WarDriveWorley's page

This may have already been said and if so I apologize, but honestly I would rather Paizo revisit older "ignored" ancestries before delving into new ones or reintroducing PF1 ancestries that are missing. Maybe a Friend Folio of the ancestries that were added before the remaster that need to be cleaned up and fleshed out a bit more. Adding some new feats and maybe, if there's room and time, a bit extra to give them new life.

I can see your point and don't disagree with all of it. A few things I would like to see.

1. Remove the Secondary Caster requirement when using the Create Undead ritual. Yeah I know that not everyone uses rituals, but honestly having a necromancer being able to single-handedly use this ritual makes a lot of sense to me. Could be available at like 3rd level or later.

2. Have a part of the Dirge be that the caster can choose a spell whenever they gain access to a new spell rank that's not on the occult list that fits certain criteria (I'm imagining vitality or void based) to add to the dirge and count as being occult for the necromancer that knows them. I would limit them to a spell rank that the character is currently capable of casting. This lets each character fine tune their spells a bit to make sure they have access to spells they feel fit. That would only give 10 spells if gained at 1st level and I think that would be appropriate.

3. Add some feats that allow thralls to interact with undead, either positively or negatively. I think a fun concept would be a necromancer that uses their knowledge to battle undead and can use their thralls to drain the power from hostile undead.

Other than that I'm overall happy with how it's built even though it's not 100% what I was expecting.

You know what. I kinda hope Paizo puts out a Necromancer Barbarian instinct similar (but better written) to the elemental instinct.

The thought of a MC Barbarian/Necromancer is tickling a fancy I didn't know I had.

So .... that mean the Godsrain could have caused the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression.

You're going to credit him with the Great Depression, but not the creation of Tintin, the St Valentine's Day Massacre, the creation of Grand Teton National Park, the first appearance of gloves on Mickey Mouse,the Battle of Bloody Alley, or the final decision to make all London buses red?

Cummon. I know Gorum isn't the most exciting deity in the toybox, but give him some range at least.

My next character is going to be a Wayang Bard with the Fan Dancer archetype (We use FA) who bases his performances off blending illusions with dance.

I also really want to play a Tanuki Magus that focused on using spell strikes through a belly unarmed attack

The other relevant detail is that Golarion is a world of magic and alchemy. Not only do devils tempt mortals with cursed goose statues that eat hearts and provide golden eggs, but I'd guess there are dozens of Alchemists out there turning lead into gold w/ Philosopher's Stones.

Also mining is different in fantasy worlds. It's much easier for various ancestries to mine much deeper than real world humans could along with creating even larger mines/dungeons/underground metropolises.

That ability opens up more access to precious metals than what we, bound by our current understanding of engineering and physics, have access to on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXyWNjck3XI

Roll for combat has a lot of videos on the economy of gaming. This is one.

Books are going to keep increasing in price. I decided that physical space was why I was switching to PDFs, but probably cost would play into it somewhat now. The technology for displaying PDFs has gotten to the point that I can even read books on my phone, but still prefer to read on my PC.

Roll For Combat Pricing linkified.

Thanks for the reply!

Yes, I have sent customer service three emails. They usually respond faster than this.

Paizo might not have any other control but UPS bounced it back to them saying to check with them since the tracking number doesn't have any information.

I know, I'm being rudely impatient.

Thanks!

You're not rudely impatient.

I've never had the tracking numbers listed on the website for shipping work.

Someone one said you can add Paizo before the tracking number, but that hasn't worked for me either. Unfortunately the only other option I can suggest is to submit a ticket through the Support Link as opposed to a direct email. I've gotten quicker responses that way in the past.

Greetings in advance.

I did a search, but couldn't find an answer to this yet, if there even is one.

In one of my games I have a character that is playing a Summoner with the Alchemist Multiclass (MC) Archetype through Free Archetype (FA). I'm working through the PC2 updates and also looking through feat choices in the future to help him with his character and I found a bit of grey rules when it comes to the interaction of the Efficient Alchemy Alchemist feat with the Advanced Alchemy class ability allowed to multiclass alchemists through the Advanced Alchemy (good thing the names aren't confusing either) multiclass feat.

Given that not everyone has access to PC2 yet I'll outline the basis of the two feats and one class ability below and will use the spoiler tag in case someone wants to avoid the rules until they have the book. Also I know that some of my reasoning I provide later is pedantic, but I'm trying to look at this along all angles.

Class Ability =

Feats =

There is more information on all three feats/class abilities, but the displayed information is the parts that are pertinent to my question.

My question is how does the increased consumable portion of Efficient Alchemy interact with the item cap of the Advanced Alchemy multiclass feat?

As a GM I can see 3 different arguments on this.

1). There is no interaction. The Multiclass feat always limits the character to the 4 per daily preparation. - Reasoning: The multiclass provides a static set and would provide language if there was a way to bypass this set.

2). Efficient Alchemy increases the total items to 6, but the character does not get the Intelligence modifier. - Reasoning: The multiclass feat gives the same base 4 as an alchemist with no Int modifier. Efficient Alchemy increases the base from 4 to 6 and assumes that the character is a base Alchemist, but has no language allowing those without the full Advanced Alchemy feature to gain their Int mod to the number of vials per day.

3). Efficient Alchemy increases the total items to 6 and allows the multiclass alchemist to add their Int mod to the amount. - Reasoning: Since the Efficient Alchemy says that if you have Advanced Alchemy and has no language otherwise all characters that have the feat increase the consumables per day to 6 + Int modifier.

My Thoughts on the Above - As a GM I lean towards # 3 for a few reasons. A multiclass Alchemist would have to take at least 4 feats (Alchemist Dedication (for obvious reasons), Advanced Alchemy (explained above), Basic Concoction (can choose 1 Alchemist feat of 1st or 2nd level and is needed for the next feat), and Advanced Concoction (lets the character choose an Alchemist feat of half the character level)) and needs to be at least 8th level, it's a significant investment in order to get those bonus consumables. Having the FA rule makes the investment much more palatable, but it's still there. I don't like the interpretation for #1, but can see why someone would use it and I think # 2 is more a compromise, but I also recognize the logic of it.

That said I'm asking for the community's thoughts on this interaction and if there's other possible interpretations I'm missing?

Also I would love the developers to weigh in on how they expect it to work.

Thank you again to every..

Centaur Summoner with their eidolon riding them ?

Halfling riding a medium centaur riding a large centaur.

The tri-mount.

Unfortunately a sprite is still too big to "ride" a Halfling so the quad-mount concept is limited.

First of all - where was the change to Minotaurs’ reach announced/detailed?

Secondly - how the hell are people posting those combat diagrams!?! I tried to “Reply” to the posts to see the formatting, but nothing showed up except just the symbols?!?

For the first question - It was posted in the FAQ .

For the second, I have no idea, but I want to know as well.

Darkvisuon generally only matters if you (or your entire party) are trying to be sneaky.

I heartily disagree with this. I mean sneakiness is a big factor, but even with normal exploring you want to limit attention to yourself as much as possible, even if you're not being stealthy, and having a light source while in darkness is a glowing beacon for others. Makes it much easier for them to notice you from a distance and either prepare an ambush or avoid you.

Two answers here.

First as a DM:

I like using Wanderer's Guide for my in person games. The legacy site has an encounter builder that tracks HP, initiative, conditions, and abilities. You can link players to a campaign to keep track of PCs, but it doesn't include playtest stuff (and one character is an exemplar and 1 is a commander) so if there's playtest stuff I use it only for monsters and their abilities.

I also have an excel sheet I developed to help keep track of stuff, including initiative, secret rolls, and also conditions. I'm still fine tuning it, but I tend to use it more than the above since the 2 playtest characters.

I've also made some cheat sheets for my players that I had laminated so they can use to keep track of conditions.

As a Player:

I use my own excel condition tracker (most of my players don't come with laptops or I would give them this).

If I don't have access to a laptop then I use the laminated condition sheet I made.

This isn't going to be a great answer, but it's the best one I have.

I've found that it's usually most efficient to go to the Support Portal and open a ticket than it is sending an email.

I've gotten a quicker response using that in the past.

I've been a backer of eight KS projects/products over the years and also helped contribute to two others myself and literally all but one of them had results ranging from nearly a scam to a very simple bad value. Precisely zero of them were finished and shipped on time and three of the eight never delivered AT ALL unless you count an apology update post on the KS page as a deliverable.

Man that is some horrible luck. You have my sympathies.

I've backed 113 projects and have only had 3 be disappointments and 4 not deliver.

Coral Athamaru reference a strength requirement of 16. That's not a thing anymore right? Should say 3?

More importantly are athamru, aquatic awakened animals, and merfolk actually flatfooted fighting underwater without the underwater marauder feat?

Not if they have a Swim Speed

I play both games but I enjoy 1E more. 2E definitely has better, cleaner, more streamlined rules, no doubt. But for me it's not alot of fun, mostly because the classes are very one-dimensional and really "samey". Martial classes have a template they mostly follow, and Casters have a template they mostly follow. I just don't see much difference between classes.

Customization wise, there's not much I feel I can do with a 2E character either. Once Ancestry, Background and Class have been selected, the character is basically on rails. Class feats are mostly underwhelming, Skill Feats are easily the worst thing about the system, and archetypes in general are very weak and in many cases make your character worse, not better.

It's really too bad, because the 2E rules set is vastly superior, but the actual fun of the game took a big step back imo.

While I agree 2E has some flaws (ahem...General feats are boring for one). I disagree with all of your post.

I've played with and without archetypes (both free and not) and have never found them to be a serious drawback for characters, especially if taken with some forethought.

Also I've seen the same classes built differently in the same game to the point I rarely worry about overlap just because of class.

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?

Missed the question on comboing with beastkin.

If you're a Beastkin that takes a werecreature archetype you can use the unarmed attacks from the Beastkin Hybrid form while in Werecreature Hybrid form.

I thought Werebat would’ve dealt Wood trait bludgeoning damage.

You should see their "Corked" feat. Really amps up how far ranged weapons can go.

Werebat you say?

Why yes I do.

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?

Werebat = Fangs

Another question regarding awakened animals; what skills do they get for their lore feat (I assume they get one since every ancestry gets a lore feat right)

Arcana, Nature, and Awakened Animal Lore

I'd suggest that the "armored" should instead be a lvl 1 ancestry feat. There are thnigs that burrow and are armored, for example, or that are armored and also swim.

The problem with burrowing on a heritage is... it seems like burrowing might be a bit too powerful for a lvl 1 feat. Like, yeah, some animals do dig dens... but not anything like as fast as a burrowing speed would suggest.

Personally I think it should be both. With the feat making the the armored heritage even more armory (that's a real word!)

...in first edition most players would carry me through the game but in second edition where the math is so tight me trying to play a fire mage focused on elemental form might become a big burden to other players

In my experience it's only a burden if you try and force a concept too hard.

PF2E is built way more on team building than 1E's character building so no party is made in a vacuum. Communication with your DM, with other players, and also session 0 are all important to 2E character gen. Way more than in 1E IMO.

But that doesn't invalidate the ability to build a niche or specialized character that YOU want to play.

I'll use someone from my game as an example. I'm running Abomination Vaults (AV) and plan on expanding beyond it and bringing the characters to 20th level. This is the first encounter with 2E most of my players have. AV is notorious for having some magic immune encounters (*cough* wisps *cough*) and one of my players was dead set on playing a Kineticist (fire/metal). As a GM I lean towards the interpretation that wisps are immune to impulses since they're magic and I talked with him prior to game to make sure he knew this and was ok with it. He was and when building his character he invested in medicine and also picked some impulses that more utility based.

So when we have those fights where he can't use his impulses he supports with melee attacks, aid checks, Battle Medicine, lore checks, and other tactics and he loves it. It makes him think about the encounter outside of what the default may be. He looks at the environment more, pays more attention to the other players, and explores his options more than he ever did with 1E or DnD and he loves it. The character is exactly as he saw it and it's engaging. It's a specialized character, but far from being something that drags the party.

2E is very good with allowing character concepts that are specialized, but have some diversified abilities.

Okay How silly is the following character idea?

Awakened animal Wolf, with the beast kin (wolf) verstile heritage, and werewolf archetype, and either a ranger with a Wolf companion or a Summoner with a beast (wolf flavored) eidolon or a Animal instinct barbarian?

Is it too silly? Is there something you would add to silly it up more?

Not silly at all, but one of my players wants to play a Ranger with a flying squirrel animal companion (new option) and the Werecreature (weremoose) archetype for full Moose and Squirrel shenanigans and I support this idea so take my approval with a grain of moon salt.

I love the Ancestry and Heritages, but I feel there should either be a heritage for a slow moving armored animal or a feat that gives natural armor.

Personally I think both could be justified with the feat making the heritage's armor better, but also offering natural armor to other heritages.

Hoping Paizo adds these at a later date

I can understand your frustration. I've been playing long enough to have experienced every edition change from both D&D and PF and I would be lying if I didn't say I wasn't wistful for some of the older editions on occasion.

I still play PF1E while also playing 2E and I prefer 2E, but that's a personal choice and I won't try and convince you my view is better.

That said I do want to address a few things:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

It's very unlikely that 3rd edition will retrograde back to a 1e style. In gaming that's rare to see. Even when D&D went from 4E to 5E there was some retro designs involved, but 5E is more a new system entirely. Paizo has said they're distancing themselves from the original model because of WOTC's actions and as such that makes anything new from Paizo highly unlikely.

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

This is unanswerable. It's very possible that a 3rd party designer may create something close enough to 1E to scratch your itch, but we don't know for certain.

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

Maybe. I'm not familiar, but I don't have my fingers on every game out there.

That all said you can still play 1E and you will be able to find players that want to. As time passes it may be harder, but there are still people that play Rules Cyclopedia era D&D and love it. For new content you will likely be forced to rely on 3rd party content only, but there is some really good quality content out there and the sheer volume of published materials already available should keep you full for the rest of your gaming life.

In any rate good games and fair rolls to you and your table.

WarDriveWorley wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

What's the walking speed on the Centaur? And is there any guidance on someone riding you?

30 foot base, one heritage gives +5 move, and yes there is guidance on someone riding you.

Is it as ill-advised as Sprite?

(I remember "everyone loses an action" or some similar dealbreaker...)

It is not. They actually have the Mount feature that some animal companions have.

Would anyone with the PDF be willing to say what the werecreature dedication grants?

Toughness for free, but also weakness to silver. Choose an animal (such as a weremoose.. yes that's a choice) and you can change shape to animal or hybrid form. On full moons you have to change.

Additional feats add on to these abilities.

What's the walking speed on the Centaur? And is there any guidance on someone riding you?

30 foot base, one heritage gives +5 move, and yes there is guidance on someone riding you.

Cloud1802 wrote:

I’m curious about the Minotaur Heritages?

God I hope there is a minitaur.

Technically yes

* Ghost Bull - Bonus against confusion and Know the way cantrip
* Glacier Cavern - Cold climate
* Littlehorn - Medium size
* Roaming - Terrain experts
* Slabsoul - Summons slabs of rock to harm opponents
* Stalker - Stealthy

As much as I've been a supporter of paizo, there is something innately broken about the maths and game design PF2E has and I feel like the game itself is beating a dead horse at this point.

For example - I love the idea of having 1 level for the character. This makes things easier to understand. (Instead of how PF1E was, where I was like 2 barbarian, 3 fighter, 1 magus etc) I also love the idea that the maths are significantly simplified.

However, with this stated, there are some obvious issues with the game design.

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story....

1) Dedications - This has been pointed out by others as being as intended. The designers don't want a Fighter w/ MC: wizard to be as good as a wizard or even as good as a Magus, especially out of the box. The Dedication feats reward you as you get higher levels.

2) Proficiencies - Your example of the Falcata on a Thaumaturge is wrong. If you take the Weapon Proficiency feat to become proficient in an Advanced weapon and become 11th level you become an expert with that weapon so you're not restricted to only trained in your example. Yes you're going to lag behind someone who is Legendary or Master, and yes the math is tight enough that this is noticeable, but being limited to expert is far from useless.

3) Niches and classes - I think you're hyper-focusing on the baseline of classes. I've found the classes to be versatile enough cover many niches. A fighter in one of my games is the primary healer for example.

4) Backgrounds - Every Background offers a free boost that can be used on the primary attribute. That's literally all you need to "maximize" your character. If you want to focus on Skills/feats/other benefits as being a requirement to a build that's on you.

5) Stats are useless - Ok what do you suggest to replace them?

6) Dumping Cha - According to you, "In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game." Based on this I debate on if you know what role-playing actually means. Just because a character is "bad" at social skills does not mean you can't role-play them. Weak stats skills actually make better role-playing opportunities. Having a character who's bad at diplomacy trying to sweet talk a guard, or one who's trained at a knowledge skill, but isn't good at it due to a low intelligence, or countless other examples create amazing role-playing opportunities. It's fun explaining what your character is doing and what happens. Playing super soldiers with no weaknesses isn't the same as playing a character who has both strengths and weaknesses.

7) Choices - This is highly subjective. A choice is going to vary on usefulness based upon, but not limited to, the player, the character, the adventure, the GM, and the other characters (in no particular order). Just because a choice doesn't fit your normal preferred style doesn't make it less meaningful. Just less meaningful for you.

We finally get dragons AND they're implemented in a way that makes 5e's Dragonborn look pathetic.

I'm super excited about it too, but isn't it a bit too early to say they're implementing it in a way that makes the 5e's Dragonborn look pathetic? Granted it's a low bar, but we barely know anything about their feat makeup. I have faith Paizo won't fumble the whole heritage, but still.

Pagan priest wrote:

Oh no! We lost the flumph? Now I have to completely rewrite my campaign world.

As far as the other monsters, how many might be reappearing in a later volume? Some of those might have been invented for D&D, like the rust monster or owlbear.

Check the original source (linked in the OP). It suggests which one were cut due to OGL restrictions, and which ones may have been cut for other reasons.

Yeah, but a lot listed is conjecture at this point till we get confirmation one way or the other.

I'm not sure that I agree all of these are lost. Some of what you're listing (Bunyips for example) predate D&D and should be eligible for updates in the future. It's possible that they were just omitted due to space.

In a similar veins, Paizo is using Golems so they have a chance of returning, maybe under an adjusted name.

Grankless wrote:

What's the text for the Incorporeal trait like now?

Spirit, ghost touch, and force bypass it. If the creature is also undead, it looks like vitality is added to that list.

Anyone else find it odd mental damage never made the cut? I guess ghosts sort of have fractured minds already.

Not really. I always pictured ghosts starting as having good, if situation limited, mind.

I find it odder on the "mad" ghosts like Poltergeists and Banshees

WarDriveWorley wrote:

The sidebar on Kobolds and how their eggs pull power from nearby powerful beings, not just dragons, opens up some interesting possibilities for the Ancestry and Heritages in PC2

So they're no longer JUST smol dragon friends who are doing their best! Now they can be smol angel friends or kami friends or elemental friends who are doing their best! :D

Eggzactly!

Some may even be smol Sphere of Annihilation friends doing their best!

I have a couple of questions, please, if you don’t mind:

1. Is there a replacement for the Bulette? I know the Krooth is relatively similar but I was curious about if they made a full replacement.

2. You mentioned there was a replacement for Sahuagin/Sea Devils, what are they called? And are there multiple versions (warrior, scout, baron, etc).

Thanks in advance.

I haven't seen a pure Bulette replacement.

Sahuagin are now called Sedacthy and the book has the Scout, Marauder, and Speaker listed. New art that, while I understand the change, I do not like.

SuperBidi wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

They never have the right number of heads or eyes.

AI-made images?

Haven't seen the art, so can't comment on it directly as of yet, but "Biblically accurate angels" generally means very inhuman and eldritch in appearance.

Like a giant wheel of eyes, wings, and fire telling you "BE NOT AFRAID".

So the new archons not having "the right number of heads or eyes" wouldn't be too surprising.

Yeah. As an example (and I'm choosing this one because it's easiest to explain) the Rekhap is a flying shield with 4 eyes (kinda evenly ditributed), 4 arms, and 6 wings.

Not super "I'M A BIBLICAL ANGEL", but much closer than angels in previous editions. Other Archons do a good job of approaching that line. The Horned Archon alone is a wild ride.

(Edit to correct a name)

I was curious given the changes to the harpy reported from the beginner box bestiary.

Is harpy song also removed in the bestiary?

I found that ability very badly written and honestly would not mind it seeing completely replaced.

I also was wondering, I think I read that there was a „Stone Bulwark“, which I assume is a stone golem replacement? If so, how many of the other golems got one in this?

How is it with Undead and bleed immunity? Do all have it spelled out now like the mummy from the preview? Or are there some (maybe vampires and Ghouls?) who can be hurt by bleeding?

I am also going to look forward to seeing if anything changes in terms of precision immunity all around since many found it a bit too common.

New harpy has no Song. Has Hungry Winds (pulls a target within 20' to adjacent to the Harpy) and adding a disease to their bite.

The undead that are immune to bleed have it spelled out in their immunities. Vampires don't have it, skeletons do. Haven't checked all undead though.

I'm curious about a thing. Since in the book of the dead it's stated that when undead are created one of the four essences (mind, body, life, spirit) can be twisted or absent, and since ghoul generate from a loss of spirit, do they have resistance or immunity to spiritual damage?

Nope.. no immunities to Spiritual Damage

Are there any new lvl 23+ monsters in the book?

Nope, Level 21 is Grim Reaper and Tor Linnorm, and level 25 is Treerazer

Anything about Agathion? Unsure if they'd make this book, as before they were Bestiary 3, but I like them a lot.

Nope. Not in this one.

Prisoner301 wrote:

Asking because it is coming up in my next session (an adaptation of the Carrion Crown AP). Is there a replacement of some kind for the Flesh Golem? If yes, does it have a cool new differences or is it just the new way of doing the resistances (in the way of the Brass Bastion) and the rest of its abilities have stayed as is?

I think all of the bestiary 1 golems are in here using their old art but new names and the new resistance mechanics. I didn't look that hard at the flesh golem but if looked pretty identical, including the berserk ability.

Yeah, all of the golems are there under new names:

Charnel Creation = Flesh Golem
Clay Effigy = Clay Golem
Iron Warden = Iron Golem
Stone Bulwark = Stone Golem

the changes to golem antimagic is significant.

The sidebar on Kobolds and how their eggs pull power from nearby powerful beings, not just dragons, opens up some interesting possibilities for the Ancestry and Heritages in PC2