Zoken44's page

Um... how about doing it indirectly by buffing the Scroll cases?
I think they're a really good idea with a minor limitation, they are technically limited to Rank 1 scrolls as I read them. I would say if you could purchase higher level scroll cases that can accept higher ranked spell scrolls, and cast their listed spells at the same rank as the scroll used (maximum Spell rank should be equal to (item level/2)-1) and maybe add one or two useful higher level spells at the highest levels. This way if you find/made scrolls that you thought would be useful, but you're in a pinch and need a more generally useful spell you don't have at the ready, you can convert that scroll into the more useful spell. and saves you from having to prepare/learn that specific spell, as you don't need to know that spell to use the case, you just need to be able to cast spells of that list.

Good point, I forgot we were only addressing Tiny PC's at this point, and you're absolutely right, it is unlikely petrification would cause them to be more than a bulk.

And what the Sneaker, or Mystic Net says to me is that likely Abadar Corp and other Mega-Corps keep high level Mystics on staff specifically for this in their engineering departments to transfer vital files back and forth quickly and securely.

Also, we need a Mystic connection more centered around Info-Spheres and tech.

I would assume that it would increase the bulk of the creature since it changes you from flesh (various relatively non-dense materials) to solid stone (relatively high density)

To the "Petrify them first" crowd, because I doubt Farien is the only one to think of that. How much does it cost to inflict that condition and to reverse it? also, aren't people more than 1 bulk? Especially if they are petrified.

I think the message system would be an interesting idea, but more in the idea of a sneaker-net type of thing (When certain data files are too big, it is faster to just have the drive you are working on be removable and have it physically moved to the new location for it to be accessed than to transmit it through the normal network) Or as a covert back channel.

Gonna take this in a different direction, and talk about something I'd like to see for starships that skews differently than the original poster intended (because I mostly agree with everyone else who's response is "They told us this ahead of time, and good writing takes time")

I would like to see Ship feats, like upgrades to certain systems that isn't just about numbers go up, but things you can do at certain numbers.

Like If you have a sufficient Tractor beam (or equivalent) your ship could use to to grab and hurl debris as kinetic attacks, or do the equivalent of Disarm/grapple attacks on enemy ships.

Or if you have a powerful enough sublight engine special flight maneuversthat are possible, or speed bursts that risk the engine

Weapons systems might get a feat allowing for "Pinpoint targeting" allowing them to target individual creatures.

I actually like the idea, but specifically designed to be for Starfinder 2e, with new ancestry feats for Golarion ancestries and Class feats for the PF2e classes when they get to space, especially since they moved the existing classes away from being "Rogue IN SPACE" and "fighter IN SPACE"

https://bsky.app/profile/samreich.bsky.social/post/3m3436xerls2o

So, Paizo... any funds left in the marketing budget?
Dropout is home of one of the most popular Actual Play series on the internet and one of the most famous gamemasters.

For information regarding how they spent the $100K that LinkedIn gave them, GameChanger's "Who Want's To be Jacob Wysocki." One of their cast had been having a rough year, including losing his mother, so they did an episode of their show themed around Who wants to be a millionaire that was designed to make him win the $100K, and celebrate the amazing person he is, with big moments to break for sponsorship placement in the most hilarious way possible.

Mind you, Jacob is a guy that when another of their shows put $3K in his pocket, he donated it split between a charity to help revitalize a history town and a local high school marching band.

So I'm thinking a class that is (thematically) all about exploration. The Milo Thatch, the Jim Hawkins, Moana, Starfleet, they want to know what is out there. Eager to reach into the unknown and tell everyone else about it.

Whether for a sense of wonder, a sense of duty, or a sense for profit, you are choosing to boldly go.

I'm thinking something with recall knowledge, but instead of forcing a weakness, like the Thaumaturge, you force the creature to be off guard to you, and then on subsequent turns you can use that recall knowledge to force other effects and statuses on them, especially based on subclass. but it would always use survival, which would auto scale, instead of the normal recall knowledge checks.

It's my thread and I'll Necro if I want to.

Saw something mentioned in another thread and it made me think: Yeah, there should be a class for that: The Survival Skill.

I mean we're talking about deep space, the final frontier, blah-blah-blah. There should be a class, probably a support oriented one, where they have a focus on survival and wisdom. but with subclasses depending on what kind of environment they want to survive in.

I don't know what their central gimmick would be. but any ideas?

I didn't think the Whispering Way was a religion, just a group loyal to Tar-Baphon, and eager to grant him more power. am I mistaken there?

And as for the Prophets of Callistrade I think the issue there is philosophical. They don't believe in doing something for nothing, so the idea of having clerics or champions who have power without actively paying for it, would be anathema on it's own.

Okay, firs thing is utterly petty and nit-picky... ninja didn't wear black, they work dark blue.

for weapons I would include rope darts as well.

I would consider the name or flavor of some of your feats.

"Avoid Creaking floors" sounds like it should be letting you move at full speed while sneaking, not searching.

is this supposed to be like an idea for an Archetype? you refer to "body guard" on several occasions not really clear what that's about.

I love the idea of a shinobi archetype or class. but while the feats are giving it a good bit of identity, I would try and find a core mechanic to this idea, something that the dedication feat would grant.

Heads up, only place I could think to talk about this: I am scheduled to start at the same time as the Cosplay Contest.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I allowed for that, and I'm pretty sure the audience overlap isn't severe, but yeah.

Sort of an odd idea that just occurred to me:

A Yaoguai or Tsukumogami Poppet that IS the legendary weapon (which also serves as their weapon Ikon).

as you pointed out, Prophesy is broken, if it was every real in the first place.

Further you pointed out that the cycle of souls is a force beyond her that she is manipulating. and would eventually come to a stop to end the universe, so she artificially forces this to continue through the manipulation of the cycle of souls.

Also, I didn't say she was acting outside the cycle of souls, but outside the cycle of Life and Death, the gods can die. We've just had a rather vivid demonstration of that.

With Prophesy broken she is now just a witch manipulating souls to make sure a future she wants, and only that future comes to pass. Sounds like a necromancer to me.

So if a necromancer's bloody sacrifices of lesser animals and rituals had a side effect of helping the local crops come in plentiful and robust, would you no loner consider what they did evil, again assuming this was done with void energy?

Furthermore, from her perspective, she is artificially extending her life by manipulating the flow of souls, this flies in the face of her stated concept of to everything a time to be born and a time to die.

(To be clear, this more of a devil's advocate thing I'm doing here, because I find this an interesting metaphysical and moral discussion, and presenting the arguments that I think Ethical necromancers would give for their activities)

If Pharasma is so justified in prolonging her own life, OUTSIDE the cycle of life and death, then why should we not be able to?

The Raven Black wrote:

Again, Pharasma being 100% opposed to undead is not what makes them, or creating them, evil, or Evil.

They could be the epitome of Good and she would not treat them any differently.

She is the caretaker of the cycle of souls, undeath prevents the soul from flowing, and for Pharasma, the only thing that matters is that the souls must flow.

But the flowing of souls extends the lifespan of the current Universe. Is that not a good thing?

Wait... the flowing of souls extends the life span of the current universe, and thusly I would assume, Pharasma's existence too. She's a hypocrite. She's using souls in this cycle to extend existence, and thus her own personal existence... much like a necromancer might.

Necromancy, more and more, is kind of junk, and should just be removed from the game, rather than all sorts of arbitrary 'some god says you are destroying the universe by using it!' not-really-rules.

Save the space in the book for stuff we are supposed to use (and not going to be judged for using, or even finding interesting)!

If we're wishing for things, I'd like to wish for the introduction of a benevolent god of undeath, governing over those who "naturally" rise, or are turned against their will, or come to reject the callousness of the more "traditional" undead.

Or a diety of undeath presiding over those with unfinished business, or denied lives.

The idea (especially with the introduction of the Necromancer) of an understanding of necromancy that isn't necessarily about binding and using full souls, but using void energy and an animating force, no different than using arcane energies for an animating force (creating constructs)

Zoken44 wrote:

From a narrative/meta stand point I find it unfulfilling and cheap to just say "This type of magic automatically corrupts you and is default evil".

Power corrupting makes sense, we see that all the time.

But again, the fact that you can do some of the exact same things and not be considered automatically evil just because you didn't involve the dead/undead seems hypocritical.

But that's a personal perspective, I understand that the game's Lore is different.

TBH I see nothing that is like undead:

Extremely dangerous
Potentially immortal
Tends to attacks the living

Arsonists have a similar bent to undead crafters but the result fits only the first point. Yet it is enough to have them feared and imprisoned (at least).

Nothing is like the undead?

Extremely Dangerous: Are you saying that pyromantic magic isn't extremely dangers and liable to get away from someeone who isn't careful?
That there are no other ways of achieving immortality (Nex would beg to differ)
Tends to attack the Living: Carnivores and omnivores, and animal will do that including if it's magically summoned.

let me add some stuff: Binding a soul against their will: summonned fey, Elementals, Fiends, Celestials, etc...

Again, yes, In Golarion as it exists in PF2e, Necromancy is cannonically evil and corrupting and blah, blah, blah. I just don't find that interesting narratively. and at my table, it would be more complicated than that.

From a narrative/meta stand point I find it unfulfilling and cheap to just say "This type of magic automatically corrupts you and is default evil".

Power corrupting makes sense, we see that all the time.

But again, the fact that you can do some of the exact same things and not be considered automatically evil just because you didn't involve the dead/undead seems hypocritical.

But that's a personal perspective, I understand that the game's Lore is different.

The only reason I will argue against Mr. Kane is he tends to play his fighter mans as smart with lots of hidden depths, Valeros is a very competant fighter, but he's also a himbo.

That's the thing, You know the sewer system in a Golarion city is really well maintained if you see a FEW Kobolds (or other tunneling species) walking the streets. Seeing none implies they aren't allowed and are being mistreated or that they aren't there. Seeing a LOT of them implies that for some reason they no longer find the sewers habitable and are being forced above ground (but upside it's an accepting town)

So without question the last few posts do make it rather clear that in universe, PF2e setting, Undeath is "bad"(Unholy/Evil/etc). (no sarcasm)

I just from a meta perspective remain frustrated by that. If there can be good PC's who are undead, that means logically an undead can be a good person. If any undead can be a good person , that means they cannot be universally evil. Further I find it more narratively interesting if they aren't, and the reality is simply that the most powerful and well known undead ALSO happen to be powerful wizards and rich nobles. They simply use their undeath as an excuse to indulge in their worst impulses, and their empathy for the living is dulled by their wealth and power.

Given that the same or comparable effects can be achieved with other magics that are not considered "evil" or "Unholy" I question the moral judgement that gets thrown on there. I reject the idea of absolute morality being derived from a divine being, given divinities in this universe are not infallible.

The term graft was introduced in HotW, but the concept was introduced earlier in SF1e. It could be more than just animal parts, It could also be mechanical bits, and actual undead tissue.

I'm sorry, which nation on Golarion (or earth for that matter) has zero poor or oppressed people? Andoran? Nope, poor people there. Absolom, nope, they got poverty. Hermea, sort of, but you must OBEY the "Benevolent" dragon.

I'm not saying Geb is perfect, I'm saying that they are a nation that doesn't stigmatize necromancy and they make it work, and are becoming slowly more progressive.

1: I don't need any of you to agree to anything. I would like y'all to accept that it's a valid perspective to hold, but I can't make anyone do anything.

2: I thought this was a meta-discussion of the ethics as we saw it, informed my the known and unknown mechanics in universe. Not the ethics from the point of view of only the in-universe majority

3: Frankly I don't mean to be as confrontational as I come off, but some of these points do not make sense to me. The behaviors we bemoan about the undead are largely things that are true of any carnivorous or omnivorous creature. and we pretend that they can be both sapient/sentient and universally evil, and like we don't find that perspective grotesquely simplistic when we apply it to other peoples in the setting (or real world). Other than "It has to be this way for the plot to make sense" or "It has to be this way so we have always-evil baddies to fight" I don't get it.

an eternal hunger? You mean like the one in your belly? Of will there be a point at which you will never be hungry again? and are you saying that if you were under the pain of starvation, there are lines you would not cross to keep yourself alive (sane in the case of undead)?

Also, you all act like the only perspective on Golarion is that "Undead is bad". There is a whole kingdom where that's not the case, one that is a huge stable trading partner with Absolom and other countries.

I thought this was a discussion about the ethics of necromancy in universe. I didn't bring up our real world first in relation to this topic or taboos first, I responded to the concept that was posed to me.

TO BE CLEAR I am not trying to imply that anyone here is anything-phobic, or that these things are the same, I'm poking holes in the logic being presented to me.

Pharasma declares it: Appeal to authority, and similar authority is frequently wrong or biased

They are dangerous: Yes, So are a lot of things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism

Taboos about Death: Appeal to tribalism, and as I pointed out taboos are not always a good thing.

Similar practices and effects are done in all forms of magic and (from an in-universe perspective) what is the difference between binding a spirit necromantically and binding a fey, fiend, or elemental? What is the difference between making a construct and a mindless undead? What is the difference between an undead's desire for flesh/blood and any living omnivore or carnivore's desire for meat?

I think they did what they did with the Soldier and Operative because those were derivative. They had intentionally been created as "Fighter in Space" and "Rogue In space" in first edition. So in second edition they gave them their own roles and spaces to fill.

Evolutionist already has that, It's all about the Grafts, and that is a common theme for sci-fi/sci-fantasy heroes.

Also, I think the animist wasn't called "The Binder" for both the OGL/ORC split reasons, and because "The Binder" would be causing giggles.

So a lot of you talk about the disposal via the creatures in the sewers, but I'm going to talk about the creation of the sewars themselves. There are numerous ancestries in Golarion that have a reputation for burrowing and tunnelling. a clever Mayor or other city official can easily work out a deal with the local Kobold nest to create the city's sewer system for for certain concessions. and a reasonably clever Kobold nest would eagerly take the contract to create elaborate tunnels beneath the tall folk's feet... including plenty of tunnels the tall folk are never told about.

Wow, that's an interesting point... you know what else there used to be a huge taboo about?

Wolves. Wolves were a shoot on sight animal for much of human history. But we know a lot more about them now and understand how important they are for their ecosystem.

Also, because I know what the rebuttle will be to that comment, if Undead are inheriently "unnatural" why do natural undead occur (the book of the dead makes it clear that undead can form without any intent from any party, just from ambient magic)

There is a taboo about death, because death is a universal fear. it's why those who handle the dead used to be considered "unclean" and in some cultures was only done by the lowest of castes.

Also, if we want to talk about who breaks major taboos... really? There are a lot of taboos in the real world that are being broken, and for good reason: Talking about mental health, coming out as queer, asking for help.

So When it comes to Necro Ethics I have to ask a few questions from the necromancer's point of view:

Why is an undead's need to feed different from a living creature's need to feed? Especially if they can be ethically sourced (nothing in the undead hunger sections indicates that they must feed from SAPIENT life)

A mindless undead will lash out and attack... so will wild animals.

You magically animated a gust of wind or rock, or a doll. How are you better than me magically animating bones?

You bound an elemental/angel/demonic creature/fey to your service... how are you better than me binding a mortal soul to mine?

We accept that many gods can be quite fallible. As lovable and admirable as the Accidental God is, we know he can make drunken mistakes. We recognize that Shelyn has a blind spot when it comes to Zon-Kuthon, her brother who wants only to inflict pain. Sarenrae demands truth, but we all know those who the truth would hurt. So why can we not accept that Pharasma may be mistaken in her pogrom against undeath?

None of this is to say that Undeath is never taken advantage of, or abused by those who crave power, and yes there are aspects of it that particularly appeal to those who would do so, but that does not mean that all who practice and wield these powers cruel or malevolent or predatory.

I had an alchemical familiar doing this for me on a bomber alchemist.

The problem with that take is that the Evolutionist is not about turning into animals. It's about grafts/implants that include cybernetics and Necrografts in addition to bio-mechanics.

Wow, guilty of 5e carry over, sorry.

Thank you, I will look at trimming down some stuff. Like the saying goes, kill your darlings.

Frankly, I agree, no matter which of the three versions we're talking about, Spell slots don't really fit (Focus spells maybe)

Seeing something built around being just a shapeshifter and having to "master" certain forms. Subclasses built around the use to which you put your shapeshifting.

Dopple: you specialize in impersonation of actual beings. You gain a limited number of "Mastered forms" which you get a massive deception bonus to pretend to be, or maybe just auto succeed on those forms.

Lurker: You specialize in using your shapeshifting to hide, letting you use your charisma instead of dexterity for stealth checks and your mastered forms are objects made of specific materials (anything else, and a close examination would reveal your wood grain makes no sense, the metal still has the wrong texture, etc)

Warp: You've specialized in combat using your malleable body to switch between physical damage types, give yourself reach, and grapple and engulf. Your "mastered forms" would be unarmed weapon stances

So that's 4d12+8 actually right? (I assume he's got +4 strength)

Frankly, I'm happy with just rolling the normal amount and multiplying by two specifically BECAUSE you also double the flat damage too, which I feel makes up for it if you roll low, but I definitely see the appeal of rolling ALL THE DICE!

So maybe something like the Cleric Class archetype. reduce them to a spell casting similar to the Magus and Summoner, and enhance their martial proficiencies to let them take advantage of their battle forms (and make sure they always have access to battle forms without cooldown)

Okay, so for the "Beast Boy" version of a shifter what is keeping the Wild Order Druid from fulfilling that role? Serious question. Not down playing that desire at all.

For the Werewolf-ish Shifter, what is keeping the Beastkin VHeritage, the Werewolf Archetype, and the Animal Barbarians from fulfilling that role?

Let me clarify, I was using "Panel" as a catch-all term. I am the only one talking, it is more of a lecture. I apologize for the confusion.

I also hear what you are saying about the tell-them-three-times method and will see what I can do to restructure for that.

as for the quantum field, Your studies into Sandwhiches have lead you to the ability to have already fed both your allies and enemies before you combat, before you even met them. For any creature in your quantum field choose either "Well Fed" or "Garbage Fed". For those who are well fed, any effect that would apply a fixed number of hit points or temporary hit points applies an additional amount equal to spell casting modifier. If the effect would roll to determine the amount of hit points, instead make two rolls, and take the better result, this is NOT a fortune effect

For those who are garbage fed, they must make a will save when the field activates or the first time they enter the field. on a critical success nothing happens, on a success they are sickened 1.
On a failure they are sickened 1 and cannot reduce this condition until they leave the field.
On a critical failure they are sickened 2 and cannot reduce the condition until they leave the field.

Finding the path from 5-2
Thank you for coming to my panel, Finding the path from 5 to 2, a primer on Pathfinder 2nd edition for D&D 5e players. There is no denying that D&D 5e has been a huge gateway into TTRPG’s over the last decade and half. And for that reason, I will always celebrate someone who tells me they have a D&D game coming up. Good for you. However, with the actions of D&D’s parent company over the last couple of years, and the sorta-kinda-but-not-really new edition, now’s a good time for people to try out new systems.
Now, the good news, is that if, as the name of the panel suggests, you are coming from D&D 5e, you already know most of the major rules! YAY! But, as they say, Asmodeus in the details. In this panel I’m gonna take you over the basic mechanical differences that will effect everyone, the differences you’ll face as you build characters, the differences GM’s will have to contend with, and the differences for the players. I promise, as you learn, you will find yourself thinking at least once here “Oh, that makes things easier,” or “Well, that’s already how we do it at our table” or sometimes you will think “FINALLY!”.
one of the first differences is one you’ve probably already heard about: the three action economy! On your turn, you get three actions. Any basic thing you do… is an action. Move, that’s an action, attack, that’s an action, tell the goblin what you and your allies did to the guys in the last room to make him soil himself, that’s not just an action, that’s a really GOOD action. Now martials are probably rubbing their hands thinking “oh! Three attacks per turn at level one!” hold up. There is something called the Multiple attack penalty. Basically while you get to make your first attack at full bonus, trying to follow up with another attack, is making you a bit reckless, giving you a minus 5 penalty to hit. And if you do a third (or more) attack, that penalty goes up to minus 10! There are things that can mitigate this penalty, but bare in mind just swing away, isn’t always good advice. Most spells will cost two actions, but there are plenty that are one, or three, or the number of actions could vary. Anything that isn’t a spell that costs more than one action, or costs one action but you can only do it because of x-rule is called an activity. A lot of activities your class or class feats give you will be about action compression.
Now when I talk about the basic mechanical differences, I’m talking about the rules you’ll encounter while rolling dice. First of all, you should know that there are more results just succeed and fail. Almost every effort in game will yield different results depending on critical failure, failure, success, or critical success. The one major exception is attacking (usually) doesn’t have an effect for a critical failure. That’s because Critical Failures and Critical success are no longer just based on Nat 1 and 20. If you beat a DC by 10 or more, that’s a CRITICAL success. And if you fail by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure. So if you are fighting a little bitty goblin with an armor class of about 13, and you manage to roll 24 on an 18, that’s a critical hit. (Also, critical hits just double ALL damage, not just the dice)
These crits are made more and more possible through the use of bonuses, which are more common than advantage/disadvantage (which is called fortune and misfortune respectively). Now those of you in here who are having traumatic 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e flashbacks; calm down! You cannot stack bonuses ad infinite. There are three bonus types, and you can only use the biggest one of each. The bonuses are Item bonuses, Circumstance bonuses, and Status Bonuses. Item bonuses are gained because you have a well made item helping you do something, or maybe even a magical one (more on magic weapons later). Circumstance bonuses are usually from things you are doing. You give yourself a beneficial (or harmful in the case of penalties) situation. A good example of this is flanking. If you and an ally flank a creature, it then off guard to both of you, giving it a -2 circumstance penalty to it’s armor class. Status bonuses are more lasting effects, usually a result of a condition or a spell. One of the most powerful, which theoretically anyone can cause, is the “Frightened” condition. You can take the “Demoralize” action to say something threatening or scary to an enemy, and if you succeed, they become frightened 1, which gives them a -1 status penalty to EVERYTHING, attacks, skill checks, armor class! Learning to create and stack these bonuses and penalties can cause some MASSIVE plays. And remember, each +1 is more than a +1 to hit, it’s also a +1 to CRIT.
Now you are all probably thinking “but what about my normal to hit modifier”! Okay, let’s talk proficiency. In normal Pathfinder 2e, there are five degrees of proficiency; Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary. Untrained is exactly that, you don’t really know what you’re doing here, but you’ll give it a stab, you add your ability modifier and that’s it. Trained through Legendary get a boost of +2,+4,+6, or +8 respectively. In addition you add your level to anything you have trained or higher proficiency in.
They also don’t apply universally at the same time. In 5e, at level 5 your proficiency for everything just goes up to +3. But in Pathfinder it works differently. Your proficiencies are divided into two groups I like to call “Class Proficiencies” and “Skill Proficiencies”. Class proficiencies get assigned based on what class you are playing. These will including things like your perception, your weapons proficiency, your spell attack/DC, your class DC (For martials), your saving throws, and your armor class… that’s right, armor is something you get better with.
The major differences for GM’s come from secret rolls, tighter balance, and the result of that tighter balance being a shift in burden. Secret rolls simply means any skill check where a character is trying to get information, YOU roll the check behind your screen. If they fail badly enough, you’re going to give them bad information, and they don’t get to know whether they failed or succeeded.
Tighter balance in both items having specific levels to help you figure out when it is okay to give to the party, CR’s being more reflective of a creature’s over all capabilities guides for balancing encounters based on intended difficulty and level that actually works and prevents accidental surprise TPK’s. However, all of this comes with more rules which make building encounters more simple if you are willing to stick to Paizo created content, but more complex and difficult if you prefer to home brew monsters and creatures.
Skill proficiencies are mostly the skills you know athletics, acrobatics, stealth, deception, etc, etc. Some of them will have slightly different names, and some may be expanded into multiple skills. Also some skills will sometimes be “Class proficiencies”. That’s the more complicated classes.
And since were talking about classes, let’s talk about the difference in character building. First off, while they are the same 6 catagories, instead of ability scores, you have attribute modifiers, which simply means we don’t bother with the big number and only concern ourselves with the modifier. And these modifiers get built as you build your character. You will get attribute boosts from your ancestry, from your back ground, and from your class, as well as 4 boosts just for building your character. Now the limit here is boosts from the same source cannot over lap. So if you get a strength and dexterity and free boost from your ancestry, both your strength and dexterity go up by 1, and then you can increase one of the four others by 1.
Your ancestry (Race or species in D&D) will determine a few things: it will give you a few boots and maybe a penalty, it will determine any special senses, and it will give you some extra starting hit points for level 1, based on how hearty these ancestries normally are. You will also choose your heritage, representing the community you grew up in, and a special feat from your ancestor.
From your background you’ll get a couple of boosts, become trained in a skill, and get a skill feat (some special ability you can do because of your training in that skill)
And from your class well… that depends on your class! Each class has a key attribute modifier which will automatically get a boost. Now here’s the big thing that may shock you all: When you pick your class, you are that class from level 1-20. Multi classing works VERY different. It is less of “I am both these classes!” and more “I am this class, but I also have a little training in this other class”. But the good news, the REALLY GOOD NEWS: All the classes are build like the 5e Warlock. You get a bunch of basic stuff necessary to your class in the first few levels, and at later levels it’s mostly your class proficiencies going up. And every Even level (and level 1 for martials) you gain a class feat, all of this helps making your character play your way.
one of the first differences you will feel in combat encounters is movement. While attack of opportunity does exist (called Reactive Strike here), not everyone can do it. For the most part only martial characters can learn this, and only at 6th level or higher (exception being the fighter who gets it out of the gate)
Martials, you will keep up better with your spell casters because of how weapons work. Specifically the RUNE system. You can place runes on weapons and armor (very common magic items). For weapons the fundamental runes are Potency (adding to your item bonus to hit) and striking (adding extra damage die). For armor Potency adds to the armors item bonus for armor class, and Resiliency, which adds item bonuses to your saving throws. Both can then add exta runes that give special effects like adding some elemental damage, or making people you hit with it afraid.
This builds on the weapon TRAITS. Each weapon will have certain traits which could mean things like you can try to trip someone with this weapon, and if you do you can add the weapon’s item bonus to the athletics roll to trip. Or maybe it’s got the deadly trait, which adds an extra damage die when you critically hit. Or it could let you use the melee weapons with your dexterity modifier to hit (NOT To damage though), or it could reduce your multiple attack penalty.
Then there are weapon GROUPS. For instance you may have a Katana, and a scimitar, and a long sword, and they all work very differently, but they are all in the same weapon GROUP. And when weapons of that group critically hit, they do an extra thing if you have certain class feature (kind of like 5e’s new weapon traits)
Casters, you are going to have to deal with a LOT more rules. But because degrees of success are such a big thing in this game, nearly ALL your spells will do something even on a successful save. They must CRITICALLY succeed a saving throw to avoid everything. So no more feeling like a turn was completely waisted because your big fancy control spell didn’t get anyone to completely fail.
But this extra power, comes at a price.
Prepared casters, clerics, Druids, Wizards: You have to REALLY prepare. Your spell slots are chambers in a revolver, and you have to load them with SPECIFIC spells. So if you only prepare a healing spell twice, you can only cast that healing spell twice, and only at the spell rank (spell level) you prepared it.
Spontaneous casters, you aren’t getting off scott-free either. When you learn a spell, you learn it at a SPECIFIC spell rank. You can’t just learn fire-ball when you turn level 5 and then be able to automatically up cast it when you get bigger spell slots. You have to learn it at those higher spell ranks. That said prepared casters do, USUALLY, have a feature that lets them choose one spell from each spell rank to be able to upcast without re-learning it. but that just makes the spells you choose that much more important.

at a convention I'm going to next month, hosting a panel about getting started in Pathfinder 2e, from the perspective of someone who play's 5e.

I was wondering if I could post my spiel on here for feed back on: Accuracy, presentation of information, selection of topics, flow/structure.

The only thing I'm not looking for feedback on is my grammar (I don't think it's perfect, it's just I'm the only one going to see this so I don't care so long as I can understand it)

This reminds me of the wisdom based martial I recommended, which was based on the old concepts like the four humors, Chi, and Chakra.

And the Shifter being brought up leads right back into the "What is a shifter" discussion. Because I see people talking past each other because some are thinking beast boy (A Wild Form Druid without the casting and more shapeshifting), or like a Werewolf (we have an archetype specifically for that, not to mention several classes that do something like that.) And what I'm always advocating a class that is somewhere between Mystique and Plastic Man

ReinerZufall: Talk to the player. Even if it were RAW (which others have pointed out issues with it RAW, it's clearly not RAI. and Yeah, that easily could make anyone uncomfortable. Talk to the player and explain your perspective. Having rules to back up your perspective is great and all, but always remember Rule 0: If a rule is getting in the way of fun, change it, it's your game.

Like I said, I think the best option here is to talk to the player and explain how uncomfortable this makes you feel, and how exploitative of mechanics this action is. And set the firm boundary, with a clear consequence for abusing that boundary(because that spell does have some use, I don't want to say they can never use it).

You've got this.

Muscle magic reminds me of that doom patrol series. They had a guy which such perfect muscle control he was basically a wizard by flexing or twitching the right muscles.

THAT is exactly what I was referencing. and why I made the gimmick a random spell cast.

Exequiel: Was that a change that came with the remaster?
Arssanguinus: I guess that makes sense, but fae is such a broad category that... I mean what would you do with that other than the Fey Ancestry feat that Noxious brought up.

Zoken44 wrote:

You mean... changelings?

Those are part Hag. Right down to their ancestry feats,

Right, and Hags are fae, hence I brought them up.

I did mean the manipulate trait. I wanted to throw that in for the odd one that didn't have it.