moosher12's page

To me it sounds like what people want from a ninja is a stealthy magical trickster, which could just be called the Trickster. I would be all for a Trickster class tbh, since that sounds fun. Samurai are just knights with different hats so idk, that's just a fighter to me. The iaijutsu stuff I think could just be part of like a Ronin archetype, especially since real aristocratic samurai valued and practiced marksmanship more than melee combat.

I recall spending much of the last time these threads came on simply asking for a trickster class. The mechanical hole is easily filled by either a trickster class, or an eldritch trickster rogue class archetype, rather than racket.

I mean, the thing about the "Viking" archetype is that this represents "how a lot of different people were in raiding parties" since your raiding party was populated by people in the community and the fact that we can explain "what Vikings are about" just through - boats, shields + axes, and sudden violence. Lots of different cultures potentially would have developed "boat raiders" we're just using the word for that job from one particular culture since it's pithier than "boat raider" (and pirate is more "ship bandit" anyway.)

So you can bolt boats, shield/axe, and sudden violence onto any character you want with the archetype.

If anybody has a suggestion for a similar culturally inspired archetype that is basically three things with a couple of short feats for each, I'm all ears.

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

In this case, Quick Swap would be a trap option. 2e does not have universal reactive strikes, and not a lot of enemies get reactive strikes, even rarer than Pathfinder. There is little incentive to switch to melee in melee range unless you have a melee weapon that does more damage than your ranged weapon, which becomes less likely at higher levels once you have an upgraded ranged weapon, but a base melee weapon. Most enemies won't be able to stop you from using your gun unless they disarm or grapple you. The only reason you have to switch to melee is if your melee weapon does better average damage than your primary ranged weapon.

Quick Swap is more useful in the hands of a melee main soldier who is using their ranged weapon to get by until they get in range.

Only way I can see a ranged soldier making use of it is if they are using a volley weapon, which would be an odd choice as soldier isn't much of a sniper class. Otherwise, they won't be getting much use out of a side melee weapon like a knife or a sword unless they upgraded the weapon and invested the strength to give it competitive damage output with their gun.

I very much want Mech rules because I'd rather run Mechageddon in 2e than 1e!

In the meantime, I'd recommend looking at the Remote War Machine statblocks from Alien Core. I strongly believe these are a preview of how mechs will operate, where mech rules would then be building guides. But for now, you can probably use the Creature Creation Rules to make custom Remote War Machines as mechs.

https://2e.aonsrd.com/creatures/families/46-remote-war-machine

I think it was something the devs accidentally overlooked. This happens frequently enough, especially with Starfinder 2E. But as it is, there is not much fix until Paizo comes out with more feats.

In the meantime, if you have no plans to engage with melee mechanics, what I'd probably recommend is to let Ready Reload be an encouragement to take a reload 2 weapon instead of a reload 1 weapon as your primary, as that's the most useful feat you'd get access to. Right now the pickings are small, being Autotarget Rifle, Blockthrower, and Machine Gun, but with Tech Core coming out in about two months, I'm pretty sure the options will expand.

The specific niche that's missing (and that probably needs a whole class to accomodate) is 'I cast magic to breathe fire/turn into a giant/summon a frog behind you/create illusions/teleport and you're so distracted by that I stab you extra good' which is arguably what the folklore ninja is at the core. That's genuinely unreplicable ATM; of the three classes that want to strike and magic, Magus and Summoner want to do it simultaneously to add the damage together and Warpriest/battle harbinger are entirely about buffing.

Pretty much this. More folks need to try to actually build out a folkloric ninja from levels 1-20. Helped a player try to build one up to level 9. It barely made it, and that was with a very generous version of free archetype where archetypes don't require you to buy 3 archetypes before getting a new archetype. But folks should challenge themselves to build a ninja without any optional or home rules by actually building the character on a character sheet. You'll find that you're making significant concessions on large swathes of the fantasy no matter what you do.

Honestly, we don't even need an archetype, we just need the feats. The duelist archetype feels like the perfect place for iaido-themed feats.

That's a good point, and Paizo has added to existing archetypes before.

For the case of Vindicator, only having focus spells doesn't really feel like being a spellcaster.

While I'm holding out hope for Impossible Magic, I think there is a glimmer of hope for next years book. Lower chance, but not infeasible. The next book, judging by the latest blog post, hints that the book will be about dungeon delving. And hiring an eldritch trickster to do things like 1E's ranged legerdemain could apply to such a book. But it is certainly a longer shot than Impossible Magic.

I feel like for ninja at least, the best result would be either a class or a class archetype. But a normal archetype would struggle.

The reason is because, if someone wants to play a ninja, sneak attack is iconic. That's why Laughing Shadow Magus sort of gets scoffed at. Laughing Shadow magus can do trickster stuff, yes, but it simply lacks that assassination feel. And the closest you'll get to it is archetyping into rogue, but the core rogue stuff is heavily nerfed that way. And the reliance on using arcane cascade isn't really part of the fantasy. Too much magic, not enough assassination. It's a balancing act.

I think the answer is to buff Eldritch Trickster from a racket to a class archetype racket, like the vindicator. Let it change some fundamentals of how the rogue works (nerf some of its physical capability, while giving it spellcasting prowess, while overall keeping access to the rogue feat set), give it bespoke feats that support the fantasy of being a setting agnostic spellcasting assassin or thief

The reason that Eldritch Trickster has yet to come back as it is is because it simply does not grant enough benefit over Thief Racket plus archetyping into Wizard, which is why it should be buffed into a class archetype, so that it can fulfill its class fantasy.

Also, we want a setting agnostic class, class archetype, or archetype, for this for one reason. We already have an archetype within the world that works as a ninja. The problem is, we can rarely use it. That's the Red Mantis Assassin. Because its requirements require you be a worshipper of achaekek and use sawtooth sabers. And not everyone wants to be a Red Mantis Assassin, while not every GM is gonna be willing to let the Red Mantis Assassin work with just any weapon. Essentially it's the Automaton problem, everyone who uses the archetype within the Lost Omens campaign setting has to tie their lore to the Red Mantis Assassins, who attack anyone who is caught using their equipment without being one. As all automatons have to tie their lore back to the Jistka Imperium.

Plus we don't have a dedicated occult bounded caster anyway. (Not gonna count summoner because it's a flexible class like a sorcerer; Nor for nature, which could be a fun candidate for Shifter as a side note).

I think part of the issue is that Paizo is pretty clear that people with full casting potential shouldn't be that capable in melee combat, just for niche protection for fighters etc. So a Wizard-Ninja runs into that issue, and I'm wondering if you couldn't just do this with a Magus or specifically "what tools would we need to give the Magus for this to work."

Now there's certainly room for wave-casters in Occult, Primal, and Divine but I'm not sure if any of those dip too much into the ninja fantasy.

I honestly think bounded casting would be fine. Basically, take a magus, remove spellstrike, and swap it out for some utility stuff and perhaps a variant on sneak attack, possibly with a slower growth than a pure rogue. Magus as it is works front and center, but changing its feat kit and core kit to better enable intrigue, poison, and the like instead of being a spellsword.

Like the basic problem with "Ninja" and "Samurai" as classes is that there are whole corners of fiction where everybody is a Ninja and you can break them into types like "Fighter-Ninja", "Rogue-Ninja", and "Wizard-Ninja".

I agree here, we fortunately have 2 of the three well executed, I feel. Fighter Ninja is well done by the Monk and Swashbuckler. Rogue Ninja of course by the rogue. Wizard ninja I think is the missing link, but that can be done with an Arcane Trickster as a class, or as was brought up by Keftiu, the Beguiler, though I'm not familiar with how exactly it works.

Thanks for the extra context, the Discord version of the moderater apology didn't clarify things well enough, so I assumed it was unrelated to that statement. I don't hang out reddit side, so I missed this part of it. But if the official channels distanced themselves from that statement, it's relieving.

Granted, I in a small part agree that seeking a culturally agnostic approach is probably a good idea where possible, but those statements were just too extreme of a way.

Why are you quoting somebody from an unofficial Discord server as if it's Paizo...?

That would be because I thought it was an official Discord server, since it hosts the official interaction with Paizo's official 2E SRD, being Archives of Nethys. Periodically hosts Q&As with some Paizo staff, and the like. Second party Discord server at the farthest. Wouldn't call it unofficial.

Part of the argument the devs made was that there's no singular "class fantasy" encompasing everything someone might expect from those titles. Is a ninja a hyper-skilled agility combatant? Or a gishy illusionist? Or a comically stealthy striker? Ask three nerds, you'll get three answers. By comparison a Viking is fairly narratively straightforward: nautical raiders with axes and seaxes.

This would be a good argument, but Paizo didn't use this argument at all in that announcement. The argument was not based on the fulfillment of class fantasy, but that the existence of those classes as culturally loaded concepts was problematic in and of itself. For example, the post mentions monk as being similarly problematic and implies that the monk as it is should also be removed from the game. (Whether removed altogether or replaced with a more culturally neutral concept, time will tell, but there is a legitimate chance PF3E may not have a monk).

Though I do agree it is possible to make a culturally agnostic equivalent. As for class fantasy itself, samurai I feel is already pretty well covered by existing classes (Commander, Fighter, Guardian, Soldier, and Swashbuckler each contribute to different aspects). Magical ninja I feel can be covered by simply taking the Arcane Trickster and turning it into a class. (I mean, Magus was originally a prestige class turned to a class, originally the Eldritch Knight back in 1E, so it's certainly possible to do something bespoke for arcane trickster), while mundane ninja stays rogue. The main problem for me, I've always felt, was that while Samurai and mundane ninja are easily fulfilled. Magical ninja lacks a class that it easily slots into without sacrificing some core aspects of the fantasy. (Rogue lacks satisfying magic due to using archetype progression and feat tax, magus lacks utility and the stealth reward while Spellstrike isn't really a common part of the class fantasy anyway, kineticist I always felt was a stretch in the first place).

The Tian Xia World Guide is now officially available for purchase!

With this book’s release and the discourse surrounding it, we need to make clear the discord's rules and principles to make sure that the community is safe from harm. Especially recently, the discord has seen too many arguments that show how poorly people understand the severe prevalence of racism against Asian people, a phenomenon so deep-rooted that people simply do not notice its presence. It isn't as simple as someone saying a slur or judging based on skin colour—it’s easy to be confident in one’s ability to spot commonly-taught and overt racist tropes—but beyond that surface level, there are worlds of nuance and harms that many don’t know how to see or understand.

In the early 2000s, a book called Oriental Adventures was rewritten and expanded for D&D 3e. It is one of WotC's best-selling books of all time. It is also one of the most concentrated collections of Asian-based racist tropes in TTRPG space at the wide reach that Wizards has in the hobby. Paizo is no stranger to bigoted tropes either, found throughout PF1e books such as the Jade Regent AP and still carrying into PF2e in the monk class, which boxes Asians into the “Magical Asian” stereotype: rather than representing the fact that Asian fighters or Asian clerics exist (because Asian people are people), this racially-coded class stifles Asian representation into a caricature of 1970s kung fu exploitation movies. While we can move forward and learn from the past if we recognise the need to confront it, nothing will be accomplished if the reaction to that need is defensiveness or denial. Taking responsibility and taking real steps to improve is the entire philosophy of the Tian Xia World Guide: Paizo has given the reins to Asian authors who have made this book an honest conversation that addresses past mistakes and respects Tian Xia not as an exoticised locale, but as a legitimate, lived-in home.

Stereotypes and biases influence the ways that a book is written, the ways that a movie is edited, the ways that we speak to each person we meet in a day, and even unconsciously influence the ways that we think. Media exposes us to ideas that can normalise distorted perceptions and draw lines that make minorities “othered”, portraying them as if they’re different from “normal” people. AAPI activist Jenn Fang writes on how biases and norms feed into orientalism, making it all too easy to treat the stereotypical “West” as “normal” while a fantasised “East” is filtered through stereotypes:

Orientalism… draws upon exaggerations of both Occidental and Oriental traits in order to create an Orientalist fantasy that is a fictional recapitulation of both East and West. Western men are reimagined as universally Godly, good, moral, virile, and powerful — but ultimately innately human. By contrast, those traits that best serve as a counter-point to the Occidental West are emphasised in the West’s imagined construct of the East: strange religions and martial arts, bright colours and barbaric practices, unusual foods and incomprehensible languages, mysticism and magic, ninjas and kung fu. Asia becomes innately unusual, alien, and beastly. In Orientalism, Asia is not defined by what Asia is; rather, Asia becomes an “Otherized” fiction of everything the West is not, and one that primarily serves to reinforce the West’s own moral conception of itself.

Some fans often talk about wanting a dedicated “ninja” or “samurai” character option. However common these tropes have been, they’re a very blurry subject because of the exclusive focus on Japanese media stereotypes fueled by anime and samurai movies being the main exposure to Asian culture that westerners ever have. It goes beyond just "liking something" or "just a fantasy". Putting stereotypes on a pedestal excludes the hundreds of ethnic groups that exist in Asia and tells them that, when Asians get represented, they just get homogenised into a Japanese person—this is racism through exclusion towards Asian people who aren’t specifically Japanese. It’s the overwriting and exclusion of ethnicities that falls into the racist stereotyping of “you all look the same”. It creates a racist trope where Asian people are either the “karate master” or “honourable samurai warrior”, defined by the history of Japanese imperialism that billions of people in Asia are still grappling with. In the words of the Tian Xia World Guide:

“Tian Xia can’t be summed up in a single book; no land can. The following pages offer an outline of the cities, cultures, peoples, places, creatures, flora, and history of what can be found here. It might seem different, but no more different than the nations of the Inner Sea are from one another. Look with a willingness to learn, and you might find as many things in common as there are differences.”

Moving forward, we will do our best to improve our understanding of these harmful stereotypes and how to address them. We will always strictly enforce Rule #1, as we want everyone to feel safe and respected in this space, and we thank you for your understanding and care in making this a more accepting community for all Pathfinders.

If you would like to learn more, we recommend https://reappropriate.co/2014/04/what-is-orientalism-and-how-is-it-also-rac ism as well as a few more sources:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/orientalism
https://theconversation.com/orientalism-edward-saids-groundbreaking-book-ex plained-197429
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/10/31/asian-representation-and-the-m artial-arts - This link in particular hones in on the TTRPG space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_East_Asians_in_the_United_Stat es

My second spoiler. Last year we did the Player's Guide at the start of the new season. We are doing a Player's Guide again this season... This year we are giving out one new ancestry in that file. I am not gonna tell you what that ancestry is, but I am gonna give you some clues. So you guys can guess. So they are originally form Castovel, but they travel widely. They have a large population on Absalom Station. Particularly in a topside central location. They have playable stats in first edition, but they came in the last portion of the edition. So they are a bit more obscure than some of our other early ancestries. And we have met them in some of oujr Starfinder Society Scenarios before...

I'm thinking the Vulkarisu?

That is a good point, why wouldn't viking be a problem when ninja is?

WatersLethe wrote:

Personally, I am hoping that PF2 breaks the mold of previous edition lifecycle behavior.

It won't. The only way Paizo does not eventually release a 3rd edition of Pathfinder is if they get out of the RPG business, or cease to exist entirely. And even in that case, mostly likely someone else will buy or license the IP and do so themselves.

Plus, inevitably we'll reach class saturation. Keep an edition going indefinitely, and eventually you'll have fulfilled every class fantasy. New classes become harder to draft, and you'll probably notice the scope of their capabilities is growing increasingly specific. (I like class overlap, but there are many other people in this board who I've seen complain about the risk of class overlap). And with every year, this will become harder to do. Between Pathfinder and Starfinder, we'll get an average of 4 classes a year, only likely to swing down to a minimum of 2 if both only get one RoE style class each in a given year. And we're already seeing signs of saturation. Especially when folks go about asking for Starfinder class ideas whose class fantasy is already 90% covered by Pathfinder.

The pragmatic fact of the matter is, a slate wipe every now and then keeps things flowing. It's a chance to remove bugs and grievances from the current system, it's a chance to fine-tune the combat system closer to its best self. It's a chance to overlook the classes that exist, and overhaul single classes, combine like classes into one class, or split one overloaded class into multiple. Then for the Pathfinder and Starfinder, it's a chance to have Starfinder's construction and compatibility better-considered from day 1. (When people complain that Starfinder is held back by existing Pathfinder rules, that's a fair argument, because when Starfinder is built off of Pathfinder with little wiggle room, and mostly only additive patches, I have heavy doubts that much consideration was put to the presence of firearms in the early development of Pathfinder, beyond a loose note that Mana Waste guns would be done eventually. A 3E gives the devs a chance to consider Pathfinder equipment and Starfinder equipment being used in the exact same system on a year-1 basis. I know there are folks that want Starfinder to be an entirely separate system, but Starfinder's limitations are not because Pathfinder and Starfinder should not be compatible. No, it's because the system Starfinder was built off of was never designed for Starfinder in mind. But a system that is designed to keep both halves of the setting in mind from day 1 is very much possible.)

And in the cycle of things. it may end up better. Some people might say, "What if it's worse." It may be worse, but then Paizo can learn from that. If 3E ends up being bad, 3.5E or 4E could get rid of what isn't good, and bring back what is. Either way, like with 1E, there will still be people playing 2E extensively, and it's not like there'd be a lack of content at that point. There is certainly enough adventure and adventure path content to ride out an entire edition cycle.

No, it isn't. Because the game has hundreds, probably thousands of rules that will be followed as normal in a typical campaign. If I am GMing, I am not going to waste time confirming all of those. Instead, I am going to talk about the rules I am changing (which is a much shorter list).

Then you do as a normal GM does, and clarify as soon as you realize the problem, establish your rule, allowances, and limitations, and then go forward with it. As I said, sooner rather than latter. Sooner can be as soon as you realize the rule is not actually spelled out. Even if it's not day one of running the game.

A GM goes through a lot of iterations of their home rule as a game goes on, and their home rule becomes challenged and proved working or not quite working as they imagined it. But in my experience, many optional rules are a bit vague to trust to simply say, "I'm simply using this optional rule." Best to say, "I'm using this optional rule, and I mean it works like this." It's also important to have in mind when someone comes to your table from a GM with a more permissive implementation of the optional rule. As their perceptions will be painted with how their other GMs run it. And some favor less permissive, some favor more. Best to just point out to your players where you plan to be on that spectrum, before you're asking your player, "Wait wait wait, why do you have that feat, you shouldn't have that feat." "Well we're running free archetype right?" "Yeah, but not like that."

As if talking to a genie, it's best to still be clear about restrictions from the GM side and set interpretations earlier rather than later. Because that the rule only works of off GM Core is only partially true. The rule works off of GM Core and the vanilla rules in Player Core. FA has few restrictions, but it also has few allowances, which means that where the rule is not expressly states, the vanilla rules apply.

Where the Free archetype rule is vague, the average default will then be the vanilla way of things. So two restrictions will hold in the average player and GM:
1. Dedication limits still apply, which is to say, to move on to a new dedication, you need to satisfy your current dedication with a minimum of 3 feats.
2. Deviant Feats are not available, as they are not a part of the default archetype progression without GM opt-in.

It is true that some archetypes lack the feats to fill the full progression, and that some feats have gaps that make it to where you'd be denied feats. But the fact of the matter is. Archetype feats simply work like that. That's how they were designed. Free Archetype does not prescribe answers to these problems. And all solutions are informal ones. In the end, you have to impose home ruled solutions to answer these sorts of questions.

Things like archetypes being limited are not solved by Free Archetype, as Free Archetype grants no allowances to fix this, any allowances are informal home rules. Some interpretations are more common, but there is no concrete allowance to solve that problem that is not community-generated. This is why you need to expressly state what your allowances are.

Re, Ancestries: folding the Hologram and SRO ancestries into a catchall "AI" ancestry that chooses a body at chargen which can be a hologram or an conventional sro body.

Androids already occupy a different narrative space so that can still stay separate.

I think Living Hologram and SRO are already confirmed as two seperate ancestries.

I also want a nice helping of new weapons. I think perhaps my biggest gripe with the system thus far is it feels like there's massive gaps in the weapon options right now.

No rocket launcher (stellar cannon deals piercing), no martial one handed laser gun (plasma caster is 2H despite apperances) and so on.

Also I want the super shotgun from doom. It's gotta be done.

I think I remember them confirming during an earlier Paizo Live that Tech Core will include weapons that are naturally above level 0, and innately more powerful in their base form. As well as generally more weapons.

I suppose you've got a point, thanks.

It can be difficult to tell the difference between "More than couple (like could be thousands, but still sub percentage of a population)" many and "A significant portion of the population" many. I assumed the latter. Figured that if the ratio would be closer to "There are many agender humans" many, they would not have emphasized it so much. So I assumed they meant "a significant portion of the population" many. Probably somewhere in between then.

Bestiary monster also feels highly likely, yeah. Odd choice to put it with a bunch of playable races, but it's still extremely plausible it's just part of the bestiary.

moosher12 wrote:

Just checked the page. Now I'm really curious what that seaweed-looking creature with the starfish is. New playable ancestry?

Do you have any sense of scale from the pic? It could be a seaweed leshy, and the focus is more meant to be on the lil starfish as a new companion?

It's limited. It's a standalone figure, so I cannot compare it to anything, but it is propped up with other playable races as seperate standalone figures. The grippli and the goblin in the spread are scaled smaller than the merfolk, dwarf, and tengu, which would indicate that small races MIGHT be scaled smaller. If this assumption holds, then this creature would be assumed to be Medium.

Within the picture itself, there is various detritous embedded on its body. One of which is a boat's steering wheel, and the other is rope, which seems to be painting it as relatively large, least I'd think too large to be Small.

You can see it be exploring the Table of Contents, which is previewed on the High Seas store page.

If anything, it's vibe is closer to a remastered take on a shambler than a leshy.

Just checked the page. Now I'm really curious what that seaweed-looking creature with the starfish is. New playable ancestry?

NoxiousMiasma wrote:

What might we get in LO: High Seas? Aquatic elves seem pretty likely, and Grindylows are still around. Not sure we'd get playable sedacthy or a 2e version of adaro, as both have a lot of overlap with existing ancestries. And while kuru are native to the Shackles, their 1e depiction is... Extremely Bad, so they'd need quite a lore overhaul to not be doing the racist savage stereotype again.

Aquatic elves are actually fully confirmed! Go to the product listing page and check out either the third or fourth picture, you'll see the aquatic elves as a heritage!

Been wanting these since 2022, bout time!

I mean, it is good to have an estimate for painting the flavor of a settlement, and nor do we get, nor need exact numbers, but that's why we are taught about significant figures in school. An estimate to two, three tops numerals is useful to have.

Just wish the numbers felt a bit more on track.

For example, New York would definitely be the minimum for Absalom Station, because one factor that we on earth would be prone to neglecting, is Absalom Station has a lot of verticality. So in reality, we'd be stacking multiple new yorks on top of each other.

Like I'd expect Absalom to be a bit closer to new york, and Absalom Station to approach that of Tokyo, maybe even beyond.

We still do get streams most months. Think during the last stream, they said the next stream would be May 1st

No I get that, and for the most part I agree. I for example was observing the lack of general dimorphism in the veskarium as a whole when trying to justify it. But, Pahtra like Vesk and Skittermanders, Pahta used to identify male or female with agender being an accepted thing, as was the case with the iconic evolutionist. With characters being present like so in books. My question then becomes. How much of those characters still exist? Because it is an uncertain thing as retcons abound from 1E to 2E.

For example, High Despot Kavadros is male, and is still mentioned with the he pronoun in Galaxy Guide, so is apparently still male, though dead, which seems to indicate males still exist.

It's easy to say it makes sense and just go the way of interpretation. What you said is roughly what I interpreted, but the thing is, there are slight differences in my interpretation, and your interpretation, while arriving at the same conclusion, but different people are gonna assume different things. And we only get to assume these things because we read that blog. Because without a book to cover it, among people who only read books and don't read Paizo blogs, which I will assume will probably be a majority. If you don't read Paizo blogs, this factoid simply does not exist where book readers can find them. And I simply want a word-of-god from the devs in book form to set things straight. Because if someone who is not obsessively reading Paizo blogs, like a normal player, reads Pahtra, they would be forgiven for just assuming half male, and half female, and that most are asexual, as the books don't refute that. There is no book passage to indicate the commonality of being agender, especially when cisgendered asexuality is more common than you'd think. So players who only are accessing books would be more likely to make an asexual female or male pahtra than an asexual agender pahtra unless the GM chimes in that factoid, which is a micromanagement that most GMs probably won't do.

Like, when the passage first came out, I first thought, "Oh, that's an interesting lore change," and I looked forward to reading it in Player Core, then when not player core, than maybe Galactic Ancestries. But as it never got posted. Part of me began to wonder if the writer of that blog, might have just assumed that agender and asexuality was the same thing, and accidentally put agender instead of asexual.

Absalom, essentially the metropolis of the world, where people congregate from every continent to trade, from every plane, even. The most obligatory cantina location in Golarion.

Population: 306,900

Oh, I see, yeah, that makes sense, and would be useful as an alternative to quickened casting

I sort of want an entry in some 2E book to explain Pahtra gender expression. While they are canonically prone to being asexual, no core book actually talks about the trend toward being agender. When Kyyduh was released, it seemed like it seemed to imply a sexual dimorphism between pahtra, but when Dae was released, it was phrased as that being the norm. And it leaves me not knowing whether male and female pahtra are still a thing.

Dragonblood Versatile Heritage/Dragonscaled Kobold options for Abysium Dragons, Akashic Dragons, Cosmic Dragons, Host Dragons, and any future Greater Dragons introduced in SF2E.

Seconded for kobolds, I wanna see how Starfinder Kobold lore, being the interdimensional diaspora they are with the native kobolds missing during the Gap, is affected by the kobold retcons Pathfinder side. Legitimately a case where the Pathfinder retcons do not need to apply, as Pathfinder kobolds are simply not present in any capacity, while Starfinder kobolds are from a completely different reality, but I'm still curious whether Paizo would bring form some aspects of that to the Starfinder kobolds.

I wonder whether Paizo will keep the Starfinder kobolds as they are, still keep them interdimensional, but add the universal magical influence of the remaster, or outright retcon them being interdimensional and say that kobolds were always there, making all of the assumptions of the Pathfinder entry still apply.

Maybe some universal way of altering spells by adjusting the amount of actions required. Most spells are all 2 actions which kinda left casters using the same action economy as 1e. Perhaps something trading actions for one of the spell variables. e.g. range, damage, number of targets

I cannot be sure whether you are doing a bit or not, but assuming this is a genuine request, that's essentially spellshapes/metamagic.

Like I said in the other thread, you can probably just have the different classes use the monster building tables to replace attributes by telling you which tracks on which tables to follow as well as any changes mid progression if necessary.

Sure you'd need to account for a few things, like monster DC having item bonuses PCs aren't allowed to have or giving ever class an extra skill or two to replace extra trained int skills, but it should mostly be minor things. Worst case, you invent an extra table or two to cover things monsters don't care about.

Has the bonus of separating skills from attributes. You could just pick 3-6 for the high track and leave those extra trained skills on the low track while archetypes that boost skills let you move some of those lows to medium or high.

I'll point out that monster building numbers are often a lot higher than even the best theoretical PC numbers at a given level, so use with EXTREME caution.

Granpappy Grognard is at it again, next he'll be going on about how to buy a potion, we had to go to the potion seller 3 miles in the snow, both ways. And then go on a 3-hour long rant about alchemy.

Well as only "kingdom building" I agree that it wouldn't fit. However, if the system was reworked so kingdom building, downtime, etc all worked together I think it would fit. While at it, could also change the influence system so that it too works seemlessly between individual people and large organizations. Even more so if the rules are made generic enough that you could use it to run guilds, factions, armies, etc.

These are good ideas, would be an interesting approach.

moosher12 wrote:

Definitely with you on this one. Don't feel it'd be right for an unchained book, but a remaster of Kingdom Building that ties into Battlecry!'s new combat in a future adventure path is something I'd greatly desire.

Do you mean the rebuilding of the Kingmaker rules should not be in an Unchained book or the merging of the rules between the subsystems? I would argue that a rebuild of the Kingmaker rules is exactly within the realm of an Unchained book. The merging of the subsystems is probably too big of an additional lift.

It's because Unchained books are broad strokes across the core of the game. Unfortunately, Kingmaking is not a core issue, but a corner case that's by technicality an exclusive to a single adventure path, and is only really gonna be touched on outside of Kingmaker in a home-setting capacity, unless Paizo uses it more.

I really want kingmaking to be remade, but I don't think Unchained is the place Paizo would want to put it. I'd like it to be there, but it's frankly just not where it goes. It'd have better place in either a new adventure path that makes use of it, a remake of Kingmaker, or a core book that's expected to come alongside one of these last two examples, but I don't think they'd put it in an unchained book. Takes up too many pages that can go into solving a lot of core problems (77 pages; Pathfinder Unchained was 250 pages and Starfinder Enhanced was 200 pages, to put it into perspective), for a system that frankly a very small population of players will ever get the chance to touch. And with each new adventure path released, that proportion just gets smaller

As for the attribute conversation, I've got something to ask, but I'm not sure if it has already been said, so I'll ask, with apologies if it's been explained before.

Out of curiosity, are there any Player Character-facing games that do not use attributes (or an attribute equivalent) that are well tuned for both roleplay and combat that we can make reference to to gauge feasibility? (I know technically Lancer didn't have attributes, but PCs aren't the main focus, and they are played super fast and loose as they are secondary to the mechs, so I would not count those, but I mean one where you're expected to play a character as your default unit)

So as not to reinvent the wheel, I'm curious who else has experimented with no attribute to relative success.

In an Unchained book, I would like to see the kingdom building rules completely remade. I have not used them, but have heard a lot of bad things about the 2E version. While the developers are making a more player-friendly subsystem they could also take the time to integrate them with the mass combat and skirmish rules. Those three subsystems more tightly integrated with smoother play might encourage me (and other gamers) to revisit Kingmaker as a GM because I played the 1E version, had a blast, but have been staying away from a 2E kingdom campaign because of the bad reviews.

Having those three subsystems integrated and balanced together would provide a new level of sandbox for Kingmaker games. Make it fun so that different types of players can focus on their style of gaming within the subsystem trifecta.

Definitely with you on this one. Don't feel it'd be right for an unchained book, but a remaster of Kingdom Building that ties into Battlecry!'s new combat in a future adventure path is something I'd greatly desire.

Yeah, it's just more responsible if you're gonna introduce an unclear rule to set your boundaries from the beginning, then to just drop the name and hope your players are on the same wavelength. While I am a lot more permissive, I acknowledge the point of free archetype is to additionally give the GM the rights to limit the range for the sake of keeping a consistent theme. For example: I didn't even just declare Free archetype in my home rule document, I instead put these points.

General Class Changes
• (LV 2) Additional Archetype Feats: All classes gain the Archetype Feats class feature. At level 2, and every 2nd level thereafter, you gain 1 additional feat that can only be used to gain either an archetype feat or a deviant feat. Alternatively, you can use this additional feat to gain a class feat of a level equal to or less than 1/2 your level.

General Archetype Changes
• (LV 2) Flexible Dedication Feats: Dedication archetype feats no longer have the Dedication trait. This removed the requirements that you gain 2 additional feats within an archetype before you can gain a new archetype.
• (LV 2) Deviant Feats: As a clarification, when you get Deviant Feats using the Archetype Feats class feature, you can only gain deviant feats for one type of Deviation. See General Class Changes on page 5 for more information.
• (LV 4) Rigid Resiliency Feats: Resiliency archetype feats only grant an HP bonus for a maximum number of relevant feats equal to 1/2 your level, rounded down.

Also, I'd want for PF3e to make an overhaul with rituals and, if possible, make them closer to how they work in D&D 5e. I think turning some spells into rituals was a great idea in PF2e, but the requirements behind most rituals are so restrictive and, most of the time, so weak they aren't worth the effort.

Ideally I would like if most spells were ritual spells (specially lower level utility spells or cantrips like detect magic), enabling anyone with a decent modifier on the appropiate skill/s to cast them but at the cost of time, while casters would be able to cast them faster and without needing to meet the ritual's requirements. Magic+'s Essence Casting introduced something similar with incantations, but that's still caster only.

Reminds me: One of the potential buffs I was considering for wizards was allowing them to cast utility spells as minor rituals. (Maybe some offensive spells too, but that'd be cumbersome) The idea was to draw from D&D3.5E and PF1E Lore, which established spells as actually taking tens of minutes to an hour to cast, and the spellcasting in battle is just filling out the final gestures. So I was contemplating, perhaps letting wizards cast an unprepared spell up to rank 9 as an exploration activity that takes 10 minutes per spell rank.

(Though, I'm expecting this one to have some problems if I don't cater a whitelist of specific spells)

Different games are certainly a reason to forget, but that's only problematic because it was a mid-edition change, not because the change existed at all.

If PF2E had those name changes from the getgo, the name change would not matter. I for example doubt that the paladin to champion name change would have tripped you up, after all. Since it was there from the beginning of the edition.

More games, more terminology. Pathfinder is not beholden to D&D.

Hanakans. I want these adorable philosoraptors with their magic and rap battles to come forward.

At the risk of stereotyping

Was a mechanical engineering major, I'm liking the trend of quality-of-life smoothing.

Contrary to popular thought, engineering is about making things easier, not making things harder.

But if force barrage is what's tripping you up, odd hangup. I've had tons of player complaints about drow, never one about spell name changes. Players usually don't care long as they can still do the same stuff. What they complain about is losing access to former options, not whether an old option still exists by a different name.

Would anyone else like to raise their hands to show their love of vancian casting? Good time for the silent majority to speak up.

Personally, though, I don't mind vancian casting, but I quite dislike prepared casting as it is. 5E has better prepared casting, and 1E nailed it with the Arcanist, which is essentially how 5E does it anyway.

Last thing I need is spellcasters holding up the game because they need time to decide whether they want 2 fireballs or 3 when they might not even get the chance to cast it at all. Especially late game where they are asking these questions among 38 individual slots. Just prepare fireball and be done with it. Stop wasting precious game time agonizing over trying to predict every potential move in the next few encounters. The rest of the players wanna roleplay and fight, and these moments of decision get in the way of that.

If a GM told me we were using free archetype and for some reason refused to elaborate on that, and I had to make an assumption, I would assume unrestricted access, with the admittedly weak argument that the phrase "You might restrict" implies it's not normally restricted.

Yeah, if the "unrestricted" part was before "You might", it would certainly be stronger, but word order puts unrestriction also under the umbrella of "might," which frankly paints it as being just as default as the accompanying single-archetype or archetype theme limitations.

I must be getting old. I'm ashamed to admit that I've spent far too many long looking down my nose at unlimited free archetype groups, all the while thinking to myself that "they are doing it wrong anyways."

I realize now that I was not only factually wrong, but in the wrong.

Thanks for setting me straight, everyone.

I wouldn't necessarily say you're wrong. While I don't figure it a Paizo standard, in the end, it's a community standard. The book does not expressly say it's the standard, but the majority of GMs will pick it because of the two beginning options, it's frankly the most fun.

So most folks are safe to assume when a GM says it that's what it means, since most GMs will pick it. It's just important to remember it's a community thing, not a Paizo thing.