Impossible Magic - General Discussion

[Kalaam]

Speaking of runesmith, I really hope we get a ton of runes with niche effects to make combos with.

[Gaulin]

Yeah I'm very excited for final release of runesmith. I hope damage runes get toned down but have more variety (not all fort saves) and have more diatretic (sp?) runes. And the hands/weapon wielding issue resolved. But runesmith might have the most potential of any playtest class we've had in my opinion.

[Alkarius]

Claxon wrote:

Of course spellstrike via dedication is awful and not worth it IMO. And nothing else the magus dedication offers is really worth it either.

I have to slightly disagree with you on this.

Choosing your Hybrid Study Conflux Spell (probably Dimensional Assault) is arguably better with the dedication than the Magus class since your not railroaded by your fighting style. Even though it doesn't recharge Spellstrike, they are still great 1 action uses of a Focus Point. As much as I would like to see the Magus get a feat similar to Parallel Breakthrough, Dimensional Assault would likely be the shoe-in. Kind of a design issue though, since it shouldn't be better via the dedication over the class.

Also, one Spellstrike per combat is pretty solid. Since you cant Recharge anyway, it's a flat action economy boost albeit only once. If combat only lasts 3-4 rounds and you time it with buffs/debuffs it makes for an epic nova when you might need it, and 1 is enough. Put it on a Fighter and your Spellstriking harder than a Magus can.

That said, I agree with you the rest of the feats are meh.

[Claxon]

Alkarius wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Of course spellstrike via dedication is awful and not worth it IMO. And nothing else the magus dedication offers is really worth it either.

I have to slightly disagree with you on this.

Choosing your Hybrid Study Conflux Spell (probably Dimensional Assault) is arguably better with the dedication than the Magus class since your not railroaded by your fighting style. Even though it doesn't recharge Spellstrike, they are still great 1 action uses of a Focus Point. As much as I would like to see the Magus get a feat similar to Parallel Breakthrough, Dimensional Assault would likely be the shoe-in. Kind of a design issue though, since it shouldn't be better via the dedication over the class.

Also, one Spellstrike per combat is pretty solid. Since you cant Recharge anyway, it's a flat action economy boost albeit only once. If combat only lasts 3-4 rounds and you time it with buffs/debuffs it makes for an epic nova when you might need it, and 1 is enough. Put it on a Fighter and your Spellstriking harder than a Magus can.

That said, I agree with you the rest of the feats are meh.

You know what, you have a fair point.

My thought/analysis was on the idea of trying to make a character that does the PF1 style type magus thing. Thinking about like making a fighter character who wanted a dash of spell striking. And in that vein it's terrible.

But if mostly you're just dipping into magus to get the hybrid study focus spell, along with a once per combat spell strike knowing that's all you're getting...well I'm not sure it's better than taking your fighter feats but maybe it's okay. I guess managing expectations is important here.

Once per combat spell strike and one per combat (honestly maybe more) focus spell for teleport and attack as a single action isn't bad. Although you need 3 class feats (dedication, hybrid study spell, and spell striker). I don't personally think the feat cost is worth it, but maybe it is to some people.

[ScooterScoots]

R:E: Automaton and golem ancestry:

You can just reflavor automaton to be a golem. Like just say they you’re a golem built by x, not an automaton. Most (all?) of the feats have mechanics that fit this, it’s literally just flavor.

Won’t help you if you’re in PFS and can’t reflavor but for any home game it’s fine.

[Prince Maleus]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Prince Maleus wrote:

Any speculations on new and Remastered Magics from the Book of Unlimited Magic section?

Elemental and Rune Magic have both been remastered in Rage of Elements and Rival Academies.

But what about Shadow Magic or Ley Lines?(These two were my personal favorites)

Back when Secrets of Magic was announced, I remember Erik Mona said the was a Blood Magic section that was cut for spacing but would get added to a more appropriate themed book.
That's something I'd like to see as well.

What other types of Magic would you like to see?

I actually asked about the Blood Magic later, and got the answer that it was apparently not-actually-written, just planned.

Ahhhhh. But I want to wield both Blood and Shadow Magic!

[The-Magic-Sword]

Prince Maleus wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Prince Maleus wrote:

Any speculations on new and Remastered Magics from the Book of Unlimited Magic section?

Elemental and Rune Magic have both been remastered in Rage of Elements and Rival Academies.

But what about Shadow Magic or Ley Lines?(These two were my personal favorites)

Back when Secrets of Magic was announced, I remember Erik Mona said the was a Blood Magic section that was cut for spacing but would get added to a more appropriate themed book.
That's something I'd like to see as well.

What other types of Magic would you like to see?

I actually asked about the Blood Magic later, and got the answer that it was apparently not-actually-written, just planned.

Ahhhhh. But I want to wield both Blood and Shadow Magic!

We did get Sanguimancer since, and there was a suggestion in the lore for that a separate bloatmage would be occurring.

[Prince Maleus]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Prince Maleus wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Prince Maleus wrote:

Any speculations on new and Remastered Magics from the Book of Unlimited Magic section?

Elemental and Rune Magic have both been remastered in Rage of Elements and Rival Academies.

But what about Shadow Magic or Ley Lines?(These two were my personal favorites)

Back when Secrets of Magic was announced, I remember Erik Mona said the was a Blood Magic section that was cut for spacing but would get added to a more appropriate themed book.
That's something I'd like to see as well.

What other types of Magic would you like to see?

I actually asked about the Blood Magic later, and got the answer that it was apparently not-actually-written, just planned.

Ahhhhh. But I want to wield both Blood and Shadow Magic!

We did get Sanguimancer since, and there was a suggestion in the lore for that a separate bloatmage would be occurring.

This is true.

[moosher12]

ScooterScoots wrote:

Won’t help you if you’re in PFS and can’t reflavor but for any home game it’s fine.

Which sort of reinforces the point.

You can do whatever you want when you're reflavoring. Just ask the 5E players. You can technically reflavor a dwarf into a golem. Don't even need an Automaton for that. But that's why I said, "In a Lost Omens game." And when PFS society is a thing, I'm pretty sure PFS players would want their option, too.

And considering Paizo makes their decisions based on player metrics, PFS player grievances would have a more direct path to being heard by developers. It's not like the average home games are gonna be likely to report back their thoughts.

[Errenor]

moosher12 wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Won’t help you if you’re in PFS and can’t reflavor but for any home game it’s fine.

Which sort of reinforces the point.

You can do whatever you want when you're reflavoring. Just ask the 5E players. You can technically reflavor a dwarf into a golem. Don't even need an Automaton for that. But that's why I said, "In a Lost Omens game." And when PFS society is a thing, I'm pretty sure PFS players would want their option, too.

Does PFS really restrict reflavoring like that? I don't remember this. Who and what cares how you describe your mechanically automaton character? Crazy players or GMs? "No, I looked into your character list, your PC is an automaton, you got the lore all wrong, change it right now or else!!!" Like this?

Because you have to be completely obsessed to try to meddle with someone else's character like this.

[moosher12]

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Won’t help you if you’re in PFS and can’t reflavor but for any home game it’s fine.

Which sort of reinforces the point.

You can do whatever you want when you're reflavoring. Just ask the 5E players. You can technically reflavor a dwarf into a golem. Don't even need an Automaton for that. But that's why I said, "In a Lost Omens game." And when PFS society is a thing, I'm pretty sure PFS players would want their option, too.

Does PFS really restrict reflavoring like that? I don't remember this. Who and what cares how you describe your mechanically automaton character? Crazy players or GMs? "No, I looked into your character list, your PC is an automaton, you got the lore all wrong, change it right now or else!!!" Like this?

Because you have to be completely obsessed to try to meddle with someone else's character like this.

You get the cards you're dealt. Can't rely on every GM you encounter in an organized fashion to be permissive. Just because the two of us would be permissive with our players, does not mean other GMs are. But if you're gonna play a game in an official capacity, the default assumption is that lore and flavor applies as is canon, and anything else is just a bonus, not an entitlement. You can ask for a reflavoring, but if a GM says no, it's no. Not so bad when you're running something tertiary like a weapon, but when the thing you're reflavoring is your entire ancestry, that's where you can run into a problem where the character was fine one game, then you get to the next game, and have your character denied outright. You can call that GM a bad GM if you want, but sometimes that's the GM you got.

But the rules protect the player. You don't have to argue with a GM whether your reflavoring is within bounds if you can just do the thing without testing those bounds in the first place.

high-tech-low-life on Reddit wrote:

I've had PFS GMs be sticklers and not allow reflavoring anything. Most of us don't care what you call things. But if it is a war razor, then mechanically that is what it is.

[Squark]

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Won’t help you if you’re in PFS and can’t reflavor but for any home game it’s fine.

Which sort of reinforces the point.

You can do whatever you want when you're reflavoring. Just ask the 5E players. You can technically reflavor a dwarf into a golem. Don't even need an Automaton for that. But that's why I said, "In a Lost Omens game." And when PFS society is a thing, I'm pretty sure PFS players would want their option, too.

Does PFS really restrict reflavoring like that? I don't remember this. Who and what cares how you describe your mechanically automaton character? Crazy players or GMs? "No, I looked into your character list, your PC is an automaton, you got the lore all wrong, change it right now or else!!!" Like this?

Because you have to be completely obsessed to try to meddle with someone else's character like this.

Yeah, provided you're not trying to finangle some sort of mechanical advantage, PFS is reasonably tolerant of reflavoring in my experience.

[Tridus]

Errenor wrote:

Does PFS really restrict reflavoring like that? I don't remember this. Who and what cares how you describe your mechanically automaton character? Crazy players or GMs? "No, I looked into your character list, your PC is an automaton, you got the lore all wrong, change it right now or else!!!" Like this?

Because you have to be completely obsessed to try to meddle with someone else's character like this.

PFS itself doesn't care. Long as it doesn't change how it works you can describe your character largely however you want and it doesn't really matter.

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

[Errenor]

Squark wrote:

Yeah, provided you're not trying to finangle some sort of mechanical advantage, PFS is reasonably tolerant of reflavoring in my experience.

Tridus wrote:

PFS itself doesn't care. Long as it doesn't change how it works you can describe your character largely however you want and it doesn't really matter.

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

Thank you, I thought so. And of course I meant complying with mechanics, not trying to change something mechanical because of reflavoring.

The thing with stickler GMs I don't understand. PFS scenarios mostly don't even care what and who PCs are. They are Pathfinders, that's all. If you are describing your char as a metal humanoid, who is even going to try to elicit more? Who even has time for this in a PFS game?
Well, though I can imagine some scenario concerning automatons having some additions in case a PC is an automaton. And if a PC is not considered automaton by its player and the GM doesn't know, it maybe could cause some disconnect. But still it's not a big problem. Well, shouldn't be.

[moosher12]

Tridus wrote:

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

Out of curiosity, I read and hear about these folks from time to time, but have had the fortune to not have to deal with one myself. Is there any recourse when dealing with one through the system? Or is it something you just have to deal with or find another GM.

[Errenor]

moosher12 wrote:

Tridus wrote:

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

Out of curiosity, I read and hear about these folks from time to time, but have had the fortune to not have to deal with one myself. Is there any recourse when dealing with one through the system? Or is it something you just have to deal with or find another GM.

There's a guide for PFS. And as it maybe expected it says basically nothing about reflavoring (expect for GMs to remove potentionally problematic elements of scenarios like spiders). The most close thing is general phrases like: "we intend that all participants may enjoy gaming in a fun and safe environment. Participants are expected to respect their fellow players and work together to create positive and memorable experiences." So, PC's cosmetic reflavoring definitely isn't forbidden by the campaign rules. GMs which forbid that basically violate at least the spirit of the PFS guide. Players can adress "Venture-Officers" about such problems. Whether this would help or even be considered serious I don't know. They weren't helpful at all when some Oracle characters were or could become basically broken because of Remaster implementation in PFS.

[moosher12]

Yeah, unfortunate it doesn't say much, and while there are obvious things like reaffirming player identity through character expression and helping to fulfill certain fantasies, I guess problematically, what constitutes reasonable accomodations can vary from person to person. So a lack of clarity on that is frustrationg

For example, treating an automaton as a cyborg or a golem could be considered reasonable. Once let a player be a kobold with the automaton mixed heritage to be a clockwork cyborg, for example.

Though I once had to draw the line after I had another player say they wanted to play an 8-foot-tall Changeling that was gaunt with no face and had Barney the Dinosaur tell them to do things. I at first laughed it off as them jesting, but found myself surprised when I asked them if they were serious to find they were 100% serious, and after a week of weighing just letting them have it and vetoing it, I eventually decided to veto it. (Guess that's the result of people who learn of ttrpgs through things like Critical Roll and Avantris).

And it's that murkiness that worries me. In these two cases, there is a clear black and white. One is clearly reasonable, and one is clearly unreasonable (to me at least), but there will be cases that will straddle closer to that line. And the closer the straddling, the more variation on when a GM will say yes or no. I wouldn't be surprised if there are GMs that would consider my allowance of a cyborg unreasonable. While there is probably some GMs that would consider the changeling a fun idea and want to run with it.

But now that I recall that story, it makes me realize, that if I got that same request today, I would have pointed that player to consider playing a Yaoguai instead of a Changeling because a Yaoguai allows that sort of weirdness. Having official content to support the fantasy more directly will lead GMs to be more receptive to these sorts of things.

[Errenor]

moosher12 wrote:

For example, treating an automaton as a cyborg or a golem could be considered reasonable. Once let a player be a kobold with the automaton mixed heritage to be a clockwork cyborg, for example.

Ok, this here looks extremely questionable. I wrote what PFS guide doesn't specify, but what it specifies very well is mechanics. And Mixed heritages is mechanics of character and it's a homebrew by definition (apart from available Versatile heritages). There's no Automaton Versatile heritage. Moreover, Mixed Heritages are explicitly Limited (which almost means forbidden) with this explanation (very understandable):

"Limited
Custom Mixed Heritages (page 82) - this requires too much GM overhead to make broadly accessible. The Organized Play team will look to create opportunities to create additional mixed heritages in the future."
Is there PFS Boon for Automaton Mixed Heritage? Did the player have it? I can't find anything like this.
Another thing, there are a lot of already existing clockwork cyborgs in the system: rare backgrounds Mechanical Symbiosis, Saved by Clockwork (which aren't in PFS) and Sterling Dynamo dedication (which is available in PFS). There are probably more.
Also, I admit that there are limits to mine understanding and permissiveness too :) For example, treating a mechanical automaton as a narrative 'cyborg' is ok for me. 'Golems' is more questionable: they are a specific thing in the lore now. On the other hand, if a home campaign uses official lore, I don't think I would allow (homebrew) Automaton mixed ancestry heritage itself: it makes almost no sense. And the only thing Adopted Ancestry feat could give you from Automaton is Automaton Lore feat.

[ScooterScoots]

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

[Errenor]

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

It's another way around: this is a versatile heritage to Automaton ancestry. And... even that is mostly discouraged right in the ancestry.

ScooterScoots wrote:

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

None of those make sense because "as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM". And all Automaton feats apart from lore are fully based on their mechanical body. You say, you can get some similar effects from somewhere else? Good, get them from somewhere else. From an elf or a sorcerer in this case.

[ScooterScoots]

Errenor wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

It's another way around: this is a versatile heritage to Automaton ancestry. And... even that is mostly discouraged right in the ancestry.

I don’t see much a difference between base ancestry human heritage automaton and the other way around. Either one seems a reasonable representation of being an automaton constructed from a human soul. And I don’t know what you’re talking about with the automaton ancestry discouraging this, it literally says some individuals retain their personality and memories, and that “ a powerful soul might still be able to manifest the features of their heritage they had prior to transfer to an automaton body”. Sure, most automatons don’t, but player characters aren’t most automatons. That you’re special is kinda why you’re a PC.

Errenor wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

None of those make sense because "as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM". And all Automaton feats apart from lore are fully based on their mechanical body. You say, you can get some similar effects from somewhere else? Good, get them from somewhere else. From an elf or a sorcerer in this case.

The text of arcane eye:

“Your eye has been magically enhanced to pierce darkness. You gain darkvision.

Enhancement Your eye can see invisible creatures in brief spurts. You can cast see invisibility as an arcane innate spell once per hour.”

That sounds like the sort of the that could happen to anyone with an eye through numerous methods of magical enhancement. There’s nothing there that’s unique to being a robot, you have a magic eye. Most forms of ancestry magic could plausibly do that. Being a wizard could plausibly do that. Being a sorcerer could. There’s no psychological feature you lack. This isn’t a feat to make your tail better at grabbing things when you don’t have a tail. Your eye is becoming magically enhanced, and you have an eye to be enhanced.

Poppet with integrated armament is a bit different, but… you’re a constructed creature. Why can’t you have a corset knife sewn into you? That makes perfect sense for a poppet, it doesn’t rely on anything a poppet couldn’t reasonably do. If you saw some poppet NPC in an AP and they had a knife hidden in them you’d think that’s on brand, makes sense they can do that. What’s so wrong with a player wanting to do that?

[Kitusser]

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

Yeah, it could also just have been a partial transformation to begin with. I don't think the lore contradicts this, and it would make sense within the universe.

[moosher12]

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

For example, treating an automaton as a cyborg or a golem could be considered reasonable. Once let a player be a kobold with the automaton mixed heritage to be a clockwork cyborg, for example.

Ok, this here looks extremely questionable. I wrote what PFS guide doesn't specify, but what it specifies very well is mechanics. And Mixed heritages is mechanics of character and it's a homebrew by definition (apart from available Versatile heritages). There's no Automaton Versatile heritage. Moreover, Mixed Heritages are explicitly Limited (which almost means forbidden) with this explanation (very understandable)

moosher12 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if there are GMs that would consider my allowance of a cyborg unreasonable.

And therefore my point of GM variance is proven. Different GMs have different interpretations on what constitutes reasonable reflavoring. That is why edge cases being turned into first-party options are important. Because one GM's "Just reflavor this," is often another GM's, "No, you cannot be that, it's not supported." For example, the solution that diffuses that argument is if Paizo released a versatile heritage that turned someone into a cyborg. But until then, reflavoring a mixed heritage off of things like Android, Automaton or SRO will be the only real option if you want a cyborg character.

Returning back to the subject at hand: The Awakened Construct. One GM's "just reflavor X" is another GM's "it's not supported, no." A player is not sure whether they can be one by reflavoring an automaton until they meet the GM, who may say yes, or who may say no. An Awakened Construct is useful to have, because that guarantees the player the road to the fantasy. Instead of leaving it up to these capricious GM whims.

[moosher12]

Kitusser wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

Yeah, it could also just have been a partial transformation to begin with. I don't think the lore contradicts this, and it would make sense within the universe.

Yeap, in this character's case it was a kobold who was born with a failing heart. A sibling who was a clockwork surgeon of some sort operated on them and gave them an artificial clockwork heart. And has been operating on them to give them numerous clockwork augmentations, until they were old enough to operate on themselves. They are not a soul in a soul cage driving a chassis, they are a kobold with various built-in clockwork augmentations that are a part of them. As I said, a cyborg. They would fit neither the definition of an android (a biomechanical life form run on nanomachines), or an automaton (a human soul in a soul cage piloting a chassis). There is no ancestry that really supports the fantasy directly. So the answer was the obvious, "Reflavor the closest thing." And we ran with the Automaton for it, as it had the closest overlap with what clockworks were capable of. And the reason it was a kobold with an automaton heritage and not an automaton with a kobold heritage is that neither of us felt that the kobold should have the construct benefits, as they were still alive. Just the feats to represent the augmentations.

In PF1E terms, they would have been a half-construct.

[Kitusser]

moosher12 wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

Yeah, it could also just have been a partial transformation to begin with. I don't think the lore contradicts this, and it would make sense within the universe.

Yeap, in this character's case it was a kobold who was born with a failing heart. A sibling who was a clockwork surgeon of some sort operated on them and gave them an artificial clockwork heart. And has been operating on them to give them numerous clockwork augmentations, until they were old enough to operate on themselves. They are not a soul in a soul cage driving a chassis, they are a kobold with various built-in clockwork augmentations that are a part of them. As I said, a cyborg. They would fit neither the definition of an android (a biomechanical life form run on nanomachines), or an automaton (a human soul in a soul cage piloting a chassis). There is no ancestry that really supports the fantasy directly. So the answer was the obvious, "Reflavor the closest thing." And we ran with the Automaton for it, as it had the closest overlap with what clockworks were capable of. And the reason it was a kobold with an automaton heritage and not an automaton with a kobold heritage is that neither of us felt that the kobold should have the construct benefits, as they were still alive. Just the feats to represent the augmentations.

In PF1E terms, they would have been a half-construct.

Perfectly reasonable. I don't see why this would even be an issue for anyone.

[Errenor]

ScooterScoots wrote:

I don’t see much a difference between base ancestry human heritage automaton and the other way around.

I do.

ScooterScoots wrote:

Errenor wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

None of those make sense because "as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM". And all Automaton feats apart from lore are fully based on their mechanical body. You say, you can get some similar effects from somewhere else? Good, get them from somewhere else. From an elf or a sorcerer in this case.

The text of arcane eye:

“Your eye has been magically enhanced to pierce darkness. You gain darkvision.

Enhancement Your eye can see invisible creatures in brief spurts. You can cast see invisibility as an arcane innate spell once per hour.”

That sounds like the sort of the that could happen to anyone with an eye through numerous methods of magical...

You pretend that this feat is some general feat. It is not. It's a feat for a fully (magical-) mechanical ancestry with a very specific lore. So, yes, it's very definite that this eye is because of their magical-mechanical nature. It's just as true as you can't get any of elven adaptability feats (if they exist) or some feats which depend on elven life span through Adopted ancestry.

Besides, I didn't include the text "as determined by the GM" for nothing. I, as a GM, desided so, there's nothing to argue about.

[moosher12]

Errenor wrote:

It's a feat for a fully (magical-) mechanical ancestry with a very specific lore.

So when a GM might deny Automatons being reflavored as golems because they have a "very specific lore," the GM is being unnecessarily stingy, but when you do it it is fine?

Very specific Lore is not the argument to use. As we all just agreed that it is the stingy GMs that deny things based on "because it has specific Lore."

Errenor wrote:

Who and what cares how you describe your mechanically automaton character? Crazy players or GMs? "No, I looked into your character list, your PC is an automaton, you got the lore all wrong, change it right now or else!!!" Like this?

Because you have to be completely obsessed to try to meddle with someone else's character like this.

Tridus wrote:

PFS itself doesn't care. Long as it doesn't change how it works you can describe your character largely however you want and it doesn't really matter.

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

Errenor wrote:

The thing with stickler GMs I don't understand. PFS scenarios mostly don't even care what and who PCs are. They are Pathfinders, that's all. If you are describing your char as a metal humanoid, who is even going to try to elicit more? Who even has time for this in a PFS game?

But I'll repeat my argument again. Every GM has a line. And is a stickler to some point. I stated that the player is not guaranteed what they want want because the GM who says it's fine and the GM who says it's not fine both exist, and frankly, both are valid. There is no one right answer to this. But, seeing you call other GMs who draw a line beyond comprehension while talking as you are is the amusing irony. But it is a very common irony that a lot of people don't seem to grasp. A lot of GMs think they know it right, when in reality, they are just exercising their personal preferences. Because in the end, TTRPGs are games, and games are art, and art is fluid and subject to perception. The perceptions of what makes art 'good' varies by what a person finds interesting, what their personal stakes and ideals and interests regarding the piece are. So here's the thing. The GM's are not wrong. They are just different. You are not wrong for the decision you made. But neither is the GM who denied the reflavored ancestry, just because you think it's wrong. That's the problem with GMs being different, players are not entitled to things unless they get first party support. Whether a GM is up to allowing their custom thing is a bonus, not an entitlement, and if the GM says no, the majority of the time, the GM is not in the wrong for it. That GM just has a different impression of how the game should be.

If you want to bring these GMs in agreement, the only option is standardization, and the primary point of standardization we have is first-party content.

[Kitusser]

Errenor wrote:

You pretend that this feat is some general feat. It is not. It's a feat for a fully (magical-) mechanical ancestry with a very specific lore. So, yes, it's very definite that this eye is because of their magical-mechanical nature. It's just as true as you can't get any of elven adaptability feats (if they exist) or some feats which depend on elven life span through Adopted ancestry.

Besides, I didn't include the text "as determined by the GM" for nothing. I, as a GM, desided so, there's nothing to argue about.

By this logic, literally every single feat from the automaton can't be used for the purposes of adopted ancestry. This analysis needs to be done on a feat by feat basis, based on what the feat says in it's text.

But like, to be real. The mechanised nature is so much easier to replicate in another ancestry. Magical prosthetics already exist in the game, this is basically a sidestep from that, even less so because the feat doesn't actually specify anything mechanical in it.

Also wasn't this originally about custom mixed heritage anyway?

[moosher12]

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

[Kitusser]

moosher12 wrote:

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC?

[Squark]

Kitusser wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC?

It's officially suggested homebrew/a variant rule. It has whatever restrictions the GM sets (with some of the elf and Aiuvarin feats providing precedent).

[Tridus]

Squark wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC?

It's officially suggested homebrew/a variant rule. It has whatever restrictions the GM sets (with some of the elf and Aiuvarin feats providing precedent).

That can run into PFS issues though, as variant rules generally aren't allowed unless PFS says they are. Ditto with suggestions that are in the book. An example is Merfolk in Howl of the Wild: the book has a sidebar suggesting that a GM simply let a player have the level 9 feat that gives them legs early if its a land based campaign. A PFS GM can't follow that advice.

In a home game a GM absolutely can choose to do that. I have one in my AV game and the party is convinced they're secretly a water elemental in disguise. It's awesome.

Errenor wrote:

Squark wrote:

Yeah, provided you're not trying to finangle some sort of mechanical advantage, PFS is reasonably tolerant of reflavoring in my experience.

Tridus wrote:

PFS itself doesn't care. Long as it doesn't change how it works you can describe your character largely however you want and it doesn't really matter.

You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.

Thank you, I thought so. And of course I meant complying with mechanics, not trying to change something mechanical because of reflavoring.

The thing with stickler GMs I don't understand. PFS scenarios mostly don't even care what and who PCs are. They are Pathfinders, that's all. If you are describing your char as a metal humanoid, who is even going to try to elicit more? Who even has time for this in a PFS game?
Well, though I can imagine some scenario concerning automatons having some additions in case a PC is an automaton. And if a PC is not considered automaton by its player and the GM doesn't know, it maybe could cause some disconnect. But still it's not a big problem. Well, shouldn't be.

It's tricky because the rules can't spell everything out in terms of what's allowed without putting a lot of blanket bans on things, which they (rightfully) prefer not to do in a creative game.

I remember years ago D&D had a whole controversy about if Tieflings can be certain colours or not. I never understood why it mattered. But this stuff does matter to some people's sense of world consistency and such.

I think the best approach is to try to talk to a GM you haven't played this character with before the game and make clear what ancestry you are and that you're following all mechanics fully: what you're doing is narrative only. My experience is that the vast majority of GMs are going to be cool with that.

If you get one of the other ones, unfortunately there isn't much you can really do except skip that stuff during that session and then not play with that GM again. But your character is legal so they have no grounds to disallow it.

Errenor wrote:

They weren't helpful at all when some Oracle characters were or could become basically broken because of Remaster implementation in PFS.

Seriously. I don't know why Paizo decided to shoot themselves in the foot like that.

[Errenor]

Kitusser wrote:

Errenor wrote:

You pretend that this feat is some general feat. It is not. It's a feat for a fully (magical-) mechanical ancestry with a very specific lore. So, yes, it's very definite that this eye is because of their magical-mechanical nature. It's just as true as you can't get any of elven adaptability feats (if they exist) or some feats which depend on elven life span through Adopted ancestry.

Besides, I didn't include the text "as determined by the GM" for nothing. I, as a GM, desided so, there's nothing to argue about.

By this logic, literally every single feat from the automaton can't be used for the purposes of adopted ancestry. This analysis needs to be done on a feat by feat basis, based on what the feat says in it's text.

Yes, yes, exactly! You understand now! And I did that analysis. Well, apart from lore feat, it can be used.

Kitusser wrote:

But like, to be real. The mechanised nature is so much easier to replicate in another ancestry. Magical prosthetics already exist in the game, this is basically a sidestep from that, even less so because the feat doesn't actually specify anything mechanical in it.

Let's get real. Have you actually read Adopted ancestry feat? It's about social things only. No prosthetics, no surgery, no weird science, no even magic apart from learning it maybe. So any argument "but you can change your body!" is absolutely irrelevant.

Kitusser wrote:

Also wasn't this originally about custom mixed heritage anyway?

It was. I just mentioned the feat as an example that Automaton is a very special ancestry. But ScooterScoots couldn't avoid telling me how wrong I am about it.

And btw, the start of the thread was about fully cosmetic thing. And I am still ok about allowing cosmetic things. Both mixed heritage and adopted ancestry are very much mechanical issues. They are totally different cases.

[Squark]

Tridus wrote:

Squark wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC?

It's officially suggested homebrew/a variant rule. It has whatever restrictions the GM sets (with some of the elf and Aiuvarin feats providing precedent).

That can run into PFS issues though, as variant rules generally aren't allowed unless PFS says they are. Ditto with suggestions that are in the book. An example is Merfolk in Howl of the Wild: the book has a sidebar suggesting that a GM simply let a player have the level 9 feat that gives them legs early if its a land based campaign. A PFS GM can't follow that advice.

Yes PFS doesn't allow custom mixed ancestries at this time. PFS Merfolk do actually get Shore Gift for free, though, per official rulings.

[Tridus]

Squark wrote:

PFS Merfolk do actually get Shore Gift for free, though, per official rulings.

Oh cool! I should have looked before posting hah. That's a good ruling though.

[The-Magic-Sword]

moosher12 wrote:

Though I once had to draw the line after I had another player say they wanted to play an 8-foot-tall Changeling that was gaunt with no face and had Barney the Dinosaur tell them to do things. I at first laughed it off as them jesting, but found myself surprised when I asked them if they were serious to find they were 100% serious, and after a week of weighing just letting them have it and vetoing it, I eventually decided to veto it. (Guess that's the result of people who learn of ttrpgs through things like Critical Roll and Avantris).

You have a truly fascinating idea of what goes on at critical role's table.

[moosher12]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Though I once had to draw the line after I had another player say they wanted to play an 8-foot-tall Changeling that was gaunt with no face and had Barney the Dinosaur tell them to do things. I at first laughed it off as them jesting, but found myself surprised when I asked them if they were serious to find they were 100% serious, and after a week of weighing just letting them have it and vetoing it, I eventually decided to veto it. (Guess that's the result of people who learn of ttrpgs through things like Critical Roll and Avantris).

You have a truly fascinating idea of what goes on at critical role's table.

To be fair, the only Critical Role stuff I had the time to watch to watch was the one shots, one of which was an MLP one several years back where one player had an obsession with poop. The one-shots as a whole got pretty weird or silly at times.

I'm sure the main campaigns were played more straight. But as the meme goes. Aint nobody got time for dat. (Well some folks do, but I certainly don't. I barely started giving it a try with Avantris, and boy is it a slow crawl. Fun, but I have no idea how people manage to slot these things in.)

[TheTownsend]

moosher12 wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Though I once had to draw the line after I had another player say they wanted to play an 8-foot-tall Changeling that was gaunt with no face and had Barney the Dinosaur tell them to do things. I at first laughed it off as them jesting, but found myself surprised when I asked them if they were serious to find they were 100% serious, and after a week of weighing just letting them have it and vetoing it, I eventually decided to veto it. (Guess that's the result of people who learn of ttrpgs through things like Critical Roll and Avantris).

You have a truly fascinating idea of what goes on at critical role's table.

To be fair, the only Critical Role stuff I had the time to watch to watch was the one shots, one of which was an MLP one several years back where one player had an obsession with poop. The one-shots as a whole got pretty weird or silly at times.

I'm sure the main campaigns were played more straight. But as the meme goes. Aint nobody got time for dat. (Well some folks do, but I certainly don't. I barely started giving it a try with Avantris, and boy is it a slow crawl. Fun, but I have no idea how people manage to slot these things in.)

I could not get into their Witchlight campaign for the life of me. It was too much in the jokes! They didn't leave enough space for actual story to happen! Makes for good animated clips on instagram, but as longform storytelling I bounced off it.

Stardust Rhapsody: Anthem, however, much more my speed. Takes itself a little more seriously, while leaving space for how silly some of the characters are, and has a fun 90s anime sci-fi vibe. Clearly builds on a lot of the same bedrock as Starfinder, actually.

[moosher12]

So as not to get too off topic I'll post my thoughts for Avantris, but then leave it at that:

Had a lot of fun with Dimwits of Dimwood, and just learned they did a space version, looking forward to it. Witchlight is... It has it's moments, but it can be a slog. Made it to Episode 38, but knowing I'm only about halfway through after a half-year of trying to catch up is just, daunting... It's been about a month since I was able to watch an episode, and finding time to watch one is just hard to slot.

Still need to get around to trying Stardust Rhapsody. I might catch Uproot-a-Rama as that's the first one where I can feel like I'm entering at the ground floor.

[Crystal Caves Mystic]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I really hope they add more feats for the Stone, Wave and Flame order Druids in this book. They were introduced in SoM so it seems like they SHOULD get some love, but with the Magus and Summoner getting new love, there might not be room. In any case, I am crossing my fingers and hoping for the best for my Druids! I'll be excited to play the Druid with some new heritages coming out in "another book" this November!

[moosher12]

The 2026 Paizo Catalogue has a close up of both the iconic necromancer and the iconic runesmith on page 20. Link to it is HERE.

[BotBrain]

Yeah the runesmith is definetly not a jistkan automaton. Either there's a lore expansion coming detailing modern automatons or we're getting some flavour of awakened contruct heritage.

[TheTownsend]

At the same time they're clearly not new. In both art pieces you can clearly tell their armor is dinged up and well worn, so I don't think the narrative is going to be "Somebody in Nex finally cracked the Jistkan formula and we can make Automatons again but with this fresh new design."

[keftiu]

BotBrain wrote:

Yeah the runesmith is definetly not a jistkan automaton. Either there's a lore expansion coming detailing modern automatons or we're getting some flavour of awakened contruct heritage.

I'd previously thought/hoped they might be a Wyrwood, but the art's looking less and less like that.

[moosher12]

Plus, Pathfinder 1E, Bestiary 3 had the awakened clockwork servant. PF1E Bestiary 3 is likely fresh in the minds of Paizo developers, as many creatures from this book have been ported to Monster Core 2.

[Perpdepog]

I really hope we get an awakened clockwork construct ancestry; constructs are one of my favorite creature types, and clockwork is one of my favorite varieties of construct.

[Squark]

TheTownsend wrote:

At the same time they're clearly not new. In both art pieces you can clearly tell their armor is dinged up and well worn, so I don't think the narrative is going to be "Somebody in Nex finally cracked the Jistkan formula and we can make Automatons again but with this fresh new design."

And while it might be stylistic differences, there's a lot of differences between the Runesmith in its solo page compared to the cover. I wonder if that's set in the past, and the cover page shows them after extensive repairs?

I mean, the bottom page looks like a magnificent statue that's been battered by the elements for decades or centuries. The cover page looks like that statue had to be put back together in a cave with a box of scraps. Possibly by its own hands.

[Dubious Scholar]

TheTownsend wrote:

At the same time they're clearly not new. In both art pieces you can clearly tell their armor is dinged up and well worn, so I don't think the narrative is going to be "Somebody in Nex finally cracked the Jistkan formula and we can make Automatons again but with this fresh new design."

There were some hints about someone having cracked the code on them at some point? I think it was like, somewhere in Axis though. I'd have to dig through my books later to be sure.

[TheTownsend]

Squark wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

At the same time they're clearly not new. In both art pieces you can clearly tell their armor is dinged up and well worn, so I don't think the narrative is going to be "Somebody in Nex finally cracked the Jistkan formula and we can make Automatons again but with this fresh new design."

And while it might be stylistic differences, there's a lot of differences between the Runesmith in its solo page compared to the cover. I wonder if that's set in the past, and the cover page shows them after extensive repairs?

I mean, the bottom page looks like a magnificent statue that's been battered by the elements for decades or centuries. The cover page looks like that statue had to be put back together in a cave with a box of scraps. Possibly by its own hands.

I wanna say that's stylistic differences, a combination of the cover figure being pretty simplified due to how small it's drawn (that's not a digital painting you can zoom in to do the details, it's hard to depict fine filigree in an oil painting), and whoever the other artist is reinterpreting Wayne Reynold's character model. The Necromancer's facial structure also looks a little different between the two images and Ija on the cover looks like a keebler elf.

[Roadlocator]

Perpdepog wrote:

I really hope we get an awakened clockwork construct ancestry; constructs are one of my favorite creature types, and clockwork is one of my favorite varieties of construct.

could also be an awakened construct in general, with clockwork specifically being a heritage, like how awakened animals work, covers more ground that way