| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, can you confirm the "June" date in the article was a misprint?I work in mysterious ways. ;)I don't see Mark Seifter posting in thread unless I've missed somethingFrom this thread... scroll up?Were are you getting this new info from? Oh wait*checks paizo twitch*
Yeah, that wasn't it :( I want info on APG too!
I'd prefer confirmation that it was correct. ;)
I would also very much like to know! But I'm pretty sure the date on this very page only recently changed from July to mid july
I can hardly wait.
Psyched!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...and a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
I understood that reference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...and a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
I understood that reference.
I wonder if the book will include a scanner, so you can see what it says about the monks spell level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very intrigued to see one of my more burning questions partially answered in the preview. I've been very curious how Paizo planned to handle the subraces from 1e. Looks like the answer lies in those 1st level ancestry feats with the new "lineage" trait, though no other information on the trait itself. Very interesting, though now I'm more curious than ever to see the full answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the book will include a scanner, so you can see what it says about the monks spell level."...and a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
I understood that reference.
You gotta be careful with those things though. They're very breakable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very intrigued to see one of my more burning questions partially answered in the preview. I've been very curious how Paizo planned to handle the subraces from 1e. Looks like the answer lies in those 1st level ancestry feats with the new "lineage" trait, though no other information on the trait itself. Very interesting, though now I'm more curious than ever to see the full answer.
That was indeed the first thing I looked for, and it seems like a good way to handle them. A Level 1 feat that can't be retrained, defining their lineage. That leaves space for new feats in the future featuring new lineages and entire feat chains linked to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope the heritages introduced won't be super expensive in society :D
I too hope they aren't too expensive. I'm looking forward to a Human Dhampir Swashbuckler.
I hope it includes ancestry feats for the new leshies in the beastairy or people are going to be tapping their feet waiting for them.
Webstore Coordinator
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, can you confirm the "June" date in the article was a misprint?I work in mysterious ways. ;)I don't see Mark Seifter posting in thread unless I've missed somethingFrom this thread... scroll up?Were are you getting this new info from? Oh wait*checks paizo twitch*
Yeah, that wasn't it :( I want info on APG too!
It is indeed. This is still scheduled as a July release. :)
Thank you very much for the clarification!
It is scheduled to be released at GEN CON correct? Is that event still taking place?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Reply hazy. Try again later."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Reply hazy. Try again later."
That's my line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey the official artwork as posted, and I love it.
I am totally loving Daji's new look.
Feiya is badass as always.
The more infomation I get about this book, the more my anticipation builds for it. July can't come soon enough.
Oh, I dunno. May 18th would be soon enough. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Love the cover
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less than two weeks until we get more details at PaizoCon! I'm quite happy to be to the point where we're getting tidbits.
I wonder if there are plans to get 4h3m to subscribers by the day they would be released at GEN CON?
Is it possible to get more than 1 copy per the subscription?
Is there a possibility that a metamagic feat that deal with the incapacitation trait will appear in this book ? I love the system but i have a lot of player complaining about this trait.
I put the odds at approximately 0.0%.
|
Is there a possibility that a metamagic feat that deal with the incapacitation trait will appear in this book ? I love the system but i have a lot of player complaining about this trait.I put the odds at approximately 0.0%.
The problem is that the only complain i am constant listening in my games it is in relation with the caster being to much nerfed. It is not a problem for me but i understand my players. The rest of the system is almost perfect.
But why do you think this change is impossible?
Would a change like that break the game?
Sorry for my bad english .
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a possibility that a metamagic feat that deal with the incapacitation trait will appear in this book ? I love the system but i have a lot of player complaining about this trait.I put the odds at approximately 0.0%.The problem is that the only complain i constant listem in my games is with the caster being to much nerfed. It is not a problem for me but i understand my the players. The rest of the system is almost perfect.
But why do you think this change is impossible?
Would a change like that break the game?
Sorry for my bad english .
Casters taking out boss encounters with one spell thanks to targeting the weakest saves using twinked out DCs was a routine problem in PF1. Paizo decided to remove that.
Unsurprisingly, some cry foul at that being a nerf, but honestly, it was long overdue. A caster in a tough PF2 fight buffs their allies, debuffs the enemy, takes care of minions. They don't blink a boss out of existence with a DC 30 save-or-die spell.
|
|
Is there a possibility that a metamagic feat that deal with the incapacitation trait will appear in this book ? I love the system but i have a lot of player complaining about this trait.I put the odds at approximately 0.0%.The problem is that the only complain i constant listem in my games is with the caster being to much nerfed. It is not a problem for me but i understand my the players. The rest of the system is almost perfect.
But why do you think this change is impossible?
Would a change like that break the game?
Sorry for my bad english .
Casters taking out boss encounters with one spell thanks to targeting the weakest saves using twinked out DCs was a routine problem in PF1. Paizo decided to remove that.
Unsurprisingly, some cry foul at that being a nerf, but honestly, it was long overdue.
I agree with you. As a GM i have no problem with this rule. But i will say again , a lot of player are angry and disappointed. Why not create a metamagic feat like Quickened Casting?
Yeah, sorry for my glibness, but I strongly, strongly suspect the Incapacitation trait is here to stay. And I even more strongly suspect that trying to patch it through a metamagic feat is not how they would fix it. That would have so many spiraling ramifications for all casters, especially multiclass types as well. Definite feat tax for anyone who ever wants to cast one these now definite boss-wiping spells.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you. As a GM i have no problem with this rule. But i will say again , a lot of player are angry and disappointed. Why not create a metamagic feat like Quickened Casting?
Because a feat that lets you insta-gib bosses is so good it becomes basically mandatory. Then everyone takes it, and there becomes no point to having included the limitation in the first place.
Quickened Casting gives you one extra action, once per day. A feat to remove the incapacitation trait would be vastly more powerful. For example, say we have a group of 4 players fighting a boss monster. If my wizard uses Quickened Casting to cast fireball as a single action, he might get to cast one more spell, or maybe move and attack. We've gone from having 12 actions to the enemy's 3 to 13. However, if I instead cast phantasmal killer and e.g. spend an extra action to remove the incapacitate trait and the enemy fails their saves, the best case scenario for the enemy is that they effectively lose all their actions as they're forced to flee (changing the action economy to 12 for the party, 0 for the boss) and take a debilitating penalty to all of their attacks and defenses for several rounds.
The effects between the two aren't remotely similar, and the potential power of removing the incapacitate trait is far more significant than quickening a single spell, even if both effects share the 1/day limitation. Quickened Casting lets you do a balanced thing you can already do a bit more efficiently once per day. A feat that removes the incapacitate trait would let you do a thing the game specifically prevents you from doing as an important balancing tool.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you. As a GM i have no problem with this rule. But i will say again , a lot of player are angry and disappointed. Why not create a metamagic feat like Quickened Casting?
Because a feat that lets you insta-gib bosses is so good it becomes basically mandatory. Then everyone takes it, and there becomes no point to having included the limitation in the first place.
Quickened Casting gives you one extra action, once per day. A feat to remove the incapacitation trait would be vastly more powerful. For example, say we have a group of 4 players fighting a boss monster. If my wizard uses Quickened Casting to cast fireball as a single action, he might get to cast one more spell, or maybe move and attack. We've gone from having 12 actions to the enemy's 3 to 13. However, if I instead cast phantasmal killer and e.g. spend an extra action to remove the incapacitate trait and the enemy fails their saves, the best case scenario for the enemy is that they effectively lose all their actions as they're forced to flee (changing the action economy to 12 for the party, 0 for the boss) and take a debilitating penalty to all of their attacks and defenses for several rounds.
The effects between the two aren't remotely similar, and the potential power of removing the incapacitate trait is far more significant than quickening a single spell, even if both effects share the 1/day limitation. Quickened Casting lets you do a balanced thing you can already do a bit more efficiently once per day. A feat that removes the incapacitate trait would let you do a thing the game specifically prevents you from doing as an important balancing tool.
Thanks for the reply . I will bring your argument for my players.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything Ssalarn and others have said is accurate. But maybe this will help kayman: Incapacitate does prevent disappointing fight-enders against bosses, yes, but it was even more so created to protect the players and their characters from weird situations with multiple low level incapacitation enemies. If you get attacked by 8 harpies in PF1, or 8 mummies, even if every character in your party of 4 only needs a 5 on the d20 to save, the chances each character will fail and get incapacitated is about 5 in 6, meaning the chances everyone is incapacitated (and eats a coup de grace, TPKing) is about 50/50. And we saw that happening in those types of encounters a lot unless the GM pulled punches or used other methods to help save the PCs (you can likely see the pattern yourself if you check online reviews for any adventures you remember that have such an encounter).
Over the course of a long game, PCs are the ones most likely to benefit from effects like this that make things a little more likely for survival (since monsters don't need to survive an encounter but PCs need to keep surviving each encounter in the campaign). So you could also try to remind your players that this benefits them.
(Aside: your English is great. Much love for all our fans in Brazil!)
|
|
Everything Ssalarn and others have said is accurate. But maybe this will help kayman: Incapacitate does prevent disappointing fight-enders against bosses, yes, but it was even more so created to protect the players and their characters from weird situations with multiple low level incapacitation enemies. If you get attacked by 8 harpies in PF1, or 8 mummies, even if every character in your party of 4 only needs a 5 on the d20 to save, the chances each character will fail and get incapacitated is about 5 in 6, meaning the chances everyone is incapacitated (and eats a coup de grace, TPKing) is about 50/50. And we saw that happening in those types of encounters a lot unless the GM pulled punches or used other methods to help save the PCs (you can likely see the pattern yourself if you check online reviews for any adventures you remember that have such an encounter).
Over the course of a long game, PCs are the ones most likely to benefit from effects like this that make things a little more likely for survival (since monsters don't need to survive an encounter but PCs need to keep surviving each encounter in the campaign). So you could also try to remind your players that this benefits them.
(Aside: your English is great. Much love for all our fans in Brazil!)
thank you very much.
But again, I'm certain Paizo figured out a reasonable ingame lore reason as to why things like Tiefling Leshy and similar creatures exist. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.Having put a little thought into this already... my concept for changeling leshies was "leshies that develop in a place where a hag coven has long brooded or has been dumping their cauldron-brews".ooo
*takes notes*
Thought it didn't apply because changeling were always biological females and leshies were weird genderless plant matter constructs animated by magic.
Yawar,
|
|
But again, I'm certain Paizo figured out a reasonable ingame lore reason as to why things like Tiefling Leshy and similar creatures exist. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.Having put a little thought into this already... my concept for changeling leshies was "leshies that develop in a place where a hag coven has long brooded or has been dumping their cauldron-brews".ooo
*takes notes*
Thought it didn't apply because changeling were always biological females and leshies were weird genderless plant matter constructs animated by magic.
Yawar,
Changelings are not all biologically female, and I'm guessing Leshies can have genders if they want. They're plants yeah, but they're made by magic.
Changelings are not all biologically female, and I'm guessing Leshies can have genders if they want. They're plants yeah, but they're made by magic.But again, I'm certain Paizo figured out a reasonable ingame lore reason as to why things like Tiefling Leshy and similar creatures exist. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.Having put a little thought into this already... my concept for changeling leshies was "leshies that develop in a place where a hag coven has long brooded or has been dumping their cauldron-brews".ooo
*takes notes*
Thought it didn't apply because changeling were always biological females and leshies were weird genderless plant matter constructs animated by magic.
Yawar,
Changelings are larval hags that result from hags mating with other species and always female. Leshies don't reproduce sexually so they couldn't produce a changeling.
That being said the GM could always houserule a witch-blighted leshy and treat it as changeling leshy, same as a necrotic dhamphir leshy, etc.
Yawar,
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
At roughly the same time in their lives, many changelings— women in particular—begin to hear the Call, a psychic urging from their hag mother luring them away from the communities that raised them. If followed, the Call eventually leads the changeling to the hag’s coven, where they are subjected to terrible rituals that twist them into hags themselves. Some changelings, especially those who have strong social bonds or embrace druidic traditions, are able to resist this Call and continue on with their mortal lives. The fact that the Call disproportionately targets female changelings has led to a widespread misunderstanding that all changelings are female, while in fact male changelings are simply assumed to be members of their paternal ancestry.
As an example, “Torment and Legacy” has a male changeling.
|
|
At roughly the same time in their lives, many changelings— women in particular—begin to hear the Call, a psychic urging from their hag mother luring them away from the communities that raised them. If followed, the Call eventually leads the changeling to the hag’s coven, where they are subjected to terrible rituals that twist them into hags themselves. Some changelings, especially those who have strong social bonds or embrace druidic traditions, are able to resist this Call and continue on with their mortal lives. The fact that the Call disproportionately targets female changelings has led to a widespread misunderstanding that all changelings are female, while in fact male changelings are simply assumed to be members of their paternal ancestry.
Kinda makes me confused about what calibans are now then
Maybe calibans are changelings who are actually raised by hags? And they are more likely to be male than female, as opposed to standard changelings for whom the reverse may be true?
Mechanically, they can be just particular lineage of Changelings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hags in such covens occasionally use their combined witchcraft to supernaturally create abominable male children—brutish monsters born of foul sanies and unholy ablutions that are stewed for days and then allowed to ferment into living creatures. These monsters go by many names among the hags who “birth” them, but among civilized races they are known by just one word: caliban.
Calibans are the creations of Hag Covens they are not the children of individual Hags.
There is a chance that Calibans get further developed into a number of different monsters similar to how there are different types of Hags.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda makes me confused about what calibans are now thenAt roughly the same time in their lives, many changelings— women in particular—begin to hear the Call, a psychic urging from their hag mother luring them away from the communities that raised them. If followed, the Call eventually leads the changeling to the hag’s coven, where they are subjected to terrible rituals that twist them into hags themselves. Some changelings, especially those who have strong social bonds or embrace druidic traditions, are able to resist this Call and continue on with their mortal lives. The fact that the Call disproportionately targets female changelings has led to a widespread misunderstanding that all changelings are female, while in fact male changelings are simply assumed to be members of their paternal ancestry.
I'm going to guess retconned out of the setting.
It seems like there is a very concerted effort to avoid gendered creatures, particularly ones that are more humanoid or that have problematic histories attached to the gendering (usually female, see: harpies).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like there is a very concerted effort to avoid gendered creatures, particularly ones that are more humanoid or that have problematic histories attached to the gendering (usually female, see: harpies).
Yeah, I didn't like retcons in general. Specially since the previous lore was internally consistent.
Now you have to do extra paperwork when referencing old lore.
Yawar,