Can’t wait, have been a fan of the necromancy stuff since AD&D’s release of the book of necromancy. Enjoyed it before nut that book hooked me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love Undead as a class, where you can forget about your mortal life and grow into your powers, or mix and match undead abilities and usual class features through MC dedication (both Undead Class with another class MC and another class with Undead MC dedication).
An undead class would make no sense within the usual design parameters of the system. That's just not how Paizo approaches classes.
That said, an Undead themed archetype that gives you negative healing and other abilities could definitely be interesting.
I'm happy for a book chock full of animate dead fodder. Maybe a few scraps thrown mechanically for necromancer playstyles. Not much, mind you, since a necromancer wizard is most of the way there. Maybe, just an archetype that has feats for increasing temp hp and buffing undead summon health. Extra riders when you deal negative damage. There's a bunch you could do.
Waiting for Undead heritages and Undead themed archetype.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who LOVED the Ghostwalk campaign setting from D&D 3.0, would love to see something in here that let's me update that setting to PF 2.0 rules!
G&G + Book of the Dead = Confirmed Geb vs Nex Adventure Path set in the Mana Wastes near Alkenstar.
Now if only I knew it was a 3 part adventure at this point and I'd be EVER so delighted. GIMME that Trigun AP Paizo, I know you've been brewing on it for a while!
If that AP comes after "Quest for the Frozen Flame", it'd likely be a 3-part one, since Frozen Flame is confirmed to be 3 parts. It'd especially be cool, since it'd also likely be a high-level one (Frozen Flame was confirmed to be levels 1-10).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it starts at level 9 or 10 that would be an AMAZING way to jam high fantasy, technology, and let players really dig into one of the most mysterious and dangerous regions on the planet right away without having to play with kiddy gloves on by wasting four or more sessions fighting through boring low-level zombies and skeletons and we could jump right into battling the horrifying undead magic-scarred beasts that occupy the wastes.
The hype is real, ever since picking up the Inner Sea Campaign Setting Guide way back in the pre-PFRPG days I've been itching to learn more about that local lore and region so suffice it to say I'm pleased.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, considering there are rules for playing undead in Book of the Dead, it would be super fascinating if the AP after Frozen Flame was a bit more experimental? Like everyone is playing an undead? I would LOVE that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, considering there are rules for playing undead in Book of the Dead, it would be super fascinating if the AP after Frozen Flame was a bit more experimental? Like everyone is playing an undead? I would LOVE that.
Even a Standalone adventure would be good to play around with an all-undead party. The Slithering was so good, and the "no humans" restriction helped sell the narrative of an ooze-transformation curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excited to see undead PC options, hoping we get the Geb/Nex AP.
I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!
The disrespect to Jalmeray in this post!
I wonder if we'll have rules to play as a lich I know from a YouTube comment we're getting rules to play as gouls & full (not damphir) vampires
Mummy! Let me try to bring my long lost love back from the dead and be stopped by Brendon Fraser!
I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!The disrespect to Jalmeray in this post!
I did forget. All I know about jalmeray is genies and monastic temples. Also culturally reminiscent of India?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did forget. All I know about jalmeray is genies and monastic temples. Also culturally reminiscent of India?I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!The disrespect to Jalmeray in this post!
It’s a primarily-Vudrani nation, yes. It’s also home to the premiere spy school in the Inner Sea region.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s a primarily-Vudrani nation, yes. It’s also home to the premiere spy school in the Inner Sea region.I did forget. All I know about jalmeray is genies and monastic temples. Also culturally reminiscent of India?I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!The disrespect to Jalmeray in this post!
It's for those reasons I personally would rather a Geb, Nex, Alkenstar ap not also do Jalmeray. I feel it could use a lot more fleshing out on its own I would rather see in a 3 Part ap like we are getting for Mammoth Lords, or as part of a 6 part that includes mostly going to Vudra.
It's for those reasons I personally would rather a Geb, Nex, Alkenstar ap not also do Jalmeray. I feel it could use a lot more fleshing out on its own I would rather see in a 3 Part ap like we are getting for Mammoth Lords, or as part of a 6 part that includes mostly going to Vudra.It’s a primarily-Vudrani nation, yes. It’s also home to the premiere spy school in the Inner Sea region.I did forget. All I know about jalmeray is genies and monastic temples. Also culturally reminiscent of India?I love the idea of the walking dead ap also being steampunk and featuring a high fantasy magic nation. Let's have that AP touch up on all 3 parts of the impossible lands!The disrespect to Jalmeray in this post!
I think it would be a colossal waste not to include Jalmeri espionage in an AP that would be as intrigue-heavy as I would expect the Geb/Nex one to be.
Interesting.
I wonder if we'll have rules to play as a lich I know from a YouTube comment we're getting rules to play as gouls & full (not damphir) vampiresMummy! Let me try to bring my long lost love back from the dead and be stopped by Brendon Fraser!
Something to give a PC some mummy flavor from level 1 onward would be a joy.
I would love Undead as a class, where you can forget about your mortal life and grow into your powers, or mix and match undead abilities and usual class features through MC dedication (both Undead Class with another class MC and another class with Undead MC dedication).An undead class would make no sense within the usual design parameters of the system. That's just not how Paizo approaches classes.
That said, an Undead themed archetype that gives you negative healing and other abilities could definitely be interesting.
Pathfinder 1st Edition actually had some of these, of which the ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
Knight of the Sepulcher Antipaladin (although they have to wait until 20th level to become Undead)
Agent of the Grave prestige class (starts to turn Undead at prestige class level 4, although prestige class level 5 is needed to complete the transformation -- this means character level as early as 9 and 10, respectively)
Closest I could find in 2nd Edition so far is the Bones Oracle Mystery, but at least 2 of the 3 1st Edition concepts above are important enough that I would expect them to appear eventually.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per the Ask the Experts Stream, we're likely getting a skeleton ancestry, WHICH IS A THING THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T SAY. While Vampire is likely to be something else so you can have an ancestry underneath.
As per the Ask the Experts Stream, we're likely getting a skeleton ancestry, WHICH IS A THING THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T SAY. While Vampire is likely to be something else so you can have an ancestry underneath.
Do we think they’ll be Versatile Heritages?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per the Ask the Experts Stream, we're likely getting a skeleton ancestry
You know if you think about it, most of the options in the game are already skeleton ancestries. They just have padding on.
As per the Ask the Experts Stream, we're likely getting a skeleton ancestry, WHICH IS A THING THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T SAY. While Vampire is likely to be something else so you can have an ancestry underneath.Do we think they’ll be Versatile Heritages?
Either a versatile heritage, or something else entirely. But it seemed like they were less inclined on the idea of vampires being a full-on ancestry.
Granted, that question managed to get Jason to spill the (maybe non-existent wink wink) beans about skeletons being a possible ancestry, so hurray for that!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the existence of dhampirs mostly fills the 'Vampire PC' niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the Ask the Experts Stream, we're likely getting a skeleton ancestryYou know if you think about it, most of the options in the game are already skeleton ancestries. They just have padding on.
Your bones are wet right now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it was mentioned that Blood Magic wasn't going to be in Secrets of Magic, and be saved for a later book. Well, considering the spooky flavor of Blood Magic, this might be the place where rules for it show up.
I'm pretty sure that stuff like vampirism and ghoul transformation will be something entirely different from ancestries/heritages, at least that is the impression I got from the stream. A corruption-esk systems seems like a good idea, as long as it isn't the same restrictive "you become an NPC at the end" type of deal.
And while I agree that the dhampir goes some of the way of providing the "vampire pc" experience, it has too few of a vampire's strengths and especially limitations to provide the full experience. To me it is still a more vanilla-table friendly "vampire light". Or a funny way to kill yourself as a champion, because you didn't know that your strongest devotion spell (hero's defiance at level 19) that you use not to die had the positive trait, so it straight up murders you.
It seems using the Ancestry system would work too slowly.* I think being undead would have to work somewhat like being Mythic in PF1, or as whole separate classes which I don't see as appealing as many want to have their undead have a class too.
How that balances w/ level & XP is a can of worms though, as it didn't jibe in Mythic play.
*Then again, there kind of has to be such a system to integrate with living PCs. If the undead AP starts at higher levels (11-20), then PCs would begin with a set of undead powers that make them feel like they are their monster rather than will eventually become their monster.
It's hard to put level 1 Ghoul paralysis in the hands of a level 1 PC.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would an ancestry ever be a class? Or even an extra class?
You have a strong ancestry? Then. Make it rare that way players won't actually use it without permission. Also not all ancestries are fit to be playable. Its much easier to get a full Vampire race than a Ghoul, Zombie, etc. Think about how those creatures act.
Since NPCs are usually NOT built like PCs, there is zero need for a non-playable ancestry.
Ancestries are player-facing mechanics.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also rarity is not linked to strength. Just how rare it is.
The rare ancestries we have are mostly weaker than average.
|
|
Well, Rarity is the cursor on the GM vs Player axis for options :
Common : my GM should have exceptionally convincing arguments to forbid me from taking this.
Uncommon : this is something the player can get if they are convincing enough.
Rare : my player should have exceptionally convincing arguments to let me allow them to take this.
Unique : GM-use only.
Power can play a role in that, though it is currently not the most common criterium. Rarity in the setting is indeed, as you say, the most common one.
|
|
2e Corruptions? ;DThis is what I'm hoping for with, as someone else said, the bit at the end where you become an NPC cut out. Really looking forward to how they model this in play, both for being an undead, and also because I suspect it'll work as a template for other such options going forward.
Great point, and an excellent reason for them to playtest it widely. And new classes will always have a playtest. So I keep the hope that my Undead as a Class idea is still possible ;-D
Whatever shape it takes, I am sure it will be awesome considering all they have already given us in both editions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power can play a role in that, though it is currently not the most common criterium. Rarity in the setting is indeed, as you say, the most common one.
If you're talking about your own table, then okay. That's a reasonable enough reason to make something rare for your campaign. But as far as the published options from Paizo goes, then no. Power isn't a criterium at all. Rarity in setting and how complex the option is are the determining factors.
The rarity system has two purposes: to convey how common or rare certain spells, creatures, or items are in the game world, and to give you an easy tool to control the complexity of your game. Uncommon and rare options aren’t more powerful than other options of their level, but they introduce complications for certain types of stories, or are less common in the world. For instance, it might be more challenging to run a mystery adventure when a player can cast an uncommon spell such as detect evil.
I'd just like to hop in and note that rarity isn't related to power level. A level 5 uncommon item (or feat, or spell, etc) is held to the same guidelines as the other level 5 options in its category.
BUT, sometimes a thing can have pretty big thematic implications if everyone in a given world has access to it. Think about what the widespread knowledge of raise dead would have on society. If your GM wants to tell a grand quest to find a magical topaz that, once a millennium, can bring someone back from the other side, that might not be the best adventure for a cleric to automatically get raise dead when they hit a certain level. But in a different campaign type, it could be totally fine!
It's a little flag to let you know you should have that convo with the GM to make sure expectations are aligned, not to say that it's a stronger option.
It also can be a more difficult to adjudicate option, even if that doesn't mean stronger. Think of things like the vigilante's multiple identities. That can get complicated. It's not super powerful, but it's not easy to run either. Common options also tend to be ones that don't require that level of adjudication.
And sometimes it's just "This is like really rare. There's like not that many of them worldwide and almost all live in this one really specific quest location."
Sorry if it sounds like I'm harping on this, but it is a really common misperception that has led some to misevaluate how strong options in the game really are.
Probably the only exception to this is weapons, and only that because of the Unconventional Weaponry feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see Detect Evil and Teleport and Raise Dead as powerful. Not merely as complex.
Because they can wreck your story, as they did in first edition.
And that is IMO why they are not Common.
Which by no way means that though that a not-Common thing is always more powerful than a Common one.