I'm Disappointed after reading LOWG and LOCG.


Lost Omens Products

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To start off with I love the core book, it has some issues but it's pretty close to the perfect system for me. I loved power option choices, as well as multiple paths I can lead a character down. So I was extremely excited when I realized how quick we were getting new content.

I ordered LOWG from Amazon (Had had to wait longer then I expected...) and when I finally got the book and cracked it open to the Archetypes I was... severely underwhelmed. Some were pretty good, like Red Mantis Assassin, and the Rune-scarred. However many of the feat choices are situational at best, or don't feel like they live up to the fantasy of the Archetype. Even more some require harsh requirements to even join them, preventing a lot of cool builds with out deep investments feat wise. The Hell Knight Armiger doesn't even feel like it's complete, one feat gives you resistance based on your Reckoning but that knowledge isn't even in the book. I chalked it up to being kinda rushed to be released with the Core book.

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. A elf heritage gives you a multi-class dedicate at level 1, but my monkey goblin gets a bonus to climbing and a situational climbing feat... what would be cool is if that tail could hold a item, so I didn't have to draw it. The Hobgoblin heritages feel like a joke for the most part and don't come close to the power or flexibility of the human or elven feats.

Now there are good parts to the book. I feel the Lizardfolk, and Leshys are well done. The Knights of Last Wall as a whole have a bunch of really cool feats that allow them to shoot sun beams, use shields two handed, and cone attack with their weapon! Then you get to the Hell Knights are it gets extremely boring. Most of the Order abilities are very uninspiring and honestly not worth picking over your class feats. Order of the Chain could have had ghost rider style flame chains, the Order of the Pyre could have been able to combust their foes, Order of the Nail could have had some crazy Iron Maiden like ability! They don't.

Pathfinder 2E has a chance to reinvent it's self and be better then every before. I saw that when I bought the Core book and every book since. I hope the Dev's take bold chances and give us crazy fun abilities, like the Sun Blade.

That's my 2 cents.

Sovereign Court

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm picking my way through LOCG and I'm quite blown away. The artwork is gorgeous, and what's also great, it's well-labelled. Almost every heritage or ethnicity has artwork.

Elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, all get interesting ethnicities and heritages instead of the usual "well humans are really diverse, other races are super homogeneous" that we're used to in nearly all RPGs.

I haven't gotten to the organizations part of the book yet, but so far I'm seriously impressed.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I'm picking my way through LOCG and I'm quite blown away. The artwork is gorgeous, and what's also great, it's well-labelled. Almost every heritage or ethnicity has artwork.

I have to agree that the art and the writing in terms of worldbuilding and storytelling is great.

But I also have to agree with the OP that the rules content feels... really regressive. Scattershot balancing and lots of highly niche, questionably useful feats. All the stuff that was so bad in PF1 and PF2 was going to do away with and these are the first two books published after the CRB and we're already back into it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The art is amazing. The fluff of the book is outstanding and invites players into the world. However the mechanics in the game do not by any stretch reinforce that fluff. I left PF1 because of the highly useless bonuses, or extremely niche abilities. Now there can be a place for those benefits but it has to be tied to a useful ability, or fantasy provoking power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The core book mentioned that some archetypes may unlock new general feats, in addition to class feats. I feel this is an underutilized concept, and a lot of these archetype options could've just been general feats instead.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For example: Devils Advocate a 1st level Human Feat. The name is amazing, then you get to the heart of the feat and realize it is only beneficial if your trying to talk to, or deal with a Devil. Now for a campaign set in Cheliax it could be a good feat, but honestly whose gonna choose that over a extra Class Feat? Or being able to use a crazy weapon? Now if there was a none Devil related ability added to it it could be worth it. Say, you get a +2 vs being mentally persuaded. Or maybe even you spent so much time around devils you can cast Charm.

Dark Archive

I agree with you Strill, Devil's Advocate for Example again could have been a regional General Feat.


Honestly, that one I'd say could be a skill feat.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The more I read the more disappointed I get. A lvl 8 Feat allows you to Avert your gaze and cast at the same time... that's it... If you're a Wizard why would you Ever pick that over getting your Advanced School ability?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:

Order of the Chain could have had ghost rider style flame chains, the Order of the Pyre could have been able to combust their foes, Order of the Nail could have had some crazy Iron Maiden like ability! They don't.

Pathfinder 2E has a chance to reinvent it's self and be better then every before.

I am personally happy that they didn't go that direction, and wouldn't consider it to be "better than ever before" if they had.

Most of the options in the LOWG and LOCG are situational, only being worth taking if they suit your character, rather than being the automatic best choice for a class. That is a good thing, because it's how you avoid massive power creep. Sure, some of the options are never going to be worth taking, but a lot of them are worth it in the right build.

Dark Archive

I understand the Situational feats but they need to be tied into a benefit that can come into play more often, even if it's a minor one.

Side note what's wrong with fire chains and making people explode? I feel those two have a very Hellish vibe lol.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
Order of the Chain could have had ghost rider style flame chains, the Order of the Pyre could have been able to combust their foes, Order of the Nail could have had some crazy Iron Maiden like ability! They don't.

Curious, why would they have that? With the exception of the Gate and Godclaws the Hellknights aren't really supernatural entities.


Rysky wrote:
Quote:
Order of the Chain could have had ghost rider style flame chains, the Order of the Pyre could have been able to combust their foes, Order of the Nail could have had some crazy Iron Maiden like ability! They don't.
Curious, why would they have that? With the exception of the Gate and Godclaws the Hellknights aren't really supernatural entities.

Because they walk around with magical blindfolds and eyeless helmets that they can see out of, and wield magical blue fire?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Strill wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Quote:
Order of the Chain could have had ghost rider style flame chains, the Order of the Pyre could have been able to combust their foes, Order of the Nail could have had some crazy Iron Maiden like ability! They don't.
Curious, why would they have that? With the exception of the Gate and Godclaws the Hellknights aren't really supernatural entities.
Because they walk around with magical blindfolds and eyeless helmets that they can see out of, and wield magical blue fire?

That's the signifers, which are casters.

The non-caster Hellknights don't really do that.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with the sentiment of OP. The fluff in these books are great as well as the art being amazing. However, there just isn't enough crunch to go with the fluff and some of it is not only situational it is just bad. The worst part is the price per page compared to their equivalent 1E Product being close to double. From one of the recent streams it seems like these two books were likely intended to be one but the release schedule of 2E so far has been too tight so it was release what they had or nothing. I really hope the future books in the line are larger and have a better value because the price point for these books is bonkers for their current size and offerings.

Silver Crusade

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

Um, no they weren't meant to be 1, and the decisions for books printing are made way months in advance so you can't really chop it in half like that at the last second (so to speak).

Starfinder also uses similar sizing for their books.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll echo what some of the others have said in this thread: the book is pretty and the lore sections are well written But this just makes the contrast that much more stark when you look at the actual rules parts: rules are either very situational or have something questionable about them. For instance seedpod sounds cool but how do you use a ranged ability that gives you no range? I will say the 'race' section seems better than the archetype one: between archetypes that seem to work against the lore, rare feats with no explanation of how you access them and ones you have to ask yourself how often it's come up and the section is much less exciting. Add to that that the 3 new 'races' are uncommon and even the majority of that section are of questionable usefulness.


I've yet to do a thorough reading of LOCG, but the only archetype that looked appealing to me in LOWG was Lastwall Sentry, because Raise Shield as a reaction isn't shabby. The rest, I'd agree, were rather lackluster, and I do think a lot of that was that the abilities were *very* situational.

That being said, I'm very happy to see the additional racial feats in LOCG, which I do think add a lot of depth and make many of the races much more "playable" without feeling a need to take adopted. I'm a little confused as to why Leshy didn't get any 13th level feats however.


tivadar27 wrote:
That being said, I'm very happy to see the additional racial feats in LOCG, which I do think add a lot of depth and make many of the races much more "playable" without feeling a need to take adopted. I'm a little confused as to why Leshy didn't get any 13th level feats however.

I can say that the expansion of core race options is one part of the book I'm quite satisfied with, though even there you have feats like devil's advocate that make calling them situational seem far too kind.

On the leshy, IMO it's not so bad: lizardmen have only 1 9th and 1 13th while hobgoblin has 1 9th and 2 13th: leshy have 3 9th so IMO they have more versatility on options instead of only having 1 9th as they can pick another 9th for 13th and that's an option the other new 'races' can't do. That and I'd expect to see more 'race' options for them in later books like we got for core this time.


graystone wrote:
I'll echo what some of the others have said in this thread: the book is pretty and the lore sections are well written But this just makes the contrast that much more stark when you look at the actual rules parts: rules are either very situational or have something questionable about them. For instance seedpod sounds cool but how do you use a ranged ability that gives you no range? I will say the 'race' section seems better than the archetype one: between archetypes that seem to work against the lore, rare feats with no explanation of how you access them and ones you have to ask yourself how often it's come up and the section is much less exciting. Add to that that the 3 new 'races' are uncommon and even the majority of that section are of questionable usefulness.

How does that even work? Uncommon is supposed to require a special story justification (either background or achieved in play) to become available. But doesn't the mere fact of being a lizardfolk or whatever, just picking the race at character creation, automatically meet that requirement before it could ever possibly be an issue?

Or is the expectation that all uncommon races start out as dwarves or goblins and then somehow later transmogrify into what the player wanted to play in the first place?


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

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:


While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.

Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be."

So specific settings grant access, not something the player does: That's the reason for my saying "questionable usefulness" in the average game. The fact that 'PC' goblins are common and are therefor found everywhere but things like lizardmen that lives in mountains, water, marsh and deserts are hard to find...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tectorman wrote:

How does that even work? Uncommon is supposed to require a special story justification (either background or achieved in play) to become available. But doesn't the mere fact of being a lizardfolk or whatever, just picking the race at character creation, automatically meet that requirement before it could ever possibly be an issue?

Or is the expectation that all uncommon races start out as dwarves or goblins and then somehow later transmogrify into what the player wanted to play in the first place?

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:

The three ancestries presented in this section are therefore uncommon for adventurers. This rarity trait applies specifically to the rules to play a member of this ancestry, and it is separate from the monster rarity that determines how obscure information about a creature is.

While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of a campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.

Double-ninjaed. That's what I get for not having the PDF downloaded. ^^

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that the mechanical options in the LOCG (and, to a lesser extent maybe the LOWG) tend toward the lackluster and situational, though I think people are exaggerating the degree. I disagree, for the most part, that the quality varies wildly as the OP states; the only really overpowered thing IMO is Ancient Elf, with everything else falling at reasonable power level or somewhat below.

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.

The new Ancestries mostly look quite good, though the absent range on seedpods is indeed unfortunate. I really don't think them being Uncommon matters much outside possibly PFS. Non-core races were basically 'uncommon' just without that language in PF1 as well, and they still saw plenty of use. I certainly generally allow at least one 'uncommon' Race PC in just about any of my PF1 games (entirely aside from setting making some of them common), and see no reason I'll change that policy for PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

LOWG seemed pretty in line with the player companion and campaign setting lines IMO. Amazing art, amazing lore, a mixed bag of player options. Pretty thoroughly in line with the player companion line, with the exception of being more expensive and more durable. When I get the LOCG and time to process it I'll see if it seems different, but from what I've seen from pictures and spoilers it looks about the same. Amazing art, amazing lore, a mixed bag of player options.


Uncommon races as defined by the book

Quote:

The three ancestries presented in this section are therefore uncommon for adventurers. This rarity trait applies specifically to the rules to play a member of this ancestry, and it is separate from the monster rarity that determines how obscure information about a creature is.

While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.

Pretty straight forward. For home games it just equals a "check with your gm if they haven't made an "all ancestries allowed statement".

As for the power / role of the feats. I would need to spend more time with them and have more time in the game.

The example of the goblin fire one I don't mind as it adds abilities to what the prerequisites give it and makes it a better effect than it would otherwise seem.
Getting a single action unarmed (simple proficient) ranged fire strike that can be boosted by magical items isn't awful and it is very flavourful. Even if not optimal.

But then again I kinda expected them to go into the Lost Omens line with less focus on widely useful content anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Campbell wrote:

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:


While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.
Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.

I shudder to think of the precedent this sets. When the Advanced Players Guide comes out next year with yet more races and the new classes, are those going to be uncommon too?

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Exaggerating? Can you really compare being able to Avert your Gaze to a Wizards School's Greater Power? Let's take Scroll Master Dedication a 6th level feat, it grants you the ability to recall info for 24 hours without needing a check, and an added bonus if you have another feat... how often is that really gonna come up? At that level the Sorcerer gets their Advanced Bloodline. I'm not expecting ultra powerful abilities, but I am expecting useful, interesting abilities. The Scroll Master Dedication feat could have maybe allowed you to use a certain level spell scroll without using it up once a day.

As for the Hell Knights, they are Hell Knights! Where's the hell powers? At this pointy they are just people in spooky armor that yells at kids to stay off their law (Putting it mildly). You can't tell me after all these years they haven't learned a hell trick or two to up the ante? I mean one of their lvl 8 Feats grants them what the Fighter got at lvl 3. And for a organization that HATES Chaos they don't get anything to harm it until lvl 12.

I'm just saying this is a fresh start, and there's a lot of exciting things in the Core book I wanna see that carry over to the other books. Cause as it stands I can almost guarantee no one in my group will be part of the Pathfinder Society or take many of the Hell Knight options.

Regarding the races I agree most of them are great but there are still a few dudes (looking at you Hobgoblin Warrenbred, and Warmarch). 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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ancient Elf

The interesting thing is that an Ancient Elf has no age requirement... Nothing in the heritage prevents you being 20... "In your long life" isn't quantifiable.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I really don't think them being Uncommon matters much outside possibly PFS.

For me, it's one more thing that has to be specifically allowed in my online games: the list of banned/unbanned items just keeps growing...

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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, but in regards to Gleeful Grognard and Paradozen why add lackluster feats at all then? Why tread old ground and just aim for par? This is Paizo's own edition and their chance to set their own precedents instead of having to tread the ground laid out by 3rd edition. People around here have become so accustomed to lackluster options and only parts of the book being useful that they just shrug and accept it. I see the brilliant design Paizo is capable of and honestly I expect them to bring it to every piece of mechanic and design they make.

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.


On another note, what's up with the Spellmaster dedication. It's meant for those that "concern themselves with all matters related to magic" doesn't require the spellcasting class feature: it just needs focus spells. So monks that care nothing for actual spellcasting can qualify for it... Then none of the abilities are specific for focus spells so the requirement is even more suspect. :P


1 person 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?

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.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ancient Elf
The interesting thing is that an Ancient Elf has no age requirement... Nothing in the heritage prevents you being 20... "In your long life" isn't quantifiable.

True. Though Age isn't a mechanic any more, so I'm not sure it needs to be specified.

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I really don't think them being Uncommon matters much outside possibly PFS.
For me, it's one more thing that has to be specifically allowed in my online games: the list of banned/unbanned items just keeps growing...

Well, yeah, but I feel like you couldn't show up to most online games with your Variant Aasimar or ARG Lizardfolk and expect to play without question in PF1 either.

Dark Archive

Thanks you Evilgm! I just think it's a pretty harsh setup to have to take a feat to get there, then you have to be on fire in order to even benefit from the feat. I mean was a D8 or D10 going to break the game at lvl 9?

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely feel like people are exaggerating issues, that or willfully ignoring same thing was in 1e too :P

Like all that uncommon means is that iruxi character in cheliax might be weird. Which was case in 1e as well were gm often had to tell players "playing catfolk in varisia is really weird", all uncommon means is that players know that without reading anything about lore, but either way, gm still has to approve it and can not approve it if they want to.

Did the people complaining about this allow nagaji, wayangs and kitsunes in every single 1e ap despite them not really having much of presence in Avistan?... There are like small group of kitsunes in varisia and that was really late revelations into 1e's lifespan


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ancient Elf
The interesting thing is that an Ancient Elf has no age requirement... Nothing in the heritage prevents you being 20... "In your long life" isn't quantifiable.
True. Though Age isn't a mechanic any more, so I'm not sure it needs to be specified.

While age isn't a mechanic, there already is precedent for elven stuff with age requirements. Cant remember the name (and am not at home to look it up) but the feat that let's you swap a skill training every day has the prerequisite of being 100 years old.


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.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, yeah, but I feel like you couldn't show up to most online games with your Variant Aasimar or ARG Lizardfolk and expect to play without question in PF1 either.

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 evil race] was a MUCH harder sell than a lizardfolk or merfolk and those are common now... :P

The only races/variants that rarely saw play, and needed special asking for other than evil ones, were the high RP races like Svirfneblin or troublesome ones like Kasathas and their 4 arms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ancient Elf
The interesting thing is that an Ancient Elf has no age requirement... Nothing in the heritage prevents you being 20... "In your long life" isn't quantifiable.
True. Though Age isn't a mechanic any more, so I'm not sure it needs to be specified.
While age isn't a mechanic, there already is precedent for elven stuff with age requirements. Cant remember the name (and am not at home to look it up) but the feat that let's you swap a skill training every day has the prerequisite of being 100 years old.

Ancestral Longevity: Prerequisites "at least 100 years old".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
As for the Hell Knights, they are Hell Knights! Where's the hell powers? At this pointy they are just people in spooky armor that yells at kids to stay off their law (Putting it mildly). You can't tell me after all these years they haven't learned a hell trick or two to up the ante? I mean one of their lvl 8 Feats grants them what the Fighter got at lvl 3. And for a organization that HATES Chaos they don't get anything to harm it until lvl 12.

Did you ever look at the PF1 Hellknight? The only "Hell power" that they ever got was Summon Devil, from the Order of the Gate. They're very much martial characters that are against chaos, which is why they get the exact same things the champion gets, but vs chaos.


Tectorman wrote:
Campbell wrote:

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:


While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.
Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.
I shudder to think of the precedent this sets. When the Advanced Players Guide comes out next year with yet more races and the new classes, are those going to be uncommon too?

Probably. I mean, the Player's Guide in PF1 APs already did this. Consider the following from the Iron Gods Player's Guide:

Quote:

in Numeria, the following races are common enough: aasimar, changeling, orc, and tiefling.

...
Of special note in the Iron Gods Adventure Path are androids—this race is more common in Numeria than elsewhere in the Inner Sea region, yet they still remain relatively rare.

Translating to PF2, this would mean that for the Iron Gods Adventure Path the Aasimar, Tiefling, Changeling, and Orc ancestries are common and the Android ancestry, normally rare, is uncommon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, yeah, but I feel like you couldn't show up to most online games with your Variant Aasimar or ARG Lizardfolk and expect to play without question in PF1 either.

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...

Well I never really heard of any android character outside of Iron Gods, so if your gm has allowed it, I don't see why they wouldn't allow uncommon races in 2e.

Because seriously, its exact same thing. Only thing uncommon means is that you know on sight that its rarer than common instead of having to read all the lore about the creature. If your gm would allow triaxians in 1e, but not in lizardfolk in 2e, that is just confusing.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Probably. I mean, the Player's Guide in PF1 APs already did this. Consider the following from the Iron Gods Player's Guide:

Quote:

in Numeria, the following races are common enough: aasimar, changeling, orc, and tiefling.

...
Of special note in the Iron Gods Adventure Path are androids—this race is more common in Numeria than elsewhere in the Inner Sea region, yet they still remain relatively rare.

Translating to PF2, this would mean that for the Iron Gods Adventure Path the Aasimar, Tiefling, Changeling, and Orc ancestries are common and the Android ancestry, normally rare, is uncommon.

That was a note on population in the area and not a limitation on PC's though. The guide didn't prohibit kitsune from playing the AP for instance.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
While age isn't a mechanic, there already is precedent for elven stuff with age requirements. Cant remember the name (and am not at home to look it up) but the feat that let's you swap a skill training every day has the prerequisite of being 100 years old.

Age was a mechanic in PF1. Specifically, the Feat in question could not be taken by Half Elves who weren't at least Middle Aged (and thus had stat adjustments).

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 evil race] was a MUCH harder sell than a lizardfolk or merfolk and those are common now... :P

The only races/variants that rarely saw play, and needed special asking for other than evil ones, were the high RP races like Svirfneblin or troublesome ones like Kasathas and their 4 arms.

Interesting. Personally, I'd expect most people who were cool with 'anything legal' in PF1 to be cool with 'anything common or uncommon' in PF2. But maybe I'm wrong.


2 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, but in regards to Gleeful Grognard and Paradozen why add lackluster feats at all then? Why tread old ground and just aim for par? This is Paizo's own edition and their chance to set their own precedents instead of having to tread the ground laid out by 3rd edition. People around here have become so accustomed to lackluster options and only parts of the book being useful that they just shrug and accept it. I see the brilliant design Paizo is capable of and honestly I expect them to bring it to every piece of mechanic and design they make.

Eh, if they just keep trying to publish the high-end level of feats it can quickly become a game of trying to one-up yourself, which makes power creep much more problematic. Also, I'm not sure I can speak to the lacklusterness of feats in LOCG, but I will say some of the lackluster options from LOWG actually seem decent in the context they are designed for, it just isn't a common one. Specifically thinking of the Magic Warrior anti-divination feat, it may apply to others as well. I'm a game full of intrigue and spies bonuses against divination are great, those just see not your typical PF adventure so the bonuses are mediocre.

as for quotes and formatting:
If you look below the text box to post with, there is a line that says "How to format your text" and a show button. That has the syntax to format text with, and you can use the preview button to make sure you have quotes and whatnot correct. If you want to reply to a specific post you can also click reply in the upper right corner of the post and the site will automatically prepare a text box quoting the post. Hope this helps.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Probably. I mean, the Player's Guide in PF1 APs already did this. Consider the following from the Iron Gods Player's Guide:

Quote:

in Numeria, the following races are common enough: aasimar, changeling, orc, and tiefling.

...
Of special note in the Iron Gods Adventure Path are androids—this race is more common in Numeria than elsewhere in the Inner Sea region, yet they still remain relatively rare.

Translating to PF2, this would mean that for the Iron Gods Adventure Path the Aasimar, Tiefling, Changeling, and Orc ancestries are common and the Android ancestry, normally rare, is uncommon.
That was a note on population in the area and not a limitation on PC's though. The guide didn't prohibit kitsune from playing the AP for instance.

Common sense did though. Which is why some gms have to argue with players who insisted that because rules say nothing about it, you could play as aliens from another planet in solar system without asking gm permission.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:


As for the Hell Knights, they are Hell Knights! Where's the hell powers? At this pointy they are just people in spooky armor that yells at kids to stay off their law (Putting it mildly). You can't tell me after all these years they haven't learned a hell trick or two to up the ante? I mean one of their lvl 8 Feats grants them what the Fighter got at lvl 3. And for a organization that HATES Chaos they don't get anything to harm it until lvl 12.

woah man they're hellknights because they overcome hell, only order of the gate likes hell powers and they're well mostly casters with crazy hellpowers.

their members can be any lawful including LG. they use their name as an intimidation tactic and to show they aren't messing around. they don't however have any strong ties to hell.

reading up on them, they started as a group of vigilantes that gained legitimacy from their king. They see Hell itself as a Beacon of Functional Order, one that society should form to become more like or at least as a beacon to what order can do to even the worst societies, at the same time hellknight initiation requires you to kill a devil and overcome the fear of hell and then use it against those who fight against order.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
That was a note on population in the area and not a limitation on PC's though. The guide didn't prohibit kitsune from playing the AP for instance.

It also says

Quote:
Other races could work, but they may seem a bit too exotic or out of place for the adventures in Iron Gods for some groups.

Which is precisely the same as saying "Kitsune (etc.) are uncommon in Numeria."

Dark Archive

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
While age isn't a mechanic, there already is precedent for elven stuff with age requirements. Cant remember the name (and am not at home to look it up) but the feat that let's you swap a skill training every day has the prerequisite of being 100 years old.

Age was a mechanic in PF1. Specifically, the Feat in question could not be taken by Half Elves who weren't at least Middle Aged (and thus had stat adjustments).

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 evil race] was a MUCH harder sell than a lizardfolk or merfolk and those are common now... :P

The only races/variants that rarely saw play, and needed special asking for other than evil ones, were the high RP races like Svirfneblin or troublesome ones like Kasathas and their 4 arms.

Interesting. Personally, I'd expect most people who were cool with 'anything legal' in PF1 to be cool with 'anything common or uncommon' in PF2. But maybe I'm wrong.

Not honestly sure which type of reaction would be more common, but I'm really confused by idea that because nothing in rules explicitly says you have to ask gm permission for playing rarer races that you can play anything you want without gm permission. Like I've definitely seen gms who restrict anything weird and gms who straight up say they allow anything no matter how weird.

So rarity options is just spelling out the common sense "is this character weird in this place" part in the books, but I don't see why it would affect gm types at all.

And as noted, the recommended player races thing was always a thing in player's guides for aps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Well I never really heard of any android character outside of Iron Gods, so if your gm has allowed it, I don't see why they wouldn't allow uncommon races in 2e.

They might and they might not: the most common requirement is 'legal and online' and uncommon is offlimits without access. As such, it needs unbanned and that's more that has to be added to houserules and/or requires more work behind the scenes to work through the character unless you just drop all uncommon rarities and so far it's too early for that as DM's aren't sure why everything is uncommon [is it actually uncommon or is it troublesome or something else] as rarity is used for more that just how common something is.

PF2 games are playing much differently from each other compared to PF1: all the 'ask your DM' elements make it work differently even if you're playing the same AP...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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".

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

Even then, its not really same thing as unbanning anyway, if you play campaign in area where pcs have access to particular uncommon thing, you could argue that you don't even need to ask gm permission.(which isn't true, you needed to ask gm permission in 1e no matter what you played even if it was human bob the fighty fighter, same applies in 2e too)

1 to 50 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.