scary harpy's page

Back to the original question:

Mitflits. Love 'em. But that's a bit of a boring answer, since they're old.

...

I love the Mitflits, too. I feel so sorry for the miserable little underdogs that I just want to help them. I wish I knew how.

scary harpy wrote:

If giant Octopi have communities/villages and communicate with each other, should they have higher Intelligences?

Their listed behavior is based off the "octopus city" that scientists found in real life (article below). So the answer is probably yes, but it destroys all basic assumptions about animals in the current system.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/octopus-city-observed-180964936/

Would this make Giant Octopi beasts instead of animals?

Or would that still not be intelligent enough for an Octopus City?

Read my copy of Monster Core...loved it.

The Hags are terrific!

I hope Monster Core 2 has all the creatures mentioned in sidebars e.g. moon hags. (Don't tease us, Paizo. That would be cruel...like the Godsrain prophecies. Oh, nevermind. )

I wish the explanation for Kami next to the Poracha entry had been referenced next to the Oni entries.

Quick questions for anyone:

Are Cloud Giants still 18 feet tall? (They were the only giant whose height was omitted.)
How tall are Oni?
How tall are Cyclops and Great Cyclops?

If giant Octopi have communities/villages and communicate with each other, should they have higher Intelligences?

Can anything be done to help Goblin Dogs with their dander/mange/whatever it has?

I am really looking forward to Tian Xia World Guide and Tian Xia Character Guide...and April is almost here!

As I understood it, Fey/Fairyfolk were once defined by their alignment...and if their alignment changed, they would change into another fey.

Now that alignment is history, how are the fair folk remastered?

Beware any place named Red Rose.

(That's is a dapper looking ghoul!)

Officially no.

Paizo designers said that the only remastered books planned are PC1-2, GMC and MC. The other supplementary books will be just errata to become compatible.

That said I don't doubt that they would make some "remastered" version of the books that out of stock because this is basically what they done with pre-remastered books when a new print was made (that's why we have 4 prints (now 5 if we count PC1) of CRB).

I guess I have a dumb question.

There will be more Monster Core books, right?

Paizo cannot cover all monsters, daemons, demons and devils in one book...so there will be future Remastered monster books, right?

Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

This is True.

We've had alignment for so long that it's a part of our thinking.

(yeah, I'm glad it's gone too.)

This revision is exciting.

Everything old in new again.

Tarrasques are from folklore. The D&D interpretation of them is pretty clearly Pathfinder's inspiration, but the specifics of them being Spawn of Rovagug and whatnot might be enough for them to get away with it?

'The Petit Tarrasque and other monsters'

A great historical article concerning tarrasques, hags, basilisks, cockatrices, golems and other monsters.

...

The reworked categories of monsters have all hit the spot for me. Hag rework leans more into fairy tale stuff, and I like that we're going to have a hag with Gingerbread Witch vibes. That just has more pizazz than "sea hag" or "blood hag". Hopefully it'll have some fun spillover to Changeling.

...

Absolutely thrilled to have kholo move out from the shadow of litigation that gnolls had hanging over them.

...

This is exciting!

I look forward to the new hags!

The new hyena-people may have potential.

scary harpy wrote:

What about gremlins? Are they going to be reimagined?

Also, I think alignment affected fey. Without alignment, how will the fey change?

Gremlins are pretty much a solid mix of real-world lore and our own creation. The only change you'll see there is us no longer calling mitflits "mites," as that's a name used in D&D for a creature that we've completely recast as a cowardly bug-friendly gremlin.

And the removal of alignment won't impact how creatures act. Fey will remain the same.

I am glad you mentioned mitflits. They are so pathetic that I feel sorry for them. Them and pugwampis.

I'm happy they are still in the game.

Thanks!

What about gremlins? Are they going to be reimagined?

Also, I think alignment affected fey. Without alignment, how will the fey change?

scary harpy wrote:

odd.

No one has suggested a t-shirt saying "ORC me. ORC me now!"

Why?

I'm dum is this a reference to something?

just a mild joke...and not funny, i guess.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Xenagog wrote:

I think either there was a miscommunication or he's getting a lot of work out of the phrase "access to 'traditional' names"

You can read him for yourself, he was pretty clear.

OK, I've read it, and it actually seems pretty much in line with what I was saying. Nowhere in that post does he say anything about the OGL being there "mostly for access to 'traditional' names", which is the main phrase I objected to in the post I quoted, and he does say, for instance, that "most of the monsters that touch WotC's trade dress protections... have been reworked", which implies that some haven't—which is exactly what I was saying. The main gist of the post seems to be that the PF2 system has been divorced from the SRD, which is of course true, but I don't see anything in there to contradict the point I was trying to make, which is that yes, Paizo could remove all the SRD material from Pathfinder, but there would be a little more to it than just a few name changes, and it would be a somewhat larger undertaking than a lot of people are acknowledging.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist here; like I said, it's entirely possible for Paizo to divorce Pathfinder completely from the SRD—and in fact at this point it seems likely they're going to do that eventually whether this new license ends up being enforced or not. I'm just saying that I think some people are underestimating the amount of changes that's going to take. It's definitely doable, and at this point probably inevitable, but there are a few beloved monsters, for instance, that are going to have to either go away or be significantly altered.

If Pathfinder has to create a 3rd edition because of this, then I will happily spend my money buying everything. (And never look at DnD again.)

How bitterly disappointing. (I was so looking forward to Planescape...and now I am not - to say the least!)

If WOC harms Pathfinder in anyway, I...don't have words.

I definetly agree on that. Mystic theurge could be an awesome idea, especially if you could combine any two Branches of magic.

However, i think personally the class needs something unique, instead of just wearing two different hats. Even Druid, Wizard, Bard and cleric feel different From each other.

How about some sort of a "Magical overload" mechanic, to represent the two methods clashing in the caster?

Agreed.

1 spell slot for arcane magic,
1 spell slot for divine magic,
1 spell slot for magical synthesis (whatever that would be...)

A big part of the mystic theurge's concept though was blending arcane and divine elements together, theoretically in a co-equal fashion to some degree.

A level 10 wizard who has one third level cleric spell slot doesn't really feel like it encapsulates that very well.

This.

The Mystic Theurge blends a both types of magic together...as opposed to a wizard dabbling in druidic magic.

Warlock was also already a PF1 archetype with a very different focus. That would not be a terrible name for the weapon summoning class/archetype many have wanted to see to keep true to the pathfinder version.

Even better if the item was intelligent.

Warlock was also already a PF1 archetype with a very different focus. That would not be a terrible name for the weapon summoning class/archetype many have wanted to see to keep true to the pathfinder version.

Even better if the item was intelligent.

Okay...how about Warloghe?

I think Pathfinder should have it's own version of the warlock...nothing like D&D's warlock.

M
Y
S
T
I
C

T
H
E
U
R
G
E

as a class...not a prestige class.

Name to long?

Shorten it to Warlock.

Krampus! in March... :(

thaX wrote:

scary harpy wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

...

A Magus with no magic and just spell-like abilities...sounds like a Warlock to me.

Maybe just me.

Ssshhhh... We are not allowed to have full class warlocks here...

Just call them kineticists and it'll be ok. ;)

Eh, I don't see why we have to do that.

Call them Warloghe or Warlow...or call them Warlock and make the class different from D&D!

Pathfinder should really have it's own Warlock; it has other classes D&D does not.

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

...

A Magus with no magic and just spell-like abilities...sounds like a Warlock to me.

Maybe just me.

Just completed my survey.

Basic Summery,

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

Summoner: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) along with having the eidolon have it's own pool of Hit Points. Also suggested a Summoning focus power along the lines of Summon Monster specialized to each magic tradition.

I argued that having more options doesn't make either class more powerful then any other due to the Action Economy. And the slower Proficiency progression makes them balanced compared to their more specialized peers.
The Magus should feel like a more desirable option to the Wizard/Fighter Multiclass and the Summoner especially for a Sakorian Godcaller should feel more like a full caster at the side of their deity or friend then heavily reliant on the eidolon being present to even be effective in any way.

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

With summoner if we give them full casting, the Eidolon will be incredibly bland. It will be a flavorless AC. We already have those. They are called Druids.

Let's have something we don't have and that is an interesting Eidolon with a lot of customization built in. Why are people so keen on trying to reinvent existing classes? If you want a spellcasting class, we have those. Just play one of them. Lets get something truly unique.

With some wanting to go one way and some wanting to go the opposite way, we could easily end up with 4 classes from this playtest.

I find the 'Summoner' sounds boring.

Of course, we could call this class the Warlock but it doesn't really change anything.

The Somner/Somnour/Sompnour is the only other idea I could think of.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...

I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.

Now that I think about it, the same thing could be said about the Mystic Theurge...I would have preferred it as it's own class but it will probably be archetype...if anything at all.

scary harpy wrote:

I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

...

A little curious what you mean by this. What kind of inspiration or mechanics would you center the class on?

I have neither inspiration nor mechanics. I'll leave that to people-who-know-what-they-are-doing.

TheDoomBug wrote:

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.

I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...

I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.

I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

Not a copy of the D&D Warlock; I want Pathfinder to have a new class name Warlock.

I really don't want the D&D Warlock and the Pathfinder Warlock to be similar in any way.

I just want to play a warlock in Pathfinder.

I don't really see a way to play Magus without investing in getting more spell slots. If they had 2 spell slots of each of their highest levels and 1 of every other level, it would probably be fine. Generally speaking you'll be in three to five combats each adventuring day. There's not much point in being a full caster though if you only get to cast a full spell once per combat on average - especially when that spell is liable to be weaker than the actual spellcaster's equivalent.

...

I haven't playtested yet but I've done some character building, and I think I dislike the 2/2 casting more than I initially thought I would.

...

I think what might work is to give the magus and summoner only one spell slot at their highest two spell levels, and compensate by giving them two spell slots at each lower spell level. Their spellcasting is still going to be pretty constrained by action economy and by the fact that they have fewer high level spells than everyone else. But it means that you have a more versatile and less frustrating set of spellcasting options. And it means that people won't feel that multiclass archetypes are superior.

2 good ideas.

Which would work best for the Magus? Which would work best for the Summoner?

I don't really see a way to play Magus without investing in getting more spell slots. If they had 2 spell slots of each of their highest levels and 1 of every other level, it would probably be fine. Generally speaking you'll be in three to five combats each adventuring day. There's not much point in being a full caster though if you only get to cast a full spell once per combat on average - especially when that spell is liable to be weaker than the actual spellcaster's equivalent.

I like this idea for both the Magus and the Summoner.

These classes are spell-casters and, thus, are appearing in Secrets of Magic.

So, let them cast spells!

Mystic Theurge, maybe.

as an archetype, I guess.

perhaps Beguiler, too.

Why would we need a class for NPCs? Aren't they made using entirely different rulesets than player characters?

It's not an NPC class.

It is a class for NPCs...unless you want to play a very weak PC.

An Adept class.

The usual 5 cantrips.

Only 1 spell per level.

Will is it's primary attribute.

Can only access common spells.

Meditates for spells.

Has 4 traditions: Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal.

Selects 1 tradition at 1st level; irrevocable choice.

No access to 10th level spells; there's no feat. (So, short of a wish or Celestial/Infernal intervention, Adept's do without.)

I think of it as an class for NPCs.

Just off the top of my head.

I'll ask the dumb question:

How is a Summoner diffent from a Conjurer (Wizard specializing in Conuration/Summoning magic)?

off the top of my head...

Hobgoblin
Investigator
MC Wizard (Divination)

If you can't find out something one way, you can find out another.

This is bliss.

(Anyone else think she should multi-class into Druid?)

scary harpy wrote:

Oracles have their curses; so, why not? I think of it as a role-playing challenge.

Oracle curses are largely personal. Someone showing up to a table with PC that makes all their allies worse just by existing is a different beast entirely.

true.

QuidEst wrote:

No pugwampi. (As much as it pains me to say that.)

Sure, I'd love it flavor-wise once we get gnolls, but their defining mechanic is one that I don't think is a good idea to have on anything playable for balance reasons. Normally, it'd be easy to say, "Oh, their feat only forces a reroll for a target once per day", but it's a big part of their lore that gnolls are the only other creature not passively affected by their aura. If Paizo doesn't mind giving them a more limited and party-friendly option, then I retract my reservations.

And it pains me to admit you are probably right. Their misfortune aura would probably be a bad idea unless your party was only gremlins and gnolls. It hurts to say that though, partly cause I love their flavor, partly because of how cute their 2e artwork is.

I don't see an issue. Forewarned if forearmed.

If you have a pugwampi PC in the group, then other PCs will affected by the misfortune aura if they aren't gremilins or gnolls.

Oracles have their curses; so, why not? I think of it as a role-playing challenge.

I root for Mitflits. So, yes, I would like gremlins as an ancestry.

so...when someone asks What classes would you like to see next in 2e? or What ONE Class should be prioritized for Aug 2021, one of the answers should be a revised/updated Alchemist.

I don't see a point in adding a Magus or Summoner while this original base classes is second-rate at best.

first:

Bard - Muse: Enigma

then:

Cleric - Doctrine: Cloistered Cleric

Interesting.

I'd have never considered either class before now.

Wow.

This really makes the waiting much worse.

scary harpy wrote:

Should I ask if the Inner Sea has public libraries here or start a new thread?

PFS scenario Echoes of the Overwatched visits Forae Logos in Absalom, one of the largest libraries in the world.

Good to know. Thanks.

I asked because I thought most medieval libraries were private...and nothing like we think of public libraries today (so I wouldn't expect a section dedicated to children's literature...or magazines).

Now back to the topic: adventures in postal service.

(Brilliant post, Old_Man_Robot. LOL!)

What day can I go into my LGS and buy this?

I must support it during these trying times.

Should I ask if the Inner Sea has public libraries here or start a new thread?

I am half-wondering if libraries could inspire an AP and am unsure what to do.

The Inspectors is an American crime drama television series centering on the criminal investigations of U.S. postal inspectors; the half-hour series aired on Saturday mornings on CBS as part of the network's Dream Team Saturday morning three-hour block of children's programming.

If this can be a children's show, then it can be an AP.

And Orcs aren't really the weakened cannon-fodder either. They show up around the same time and in the same ways as humans do. A couple levels later as fodder and at any point as classed and more powerful bad guys.

Weakened cannon-fodder is more goblins and kobolds. There's a place for that and it still doesn't need to be "always evil, kill on sight". Just weak enough to use as enemies in numbers.

I think the key isn't so much how they're used as enemies, but how often and in what context they show up as non-enemies. It's one thing to have a note saying "they're not always evil" or even one adventure somewhere where there's a non-evil group of them, but to have them show up semi-regularly as non-villainous NPCs - living in towns, doing their thing.

Thanks, thejeff.

I don’t know how I’m failing to communicate clearly…but, apparently, I am. Sorry to anyone I confuse.

Weakened cannon-fodder is more goblins and kobolds…and now mitflits…but not halflings and gnomes. Why?

Perhaps because only some beings are labeled disposable, evil foes. If that description gives automatic permission to commit offenses against these labeled peoples, then I think this is a problem.

I agree the key is not how some beings are shown as enemies but how else they are shown. (I’ll use fey for my examples.) Is the mitflit committing an atrocity…or is he foraging vegetables for his supper? Is the hag perpetrating some foul deed…or is she in the marketplace for her weekly shopping? Are the PCs acting heroically when they attack beings because “they are always evil”?

I don’t know how else I can say this…so I probably won’t say much else if anything. I hope I didn’t wander too far off topic.

scary harpy wrote:

Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.

And they have been?

I feel like bad humans are fairly standard and common enemies, even.

I'm sure they are.

Are they the weakened cannon-fodder for low-level groups? Or are they the BBEGs?

There is a subtle difference.

scary harpy wrote:

I can already tell that this thread will be closed by the moderators sooner than later. So, I will add my two cents now.

I enjoy the inclusiveness of diversity in Pathfinder. I also welcome the changes of Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs.

Beware: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mitflits have replaced Kobolds as a disposable, weak adversaries for low-level players.

As someone from Paizo explained, these are necessary evils for a rpg; otherwise, beginning characters are in a fight to the death with two rats...and the rats might win!

My view is different. Instead of Kobold or Mitflit, why not an evil Halfling or Gnome? (The GM can apply a weakened template to any of them.) Would killing the vile Gnome or Halfling would bother the players?

Why could this uncomfortable? Perhaps because all Halflings and Gnomes were not labeled 'Something Evil' and stated to all worship some evil entity...and, therefore, are not designated as unworthy to live.

I understand Mitflits are fey and I'm not asking for their redemption. I am saying racism can take many forms.

I too like that Kobolds, Goblins and Orcs are ancestry options, but I don't think that this means they won't also serve as antagonists. The Bestiary has entries for all of them, and one official Paizo Adventure has orcs as disposable mooks.

Just because they have an ancestry option doesn't mean they can't also simply be adversaries.

I don't think I suggested otherwise.

Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.

I can already tell that this thread will be closed by the moderators sooner than later. So, I will add my two cents now.

I enjoy the inclusiveness of diversity in Pathfinder. I also welcome the changes of Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs.

Beware: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mitflits have replaced Kobolds as a disposable, weak adversaries for low-level players.

As someone from Paizo explained, these are necessary evils for a rpg; otherwise, beginning characters are in a fight to the death with two rats...and the rats might win!

My view is different. Instead of Kobold or Mitflit, why not an evil Halfling or Gnome? (The GM can apply a weakened template to any of them.) Would killing the vile Gnome or Halfling would bother the players?

Why could this uncomfortable? Perhaps because all Halflings and Gnomes were not labeled 'Something Evil' and stated to all worship some evil entity...and, therefore, are not designated as unworthy to live.

I understand Mitflits are fey and I'm not asking for their redemption. I am saying racism can take many forms.