thaX's page

So....

Anyone ever play the first Balder's Gate? Remember the Kobolds in that game?

Dog like creatures?

Huh? What? Wait a moment!!!

Ok.

*deep breaths*

I can't put the vouchers in the system. An old post says that they have to be entered on checkout. Before it gets to the point where I can enter it, the thing goes into a "side cart" awaiting my next subscription.

So, I can't use these vouches given to me unless I spend them at Gen Con?

Would porting arcanist casting from PF1 for wizards break the game?

Sadly, the Arcanist is already in PF2 as a nickname for the Flexible Spellcasting Wizard. That's it, no port needed... Well, cept that we don't have the Arcanist pool, or unique stunts from that pool.

There is also other nicknames in play for the other casters that can take the Archtype that used to be a full class in PF1

Mike!! Congrats!!

A word on Vancian casting for a moment.

It isn't the slotting of spells that is the problem, it is the forgetting of it after it is cast. A wizard, Cleric, and other prepared casters in the game (PF2 or otherwise) need to be able to pull on the spells they have put to memory without having to waste resources to slot in extra copies for multiple castings. This is something that should have been down with D&D 3.0 instead of including both Wizard and Sorcerer with cross competing mechanics that needed nerfed on one end to prop up the other.

A note on prepared casters. PF2 kept the premise of memory wiping spells after casting, the "fire and forget" type where one needs to prepare multiple copies of a spell if they want to cast it more than once.

There is some mitigation with this, starting with the bonded object, but having to waste resources to get a multiple of a favorite spell is an unforgivable tax and the reason I try to play the spontaneous casters when I can.

The other way to go is the Flexible Caster, but the pairing down of spell castings makes it to where they are almost a half caster and more reliant on their cantrips.

Hopefully, PF3 puts the nail in the coffin of Vancian casting.

Hello.

I have been going over the possiblilities that have come about since I first made Lemtwist Bratham Mallentwine Flannelfoot Smyth Olgen Jeeb Nather Bingham (Sr) (my 2001 for PF2) and come across the Chronoskimmer.

Since this Archtype actually parallels what Mr Bingham has done sine LBMFSOJNB The Third has told everyone about it in his own carreer, and added Venture Captain to the beginning of his name, I was hoping to get a boon to use this archtype.

Seems it is, as of yet, unavailable, even though it has the standard availability (needing a boon since it is a Rare Archetype). Any chance this boon is going to be avialable before the time I have to do the Remaster rebuild, another boon that is absent from the boon lists.

I also realize that I would need a boon that isn't available for the Time Traveler background as well.

Alas, I may just have to be satified with Time Mage archtype for now.

Am I missing it? Where do I get the Boon on the Boon page to rebuild?

I suppose your right, PossibleCabbage. My own fix is to have the particulars follow the Shifter's progression, likely at a level higher like the Sorcerer vs Wizard has with spells.

But that gets into homebrew and likely would not fly in PFS PF1 play.

thaX wrote:

My question is about something that may not get resolved, but I want to ask it anyways.

Is there any forthcoming errata for the PF1 Oozemorph archtype?

Specifically, the scale up of damage/Magic and material equivalents that scales in the same manner as other classes.

If you mean the PF2 Oozemorph archetype from The Slithering, then that's probably covered under the " We do not currently have any plans at this time to include adventure content in a scheduled errata cycle. We may still do errata around particular reprints, such as when compiling an adventure for a hardcover release."

So if they reprinted the Oozemorph archetype, it would probably get adjusted, but otherwise they're probably not going to.

I haven't gotten access to the PF2 version and was surprised to see it regulated to an adventure that players wouldn't have access to rather than being in a rules book or Lost Omens player content.

My question, broadly, is about any errata for PF1, or perhaps clarifications at this point, about the PF1 scaling of weapon buffs for some archtypes like the Oozemorph or the Living Grimoire's having more ability to change judgement after encounters.

Something of a vain hope, I guess. The whole issue with Main Hand/Off Hand weapon use was never clearly defined to put the whole double wielding of Two Handed weapons to rest once and for all.

Just wanted to have my PFS1 character be effective at later levels instead of doing little to no damage on each hit because of various DRs. As written, Oozemorphs would need to start using actual weapons to keep up instead of the morphed weapons that are woefully lagging in later levels.

My question is about something that may not get resolved, but I want to ask it anyways.

Is there any forthcoming errata for the PF1 Oozemorph archtype?

Specifically, the scale up of damage/Magic and material equivalents that scales in the same manner as other classes.

As a merchandiser, the typical rotation for bestsellers is the Hardcover coming out first, than a trade paperback coming around 6 months later, depending on continuing sales, then if the sales of the book is slumping but is enough for consideration, the paperback version comes about a year later. Sometimes as soon as 6 months if they skip having the trade paperback.

Seeing the same titles come up again and again in different formats gets to me sometimes, seeing some books go through the process in an accelerated time scale, getting the hardcover and paperback within two months sometimes, but that gets a bit extreme with the release schedule.

So, going further, and submitting a bug report, Lemtwist Bratham Mallentwine Flannelfoot Smythe Olgen Jeebs Nathers Bingham (sr) has Gnome Obsession and the feats that gives are not populating as they should and I didn't get trained or have the upticks for the new Lore Gnome Obsession gives.

I sent a bug report for a similar bug for my new character involving the Tapestry Refugee background wanting all three skills instead of a lore skill and one of the two choices for it.

The new UI is awful, by the way, and hopefully temporary.

They are down at the moment.

Looking at other characters, it seems to be something that is changed on character creation and the older characters didn't adjust to the UI change.

Lemtwist Bratham Mallentwine Flannelfoot Smith Olgen Jeebs Nathers Bingham (Sr) had Fortune Telling Lore as his choice in his background, and later took Unmistakable Lore, which needed Expert in the lore chosen. I lost the tick for the expert for that lore.

Not sure how to correct it except to redo the entire character.

If I do that now, I have to use the remaster rules as the new UI is set to that standard.

So...

Just looked over a couple characters with the new interface that Herolab launched, and it seems to have broken background's way of chosing skills/feats.

Seems any checks you made when the character was made before the new interface came in is just gone. If you upgraded one to higher teirs, that is also gone, and won't come back when you select the skill again using the background tabs instead of being able to check it on the skills tab.

Will have to remake every single character from scratch if I am to keep using Herolab, and that means I will have to convert every character to the new errata to "fix" the broken UI that was introduced.

Thanks, guys.

Here is a hypothetical. I write a small novel of one of my PFS characters (his Grandfather or possibly his grandson). He is flitting back and forth through time, getting to see pivitol moments in Golarian history, and even visits the Starfinder Absalom station in space.

I put it on Infinate, and Paizo likes it so much, they might want to publish it themselves.

How does that change the ORC considerations?

thaX wrote:

So...

I have mixed feelings about this change, but need to clarify my overall preference since D&D 3.0.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

I talk, of course, of the difference between the Wizard (Vacian Caster) vs. the Sorcerer (Spontaneous Caster).

That being said, removing the schools will give the arcane casters overall a better fit into the setting and will set the PF2/PF3 Pathfinder setting in a better position overall. The room to have the wizard grow will likely make the class separate itself from the Sorcerer that much more, and hopefully have ways to recall a spell in place of Memorized ones more than once.

Be interesting to see how the changes will be overall in the caster realm with the rest of the classes from here.

This feels like a strange complaint to air when the PF2 sorcerer isn't actually an arcane caster anymore, but a pick-a-lister. The wizard doesn't really need to differentiate itself from the sorcerer because the sorcerer already did it for them.

The broader point about whether we still need both spontaneous and prepared casting styles is fine, I guess. But it stopped being a wizards vs sorcerer thing five years ago.

It was my initial impression of the two classes in 3.0. I actually like a lot of the workings of the casters in PF2, and the movement of the spell rank acquisition to be the same across the board is welcome in PF2. (the nerf now being less spells and having signature spells to heighten) Choosing from the four basic traditions does give the sorcerer some differences that make it more than just the Wizzard alternative.

I like the PF2 changes, just wish Paizo would have went all the way with spontaneous casting throughout. Something that could have also been done with the remaster as well, but I believe it would be bit more than an "errata" at that point.

thaX wrote:

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

Because it is wrong to exclude people with different preferences when you can easily accomodate both.

Different people like each one. That is Ok isn't it?

The overall feel I get is that those playing the brand that PF2 Remastered is moving away from in it's current (soon to be NeRfEd) iteration love that the same mechanic is used throughout, and that the wizard chooses what spell he has in his memory to cast each time instead of forgetting said spell after casting.

OfCourse, the brand has other issues that have nothing to do with magic use, but that is another discussion I don't want to delve into.

The point is that there was two distinct ways to do magic mechanics, and one had to be nerfed to keep the other. Not a great start.

So...

I have mixed feelings about this change, but need to clarify my overall preference since D&D 3.0.

Why was there two arcane casters who were basically doing the same thing with different mechanics? Why not just use the new mecanic overall in the system instead of keeping the old with the new?

I talk, of course, of the difference between the Wizard (Vacian Caster) vs. the Sorcerer (Spontaneous Caster).

I went with the Sorcerer from then on, then in PF1, each caster got a CHA based Spontaneous Caster equivalent in later books, the most prevalent being Cleric/Oracle.

I still don't see a reason to keep having to mem more than one copy of a spell to cast it more than once.

That being said, removing the schools will give the arcane casters overall a better fit into the setting and will set the PF2/PF3 Pathfinder setting in a better position overall. The room to have the wizard grow will likely make the class separate itself from the Sorcerer that much more, and hopefully have ways to recall a spell in place of Memorized ones more than once.

I had thought the Sorcerer would be the Elementalist of the arcane classes in PF2, but the same structure for Vacian/Spontaneous system made for different priorities. Seems that the elements are also being taken over by the Kinestest.

Be interesting to see how the changes will be overall in the caster realm with the rest of the classes from here.

Any information on how we are supposed to use other sources of replays not tracked in the system such as the one that allows you to give replays to others?

This issue could be avoided with a simple check box on the reporting page for "replays tracked elsewhere" or something along those lines that allows credit without subtracting from the online replays. If worried about trust you could make it require VO approval or something.

I am also interested in this. I have various replays I have done that are from the Expanded Narritive in PF1, a reaccuring boon for the successive seasons, one from a boon that was from a Tales book, and another for SFS from a Venture Officer to fill a table at a charity con.

I have the info for them, just need to know who to tell and what to check.

I have a pending order waiting on the pocket version of the Core Rulebook waiting, is there a way to remove the no longer in print item from the order and refunded?

Going into the other direction, this product is more than a Character Generator and more robust, it seems, than other projects out there. I myself would like a return to an Etools program that could do just the character generation and leave the reader program to the Amazon Fire.

I already have a character generator that I paid for, and have paid for access to books for it as well. I don't expect that would transfer to this new shiny from a competitor, so those that use the other service is going to need more than slick graphics to abandon what we already have.

The pricing seems to be more than what I paid into for the other, and attached to a book reader web portal (I think?), and the value of the newer program/portal just doesn't seem to match the premium attached to it.

I am excited for this new errata formed into the expanded remastered reorganized books. Not quite Unchained, but not a normal reprinting of minor errata changes.

I still think getting rid of Ability Scores is a bit extreme, but it isn't game breaking.

thaX wrote:

4th edition essentials... Was Compatible with the old in the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0 or that 1st edition could be used with 2nd edition.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

It was as far as being published as such, but it put in 3.5 mechanics and blew out any balance measures that wasn't already broken by Psionics introduced after the initial release.

Essentials killed 4th edition. This new Errata and new formated books is not even close to the edition killer that Essentials was.

So, a couple of things with catching up...

4th edition essentials... Was Compatible with the old in the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0 or that 1st edition could be used with 2nd edition. (I played in a 2nd ed game where another player had a 1st ed Assassin in the party.)

It took the balancing aspect of the system, and broke it.

---

The dragons upcoming actually sound cool. My lament is that they are "replacing" the OG dragons (colored and Metalic) and I wonder if the Shadow and Nightmare dragons are going to be a part of this.

I still miss the Mercury dragon from 3.5, the sly little fella.

---

Kobolds already had a big change in PF2, with bigger heads and stouter bodies. Sounds like they will embrace their big brethren dragons no matter the changes.

---

My overall view about the Stat changing to Mod's only is that it is unnecessary to completely remove the original numbers. There are a lot of other systems that don't use the OGL that have this array.

Heck, I am still disappointed 3.0 didn't include the seventh stat (COM)

AcP, for me, is easier overall for players to get boons than it was for PF1 and having to be a convention goer. Race Boons were given as GM boons, more and more in later seasons than earlier. There was Race Boons that were a part of the bonus roll later on.

Right now, if you register a PF2 character, there is beginner AcP banked into your account that should be enough for most of the Ancestry boons that is available. Also, the Kobold is freely available along with the Leshy (and I believe the Orc). There are some Ancestries and Heritages that have reduced costs.

I would say that limiting yourself to one character might be overdoing it, but if you can be open to having a second character after getting used to the game with the first, it might give you some perspective and insight on what to do next.

WatersLethe wrote:

7. Even with everything that's changing, this STILL feels like a 2.1 at most to me.

A mid-edition remaster that splits the player book in two and distributes the classes differently between them?

This is not 2.5 or 2.1. This is Pathfinder Essentials.

Whoah, there, hold up, partner!!

4Venture Essentials was additional rules and "updates" that were changing the then current edition to be more like 3.5, and was considered "evergreen" as a always printed accessory. (they also had a map and starter adventure)

This Remaster Project is not, it is an errata printing that puts the material in a different format for easier understanding, better presentation and lower buy in cost. (For a single book)

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

If they make Flexible Casting the norm, it would have to be with the Prepared Spells that the Prepared casters would normally get, with spells per day being the new chart. Never understood why it was configured to further hamper the poor ol' man Wizard even further to chose a spell while casting instead of guess work at the beginning of the day.

thaX wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

That would suck. It was bad enough that HeroLab OnLine has still not had the ability scores be featured instead of the ability mods with teeny tiny list of the actual scores to the side.

Why would they copy Mutants and Masterminds?

It’s not a “would” anything - this change is in, presumably because Ability Scores that were entirely vestigial was silly. If an 18 Strength only matters because it gives you a +4, it should probably just be a +4 Strength, no confusing 18 needed.

So, when I want to go up to +5, what happens? I don't have a "19" in the score anymore, so I can only have lower scores go up now?

This is an unnecessary change, and one that would have nothing to do with the OGL/ORC issue. Alignment has always been in the crosshairs, as Small Weapons got the boot in the crossover between PF1 and PF2. The focus on the modifiers has always been a strange duck, and all scores going up by two exclusively instead of the point buy in PF1 (D&D as well?) has always been a head scratcher for me. Starfinder even has a single point stat bonus in character creation.

Mods only makes it generic. I didn't like it in Mutants and Masterminds, not gonna like it here.

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

That would suck. It was bad enough that HeroLab OnLine has still not had the ability scores be featured instead of the ability mods with teeny tiny list of the actual scores to the side.

Why would they copy Mutants and Masterminds?

Coming in late again, as I don't look at the boards on a daily basis.

I suggested playing from the Core rulebook to be a primer for learning the rules, seeing how PFS organized play is, and begin to get the basics down in a few sessions as others at the table help out.

We are a friendly group, and like to put newer players at ease and help them where they need during play. Ask questions and we will do our best to guide you through.

The core races do have some good qualities, and as you seen above, The Kobold is available. I also love the inclusion of the Goblin.

The AcP is also available to get an Ancestry/Heritage that you would want for a character as you get more experienced and have a better grasp of what those choices could do for you and what combinations would click.

Main thing here... Have fun.

My late chime in for this subject.

The Tengu ancestry should have been a free Ancestry from the beginning, since they were a part of PFS in PF1 for a majority of the 10 seasons (11 counting season 0).

I believe they are called Kenku in the brand.

Now, I have some qualms about some of the decisions on the other side of the aisle, as the brand had, in a previous iteration, left out Gnomes in the initial players book, and the inclusion of the Tiefling has always been a headscratcher for me. (Talking core races here)

For Pathfinder, including Goblins was a brilliant move, since the little buggers has become an icon for the system since their introduction in Rise of the Runelords. (Fire! Fire!) There are some that disagree with the little guy becoming a core race. The turning of the half races (Elf/Orc) into Heritages was something to get used to and really not optimal, but it does give an example of the mechanic in the Core Rulebook.

My overall advice is to give the game a chance. I would start with a Core book character for the first time, and expand as you get more experienced with the game and mechanics flow.

So, for example, I have fifty characters for PF1 and just getting to my thirteenth character for PF2.

The Pathfinder society had a robust membership and will have rotation of Pathfinders (those who are members of the Pathfinder Society) that will go on tasks and assignments throughout Golarion.

4th edition had some good ideas, some of which is used in PF2. This is especially true in the Bestiary builds for Monsters.

Healing Surges are something that is sort of twisted and used (in a weird way) in PF2 and I still don't like the heavy nErf(tm) to the wands that was done in PF2.

I still think Defenses should be the default instead of turning the saves to the target rolling it, but it was made into another form of AC in 4th edition, which killed that aspect for future editions and iterations.

Filled out form, going for 7 slots once again.

I hope to see everyone there!!!

Uhg... New Star Trek.

Really hope they get back to Cannon after the current Paramount "25%" different disaster is finished.

So, are these still around in the background somewhere? I would like to know how many I have, and have some way to keep track of them.

I also would ask about the Expanded Narritive boon and if we could bring it back for PF2 (as a 0 cost, still dependent on games GM'd and glyphs).

Could there also be a replay boon for a small about of AcP available?

Also might be nice if the reporter/player could denote reported games as replayed ones with a check box or such.

Cheers!!

The problem for WotC is that the support that the license had provided and helped their brand overall is going to wither away, and they will have less material for the casual player to shift through or use for the home game play.

Organized play will also suffer. A primal backbone for Paizo, WotC official organized play will go to 6th (OneD&D) Edition and has not been popular as much as store play with homebrew or static groups going through the adventures they have.

No one will want to move from 5th Edition or try to adjust to the "revision" of the system for the new edition named "OneD&D."

I still liken this to the Essentials being shoehorned into 4th edition back in the day. It killed 4e and put a stain on D&D that it still had not recovered from, even with the 5th edition success.

Now they are saying that this new iteration is gonna be compatible with 5th edition. It is more like a build up of the system and a prerunner to 6 (Really, 7th)th edition coming out soon after.

Look for it in 2028. Whether WotC still has the IP, or someone else buys it and slaps on the TSR label back on it, "6th" edition will be coming.

*The previous statements are humble opinions of the author and not a result of any insider news or sources of ill repute*

One of the things I see here is the want for Wizards to "monetize" the 5th edition third party product via Royalties. Pretty much a lot of the 3.0/3.5 material has either been updated or revamped to the point that the license is is a secondary thought at this point.

PF2 likely could be published as it's own content without the need for the license, as it is far removed from 3.5 stile rules. My humble and earnest take on this is that the license is used currently only to continue the setting on a familiar structure of classes and D20 paradigm.

To me, Pathfinder would do fine without the license alltogether, whether that means "third edition" or an errata to adjust rules to further distiguish from the IP.

The real question is what Starfinder is gonna do. I expect that Starfinder 2nd edition has already been in the works already, bringing in line with and unifying with the Pathfinder system, and having time travelers go back and forth between the settings... wouldn't that be exciting?

I believe Paizo will be fine no matter what the new OGL is gonna be. PF2 likely can work without it, or the legality of such a move may prove to be wizard/hasbro overreaching past the current 5th edition line.

Think on this for a moment.

PF1 had races that had all the features from level one where PF2 turned those features into modular additions to the baseline ancestry skeleton. (Which are call (Ancestry) Feats.

This was something that confused me when this new edition came out, other than having everything now being "Feats" in the game.

These options, expanded beyond the beginning features of the original races, are mostly keyed into the culture and background of the Ancestries, pulling from the materials made for PF1 as well as telling a new iteration of these classic (and newer) race ancestries.

The new stat option is a nice compromise to the ongoing discussion in RPG circles about sensitivities that have not been a problem in past editions or in practical play overall.

The Ancestry Feats, as well as the Class Feats, Skill Feats and the very few General Feats out there, really improve our choices and are fine as they are.

Of Course, we could always go back to getting the set features from the beginning instead like in PF1. I really don't want to go to everyone just playing reskinned humans. I avoid playing Fortnite for this very reason.

They replaced the term "race" with something other than "Ancestry." I talk of the brand, not Pathfinder here.

thaX wrote:

I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change.

Yeah, that's why they changed Race to Ancestry, cause DNDone got rid of it as well. Yep.

I was referring to stat changes, not the name change done years ago in PF2. They botched that also, somehow making it worse than "race." Might as will call the character racial choice "thing" with the replacement they chose.

SO here is my understanding of the Ancestry Stat change.

One can either...
* - Get two stat boosts to chosen stats ("free" stat), though each are to different stats

* - Use the Ancestry listed stats that give two denoted stat boosts, a boost to a chosen stat not already boosted by that anscestry, and a Flaw. (which could be boosted by the "free" boost)

Or play a human.

I never used the rule for voluntary flaws (Two for one? Yuck!!) but the other Ancestries having a one for one (Flaw for a free boost) is lost with the optional chosen two stats instead.

For me, it seems to be a choice of using the free boost to up another stat or choosing to change the normal boosts around while the normal free boost and flaw cancel out. (Like using the free boost to up the stat the flaw took down)

I do get the feeling that some of the changes (and forthcoming gutting) in the main brand RPG that this great game is based on has a heavy influence on making this slight change. I think this change is much better and gives the players the choices of old and new while keeping the legacy of the game intact.

I look at the evolution of quests from what they began as back in PF1.

It used to be some replayable small one off that started as a one time running at a convention. Then repeatable quest started to come into the fold for low levels (mostly 1st level characters).

We have a few scenarios that consist of four quests put together as a themed bunch, and then had the quest packs with six quests that could be repeated and run together or separately.

Then PF2 came in with "Quests" that, at the beginning, had the repeatable tag, but soon we got some quests that, for the first time, was not repeatable. These began at 1-4 tier and then we had 3-6 tiered quest released.

I appreciate the return of Quests, and the return of having them connected with the Pathfinder Society.

My question is if there are going to be some with the Repeatable tag. With the AP's and other materials outside of the Scenarios having to be played outside of the organized play structure (and retro rewarded with lesser chronicles), there is a limited number of material to actually play our characters in PFS, carbon copies not withstanding.

I still can't believe there is a quest that is not repeatable. Blows my mind.

I would add another complication to the online play of this tabletop game. Which virtual table top do we use, and would they have their own servers or create one on the DM's computer like the sponsored one for Pathfinder? Which character sheet to use for the specific table, and can it be made from the infomation from Herolab or the new character thingy that I forget the name of at this moment?

Sorry, but except for the Roll20 games here locally when I can't come in person, I am skipping the online play and the Online Cons. Hopefully, Gen Con will be in person, so I can GM some games and see everyone again.

hmm... skeleton bard with a specialization in percussion weapons... inspires courage by playing xylophone on his ribs... :)

*Plays Popcorn*

I did not attend Gen Con this year. Though the reason is quite apparent, I will not go into it here.
I do think I will echo the sentiment in the earlier post, that things should be back to normal next year. I still think Paizo may not have the whole Saga Ball Room, but hopefully will have a bigger area than this years' offering.

I look forward to volunteering next year to GM, and hope to improve my little corner of the con.

I find myself going back to the birds. Well, the Tengu specifically, as it was fully available for quite a bit of time in PF1 PFS (Still is, for those that still play) I am wondering if any thought has been put into making it "Common" within PFS, available without a boon, as it had been in the past. We already have the Goblin, Leshy and Kobold.