I'm Disappointed after reading LOWG and LOCG.


Lost Omens Products

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

CorvusMask wrote:
Umm, not really. in 1e too it was possible that gm would allow weird races but not weird equipment, so I don't see why gm would have too much trouble from "I allow all uncommon ancestries, but not all uncommon items or spells without access".

Apples and oranges IMO. PF1 it was everything but this and that: now it's base plus these things and minus those things and maybe add some of those while simultaneously removing some of those too... Rarity means you're working both ways if you change things instead of just working one way the other [just disallowing]. It's why I'm seeing more going with the rarity until they see why it's uncommon even if they were the type of DM that would have just allowed all legal options in PF1.

CorvusMask wrote:
BTW, I just woke up half a hour ago or so so I'm really cranky, sorry about that

No worries. You didn't seem overly cranky IMO. ;)

Dark Archive

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

Well if you want to go off the 1st Edition Hellknight we can, in that case we are missing a Bunch of elemental resistances, the ability to Smite Chaos earlier then 12th level, and at cap their weapon suddenly gets magical powers. Not very mundane is is that? Now let's look at the orders and how many of them give spell like abilities.

The developers said in multiply videos and streams that they don't want to just spew out the same material as they did in 1st edition. They had a chance here to make the Hellknights stand out more and give them unique and interesting abilities in the form of Focus Powers.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think rarity is must easier system than what 1e had though. Like rare options are pretty much exclusively rewards for players or something really exceptional(like azlanti or being of ib pcs in 1e) while uncommon really means anything from "you need to be in bigger city to find it", "you need to justify it in character's background to take it in character creation", "you can take it because campaign is set in area with access to this" and "they are also nice for easy rewards for characters without access to them".

Meanwhile in 1e my experience is more like "wait, players, you took iridian fold feats for mechanical benefits without even knowing what iridian fold is?" "Well gm nothing in the feats SAYS we have to know what iridian fold is"


graystone wrote:

This wasn't a thing in my experience. I've played countless variant aaimar, tiefling, elemental races, ect as well as core races with alternate race traits and never had any DM blink an eye: as long as it's legal and online [and it's not something like sacred geometry] it wasn't an issue. So 10 years of play with a few hundred DM's and it wasn't a problem: the rarity of PF2 is a huge seachange in how things work*. No longer can a Dm say legal elements are allowed but now has to delve into various element to allow/disallow things on a much, much, much finer level.

* this isn't to say that I've never had elements of a character questioned, just that it wasn't questioned because it was a variant.

As to ARG Lizardfolk I've seen them several times and I myself have played quite a few merfolk, androids, skinwalker, reptoid, ect: IMO a ARG goblin [or other...

This is very dependent on DM. I myself don't mind weird stuff, as long as it's there for an in game reason. As long as there's a reason your weird thing is there, and that there's some thought put into it.

If you want something weird just for mechanical benefit, I'm a bit more restrictive. If the player is just trying to power build by taking this or that purely for the mechanics I'm much more prone to say no, or suggest something less weird. I don't like it when someone 'plays the numbers' and ignores the character they're building to role play.

But that's me. I love weird. I -never- play human in RPGs if there's other options. Pathfinder, D&D, White wolf, Palladium/Rifts, whatever. I 'am' human and I've no interest in spending my gaming time role playing one. Heck I don't even roll human on WOW.

Though I have met and been witness to MANY DM's that hate "The weird". I don't know if they got tired of kooky characters, or just stupid concepts, or "Everyone's a special snowflake" or what. I've seen ones that are like "Everyone's human but ONE" I think they call it the "There's only one wookie" rule. To an extent I can... see where they're coming from (Even if I don't agree) If you have a Tengu, A cat folk, a hobgoblin, a kitsune and a Drow, rolling into an adventure that's going to be a bit more difficult to plan for and to run, with out either 1) Making it all about how much of the world is not kind or accepting to them, thus making almost every interaction harder than it needs to be or 2) Just 'ignoring' that weird ass party, and treating them like they're humans.

So while I personally am accepting of weird stuff and there's others out there like me. I have been witness to those that HATE non standard stuff (And had to convince/conjole/captivate and even beg) to play weird things.

Some people just flat out will ban/block such things. I can't tell you how many "If it's not in the core book, frak off" DM's I've seen. (( I usually don't sit in on those games)

By labeling some races Uncommon or rare it is going to make it harder for us folk that like the weird things to find play.

I've said it elsewhere on these forums. The fact that they made goblins a core ancestry in PF2 was what pushed me over the edge to buy all this stuff AGAIN. I played goblins in PF1 and getting DM's to allow THAT was often no easy task. In PF2 I love the changes made to Hobgoblins and look forward to playing one of those.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.

I actually like this. If everything is power creep, you end up with noone using the core books or base stuff, always going for the super powered stuff later.

The trick is to make new things 'interesting' and 'useful' with out resorting to before mentioned power creep.

Silver Crusade

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.

I actually like this. If everything is power creep, you end up with noone using the core books or base stuff, always going for the super powered stuff later.

The trick is to make new things 'interesting' and 'useful' with out resorting to before mentioned power creep.

Yep.

Silver Crusade

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

Also, one can imagine that options with a broader appeal will appear in the setting-neutral APG next year. Remember everybody being salty about stuff like Piranha Strike being hidden in obscure setting specific books, setting up the "well you can't take it if your character isn't from Sargava" argument? Paizo apparently listened.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.

I actually like this. If everything is power creep, you end up with noone using the core books or base stuff, always going for the super powered stuff later.

The trick is to make new things 'interesting' and 'useful' with out resorting to before mentioned power creep.

well, you can't really do this without carving out new space, and well, that's what power creep is.

really you just need to avoid making something that outcompetes with something already in the game.

also sometimes power creep is fine, I like oversized weapons finally getting decent archetypes in the later life of PF1e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
Pardon my lack of knowledge about the forums this is one of my first posts around here and I don't know how to apply the Quotes

quote tags are [ quote="usernamehere"][ /quote] without the extra spaces in the square brackets, or you can click reply on the top right of the post :). And yeah I had hoped they would have updated the post formating options when the site rework happened. Sadly no.

Sin_Dark wrote:


but in regards to Gleeful Grognard and Paradozen why add lackluster feats at all then?

Well it depends on what you see as lacklusture. To me I see so much of the character's functionality built into its base progression that feats enhancing that functionality are kinda just a nice bonus. Especially when it comes to ancestry feats.

The other element are flavourful things that you might not see yourself using but other people find great use from. Getting a perfect balance can be very very hard, and they have to be especially careful considering how modular the system is. Non-optimal isn't non viable.

Sin_Dark wrote:
Little off topic but I've watched the live streams and see how passionate the designers are about the game, specially Mark Seifter. You can see the twinkle in his eyes when he gets to talk about his designs and the things he's created. I love seeing that and want to see that passion brought to every archetype and feat they publish, but as it stands Devil's Advocate, Scroll Master Dedication, Warrenbred Hobgobiln and several others don't hold up to that.

Mark is awesome and despite not being a natural orrator he is very charismatic. I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

Paizo has to release a certain pace of crunch though, and either they go super boring and conservative mechanically with feats or they release them slower. As it is they are trying to release faster and be a bit more interesting but not push power boundaries, I will expect the APG to have a lot more polish (part of why we get a playtest for it as well).

As for stuff like scrollmaster, while I think it could have done with a ribbon. For it's archetypical playstyle it can actually be quite a strong ability depending on the player and campaign. Not sure what your issue with the Warrenbred hobgoblin is a 30ft burst seek is pretty good especially when combined with things that let you seek more easily, the squeeze ribbon is situationally decent, but heavily reliant on the campaign and type of character built.

If I were to pick a weaker hobgoblin it would likely be the Warmarch, hustling twice as long isn't hugely useful if your party cannot keep pace and subsisting is just not much of an issue, and one easily solved. (my opinion on this changes if they make it so that 7 days of rations are 7L rather than 1L though).
This said, the hustle is quite good for npcs or for a whole party of hobgoblins depending on the campaign so -shrugs-

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Though I have met and been witness to MANY DM's that hate "The weird". I don't know if they got tired of kooky characters, or just stupid concepts, or "Everyone's a special snowflake" or what. I've seen ones that are like "Everyone's human but ONE" I think they call it the "There's only one wookie" rule. To an extent I can... see where they're coming from (Even if I don't agree) If you have a Tengu, A cat folk, a hobgoblin, a kitsune and a Drow, rolling into an adventure that's going to be a bit more difficult to plan for and to run, with out either 1) Making it all about how much of the world is not kind or accepting to them, thus making almost every interaction harder than it needs to be or 2) Just 'ignoring' that weird ass party, and treating them like they're humans.

Chiming in as a GM who makes extensive campaign documents including racial restrictions. I don't do it because of the weird most of the time when it comes to races, I do it because people tend to pick races as a way of adding character and then don't do anything with it just playing them like they were just humans in costumes.

In most games I run I have a rule of half the party may be of uncommon ancestry (I used the term before pf2e did), one of those two may be rare. Either choice must read up on their races place in the world and be okay roleplaying that race.

Now if the party leans towards a whole party of an uncommon or rare race exceptions may be given. But it all depends.

Even some of the best roleplayers I know can be lazy when it comes to races. Part of why I am so happy that pretty much every race is a viable option for every class now.


Too much power creep is bad since it makes early options useless and/or traps.

Too little power creep is bad since since it makes the game stale and/or boring.

Finding that middle ground may proof to be very difficult later on given how little wiggle room there is. But it's hard for me to judge how problematic it is: for all I know it could take 15 years before they start having problem, or it could be just 2, on my time will tell.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Chiming in as a GM who makes extensive campaign documents including racial restrictions. I don't do it because of the weird most of the time when it comes to races, I do it because people tend to pick races as a way of adding character and then don't do anything with it just playing them like they were just humans in costumes.

In most games I run I have a rule of half the party may be of uncommon ancestry (I used the term before pf2e did), one of those two may be rare. Either choice must read up on their races place in the world and be okay roleplaying that race.
Now if the party leans towards a whole party of an uncommon or rare race exceptions may be given. But it all depends.

Even some of the best roleplayers I know can be lazy when it comes to races. Part of why I am so happy that pretty much every race is a viable option for every class now.

I kinda disagree with that though, I don't think intelligent/sapient creatures HAVE to act inhuman though especially since we don't have real life context for this. I think its more important to play character like they were part of the world and how their ancestry would have affected their upbringing and growing up in the world rather than playing up to how much they aren't humans.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


But I'd rather that, when making stuff with very specific flavor for a new game, they err on the side of low power rather than high, so I think that's acceptable for the most part, if not ideal.

While I totally get this philosophy, at the same having powerful, meaningful feats that felt good to take was one of the common refrains regarding PF2. Not having to put up with the baggage of arduous feat chains or hyper specific and ultimately underwhelming options was going to be one of the big great things PF2 could accomplish by standing on its own as a system.

Then one or two books out of core we're seeing highly situational circumstance modifiers, which in a way is even worse than PF1's since at least a lot of those were untyped and GMs are supposed to hand out circumstance modifiers when relevant anyways.

Plus feat chains that ask you to spend two feats that do absolutely nothing except let you qualify for a third feat that lets you qualify for a fourth feat that lets you qualify for a fifth feat that lets you qualify for the feat you actually were planning on taking.

That doesn't feel great and it reads less like a bold new beginning and more like... second verse, same as the first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


Not having to put up with the baggage of arduous feat chains or hyper specific and ultimately underwhelming options was going to be one of the big great things PF2 could accomplish by standing on its own as a system.

Then one or two books out of core we're seeing highly situational circumstance modifiers, which in a way is even worse than PF1's since at least a lot of those were untyped and GMs are supposed to hand out circumstance modifiers when relevant anyways.

Plus feat chains that ask you to spend two feats that do absolutely nothing except let you qualify for a third feat that lets you qualify for a fourth feat that lets you qualify for a fifth feat that lets you qualify for the feat you actually were planning on taking.

That doesn't feel great and it reads less like a bold new beginning and more like... second verse, same as the first.

There wasn't anything inherent in the 1e mechanics that required the dev team to create junk feats or long feat chains. They were made either by choice or by mistake, depending on your beliefs. Whichever way you see it, though, they were a trend that didn't really change in all the years of 1e.

Given that 2e has basically the same dev team as 1e, why expect different results?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Because late PF1 made strides to improve the problems with core PF1 and having less of those issues (many of which were carried over from 3.5) was supposedly one of the major reasons why PF2 was even supposed to exist.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Because late PF1 made strides to improve the problems with core PF1 and having less of those issues (many of which were carried over from 3.5) was supposedly one of the major reasons why PF2 was even supposed to exist.

"There's to little direct upgrades or sidegrades in splatbooks" was not a core problem of 3.5/PF1. Caster-martial disparity was, lack of variety for non-casters was, wonky skill system was, wild differences in power level of PCs depending on system mastery were, arduous NPC/monster design was, difficulty of running the game due to having to track dozens of obtuse rules elements which ultimately added little to the game was, certainly.

But the "there's only 10% of this splatbook that passes my high threshold of what is a green/blue option" is a niche issue, touching mostly people who are invested in optimization. And they are ultimately a vocal minority, so there's no wonder that your concern didn't land on the top of Paizo's priority list.

Unless, of course, you can point me to "we need to have a game that's more like Kirthfinder with every choice being at laser precisely the same power level so that every optimizer will consider every option we print as green/blue" being a major reason behind PF2 being made. Turns out, the survey-voting majority didn't care for that, just like most people who went over to 5e apparently didn't give a damn about optimization and a wealth of player-side options.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No clue what Kirthfinder is, or why you're so bitter about someone else on the internet having different ideas about what's good than you... but yeah, sure, you're right. Feat taxes and wildly imbalanced choices were definitely never problems in PF1. Whatever.

But "feats give you different and cool things to do and not just stack up various bonuses" is the kind of language the developers used as this game was being made and in the process of releasing. So going into a new book with that expectation and walking out with a feat that gives me +1 to X while doing Y instead is a little disappointing.

If you want to be angry about that, uh, carry on I guess.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

No clue what Kirthfinder is, or why you're so bitter about someone else on the internet having different ideas about what's good than you... but yeah, sure, you're right. Feat taxes and wildly imbalanced choices were definitely never problems in PF1. Whatever.

But "feats give you different and cool things to do and not just stack up various bonuses" is the kind of language the developers used as this game was being made and in the process of releasing. So going into a new book with that expectation and walking out with a feat that gives me +1 to X while doing Y instead is a little disappointing.

If you want to be angry about that, uh, carry on I guess.

I will also point out that given "various bonuses" barely exist, and there aren't really ways to stack up your numbers, those actually provide a much stronger bonus than you'd expect.

In PF1, a +1 was incredibly irrelevant when stacked up against the multitude of other +1s that you already have.
In PF2, a +1 is a 10% base effectiveness increase that you likely can't get anywhere else.

Silver Crusade

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

That too, but I can see why 3.5/PF vets, myself included, initially react with a "meh" to any +1 bonus. 19 years does that ;)


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:

I also can't understand the Goblin feat Scalding Spit, you have to take persistent Fire damage enable to use it, and it does a pitiful 1D6 damage at lvl 9. At that point why would you ever use it over say a Produce Flame?

Because it's a one action Ranged Unarmed Attack, not a two action Spell Attack. It's basically a Sling you don't need to take an action to reload, that benefits from your Handwraps. It's a solid option for the likes of Animal Barbarians, who otherwise have a hard time attacking at range when Raging.
It's an action to start up the fire so the first attack requires 2 actions: that said, it's an interesting attack for monks and those with unarmed attacks. A ranged attack that works with flurry is a good thing. The downside is that it could be fiddly to keep up, with wind, rain, snow, ect threatening to put put the fire and environments, like a library, where being on fire is a bad thing.

I really want to like this option, because it's hilarious, but I have a few other criticisms to add:

- It comes online late, at level 9. Admittedly this is about when flying becomes "a thing" so it's potentially more helpful, but still. You're close to halfway through a new AP by that point. However, it's only one level later than the monk feat Wild Winds Initiate, which would probably be a good comparison as an alternative.
- It has prerequisites of a specific heritage and a level 5 ancestry feat. Just a high opportunity cost here, although it's a decent heritage and the level 5 feat may actually be situationally useful for a dex monk that wants a ranged attack at level 9. I wish the fire damage added to grapples you did, not just ones done to you, but that might be too powerful, especially with Assurance for auto-success on mooks.
- Staying on fire is actually harder for you because of the heritage. You have a base 55% chance of the fire going out after any round instead of 30%. A little bad luck means an action per round, but it still could be compared favorably against weapons that require a reload every shot.

So...it has a lot of limitations, but I still halfway like it, and as a GM oddball options that aren't mechanically optimal are more useful for me because I can choose to use them on NPCs that only hang around for a short while.

Leshy seed pod is probably better to build around, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure people are not complaining about the value of the bonus itself, but rather that the bonus is only applicable to relatively narrow scope of situations, and type of bonus clashes with DM-given-out bonuses which are presumably achieved through good roleplaying meaning it means less (or nothing) if you actually engage with the game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree with the folks pointing out that the material is similar in nature to the player companion and campaign setting books from PF1, as presumably is intended since this line replaced those lines.

I suspect people who didn't buy those previous lines and only bought the many PF1 core books are probably going to be disappointed by the more specialized nature of the material. Similarly, people who bought *everything* for PF1 are likely still feeling a bit option-starved, and just want more of everything, not necessarily region-specific archetypes or ancestry feats.

I like the Lost Omens guide approach so far, at least more than I did the campaign setting/player guide combos. I think the quarterly release schedule will help keep me from feeling buried in content I can't or won't use, and as the various contributors get more familiar with the final PF2 rules, the mechanical options will probably be more dialed-in.

The people wanting more crunch might want o stick to the main rulebook line. The whole point of a line named after the setting is that it's going to have setting material.


CorvusMask wrote:


I kinda disagree with that though, I don't think intelligent/sapient creatures HAVE to act inhuman though especially since we don't have real life context for this. I think its more important to play character like they were part of the world and how their ancestry would have affected their upbringing and growing up in the world rather than playing up to how much they aren't humans.

Cool, because i never said thzt they had to be inhumane, just not costumes that ignore every element of the world for some cheap visual element. I do the same with human ethnicities, i won't say it is the right choice for everyone. But it was the right choice for me and my groups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m treating the organization archetypes like organization PrCs from PF1. Suddenly, I was unsurprised by how bad the Pathfinder options are and how many feats you need in order to get anything worthwhile, and instead surprised by how much good stuff the Magaambyan archetypes give.

I was pretty happy with the new ancestries. Lizardfolk didn’t get much for useful high-level options, but low-level is full of more good stuff than I can fit. Hobgoblins fit their militaristic lore wonderfully. Leshies had plenty of cool options.

I’m opening regional human feats as regional feats for any ancestry.

It does make me wish for a site like AoN, but with an account that allowed you to “delete” feats or whole archetypes for yourself. Or color-code them. Maybe I could get a browser extension?


I am liking what I am seeing so far. I do like the art and the fluff. I do think though that taking some of the archetypes can be a bit tedious as to when you can take the feats.It looks like it will take a while to become a Hellknight Signifer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I am liking what I am seeing so far. I do like the art and the fluff. I do think though that taking some of the archetypes can be a bit tedious as to when you can take the feats.It looks like it will take a while to become a Hellknight Signifer.

I was really happy to see the hellknight restrictions tbh. From a lore perspective I was loathing the idea of instant hellknights or low level hellknights.

Tying it the armiger was a good move, even if it is super restrictive. As we get some level 1 class archetypes that give heavy armour proficiencies to other classes I can see it becoming quite a comfortable option (even if I still don't believe it will be optimal).


That is true. It is still possible to be ea member of the organization without taking the Multiclass feats. But the benefits might bot be gained either. It depends on what you want the character to be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the LOWG, I am having a hard time seeing the point in the magic warrior archetype when you can take druid dedication. The highest magic warrior feat is...casting a 3rd level spell that is on the primal list. Lower level feats are wild shape, but only for 1 animal. +1 vs. Divination isn't much of a bonus.

Dark Archive

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

I'm honestly surprised at how many people are absolutely OK with just absolutely worthless feats. I see people comparing it to 1E stuff but I thought the goal of 2E was to be better and have more meaningful choices. Whats the point of creating something if barely any one will use it? With a little more effort these feats could be made better and become worth taking.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please point out the “worthless” feats.


I am trying to convert a maagayaban arcanist that I had in 1E. I need to take a little bit of time to work with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Please point out the “worthless” feats.

I mean, there are certainly feats that are bad enough to ensure I won’t ever consider taking them on a character. The spellmaster dedication and the scrollmaster dedication are the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

The 13th level Lizardfolk feat (advance ancestry unarmed strike proficiency to highest weapon proficiency) is probably useless for very nearly every class, depending on how the FAQ shakes out.

I wouldn’t describe it so undiplomatically, but there’s content I’d be mildly happier having an easy way to unlist when I’m looking through options.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
I also can't understand the Goblin feat Scalding Spit, you have to take persistent Fire damage enable to use it, and it does a pitiful 1D6 damage at lvl 9. At that point why would you ever use it over say a Produce Flame?

Note that you must be a charhide goblin to take it, which means you have fire resistance equal to half your level. That mitigates the persistent fire damage quite a bit. 1d6-4 damage per round at level 9, or 1d6-5 at level 10, is not something to worry overly much about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would not say that any feat is useless. Whether I like the feat or not does not mean that some build might not need or like it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ok Worthless may have been a tad harsh I mean after all they still do something. So I'll rephrase it to terrible feats.

Masked Casting, Signifer's Sight (lvl 10 is a little late in the game to get darkvision, the other benefit will rarely come into play), Fear No Law, Fear no One (It's fighters bravery, fighter's are probably the most common Hellknights next to champions), Mask Familiar (At this point anyone that wants a familiar will have one, yes they can retrain but this is a 4th level feat that feat can be better used elsewhere), Adaptive Mask Familiar (It's improved Familiar but at a 6th level feat cost, this could be worth it if it stacks with improved familiar but that's a hefty investment), Rain-Scribe Sustenance (Super Situational), All Uzunjati Feats (Though they are Skill feats so there's some leeway), Every Single Scroll Master Feat but Lore Seeker, Swordmaster Dedication (Disarming is aweful and I doubt many NPC's or Monster would take the time to do it).

I didn't touch the lack luster Heritages and some questionable Ancestry Feats.

If this was a 20 door soft cover I could maybe see it, but it's not. Many options in these book are uninspired and just plain boring. However as previously said the Art, Writing of the Fluff, and few fantasy provoking and just cool sounding feats are good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Terrible is a much better word. In that case, I might agree, depending upon the build you are making though.

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:


Once more I waited and today finally got to see the LOCG! Very quickly it became abundantly clear that not all feats and heritages are created equal. A level 9 Goblin feat lets you spit fire for a whopping 1D6, and you have to be on fire to do this, yet a level 9 human feat lets you take a Multi-class dedication feat.

It helps a lot when evaluating mechanics to look at the actual context they're used in. Scalding Spit requires Torch Goblin, which lets you set yourself on fire and gain a protective aura of flame and adds fire damage to your melee attacks. Since you're a charhide goblin, there's no downside to being on fire since you resist all or most of the damage. The spit is also an unarmed attack, so it benefits from things like handwraps of mighty strikes. If you're playing e.g. a charhide goblin monk, what Scalding Spit actually just gave you is the ability to make a ranged flurry of blows with your fiery spit, which at that level is probably going to deal around 3d6+2 (5d6+6 with ki strike and Burn It!) per attack. Since it's energy damage, it automatically bypasses any physical resistances and can trigger weaknesses for additional damage (though granted, 9th level is a little rough since there's a bit of a cluster of fire immune/resistant monsters at that level, despite resistances and immunities being less common overall in PF2 and weakness/vulnerability being more common). A turn of combat can easily be:

Action 1: Activate fire aura, protecting you from combat maneuvers, boosting melee damage, and activating your ability to use Scalding Spit.

Action 2: Ki strike and flurry for 5d6+6 x2 against an enemy within 30 feet, adding both damage values before applying any resistance.

Action 3: Literally whatever you want; could be another ranged Strike, could be movement, etc.

A goblin fighter with Scalding Spit could Double Shot for 3d6+3 per hit, or drop into Point-Blank Shot stance for 3d6+5, and with each round of combat the effectiveness and options available increase. Optimization in PF2 is split more between character building and play at the table than PF1, where optimization primarily happened during the character creation phase, so sometimes even things that don't seem super powerful on paper are actually quite good in practice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:


Note that you must be a charhide goblin to take it, which means you have fire resistance equal to half your level. That mitigates the persistent fire damage quite a bit. 1d6-4 damage per round at level 9, or 1d6-5 at level 10, is not something to worry overly much about.

While true, even without the self damage a 1d6 traitless attack isn't that great.

It also has some frustrating reliability issues because Charhides have better than coinflip odds of dousing their own fire on any given round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Too much power creep is bad since it makes early options useless and/or traps.

Too little power creep is bad since since it makes the game stale and/or boring.

Finding that middle ground may proof to be very difficult later on given how little wiggle room there is. But it's hard for me to judge how problematic it is: for all I know it could take 15 years before they start having problem, or it could be just 2, on my time will tell.

We're talking about power drop, not power creep. The devs are wildly out of touch with how strong to make situational abilities, or how to price them. If they'd take all the super-niche stuff and make it a general feat or a skill feat, it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

This goes for the stuff in the Lost Omens books, and for stuff in the core book like the Paladin Oaths, which have the same problem. Paladin Oaths give huge, overpowered bonuses in a campaign designed around one enemy type, but are completely worthless outside their niche. That all-or-nothing style is a bad way to design feats. It either breaks the game, or is a non-option, which is no fun either way. The DM has to bend over backwards to get the right amount of each enemy type to keep the feat balanced.

Situational feats should be giving you a benefit that's good generally, and great when used in a certain circumstance. If you're designing a feat that's only ever useful in some narrow niche situation, it should be tacked onto another feat for free as a ribbon.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Orrrrrrrrr since Retraining is now a core part of the system and actually encouraged situational power boosts like the Oaths works pretty well actually.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would definitely not call Mask Familiar terrible. It's the earliest most classes can get it, and it's solidly cooler than a regular familiar.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
Swordmaster Dedication (Disarming is aweful and I doubt many NPC's or Monster would take the time to do it).

This is what everyone says until they're the ones who are disarmed without a backup weapon, or a backup weapon that's significantly weaker.

Then suddenly it's overpowered and completely unfair when you have to go from your 3d12+1d6+1d6 holy frost major striking greatsword to a 2d8 greater striking longsword.

Scrollmaster Dedication, as an example, is horrid if you have a GM who constantly reminds of important details because otherwise you make no progress. The second half of it is quite strong. Another +2 that stacks with the first one is always underestimated, because that's at least a 25% increase.

Fear no Law, Fear no One is likely good for Scourge Hellknights because as the significantly more investigatey-and-sneaky Hellknights, they're quite a bit less likely to be fighters or champions, aka the classes who benefit least from the bonus. There's a reason the Scourge got a Vigilante archetype focused around them in 1E.

Dark Archive

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

So you think being able to recall knowledge about something that happened in the last 24 hours is worth a 6th level feat? My players take notes which automatic nulls this feat. As for the added +2 it's nice but not worth a feat. At 6th level a Wizard can gain Advanced School Spell, Bard can get Harmonize or Dirge of Doom, and the Sorcerer their Advanced Bloodline, would you honestly pick Scroll Master Dedication over any of those? The Core class feats are far Superior to Scroll Master Dedication. I don't expect Dedication feats to be more powerful then class feats but I at least expect them to be on par with them.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Letting your players look in the Bestiaries also nulls the knowledge skills when fighting monsters as well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:


I kinda disagree with that though, I don't think intelligent/sapient creatures HAVE to act inhuman though especially since we don't have real life context for this. I think its more important to play character like they were part of the world and how their ancestry would have affected their upbringing and growing up in the world rather than playing up to how much they aren't humans.
Cool, because i never said thzt they had to be inhumane, just not costumes that ignore every element of the world for some cheap visual element. I do the same with human ethnicities, i won't say it is the right choice for everyone. But it was the right choice for me and my groups.

Ah, sorry then. Its hard to tell from text what people are referring to when they are saying "You shouldn't play a human wearing birdman mask, you should be playing a birdman" :p

I'm mostly tired of getting similar criticism directed at me since I do actually consider how character would act based on their species so I feel like its hard to satisfy some people who apparently believe every non human should have alien mindsets to humans :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Letting your players look in the Bestiaries also nulls the knowledge skills when fighting monsters as well.

Just asking because it's not obvious what you're replying to... are you suggesting that players remembering what happened earlier in the session they're playing in is "cheating", equivalent to out-of-game memorizing monster statblocks?

'Cuz you've always struck me as way more rational than that, so it's got to be me misunderstanding something.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Rysky is saying that if the players keep detailed notes, Scrollmaster Dedication is probably not a good feat choice, just like Cyouni said it wouldn't be if the GM automatically prompts the players with details they've forgotten. It's also not a good feat for play-by-post, because you can always just page back and re-read.

That healing feat from P1e that lets you reroll 1s would be a worthless feat in my group because we've had a house rule to reroll 1s for healing and hit points since AD&D. At another tsble, someone probably loves it.

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:

I think Rysky is saying that if the players keep detailed notes, Scrollmaster Dedication is probably not a good feat choice, just like Cyouni said it wouldn't be if the GM automatically prompts the players with details they've forgotten. It's also not a good feat for play-by-post, because you can always just page back and re-read.

That healing feat from P1e that lets you reroll 1s would be a worthless feat in my group because we've had a house rule to reroll 1s for healing and hit points since AD&D. At another tsble, someone probably loves it.

This.


Remembering things that happened 24 hours ago should cost a skill feat, not a class feat.


I just remember crap.... never once had a DM make me make a roll to remember stuff from a day previous. I've been roleplaying for three decades.

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / Lost Omens Products / I'm Disappointed after reading LOWG and LOCG. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.