Wizard Level 1's page

I would have liked if summon spells had a specific list of available summons and how those summons advanced by level. Something like how animal companions are handled. The type of creature you summon would all share a stat block but the individual kind of summon determines attack types, abilities and so on. So for example:

Summon Undead for instance would have a certain stat block, but being a zombie or skeleton would determine it's weakness, resistances, and 2 of a list of 3 or 4 types of attacks that suit them as well as certain abilities (zombie brute would get grab, skeleton might get a ranged attack to go with a melee attack) and so on.

Summon Animal would have a stat block shared by all summoned animals but the type of animal determines it's move types as well as a list of attacks and abilities that different animals might have.

Or even more simply summons could have been made share the players stats with some modifiers and it's own HP but have access to different attacks and abilities based on the type of thing summoned.

I think having a selection of attacks and abilities that the caster can choose would have been a nice way to allow summons to be versatile without requiring the player have access to the monster manual to browse through all the options.

Lastly, it would have been easier to balance something like this. Two creatures of the same level can have vastly different stats and capabilities. Monsters were not designed to fight other monsters after all, they were designed to fight PC's.

I'm concerned about Sniper Operative action economy. The way they are built, they are currently slightly worse Sniper Gunslingers from PF2E. They are entirely action-starved currently, leaving very little room for any fun Operative kit flair during play. To alleviate this, I propose three things:

1: Give the Operative access to the Running Reload Feat (with the Traversal trait added) from PF2E. Running Reload is a must in most Gunslinger builds for the action compression since most guns worth using have a Reload 1. The Sniper Rifles in SF2E, unfortunately, suffer from the same problem. Giving access to this Feat, at probably the same level, would benefit the current Sniper Rifles greatly. And whilst on the subject, please consider making Sniper Rifles something like Magazine 3 weapons. I find it rather ridiculous, and somewhat unbelievable that considering Starfinder's improved technological prowess we're still shooting guns and reloading them after every shot. Especially considering the Sniper Rifles that existed in Starfinder First Edition. I believe this would open the Sniper Operative to be built more creatively (And actually be able to use some of the fantastic Operative Feats you have created), and with this change it may open the Sniper Rifle to any other class that would like to use it.

My player had a really hard time making his Sniper Operative work well. It wasn't until he thought of his Sniper Rifle as his secondary (situational) weapon that he started to see the class come together, but it's a very odd thing to make your primary class expression secondary in order to make the best use out of that class.

It all comes down to sniper rifles being a complete mess. They are unwieldy (except one) AND can only have a single shot loaded, but sniper operatives can ignore unwieldy but that only lets them fire twice every other round. Snipers rifles are not so much more powerful than other weapons that they need to have two limiters on them.

I'm not sure why "sniper" exists as a weapon group except to give a sniper operative something unique to them. Just about anything the sniper does could have been done with any weapon 'over a certain range' (say 120).

Starfinder Player Core pg. 94 and 227

The Disciple background grants access to the Religious Talisman feat. It does not feel appropriate for a common background to grant access to a feat that requires mastery in a skill and is level 7.

The Religious Talisman feat likely was included in the Disciple Background in error, as the playtest draft of it, Holy Talisman, was a level 1 feat that required training in Religion, and was included in the Disciple background, which means that they might have intended to swap it to a new skill feat, but simply forgot.

But if it was intentional, well I understand Religious Talisman is a more powerful version of Pathfinder's Pilgrim's Token, but Starfinder likes to skew more powerful anyway.

Recommended approaches:
- Make the Disciple background Uncommon or Rare for using nonstandard feats.
- Switch the Disciple background to granting Student of the Canon instead of Religious Talisman.
- Make the Religious Talisman feat a level 1 feat that requires trained in Religion, as if it was available to a level 1 character by a common background, that means it's already considered balanced for this tier of play.

Not only is Religious Talisman a level 7 feat but it requires mastery at Religion. It should not be given away at level 1 if it has these requirements.

On the face if it, it honestly doesn't appear to be that strong of a feat being that it only grants a +1 status bonus. It does stack with circumstance bonuses such as from incredible initiative or scouting and it is unusual to have a more or less permanent status bonus to something so it probably makes sense that it has these requirements.

For those reasons, I agree that the background needs another pass. It either needs to be rare, or it should grant an entirely different skill feat.

Any idea if this include vehicle combat?

I watched video by some fellows who got an early copy. They mentioned a lot more vehicle things. There's some archetypes geared toward vehicles, there are quite a few new vehicles. I think they said there are some expanded rules for it. They didn't go into detail, but they said that what is in the book certainly supports more vehicle focused play.

136 pages for $50? Yikes.

This product page at least has some interesting info. It shows more than anything they had to say in the "showcase".

Do we know when the players guide will drop?

It doesn't go nearly far enough to bring me back to Starfinder, but I'm happy to see the system get a bit of a tune up.

So much for Snare Setter ever seeing the last part of this line be of any use: "You gain the Snare Crafting feat, though when choosing your formulas for that feat, you can also choose from uncommon kobold snares, as well as common snares."

Tresure Vault would have been an excellent place to see some Kobold snares, especially since it's narrated by a Kobold. Still waiting for that future proofing so many people fell all over themselves to proclaim when I pointed out years ago that there were no uncommon Kobold snares and anticipated that there never would be.

Some discussions here about how Paizo could just rename everything and call it their own (strength becomes brawn, dexterity becomes quickness, etc). But they can't. If you take a piece of published material and republish it, it's plagiarism. If you take a piece of published material, use a thesaurus on all or most of the words and publish it, it's still plagiarism. Copywright doesn't just protect words and the way in which words are written but the ideas in those words.

Paizo could make the case that the rules they have in PF2 are so different that it constitutes a different game entirely with only some similarities.

But WOTC can make the case that PF2 is built off of the 3e rule set and that, despite how it is written or presented, it is still the D20 3e rule system.

Either way it seems to lead to a messy and potentially long court case.

I'm less worried about Paizo, and more worried about how viciously OGL 1.1 goes after VTT's. We might see them shutting down or running at significant reduced capacity without support for our favorite TTRPG as soon as a week after the new OGL goes live. I'm worried about all the great work being done with PF2 modules for Foundry. All that could be shut down while this OGL gets dragged through the courts.

This isn't going to destroy Paizo, but it will destroy so many other creators, many who have built their livelihood around content creation.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

You don't know if I've ever had a problem with that. What a massive assumption.

You've been around for at least 2 years and haven't raised it even once. So, yeah, I'm making an easy assumption that you never had a problem with that - likely because your actual problem is not WHAT changes are being made, but WHY are they being made. Game balance thing that results in Small and Medium weapons doing the same damage is fine with you because game balance doesn't trigger you; a change that comes from a societal thing sets you off. Predictable.

I've played since 3.0. I've railed against the changes to how small characters were handled after 3rd ed days. I've had those arguments, not here, but certainly in other places. Your entire response here seems to be trying to psychoanalyze me. Go talk to someone else and stop trolling me. I'm not here for that.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

You don't know if I've ever had a problem with that. What a massive assumption.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those?

It's not a view I hold but I think I've spotted a difference.

Some people equate better and better. If you are mathematically stronger faster smarter wiser you are just better. This gets equated to better in an ultimate/moral sense...Which is what people really want to avoid

A +2 is just BETTER than a +0 which is just better than a -2. Bouncing vs. a venomous bite vs a feat are fundamentally incomparable. There isn't any implication of better and there really can't be.

10 Hitpoints isn't better than 6? 30 speed isn't better than 25?

If we're going to be equalizing all the ancestries stat choices to address biological essentialism, except for the handful that now has the advantage of three boosts over everyone else apparently, why are we also not equalizing their HP? So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

There ARE biological differences between real world species of the same size and weight. Some species are stronger than others, some are quicker, some are quieter. Corvids ARE more intelligent than lizards. It isn't discriminatory to recognize these things. Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those? Many heritages and feats based of heritages make them physically or mentally better than others at certain things. Is that not biological essentialism? That's not problematic? Why divide ancestry feats up by 'ancestry' at all?

How is it not any more problematic that some ancestries get Darkvision for free at level 1 while humans have to wait until level 5 and spend both of their ancestry feats to get it AND be from the Nidalese ethnicity (or equivalent in their respective campaign) AND be blocked from other ethnic feats? Why does the elf have the highest land speed potential?

So we're okay locking some things behind biology but not stats? I'll never be as fast as a dog, or as stealthy as a leopard or able to hold my breath as long as an otter.

It's such a weird decision to make to achieve their stated goal of addressing biological essentialism because have they really addressed it at all? More so, did it need to be addressed?

I'm not saying biological essentialism should be a factor in deciding the stat options ancestries have, but I am saying that avoiding biological essentialism shouldn't necessarily be a factor either, at least not with such as broad a stroke as they have done here.

Unicore wrote:

What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat?

Unicore wrote:

If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.

I really don't know what to answer, I find that these sentences just make no sense. Yes, I like my character sheet to be as close as possible to the character I play. So I make a difference between 10 and 8 Charisma, between +0 (average) and -1 (bad).

To add to this, modifiers matter. I've played D&D for over 20 years and seeing that -1 on a character means something. Maybe intellectually we know it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but emotionally every time our 8 str character fails by 1 a swim check, or a climb check, we see that -1 and feel it emotionally. 'Failing with a +0 is just due to bad luck', our brains will justify', but a -1 'that's a flaw and we clearly failed because of it'.

The most interesting heroes are those that overcome their flaws and weaknesses like Rastlin, Dresden, and Geralt, to name a few. Every time we overcome a flaw by holding the door open so the party can escape despite having a -1 to the check or succeeding on a reflex save against a powerful AOE despite having an 8 dex, Or succeeding on a recall knowledge check despite a 8 in the relevant state and we are granted just the insight we need to defeat a powerful foe, that success feels even better than if it was just a 10 because we are emotional and we see an 8 as a weakness where as a 10 is inconsequential.

So why does any of this matter in the context of this game? There is an interesting dynamic in games that encourage players to take weakness when building their characters. It sets them up for heroic acts, it can heighten the excitement of normal acts because it feels like overcoming a clear weakness. Some systems understand this aspect of play and even create rules around it like the DM can offer some kind of reward to a player if they take a voluntary penalty on a dice roll.

Pathfinder's form of encouraging flaws in characters was that if you liked all the feats and abilities and stats of some certain ancestries, you would have to accept a flaw for that, or you could use voluntary flaws to get a few penalties to something in exchange for a smaller bonus. Both of these options encourage players to accept a weakness and it sets them up for unexpected heroics as they overcome those weaknesses in the future. And yes, you can choose to take penalties all day now when making characters. Only a few of us will do that and even then, it will dimmish any unexpected heroics from those flaws because we choose to have them simply for the sake of having them. It will make it feel artificial in other words. It's not the same as the game subtly encouraging it.

Many new players will never have the experience of saving their party by making a roll with something that has a penalty in it because they won't ever choose to take a flaw with no benefit. And many parties will never experience rooting for the 8-charisma character who found themselves in the unlikely situation where they are speaking for the party. There's still 10's, I get it, but it won't have the same emotional impact, and that's unfortunate.

Maybe I'm just an aging man pining for all the things younger folks won't get to experience. Maybe I'm just guilty of thinking if folks don't experience the things that I have, in the way I have, it can't possibly be as good. But you know, maybe there is some value in what I'm trying to say.

There seems to be little recognition that, while all ancestries now benefit from being able to ignore their regular boosts for a +2/+2 many ALSO can choose to keep their boosts for a +2/+2/+2/-2 which can be more impactful than 2 +2's. Not human though. Everyone gets what you have, and you don't get anything they have.

Seems like a lot of arguments here about the new way of doing ancestry ability boosts boils down to making it so 'every ancestry can be effective in any class'. That seems to be born out of the assumption that if you don't have an 18 your primary stat that the character isn't any good. And that is simply not true; it's an assumption that comes from ignorance. It's a sign of a lack of understanding about what actually makes characters effective.

What an unfortunate mindset, that you MUST have an 18 in your primary stat to be a good caster, or an 18 str to be a good barbarian or whatever. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is a +1 modifier, which will become less and less important over the span of that character's career.

So, to me, if feels like Paizo is essentially capitulating to power-gamers and minmaxers and that toxic crowd that tells off anyone that doesn't have an 18 in a primary stat.

"I want to play a dwarf sorcerer, but I can't do it with a 16 charisma whaa whaa whaa."

Please.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

If it is a nerf, it only brings them down to be in line with the other ancestries - not lower.

And we are talking about rather trivial differences in the ancestries when looking at only the core abilities. A couple points in HP that quickly becomes irrelevant, languages that are often ignored, sensory abilities when lighting is often ignored too. I think movement speed is the only one that has consistent actual game mechanics value - and even that is only different by +/- one square. You have to have a rather large battlefield before that becomes significant very often.

Not all these differences are trivial as you put it.

You seem to forget that other ancestries get stuff like lowlight vision, darkvision, free healing, faster speeds, immunity to certain effects (like sleep), bonuses to rolls against effects. Some of them get Free unarmed attacks like jaws and claws and tails, ranged unarmed attacks, the ability to completely change their shape and so on and so forth.

The changes to ability boosts, that anyone can take 2 free boosts, is unfortunately an unintended nerf to humans.

The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Blave wrote:

Those elixirs use counteract checks with a fixed counteract modifier and counteract level. They are basically useless as perpetual infusions because they will be at least 5 levels behind your character level and fail to counter pretty much anything you're up against at that level.

Fair point. I hadn't considered that by the time you get those particular perpetual elixirs you will have out leveled anything around the level of the elixir that would apply those conditions.

That really sours me to this fix. Chirurgeon has gone from having 2 useless perpetual elixirs to a handful of almost always useless perpetual elixirs.

More elixirs that don't do anything for my party isn't a solution.

This is conflating the issue too much.

Just because the Perpetual Infusions feature doesn't work well with Focus Cathartics or Sinew-Shock Serums does not mean it'll not work well with all future alchemical elixirs with the Healing trait. This change was done specifically with the new items in Treasure Vault in mind, so there's likely plenty of items for a Chirurgeon to choose from.

I think we should wait to see what Treasure Vault has in store for us before we write it all off.

I'm not conflating the issue, I'm recognizing it. As is, using perpetual the elixirs with the healing tag in the Core Rule book is nigh useless.

Not every group is going to have access to the Treasure Vault. The core rules should be good on their own and not require additional books and sources to make them good.

So... a level 7 Chirurgeon can heal everyone by 1d6 every 10 minutes? Doesn't that seem a bit useless at that level?

Only from perpetual infusions. " If a creature heals Hit Points from a perpetual infusion, that creature is temporarily immune to healing Hit Points from subsequent perpetual infusions for 10 minutes" Having free potions essentially makes everyone capable of getting a downed character up to prevent them from dying, so even though it's only a 1d6 there is some use in that way.

People can still benefit from elixirs made with quick alchemy and advanced Alchemy as normal. Healing from perpetual infusions only makes you immune to healing from another perpetual infusion for 10 min. An alchemist can stock folks up on perpetual infusions and they are basically a free healing elixir they can use every 10 min on top of any regular infused elixirs.

Additionally, the chirugeon could make other elixirs that don't heal HP but that counteract status effects like Focus Cathartic or Sinew-Shock Serum which could be more useful to a group than extra healing. We are also likely to see a lot of other elixirs in the upcoming treasure book that has the healing tag which may be more tempting than an elixir of life.

Considering the fact that before the only perpetual infusion the chirugeon could make was antidote (which lasts 6 hours so you wouldn't need to make them perpetually) or antiplague which lasts 24 hours, this rule change is a pretty massive boost.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

If anything, clarifying that it is optional rule at the DM's discretion should have been enough.

Semantics. It is not a variant rule. It is optional for any player to use it. A GM doesn't get a choice as to whether they use it or not, except by using rule zero to do whatever they want.

Sometimes semantics are enough. Changing it from an optional rule to a variant rule would have been fine.

Clarifying how slow and haste works on minions is helpful, but it seems to indicate that summoned zombies do in fact only have 1 action. That seems like an unfortunate oversight and THAT specific instance could use further clarification if that is the intended effect.

Gortle wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Okay, so, I am personally unhappy with the change to Voluntary Flaws. ....I will be ignoring this errata, but I am not looking forward to dealing with GMs who see it differently.

Honestly, justice for dump stats.

I get your point. They have effectively removed voluntary flaws from the game. It is a small nerf and I rule I often used. But if this is the worst thing here I'm happy with the other changes. Which exceeds my expectations anyway.

Totally agree! I like this errata overall! It's a net gain. I'd love it if they walked this one part back, of course, so I wanted to express my feelings about it as the one change I didn't like, but it's a good sign when there's only one thing people are complaining about and it's the removal of a variant rule. :P

Just chiming in with my thoughts on changing how the optional Voluntary Flaws rule works. Though I didn't always use it, I often did. Currently playing an old woman witch that has 2 8's in physical stats but the bonus went to a mental stat. It makes sense for her since with age often comes wisdom and knowledge but also physical frailties.

I've played with DM's that did not like voluntary flaws, so they didn't include it, and I've played with others that were fine with it. That's the point of something that's optional. Nerfing an optional rule seems asinine.

If anything, clarifying that it is optional rule at the DM's discretion should have been enough.

...andpleasefortheloveofgodnerfelectricarcpleasepleaseplease--

Other than that, uh, great work!

I've been using my own variant for electric arc,

Electric Arc (This version replaces the version presented in the book in All games I DM.)

Cantrip 1
Cantrip: Electricity Evocation
Source: Core Rulebook pg. 335 2.0
Traditions: arcane, primal
Mystery: tempest
Cast: Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range: 30 feet; Targets 1 creature, and another within 30 feet of that one.
Saving Throw: basic Reflex

An arc of lightning hits one target and leaps to another. You deal electricity damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier to the primary target. Then choose a secondary target within 30 feet of your primary target. You do not need line of sight to the secondary target from your position, but you must know what square the secondary target is in and you must be able to draw line of sight and line of effect from the primary target to the secondary target. The secondary target takes half the damage of the primary target (basic reflex save)

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 1d4 to the primary target

My players like this variation. It reduces electric arcs damage slightly but it adds a bit or range to it so you can affect secondary targets that are further away than 30 feet. It also feels a little more like what one might expect for an arc of lighting.

This is a very good deal considering how expensive official token packs are for other systems and on other Vtts. Still, $60 is a rather large price for a lot of people, so it might have been nice to see an alternative offering for this where it is split into three volumes so a person could purchase the volumes over time.

To clarify, as others have said, I just want the module. I'm happy to see a mark up on it so Paizo gets their piece. I don't want the bundle because I'll have no use for the PDF's. I'll only be running the module in Foundry and I'm happy to access the content via the journal entries there.

While I am also unhappy with the pricing there is more to the comparison than you would think at first glance, etc.

If you wish to save some money demiplane might be a good route, (etc)...

Your suggestions for alternative ways of doing things are good, but not really the point here. I'm not looking for alternatives, I'm looking for a better price point. I understand what goes into the pricing of these modules. They need to figure out how monetize These AP's for themselves and their subcontractor in a way that doesnt feel like I'm getting ripped off.

I cant even begin to imagine how freaking expensive Kingmaker is going to be. Considering that Blood Lords for Foundry is around 20% more expensive than the Print version, the Roll20 version or the Fantasy Grounds version, if the the print version of Kingmaker is $100 and Kingmaker has the same basic mark up as Blood Lords we're looking at, what, $120?

Paizo needs to get it's foundry pricing figured out or support the PDF importer so we can just go back to purchasing PDF's then importing them. The current foundry pricing model doesnt feel good.

Purchasing modules for APs on Foundry should not be the most expensive purchasing options. Pathfinder Adventure Path #182: Graveclaw is currently $36 to get the foundry version, $8 more expensive than the print edition, $7 more expensive than Fantasy Grounds and $11 more expensive than the pricing for Outlaws of Alkenstar. If this is the pricing we can expect for Foundry going forward I don't know that I can continue to do business with this company.

Some things that might fix this issue: removing the requirement to purchase the PDF. Considering that the module on foundry comes with everything you need to run it, the PDF purchase is completely superfluous. Alternatively increasing the discount for purchasing the PDF and foundry code together so that it is at least not more expensive than any of the other purchasing options.

This is the most expensive version of this AP. Purchase of this AP should not require the PDF since the module is fully self contained. Please stop overcharging for Foundry modules.

Have to agree with most of the postings here about the Wiz or Druid as being the only available multiclass options for characters given as free archetypes. While I'm sure the story of the AP will lean very heavy into those classes, they being the best example of classes that learn their casting from others, Druid is very restrictive and perhaps should not be the only option available to Wizards.

I can understand, of course, why a school, which has a function in teaching, wouldn't necessarily be a great fit for spell casters that are not taught their magic (Witches, Sorcerers), and also why a school that specializes in Arcane and Primal might not be a great fit for Divine and Occult casters (Cleric and Bard) as examples of multiclass options. The school would, presumably, have some kind of requirements of it's students to learn at least some of the types of magic it specializes in.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem too difficult to say, perhaps, that there is a recent and new push to include Occult courses and thus make Bard an option for the free multiclass feats. Bards attending a school or university to learn magic is a staple in fantasy after all.

I would love to hear a little bit about the design decision as to why those two multiclass options are the only ones available for the free archetype feats. Hopefully the AP will talk about that a little bit.

Otherwise, this AP looks to be shaping up to be very interesting. I'm very enamored of Mwangi. Hopefully this will be only one of many AP's that take place there.

I suppose the line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm quite disappointed that this does not include the adventure path races. This would have been a great way to introduce players to some really cool races that they might not otherwise have ever seen, like the Raxilite or Selamid (playable ooze!) or Vilderaro.

The omission of legacy races also seems odd since they were in the original book just like the core races, and have been referenced quite a bit in Starfinder materials indicating that they are an active part of the Pact Worlds.

Hopefully we'll see something like a 'booster pack' that includes all the legacy races, AP races, and maybe some new races like those Bugbear we all wonder about.

Where are the uncommon kobold snares mentioned in the feat Snare Setter? Is this coming in another book? In errata?