Release after Dark Archive


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

So far they've only playtested classes, so a classless book not having any associated announcement would make a lot of sense.

That said, hoping it's more a scheduling thing there are some class concepts I still really think PF2 desperately needs.

Happy to keep beating on that Inquisitor drum.

You take one side, I'll take the other.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

we might get an announcement at paizocon in May


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
KaiBlob1 wrote:
we might get an announcement at paizocon in May

We absolutely will, but again, given a 10 month cycle, I would expect that to be the book for the following spring if it had a class in it. Or even if it doesn’t; I believe book of the dead was announced last Paizocon.

If they plan to release something this fall, I would expect it to be announced before Paizocon. No later than March I think.

All this aside, since we now know Mark is departing in a few weeks, I expect that threw a wrench into things. If I was their project manager, I certainly would have suggested rearranging things so as to not have a class or rules playtest before Paizocon, at the earliest.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
KaiBlob1 wrote:
we might get an announcement at paizocon in May

We absolutely will, but again, given a 10 month cycle, I would expect that to be the book for the following spring if it had a class in it. Or even if it doesn’t; I believe book of the dead was announced last Paizocon.

If they plan to release something this fall, I would expect it to be announced before Paizocon. No later than March I think.

All this aside, since we now know Mark is departing in a few weeks, I expect that threw a wrench into things. If I was their project manager, I certainly would have suggested rearranging things so as to not have a class or rules playtest before Paizocon, at the earliest.

Wait - Mark's leaving paizo??

Liberty's Edge

Verzen wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
KaiBlob1 wrote:
we might get an announcement at paizocon in May

We absolutely will, but again, given a 10 month cycle, I would expect that to be the book for the following spring if it had a class in it. Or even if it doesn’t; I believe book of the dead was announced last Paizocon.

If they plan to release something this fall, I would expect it to be announced before Paizocon. No later than March I think.

All this aside, since we now know Mark is departing in a few weeks, I expect that threw a wrench into things. If I was their project manager, I certainly would have suggested rearranging things so as to not have a class or rules playtest before Paizocon, at the earliest.

Wait - Mark's leaving paizo??

Yes


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One issue I see with Epic Rules - who would they fight? It's certainly possible that I'm not understanding, but this is what I see.

We have stats for Treerazer. My understanding is that it's currently at least plausible to defeat him, given a max level party, good tactics, and perhaps a bit of external support. (not like he doesn't have enemies.) If Epic Rules offer a significant increase to the power cap, then after not too[/] long, you get to the point where your [i]trash mobs have a decent chance 1-on-1 vs Treerazer. Given the lore as it is, where in Golarion or the surrounding planes are you going to find a ready supply of trash mobs like that?

Now, if the Epic rules are something like "You get to stay at level 20, and you occasionally get an extra feat to play with or something" then that's much more manageable, but I'm not under the impression that that's what people are hoping for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

One issue I see with Epic Rules - who would they fight? It's certainly possible that I'm not understanding, but this is what I see.

We have stats for Treerazer. My understanding is that it's currently at least plausible to defeat him, given a max level party, good tactics, and perhaps a bit of external support. (not like he doesn't have enemies.) If Epic Rules offer a significant increase to the power cap, then after not too[/] long, you get to the point where your [i]trash mobs have a decent chance 1-on-1 vs Treerazer. Given the lore as it is, where in Golarion or the surrounding planes are you going to find a ready supply of trash mobs like that?

Now, if the Epic rules are something like "You get to stay at level 20, and you occasionally get an extra feat to play with or something" then that's much more manageable, but I'm not under the impression that that's what people are hoping for.

you'd fight the whispering tyrant cr 26 & the 4 horsemen cr27-30


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I feel confident it’s not a primal/nature book, whatever it is.

I would assume the opposite: natural themes are a little underrepresented and have gotten almost no dedicated expansion thus far, so I expect a book with that to come out sometime.

Though now that I've written that, I'm curious.

Arcane: Magus, Wizard
Divine: Champion, Cleric, Monk*, Oracle
Primal: Druid, Ranger
Occult: Bard, Monk*, Psychic
Martial: Fighter, Rogue, Swashbuckler
Alchemical: Alchemist, Gunslinger, Inventor, Investigator
Any: Barbarian, Sorcerer, Summoner, Thamaturge, Witch

Some of those could be disputed ("Alchemical" is basically the word for "Scientific" in some cases, and Barbarian could perhaps be shoved into pure Martial), but the point is that Arcane and Primal are a little underrepresented as dedicated classes go. Gods and Magic was kind of the Divine book, even if it was an early one, and Book of the Dead will follow, while Dark Archives will obviously be very Occult. Secrets of Magic was a general book, but had a slight Arcane focus. Even Alchemical stuff had its day in Guns and Gears. Primal magic hasn't had a focus book at all, and it isn't as if there's a dearth of classes: Kineticist fits the bill and is a common request despite prominence in 3PP, while Shaman and Shifter are also worth considering (moreso the former since it's less covered ground).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Any: Barbarian

I don't think there's an occult barbarian yet.


Sanityfaerie wrote:

One issue I see with Epic Rules - who would they fight? It's certainly possible that I'm not understanding, but this is what I see.

We have stats for Treerazer. My understanding is that it's currently at least plausible to defeat him, given a max level party, good tactics, and perhaps a bit of external support. (not like he doesn't have enemies.)

This is why PF1e tried (and failed) with the mythic rules, personally I would rather they take a shot at those rather than epic levels though.

Also Treerazer isn't that hard for a level 20 party to fight assuming they aren't engaging in a blind fight. By 20 a party has so very much available to them,


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

Treerazer isn't a full demon lord, he's still a demon-lord-in-training, so in theory if fighting the other demon lords (or say, Tar Baphon) will be a thing PF2e supports, then players would have to rise above level 20, the minimum a new 'mythic' or 'epic' system would have to do is give additional mathematical levels of progress for existing characters.

If we didn't do that directly, the minimum the system would have to do is give those levels mathematically to level 20 characters... which I think is weird and complicated, because it would just be levels, without giving you levels.

Really, its simplest to tack on five levels of progress after level 20 but tie it off to a specialized form of archetype that kicks in at that point so that the designers have control over how much work they have to do to make it fully supported (e.g. the decision to create a new class doesn't necessitate an extra five levels of design work every time it happens.)


So... "our party takes a waltz through the hells, murdering Demon Lords" is reasonable for the finale to a home campaign. Would we ever expect to see an AP for it, though? "These five random adventurers slaughtered Treerazer and then went off to just handle that little "Tar Baphon" problem over the course of an enthusiastic walk" isn't the kind of thing you want to have to work into the history after an AP is done. Where could you actually have a 20-25 adventure that was reasonably satisfying, and not get too gratuitous wiht the world-altering?

Also, as noted, a lvl 25 party is taking out Treerazer-equivalents as warm-up mooks. Where are you going to find even demon-lords-in-training (or equivalents thereof) as warmup mooks?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

So... "our party takes a waltz through the hells, murdering Demon Lords" is reasonable for the finale to a home campaign. Would we ever expect to see an AP for it, though? "These five random adventurers slaughtered Treerazer and then went off to just handle that little "Tar Baphon" problem over the course of an enthusiastic walk" isn't the kind of thing you want to have to work into the history after an AP is done. Where could you actually have a 20-25 adventure that was reasonably satisfying, and not get too gratuitous wiht the world-altering?

Also, as noted, a lvl 25 party is taking out Treerazer-equivalents as warm-up mooks. Where are you going to find even demon-lords-in-training (or equivalents thereof) as warmup mooks?

There's a few ways to handle that, first you have the lead up to 25, usually has existing monsters that are acceptable to encounter budgets without even being named characters-- so this would be the level where a bunch of Draconals, Ancient Umbral Dragons, and Bastion Archons are a valid fight, right up to level 24, in increasing numbers which feels pretty appropriately epic to me.

Then you have the existing 'generic' 21-24s who are all valid threats right up to 25, Solar's are level 23, Titans run right up to 24, Rehavanna at 22, its not nuts to imagine a bunch of other things at this level. I can imagine this list growing with the addition of epic rules, both in order to discuss beings at the same level of power across the board. A lot of the selection right now is made up by named characters because a lot of it is useful to current APs and plotlines.

Finally, I can imagine that one could create enemies based off the truly massive threats of things like actual Demon Lords using their 'approaching godlike power' to create super powerful lieutenants that function as extensions of themselves for things like Dungeons of which they are the final boss, fighting hordes of manifested horrors created by a demon lord whilst you strike at the heart of their domain, their own personal sanctum sounds like a suitably epic dungeon to me.

Lastly, I'd expect them to apply everything they've learned about monster design to ensure that the highest tier of statted creatures, Demon Lords and Empyreal Lords and such are crushingly difficult for level 25 PCs.

EDIT: As for APs and World Altering, there's a LOT of demigod tier entities in Golarion, thinning them a little wouldn't really harm the overall integrity of the setting, specially since it would just create a vacuum for other plotlines to fill. Personally, rather than APs I'd do them as 5 level adventure modules that pick up plot threads from the actual APs so that they make sense as continuations, but are technically usable as normal 'modules' to encourage people to pick up a high level game and go, or use them interchangeably with the existing APs. This would also help make the 'epic tier' useful for more tables, if the stories were self contained enough to start there, or use as a continuation to an AP, or slot into a homebrew game that's reached high level. That way you don't have to necessarily have made it through all 20 levels of the game to play that content.


Squiggit wrote:
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Any: Barbarian
I don't think there's an occult barbarian yet.

Spirit is overtly Divine, but also fits the Occult portfolio. Superstition does too!

(Also, what, you wanted an "all traditions except x" category with one whole class in it? If Witch had remained all-except-Divine I still would have put it in Any. :b I guess I could have renamed the category too, but again, I think Spirit and Superstition fit for Occult anyway.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there's something to be said, non-diagetically, for allowing beings like the Four Horsemen to persist as a representation of the nature of the world--one campaign of violence is never actually going to be able to eliminate the worst of the evil from the world. I suppose a "defeat and replace the lords of hell" AP could be interesting, though. Come to think of it, isn't that kind of Savage Tides?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think there's something to be said, non-diagetically, for allowing beings like the Four Horsemen to persist as a representation of the nature of the world--one campaign of violence is never actually going to be able to eliminate the worst of the evil from the world. I suppose a "defeat and replace the lords of hell" AP could be interesting, though. Come to think of it, isn't that kind of Savage Tides?

Okay. I admit the "and replace" idea makes it significantly more interesting... especially if you put in some sort of strange requirement for breaking the 20 barrier, and now suddenly there's a lot of existing gods and whatnot who are seriously concerned about those things, because the last people who got hold of one conquered Hell, and who are the next ones going to come after?

Of course, at that point you'd need to make it an at least moderately evil campaign. Hm.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

If we didn't do that directly, the minimum the system would have to do is give those levels mathematically to level 20 characters... which I think is weird and complicated, because it would just be levels, without giving you levels.

Or it would give you wider abilities and options to circumvent protections and nullify offensive options. Possibly actively, so not just checkbox immunities and immunity negation.

Scale of abilities is also important.

Honestly though, if people just want epic levels to be increased numbers... that is pretty easy to homebrew. But messing with higher spell slots and spending time developing 21+ level feats for all the classes is never going to be worth it for paizo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think there's something to be said, non-diagetically, for allowing beings like the Four Horsemen to persist as a representation of the nature of the world--one campaign of violence is never actually going to be able to eliminate the worst of the evil from the world. I suppose a "defeat and replace the lords of hell" AP could be interesting, though. Come to think of it, isn't that kind of Savage Tides?

Even if the party did defeat the Horsemen, there would just be new Horsemen. The only original Horseman is Charon. Demon Lords, on a cosmic scale, are unlimited in number, and Archdevils can be elevated and created by Asmodeus as required, and he's pure plot device, so I think that this point argues itself pretty well.


I don't think that "rules to allow the PCs to just run around and beat up the most powerful things in existence" should be a priority. I understand why people *want* these things, but they seem to be more appropriate for an EOL product than something that's a high priority.

Though the thing I liked about the 1e Mythic Rules is that it was a separate power tier than level, so you could have like sixth level mythic characters who are not yet going to be able to go beat the crap out of Cthulhu. If we retain 10 mythic tiers, I wonder if we shouldn't just give us the first five of them without the full ten.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One wonders how many people clamoring for Mythic purchased Fists of the Ruby Phoenix or Night of the Grey Death. High-level play is fun to imagine, for sure, but is it worth Paizo’s time, financially? There’s a good reason they’ve made several 1-10 APs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
One wonders how many people clamoring for Mythic purchased Fists of the Ruby Phoenix or Night of the Grey Death. High-level play is fun to imagine, for sure, but is it worth Paizo’s time, financially? There’s a good reason they’ve made several 1-10 APs.

Can only speak for my household, but I'm prepping Night right now to give my wife a break from GMing our Extinction Curse game. She is also running a Ruby Phoenix game. We both really enjoy high levels and would absolutely pick up a Mythic book.

That said: I prefer Mythic as a parallel track of power rather than just higher levels. YMMV


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
keftiu wrote:
One wonders how many people clamoring for Mythic purchased Fists of the Ruby Phoenix or Night of the Grey Death. High-level play is fun to imagine, for sure, but is it worth Paizo’s time, financially? There’s a good reason they’ve made several 1-10 APs.

Can only speak for my household, but I'm prepping Night right now to give my wife a break from GMing our Extinction Curse game. She is also running a Ruby Phoenix game. We both really enjoy high levels and would absolutely pick up a Mythic book.

That said: I prefer Mythic as a parallel track of power rather than just higher levels. YMMV

I'm trying to nerve myself up to running both of those. They look like so much fun, though I'd like to come up with some adventures before NotGD to give the party more context. It really feels like the capstone to an 11-20 adventure.

Also, I'd personally like to see both. I imagine mythic being like the free archetype system that can be bolted on to a character and grant them more tools, with abilities at the higher end that can grant the required numbers to deal with higher-level threats. Then you can be mythic all your career and we have an excuse to see powerful monsters in print--I mean, we can give players the feeling of being truly incredible at later levels.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I play homebrew, so the question doesnt apply to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Saedar wrote:
keftiu wrote:
One wonders how many people clamoring for Mythic purchased Fists of the Ruby Phoenix or Night of the Grey Death. High-level play is fun to imagine, for sure, but is it worth Paizo’s time, financially? There’s a good reason they’ve made several 1-10 APs.

Can only speak for my household, but I'm prepping Night right now to give my wife a break from GMing our Extinction Curse game. She is also running a Ruby Phoenix game. We both really enjoy high levels and would absolutely pick up a Mythic book.

That said: I prefer Mythic as a parallel track of power rather than just higher levels. YMMV

Yeah, I’d prefer a parallel track as well. Restricting Mythic solely to high level play would be less interesting to me than one that could shape your character right from level 1.

Silver Crusade

On the counter, Mythic isn’t interesting to me if it’s something you can slap on early levels and all it accomplishes is number boosts.

I’d love to be surprised, but a lot of Mythic content in P1 didn’t feel “Mythic”, it was just more numbers.

Mythic PCs vs Mythic Owlbears and Mythic Hobgoblins… isn’t a “Mythic” story.

If Mythic was something other than numbers that could be interesting but I don’t know what form that would take.


I don't think Mythic would work on PF2E's tight math.

PF1E's Mythic was a sidegrade, you gain number booster, occasional or not, or "weird/cool" abilities in exchange for class advancement. The fact that monster CR advanced at +1 CR/2 Mythic Tiers meant that you must most of the time pick number boosters rather than the cool abilities to keep up.

To add insult to injury, legendary skill feats already fill the space of "cool stuff" that should be impossible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
I don't think Mythic would work on PF2E's tight math.

Part of what I'd like is Mythic shifting the balance point of the game. Crack the system open. Who cares. If the baseline of PF2 is somewhere around "superheroes" then Mythic might be "Greek myth".

Barbarians who can choke out Fafnir or something. I dunno.

Beyond that, though: I think Mythic is at least as much a narrative scope as it is a mechanical one. As Rysky pointed out: normal-story-but-mythic may not be the most satisfying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems like "mythic" would be really easy to do as a free archetype option where the archetype feats granted activities and abilities that push towards legendary from the beginning. You just would gain them right at level 1. Dedication feats could grant extra HP and something like a mythic surge ability and each could have class feats and skill feats built into it. Many of the PF1 mythic abilities could translate easily into feats like power attack or double slice, except give even more action economy benefits or narrative controlling features.

Make them rare or even possibly unique options and there really wouldn't be that many balance issues.

From the GM side, they would just need to develop some mythic templates similar to Elite that grant similar mythic feeling activity options, although I agree that most of the book would need to go towards guidance of how to make mythical feel like a higher tier of narrative power-based story telling, instead of "same story but with more powerful characters."


Sanityfaerie wrote:

So... "our party takes a waltz through the hells, murdering Demon Lords" is reasonable for the finale to a home campaign. Would we ever expect to see an AP for it, though? "These five random adventurers slaughtered Treerazer and then went off to just handle that little "Tar Baphon" problem over the course of an enthusiastic walk" isn't the kind of thing you want to have to work into the history after an AP is done. Where could you actually have a 20-25 adventure that was reasonably satisfying, and not get too gratuitous wiht the world-altering?

Also, as noted, a lvl 25 party is taking out Treerazer-equivalents as warm-up mooks. Where are you going to find even demon-lords-in-training (or equivalents thereof) as warmup mooks?

Just a note, we literally did get "our party takes a waltz through the abyss murdering Demon Lords" in 1e without it ending with the party handling that little "Tar Baphon" problem. That was Wrath of the Righteous, and the party didn't even fix the entirety of the problem in the region. I'm fine if we get mythic/epic/whatever rules and it winds up just being for home games (I run those, I like creatures level 26+, not everything makes its way into APs anyways), but the world has already handled mythic adventures without them solving all world conflicts.


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

I'm kind of hoping, when/if mythic rules come around, Paizo goes in the same direction as Owlcat and turns your character into a powerful outsider or other legendary creature. In this fashion, it would be fun if the gods themselves actually became characters in your stories (not statted, but still involved), elevating your adventures to conflicts on a cosmic scale. While I understand the need to keep the gods distant in Pathfinder, would be really nice to see them in person, just a little.

Wrath of the Righteous spoilers:
Iomedae and Pharasma made fully-voiced voiced appearances in this game, and I swear I got goosebumps. Really cool stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

It seems like "mythic" would be really easy to do as a free archetype option where the archetype feats granted activities and abilities that push towards legendary from the beginning. You just would gain them right at level 1. Dedication feats could grant extra HP and something like a mythic surge ability and each could have class feats and skill feats built into it. Many of the PF1 mythic abilities could translate easily into feats like power attack or double slice, except give even more action economy benefits or narrative controlling features.

Make them rare or even possibly unique options and there really wouldn't be that many balance issues.

From the GM side, they would just need to develop some mythic templates similar to Elite that grant similar mythic feeling activity options, although I agree that most of the book would need to go towards guidance of how to make mythical feel like a higher tier of narrative power-based story telling, instead of "same story but with more powerful characters."

The Free Archehtype is option is what I keep imagining, yes.

For me, I see Mythic as a way to break the game. The math, yes, but other expectations as well, like minion rules, spell slot and other ability recovery, HP damage and recovery. It’s said that martials don’t get effective utility. So give them that, limited by mythic surges. And give casters martial tier DPR. I can almost envision a free form system like words of power where you assemble mythic abilities instead of choosing set ones, tailored to your specific character.

I would also dig a return of the “bloodied” condition from 4e. Because, frankly, limit breaks and boss phases were kind of fun to have in a TTRPG. I recall fondly a creature I homebrewed that had 2 bloodied phases at 2/3 and 1/3 health, based on WoW’s deathknight class (I think it went from frost to unholy to blood specs, but I’d have to find my notes).

This is all just spaghetti at the wall, but my basic point remains that Mythic could be a chance to play with the expectations of roles in the game without fundamentally altering those expectations, because it can be a completely separate system that need not interact directly with any current feat buckets, subsystems, or classes as written.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the core essence of mythic is that it lets you break the rules that characters are normally bound by. It could be something as simple as "you can have more than 3 focus points", it could be "you get a fourth action with no restrictions", it could be "you can use one/day powers more often than that". It shouldn't be about better math, or feats of great prowess (since non-mythic characters survive falls from space, steal a pair of pants while someone is wearing it, etc.) it should be about doing things that are not even possible for others.

Since the Mythic paths are things like the Champion, Hierophant, Trickster, etc. you're literally tapping into the power of narrative itself, which is something that's more potentially powerful than Gods (after all you can tell stories about Gods). There's a certain inevitability about you when you're mythic. One of the basic mythic powers should be something like plot armor- you literally can't die in a meaningless situation, pianos that would fall on your head when you're walking down the street always miss.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly wouldn't mind a "become kind of like a planar being" route for Mythic that the Owlcat game had. Here's hoping the 2e team doesn't feel too bound to what 1e had going on if and when they try to revisit the idea for this edition.

There's plenty of 1-20 plotlines and regular-scale player options I'd sooner see first, though. I think Mythic is years off at this point - Paizo only finished out the 'assumed core' books last year.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the core essence of mythic is that it lets you break the rules that characters are normally bound by. It could be something as simple as "you can have more than 3 focus points", it could be "you get a fourth action with no restrictions", it could be "you can use one/day powers more often than that". It shouldn't be about better math, or feats of great prowess (since non-mythic characters survive falls from space, steal a pair of pants while someone is wearing it, etc.) it should be about doing things that are not even possible for others.

Since the Mythic paths are things like the Champion, Hierophant, Trickster, etc. you're literally tapping into the power of narrative itself, which is something that's more potentially powerful than Gods (after all you can tell stories about Gods). There's a certain inevitability about you when you're mythic. One of the basic mythic powers should be something like plot armor- you literally can't die in a meaningless situation, pianos that would fall on your head when you're walking down the street always miss.

That was the middle perk from 1e's progression system iirc, the ability to not die from non-mythic sources. You go into a coma and then 12/24 hours later you pop up like literally nothing happened. I too would like the "take the normal limits and shatter them" route like the Focus Point or 4 actions idea, and think that's more the direction Paizo will end up going if they actually give us Mythic rules for 2e at some point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
There's plenty of 1-20 plotlines and regular-scale player options I'd sooner see first, though. I think Mythic is years off at this point - Paizo only finished out the 'assumed core' books last year.

Not sure if “finished out the ‘assumed core’ books last year” is actually a point against Mythic. Now that the baseline is established, they’ve said straight out that they want for the rulebook line books that would push a particular table towards one direction or another, much as how G&G can add a hefty dollop of steampunk and Book of the Dead allows for “we’re all dead down here”, but also able to be excluded wholesale if a group decides to not go that direction.

There’s also options I’d rather they tackle first, like organization rules, but unlike PF1, PF2 lacks a lot of options that allows players to feel like they can massively optimize or play what I’ve been calling “gonzo” tier, short of legendary skill feats kicking in at 15. And we can’t ignore that there’s a definite market for that, especially among PF1 players (former and current). If Mythic allows Paizo the ability to offer that, again without actually breaking the tight math they’ve established for the rest of them game, that might push it to a bit higher priority than it would have been in PF1.

Edit: another benefit I just thought of, thus would give a specific, definite silo for big power creep options to dwell that might buy us a few years of the main game. For example, that OP feat in Ruby Phoenix? What if the errata was to simply add the mythic tag?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
keftiu wrote:
There's plenty of 1-20 plotlines and regular-scale player options I'd sooner see first, though. I think Mythic is years off at this point - Paizo only finished out the 'assumed core' books last year.

Not sure if “finished out the ‘assumed core’ books last year” is actually a point against Mythic. Now that the baseline is established, they’ve said straight out that they want for the rulebook line books that would push a particular table towards one direction or another, much as how G&G can add a hefty dollop of steampunk and Book of the Dead allows for “we’re all dead down here”, but also able to be excluded wholesale if a group decides to not go that direction.

There’s also options I’d rather they tackle first, like organization rules, but unlike PF1, PF2 lacks a lot of options that allows players to feel like they can massively optimize or play what I’ve been calling “gonzo” tier, short of legendary skill feats kicking in at 15. And we can’t ignore that there’s a definite market for that, especially among PF1 players (former and current). If Mythic allows Paizo the ability to offer that, again without actually breaking the tight math they’ve established for the rest of them game, that might push it to a bit higher priority than it would have been in PF1.

I also think the success of the Wrath of the Righteous video game might put pressure on releasing a 2e equivalent of mythic sooner rather than later, trying to capture some of the enthusiasm for mythic from the game. Also Book of the Dead's monstrous archetypes might work as a sort of trial run for elements of mythic involving becoming a planar being, especially if the speculation about free archetypes being involved in mythic is on the right track.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

To be honest I will be happy with book focusing on any theme. Hope to see new martial and primal classes, but I wouldn't mind an Inquisitor.


GGSigmar wrote:
To be honest I will be happy with book focusing on any theme. Hope to see new martial and primal classes, but I wouldn't mind an Inquisitor.

Inquisitor is my last chance for a divine 2e class I like. The wait is tough.

Wayfinders

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With Book of the Dead around the corner and Dark Archive hype to start ramping up soon after, on top of PaizoCon being next month, I figured it might be a good opportunity to bring this back.

I still think that a book themed around alchemy is a strong contender - it's its own thing now both mechanically and narratively, different from its 1e presentation, yet we haven't had a proper deep dive on it in 2e yet - Guns & Gears touched on it a little, but mostly in the context of black powder. (There weren't even any new bombs!)

I want to know how alchemy works in-universe now, and give all manner of characters more ways to interface with it - really make it feel like it's a force on par with magic, and an equally potent vehicle for storytelling.
Lord knows that people would also appreciate some buffs and tweaks to the alchemist proper too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The years so far has been pretty themed, 2020-2021 has been pretty centered around Isle of Kortos and Absalom, mostly through the APs but also Lost Omens products like Absalom and Grand Bazaar, though early 2e was also a lot of just establishing the basics as well. We also had some Mwangi with Lost Omens and Strength of Thousands, Secrets of Magic ties a little into that as well.

2022 is the year of Impossible Lands with Book of the Dead (and Guns and Gears previous year), Lost Omens and two APs.

So I reckon by the time 2023 we will roll up to a new region and dive deeper into there. There has been some Arcadia stuff sprinkled in so far and there is definitely interest in it among the staff.

So maybe 2023 will be the year of Arcadia + rulebooks supporting that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onkonk wrote:
So maybe 2023 will be the year of Arcadia + rulebooks supporting that?

Nothing would make me happier. I’m a little skeptical we’d see something substantial on another continent so soon, but I’d be ecstatic to be wrong. The tough thing to imagine is the format - would we get another book like the World Guide for the whole continent, or would we just dive in with a regional book like the Mwangi one? My preference would be for the latter, but it sounds like a hard pitch internally.

Most importantly - what mechanical options pair with it? I’m not sure what classes would be in a relevant book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd love to see some Arcadia next year! However, given the sort of wistful way folks like Luis talk about wanting to do it, I'm not anticipating it's on next year's docket.

I don't have a better guess though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My more conservative guess is somewhere in Avistan, which has yet to get a region book in 2e; I’m hoping for a Broken Lands update if anything, though any other continent (rounding out Garund with a Golden Road book, returning to Tian Xia, going to Arcadia) would be my preference.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is a Lastwall book coming soon, not sure how that factors into the discussion -- it does combo a bit with Book of the Dead wrt Whispering Tyrant. I could see that leading into a meta-region book for the Eye of Dread Region. Could also see the 2e conversion of kingmaker adding weight for a broken lands meta-region book.

But neither of those bring to mind a rulebook line option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If Dark Archives is more "weird mysteries", than I could use a horror focused book. Good place for an inquisitor and/or shifter. Maybe even playable lycanthropes using the undead model.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

After doing KoL, Book of the Dead, Blood Lords, and a Lost Omens book that’ll deal a lot with Geb, I feel like we’re probably tapped for undead for a little while. I’d be /very/ surprised to see them double down on that for what would functionally be a second year in a row.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
If Dark Archives is more "weird mysteries", than I could use a horror focused book. Good place for an inquisitor and/or shifter. Maybe even playable lycanthropes using the undead model.

I thought the dark archive in lore hides horrid knowledge better left untouched


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
If Dark Archives is more "weird mysteries", than I could use a horror focused book. Good place for an inquisitor and/or shifter. Maybe even playable lycanthropes using the undead model.
I thought the dark archive in lore hides horrid knowledge better left untouched

Shhh! The first rule of Dark Archive lore is that we don't talk about Dark Archive lore.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
If Dark Archives is more "weird mysteries", than I could use a horror focused book. Good place for an inquisitor and/or shifter. Maybe even playable lycanthropes using the undead model.
I thought the dark archive in lore hides horrid knowledge better left untouched

I mean, if the Pathfinder Society is to be believed. Lol


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d certainly welcome a divine-focused book, for a number of reasons: a 2e Inquisitor, of course, but also more Champion Causes (for LN and CN, or not tied to alignment at all), some stuff to help followers of Neutral gods out, perk up the Divine spell list… a lot of stuff folks want could fit between the covers. There’s definitely faiths (Sarkorian God-Callers! Arcadian and Tian gods!) and churches (/please/ show me what Casandalee’s cult is up to!) that deserve some more in-depth looks.

The problem is where on Golarion to pair with such a thing.

101 to 150 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Release after Dark Archive All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.