theWasp's page

I just did a quick scan through and don't see any changes for automaton other than some page layout changes.

Thanks.

The only change I've heard about is to reinforced chassis. It now provides a +3 item bonus to AC with a dexterity cap of +1, but uses your unarmored defense proficiency (and doesn't have regular armor stuff like a strength requirement or check penalty), and the item bonus increases by one when you reach level five and again at level 10.

Cool, I think I like this more than the medium armour version. The auto-heightening is because you can't put runes on it any more?

Any changes to automaton ancestry?

The problem IMO is that it is hard to figure out whether arcane or divine fits better, so making th occult instead is the best solution to the dilemma.

Occult gets a lot more nercromancy spells than you'd think and is a decent overlap between the two spell lists. Plus if you look at necromancers from cosmic horror genre, those necromancers fit the occult type quite well.

I have spent a lot of time arguing for occult being the best necromancy spell list. It is definitly pushing upstream, or I would not have have to argue for it so much. IMO the only real drawback with going with an occult int caster is that undead identification is Religion, which is a Wisdom skill.

But this Necromancer class solves that really well with the auto-upgrading Undead Lore mechanic.

The Necromancer class is exactly the occult prepared caster necromancer class I was trying to homebrew, just with far better mechanics than I came up with on my own. I love it, thank you.

Is there any guidence on how necromancer PCs are traeated by nps in general? They don't seem to have anything with the unholy trait, but I would imagine that wouldn't stop a lot of people from trying to kill them (unless the stigma on necromancy is going to be turned down). It feels like it wouldn't fit into most adventure paths.

The Runesmith is exactly the class I didn't know I really wanted. I feel like I will be playing this a lot.

Yes, I am obsessed with the iconic characters. And whatever it is that we are calling the archetype characters like Zadim and Trzikhun.

theWasp wrote:

Is that Oloch being the battle harbinger? It looks like Oloch to me.

What kind of reduction in spellcasting do battle harbingers get compared to normal clerics?

Yes, they've been trying to bring back some of the old Iconics for archetypes. Oloch has found a new patron in Genzaeri and is representing the Battle Harbinger, while Sharda is representing the Rivethun Emissary archetype.

I am not familiar with Genzaeri.

Is Rivethun Emissary an ordinary or class archetype? And what are it's initial requirements? I had assumed Sharda would be a shaman practice animist cause they get a spirit familiar.

Cool, I've been wanting a divine option that's closer to magus. Because my groups don't seem to want to play either tanks or healers so I usually end up as a warpriest. Do they still get bonus heal spells?

EDIT: Ah I see you get bonus bless/bane instead. Less cool, but I will give it a try, I do like those spells but I hardly ever use them, a reason to do so could be fun.

Is that Oloch being the battle harbinger? It looks like Oloch to me.

What kind of reduction in spellcasting do battle harbingers get compared to normal clerics?

Thank you, I love her.

Bestial Manifestation doesn't give horns/antlers sadly.

There is an archon that is stag-like though, the Qarna (fka Horned Archon). They keep small communities safe from unholy threats.

The writeup of Dae and replacement of Altronis, combined with some other significant changes to the makeup of the Pact Worlds make me suspect that solarians are no longer 100% tied to the kasatha philosophy.

I would hazard a guess that while you can still become a solarian the kasathan way, you can now also become one in other ways, like being born during a magnetospheric storm. Kind of like how both wizards and sorcerers can using magic, but one learns through study, and the other has an inherent gift for it.

They are int based, so more strategy than inspiring.

Not a huge fan of the class being named Commander, cause that's a title used a lot in military organizations. We have npcs called Commander <insert name>.

Not sure if they have explained how Azrani got better, but she's replacing Gorum as a core god.

Szuriel, the Horseman of War and Azrani, cause she's ok now.

I have never really felt anything for Gorum so him dying doesn't matter much to me...however, it does feel appropriate that Exemplars get good at adventuring if the lore is that thier divine spark comes from the god of fite.

I hope the Guardian is a con-based class, I've been wanting a con-based heavy armour class in Pathfinder. The taunt thing is really promising too. Do they exist due to the pieces of Gorum's shattered armour showing up all over the world?

I don't think Undead will get a blanket unholy trait, mostly because Pharasma doesn't give sanctification to clerics, and having a bunch of gods whose followers can deal more damage to undead than Pharasmans would be weird.

There are also a fair amount of non-evil undead these days, mostly ghosts and spirits, but also Irorian mummies and the skeletal lizarddfolk guardians.

I kind of like that you now need different things to fight undead (vitality damage) than you do fiends (holy trait).

I think the mention of holy people fighting undead in the sanctification sidebar is somewhat misleading, as sanctification doesn't really interact with undead. The only link is that holy characters likely have more access to vitality damage.

Plus, Pharasma is THE anti-undead goddess and she doesn't allow sanctification at all.

EDIT: You can be a holy champion of Pharasma still from the errata's exception.

Great work on getting the champion and magus stuff out so quickly!

I was hoping for a mention of the Undead Master archtype which currently has 'evil alignment' as it's prerequisite, but looks like Book of the Dead hasn't had any errata yet.

I think I'll go with 'can't be holy' as the prerequisite for now, as requiring unholy would mean only clerics and paladins could take it, and the santification sidebar specifically mentions that holy characters often fight undead (even though none of the anctification mechanics specifically target undead).

TBH I'm unsure why a guide dog needs different stats from a normal dog. PF2E has done a pretty good job letting any character with a disability participate on equal footing with other adventurers, either through easily accessible, well, accessibility items, or through good ol' handwavium. Needing a "special" dog to get around, furthermore one that other people just can't get, feels like a step back in that regard. I for sure can't speak for anyone else on this topic but, as a blind person, it strikes me as similar to the practices of some other games of giving you bonus character points or whatever for being unsighted.

If you're really set on making a guide animal though, I like your idea of their support benefit reducing flat checks, though I might not have it reduce them by the full 5 just as a balance concern. If you don't make the reduction as extreme then that also means you can offer the companion to anyone who wants one and explain it as a simple benefit of their alternative training; you get a new companion, and visually impaired characters haven't got an option they have to take that makes them stand apart from all other characters, or at least, stand out more than they already might.

Thank you very much for the feedback, I was viewing it from the perspective of guide dogs having special training in the real world, but 'training' is probably more the territory of skills than of being a dog.

Instead, I think you are right, and it would be better for me to stick to specific dog families that are easier to train for specific tasks. Dogs like pointers and scenthounds would help with locating/tracking people via sight or scent regardless of who their owner is, and anyone could take one and take a class that grants blind-fight at level 8. The dog could reduce the check by 2-3 rather than 5.

They would fit well alongside mastiffs for fighting, shepherds for guarding, spaniels for flushing creatures out of hiding and so on.

For my setting, in which some human societies heavily rely on working dogs, I have been making a few different homebrew dog animal companions, based on the various jobs working dogs have in the real world. I wanted to include a guide dog* animal companion. I am not visually impaired myself, however, so wanted to ask for some guidance on what abilities to give them.

I had been considering giving them the ability to negate the 'all terrain is difficult terrain' rule from the blinded condition, however, the rulebook's guidance for characters with blindness mentions that they will have adapted to living with the condition, and leaves out the difficult terrain rule, as well as the -4 penalty on perception checks that don't require vision.

Another possibility is to have it grant the player the Blind-Fight feat if it is near them, however, the guidance in the rulebooks suggests you should be granted the blind-fight feat anyway.

So a final option that I can think of is to have it's support action be to reduce the flat check to target hidden creatures by a further 5 on top of what blind-fight does, removing the need for a flat check.

That is basically just giving you the ability a sighted character has to target creatures without a flat check. But maybe that's ok beacause blind characters are differently abled - being immune to visual effects, dazzled and the full blinded condition? Should the guide dog have precise scent so it can help you target creatures that are invisible/hidden to other players?

And I'm not sure what a good advanced maneuver would be. Maybe just keep Takedown from the wolf companion?

It should probably be a rare animal companion, with access limited to characters with visual impairments due to the specilised training the dogs have been given. For other people who want a dog that can help them detect hidden or concealed creatures, I will probably make a scenthound companion.

*In my country, the association that trains them defines them as follows: "A Guide Dog is a Working Dog that is trained to assist you in independently navigating the world if you are a person with a visual impairment." I know other names are used for them in other countries.

Side Note: The Grippli have been renamed to the Tripkee now!

I heard that, but had no idea how to spell it. Also not sure if Catfolk and Lizardfolk will use their own names.

Sorry if i am being silly. What is the difference between Player Core and Player core 2?

Player Core 1

Player Core 2
Classes: Alchemist, Barbarian, Champion, Investigator, Monk, Oracle, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler
Ancestries: Catfolk, Hobgoblin, Lizardfolk, Kholo, Kobold, Tengu, Grippli, Ysoki
Versatile Heritages: Dhampir, Duskwalker, Unknown Third Heritage

Does this make it more likely the third heritage is dragon-linked?

Hopefully they just give Champion a feat identical to Raise Symbol but it works with Blade Ally instead of Emblazon Armament. So no multiclassing needed.

Edit: Damn, I keep calling Champion Paladin.

We're talking about a more tank-role warpriest though, which plays quite differently to a pure damage one. I'm using a 1-handed weapon and a shield. I don't have a of of ways to do extra damage in this case, so the emblazon on the weapon makes a big difference to me cause I'm dealing less damage anyway, and if I take Raise Symbol as my 4th level feat then I don't have Channel Smite.

Tank & Spank cleric is a hard job and Raise Symbol will help with that quite a bit. Fortunately, you can switch the emblazon by spending 10 minutes inscribing a new armament so I can try it out both ways and see which works better.

What you are describing is a Magus class archetype. Change the spell tradition to Divine and give the Channel Smite Conflux Spell as part of the archetype.

Which feels like something that is completely doable in PF2. I see this as a better use of class archetypes than Spellshot.

Maybe that is how to do Inquisitor in 2e.

Good point on multiclassing. I'm predicting the cleric dedication to be the quickest route to Sanctification for a lot of characters, which is a major damage buff against the right foes.

I expect there will be a normal archetype focused around sanctification. Though I think we only get non-multiclass archeypes in Player Core 2?

Raise Symbol is fairly OP...not a fan of it tbh...Sacred Ground is cool though...was worried about power creep with the "Remaster" and it begins.

It's powerful, but, it's a significant investment to get the double benefit - you have to take another class feat (emblazon armaments) and forgo emblazoning your weapon to instead emblazon your shield. And losing that +1 to weapon damage early on is a hard thing to give up.

I'm playing a frontline tank cleric in a campaign currently, and using emblazon armaments, so this will be a decision I need to make. Damage or better saves....hmm...

Do nephilim also cover aphorite and ganzi?

Evil clown: 1/10
Mischievous spirit of amusing pranks: 8/10

You all make good points about it being divine.

Yup animist is cool. Still wish it could be sanctified because I like sanctification too much, but hey there might be an archetype for that. It being divine (as opposed to primal) is a little bizarre given no sanctification, but it's supposed to be spirits of the natural world so I get why...mostly.

It does feel odd not bring a primal caster. I think it's partly because the default lore to research spirits is Religon, and partly cause the primal spell list is way more blasty.

But you can get some primal spells from the spirits at least.

I love the Animist class a lot. The spirits are done really well and I like the spellcasting too. I can see this being my go-to caster from now on.

Sadly I don't think I will be able to playtest it, as it doesn't really fit with the only game I'm playing in.

There is definitly something funny with the saves though, I feel like a class feature got accidently left out. Cause they start with expert will but never improve it, and the Channeler gets expert Fortitude but then gets the 'success to crit' for Will not Fort? Very odd.

I feel like everyone is enamored with the exemplar and I'm the only person who like the Animist more.

There better be some Rivani art in the book.

I was excited to see the psychic, as it was one of my favourite classes in 1e, but I think I actually like the thaumaturge more now I've seen it.

"You can have only one lineage feat; you can select such a feat only at 1st level, and you can’t retrain into or out of this feat."

Aww, so no dhampir darkvision and svetotcher. Thanks for the reply though (and Ezikieru too).

What are the limitations on the lineage trait? I assume you can only have one lineage feat. But do you have to take it at level 1 or can you do it later on?

Yay Quinn!

Shoonies are literally the best thing in 2e.

So when can we expect the "We Be Shoonies" adventure?

They look more like bulldogs than pugs to me. My grandfather used to breed them.

Are...are the shoony in this?

Ooh, how many Outer Gods are in the appendix?

I'm interested to see if Paladins really no longer have spells. Traditional spells that is. While I'm a bit disappointed to see Alchemists (and Investigators) lose spells, I understand why it was done.

PF1 Paladin spells, on the other hand, seem quite lacklustre, what with them only getting 1st level spells at 4, it generally being siginificanly better for them to spend their turn on class abilities and hitting things with big weapons than on spells. Am hopeful that they will be more interesting with this 'spell points' system.

Remember there are good arguments on both sides of this discussion, and no matter which way Paizo go on the paladin alignment issue, people will be upset. This is, after all the internet.

Do we know if the alignment restrictions on Barbarians and Monks have been dropped? I don't remember seeing any mention of it.

There are a lot of voices saying that they want expanded alignment for paladins, so I just want to say that I like that paladins are being kept as LG in the playtest.

I think there is something to be said for having paladins be beacons of good and law. I feel like as soon as you expand alignment, they're not really paladins anymore. But, if we are keeping them that way, there definitely need to be good alternative options for the tank/shield role in a party. In PF1 it feels like someone has to either be a paladin or barbarian, which I think is part of the push for paladin's to have more alignment. (I know there are also other good reasons.) Hopefully other classes like fighter and maybe monk will be able to take on the role successfully in PF2.

I do think that LE Tyrants, at least, should exist, but as either their own class or a non-core archetype for paladins. Tyrant feels like a better starting point for a Hellkinght than a generic fighter does. I don't like the existence of Antipaladins, as they've always felt like 'lets take all the paladin class features and completely invert them' which I personally find a bit silly. But if Antipaladins can be moved beyond that, they do have a place as well.

Tell me more about this ninja archetype.

Hmm, the tyrant archetype has an alteration to the fiendish boon that lets them get a lawful evil servant if the choose the servant version, but it doesn't change the weapon properties if they choose the weapon version. Surely they should be able to give their weapon the axiomatic quality instead of the anarchic one?

And what's going on with Feiya's nail extensions? Is she trying to go undercover in the black market as a hag-wannabe?

Nails hex!

What classes can use the new sylph spells?

So..rumor has it there are two new witch hexes in here. What are they? My witch just leveled up, trying to decide if I should buy this and pester my GM to let me learn one.

Anything useful in here for elemental races (especially sylph)? I know we have Blood of the Elements in June, but I hoped this might have a new trait or two.