Advanced Player's Guide miscellanea speculation thread


Paizo Products

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I already plan to give out free multiclass archetypes for things that invest characters in downtime or story related activities. If several players want to go play Hogwarts at a Wizard School you're darn right I'm going to give them some free feats for doing it!

Pay the tuition and lodging expenses, attend the classes, complete the curriculum and you too can get a free Wizard Dedication or Sorcerer/Wizard Class Feat.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really hope that Tengu have an ancestry feat or heritage that yields their Long-Nosed Form. I love that flavor of Tengu and would love to build an old man Tengu Storm Druid or something around it, especially if I can also get my hands on a Raven Form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I really hope that Tengu have an ancestry feat or heritage that yields their Long-Nosed Form. I love that flavor of Tengu and would love to build an old man Tengu Storm Druid or something around it, especially if I can also get my hands on a Raven Form.

I believe they confirmed it somewhere, either in the APG Retroactive stream, or another source. But I did remember they saying the long-nose form would be in there.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ezekieru wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I really hope that Tengu have an ancestry feat or heritage that yields their Long-Nosed Form. I love that flavor of Tengu and would love to build an old man Tengu Storm Druid or something around it, especially if I can also get my hands on a Raven Form.
I believe they confirmed it somewhere, either in the APG Retroactive stream, or another source. But I did remember they saying the long-nose form would be in there.

Wonderful : ) thanks

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Step 1: Get James Case to write tengu.
Step 2: Long-nosed form
Step 3: Profit!

Dark Archive

Come to think about it, despite raven form, winged form and long nosed form being feats in 1e, no tengu ever actually used them in any APs or modules :p And there were two other tengu monsters! Kinda easy to forget they could do it considering Paizo felt need to do the long nosed tengu two times as monster.

Yamabushi Tengu the LE oni based on long nosed tengu rather than "karasu tengu" and Daitengu (neutral native outsider) from bestiary 6.(I guess this make tengu ancestry technically the CN tengu :P They are still main representative of karasu tengu though)

Are there plans to mention those two in APG or retcon one of them from existence?


This might come off as wishlisting or homebrew, but one thing I can't get out of my head is an archetype that has a focus on cantrips.

I'm very much not a mathematician, but even a dummy like me can see that there's a pretty wide margin between a martial striking and a caster using a cantrip. Which is fine, and as it should be. But I would love to squeeze in a little design for a battle mage type character that sacrifices some spell slots to sling cantrips to be just a little less potent than a martial.

My main thoughts are that an archetype like this would have the requirement that your class uses spell slots, and then gets less of them. In return, there would be cantrip specific metamagics, things like can be cast using one action or add a third action to hit foes in a cone, etc etc. A single cast of a cantrip does basically the same damage as a martial strike, and they have better proficiencies and all sorts of feats to augment their strikes further. And a martial that takes a spellcasting archetype basically gets two spell slots a level, provided they take the right feats. So in this cantrip archetype the stronger feats would probably need to be part of a chain.

Anyway sorry if this breaks the rules. It's a thought that's been bugging me for a while and I had to write it somewhere, even if I do it poorly and it's not well received. But if something like this would be in the apg I would be freakin excited


Zen Archer coming out fixes the woes of ranged options for Monk, since it's either Wild Wind stance or shurikens for days, which makes me quite happy. I'm curious what kind of Thesis/Doctrines that will come out, and Ranger Edges, since those are the least varied class paths in the CRB, super excited to see what comes out in that family of stuff. I haven't been this hype for an expansion (of any kind) since TES:V Dawnguard, LET THE HYPE CONTINUE!


Only thing I have got on rangers and Clerics is that Inquisitor could easily be a doctrine (the “rogue” one)

I can’t think of an obvious other doctrine once you get past rogue, warrior and caster focuses

I wonder if there could be a wizard thesis that allows non arcane spells? And perhaps one that doubles down on counter spells in some way?

On wizards and sorcerers I would really like additional options for focus spells and/or a way of swapping them without giving up too much else as some are really off putting


MaxAstro wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Anybody notice how there is no DEX or INT penalty races? Seems like vacant niche.

Full Orc could be INT penalty candidate, and for that matter DEX penalty might match too (and counter bonus to STR and CON for example).
(I earlier proposed approach for Orcs getting +6 total bonus accross STR and CON but neither above 18 @Lvl1, at cost of penalty to DEX and INT)

I’d be very surprised if they print any Int-penalty races for a long while, given how quickly those can skew problematic, especially with Ancestries like orcs where there’s a long bad history of racial coding.
I tend to agree with you but it's a bit unfortunate it is perceived that way. After all, I tend to think a Wis penalty is more or less the same thing said differently.

I'm not sure, but I think Catfolk are looking to fill the "Int penalty" niche. (Most likely because +Dex/+Cha/-Wis is assumedly reserved for Goblins, which is strange since there's room for both "Medium +Dex/+Cha/-Wis" and "Small +Dex/+Cha/-Wis" races to have their own niche, without significant overlap.)

Note that this post assumes that the Catfolk Pouncer, as statted in the Bestiary, is representative of the Catfolk ancestry planned for the book.

Going by the Catfolk Pouncer in the Bestiary, there's actually a lot we can reverse-engineer.

  1. Cat's Luck appears to be a 1st-level ancestry feat.
  2. Ancestry HP is most likely 8.
  3. Pouncer's "class" appears to be a stripped-down Fighter (see section "Class", below).
  4. Ancestral stats appear to be boosts to Dexterity and Charisma, and a penalty to Intelligence (see section "Stats", below).
  5. [Catfolk] is the ancestry trait, and the ancestry language is Amurrun.
  6. Base speed appears to be 30 feet.

-----

Class:

As for Pouncer being based on Fighter, we have the following:

  • Saves suggest Fighter or Ranger (or Alchemist, except then there'd be a Crafting proficiency).
  • Class HP is either 8 or 10, which... doesn't help too much here, honestly, apart from eliminating Barbarian. (Pouncer has 19 HP, which becomes 18 after removing Con bonus. This means either 6 ancestry + 12 class, 8 ancestry + 10 class, or 10 ancestry + 8 class. We can rule out 6+12, since the pouncer doesn't match up with Barbarian well enough, so its class HP must be 8 or 10.)
  • Sudden Charge is a 1st-level Fighter/Barbarian feat, with the Pouncer's being only slightly different than the class versions (Pouncer has one double-length Stride, versus 2 Strides for F/B versions).
  • Attack block suggests Fighter or Barbarian, due to Expert with greataxe and dagger.
  • Must be a class which is Expert in Perception, which means Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue.
  • Must be a class which has Dexterity as a key ability (due to 18 Dex), which means Fighter, Monk, Ranger, or Rogue.
  • Skills are admittedly not consistent with Fighter, and are instead consistent with 5 + Int. (Pouncer gains one skill from background, and loses one skill from Int penalty, leaving 5 "base" skill proficiencies. Fighter only has 4 skill proficiencies, counting the Expert in Athletics or Acrobatics one. Pouncer's background Lore appears to have been omitted for brevity.)

Overall, the most consistent potential class is Fighter, which suggests that the Pouncer is likely a stripped-down Fighter, and more specifically is most likely a member of an as-of-yet unreleased NPC "Warrior" class. (Which loses Fighter's AoO and Shield Block, drops defense proficiencies to Trained, and has Trained in both Athletics & Acrobatics instead of Expert in one of the two.)

-----

Stats:

And as for ancestral stats, we have four distinct sources to work with, and a cap of 18. With the ability bonus directly corresponding to the number of sources the ability gets a boost from during chargen, we can thus determine the boosts and penalty by working backwards from that.

  • We have ancestry boosts, 1 class boost, 2 background boosts, and 4 free boosts to work with. To determine which boosts go where, we can assume the ancestry grants the standard "2 specific boosts, 1 specific penalty, and 1 free boost." [Remaining: 3A, 1C, 2B, 4F]
  • Dex is +4, which means it uses a boost from every category. Thus, the Pouncer must get an ancestral boost to Dex. [Remaining: 2A, 0C, 1B, 3F]
  • Str is +3, which means it uses a boost from all three remaining categories. Thus, the Pouncer must get an ancestral boost to Str. [Remaining: 1A, 0C, 0B, 2F]
  • We now have 3 boosts and 1 flaw left, which matches up with the rest of the Pouncer's stat spread. The Pouncer cannot have taken a voluntary flaw, as then it would have either 2 boosts and a flaw, or 3 boosts and 2 flaws.

From this, we can determine that the Catfolk has ancestral boosts in Strength, Dexterity, and one of [Con/Wis/Cha], and an ancestral flaw in Intelligence. Assuming consistency with PF1, this suggests the following:

Quote:

Ability Boosts Dexterity, Charisma, Free

Ability Flaw Intelligence

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bestiary creatures are eyeballed in terms of stats, rather than being built the way you're implying. For example, the Goblin Commando (the closest Goblin equivalent to the Pouncer) makes it look like Goblins have an Int flaw as well, and we know that's not true.

Now, reverse engineering in the sense that Catfolk will have a 'Cat's Luck' Ancestry Feat is pretty solid (and, indeed, confirmed on the stream where they discussed this), but the Pouncer's stats are a poor predictor for the Ancestry's final stat mods.

I think it probably will have Dex and Cha bonuses, because it did in PF1, but feel it could as easily have a Wis penalties like PF1 as easily as an Int penalty. Heck, I could even see a Con penalty. We just don't know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, okay, that's useful to know. Can't wait to get something more concrete, myself. (I admit it, I'm a nerd and want catgirls already. ;P)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Damn, that means Orcs won't necessarily have an intelligence penalty and Wis Boost either (which is fine, but now we don't know what they'll have.)

Hmm, I would be very in support of Charisma Boosting Orcs- it would make them naturally good at Sorcery and I feel like that kind of naturally occurring magic, that just appears to a member of a tribe, and then that member also has a booming force of personality, is actually very thematic for them, makes them naturally good at intimidation as well.

Actually Charisma Up, Wisdom Down would be something I'd be A-Ok with. Like Goblins, but with the physical stat as Strength instead of Dexterity, currently, it would be a unique spread.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty positive that Orcs Ancestry penalty will be Int, though it could be Cha. I very much doubt it'll be Wis (they seem to be making the Goblinoids Wis and I think it's good to differentiate Orcs from that).

I can easily see their non-Str bonus being either Cha or Wis, though.


Wait why arent orcs getting +4 Str? I forgot if that was ever discussed.

Also, Orcs are one of the few races where I can see two physical bonuses and no mental bonuses.

Silver Crusade

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

With the new way ability scores are generated and regulated you're not gonna see Ancestries with more than a +2 like in P1 and Starfinder.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Wait why arent orcs getting +4 Str? I forgot if that was ever discussed.

Due to the way Ability Mods are generated, we're never gonna see a +4 from Ancestry, nor should we. It'd be weird, unbalancing, and factually better than +2 to a really absurd degree.

Temperans wrote:
Also, Orcs are one of the few races where I can see two physical bonuses and no mental bonuses.

If they were gonna do this, I suspect they would've already with Hobgoblins (the other it makes sense for thematically), but they didn't so I doubt they're going that route.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think they would (rightfully) view the traditional path for Orc ability scores to be problematic. I think part of the point of the physical stats, mental stat pattern is to get away from that.

I want it because it really opens up more paths for character building for all ancestries to have a possible casting stat AND a possible martial stat.

It also avoids overloading a few ancestries into being braindead picks for certain jobs and classes.

Really it feels like they could go either way on a Charisma or Wisdom boost. But notably, Strength/Charisma would be more flavorful, and currently unique.


IMO, every ancestry should have either two floating +2s (like Humans) or +2 to a physical attribute and +2 to a mental attribute, then -2 to one of the remaining attributes.

My homebrew setting has Orcs as +Str/+Int/-Wis so that's what I'm going to do, but in Golarion that steps on the toes of Hobgoblins a bit.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
It'd be weird, unbalancing, and factually better than +2 to a really absurd degree.

In what way would it be better to an absurd degree?

Stats are capped at 18 during Chargen and there's no escalating cost for higher ability scores like in PF1.

All +4 strength would really let you do is make it easier to invest in Strength for non-strength based classes and make it possible to give yourself an 18 there, but Strength isn't overbearing enough for that to be super problematic. If anything Str-focused Sorcerers probably need improvements like that.

It also pigeonholes you a bit by shifting your minimum strength to 12, but that's a downside, not an upside.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's capped by the process of how you add them. There's not a "hard" cap limiting starting scores to 18 to my knowledge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It's capped by the process of how you add them. There's not a "hard" cap limiting starting scores to 18 to my knowledge.

It's a little hard to find.

CRB, p. 20 wrote:
At 1st level, a character can never have any ability score that’s higher than 18.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah there we go.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Huh, must be for future proofing (since it isn't currently possible) because I missed that as well. I still prefer the implicit option variety though.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
All +4 strength would really let you do is make it easier to invest in Strength for non-strength based classes and make it possible to give yourself an 18 there, but Strength isn't overbearing enough for that to be super problematic. If anything Str-focused Sorcerers probably need improvements like that.

Whenever you look at something like this, you have to look at the precedent they set and the ripple effects. Is Str overpowering? No. Is it potentially extremely damaging to the game's math and nearly requiring things like melee Sorcerers to all be Orcs? Yes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Is it potentially extremely damaging to the game's math

In what way? Our hypothetical 18 strength sorcerer has +1 to attack for about half the game over any other race of sorcerer and will never be more accurate than a fighter.

It's a little sensationalist to say something would 'break' the math of the game when the numbers are within the confines of the numbers that already exist.

Doubly so when we're talking about an archetype that's among the least well supported and least effective in the game.

Quote:
and nearly requiring things like melee Sorcerers to all be Orcs? Yes.

In order to run dual 18s this hypothetical orc you're going to end up with three 10s and an 8. That's not exactly an attractive statline, especially for a melee character. You're dramatically overhyping this theoretical build.

Even if that was true, though, 'you should be an orc' is better than 'you shouldn't bother.'

It's not necessary and probably won't happen because of the build pigeonholing issues, but rampant hyperbole doesn't really help anyone here.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, to expand a little, there are two big issues with the idea:

#1: Precedent. Strength might not be so bad, but if you allow +4 to one stat it opens the door for other Ancestries to get +4 to other stats. I think both Dex and Wis are significantly bigger issues than Str.

#2: Math Issues. Starting with an 18 in an off-Class stat is not the assumption the game's math is based on, and changing that has a cascading effect on the game's math (especially at low levels), again almost requiring Str-based Sorcerers or Clerics to be Orcs (or some other +4 Str Ancestries), and the effects of a +4 Dex Ancestry are much worse.

The 'build issue' you suggest (with two 18s and thus three 10s and an 8) is not really very accurate to reality most of the time. Rarely does a Str-based Sorcerer actually need Cha 18. A Cha 16 or Cha 14 Str-based Sorcerer is very viable.

So I wouldn't say it's hyperbole to call the effect 'extremely damaging', though definitions of what that means will, of course, vary. It certainly wouldn't make the game unplayable or anything, just notably less balanced between Ancestries, but I'd characterize that as pretty damaging.

Now, it's very possible that Str Sorcerers (and similar builds) need some help, but making an Ancestry that is unbalanced in favor of such builds is among the worst ways to solve that problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Deadmanwalking. Having a +4 on a stat lets you start with 2 18s one in your class's attribute and one other one. This would be a big problem.

For example if you had +4 Dex on an ancestry, then pretty much all bomber alchemists would want to be one of those (even with an Int flaw, since optional flaws will let you make that a +2), so they can start with 18 Int and 18 Dex. If you were to get a set of 6 ancestries with a full spread of +4s, a huge portion of characters would choose those for optimization purposes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of hope the CE champion isn't called the antipaladin. I've never liked the name, and now that the class is the champion it wouldn't quite feel appropriate. Especially if the LE and NE causes aren't called "antiredeemer" and "antiliberator".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Antichampion?


I think "antipaladin" follows the construction of "antipope", so I'm fine with it.

But unlike paladin liberator and redeemer are based on verbs which have meaning unrelated to a job, so their opposites could be like "tyrant" and "defiler".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not right-selfish-bloke? Yeah probably no good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I am really curious as to what spell traditions the new sorcerer bloodlines get.

Does anyone have any info other than the names on the new sorcerer bloodlines?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyder wrote:

I am really curious as to what spell traditions the new sorcerer bloodlines get.

Does anyone have any info other than the names on the new sorcerer bloodlines?

At a guess, I would say that genie sorcerers would be primal as that matches up with the elemental side of their being (maybe Arcane as Genies can be identified with Nature or Arcana) and shadow sorcerers will be Occult, as all the existing shadow spells, other than Cloak of Shadows, are Occult spells + 1 other tradition.

Obviously they are keeping it a bit close to chest.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Genie Bloodline is definitely gonna be Arcane given the fact that actual genies have Arcane casting and based on some stuff from Mark Seifter about how the Elemental Planes are raw Material Essence, and thus involve both Primal and Arcane magic.

I agree that Shadow will probably be Occult. And I think that, given the disparity in Bloodlines at the moment, that there's good odds of another Primal Bloodline as well.

Wayfinders

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Genie Bloodline is definitely gonna be Arcane given the fact that actual genies have Arcane casting and based on some stuff from Mark Seifter about how the Elemental Planes are raw Material Essence, and thus involve both Primal and Arcane magic.

I agree that Shadow will probably be Occult. And I think that, given the disparity in Bloodlines at the moment, that there's good odds of another Primal Bloodline as well.

Perhaps it might be something like Verdant? (Which incidentally enough was in the 1e APG as well.)

Liberty's Edge

RiverMesa wrote:
Perhaps it might be something like Verdant? (Which incidentally enough was in the 1e APG as well.)

I could definitely see that. Stormborn (also from the first APG) is another very real possibility for a Primal Bloodline as well. As would be Serpent or Boreal.

Or maybe there won't be any Primal Bloodline at all. That's possible, too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the long run, I'd like to see more specific bloodlines. For example, I'm playing an elemental sorcerer based on water. While I'm doing well at that, it doesn't feel very water-like to just be a fire sorcerer with blue/green spells instead of red/orange. So I'd rather see sorcerers based on water, air, and earth be their own thing, with distinct spell lists and powers, instead of reskinned fire.

I'm not sure the APG is the right place for that, but it's a thing I'd like to see.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Given that the GMG has the "free archetype" variant which has you taking an archetype feat every even level in addition to a class feat, one thing I would like is "more feats for some of the smaller archetypes from the LOWG".

Like I want to be able to become an honest to goodness Swordlord.


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

I would also like to see more fleshed out archetypes.

Also since APG is not Golarion specific like the lost omens line I would like to see more of the old school archetypes like Shadowdancers, Blackguards, arcane archers, diablerists, bloodmages etc.

I would especially like to see more caster archetypes for wizards with more focus powers. I would like to see elemental wizard archetypes (rather than just sorcerors).

I would like to see more magic items for casters even if they just boost spell stuff for 1 school or damage type.

I am still hopeful for an Ultimate Magic in the future where alternate magic systems could be explored. I feel the 3 action system could really support a draw mana from around you then cast using it system as a way of breaking away from just limited spell slots. Drained could be a condition for overdrawing so there was a risk reward to doing it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Rulebook line is Golarion infused, it’s no longer setting neutral, that ended back near the end of P1.

Silver Crusade

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

Which does not stop the book from having shadowdancer and arcane archer, as both were already confirmed - you can have a Golarion-infused book AND make hopefully workable versions of PF1 PrCs nobody sane bothered with :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There isn't too much in the core rulebook at least that's very specific to Golarion. I also personally prefer player options and such that aren't specific to certain regions/ethnicities/groups, and hope that the APG isn't so tied to Golarion. That's what the lost omens books are for, IMO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not really easier to create setting ties for a thing absent any Golarion flavor, than it is to strip the Golarion flavor and substitute your own anyway.

Like if Golarion has arcane archers, that come from a specific tradition, it's likely that your setting which has arcane archers coming from a tradition having some things in common with the Golarion version.

This is why "our elves are different" is much more effective in Fantasy than "we don't have elves and dwarves, we haze adznugs and glabruges"


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

I would also like a ton more skill feats and uses, particularly for the skills thst are lacking master and legendary proficiency level feats. I want to see, expert, master and legendary actions for skills not just trained and untrained. Some skills feel very slim and niche on the ground.

Athletics is an autopick/max out for most martials for example. I would like other skills to feel as valuable


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyder wrote:
I would also like a ton more skill feats and uses, particularly for the skills thst are lacking master and legendary proficiency level feats. I want to see, expert, master and legendary actions for skills not just trained and untrained. Some skills feel very slim and niche on the ground.

Given the scarcity of higher-level skill proficiencies (you usually get your third post-Trained skill at 11th level), I'd rather see more advanced versions of the same use instead of entirely new uses unlocked. Treat Wounds is a good example here - you only need to be Trained to Treat Wounds, but higher-level proficiencies let you heal more when you do it.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Did anybody else notice that the following spells are mentioned in Gods and Omens?

Aqueous orb
Blistering invective
Mad monkeys
Threefold aspect
Vomit swarm

They're listed as being from the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide. :D


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

*Gods & Magic


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is also a reference to the Rod of Cancellation in the GMG saying it is in the APG.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think that the best way to put it is that the whole 2e game is Golarion infused, but that the core books are still likely to contain the most "generic" stuff.

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Advanced Player's Guide miscellanea speculation thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.