WWHsmackdown's page

I have an Impossible Magics theory.

In Monster Core 2 I noticed that some of the monsters from Book of the Dead showed up in Monster Core 2. So then I took a closer look at Book of the Dead and realized there was quite a bit in there that was using OGL material, which is the same problem that Secrets of Magic has.

What if the Remaster version of Secrets of Magic and Book of the Dead are actually combined into Impossible Magic with themes around Nex/Geb.

I would be super excited if that happens. Although, I have one request for Paizo, can we please rename the Flexible Caster Archetype, maybe call it Adept.

That's the most likely theory I've been imagining, too; the only problem I see is that between the two new classes, remastering magus and summoner, bringing over SOME secrets of magic material, and bringing over SOME book of the dead material, there's not a lot room for brand new Nex/Geb stuff. If there was, it would be a hefty, expensive tome.

I just wanna know more about tech core in general......

Cutting the lists would be cool.....provided it didn't further damage a caster's ability to target all three saves. That's already a tall order on some lists, but further pruning can really hamper the one recourse casters have when going up against these large enemy save numbers.

Running with that Ring of the Ram example, imagine this:

You, a thief rogue, and your level 5 party are on the way to your next major plot point objective. While on route, you pick up a side quest to tackle a small time gang with an interesting twist: their leader is a telekine.

The gang leader, Arde Sholve, uses his powers to push carts off the precarious mountain roads so he and his cronies can pick the spoils in the ravine at their leisure.

An interesting encounter featuring combat and possible athletics checks to maintain grips and climb up cliff faces ensues. After the bandits have been dealt with, you pull a Ring of Ram off of Arde Sholve's cold dead finger: the source of his deadly party trick!

Fast forward to lvl 16 fighting some tier 4 boss and its minions. Some brute grapples the caster and starts wailing on them. Things are looking dire but you're up next! Pushing something a couple feet might not be all that impressive at lvl 16 but in this situation it would definitely help.

Your neurons begin to fire as your eyes snap to your finger. The ring! The jewelry you got from that small time gang leader 1.5 irl years ago (what was his name again? Some sort of pun...). You've used it a couple times and though it hasn't been often those few moments were pretty clutch.

You line up your fist green lantern style and make the minion throw a save against your class DC. It rolls a 20 on the die and disregards; on the caster's next turn they magic away. What you did was pointless, but you TRIED. GODS BLESS IT, YOU TRIED AND HAD A CHANCE!!! All bc of some treasure with a story from way back in tier 1 of play.

That's much, much, MUCH more satisfying to me than a constant treadmill of soon-to-be-trash.

Just tapping the sign...

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Or use Relics.

I'd prefer items that can stay relevant without being plot vital, uber powerful McGuffins. I ring of ram on a lvl 20 character that uses class DC and a late game relic with all its tiers of effects are NOT the same thing

A lot of static DC items are once per day activations anyway. It makes it doubly confusing why such arbitrary control is put onto what is essentially a daily power. Once per day utility activations stay relevant from lvl 1-20, but for some reason, if it makes an enemy roll a save it HAS to come packaged with planned obsolescence. Id sooner have all activations be utility effects so that loot won in the dungeon can be something you decide to keep .....you know.... a prize! As opposed to the fantasy ttrpg equivalent of junk mail: trash that someone else is giving you to throw away (I really hate spam/junk mail).

Why is finding a level 4 demon mask (worth 85gp) at level 3 worse treasure than finding an art object worth 42 gold and 5 silver? If you wear it for 2 or 3 levels and use its activation a couple of times while the DC is worth it, then sell it, you got more value out of the mask than a lump sum of treasure. Maybe somebody in the party values intimidation enough that they hold on to the mask well past level 6 or 7 where the DC falls off into irrelevancy, because it is just a +1 at that point. If casting fear regularly was this awesome thing for the character, they’ve had 4 levels to find another source for that ability and it will have only gotten worse than a multi class casting archetype in the last couple of levels.

I think the general issue is players approaching magic items as character defining game elements and that is very much against the design philosophy of PF2. Those kind of items are a part of a class kit like the exemplar. There are mandatory magic items for keeping up with numbers, but those items enable your class abilities (like weapons, shields, armor, etc). They are not character defining by themselves.

They SHOULD be character defining. No fantasy fiction that I consumed revolved around adventurers finding and mulching magical loot after a few uses. Harry Potter CONSTANTLY uses his cloak. Bilbo CONSTANTLY puts on the ring. Percy Jackson is CONSTANTLY using his pen sword. The idea that the magic ring you pryed from the cold dead corpse of the lich 3 levels ago is now defunct feels exceedingly hollow and unsatisfying. None of your items have a story, none of them matter, bc they aren't sticking around with those static DCs. They have the same value as a cheap souvenir.

Set DC items in a game where stats rise fairly linearly don't really feel like a narratively permanent addition to your character. Imagine Sam and Frodo getting eaten by Shelob and the whole adventure ending there bc the vial of starlight from Galandriel had a static DC all the way back from tier 2 of play and couldn't so much as stun a rank-and-file orc in Mordor.
That impermanence leads those items to feeling more like clutter than some permanent momento from your adventure.

At that point id rather have more consumables (which is funny bc I'm not big on them). Less gear that's more impactful is better than a flood of stuff that isn't meant to stick around.

Last night I ran a cinematic starship scene that was very well received; I'm very pleased with how the subsystem came out and really only wish I had more examples in GM core.

I used the Scanning a Dying Sun example for my lvl 6 party of 5 with the following adjustments: I changed the scanning DC from 27 to 23 bc my 2 computers players were only trained and neither were intelligence classes. I reflavored the dying sun to being an exploding reactor core in a derelict ship that they were trying to scan the last transmission of. I finally reflavored the fire elementals to being Swarm organisms for story reasons and bumped the health from 90 to 110.

It was a tense finale to the previous sessions investigation of the derelict when I left them with the cliffhanger that the ship had been scuttled by Swarm. All this to say I really enjoy the subsystem and look forward to trying to build some encounters of my own incorporating the homebrew upgrades my players give their ship in the campaign (until I can get official tactical rules).

How have cinematic starship encounters been for y'all? I'm interested to see how they've played out and what kind of scenarios other people plan on crafting. I'd also love to hear ship actions and homebrew improvements anyone has thought up while we wait for tactical rules.

I don't use it at my tables; between 5ish ancestry feats, 10ish skill feats, 5 general feats, and 10ish class feats, I think the standard game has plenty of decision points and I prefer the opportunity cost of working within 10 class feat choices as opposed to 20. Just personal preference of course; I just don't enjoy characters shoring up their class deficiencies with minimal pain. I'd rather they shore each other up than be islands of functionality. If they do wanna be an island, I want it to cost them most of their budget.

Ryangwy wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.

My understanding is that Spell Substitution is great for keeping the balance of your spells in place. You start with, say, two each of reflex, fortitude and will targeting spells in your top slots, maybe some general use but still not always useful things like Dispel Magic at rank-2 or an AoE incap in your 4th top rank slot. Two copies of Fly, perhaps. Then as you go through encounters and deplete them, you reshuffle to maintain the same balance, maybe to align with what appears to be the dungeon theme. Using a lot of Reflex spells against the mindless constructs? Probably time to wave goodbye to the Will spells you prepped.

You basically try to always have a generalist spell list prepped, whereas prepared casters, by design, become less generalist as they spend spell slots

That feels like a lot of effort to get what a Spontaneous caster gets out of the box. That being considered a major feature is probably a lot of why Wizard just feels so meh.

IMO Wizard would really feel better with 5e style prepared casting. PF2 missed the boat on that the first time and they probably didn't feel bold enough to try it in the remaster, but it just feels better in play. Especially on a class that doesn't have a lot else going on (compared to say Cleric who have Divine Font and IMO a better selection of focus spells).

5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared casters having the lunch of spontaneous AND having more versatility

I would rather if instead of going into the bestiary it was a simple template and like illusory creature where it uses the caster stats on the summon. The rank of the spell could define the amount of HP, damage a abilities that it have.

Exactly this. If creature stat blocks are two variable and broken to be given within relevant level ranges id rather have a template 10/10 times.

Guardian at least makes str companions more appealing. Not perfect, but I've beat that drum for 6 years so I guess I can wait for pf3e for a rebalancing of companions

Well done, Gene. Communication and understanding are some of my favorite themes in sci-fi (Arrival is my favorite sci-fi movie). The piece feeling like it came straight from the tabletop is a cherry on top. Kudos!

But Unchained came 4 years before PF2e's release. It wasn't even close to be sendoff for that edition. It wasn't even the last book with classes on it.

Didn't realize. Fair enough. Well that and the SF1e equivalent being made before the OGL crisis advanced the time table makes a strong case I guess. It could work, and maybe even sell; I wouldn't be opposed to a book of class archetypes.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Only tangentially related, but I thought this was a better place for this question than a dedicated thread: how exactly does the weapon proficiency and armor proficiency work for followers from the captain archetype? I have the book in front of me but I'm struggling to find it within the relevant pages; I know the pertinent feats give the listed benefits on the follower statblock, but I cant find the words for their base proficiencies and advancements

Page 77, under Novice Followers:

"Proficiencies: Your follower is trained in their listed attacks, the armor from their kit, Perception, all saving throws, and the skills listed in their stat block."

They don't have weapon or armor proficiencies per se, just proficiencies in the thing in their statblock. So for example the Berserker is trained in their falchion strike and their armor kit. If you gave them a greatsword and full plate, they'd be Untrained in both.

Yup, there it is. Also upon closer inspections I see some advancements bumping proficiencies in strikes and such. Shame on me for skimming, lol. Guardian and berserker sounds like a fun combo!

Id sooner have the arcane classes and subclasses buffed instead of the list itself. Wizard, magus, and and the rune witch seem to be charged heavily for arcane access (at least I think it's part of their power budget). Conversely, imperial sorcerer has one of the strongest spellcasting features in the game, so it might not be a firm rule, who knows.

Ooo is this gonna be a console release too? I'm dragging my feet on updating my rig but this could spur me to do it.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park

Don't get me wrong, I like the skirmish rules as well.

What i don't like is that they did absolutely nothing for their main campaign that has army vs army.

They could have a sidebar for conversion as an example from army to troop, and that would allow their "war campaign" to work with the new "war rules".

Instead, they ignored it.

The KM rules are third party material. So in all likelihood, as far as warfare rules are concerned for Paizo, THIS is the whole deal. The benefit of KM remake dropping first could have been seeing the response to those warfare rules and going "yeaaaa, let's not do that"

I really hope the iconic, whoever they are, is a nonstandard kind of necromancer. Nonstandard in that they aren't overly creepy or macabre, and don't see the undead as tools like villainous necromancers tend to. Really what I think is an iconic necromancer who sees the dead and undead as people first and foremost, and is maybe a bit of a dorkus who finds it easier to talk to them than with living people.

Awww c'mon now, this is our one chance for a brooding creep or a goth baddie. Sometimes playing to a type is fun too!

I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park

*Shrug* I think it functions perfectly fine as a martial bard. I don't think it has to be much more than that. "I wanna be a face, I wanna be a martial, I wanna support"..... I think the class works as intended for these people

Captain archetype has me very intrigued as a dm. I make DM PCs for every arc that can slot into the party whenever we're missing a player and the group wants to continue on. The thought of making one that has a lackey or understudy has sparked some ideas.

Im also excited to make a Trex riding guardian that tanks crits for his dino and pumps out 1 action great sword power attacks as punishment.

Getting the necrologist to function and play nice on a class is a challenge I look forward to tackling at some point. A battle harbinger necrologist seems like it could make for a more martial take on the playtest necromancer; you'd just juggle action economy and make decisions on when to prioritize your horde or your auras

From the class descriptions I've seen, it seems like guardian has shaped up to be a nice bruiser tank. I'm excited for a character that can actually ride large, strength-based animal companions and not have their teeny AC values be a liability (bc they can tank the hits for them)! My caveman and trex PC idea based on Fang and Spear from Primal can finally be realized!!!

Personally I’m tentatively excited for *some* of Starfinder 2’s rules. But I would echo Quid Est’s point that SF1 pretty much operated on landing, while SF2 will absolutely not have the same spread of functionality.

The OP made a bunch of fairly salient points, however histrionic, and for *anybody* to suggest, for example, using the *Inventor* as a stand in for….anything is incredibly unfortunate.

Mostly I find threads like this useful for seeing just how far people will bend to justify away anything even approaching considered criticism. Critiques, however presented, are incredibly useful, and slavish positivity does no service to the hobby you love.

Meh, the histrionics just gets people sharpening spears for the troll hunt, so any beneficial criticism that could've been imparted by OP or similarly minded individuals gets drowned out by the ensuing online brawl. Criticism, much like judgement, is best served with cold impartiality.

I don't think the book has much for random class feats. I've only heard of archetypes and class archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

YuriP wrote:

shroudb wrote:

From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.

So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.

While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?

Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?

Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.

If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.

That's not the point, the point is, if the GM is very likely to follow the Taunt, is it worth spending feats on something that will probably (almost) never be triggered?

It's like this: having a one-action “Power Attack” against provoked enemies that try to ignore you is cool, but if the GM always Taunts (which will probably be the most common), you'll, in practice, never use the feat.

I can only see these feats as “threats” to the GM, as if to say, “Look, I have feats on my sheet that will make me hit the enemy hard if you focus this enemy on me, so don't you dare!”

Since I don't think this is the case in healthy games, it ends up feeling like a waste of feats or just a weird to punish the GM NPC/Monster that doesn't want to focus on the guardian for some reason beyond the fact that it is already unfocused due to Taunt.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like

...

Then I win the Tank Game.....there's no lose scenario here Yurip. Taking it as a zero sum game is purely a you thing. "Wasting" feats to ensure the GM plays by my tank rules means, again, that I "win" the Tank Game. Nuclear deterrents aren't wasted just bc they're never fired ....they're actively doing the thing by just existing.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space.

Right, but getting those new options upfront with a new class would be much better, especially as the appropriate thematic book for them might have already been published. Having even 1.5x the book space for a new class gives a lot more room for giving a class' depth upon its release than a current model.

Fair enough, beefier class releases would be another benefit to single class books

I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space. I don't think expanding existing class options is a conscious high priority of the dev team.

However, I think the more practical reason to slow down to one class a year is to stave off edition burnout and the subsequent pf3. I'd rather the pace slow down so it takes longer to get to that critical mass of bloat that makes onboarding new players impossible.

If you love 3.X conventions, then pf2e will not be your game, simple as. It's a system where choice and power are almost completely decoupled. Choice impacts play style but your chargen power ceiling is pretty much decided for you at lvl 1 with your class choice. Team play can boost your numbers but the measure of you specifically is mostly out of your hands. I've seen players make wacky concepts and follow their hearts in character concept without ever negatively impacting their performance on the battle grid. To me, that is the single most laudable accomplishment of the system. The ability to express your character without fear of messing up and being wholly superfluous when measured against other PCs in your party. It's a truly liberating feat. Suddenly, everyone is in it for the story, making the characters they WANT, not the the characters they NEED to compete. I honestly, hope and pray that 3.X conventions never see a revival. Let the dead lie in their repose...

All things shift with time. Things tying back to culture (language, mythology, fashion, art) shift at a horrifically faster pace than anything else in the natural world. So yea, what is and isn't a thing in something as human and artificial a construct as a dragon is going to depend on where the needle is in the current zeitgeist.

I've ran plenty of dump save characters (usually dumping either wis or dex depending on the character) and have found the game perfectly functional. These characters have gained versatilities for their decreased defenses. I've always felt it's been a fair trade; I don't consider the three save stats mandator, you'll just be in more danger for opening up a less than optimal avenues of play.

For example my unarmed, laughing shadow magus/psychic has tragically low will, which has led to me failing saves and going lower in initiative....BUT HE'S STILL ALIVE and I get to be the party's RK repository bc he's such a smarty pants and my spell DCs are better than a magus that tanks int. I think the game works fine with these kinds of trade offs.

I'm fine with the -1 martials bc that hurt accuracy usually pays for a lot of features that make them more engaging than fighter, rogue, etc.

Arcane, building a language of understanding for magic, seems like the natural place for the magical programming class. There could be flavor arguments for a techno that stumbles upon the eldritch programming language of fundamental madness or some such but I think the occult niche for techno is a bit smaller than the arcane.

Surveys are macro data through the question system with (maybe, but don't know for sure) key word or phrase tagging in the open response section. It's a lot more useful than devs (maybe) combing through hundreds of thread responses and (possibly) picking up general trends from a less than representative, vocal, and invested minority of the player base. At least, that's why I assume survey data is valued so much more.

I have yet to see a name change from playtest to release, though. The devs seem to budge on nitty gritty details and numbers, not the vision of the class (including the name). Summoner is the summoner, inventor is the inventor, and the playtest necromancer is gonna full release as the necromancer despite the arguments (from some) that these classes didn't properly capture the fantasy that (some) players wanted. It's just a non starter. Bemoan the current vision all you want, it will be the new mechanic, though, not some other name

Ehh, just adding some action feats for remote hacking or crafting related debuffing on tech enemies would help further justify the non strike KAS. PF2E gets along just fine with it's -1 martials; HOW WELL those classes utilize their non strike KAS is more of a case by case study.

I understand not being happy the things you enjoyed weren't translated over, but I've seen the "this 2e version of the 1e class barely resembles the 1e version, bring back the old stuff or name it something else"....like, 3+ times now. The argument never changes the name and usually the design intent of the playtest caries through to the final product (barring outliers like 2e magus). They could inject some zaniness back in sure, but super faithful translating is rarely their design goal over reimagining, so temper your expectations

Space mines (in a starship sense) and flying mines are definitely a scifi trope, so itd definitely be a good addition

A netrunner type class could be the technological mirror of the mystic class, giving out passive buffs and actions by way of everybody's comms and augmetics being tied to a party network

I'm just happy to see an archetype fully enable a swashbuckling play style. A lot of pf2e archetypes let you dip your toes in certain combat play styles but this one just enables it, full stop. Those are the kind of archetypes that tickle my brain for making characters and I'm fully floored for sf2e to have more of that moving forward (plus, archetypes not progressing your martial or caster progression fully into the other lane keeps me sanguine on the matter).

I'm a lot more nervous. Different power levels will kill the much vaunted cross compatibility between games. It also threatens to make encounter design much more of a headache.

Only if those varied power levels exceed the bar. This preview meets the bar like beast master or sentinel. We're just used to archetypes being so niche they can't be justified for general use over class feats (pf2e pirate or archeologist). If everything looked like a psychic or exemplar dedication it might give pause, but this doesn't look like that to me.

I don't think it's a matter of power levels so much as some archetypes having been made more for flavor than practical use; this is fine in the 2e engine since so much of your power comes from your base chassis but that's a different discussion.

I agree with others in that thread that an exploration activity (coerce) bonus on rolling initiative doesn't really do much for combat so I don't think it's strong like people think it is; id need that to be erattaed to a bonus to demoralize checks to really be floored (and mayyyybe that was the RAI). It could be useful for some victory point negotiation encounter, but the point is the initial feat is a lot more niche than would be assumed at first glance.

EDIT: just reread and saw that level two feat let's you demoralize when you roll initiative. It's not a bonus but it's good action compression with your thematic pirate flag (I take back my complaints on the dedication feat).

HOWEVER, the rest of the archetype just straight up encourages and EMPOWERS a swashbuckling play style. The lvl 8 feat is extremely cool lore and can be fairly build worthy if you have or get your spell DC up by class choice or casting archetype. It is a great archetype, has a lot of general, widely applicable use in it that a bunch of pf2e archetypes shied away from; it stuffs the archetype full of space pirate flavor AND avoids giving abilities that would be so niche they couldn't compete with general combat effective class feats.

Bottom line, if I wanted to be a diaspora pirate this archetype could stand up against class feats, which is very impressive. Pf2e has these caliber of archetypes too (beast master, sentinel, champion, rogue, dual weapon fighter, mauler), of course, but they're more the exception than the rule; the flavor you want on your character can come at a steep price sometimes.

This is just a preview of one archetype, though, I'd want a couple books worth of archetype releases before declaring SF2E archetypes less niche than PF2E. Still, very encouraging!

Little bit worried that runesmith will end up becoming too much of a support. Please add 2 ways of play where 1 can be more offensive and other can be more supportive (a bit worried bc of your comment about it)

Would also love support for shield/2handed usage for Runesmith as it would be cool to not have a hand free as a requirement. After all we can do most spells having both hands occupied

Looking forward to seeing what u will do with it
c:

Ehh, I think we have plenty of DPS martials. Id rather runesmith be more support so it has the budget to be as magical and varied as possible.

I've said it before, but I hope there's an archetype dedicated to the hacking subsystem to get that net runner feel and a build-a-bear drone archetype so anybody can have their R2D2 type buddy. Scifi archetypes are my most anticipated part of SF2E

Paizocon or Gencon will tell us if the impossible book includes summoner and magus

Just got the book and everyone did an amazing job. One of the many highlights for me was crime kingpin: using a reaction to kick a disarmed weapon 20 feet away AND have a flunky in the path of travel pick it up was so disrespectful I cackled. It's my favorite for a tier 2 end boss

I have friend groups that dabbled in a smattering of ttrpgs: zweihander, morkborg, star wars, & shadow of the demon lord, but starfinder and DnD 5e were the only two games I played with any real frequency. When the pf2e dropped I opened it up to peruse in my local nerd shop and saw that rangers and monks were interesting and fun, not shortchanged and suboptimal. I dropped 5e and started GMing for pf2e, being a PC whenever I get the chance. My fixation made me sideline starfinder, but sf2e having the engine I love is gonna get me back into GMing scifi

The playtest ancestries were some of the most fun in the 2E engine so far. Barathu in particular put a big, dumb grin on my face

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Mangaholic13 wrote:

(since SF1e technomancer was a prepared caster, and I don't really see a reason why they'd change that for SF2e)

Correction: The technomancer, like all SF1 casters, was spontaneous with a limited list of "spells known."

Really? My bad.

...I guess this shows how invested I was in the SF1e Technomancer class...

In fairness to you they did eventually get an option to become prepared casters in Galactic Magic. I really liked that concept, I hope we see something like it again.

I also just realized that, with the mechanic being the deployables class, they may fill the niche of martially-themed necromancer some people were talking about during the Impossible Playtest.

This is my hope, too. A support martial with a map token mechanic like Necro would be a cool addition