[PaizoCon] "Moving on from the Playtest"


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.

The "The Future of Pathfinder" panel has confirmed there are a handful of special wands in the book. They told us about one, Wand of Smoldering Fireballs. Wand of Fireball but the Fireballs from it can light foes on fire, I assume persistent damage.

Also they elaborated on overcharging wands. Flat check, if you fail there's a roughly even chance of the wand being broken and destroyed. But very importantly, they confirmed that if you do fail the check you STILL get the spell out, even if the wand is broken or destroyed. HECK YEAH.


I only half listened while out at a game but lots of juicy stuff on "the future" panel. somebody get notes up!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Also they elaborated on overcharging wands. Flat check, if you fail there's a roughly even chance of the wand being broken and destroyed. But very importantly, they confirmed that if you do fail the check you STILL get the spell out, even if the wand is broken or destroyed. HECK YEAH.

Very glad you raised all this and that Paizo reads these boards. Really is great news! I was worried along the lines you mentioned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

The "The Future of Pathfinder" panel has confirmed there are a handful of special wands in the book. They told us about one, Wand of Smoldering Fireballs. Wand of Fireball but the Fireballs from it can light foes on fire, I assume persistent damage.

Also they elaborated on overcharging wands. Flat check, if you fail there's a roughly even chance of the wand being broken and destroyed. But very importantly, they confirmed that if you do fail the check you STILL get the spell out, even if the wand is broken or destroyed. HECK YEAH.

The flat check was a pretty good assumption, but good to hear. That Smouldering Fireball sounds amazing, and something you wouldn’t use too often. Still getting the spell out on a failed check is a nice ‘Fail Forward’ option. This makes wands really appealing for future releases.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The Future of Pathfinder Panel:

Everyone volunteered some spoilers

First World Guide: Has a bunch of backrgorunds and archetypes. One of those archetypes is the Hellknight Arminger. It’s an archetype that lets you enter another Hellknights Archetype before you get the dedication. Has an access entry, if you satisfy the clause it becomes common rather than the default uncommon. Anyone in the old Cheliax region is entitled to take the archetype at second level.

Fall of Plaguestone: First stand along adventure. Is about how your group came together. You start in a wagon with a half deaf one eared elf named Cookie, heading to Plaguestone, a rural village known for its turnips. Can become a turnip cop. Adventure will get you access to rewards you can’t get otherwise. Have to play the adventure to get the reward, this ties into the rarity system.

In the games mastering chapter, has content about creating a safe welcoming game for everyone. Simple social contract advise for base Pathfinder like no torture, have adult conversation about boundaries.

Bestiary: Axiomites are a type of Aeon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HidaOWin wrote:
One of those archetypes is the Hellknight Arminger. It’s an archetype that lets you enter another Hellknights Archetype before you get the dedication.

More specifically, I believe the point was that Armiger and other (higher level) Hellknight Archetypes are "pooled" together for purpose of counting number of Archetype Feats. Certain abilities could have different effect based on that number, of have pre-req of X Archetype Feats (so, taking Armiger lets you get head start, and possibly go direct to "2nd/3rd tier" Feats of other Hellknight Archetypes). Along with that, you don't need to worry about completing Armiger Dedication before entering other Hellknight Archetype since their Feats exist within same "pool", and Armiger Feats will help complete other Hellknight Archetypes' Dedication more quickly, allowing to move onto other (even non-Hellknight) Archetypes. With implication that you can qualify for other Hellknight Archetypes without Armiger, there is just certain benefit from going into Armiger early on.

EDIT: Also, there was reveal that "Cheek Pouches" feature in Bestiary entry for Ratfolk.
Which is basically Paizo rubbing into my face that Goblins are Core and Ratfolk are not. ;-P
We were this close to "Cheek Pouches" as Core PC ability, folks. Instead we get pyromaniac green Kender. /facepalm /s

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Also, there was reveal that "Cheek Pouches" feature in Bestiary entry for Ratfolk.

Which is basically Paizo rubbing into my face that Goblins are Core and Ratfolk are not. ;-P
We were this close to "Cheek Pouches" as Core PC ability, folks. Instead we get pyromaniac green Kender. /facepalm /s

I know how you feel. Jason also mentioned in the Moving On from the Playtest panel (I think) that they discussed having Orcs be a core ancestry. Instead, goblins


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3Doubloons wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Also, there was reveal that "Cheek Pouches" feature in Bestiary entry for Ratfolk.

Which is basically Paizo rubbing into my face that Goblins are Core and Ratfolk are not. ;-P
We were this close to "Cheek Pouches" as Core PC ability, folks. Instead we get pyromaniac green Kender. /facepalm /s
I know how you feel. Jason also mentioned in the Moving On from the Playtest panel (I think) that they discussed having Orcs be a core ancestry. Instead, goblins

Ooof ouch owie


Just to keep things organized, I've dropped my notes (with timestamped links to the Twitch video!) on the "Future of Pathfinder" panel over here


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Ugh. I hate this because it’s true.

...then again, constant Mage Armour vs 1 day per day... I had arguments with people who complained 1 day per day shouldn’t be priced the same as permanent before. So actually I don’t hate it as much.

I'd actually argue the Wand should be slightly cheaper, simply because it necessitates a spellcaster with Mage Armor on their list and fares poorly against Dispel Magic (while the Bracers require no effort and do much better vs. Dispel Magic).

Not, like, half the cost or less or anything, but 80-90% as expensive seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think it should cost slightly more because you have the option of trying to cast it again on someone else.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I think it should cost slightly more because you have the option of trying to cast it again on someone else.

Past the very lowest levels, a 50% chance of permanent item loss makes this not a real option. Or not one that you need to take into account when determining price, anyway.

One that can be used twice a day without burning out should absolutely cost more, but not the basic version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Also, there was reveal that "Cheek Pouches" feature in Bestiary entry for Ratfolk.

Which is basically Paizo rubbing into my face that Goblins are Core and Ratfolk are not. ;-P
We were this close to "Cheek Pouches" as Core PC ability, folks. Instead we get pyromaniac green Kender. /facepalm /s
I know how you feel. Jason also mentioned in the Moving On from the Playtest panel (I think) that they discussed having Orcs be a core ancestry. Instead, goblins

There's no way that was a serious suggestion. Goblins are Paizo's mascot and they run with the particularly "traditional" idea of orcs. If it was actually suggested by anyone it was probably the one guy who likes half-orcs and was promptly laughed out of the meeting.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
There's no way that was a serious suggestion. Goblins are Paizo's mascot and they run with the particularly "traditional" idea of orcs. If it was actually suggested by anyone it was probably the one guy who likes half-orcs and was promptly laughed out of the meeting.

Per previous things mentioned, it was actually the originally suggested idea. They switched over to goblins for the obvious brand recognition.


Quandary wrote:

EDIT: Also, there was reveal that "Cheek Pouches" feature in Bestiary entry for Ratfolk.

Which is basically Paizo rubbing into my face that Goblins are Core and Ratfolk are not. ;-P
We were this close to "Cheek Pouches" as Core PC ability, folks. Instead we get pyromaniac green Kender. /facepalm /s

Cheek pouches? Are they suddenly chipmonkfolk or hamsterfolk? Or maybe they're now all Giant Gambian Pouched Ratfolk. I don't know. For some reason this just seems weird to me. I mean, having cheek pouches is cool, but for it to just suddenly show up as a biological feature seems like the species suddenly changed, or they had somehow forgotten they had these for centuries. "Hey, did you guy notice that we've got pockets in our faces? It's kind of neat."

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.

Just FYI, it sounds like Totems have been renamed and reflavored as 'Instincts' so this is pretty likely, though unconfirmed.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Cheek pouches? Are they suddenly chipmonkfolk or hamsterfolk? Or maybe they're now all Giant Gambian Pouched Ratfolk. I don't know. For some reason this just seems weird to me. I mean, having cheek pouches is cool, but for it to just suddenly show up as a biological feature seems like the species suddenly changed, or they had somehow forgotten they had these for centuries. "Hey, did you guy notice that we've got pockets in our faces? It's kind of neat."

Actually, this is a listed Alternate Racial Trait in PF1 (as well as part of the basic Species write-up in Starfinder). So some Ratfolk have always had cheek pouches.

It'll likely be a Heritage in PF2 and remain as common as ever rather than suddenly being universal. The NPC mentioned just happen to be that Heritage (similar to how Lizardfolk having a Swim Speed appears to be a Heritage based on Oblivion Oath but all the NPCs are listed as that Heritage).

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.
Just FYI, it sounds like Totems have been renamed and reflavored as 'Instincts' so this is pretty likely, though unconfirmed.

It is actually confirmed. Both via the spoiler cards and one of the panels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want good orcs who get on well with their neighbors to be part of the setting, and I want good goblins who get on well with their neighbors to be part of the setting.

Also pretty much every kind of sentient thing which is not an outsider and lacks unnatural urges (e.g. ghoul) should come in this flavor. If we give each kind of person its due, we give them the ability to make choices in which case they can choose to be a good person who is a positive contributor to a community, even if that's not the normal choice.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Cheek pouches? Are they suddenly chipmonkfolk or hamsterfolk? Or maybe they're now all Giant Gambian Pouched Ratfolk. I don't know. For some reason this just seems weird to me. I mean, having cheek pouches is cool, but for it to just suddenly show up as a biological feature seems like the species suddenly changed, or they had somehow forgotten they had these for centuries. "Hey, did you guy notice that we've got pockets in our faces? It's kind of neat."

Actually, this is a listed Alternate Racial Trait in PF1 (as well as part of the basic Species write-up in Starfinder). So some Ratfolk have always had cheek pouches.

It'll likely be a Heritage in PF2 and remain as common as ever rather than suddenly being universal. The NPC mentioned just happen to be that Heritage (similar to how Lizardfolk having a Swim Speed appears to be a Heritage based on Oblivion Oath but all the NPCs are listed as that Heritage).

Hrm. Must have missed that. For some reason, this still feels weird to me. I'm not against it. Just weird. It might be that I just keep thinking of them as being anthropomorphic Black Rats or Norway Rats. Cheek pouches would make them more like the Giant Pouched Rats... hrm. Maybe they can detect landmines and TB with sent like those guys... Although there isn't a big demand for that in Golarion.

Liberty's Edge

Cori Marie wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.
Just FYI, it sounds like Totems have been renamed and reflavored as 'Instincts' so this is pretty likely, though unconfirmed.
It is actually confirmed. Both via the spoiler cards and one of the panels.

I meant the anathemas being gone/weakened not being confirmed. Obviously the instincts thing is confirmed.

Now, the anathema thing might've been confirmed in a panel, but if so I haven't heard it, and it isn't in the spoiler cards.

51 to 100 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / [PaizoCon] "Moving on from the Playtest" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.