ssims2's page

As an alternative suggestion, what about mines that could fly and pass sensor data back to the mechanic. I'd call these drones, not mines, except that the name is taken. Blowing things up would then be only one of the things you could do with your mines.

This needs to be followed by the “Armies of Golarion” book that has been mentioned before. With all these wars going on, shouldn’t every settlement in Golarion get an “army sheet”?

PathHammer Fantasy Battles...

and then the future version

StarHammer 20K

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Megistone wrote:

Oh and I hope to hear something about the Battle Oracle, that's too bad to be true.

The removal of Martial Proficiency?

Having your weapon proficiency come and go is a problem rather than a boon. What happens if you miss your Strikes? You have to recast the spell (hard to do at lower levels, when your focus pool is likely just 1 point) or switch to a simple weapon, because your martial one has become deadweight.

I'd rather have the Battle Oracle stick to simple weapons (you can always take feats or dedications to change that) and Battle Trance grant a different effect, than the mess it is now.

Plus, if you take the Weapons Training general feat (or otherwise get martial weapon proficiency through an archetype), this focus spell is now useless, and if you haven't gotten a second focus spell yet, you'll have nothing to spend focus points on.

I think the Ancestors cursebound effect is particularly thematic to that mystery. After all, if you push this curse, you will likely be joining them soon.

So we have a (near) flame war based on a Paizo developer's decision NOT to say whether or not the alchemist's proficiencies have changed. How much worse would this have been if they actually had told us something. Seems to me their silence has been justified by this thread, given our community's tendency to catastrophize over literally nothing.

Red Griffyn wrote:

There is another googledoc to follow here

Proficiency

Q&A wrote:

“Another question: How are the proficiencies looking like for the Alchemist? Are they the same? Did they change to be more like a martial character?”

James Case 「he/him」 — Today at 4:05 PM
No comment on proficiencies since enough has changed internally with the structure of the class that it likely won't be very contextualized. We do hope the remastered alchemist is both easier to grasp and has a more consistent playstyle at the table, though!

This is the #1 question they have to answer! Add the context and tell us! Lets imagine some options because there are only a few of them:

1.) We gave the commander treatment of martial to hit and legendary class DC. (YASSSS! All those cumulative probability items that require a hit and save will be usable!)

2.) We gave martial to hit and nothing else (YAY!)

3.) We gave martial to hit and scaled back bomb damage to compensate (happily optimistic that the cut backs weren't too bad)

4.) We gave a janky to hit scaling that does give master to hit but is delayed for no good reason and leaves a bunch of hell levels like the warpriest (I hope not, that is literally the worst option you could have done!)

5.) We kept expert to hit but gave legendary to class DC and it scales like a caster now and added more save based bombs (I hope not since we can see some remaster bombs and they are still 'attack rolls to hit', but this is at least significantly preferable to option #4 and I'll stick with bottled monstrosities/any new items that don't require to hit rolls).

If I had to bet, I think we're getting #4 because literally any other option would have made immediate sense with very little context needed. That may make me a pessimist but they had to know everyone would ask for that specific answer since there is has been a forum/reddit post like once a

...

Or we get option 5a:

It seems to me that the designers consider Large size (with 5-foot reach) to be a substantial downgrade. Consider the "mini-taur" heritage, which drops you from Large to Medium and changes your horn damage from 1d8 to 1d6 agile. Agile is considered to be worth one die size in damage, so the latter change is balance-neutral, meaning the downgrade in size is considered equivalent in power to gaining one 1st-level ancestry feat (since the benefits of a heritage are generally equivalent to a 1st-level ancestry feat in power). Why is Large size (with 5-foot reach) considered such a sizeable downgrade in power?

One thing I have missed from this discussion is what I call threat-to-space ratio. Basically, this is a comparison between the number of squares that a creature can threaten and the number of squares they occupy. The more squares you can threaten, the more enemies you can attack, flank, or potentially interdict, should you have reactive strike or similar reactions. The more squares you occupy, the more enemies can do the same to you. So a threat-to-space ratio represents how flexible you are offensively compared to how vulnerable you are defensively, all other factors being equal.

I'll calculate using two dimensions. You can calculate using three dimensions and get similar results.

A Medium or Small creature occupies 1 square and threatens 8, so they have a threat-to-space ratio of 8:1.

A Large (tall) creature with a reach of 10 feet occupies 4 squares, while threatening the 12 adjacent squares, plus 16 squares 10 feet away. This results in a threat-to-space ratio of 28:4, or 7:1, which is close enough to the Medium/Small ratio that this is not a factor.

A Large creature with a reach of 5 feet (like a PC minotaur or centaur) occupies 4 squares while threatening only the 12 adjacent squares. This is a threat-to-space ratio of 12:4, or 3:1, substantially lower than the ratios calculated above.

...

However, I'll note that the Minotaur and Centaur base chassis are both at the high end of ancestry power. Using AFE (ancestry feat equivalents) to measure chassis strength:

Elf (as an example of a Player Core ancestry): Speed (30 feet, worth +1 AFE over the default 25 feet) and Low-light Vision (worth +1 AFE) = +2 for the base chassis

Minotaur: Size (Large, worth -1 AFE as described above), Darkvision (worth +2 AFE, 1 for low-light vision and another to upgrade to darkvision), Horns (worth +2 AFE, 1 for the unarmed attack and another to increase the damage die from the default 1d6 to 1d8) = +3 for the base chassis

Centaur: Size (Large, -1 AFE), Speed (30 ft., +1 AFE), Darkvision (+2 AFE), plus two other minor abilities each work around half an ancestry feat = +3

...

Last, I'll mention that the most obvious downside to being Large as an ancestry is that you can't turn it off when it becomes a problem. Somebody who can cast enlarge can become Large when it is beneficial to do so, and when it would be a drawback, they just don't cast the spell. If you're Large all the time, you just have to deal with the downsides, which can range from annoying to potentially lethal.

Based on my reading, there are two separate things at play here.

1) Form Up! and similar tactics states "signal all squadmates affected by your commander's banner" - this means that the squadmates must be within the banner's aura when the signalling occurs (which is when the tactic is used), but not necessarily within the aura once the squadmates have responded to the tactic.

1A) Form Up! also requires that the squadmates must end their movement inside the banner's aura, which addresses the last point above in this specific example.

2) The banner trait is separate, and as I read it has nothing to do with the banner's aura at all. It instead imposes a hands restriction on those tactics and actions that have this trait. Form Up! doesn't have the banner trait, so you can use it when you are not wielding your banner (or even when it is planted). The tactics that do have the banner trait tend to have more powerful effects, so this trait acts as a balancing factor - to make use of them, you have to use a hand or commit to using a specific weapon, giving up some flexibility.

2A) Defensive Retreat, as an example, has the banner trait and says "signal all squadmates who can hear or see your signal". There is no range restriction here - all squadmates on the battlefield can respond to this if they can detect your signal. The banner trait adds a different restriction - that you have to be wielding your banner (holding it in one hand or wielding a weapon with the banner attached - and not wielding a shield with the banner attached).

I agree the wording could be better - saying "signal all squadmates inside your banner's aura" would be less confusing.

Page 263, "Steady Balance" feat.

You can keep your balance easily, even in adverse conditions.
Whenever you roll a success using the Balance action, you get
a critical success instead. You’re not off-guard while attempting
to Balance on narrow surfaces and uneven ground. Thanks to
your incredible balance, you can attempt an Acrobatics check
instead of a Reflex save to Grab an Edge.

Grab an Edge now allows for an Acrobatics check or a Reflex save by default, so the last sentence is unnecessary.

Page 254, "Dubious Knowledge" feat.

You’re a treasure trove of information, but not all of it comes
from reputable sources. When you fail (but don’t critically
fail) a Recall Knowledge check using any skill, you learn the
correct answer and an erroneous answer, but you don’t have
any way to differentiate which is which. This can occur as
not knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s
good or bad.

The last sentence is new, but I'm having trouble parsing its meaning. If the first "not" was removed, it would make more sense ("This can occur as knowing something is significant, but not whether it's good or bad"), but I can't be sure that's the intended meaning here.

ssims2 wrote:

Page 215 (Spellcasting Archetypes):

Expert Spellcasting Feat: Typically taken at 12th level,
these feats make you an expert in spell attack rolls and DCs
of the appropriate magical tradition and grant you a 4th-
rank spell slot. If you have a spell repertoire, you can select
a second spell from your repertoire as a signature spell. At
14th level, they grant you a 5th-rank spell slot, and at 16th
level, they grant you a 6th-rank spell slot. Archetypes refer
to these benefits as the “expert spellcasting benefits.”
Master Spellcasting Feat: Usually found at 18th level,
these feats make you a master in spell attack rolls and DCs
of the appropriate magical tradition and grant you a 7th-
rank spell slot. If you have a spell repertoire, you can select
a third spell from your repertoire as a signature spell. At
20th level, they grant you an 8th-rank spell slot. Archetypes
refer to these benefits as the “master spellcasting benefits.”

The bold sections should be removed, since proficiency in spell attacks / DCs is no longer linked to a specific tradition.

Wouldn't this still apply to someone who takes a spell casting archetype that doesn't start out as a spell caster?

No, because spell attack and spell DC proficiency does not depend on tradition. It's "Trained in spell attack rolls" now, not "Trained in arcane spell attack rolls".

It looks like the only 4 variants they are highlighting in GM Core are the 4 mentioned. It doesn't mean the others are gone - they still exist in the GMG (if you have it) and on the Internet (if you don't). Frankly, variant rules are by my count the least important thing to reprint in the remaster, since they already exist and will still exist in the place most variant rules live for most games anyway - online.

From one of the screenshots of the Nephilim ancestry,

13th-level ancestry feat Slip Sideways prerequisites: "...or another lineage feat associated with fiends or the Maelstrom"

So, ganzi at least will get folded into Nephilim, and so aphorites as well, presumably. Duskwalkers are distinct enough that they may remain separate, or not. Of the 3, duskwalkers were the only ones besides aasimar and tieflings in the APG, as opposed to later products.

And starship combat?

They said, in the RFC stream, that they will "spend the time to get starship combat right" and they will be taking a "somewhat different approach", and will try to find the best way to accommodate people who don't want a highly complex system. No specifics, of course - it's far too early for that.

I think Starfinder 2nd edition will take into account how we keep printing the same kind of ancestry feats over and over again. Every ancestry gets 3 weapon feats, and 1 skill feat for example. So you could probably make a "list of feats available to every ancestry" that refers to a list of weapons/skills/etc. that are just part of the stat-block of the ancestry. Then you only need bespoke feats for the specific things that make an ancestry unique.

I would not be shocked to see this in the Remaster, actually.

Do we know what SF2 is doing with spellcasting design?

The PF2 and SF went in opposite directions (in PF2 there are only 9 level casters and in SF there are no nine level casters) and I'm not entirely sure how they reconcile that design space, since having martial capabilities is a big aspect of SF spellcaster identity.

In the keynote, they said SF2e will have a full 10 spell ranks, just like PF2e. I don't recall anything indicating whether the arcane/divine/occult/primal distinction will transfer to SF2e, or if they will keep the existing "magic is magic" theme.

What I'm curious about is how they will handle ancestries in SF2E. A big draw for Starfinder is the cantina-style number of aliens you can play as, but that sort of model isn't really feasible in PF2E, where each ancestry requires at least four pages of space.

What I suspect will end up happening is either the number of playable aliens will be drastically reduced, which would make me sad, or that the number of levels you get ancestry feats will be cut back, and those other levels given something else. Perhaps that is where benefits from your theme can go, assuming themes aren't folded wholesale into backgrounds, which would make a lot of sense.

One option would be to use one big, universal list of ancestry feats and have the alien ancestries pull from this list. Each feat could have one or several traits indicating the type of biological or sociological feature it's associated with, and the ancestry could say to choose from among the ancestry feats with the x, y, and z traits, instead of listing them all. So you could cut the page count for an individual ancestry roughly in half, once you have the universal list established in the core book.

Maybe one way to make the Operative distinct from the Rogue is to lean into the name. An Operative would actually be an operative for an organization, and would choose the type of organization at first level - this would be their class option. They could be able to call on certain resources based on their organization choice - military, intelligence agency, corporation, activist group, revolutionary cell, etc.

It's interesting that they've said there will be 6 classes in the Starfinder Playtest Rules (and presumably in the ensuing Starfinder Core, or whatever it ends up being called). There were 7 classes in the original Starfinder rulebook, and 6 have been added subsequently. They announced the Envoy, Mystic, Solarian, and Soldier as being 4 of the 6 during the keynote. What do you think will be the other two?

Since PF2e and SF2e will be interoperable, they will have to avoid making classes that are just "Wizard in space". That has resulted in some changes to the Soldier class, which was pretty much "Fighter in space" in SF1e. Similarly, the Mystic, which can't just be "Cleric/Druid/Psychic in space". So this means some classes, if carried forward, are getting some significant changes in focus.

The 3 core classes not yet confirmed for 2e are Mechanic, Operative, and Technomancer. Of the newer classes, to me Biohacker and Witchwarper seem more likely for a promotion to core than any of the others. I'll discuss my thoughts for each of these 5.

Mechanic - this, to me, is a no-brainer for 2e. The tech-user archetype is as core to space fantasy as the warrior, mage, and thief archetypes are to traditional fantasy, and the Mechanic is a pretty pure expression of this archetype. It will need to avoid being "Inventor in space", but that should not be difficult - it's mechanics in 1e are already different enough.

Operative - this is more of a problem. 1e Operative is basically "Rogue in space", complete with a reskinned sneak attack. Is there a niche for this class separate from the Rogue? The designers will need to get creative. And we already have the Envoy filling the classic roguelike archetype, albeit more of a party face than a backstabber. So this is a good candidate to get dropped from the 2e core (maybe to return later, in a different form).

Technomancer - this also has a problem, in that it was largely "Wizard who uses technology" in 1e. You could end up with Technomancer being a class archetype for prepared (PF2e) spellcasters, if they choose to introduce THAT amount of interoperability. Alternatively, they could refocus the class on being a TRUE hybrid tech-user / magic-user class, which would give them a clear niche in SF2e. So, this is a strong possibility, but not a no-brainer.

Biohacker - the closest comp for this class in PF2e is the Alchemist, but of course the Biohacker uses technology, not alchemy. The niche of a technological healer is pretty clear, so they may decide to promote the Biohacker to core like they did the Alchemist for PF2e.

Witchwarper - if they don't elect to use the Technomancer for SF2e core, this is the most likely spellcaster to make it in its stead. The flavor is very distinct from PF2e's casters, and so this class could add a lot to both games. We still don't know if SF2e is going to use the arcane / divine / occult / primal division, or if they will follow through with the "unified theory of magic" approach from SF1e.

Any thoughts? Which of the Starfinder classes are you most interested / excited to be able to use in Pathfinder?

Perhaps I was trying too hard to fit 4 PF1 classes into one chassis. The first 3 fit much better than Bloodrager, mechanically and thematically.

Maybe instead of Bloodrager, the Arcane subclass of the "Seeker" could be a Scion. Key stat Cha, as before, and chooses a single Sorcerer Bloodline. The Scion's "amp" effect would have nothing to do with Rage (well, maybe the Demonic Bloodline could include a Rage-like effect in it's amp), but would provide a short-term benefit (usually 1 minute) at the cost of losing access to your Bloodline's passive benefits until you Refocus. That would make the "amp" effect more of a per-encounter thing, so the sub-class would have to be balanced around you probably having access to it in every combat.

The interesting part of the Bloodrager for me was always the Bloodline and how it manifested itself in a martial class - not so much the Barbarian-specific stuff that came from Bloodrager's status as a hybrid class. The Scion uses the Bloodlines, but is otherwise a vanilla martial. Of course, individual Bloodlines could add a lot of flavor and special abilities - as suggested, Demonic could provide a Rage-like effect, while Angelic could provide Champion-like flavor, etc.

I had the idea of a class chassis that could combine multiple PF1 classes into one using subclasses. The class itself could be called Seeker or something else suitably generic, since the subclass determines much of the concept. Each subclass would have its own unique Focus mechanic, and could make minor adjustments to the class chassis (like Cleric doctrines do).

Base class would be a spontaneous wavecaster (tradition determined by subclass) with master martial & medium armor proficiency.

Subclasses could include Inquisitor (Divine with Wis as key ability), Hunter (Primal with Wis as key ability), Medium (Occult with Cha as key ability) and Bloodrager (Arcane with Cha as key ability). Names could change and class concepts could vary somewhat from PF1.

1) Inquisitor: instead of Divine cantrips, you get Focus cantrips called Judgements. There would be a dozen or so, divided between combat and utility, and you'd chose 5. Judgements act like stances - the cantrip turns on the judgement, and it stays on until you use another or it gets deactivated. The Inquisitor can use a free action activity (1/round) to "amp" an active judgement (inspired by the Psychic playtest) - the trigger, duration, and effect of the amp would vary based on the judgement, and all amps would be combat-only (because of the nature of Focus Points). For instance, a judgement that provides a bonus to tracking (utility) could have an amp that triggers when you roll Survival for initiative, and could provide a short-term attack and damage bonus vs. a target you've been tracking. The Inquisitor could also get to choose one Cleric Domain (like the Champion).

2) Hunter: instead of Primal cantrips, you get Focus cantrips called Animal Aspects. These would act pretty much like judgements, but the effects would be more Primal-themed. For instance, you could have several that give basic natural weapon attacks (bite, claw, etc.). The Hunter could start with an animal companion, and there would be the usual feats to advance the companion. Hunter and Inquisitor are similar enough in concept that they could share a number of class feats.

3) Medium: you have access to 6 or so different Spirits - you choose a Spirit at the start of each day, and that Spirit determines which Occult cantrips you have access to that day, and a specific Focus spell you can use. Each Spirit would provide certain ongoing passive benefits, as well as a particular drawback. So you are basically switching out key portions of your class chassis each day, and this increased flexibility would need to be balanced by a little loss in power (no "amp" ability).

4) Bloodrager: you choose a Sorcerer Bloodline. In addition to what a Sorcerer would get (spells known, Focus spells, etc.), your Bloodline provides you with certain ongoing passive benefits, as well as a particular drawback. You can spend a Focus point as a single action to enter a Bloodrage, which is similar to a Barbarian's Rage, but which also triggers "amp" effects based on your Bloodline for the duration, and during the 1 minute "cooldown" period, you lose your passive Bloodline benefits (but not the drawback). Since you're stuck with a single Bloodline, and so have less flexibility than the other subclasses, the Bloodline abilities can be slightly more powerful in compensation.

Something like the Cleric's Divine Font ability might work (except instead of heal/harm, it uses one 1st level spell that could benefit from heightening (i.e., either has heightened effects at each level or involves incapacitation or a counteract check), the specific spell determined by Conscious Mind. So Silent Whisper could get charm, and the others would get a different spell to match the theme (I'm having a hard time coming up with examples for the others, actually).

Considering that according to existing Pathfinder lore (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) The Osiriani gods actually ARE the gods from ancient Egypt, and

2) "present" day on Golarion (4721 AR) is simultaneous with 1920s Earth, and

3) Osirion was founded more than 7500 years in the past, which is more than 2500 years before the First Dynasty of ancient Egypt...

then it becomes clear that Osirion is not actually an unoriginal copy of ancient Egypt - it is ancient Egypt that is a copy of ancient Osirion.

Joking aside, there is clearly a way to make Osirion interesting and original while (mostly) hewing to the existing lore.

On Liberator (CG) vs. Revolutionary (CN): the Liberator's focus is on the oppressed, and their reaction is to help the oppressed escape. The Revolutionary's focus is on the oppressors, and their reaction would be something that targets those who try to restrain or control others - maybe an "instant karma"-type reaction that can inflict the same sort of condition on the oppressor. The focus on vengeance and violent overthrow can push the Revolutionary into some pretty dark places.

Archives of Nethys has a list of deities with areas of concern. The list is from 1e, but the areas of concern shouldn't have changed.

https://aonprd.com/DeitiesByGroup.aspx

I suggested this before, but the thread seems to have gone away. Instead of defining the LN, N, and CN Champions as Champions of Neutrality, we need to give them another focus that goes beyond morality. One thing most if not all neutral morality characters share is a "code" of some sort. This can be a LN samurai's Code of Bushido, a CN Pirate's Code, or a N Druid's reverence for nature, among others. The neutral characters are not motivated by morality, but these codes express their core belief systems and they can be as devoted to them as any Paladin is to their tenets.

So, perhaps instead of Champions of Neutrality, we have Champions of Honor. The tenets of honor could be 1) never violate your deity's anathemas and 2) always remain true to yourself and your core beliefs. We'd need to have a way for the player to define their core beliefs - in coordination with the GM. For instance, they could develop two core beliefs that they could not betray. One must be an edict of their deity, the one that is most important to them personally. The second would be a more personal belief, rooted in their background and personality, and would require approval from the GM to ensure it is in-line with other tenets in terms of its scope and applicability.

The LN cause could use both of the Paladin's tenets - both the "behave honorably" and "obey the laws" apply equally well to LN as LG. The CN cause could use the first of the Liberator's tenets - "don't force others to do things" - but the second seems too Good in nature to fit. Maybe something along the lines of "always question authority", with reasonable caveats, could work for the second tenet. That may even fit better as the first tenet of the CN cause.

Neither of the Redeemer's tenets seem to fit the N cause well. This is always going to be the toughest to design. A N Champion will be someone focused on their specific beliefs, who considers morality and ethics to be unimportant by comparison. Maybe for the first tenet, the player chooses a second of their deity's edicts that is also important to them, and for the second, "never allow considerations of morality or ethics to get in the way of acting on your beliefs."

I do also like the idea of a Law vs. Chaos axis for Champions, but I think the Law side might have too much thematic overlap with the Hellknights.

First, apologies. The sage NPC class was in Rite Publishing's free Pathways e-zine (issue 17), not Kobold Quarterly.

As for commoner archetypes, I can think of a few. Note that the commoner class, as written, is just about the worst class imaginable. Even Paizo (with their sample NPCs in the Gamemastery Guide) uses other classes to represent "commoner" type characters. A commoner archetype would add certain features to the class, while still leaving it inferior to the other NPC classes.

Examples:
the Laborer - change hit die to d8 and give a good Fortitude save (representing a tough but unimaginative worker or serf).

the Yeoman - add 2 skill points and give a good Will save (representing the free farmer, stubborn and skilled in his profession) - for verisimilitude, change weapon proficiency to "any one simple weapon or martial ranged weapon" to represent the English bow-trained yeoman.

the Vagabond - add 2 skill points, change class skills to represent a more "urban" skillset, and give a good Reflex save (representing the urban homeless / street urchin, skilled at staying alive).

the Militiaman - change proficiencies to all simple weapons + light armor, change BAB to 3/4 progression, and hit die to d8. All saves remain poor (representing the peasant conscript, given rudimentary weapon training, but whose poor morale is represented by the poor saves).