Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide

Our Price: $49.99

Preorder expected July 2020

Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

Ready to go beyond the basics? Expand the limits of what's possible with the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide! This 272-page Pathfinder Second Edition rulebook contains exciting new rules options for player characters, adding even more depth of choice to your Pathfinder game! Inside you will find brand new ancestries, heritages, and four new classes: the shrewd investigator, the mysterious oracle, the daring swashbuckler, and the hex-slinging witch! The must-have Advanced Player's Guide also includes exciting new options for all your favorite Core Rulebook classes and tons of new backgrounds, general feats, spells, items, and 40 flexible archetypes to customize your play experience even further!

The Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide includes:

  • Four new classes: the investigator, oracle, swashbuckler, and witch!
  • Five new ancestries and five heritages for any ancestry: celestial aasimars, curious catfolk, hagspawned changelings, vampiric dhampirs, fate-touched duskwalkers, scaled kobolds, fierce orcs, fiendish tieflings, industrious ratfolk, and feathered tengu!
  • 40 new archetypes including multiclass archetypes for the four new classes, Pathfinder favorites like the cavalier, dragon disciple, shadowdancer, and vigilante, and brand-new archetypes like the familiar master and the shield-bearing iron wall!
  • New class options for all twelve classes from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook including champions of evil, genie and shadow sorcerers, zen archer monks, rogue masterminds, spellcasting rangers, and more!
  • Even more exciting new rules, from rare and unique backgrounds to investigative skill feats, from spells and rituals like reincarnate and create demiplane to new items including special wands with unusual effects and exciting potions worthy of a witch's cauldron.

ISBN-13: 978-1-64078-257-0

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Preorder, expected approximately 30 Jul 2020

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO2105


See Also:



Sign in to create or edit a product review.

101 to 148 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I have there a chance to bring Spell Focus back as a feat?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I have there a chance to bring Spell Focus back as a feat?

They won't be bringing back spell focus like they wont be bringing back Weapon focus.

Both were considered "feat tax."

PF 2 is ALL about having CUSTOMIZATION. Lots and lots of customization.

As such, rather than have "feat tax" where you must take this feat or you won't be considered optimal, treating it as if you didn't have a feat in the first place, they just removed that concept and balanced feats out into class and skill feats to make it more balancing.


Thank you for sharing your insight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardess wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Nine alignments => nine subclasses of champion. IMO. How exactly that should work I dunno. We have the three good alignments. I suppose they want to do the three neutral (on the good-evil axis) ones next, and the three evil ones eventually. Or vice-versa. Or not. I dunno.
I am hoping for MORE than one subclass for alignment.

They already do. Kinda. Your choice of deity adds tenants and anathemas to a Champions existing lists of things as well as a bunch of other stuff.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually more excited for this book than I was the PF2E corebook. July can't get here soon enough. Well, July can wait, but this book can't get here soon enough.

moonunitiv wrote:
cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier

So...

if there was a location in Arcadia, named Buffalo...

and bison were an option for cavalier mounts...

could we say:

Buffalo buffalo cavaliers Buffalo buffalo cavaliers cavalierly buffalo cavalierly buffalo Buffalo buffalo cavaliers ?

>;)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'm actually more excited for this book than I was the PF2E corebook. July can't get here soon enough. Well, July can wait, but this book can't get here soon enough.

moonunitiv wrote:
cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier

So...

if there was a location in Arcadia, named Buffalo...

and bison were an option for cavalier mounts...

could we say:

Buffalo buffalo cavaliers Buffalo buffalo cavaliers cavalierly buffalo cavalierly buffalo Buffalo buffalo cavaliers ?

>;)

You could...but would you want to?

:)

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Somebody get the tranq gun, Ambrosia Salad forgot her meds.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

*props a box up with a stick, leads a trail of peppermints to it*

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why thank you Ryskies, that'll do.

*extends the stock*

*looks sideways*

Clever girl...

*MAKING A SALAD OUT OF A BAG NOISES*


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'm actually more excited for this book than I was the PF2E corebook. July can't get here soon enough. Well, July can wait, but this book can't get here soon enough.

moonunitiv wrote:
cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier

So...

if there was a location in Arcadia, named Buffalo...

and bison were an option for cavalier mounts...

could we say:

Buffalo buffalo cavaliers Buffalo buffalo cavaliers cavalierly buffalo cavalierly buffalo Buffalo buffalo cavaliers ?

>;)

Here's some info for those who might not get this reference.


^ Thank you.

--C.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'm actually more excited for this book than I was the PF2E corebook. July can't get here soon enough. Well, July can wait, but this book can't get here soon enough.

moonunitiv wrote:
cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier cavalier

So...

if there was a location in Arcadia, named Buffalo...

and bison were an option for cavalier mounts...

could we say:

Buffalo buffalo cavaliers Buffalo buffalo cavaliers cavalierly buffalo cavalierly buffalo Buffalo buffalo cavaliers ?

>;)

Here's some info for those who might not get this reference.

It's good to be educated on these forums. Thank you

Had never come across that reference until today.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Curious to see how heritage descents will function here, seeing how four out of the five feature distinct heritages themselves. Some means of representing a Moroi-born Dhampir or a Callow May Changeling would be nice. Would personally love to see more Aasimer descents as well; I'd at least like to see Kami offspring at some point. If a Tiefling can rise from the union of Oni, why can't Kami produce Aasimer?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Curious to see how heritage descents will function here, seeing how four out of the five feature distinct heritages themselves. Some means of representing a Moroi-born Dhampir or a Callow May Changeling would be nice. Would personally love to see more Aasimer descents as well; I'd at least like to see Kami offspring at some point. If a Tiefling can rise from the union of Oni, why can't Kami produce Aasimer?

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Dark Archive

Rysky wrote:

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Oni and Kami are both Outsiders (Native)


Mr. Paru wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Oni and Kami are both Outsiders (Native)

Were, past tense. "Outsider" isn't a category anymore, owing to the confusion with "outsider".


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Were, past tense. "Outsider" isn't a category anymore, owing to the confusion with "outsider".

<blinks> Say what?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Were, past tense. "Outsider" isn't a category anymore, owing to the confusion with "outsider".
<blinks> Say what?
James Jacobs wrote:

There is no term for "outsiders" as a general category for 2nd edition. The closest would be "extraplanar creatures" but that only works if you assume that you're speaking form a Material Plane viewpoint. You could say "Outer Planar Creatures" or the like, I guess, but that excludes all the rest.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mr. Paru wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Oni and Kami are both Outsiders (Native)

And Oni are Fiends as well, like Rakshasa which were also Native Outsiders.

We’re, as the others point out.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Were, past tense. "Outsider" isn't a category anymore, owing to the confusion with "outsider".
<blinks> Say what?
James Jacobs wrote:

There is no term for "outsiders" as a general category for 2nd edition. The closest would be "extraplanar creatures" but that only works if you assume that you're speaking form a Material Plane viewpoint. You could say "Outer Planar Creatures" or the like, I guess, but that excludes all the rest.

That doesn't explain, at least to me, what "outsider" means in the context of the game, nor why there should be confusion between that and "Outsider".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In the context of Pathfinder Second Edition, the term outsider has no meaning at all.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Curious to see how heritage descents will function here, seeing how four out of the five feature distinct heritages themselves. Some means of representing a Moroi-born Dhampir or a Callow May Changeling would be nice. Would personally love to see more Aasimer descents as well; I'd at least like to see Kami offspring at some point. If a Tiefling can rise from the union of Oni, why can't Kami produce Aasimer?

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Do we have any Kami in Pathfinder 2e yet? Its possible they could become celestials.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Curious to see how heritage descents will function here, seeing how four out of the five feature distinct heritages themselves. Some means of representing a Moroi-born Dhampir or a Callow May Changeling would be nice. Would personally love to see more Aasimer descents as well; I'd at least like to see Kami offspring at some point. If a Tiefling can rise from the union of Oni, why can't Kami produce Aasimer?

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

Do we have any Kami in Pathfinder 2e yet? Its possible they could become celestials.

A very good question.

So they could all be switched to Good alignments (similarly to how Aeons were shuffled to a different store to avoid a lawsuit but still letting them be managers and take over and bring the new office morale down, ahem), but they were all overLN, CN, and N in P1 so *shrugs*


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
In the context of Pathfinder Second Edition, the term outsider has no meaning at all.

So why did "Outsider" need to go away?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Zaister wrote:
In the context of Pathfinder Second Edition, the term outsider has no meaning at all.
So why did "Outsider" need to go away?

The Aeons made them do it They wanted their own word.

Seems to be leaning towards Immortal.

Contributor

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
So why did "Outsider" need to go away?

I can't speak to why it needed to go away, that kind of stuff is above my pay grade :p; but I can point out some of what's going on with 2nd edition in its place.

Outsider was a creature type, with angel, demon, devil, etc as subtypes. The words fiend and celestial appeared in the names of the Half-Fiend and Half-Celestial templates, and fiend and celestial categories of creatures were referred to when describing aasimar and tiefling, but they were not game terms in 1e.

Pathfinder 2e replaces types and subtypes with traits. Outsider is not a trait, but fiend, celestial, and monitor *are.* Demons have replaced their "outsider (demon)" type and subtype with the trait combo of "fiend" and "demon."

You can safely conclude there won't be a trait coming in to replace Outsider (Native), and all former Outsider (Natives) will receive different traits in 2e, based on...

1) The Rakshasa and the Janni. In the P1 Bestiary, both were Outsider (Native). In the P2 bestiary, Janni has the "Elemental" and "Genie" traits, and Rakshasa have "Fiend" and "Rakshasa."

2) The way spells refer to the "humanoid" trait, as it's different from the way "humanoid" was used in 1e. The spell heroism targets "1 humanoid creature," for instance, whereas the spell charm simply targets "1 creature." This is very different from the way 1e handled charm person, enlarge person, etc, not working on non-humanoids. The humanoid vs nonhumanoid distinction does not exist at all in the same way that it used to, so there's no need to make e.g. planar scions something other than humanoids in order to have them interact the way they used to with spells.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

NPC: Hirshani was never one of our people. She's an outsider.
Player, OOC: HEY MISTER GM, does the NPC mean "outsider" as in "someone not belonging to the community" or as "extraplanar creature, likely super dangerous?"
GM: *sigh*

That's why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jessica Redekop wrote:

Pathfinder 2e replaces types and subtypes with traits. Outsider is not a trait, but fiend, celestial, and monitor *are.* Demons have replaced their "outsider (demon)" type and subtype with the trait combo of "fiend" and "demon."

You can safely conclude there won't be a trait coming in to replace Outsider (Native), and all former Outsider (Natives) will receive different traits in 2e, based on...

Aasimars and tieflings are now grouped under the Planar Scions label in the Bestiary, together with duskwalkers, and certainly more to come. The y have the Humanoid and Human traits, where the latter can probably be replaces by another trait auch as elf or dwarf.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Curious to see how heritage descents will function here, seeing how four out of the five feature distinct heritages themselves. Some means of representing a Moroi-born Dhampir or a Callow May Changeling would be nice. Would personally love to see more Aasimer descents as well; I'd at least like to see Kami offspring at some point. If a Tiefling can rise from the union of Oni, why can't Kami produce Aasimer?

Because Oni are Fiends, whereas Kami aren’t Celestials.

Which isn’t to say they couldn’t produce Planar Scions, but they would either be Ganzi or Aphorites or something else.

This is absolutely true. However, I'd argue the fact that Oni are not mortal born Fiends and are instead corruptions of Kami, it stands to reason that Kami SHOULD be Celestial beings themselves, and completely capable of producing Half-Celestial and eventual Aasimer offspring. Hoping to see them make that change in 2E. There really isn't any reason they can't or shouldn't be Celestials. I honestly think it was more a matter of we never really got any Tian specific sourcebooks that really explored into the lore of the continent, or Kami for that matter, in any truly appreciable manner. Another thing I hope to see remedied in 2E.

Peri and Garuda are a good arguments here too I think. Peri are described as Celestials descended from fallen Angels, being another possible example of an "Outsider" transitioning into another form of "Outsider" and not (technically) from a mortal. So why are they Celestial and Kami aren't? Is it because they were once Angels? So why do Kami become Fiends then as Oni? It's a curious question I'd like to see explored. Then there are the Garuda, which are not classified as as Celestial beings at all. Yet, they can produce a Plumekith decedent.

So, I feel there is enough going in the favor of Kami to reason they theoretically COULD produce mortal offspring in the same way Oni do.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's a possibility, I'm curious to see where they go with it as well.

"So why do Kami become Fiends then as Oni?"

Because they're evil, Fiend is basically short hand for Evil Outsider/Immortal. Kami could be pretty much any other alignment and be Kami. We had NG, LG, LN, N, and CN Kami for example. Ones that turn Evil become/get reincarnated into Oni.

Although I'm okay with Kami becoming Celestials I am missing a lot of the asymmetry being removed from aspects of the game (like what was done with Angels... I blame Aeons).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Evil = Fiend is fair enough. But it is a bit arbitrary in some ways. Like, are fallen Celestials automatically Fiends then? Or do they eventually become Fiends? What about things like Black Jinn? Are the technically Fiendish Elementals?

Defiently agree with the dislike of Angels being the eponymous NG... outside being (?). I very much liked the idea that they were universal representation of Good in general. It provided a sense of balance and order within the Upper Planes that the Lower ones simply lacked. But, I accept the change more or less. I'm curious if the shift in Aeon alignment from N to LN will leave a hole in the N aspects of the multiverse? Or will we get a new type of Monitor to replace them? Based on some comments I've seen by Paizo, I'm not quite sure we will see a True Neutral member of the Outer Sphere. Well, there are the Psychopomps I suppose, now that I think about it. But will we get a new one? No reason multiple Celestial/Monitors can't represent a single alignment, as Fiends do.

As a side note, exploring the wiki a bit, it would seem we are getting a Planar Scion for Monitors, being the Urobians. Haven't explored the 2E Bestiary in its entirety, so I defiently missed this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

"Or do they eventually become Fiends?"

This, in P1 the moment they gained the Evil subtype they were truly a Fiend, falling by itself doesn't automatically make you a Fiend.

"What about things like Black Jinn?"

Yep, Fiend.

Agreed whole heartedly on the Angels, that was what I liked about them as well. And we'll most likely not get a N Monitor to replace Aeons, since they're still doing the same thing they've been doin. Maybe Kami will get moved to N? Otherwise Psychopomps are the de facto N Immortals for the foreseeable future.

*looks up Urobians*

I wonder if that is the catchall for Ganzi, Aphorites, and Duskwalkers, or something new? I wonder what the Etymology comes from.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jessica Redekop wrote:


Pathfinder 2e replaces types and subtypes with traits. Outsider is not a trait, but fiend, celestial, and monitor *are.* Demons have replaced their "outsider (demon)" type and subtype with the trait combo of "fiend" and "demon."

You can safely conclude there won't be a trait coming in to replace Outsider (Native), and all former Outsider (Natives) will receive different traits in 2e, based on...

1) The Rakshasa and the Janni. In the P1 Bestiary, both were Outsider (Native). In the P2 bestiary, Janni has the "Elemental" and "Genie" traits, and Rakshasa have "Fiend" and "Rakshasa."

By that logic, Kami would likely fall into one of the four main "Outsider/Immortal": being Elemental, Celestial, Monitor, of Fiend. That or Yokai will become a creature trait?

If they become Celestial though, maybe we will get a whole Neutral Tian "Outsider/Immortal". I'd be very much be on board with that. I really want to see the Tian side of things expanded greatly. Well, the non-Inner Sea region expanded on, period. But I'm particularly stuck on Tian atm.

Rysky wrote:


*looks up Urobians*

I wonder if that is the catchall for Ganzi, Aphorites, and Duskwalkers, or something new? I wonder what the Etymology comes from.

Says Monitor, which includes Aeons (plus Axiomites and Inevitabiles), Psychopomps, and Proteans. So, theoretically, yes for Duskwalkers. Ganzi I'd say no, simply because they are specifically noted as being related to Proteans. Aphorites are also iffy maybe? They were created, as opposed to being born. So, I'm not entirely sure they would be, unless their lore is altered a bit. I may be overthinking them a bit.

Maybe the APG will touch on the term Urobian more, since Duskwalkers are here. I too am curious on the etymology as well.

EDIT: Actually, looking through the Bestiary, Urobian is on ever mentioned in the Tiefling side bar. I also noticed that Duskwalkers do not feature a Urobian trait, whereas Aasimer and Tiefling both feature a trait of the same name. So, maybe Urobians are separate from Duskwalkers? Maybe it will simply be used as a catchall name and not used as an actual trait. Or, the term was something used during development and has likely been dropped.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IIRC the Ganzi were originally the result of a lot of various planar beings and energies interacting with mortals. So not specifically related to Proteans.

I do not know whether that changed later.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Ganzi are described as being created through "generations of exposeure" to the energies of the Malestrom; and stated as having similarities to Protean, but aren't directly related to them and are in fact simply born from mortal intermingling.

Aphorite are literal creations of the Axiomites, built to serve as their mortal proxies. After their initial creation, they eventually started to be born into the universe naturally; but through the union of other Aphorite and not Outsiders/Immortals with mortals.

Planar Scions are described as the result of Outsider/Immortals "pairing" with mortals. So, technically neither Ganzi nor Aphorites would really fit that description. That being said, it is questionable whether Duskwalkers are true Planar Scions themselves. They are the result of souls within the Boneyard being reincarnated by Psychopomps; which is to say, they aren't reproducing with the Monitor race of Pharasmas domain.

Urobians are described as being "Monitor scions". Thus, theoretically, they can be created through mortals and Outsiders/Immortals mingling. So they may not be related to the three aforementioned planar races. Or Urobian is a catchall and not a true race. Or, it was a dropped concept. Curious to see if they are mentioned within the Duskwalker portion of the APG at all. Would answer the question here.

EDIT: Correction, the 2e Bestiary states Planar Scions can stem from the results of planar energies, magic curses, or the intervention of divine beings. So their all Scions, but maybe aren't Urobian?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:

Ganzi are described as being created through "generations of exposeure" to the energies of the Malestrom; and stated as having similarities to Protean, but aren't directly related to them and are in fact simply born from mortal intermingling.

Aphorite are literal creations of the Axiomites, built to serve as their mortal proxies. After their initial creation, they eventually started to be born into the universe naturally; but through the union of other Aphorite and not Outsiders/Immortals with mortals.

Planar Scions are described as the result of Outsider/Immortals "pairing" with mortals. So, technically neither Ganzi nor Aphorites would really fit that description. That being said, it is questionable whether Duskwalkers are true Planar Scions themselves. They are the result of souls within the Boneyard being reincarnated by Psychopomps; which is to say, they aren't reproducing with the Monitor race of Pharasmas domain.

Urobians are described as being "Monitor scions". Thus, theoretically, they can be created through mortals and Outsiders/Immortals mingling. So they may not be related to the three aforementioned planar races. Or Urobian is a catchall and not a true race. Or, it was a dropped concept. Curious to see if they are mentioned within the Duskwalker portion of the APG at all. Would answer the question here.

EDIT: Correction, the 2e Bestiary states Planar Scions can stem from the results of planar energies, magic curses, or the intervention of divine beings. So their all Scions, but maybe aren't Urobian?

I think 'Urobian' just refers monitor scions, like aasimar means celestial scion or tiefling means fiend scion.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Genie-blooded sorcerers but no geniekin? :(

Personally would have preferred them to changelings but hopefully they can find their way in soon.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:

Ganzi are described as being created through "generations of exposeure" to the energies of the Malestrom; and stated as having similarities to Protean, but aren't directly related to them and are in fact simply born from mortal intermingling.

Aphorite are literal creations of the Axiomites, built to serve as their mortal proxies. After their initial creation, they eventually started to be born into the universe naturally; but through the union of other Aphorite and not Outsiders/Immortals with mortals.

Planar Scions are described as the result of Outsider/Immortals "pairing" with mortals. So, technically neither Ganzi nor Aphorites would really fit that description. That being said, it is questionable whether Duskwalkers are true Planar Scions themselves. They are the result of souls within the Boneyard being reincarnated by Psychopomps; which is to say, they aren't reproducing with the Monitor race of Pharasmas domain.

Urobians are described as being "Monitor scions". Thus, theoretically, they can be created through mortals and Outsiders/Immortals mingling. So they may not be related to the three aforementioned planar races. Or Urobian is a catchall and not a true race. Or, it was a dropped concept. Curious to see if they are mentioned within the Duskwalker portion of the APG at all. Would answer the question here.

EDIT: Correction, the 2e Bestiary states Planar Scions can stem from the results of planar energies, magic curses, or the intervention of divine beings. So their all Scions, but maybe aren't Urobian?

I think 'Urobian' just refers monitor scions, like aasimar means celestial scion or tiefling means fiend scion.

Monitor is the term for N Outsiders/Immortals, so Aeons, Proteans, and Psychopomps.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

This I know. But it's odd that Aasimar have the "Aasimar" trait, and Tieflings the "Tieflong" trait. But Duskwalkers have the "Duskwalker" trait, instead of "Urobian". So the question is, are Duskwalkers Urobians? Or are Urobians a separate race, more akin to Aasimar and Tielfing?

But alas, I will stop beating a dead horse here, and just look forward to the APG and any blog posts about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:

This I know. But it's odd that Aasimar have the "Aasimar" trait, and Tieflings the "Tieflong" trait. But Duskwalkers have the "Duskwalker" trait, instead of "Urobian". So the question is, are Duskwalkers Urobians? Or are Urobians a separate race, more akin to Aasimar and Tielfing?

But alas, I will stop beating a dead horse here, and just look forward to the APG and any blog posts about it.

Whew! Thanks.


I am looking forward to this book since the day it was announced.

In my head grows an idea for an evil party:

- Male Orc evil Champion / Antipaladin [lawful evil, worshipper of Asmodeus]

- Female Elf Witch (with primal Spell list)

- Male Dhampir Shadow Sorcerer [I wonder which spell list they will get]

- Female Oracle (Flames Mystery) [lawful evil, worshipper of Asmodeus]

I am also looking forward to the new items (hopefully we will get some additional weapons) and the new spells (more spells are always nice)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hm. IIRC, Antipaladin was CE. Either way I hope they come up with a better name than "antipaladin".

One thing I always both liked and disliked about Harnmaster is that there aren't all that many "prepublished" spells. There is a good set of rules for researching spells, and a mage is expected to come up with three new spells acceptable to his chantry if he wants to get promoted to Master. I liked this because I like the idea of creating my own spells. I dislike it because it's a lot of work. :-)

Silver Crusade

I just want more options for wrassling. Grappling monk as my current character and I can't complain about more options to manwrassle my foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am looking forward to the final witch and some of the archetypes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I may have mentioned this elsewhere, but now that we have the fighting fan from Gods and Magic, I'm super tempted to do a character that combines fighting fans with the Shadowdancer archetype (assuming the features work out for this) and maybe the ranger class, or the rogue, to create a super ninja who leaps through shadows and fights with fans.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:
By that logic, Kami would likely fall into one of the four main "Outsider/Immortal": being Elemental, Celestial, Monitor, of Fiend. That or Yokai will become a creature trait?

I don't think you'll see a Yokai trait, if only because "Yokai" is a general Japanese word for supernatural monster. It's a weird combination of Paizo's beast and aberration traits.

Kami ... aren't really that. In Japanese mythology, "kami" basically means "god" or "deity." They're not inherently good, so celestial isn't appropriate. They're not inherently evil, so fiend isn't appropriate. They're native to the Material Plane, so Monitor isn't appropriate. And they're not comprised of elemental energies, so Elemental isn't appropriate.

I'd imagine that the only trait they'd have is kami. That, and maybe an elemental type if it's appropriate. (Like a wind kami getting the air type.)

In fact, this would be pretty good for the kami because it would necessitate them getting more of their own lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
By that logic, Kami would likely fall into one of the four main "Outsider/Immortal": being Elemental, Celestial, Monitor, of Fiend. That or Yokai will become a creature trait?

I don't think you'll see a Yokai trait, if only because "Yokai" is a general Japanese word for supernatural monster. It's a weird combination of Paizo's beast and aberration traits.

Kami ... aren't really that. In Japanese mythology, "kami" basically means "god" or "deity." They're not inherently good, so celestial isn't appropriate. They're not inherently evil, so fiend isn't appropriate. They're native to the Material Plane, so Monitor isn't appropriate. And they're not comprised of elemental energies, so Elemental isn't appropriate.

I'd imagine that the only trait they'd have is kami. That, and maybe an elemental type if it's appropriate. (Like a wind kami getting the air type.)

In fact, this would be pretty good for the kami because it would necessitate them getting more of their own lore.

Kind of, Deity is a mistranslated corruption of Kami, it really means something more like 'that which inspires awe' hence it can refer to lots of phenomenon itself, we've seen it in reference to actual deities, but also in reference to nature.

I'd also point out that the whole reason we're having this discussion is because Pathfinder positions Oni and Kami as dually paired opposites as the fallen and unfallen version of the same creature, and Oni *are* explicitly evil, and directly fiendish. So Evil Kami are already covered in the game's design space, so unless Oni are under the Kami section themselves, the things in the Kami section should probably run Good, though I suppose neutral is a possibility.

101 to 148 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.