Seagull

Zullock's page

Organized Play Member. 24 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
1st of all, you are not categorizing deities in PF1 correctly.

I was just quoting the requirements listed in Planar Adventures to make a point that the easiest way to know the category of a god, the amount of domains it gave, is gone in 2e.

Temperans wrote:
2nd, because you misrepresented how many domains deities gave you missed how much more detailed PF1 domains are.

In 2e there are also something equivalent to subdomains, the Alternate Domains, some gods don't have them, but they do exist. Arshea has: confidence, freedom, passion, perfection, change, family, and protection between domains and alternate domains.

That they changed how they give domains to have more space with how they do things is okay and I didn't mind to say or argument that one is better than the other, what I wanted to say is this had an impact in making clear what category each god is in.

Temperans wrote:
But I don't think that every deity needs to tell you whether they are a full deity or a demigod unless the difference is not obvious as is the case with deities having the same number of domains.

The point is that for a new deity that we only now we know about in 2e, for example Lubaiko or Yelayne we don't have any way to know what category they fit in because the text always calls everything "god", not making distinction between deities and demigods.


The Raven Black wrote:
I feel it is better that the power and importance of deities is left to the GM so that they can tell the story they want without having a player explaining that such deity differing from their divine categorization in a Paizo book hurts their sense of verisimilitude too much.

I see it as a tool for the GM so that he knows how to use gods as obstacles in their games, not something that restricts him in a narrative sense. If a GMJ wants to use a god already existing, a not one made by themselves for their campaign, why wouldn't they research it first or make it fit in the narrative that they are fighting an avatar or weakened version of it?

James Jacobs wrote:
As we move into the remastered rules and away from the OGL, I suspect we'll use these naming conventions even less, to be honest, but we'll see!

It's a shame since it's something I always loved about the setting and something I hated seeing going away from 1e when 2e came out, even more so after getting it all written down in Planar Adventures only 1 year before 2e came out. If it ends up staying in any form (even with another name) I think it would be great if it was communicated to the readers in some way.


Claxon wrote:

Paizo doesn't do a lot of stories about fighting deity level entities, although they have done things like fighting an AVATAR of a deity.

In any event, I don't think worrying about how hard a fight against something like even a quasi-deity should be is a big concern. The GM should make narrative reasons way the PCs don't instantly get destroyed, as even a 20th level character should probably just be vaporized by the power of even a quasi deity. So there's some sort of McGuffin that stops that from happening.

You are overestimating what a god means in pathfinder I think, a demon lord is a Demigod and a lot of them got stats back in 1e, a nascent demon lord (Treerazer) is a quasi deity, a Conqueror Worm is a quasi deity, even a Owb Prophet is a quasi deity and it's only lvl 13 in 2e.

The mechanical side of it may have pushed it aside, but it shouldn't affect the people that want to know it because it's also part of the lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now it is difficult to know if a given god is a Deity, Demigod or Quasi Deity (sometimes called Lesser Deity in some 2e books).

One aspect of the lore I love is the cosmology of Golarion, back in 1e you could instantly know if a God was either of the three by the amount of domains they gave to the followers (5 for Deity, 4 for Demigod and 1-4 for Quasi Deity) or if they had statblocks (Deity didn't have, Demigod were 26-30 and Quasi Deity were 21-25).

With the change to 2e now all gods have 4 domains, but they don't have 2 linked to the alignment, so they can express better what the god is about. For example: Immonhiel, in 1e was a Demigoddess, and so she had 4 domains: Chaos, Good, Healing and Plant, but only really 2 of them define her as a goddess, compared to 2e where she has Creation, Healing, Nature and Repose. I like this change, but the problem comes that in 2e Immonhiel is not clarified as being a Demigoddess anymore, so if we didn't know from 1e what she is we wouldn't have any way of knowing, this is even worse with gods that only exist in 2e.

Right now it doesn't have a mechanical implication, but in the future if we get a way to fight demigods and quasi deities (the last one we really can do already) it would make it easier to think how hard fighting such a god should be.

To me (and I know many other) it would be better if going forward we could get this info written down in the gods, be it in the tittle of the god (something like “Deity/Demigod/Quasi deity of XXX”) or with just a simple trait added on to it.

In the last PaizoCon AMA I asked Luis Loza about this, and he told me that this classification of the gods hadn't changed from 1e and that they could look into it if people thought it was important. So what you guys think about this? Should they add it? Any ideas how they could do it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Zullock wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Yeah they didn't really carry over the deity tier ranking into P2 to my knowledge.

You got Deity (not stats) and Demigod (stats).

Asked Luis Loza during the AMA at Paizocon and he said that nothing of that has changed, gods still have the same category that in 1e (Nivi is still a demigod for example). Right now we don't have rules for mythic play so they are not focusing on that but he said that they thought about adding a trait or something like that to indicate it. He even asked back what people thought about it, if we deemed it necessary to have that info or not.
That doesn't really contradict what I, which was into the regards of the tiering of the deities.

Quasi deities still exists as a concept, is not only deity and demigod.


Rysky wrote:

Yeah they didn't really carry over the deity tier ranking into P2 to my knowledge.

You got Deity (not stats) and Demigod (stats).

Asked Luis Loza during the AMA at Paizocon and he said that nothing of that has changed, gods still have the same category that in 1e (Nivi is still a demigod for example). Right now we don't have rules for mythic play so they are not focusing on that but he said that they thought about adding a trait or something like that to indicate it. He even asked back what people thought about it, if we deemed it necessary to have that info or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Treerazer is not even a demigod, he is a nascent demon lord, a quasi deity (also called lesser deity). Some quasi deities have stat block in 2e already (conqueror worm, Treerazer, owb prophet or green man to name some of them).

From Planar Adventures (1e):

Deity: No stat block
Demigod: Lvl 26 to 30
Quasi deity: Lvl 21 to 25


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Do we know when are the previews scheduled to go out? The should start soon right?


Brinebeast wrote:
Also worth noting, in 2E many demigods, godlings,etc. have gotten a soft retcon establishing them as full gods, just with a smaller influence on Golarion.

I wouldn't go that far, spoiler for kingmaker:

Kingmaker:
it's stablished that The Lantern King is a 29 lvl creature

Maybe in the future we get the 2e version of mythic adventures and we can fight them, something not possible with full gods in 1e.

Brinebeast wrote:
Demigods seem to largely be limited to entities like emperyal lords, archdevils, etc. The 5 domains vs. 4 domains does not appear to define full god vs. demigod status.

As I said in a previous comment, yes, there was a soft retcon but for now it's mostly about the number of domains of a deity. Right now most deities are presented ambiguously, not stating in which category they fall under.


The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Nivi Rhombodazzle was always a goddess, was she not? I remember she was even among the gods of Inner Sea Faiths.

In 1e she had 4 domains (so not a full god), and was referred either as a Godling or a Demigod. The last rulebook in 1e, Planar Adventures says in page 132: “Nivi Rhombodazzle: Worship of the demigoddes of gambling gems and stealth is popular among many gnomes”.

She wasn't in the Inner Sea Faiths book, but in Inner Sea Gods and Faiths of Purity.

In Inner Sea Gods it was in the section “Gnome Deities” where it says that she achieved divinity thanks to Torag (traded a gem for it) and in Faiths of Purity she is referred to as a Godling.

The term Godling is not used anymore, as far as I know, instead using the term demigod, queasi-deity or lesser deity to refer to those individuals that obtain divinity thanks to a deity intervention.

In Gods and Magic (2e) she was in the section “Gods of the Inner Sea” instead of “Demigods & Other Divinities” so she either ascended in some untold way or is still a demigoddess but was put in the section with the other gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
If we have stats for him he ain't a deity. Nor was he ever one.

That is not exactly correct. The lore about this changed a bit in 2e, but in pathfinder there are 3 types of deities. Gods, Demigods and Quasi-Deities (now called Lesser Deity).

In 1e (info from Planar Adventures):

Gods never have stats and have 5 domains (e.g. Lamashtu).
Demigods are CR26-30 and have 4 domains (e.g. Demon Lords).
Quasi-deities are CR21-25 and have 1 to 4 domains (e.g. Nascent Demon Lords).

In 2e:

Gods never have stats and have 4 domains.
Demigods don't have stats yet (their avatars do and are LVL 21-25) and have 4 domains like normal gods.
Lesser Deity are LVL21-25 (we also have seen the avatar of one, and it was LVL 17) and have 4 domains like normal gods.

For lesser deities with stats, we have the Treerazer (who is a Nascent Demon Lord) and the Conqueror Worm, maybe some more I don't know about.

Also in 2e there are some previous demigods that are just called gods now, like Nivi Rhombodazzle.


OrmEug wrote:
I still can't think about any particular build to use it honestly. If you want to use a crossbow you can use new Sukgung and gain Fatal Aim d12, and you don't need to spend a feat to make advanced weapons work.

On that, I am 100% with you. Volley reduces it effectiveness greatly and while Concussive and Propulsive are good traits (Razing seems meh), I don't think they make up for that. It's a cool weapon if you want to cosplay as an Anor Londo archer from DS1 hahaha.

Maybe if you have sniping duo you can make it work.


OrmEug wrote:
Zullock wrote:
OrmEug wrote:
Phalanx Piercer - I still don't see the case to use it over Composite Longbow. You can use some of the gunslinger feats for it but why would you? Gunslingers are not made for bows. If it was a crossbow, then maybe, but it's not.

But it is a crossbow, it uses Bolts as ammunition.

Bolts, from the core rulebook: "Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows."

definition of a crossbow is somehow vague in pf2e, but based on the picture I've seen it's not a crossbow.

I mean, RAW, if anything uses bolts, IT IS a crossbow. It's the ammunition used by crossbows, quoted from the book. Some other weapons, like the taw launcher, can also be crossbow even if they don't use Bolts, but they should be marked as such (like in that case).

EDIT: Even though the weapon looks like a bow, mechanically it should be counted as a crossbow since it uses bolts, I think that is the reason they gave it bolts instead of arrows or "big arrows" or whatever.


OrmEug wrote:
Phalanx Piercer - I still don't see the case to use it over Composite Longbow. You can use some of the gunslinger feats for it but why would you? Gunslingers are not made for bows. If it was a crossbow, then maybe, but it's not.

But it is a crossbow, it uses Bolts as ammunition.

Bolts, from the core rulebook: "Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm not aware of any plans to update the book with errata at this point (we've never done errata for an adventure, so there's no precedent there... and as such I'm not even sure there's employee capacity to do something like that considering the folks who would spearhead it are already scrambling to do the next set of adventures)

I love Paizo products, and backed the product since the start, but I think we as consumers deserve an errata for Kingmaker at this point.

The number of mistakes in the books are mind-blowing.

Just in the first chapter of the book the party is given more than 500 gold in items, not counting the optional 800 gold if they steal, and is not unique to that chapter, I have gone through every treasure given in the AP and the loot is wrong for every single level, even accounting for the 25% extra loot guideline in the GMG.

There are enemies with stats that are either obviously wrong or even missing (most of them noted here https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/yefa9m/kingmaker_suggested_e rrata_from_the_foundry_pf2e/).

The amount of work that is needed to make this AP work in a balanced manner is wayyyy higher than in any other AP I have ever done or read. Sometimes it feels like doing a home conversion instead of playing an official version.

I understand that there may not be capacity for it, but this isn't a normal product, it was a crowdfunding that come out late and in a poor state. I think we deserve better and Paizo should deliver on it to regain some of the trust that have been lost with the current release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onkonk wrote:
Also is the Sixth Pillar Dedication changed?

Oh, missed two more changes.

Sixth Pillar Dedication is level 10 instead of 8.
Six Pillars Stance is level 12 instead of 10.

Maneuvering Spell is untouched.

This is in addition to the changes I said before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The weapons are:

Martial:

Kusarigama 2 gp 1d8 S 1 2 Knife Disarm, monk, reach, trip, versatile B
Leiomano 2 gp 1d6 B 1 1 Club Fatal d10, versatile S

Advanced:

Butterfly sword 2 gp 1d4 S L 1 Sword Agile, disarm, finesse, monk, parry, twin
Feng huo lun 2 gp 1d4 S L 1 Knife Agile, disarm, finesse, monk, parry, twin, versatile P
Hook sword 3 gp 1d6 S 1 1 Sword Disarm, monk, parry, trip, twin
Karambit 2 gp 1d4 P L 1 Knife Agile, fatal d8, finesse, versatile S

"Feng Huo Lun: Also known as wind and fire wheels, these large, flat steel rings feature several protruding blades typically stylized to resemble flames."

So it seems they replace the Wind and Fire Wheel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Anybody wanting to list if there are minor differences between old and new print? :O

Found the following:

Sixth pillar mastery, changed from feat 16 to feat 14, reworked. If you hit with an unarmed attack the enemy gets a -1 status to saves until next turn, if you hit with a spell you get a +1 status to unarmed attack rolls.

Touch focus, changed from feat 14 to feat 16 and it's now a free action.

All weapons in the book are now Common.

New advanced weapon: Feng huo lun 2 gp 1d4 S L 1 Knife Agile, disarm, finesse, monk, parry, twin, versatile P

Buff to Leiomano, instead of Deadly d10 it's now Fatal d10.

Also:

Part one, chapter 2 still doesn't have the difficulty listed (trivial, low, moderate,...) for any of the encounters.

Part two, chapter 1 ICEFANG AERIE encounter still listed as moderate 16 instead of moderate 15.

Part 3, chapter 1 most of the encounters still don't have the difficulty listed (trivial, low, moderate,...)


Leon Aquilla wrote:


Quote:
The camp in book 2 is not a settlement so technically you can't really buy things there and is up to the GM to allow it or not,

Are you saying that you believe characters aren't allowed to buy/sell things unless a location has a settlement statblock?

I looked up the rule on buying/selling items and it just says only during downtime and usually at half price for selling (unless it's a trade good)

This is getting out of topic so let's stop discussingthis here, if you want we can talk in discord or in the frozen flame thread, but the point is that the settlement level is what decides what items are sold there, if it doesn't have a level I allow to buy only level 0 items. It's up to the GM.

From the gamemastery guide:

BUYING AND SELLING The game leaves it up to you to determine what items the PCs can and can’t purchase, and the final market Price for them. Settlements the size of a town or bigger typically have at least one vendor for basic, common gear, and even magic and alchemical items of 1st level. Beyond that, it all depends on how much you want to allow the players to determine their abilities and how much verisimilitude you want in your game.

MARKETPLACES Where there are people, there is commerce. The Buying and Selling section on page 24 provides several sets of guidelines for handling commerce in your game, but it can also be helpful to have a sense of what items and economic power a given settlement has on its own merits. In a given settlement, a character can usually purchase any common item (including formulas, alchemical items, and magic items) that is of the same or lower level than the settlement’s. Usually, fewer of the highest‑level items are available—you can use Table 10–9: Party Treasure by Level on page 509 of the Core Rulebook as a guideline for how many of the highest‑level items might be available, using the Permanent Items and Consumables entries for a level 1 lower than the settlement’s actual level. Inhabitants of a settlement can usually purchase items from PCs as long as those items are the same or lower level than the settlement, with limitations on higher‑level items similar to those available for sale. If a settlement’s population is significantly smaller than its level would suggest, its ability to provide and purchase items may be more limited.


Leon Aquilla wrote:
Quote:
Quest for the Frozen Flame doesn't give any striking rune in the whole ap.

Yeah but is that an error or a stylistic choice you don't agree with? Quest for the Frozen Flame is very tight-fisted with loot up until you reach Hillcross in AP #3.

You can still buy/make striking runes, if you've got the gold. There's a Iomedaen blacksmith in the second AP who would be happy to make it for you. Getting one in the first AP may require some finagling or some improvisation by a GM (and I pointed this out as a criticism in my review) but it doesn't break the adventure.

Any other AP would have given striking runes at that point so is most likely an error.Maybe it isn't, but since the issue haven't been acknowledged as far as I know I included it.

The camp in book 2 is not a settlement so technically you can't really buy things there and is up to the GM to allow it or not, which is fine, but it's placing more work on the GM and in the case of a newer one who doesn't know better it can result in no striking runes being given, which increases the difficulty since then you either need to craft oil of potency (money sink) or have the fights last a lot longer, making it easier for the players to be downed or die.

I am running it for my players without striking runes (told them in before starting the ap if they wanted me changing some things or if they wanted to try it like that and everyone agreed so) and they are having fun with the extra difficulty and so it can be clearly done this way. It's not game breaking but as I said, don't think is intended either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
APs and modules exist in a different sphere and are less likely to be easily integrated into this process. The content produced in APs and modules is primarily intended for those adventures, and the content is produced on a magazine cycle with 12 monthly issues and up to two special editions (i.e. 12 AP volumes and up to 2 modules). More than that, adventure content is generally intended for the adventure it appears in and often speaks to the story in a way that means the content isn't necessarily easily fixed in a way that would make it appropriate for the wider game. Adventures also move on a very fast cycle...

This is a shame, since those kind of products are the ones that need a change the most.

We have things like the Six Pillar Dedication that we are told in the forums that are wrong from the beginning but the fix will come in January next year with the hardcover compilation, 2 years later.

Quest for the Frozen Flame doesn't give any striking rune in the whole ap.

Kingmaker has a ton of errors in the statblocks, encounters and treasures. Refering to items that don't exist in 2e, having enemies with crazy low or high stats for their levels and so on.

These are just some examples of the issues at hand.

I don't think we need substantial changes like changes in the history being told or the encounters, but what I think we need is that some issues, the most broken ones, that are acknowledged by everyone, sometimes even by Paizo staff in the forums or in other media, should be in a public errata.

These criticisms comes from someone that loves your products, I own most pf2e adventures since I like to read them and will continue to buy them, but I feel sometimes that their overall quality is cheapened by these issues.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Right now, we almost ever only get erratas when we have a new print of a book. This policy made sense a long ago, when internet access was uncommon and PDF version of books were so rare, but that is not the case any more.

With this petition I don't want there to be a constant stream of changes or balance passes, I would just want that erratas as we see today being published online before we get a reprint or even if we don't ever actually get said reprint. We know that we are getting some errata changes with the new core rulebook print, those could be online already. It's not like most people buy a new copy of every book after every new print, it shouldn't affect the sales that much, and it would let us play with the intended rules as soon as possible.

The adventures takes the worst hit because of how things are handle nowadays, since they almost never get reprinted. We get things like the Bone Croupier in Extinction Curse, that took 2 years to get fixed and in the end it was not with errata, but by reprinting the same monster in Book of the Dead. In the case of Kingmaker there are an outstanding amount of errors and since it's a new book we can't expect a reprint any time soon, leaving us with a lower quality book for years to come.


Hello,

I was charged even though my preorder (order 3855605) was cancelled.

The cancelation was done in this post https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42l61?Cancel-Preorder#1.

Was there an error with the cancellation?

Could you send me my money back?

Thanks and regards.


Hi

I want to cancel my order 3855605 since I am no longer interested because of the "Shipping & Handling" cost associated.

Thanks and regards.