But there's not even artwork of the Shemtej in the Ancestry Guide?
Pretty sure the Catfolk on page 19 is what they are referring to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually not really focused on any single illustration; my point was that I was disappointed that a maned catfolk was not featured when the description points it out as a unique thing some catfolk do.
So even if none of the images are Shemtej, my disappointment remains, simply because they had a chance to order an image of a maned catfolk and chose not to do so. So less "this picture is wrong" and more "I wish a different picture had been ordered".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is “I wish they bought different art” a useful critique? By that standard, I’m grumpy we didn’t get Askedhaki art, showing off their tiger features and golden fangs, but I don’t think it’s a terribly meaningful comment to offer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn’t that be meaningful or useful?
They stated that they specifically ordered the art for this book with the goal of showing off the new options included. I believe it was said that the art was intended to be of heritages rather than cultural groups, but voicing that you would have liked to have seen the specific cultural groups described in the book depicted in the art for that book seems meaningful to me, especially if they do another ancestry heavy book down the line.
Besides, it’s not like there’s any rule that I have to offer meaningful critique. This is my reaction. I don’t mind if you disagree and like it just the way it is, and in fact welcome you to say exactly that, if that’s how you feel. Neither of us are wrong, because there is no right here.
Edit: to go slightly further, the catfolk illustrations mostly did not seem specific to Golarian. They weren't bad illustrations, but I have a difficult time telling which culture is being depicted for 2 of them. For a Lost Omens book, I'd rather the art be a bit more obviously specific. Including in this case having the maned catfolk and the large fanged ones featured.
Sidenote, does 2e tengu currently lack any form of "learn more languages faster" ability or feat?
In PF1, Tengu had this ability as a basic racial trait, and many other races had it as an alternate racial trait.
In PF2, that ability seems to be completely gone. If you want to learn more languages than you get from ancestry and intelligence, it looks like you almost always need to take the Multilingual skill feat.
Sidenote, does 2e tengu currently lack any form of "learn more languages faster" ability or feat?In PF1, Tengu had this ability as a basic racial trait, and many other races had it as an alternate racial trait.
In PF2, that ability seems to be completely gone. If you want to learn more languages than you get from ancestry and intelligence, it looks like you almost always need to take the Multilingual skill feat.
Nomadic Halfling gives two languages and increases the languages given by Multilingual. It's an easy heritage to copy over for a PF1-style tengu.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is “I wish they bought different art” a useful critique? By that standard, I’m grumpy we didn’t get Askedhaki art, showing off their tiger features and golden fangs, but I don’t think it’s a terribly meaningful comment to offer.
It could be, I'm not particularly hung up on it, but there's some stuff I read about in RPGs that I'm like... 'wait, what would that actually look like?' from the description. For pretty much the same reason, I like it when a variety of 'types' are presented in art.
As a useful comparison from the same book, the Tiefling section clearly goes out of its way to demonstrate Tieflings beyond the Horned 'standard' exemplified by 4e Tieflings, and CR's Jester/Mollymauk and such, that can be useful.
I don't really mind in the case of Lion-Maned Catfolk, simply because there's a lot of art of those types of figures floating around, I had one in my style guide for my PF2e world before I even realized that was intended.
As feedback it probably helps them to make determinations in the future about what art is most useful in emphasizing 'unusual' (for the Tabletop Fantasy niche) ideas being expressed in heritages and such.
Nomadic Halfling gives two languages and increases the languages given by Multilingual. It's an easy heritage to copy over for a PF1-style tengu.Sidenote, does 2e tengu currently lack any form of "learn more languages faster" ability or feat?In PF1, Tengu had this ability as a basic racial trait, and many other races had it as an alternate racial trait.
In PF2, that ability seems to be completely gone. If you want to learn more languages than you get from ancestry and intelligence, it looks like you almost always need to take the Multilingual skill feat.
And Polyglot Android does something similar for Androids.
Strange thing is that neither of these races get anything like this in PF1.
Upon further research, the one race that can get the extra languages in both versions the game is the gnome (with the Gnome Polyglot feat in PF2).
|
Nomadic Halfling gives two languages and increases the languages given by Multilingual. It's an easy heritage to copy over for a PF1-style tengu.Sidenote, does 2e tengu currently lack any form of "learn more languages faster" ability or feat?In PF1, Tengu had this ability as a basic racial trait, and many other races had it as an alternate racial trait.
In PF2, that ability seems to be completely gone. If you want to learn more languages than you get from ancestry and intelligence, it looks like you almost always need to take the Multilingual skill feat.
And Polyglot Android does something similar for Androids.
Strange thing is that neither of these races get anything like this in PF1.
Upon further research, the one race that can get the extra languages in both versions the game is the gnome (with the Gnome Polyglot feat in PF2).
That is main reason I'm bit annoyed by this now that I noticed it, because lot of other ancestries that didn't have that feature now have it but one that did doesn't ;D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do we beg for errata on the use of Pest Form as the basis for turning into animals on Kitsune and Beastkin?
The 10ft speed limit feels really bad (so do many of the other things, but it just makes no sense that a fox only moves 10ft per action)
Paizo addresses errata when books sell out and need to be reprinted.
How do we beg for errata on the use of Pest Form as the basis for turning into animals on Kitsune and Beastkin?
The 10ft speed limit feels really bad (so do many of the other things, but it just makes no sense that a fox only moves 10ft per action)
Assuming that the fox is trotting and not running at top speed in short bursts, (which hitting your top speed from a stand still and then stopping again in 2 seconds would be hard to achieve) 10 feet per action isn't too unrealistic.
The red fox trots at about 4-8 mph. At 4 mph they move about 5.8 feet per second, and there might be some time needed to start moving and stopping, so 10 feet per two seconds isn't unrealistic. If we went with the higher value of 8 mph, a speed of 15-20 feet would possibly be more realistic.
For game balance, yeah moving faster might be better, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I finally managed to put a Fetchling NPC into a game last weekend, and the players loved it. I decided the dealer of black onyx to a particular necromancer was a fetchling smuggler, and while his 'material' body was careful not to reveal any information, one of the player characters managed to strike up a conversation in signs with his shadow, who was happy to give them a lead. Lots of potential in that concept!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Virtual Tabletop Update:
Remember who you are with Pathfinder Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide from Paizo, now on Roll20!
So, I'm not sure if this had been discussed at all, but shouldn't the Adhyabhau Dhampire Lineage really be the Ajibachana Dhampire Lineage? The Bestiary makes mention of other types of Vampires, including the psychic Vetala. The Vetelarana were more or less created in 1e to be creatures that tie into Psychic Magic. Since that isn't a thing, yet, I feel this makes them a tad bit redundant lorewise. Seems more likely now that Vetala would simply be the species and maybe Vetalarana could be something more akin to the Vampire Mastermind and other similarly high level vampiric creatures. Unless, there are plans to keep both the Vetala and Vetalarana as distinct vampire species, despite being more or less the same thing I 2e.
If I'm not mistaken, Paizo has said that anything setting related that existed during the 1e era still exists in the 2e era, so if Vetelarana existed before, they still exist now. Just hard to spec them for encounter purposes when some part of what they are (psychic magic) hasn't yet been detailed in 2e. So I'd just say they're very rare, and people, even adventurers, are unlikely to run into them. Which was probably true during 1e too. :-)
I'm not sure how accurate that statement actually is, given some examples of creatures seemingly being retconned out to distance Pathfinder products from D&D. One example I've noticed is Girallon, who haven't been mentioned in the slightest, even though Angazhani have been; which are technically different creatures per lore.
There are a few other examples I've noticed, but can't think of. Maybe it is just a matter of time before their inclusion. But I'm unsure.
That said, I'm not saying that Vetalarana don't or shouldn't exist, but rather the the lore behind them may not hold as soundly anymore. It just seems weird to include the Adhyabhau instead of the Ajibachana, when normal Vetala Vampire are certainly more common compared to Vetalarana.
Again, may just be a matter of time before we see them included, and Paizo could simply hinting that they shall be (and maybe that Psychic Magic may return); which I am all for. Just wanted some clarity to ensure this wasn't a mistake of developers and writers forgetting that certain things were included at one point.
This does and has happened; a good example being that when I asked about Theurgy technically being the combination or Arcane and Divine magic (similar to Halcyon being Arcane and Primal), it was straight up said they kind of forgot it existed. Lol
yeah it covers the mind and spirit essences so thats pretty psychic to me (i could see an archetype like dragon disciple where it gives access to spells from the enchantment or related schools or traits for use but i doubt we'll see a whole new school)
While Occult definitely covers Psychic Magic as it was presented in 1e; I personally think there is room for a true Psionics system in 2e as well. Kind of how Alchemy has been separated from Magic, I would love to see Psionics turned into its own thing with its own unique system of rules. In which case, Vetalarana all day.
That said, whether Psychic Magic or Psionics make in into PF2, that idea just kind of solidifies my thoughts on the Vetala/Ajibachana and Vetalarana/Adhyabhau debacle. I'm really leaning towards things got mixed up in development between those two Dhampir Lineages. The description seems more fitting to the Vetala than the Vetalarana, who feed on the "Occult energies that fuels Psychic Magic", as opposed to the "mental and emotional energy of living creatures."
Pretty sure anything “Psychic” Magic = Occult Magic.
I will accept that if the official PF2 Kineticist turns out to be some sort of occult caster. Until that happens, I will remain skeptical about that equation.
And at best occult magic might include psychic magic, unless you are claiming that bards are psychic magicians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure anything “Psychic” Magic = Occult Magic.I will accept that if the official PF2 Kineticist turns out to be some sort of occult caster. Until that happens, I will remain skeptical about that equation.
And at best occult magic might include psychic magic, unless you are claiming that bards are psychic magicians.
They are, yes. I thought they had made that pretty clear, what with the primary strength of Occult casting AND composition spells being the manipulation of thoughts and emotions. Which are of course the two key aspects of PF1 psychic magic.
Now, the Kineticists might wind up something other than Occult, but they were pretty weakly tied to psychic magic in the first place. If Bards hadn’t already been in the game, they would have fit very well in Occult Adventures. Much better than Kineticists really.
Also, this seems relevant:
The whole point of us including an occultism wing of magic was to build in room for the occult classes from 1st edition, such as the psychic, even though we knew we weren't going to be putting them in the Core rules. We might tinker and change how some of those classes work if/when we update to 2nd edition, but turning them into a point-based system like psionics isn't something that's really on the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If/when Kineticists come back I’d wager they’d be Primal rather than Occult. They were only “Psychic” casters in P1 by nature of coming out in the same book as the others.
Also they’ve repeatedly said since even P1 was a thing that they have no interest in doing a power point DND style Psionics, and with the overhauls of P2 I highly doubt they’d introduce an entirely separate casting system.
The closest you’ll get to that is Focus Spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't want a power point base Psionics system. But, I would like a system where a group walks into an area of anti-magic and the party's Psychic isn't affected because their powers are technically magic. But, given that statement by James Jacobs, I doubt that would happen in any capacity. I never quite liked the approach of psychic abilities being magic. But, that is just me. Regardless of how they are brought in, I cannot wait to see their introduction. May honestly be the next major update to the system I'd like to see sooner rather than later. There are a lot of classes that I'd like ported and a lot of new classes I'd like to see. But the Occult Classes are definitely up there on my "need" list at this point. As a note, I don't think Kineticist are going to technically be classified as a Caster Class. Also just me I'm sure. :D
I digress. Not the place to discuss this really. Forgive me for making this matter go off-topic. I just wanted to mention the Vampire/Dhampir thing. Lol.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I also don't foresee them bringing back "things that affect magic and supernatural don't bother psychic because it's magic but it's not" that Psionics in DnD 3e ran with.
That's just asking for headaches and confusion.
In Pathfinder something is magical, or it's not. There's no weird third category where something gets to eat its cake and have it too.
Hi Guys in the errata Pazio writes: Pages 6–7: Fixed several uncomon mistakes. Does that mean that there are still some errors in the book and whe should somehow magically fix them or that everything there is ok and we shouldn't bother?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Guys in the errata Pazio writes: Pages 6–7: Fixed several uncomon mistakes. Does that mean that there are still some errors in the book and whe should somehow magically fix them or that everything there is ok and we shouldn't bother?
No, it means they misspelt "uncommon" as "uncomon" several times, and that they fixed the spelling mistakes in the 2nd printing. In terms on game mechanics, there's nothing really for you to fix.