy blasts, shields, battlefield teleports]. I rather like it.

Amusingly, I was just working on a list of classes, archetypes, etc confirmed for Wrath, and I paused to look at Dragonheir while waiting for the last $200 to update the stretchgoals. It struck me as a perfect archetype to transition to Stalwart Defender after 7th level. A little bump of natural armor in addition to the dodge bonuses to push AC just a little higher.

Witch update post:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-ri ghteous/posts/2756580

Confirmed Archetypes:
Hagbound
Hex Channeler
Ley Line Guardian

+ 2 more (each class gets 5 archetypes by default) and likely a sixth in the next stretchgoal tier. [Which looks to be +1 Archetype per Class]

Ley Line Guardian makes me very pleased indeed- I much prefer spontaneous casters, but really like the Hex mechanic. May well start out as a witch when this game comes around.

It may also be time to start compiling a comprehensive list of confirmed Classes, archetypes and prestige classes.

Well they already had a million and an undisclosed amount from Gem Capital and My.Games, so literally yes.

That was announced back in December with the news they were doing the game:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-04-owlcat-games-raises-usd1m -for-new-pathfinder-video-game
----

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-ri ghteous/posts/2754606

Interesting update (independent of stretch goals) today. Time lapse of making armor for the game, about 52 hours for this set.

Its one of the reasons I'm so impressed with the animal companions and equipment for them- thats a huge resource commitment, especially since horses, bears and assorted others will need tweaked or different armor sets (can't just slap armor models for horses on fire-breathing bears).
Out of the goals so far, its probably the biggest commitment in terms of time and resources from their team

----

Though rumors are the next goal after music is 'Doubled Reactivity, or something like it, where NPCs will react to your class/race/alignment/path. If that's true, that's another huge programming effort, adding hundreds or thousands of lines to dialogue to react to various options. Another big one if true, potentially more massive than they expect.

How do you feel about the Archetypes, most of which seem far more interesting then Warpriest, like Cult Leader, Furious Champion, Shieldbearer, all of which seem cooler to me?

Honestly, I think they're even worse for the most part. 'Claws' as a 3.x/pathfinder class feature really baffles me (though bites are worse). There are places in the BAB chart where its better, but natural attacks in a world were enemies can be made out of fire, bleed acid or be disease vectors (and even more exotic stuff) is just insane to me.

Shieldbearer is just... bleh. It makes several abilities worse or come later, for overemphasizing a defensive tool as an offensive one.

Cult Leader is somewhat interesting in concept, but has a grab bag of unrelated (and un-useful) abilities for the role. Enthrall is the only thing that fits, and isn't very good. And cults in a world with so many gods and other entities that grant spells is just...? There are legit faiths that will simply hand out the power you want and not care. /waves to Nethys/

The 2d8 at 20th is an somewhat interesting point. Except, in Kingmaker, you couldn't hit 20th level through gameplay. So... yeah. We'll see if there is more XP to earn in wrath.

But since other classes are getting straight up save or die effects and what have you at 20th level, I don't really think it compares (and also, there are first level spells that can get you to that damage output, a completely trivial cost at 20th level).

----

Skald is wrapped up

The $1.035 million tier is more game music and a symphony, for an awkward number and a general feeling that this is something they should have aimed at improving (over Kingmaker) innately. For the million dollar milestone, I'm underwhelmed.

Odd that should be the timestamp. Around 1:03:30 is when they start talking about prestige classes. They provided timestamps to most questions in the top comment as well if you want to check other stuff. Assassin and Student of War are two more prestige classes they mention but did imply there's more.

I got dropped in at 1:09. Thanks though. I didn't know about Assassin or Student of War (which I have to look up) either

I am impressed by the sheer amount of stuff they're adding. I do hope they do a third game and build even further.
-----

@Gyor- my biggest problem with the warpriest is the weapon progression is functionally cosmetic until 10th level. Just buy a better weapon and tag it with weapon focus at 1st level. I've rarely had a tabletop game run much past that point, so it feels like a completely pointless 'ability.'

Also, In the Kingmaker CRPG, you can get a 2d6 damage mace in Chapter 2; and there are quite a few oversized weapons running around, having that as a class feature at 15th level is super underwhelming.

The enchantment bonuses aren't that much better than just having magic vestment/greater magic weapon, which the cleric does. This is especially true in a game where you can't 'special order' magic items to cheese the stacking, (which was true of the CRPG kingmaker- paladin and magus have effectively the same ability, and I wasn't impressed by it). Other than the quickening fervor ability, clerics are better off because of greater spellcasting.

---
Evolved Animal Companions stretch goal is complete

Next up: Skalds
...which, yeah, wouldn't be one of my picks either. I'd rather have a bard that buffs without disabling a wide range of skills and abilities.

Huh. I'll presume its in there somewhere. Streams are terrible for conveying information (mostly because people don't stay on point in an ordered list)- the link dropped me in a lot of rambling about translations and tutorials, and not much else.

----
Anyway, vote for an animal race tier is unlocked, next one is Evolving Animal Companions, which is pretty huge.
Archetypes, animal-specific equipment (which will show on models) and customization (naming, equipping, feats, archetype selection)

This is a pretty big one in terms of art and animation resources.
The use of 'Evolution' makes me hope summoner is an option at a further goal.

Hellknight is already in

Haven't seen that anywhere (and just spent some time checking). They're very clear about Arcanist, Bloodrager, Shaman, Oracle and Witch, and going from 3 to 5 archetypes per class, the dhampir AND the winter witch prestige class from the 'social media' campaign, but haven't seen anything about hellknights one way or the other.

Where's your information coming from?

----
Swarm that Walks and Gold Dragon are unlocked.

And now... unlock 1 of 3 races, depending on voting.
Catfolk, Ratfolk, or Kitsune.

Oddest thing about this that they describe these races as 'less conventional' which makes me laugh. I'd like to see Ratfolk, but Kitsune will probably win the vote.

Catfolk seem very vaguely defined in Golarion, I know they exist, but have no idea where they're from or what they're like.

Speaking of stretch goals, I haven't been impressed with them so far.

The current one (Gold Dragon and Swarm-that-Walks mythic paths) is the first one I'm even vaguely interested in (and that its just gold dragons is... a little disappointing. The various Dragon models are already in the game from Dragon Shape III, as are wings for humanoids from Dragon Disciple and sorcerer).

I was hoping they'd do something a little different with companions (having them hard-locked into bad builds and bad archetypes was a big problem in Kingmaker, and this tiefling eldritch scoundrel isn't a step forward)

Warpriest and Cavalier (a weaker cleric and one of the straight up weakest classes) aren't classes that I want cluttering the game up.
Hunter, Spiritualist and Summoner would have been far more interesting (especially the latter since a Summoner is tied into the creation of the Worldwound itself, and the local culture has them as an established tradition)

Dismemberment seems likely to be a trivial death animation, absolutely crippling if it can just happen during a fight and trivial again if/when regenerate spells come into play.

Mounted Combat is a hard pass for me- it just seems a waste of time & money. Mounts on the Worldwound just seem like fodder for locust demons and more skill checks to fail. As soon as the area attacks get thrown around, you've got dead mounts.

----
I do hope the hellknight prestige classes make it this time, and a Devilish mythic path rounds out the alignment corners (it seems like an obvious hole at the moment), and Cheliax and Devils have a vested interest in the closure of the Worldwound.