Ambusher

WWHsmackdown's page

1,481 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"cleaning up" recall knowledge led to a completely different play experience for tables that had previously played it strictly RAW. I imagine "cleaning up" pursue a lead will have similar impact


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be down for PC3, but generally books that incorporate player and GM content is more financially viable; everyone wants a piece of the pie.Thats why the thematic format has prevailed since the apg. I'm a DM as well as a player so mixed books are welcome, plus, I enjoy thematic through lines that tie a book together


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I also am happy for quality of life improvements and their promise that the class will be simpler to play. I honestly think that's its biggest problem isn't proficiency but complexity.

ottdmk wrote:

What worries me are the lines about each Research Field being able to do something special with Versatile Vials. Toxicologist can make a poison, Chirurgeon can make a healing thing.

It's sounding like they've crippled Quick Alchemy, and if that's the case, I am not going to be happy. One of the things I've absolutely loved about the Class is the ability to pull out anything I need if I have a Batch free.

Yeah, I picked up on that as well. I'll be sorry for your loss there, but I also think Quick Alchemy was a big part of the power budget and complexity burden on the class. That complexity made alchemist really not feel like a core class.

That moment to moment versatility was higher than caster versatility (provided you scoured as many formulas as possible). This necessitated crippling alchemist impact (damage and likelihood of applying conditions). Crippling that moment to moment versatility (prep versatility will still be served with morning brewing) is the best news I've heard; it probably means alchemist will be allowed to pack a wallop now, at least compared to the previous version


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Lots of cool stuff in this book! Two big highlights for me were werewolf archetype (especially the were were tiger feat I'm excited to see) and griffon mounts (flying mounts for the win!)

Totally agreed about the griffon! Now I can recreate Magnus Murderstein, of the Korvosan Murdersteins, as a PC in PF2E. I super loved the advanced companions.

That's a really cool space that hasn't been explored before and I think could lead to other, wilder companions later on. I mean, it feels a bit odd to replace a companion you may have had for so much of your career, but I'm also pretty sure that the whole reason these companions are higher level is because of their Mount ability, aside from the roc. I think you could pretty easily take the Mount ability off until the appropriate level and run with any of those companions, save the roc, from level 1.

Also, seeing so many new companions makes me hungry for more companions. I need to be a crab beastkin crab instinct barbarian with a crab companion, a crabpanion!

Devourer of decay witch with a fungus leshy familiar and (eventually) the flying mushroom AC was another idea I had. But yea, as a DM I'd be fine giving these ACs to the players without the mount ability at lvl 1. I'd probably start them as small and let them be large with mount whenever the access lvl kicks in


Fingers crossed alchemist is the first class sneak peak blog in the coming week or two


ottdmk wrote:

What worries me are the lines about each Research Field being able to do something special with Versatile Vials. Toxicologist can make a poison, Chirurgeon can make a healing thing.

It's sounding like they've crippled Quick Alchemy, and if that's the case, I am not going to be happy. One of the things I've absolutely loved about the Class is the ability to pull out anything I need if I have a Batch free.

It could be a focus point quick alchemy but research fields making their specialty add extra sauce to the item. Who knows but that's a possible positive spin on that line from them


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of cool stuff in this book! Two big highlights for me were werewolf archetype (especially the were were tiger feat I'm excited to see) and griffon mounts (flying mounts for the win!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

new causes, some of which are sanctification specific and some which aren't, divine ally is getting expanded, but mounts are being moved to a feat tree. Your starting devotion spell is now something you pick. Litanies and Oaths are removed for space reasons.

Worst news out of the con is that apparently Investigators are only getting minor updates and clarifications. Really getting the impression Paizo regrets writing that class.

Did they explicitly state that a Champion does not need to be sanctified ?

Yea,

Grandeur cause needs holy
Inequity cause needs unholy
Justice cause does not require sanctification


Red Griffyn wrote:

There is another googledoc to follow here

Proficiency

Q&A wrote:

“Another question: How are the proficiencies looking like for the Alchemist? Are they the same? Did they change to be more like a martial character?”

James Case 「he/him」 — Today at 4:05 PM
No comment on proficiencies since enough has changed internally with the structure of the class that it likely won't be very contextualized. We do hope the remastered alchemist is both easier to grasp and has a more consistent playstyle at the table, though!

This is the #1 question they have to answer! Add the context and tell us! Lets imagine some options because there are only a few of them:

1.) We gave the commander treatment of martial to hit and legendary class DC. (YASSSS! All those cumulative probability items that require a hit and save will be usable!)

2.) We gave martial to hit and nothing else (YAY!)

3.) We gave martial to hit and scaled back bomb damage to compensate (happily optimistic that the cut backs weren't too bad)

4.) We gave a janky to hit scaling that does give master to hit but is delayed for no good reason and leaves a bunch of hell levels like the warpriest (I hope not, that is literally the worst option you could have done!)

5.) We kept expert to hit but gave legendary to class DC and it scales like a caster now and added more save based bombs (I hope not since we can see some remaster bombs and they are still 'attack rolls to hit', but this is at least significantly preferable to option #4 and I'll stick with bottled monstrosities/any new items that don't require to hit rolls).

If I had to bet, I think we're getting #4 because literally any other option would have made immediate sense with very little context needed. That may make me a pessimist but they had to know everyone would ask for that specific answer since there is has been a forum/reddit post like once a week since remaster was...

Yea, the current martial and class DC proficiencies with master martial slapped on at 19 doesn't really do much to change the play experience. Maybe proficiencies are research field based?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

new causes, some of which are sanctification specific and some which aren't, divine ally is getting expanded, but mounts are being moved to a feat tree. Your starting devotion spell is now something you pick. Litanies and Oaths are removed for space reasons.

Worst news out of the con is that apparently Investigators are only getting minor updates and clarifications. Really getting the impression Paizo regrets writing that class.

They said pursue a lead is getting "clarified" like recall knowledge which is a more substantial buff than some might consider. It should be a lot easier to enter combats with a lead lined up which should mean getting to DaS a free action more. Also, getting to choose between attacks and buffed skill checks is a welcome bonus (still not much to do with terrible rolls, but now lowish rolls might be better spent on a recall knowledge, intimidate, feint, stealth, or athletics roll. Small changes that could have a big impact. The feat brushup won't hurt either


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Gaulin wrote:

A little boring, but I would love a 'player core 2' for starfinder. Get the most wanted starfinder 1e stuff done, and then go hog wild with new options after. PC 2 could have another 6 classes (mechanic, technomancer, biohacker, vanguard, nanocyte, evolutionist) which doesn't seem too crazy. I also think only 6 classes for core might get old fast, even if they're designed well.

Also I really love vanguard and evolutionist so am biased

After my lukewarm reception of the APG classes, I dont fancy the idea of play testing more than two classes at a time after the release of the core book. That could have just been conservative design but I'd rather be on the safe side bc fewer classes in a book should mean less rush and more work hours on those classes.

That's a very good point. I do like to think that the devs have learned a lot since the apg playtest and that doing 6 classes at once is doable (I mean they're doing it with core, in *addition* to a ton of other rules to figure out), but yeah you are right that doing a couple classes at a time is much safer.

It is hard to be patient when none of your favorite sf classes made it into core, and releases beyond that are sooo far away T.T

I feel you; SRO exocortex mechanic is my favorite part of the game. "THE FLESH IS WEAK! BOW BEFORE ME, MEATBAGS!!...and yes, I'll also fix the light in the bathroom"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/GfNJgYr0Tj

Here you go


Looks like advanced alchemy and quick alchemy are separated now; quick alchemy is now versatile vial which is becoming a replenishable (possibly focus point like) mechanic. Reworked additives and new feats too. It's a good taste but I'm still curious what this shapes up to bring in play. They didn't mention proficiencies so no idea on changes there. What do y'all think?


Oh wow, I'm surprised that much feat space is being dedicated to mythic rules. That's gonna be a good number of pages, neat!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

A little boring, but I would love a 'player core 2' for starfinder. Get the most wanted starfinder 1e stuff done, and then go hog wild with new options after. PC 2 could have another 6 classes (mechanic, technomancer, biohacker, vanguard, nanocyte, evolutionist) which doesn't seem too crazy. I also think only 6 classes for core might get old fast, even if they're designed well.

Also I really love vanguard and evolutionist so am biased

After my lukewarm reception of the APG classes, I dont fancy the idea of play testing more than two classes at a time after the release of the core book. That could have just been conservative design but I'd rather be on the safe side bc fewer classes in a book should mean less rush and more work hours on those classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Tech book to bring more Sci to the Fi and also get the technomancer and mechanic their 2e renditions

2) Big book of the Drift (it could be a planar book too...but I'd want the biggest section to be about the drift bc that's the starfinder original stuff and vastly more interesting to me).


I'm guessing ancestries are gonna work just like pathfinder ones and there will be 40-50 percent of the previous editions number of playable alien species by the end of the edition. Not a huge deal considering internal variation with feat choices and versatile heritages, but it'll definitely be a blow for the sf1e fans. SF2E will have the benefit of 6 years worth of PF2E ancestries to further bolster it's initial numbers (but "use PF2e stuff" is decidedly NOT something the starfinder crowd is interested in hearing). Including Howl of the Wild and Tian Xia character guide options, SF2E will start out the gate with a little over 50 playable ancestries......that's kind of ridiculous when you think about it


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ezekieru wrote:

Hey there, everyone! Guess what Thurston Hillman said during Rotgrind today? He spoke about a small little detail about Player Core 2!

Zoran (Host of Rotgrind and one of the players): "I enjoy that fanart of Vina where she goes, "I'mma do a backflip! AHHHHHHHHHH!""
Thurston: "Oh, OH! Somewhat related, though... All I'm gonna say is Swashbucklers get some really good tech in PC2 coming out in a few months."
Zoran: "Does it require 50 actions to set up?"
Thurston: "Uh, no, in fact they get buffed even if they don't have panache."

(Vina, for those who don't watch Rotgrind, is the party's Swashbuckler and designated backflipper!)

Good stuff, I'm keen to see what an updated swash and investigator look like given the state of new martials since the APG


I'm wondering how much jostling PC2 barbarian and guardian will have over that juggernaut aesthetic in their feats. Of course having an offensive and defensive bent of the same fantasy is a valid distinction between the two. To OPs point, YES, guardian should definitely feel like a big meaty bully


Pathbuilder for the players. I just keep the monsters listed on my initiative paper and list the conditions and number of turns those conditions last next to their names. Haven't much trouble in tier 4 play. Players have full responsibility of tracking their conditions and staying on top of what values my monsters need to meet on a and saves


I'm surprised the gun portion of gunsword is D10 but not the sword. Not a huge deal but it made me scratch my head


It's a hefty glow up. If you want to make a gun mage spellshot is now VERY attractive. It's a one stop shop. Id honestly be pretty pressed for spare feats, a very good problem for a class to have. Seeing this makes me very excited for the upcoming class archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spellshot is now a wizard multiclass archetype that retains the unique spellshot feats...now THAT'S a class archetype. That is a tremendous glow up and now I can't stop thinking about gun mages. I guessing bloodrager will have a similar format as a barbarian class archetype. The flying ancestry changes is also surprising but welcome.


Nice! Some brush ups and clarifications


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

I find 2E is actually quite restrictive in the types of play it allows. There's either the guy who swings a weapon, or the guy who casts spells. Try to mix the two, and what are your options? Warpriest? Magus? That's about it, and neither are very satisfying.

Not to mention magic in general got kicked in the teeth so hard there are very few decent spells left.

For me personally, I'll likely never enjoy 2E because it doesn't allow for the style of play I've always enjoyed; the self buffing magic/melee character. Classes like Alchemist, Inquisitor, Shifter, Hunter, Occultist, Bloodrager, Skald, etc. I never liked full casters, and I've also never liked just playing a guy who swings a sword.

All my favorite classes and builds either don't exist or have been mutilated beyond recognition (*sniff* goodbye forever, Alchemist). So if that makes me a grognard, I'll own that I guess. But I don't see why I should love 2E when that edition has completely eliminated my style of play. Just my own perspective.

You obviously don't have to love it, 2e's not your preference.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

The difference between floor and ceiling being small in 2e was the point. It was made to be completely antithetical to the unintended consequences of 3.x design. In PF2e much moreso than the 3.x engine you're FREE to make your character and not fail, the engine is FREE to function alongside whatever your concept is bc the math is fundamentally out of your hands. My herbalist ranger and captivator sorcerer will function within expected parameters the same as my soulforger champion or talisman dabbler inventor. The breadth of expression is still there, you just can't touch the math........and that is so freeing for both a disparate group of players as well as dms. It really is a beautiful thing.


Which werecreature does a claw attack? Or are they all jaw attacks like the beastkin heritage? Also I heard there's comboing with beastkin, what does that look like?


Tyrant is a good striker, I agree. It wallops and punishes for hitting back. It's my preferred base for building a death knight type character


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly prefer the angle of fantasy Greece bull-people that PF2 made, skewing away from ogl origins. I like the idea the Iblydos archipelago having islands full of cyclops, strix, and minotaurs....and those just being the people there much like andoran could have humans, elves, and halflings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Driftbourne wrote:

Real-life militaries are just starting to use lasers against aircraft, drones, and missiles not because they do more damage but because they are more cost-effective per shot and are more accurate.

Ask a cop wearing the typical body armor we have today if they would rather be shot with a gun or a crossbow.

We have had lethal weapons since the Stone Age, a big enough rock dropped from space can cause a mass extinction-level event. We hunted mammoths with sharpened rocks before we even had guns.

When guns first started replacing arrows in the armies, it wasn't because they were better weapons it was because they were easier to train anyone to use them.

I think there are lots of better ways to show a weapon as being more futuristic than the total amount of damage, such as range, rate of fire, cost per shot, number of shots before reloading if you even need to reload at all, damage type, having selectable types of damage, effectiveness vs armor, night vision scopes or other sensory aids.

At least for me as long as a futuristic weapon looks futuristic I don't care how many dice of abstract game damage it does.

Yep. In the 40k setting, lasguns are a preferable field wound to solid slug projectile: your wound will get cauterized AND you wont get lead poisoning. The only reason the Imperium mass produces the former is because a lasgun charge pack can be thrown in a campfire to recharge if the need is dire ...all this to say, in setting the futuristic option is more cost effective, not more lethal. So all things being equal here doesn't make me bat an eye.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I doubt extremely that RAI is to give free passage to how ever many party members the minotaur could carry. That snuggly fits into "too good to be true" and id immediately squash that as DM


It's not a common option so if I ever take issue it can be easily vetoed by way of classification. Not an ideal solution but *shrug*. My two cents, I've been in enough APs to know I wouldn't want to squeeze that often


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wzrd wrote:

I was thinking that since Starfinder 2E is compatible with Pathfinder 2E, then bringing in a gun from PF2E Guns and Gears should be viable. I would expect the guns in Starfinder to be at least as good if not better.

There are also monsters that won't have modern armor. A modern gun should feel deadly against them. Especially more so then a long bow with it's deadly d10 trait.

Didn't stormtroopers have fatal guns. When they could shoot straight, anything they hit went down. Same with Hans with his blaster, one hit is all it would take.

In my home campaign I do plan to mix Pathfinder and Starfinder together, so I was really hoping that given someone armed with a longbow and someone with a blaster rifle versus an unarmored warg, the blaster rifle comes way out in front with damage potential.

In a simulationist game yes. In a balanced gamist game no. The 2E engine is foremost a GAME that creates a healthy long living environment for CONTINUED stories


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Careful comparing against the Warpriest! It might come to light how good their chassis is, even more so after the Remaster.
Lol it seemed the only other class that is front line support with about the same weapon proficiency. And I dont think anyone complains they dont hit enough to be effective. Or maybe they do since some want an even more weapon focused doctrine.

Warpriests can tank longer AND smite like a 5e paladin. The only thing guardian has right now to differentiate it is a one stop shop for a lot of physical cc feats (which I think is a great angle for the class). It just needs to be a bit beefier to bring down; I'd also appreciate a normal martial track but it's not the most pressing of the issues


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like a ranger with a wolf companion and the werewolf archetype might mesh better than an animal instinct barb with beast master. God, I love this system


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'm interested in all the class updates, especially oracle and champion which are really a pain to play until they update since their major class features should be heavily modified.

I'm curious how much champion will actually change outside of grouping it's subclasses in holy or unholy buckets and making its application of spirit damage less fiddly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Errenor wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?
My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future
So more or less how casters worked in 4E then? That's how I understood they worked, at any rate.

Yup


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?

My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future


What are some standout feats for the were creature? Imprecise scents feats? Feats for intimidating in your were form? Also is the hybrid form the default or can you pass for human when not using your gifts/curse?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:

To the actual topic: Most interested in the shape Mythic takes and PC2 changes that impact my current characters. Only one that seems likely to receive significant changes is my Barbarian (Spirit) but I look forward to being surprised.

My long-shot hope is more options that more directly support unarmed attacks that don't come from Monk feats.

Ill be interested to see the barb as well. A less restrictive rage would be nice


The real win for commanders out of HotW is flying mounts (at later lvls). The thought of reenacting the final rohirrim charge speech while swooping overhead on a majestic cat-bird is completely badass to me.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

With starfinder jumping on the 2e engine it looks like the last nail in the 3.X coffin is finally being hammered down. The hobby isn't so niche anymore that ivory tower design rewarding system mastery can remain a viable strat. I don't think that's ever coming back.....like ever. Too many people game and it's leaving too much money on the table to alienate them with a product that actively punishes them for not knowing all the bits intimately. I'm happy to see such notions wither and die (much better to play a game that works and invites cooperative stories) but I can understand the frustration of those who have lost 20-30 years of all they've known.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Commander trading in his war horse for a griffon in tier 4 of play is an amazing mental image and that alone is worth the steed feats


exequiel759 wrote:
Some people want the PF1e alchemist, which was a rogue without sneak attack but with the equivalent of half-casting and bombs (or sneak attack too, because thrashing on the rogue was a national sport back in the 3.5 / PF1e days). Even with all its problems, at least the current alchemist is an alchemist instead of the perfect jack of all trades that does everything and perfectly.

It definitely feels like an alchemist...the only thing I struggle with is the fact that the class is so versatile that the individual efficacy of the various things it can do is....appropriately balanced. The resulting class feels like it's dipped in both martial and magic side jobs. It preforms in all aspects of its career like a caster trying to martial or a martial trying to caster. If anything gets addressed I hope it's that wet noodle feeling....though I think the only way to ameliorate that is to cut down on alchemist versatility, which other people don't seem to want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
My fervent alchemist wish is that it gets decoupled from the alchemical item system (outside of ribbon features for crafting them quickly/cheaply). That'd free up enough space to make the alchemist a martial with spell like effects. It's a pie in the sky dream, but hey, maybe errata passes on a class 3-4 times is enough incentive for the devs to bite the bullet and swing for a redesign (though probably not likely).

So the thing you want for the alchemist is that they... not be an alchemist?

Honestly, I think that you'd be better off figuring out what it is you like about the image in your head, and then trying to figure out how that could be some new class, rather than hoping to see alchemist turned into it.

Though, I hear "martial with spell like effects" and I think... Inventor/Thaumaturge/Tactician? So part of that the process of figuring out what you like about that image in your head ought to be figuring out what parts of it you can't get just for the asking from one of the other three.

Fair enough


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.

That would be awesome but I'd expect edition burnout at some point before ten more years (hobbyist just have too many splat books to justify more purchases, ideas run out creatively for the system and new books don't inspire as much joy, the system becomes too bloated and daunting for onboarding new players, slow bleed out to the new hotness). There's a bunch of reasons for the money to hurt a little too much before an entire additional decade. 2030 doesn't sound like a stretch to me though; the only shame about that would be starfinder and pathfinder once again being staggered systems


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Malevolence (my buddy DMing) and Shadows at Sundown (me DMing) were great for our group and I think standalones are perfect for themes like horror and mystery that suffer from dragging out too long (and sometimes you just want a complete experience in 3-6 sessions).


Perpdepog wrote:

Obviously we don't know what the playtest materials are going to look like yet, but I lean toward using those, myself. If they're anything like Doomsday Dawn, there will be sections purposely meant to stress test some of the baseline assumptions of SF2E.

There's also the fact that the more folks who playtest the same thing help with controlling for variables when the devs are combing through survey responses and stuff like that.
Granted, the flipside is that a smaller range of potentially disruptive circumstances will come up, which might iminish some of the effectivness of the playtest, but still.

That's fair, I should playtest the initial assumptions they wanted to field players against before getting wild with homebrew


Kelseus wrote:
Prince Setehrael wrote:
Info about the 3 new Witch Patrons and the 4 Wardens?

New Patrons- all primal

Devourer of Decay
Cantrip gives frightened 1 while sustained

Ripple in the Deep
Cantrip- failure dazzled, new save each round.

Whisper of Wings
Cantrip- if creature moves closer to target of spell, take sonic or piercing damage (basic save)

Zoophonia Muse for Bard- make requests or command animal using Performance.

New Warden Spells
Distracting Decoy (off guard), Keen Smell, Slim Spit (2d6 poison & dazzled)

Do the patrons have interesting familiar abilities?

Full Name

Silas

Race

Tiefling

Classes/Levels

Thaumaturge

Gender

M

Alignment

CN

Deity

Desna

Location

Inner Sea

Occupation

Sailor