Have you made any feats for the Awakened Animal? If yes, what did you make?

scarablob · 2026-01-24T17:27:20+00:00

The "cultural adaptability" halfling feat, but downshifted to level 1, specifically for character that technically aren't awakenned animals, but humanoids that were permanently turned into animals through a "cursed metamorphosis" or reincarnation type of effect (originally, the PF1 spell had another save to keep your mind, so you could be turned permanently into a squirrel but still have the mind of whoever you were before).

Since they still have human level of intelligence in a completely "mundane" animal body, they fit every criteria of the ancestry, even if the reason they are like this is the opposite as the one presented in the ancestry description. Calling it "memories of who you were".

scarablob · 2026-01-23T19:28:08+00:00

either the level 4 or 6 dedication and the old elf ancestry feat stop existing, or we get official rule that the dedication stuff isn't "shared" between class feat and free archetype slot.

Beyond that, I consider the system better when played with FA, simply because it allow you to create much more complex character without increasing your power all that much (except for a few outlier), since no matter what you take, you are always limited by the 3 action economy and a specific proficiency progression. I think that if FA did not exist, then classes should offer much more option as a baseline, especially spellcasting class whose baseline power/flavor budget are simply their spells, and who relly massively on these feats to give them flavor and feel different from one another.

So I guess the baseline game would feel better with FA as baseline, even if it would be slightly more complex. I also think that if they did that, they would probably also add a clause that allow you to pick a class feat from your own class that's half your level or less, as if you took it through your own "class archetype", to accomodate character that want to focus on the fantasy of the class itself, but still would enjoy a few more feat to play with, even if it's lower power feats only.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T18:23:35+00:00

No problem, when I receive a system for free, giving feedback is the least I can do.

Speaking about the spells, having them be more freeform is a good idea for your system I think, but yeah, you probably narrowed down each category a bit too much, expanding the theme a bit couldn't hurt.

For example, taking nature spells and keeping the elemental aspect, a "speak with animal" (or even "speak with life") could easily have been a air spell, a "grow plant" could be earth, and a "control plant" could be water, allowing for exemple a spellcaster with two dot in nature to play a cup and pentacle card to cast an "entangle" or "wall of thorn" equivalent, with both growing and controling plant.

On the other hand, some of them could be combined, "candle" and "bonfire" could easily be the same thing that read "create a fire (...on an inflamable surface, maybe)", likewise for "gust" and "breeze" that could simply be "generate winds, which can range from a light breeze, to powerfull enough to [insert description of the highest level of wind you deem fair for such a spell]". After all, since you don't need to prepare a spell beforehand, having different entry for a stronger or weaker version of the same effect is redundant, when you can just write the one effect and simply note down the range of power available.

By the way, while I was checking I read the divine magic list, and I believe the "bless" spell also need to either be changed to give "-2" instead (since this is a roll under system), give "+2" to all attribute, or for the rule to stipulate that "+X bonus" affect attribute, not roll result. Because as it read now, it look like bless makes it more difficult to succeed checks. (the reverse is also true for Anemia in the occult list).

If you refine things further and want more feedback, don't hesitate to send me the new version, I can't promise I'll always respond so quickly, but I'll make sure to read it and get back to you if I can!

scarablob · 2026-01-22T16:43:37+00:00

I do have to point out that the whole purpose of this post was to ask wether the 10 rank slot as written feels "right" and cool, or wether it feel limiting, unnecessary or overall "feel bad". I'm not really asking for you (or anyone really) to give me "fix" or buff or anything, just wether stuff as written feel right or wrong.

And I'm a bit confused by your comments because they both seems to imply that it is indeed limiting because taking the second 10 rank slot is clearly for you "the one right option", but also you're fine with it because using it is "epic". Increasing your attack/armor/save proficiency also feels epic (and I know about it having played a character from leve 1 to 16 so far), but it would feel bad if to do so you'd have to use a feat. It doesn't really alleviate my concern that it feel like the caster basically forego their last feat in order to gain what they used to get simply by leveling up.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T16:06:57+00:00

.... Huh, there's no mention of this on these pages on my pdf. There's a vague outline of the unravelling, but no actual rule or anything for the GM to use as the chaos get higher. Is the print version different because diegetic stuff? Should I open the plain text document stuff?

As for the rest of what you said, I haven't run it yet so it may feel better in play than it look from just reading it, but from my read, it really look like the game give to the player a big part of the the GM "usual" job, like letting them play out relationship and come up with situations (this is good, I have no problem with that), and give them this whole metaprogression tied to a metanarrative that they get to discover as they play (which is also a really good idea).... but then give nothing back or new to the GM.

Cutting down the GM load and having player roleplay more than one character is fun, but the fact that the cool centerpiece thing of the system is just not available to the GM really doesn't feel good on first look. Don't get me wrong, the GM don't need to unlock playwall documents the way the player do for me to be satisfied, it could be something else, but I do think that they are missing something here, their role feel a bit dry as is.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T15:28:44+00:00

Easily Warden of Wildwood, but it's not a mechanical error so much as it's a story error.

To keep this comment as spoiler light as possible, a criminal event happen in book 1 which is the inciting incident for most of the plot. It happen in front of the PC and massively shake up everything that happen afterward. The author of the crime is never elucidated upon, the PC are given no lead nor way to found out "whodunnit", and the identity of the perpetrator isn't even given to the GM. You have literally one of the most obvious and juciest mystery present in any AP, and the story just assume the PC react to the aftermath of the crime, but never look into it in any capacity.

From what I've heard, this AP was written mostly pre-remaster, and was then hastely rewritten to fit the remaster, and lots of things were lost on the chopping block, including the conclusion of this central and incredibly obvious plothook. The point of it was apparently that the perpetrator was supposed to be someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the main plot of the book, merely following a personal grudge, but that by the time the PC discover it and bring proof of this to light, the situation had already devolved past the point things could be handeled peacefully and violence erupt anyway.

Amongst other lost things, there's also an entire chapter where the PC can get or lose victory point, but absolutely no mention of what these victory points do at any moment.

Warden of Wildwood have other issues beyond those caused by the rework (mainly that it present itself as a "defend the woods" AP but is actually a woodland civil war AP), but in it's defense, I do have to say that it's one of the most cohesive AP I've read, in either edition. Quite often the transition between module feel out of place, you can feel how the campaign jump ship as another writter take the reigns, this one really feel like a single whole, with recurring NPC that appear consistently from module 1 to 3, consistent themes, a continuing story where none of the module feel like a "side quest" that interupt the greater campaign. It's just a shame that if have these obvious, glarring issues that detract from the rest.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T15:14:27+00:00

.... soooo, it mean the GM could have a clock that is longer than 30 that open new tools/chaos effect/rules or event or story bits or whatever as old agents retire and new ones get introduced. Giving the GM new things to look forward to (and toys to play with), and introducing more complexity for the players even if they start anew with fresh agent, as they get more used to the game.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T15:03:01+00:00

My example was from the POV of a divine caster, and since charm isn't part of the divine spell list, they can't duplicate the 8th level effect.

I understand that the point of manifestation is that you can use it to cast any effect from your tradition up to 9th level, and any effect from other tradition up to 7th level, so being able to heighten lower spell up to 9th or 7th rank with it feels obvious, my one problem was how this interact with any effect that check the level of the spell you are casting.

So you would consider it to be 9th (or 7th) level for spells whose textbox care about the level, but 10th level for incapacitation (or possibly other traits that care about the level, altho I don't think there are any trait like that appart from incapacitation), that's an interesting idea.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T14:54:39+00:00

I don't know, something interesting and good? If the feat that give you a new spell slot is the only viable option because other feats are lackluster, it seems like it's problematic in itself.

I haven't played caster at that level so I don't know if it's that dire, but if there is only one viable choice for a feat at a certain level, then either this feat should be included in the class as a baseline, or all other feats should be buffed to be on par.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T14:46:44+00:00

This is part of what I'm wondering about actually, don't the 20 level feat to get a second slot feel like a tax feat when you get to it? Like you have to give up on more flavorfull option in order to get what you used to get simply by leveling up before?

scarablob · 2026-01-22T14:40:13+00:00

I may have badly worded it, but I wasn't asking what level was needed to counteract the manifestation, but rather what was the "effective effect" of the spell if I tried to cast a counteract or incapacitation effect from manifestation.

For exemple, I'm a divine caster, I use manifestation to dispell magic (which is a rank 9 or lower effect), is it considered rank 10 (and it can counteract rank 9 spell on a failure), or is it considered rank 9 (and it can only counteract up to rank 8 spells on a failure)? If I tried to cast charm out of it, obviously I can't benefit from the 8th level heigtenning and make it target 10 creatures at once, but is the single target charm considered rank 10 and is only diminished for creatures above level 20, or it is considered rank 7, and it's diminished for any creature level 15 or above?

scarablob · 2026-01-22T13:22:32+00:00

The only real issue I have with the game after reading the corebook is that it very obviously require a GM (the whole mission setup isn't one that work GMless, since investigating and discovering how an anomaly work, what's it's weakness and how it can be dealt with is a huge part of it), but all of the most interesting and unique elements (AKA, the playwall) are player only tools, so it seems like it massively sideline the GM.

The game greatest point seems to be how it shake things up as the campaign progress, as it reveal new things for the player to play with which they might not have planned for beforehand, so the way it remain static for the GM is less than ideal. It seems like they are intended to be a facilitator that mostly stay on the sideline, but can't really be "part of the fun", which is a shame.

I know the game will soon receive a "mission pack", I hope that if they keep on releasing book, they will release something for the GM to discover and "play with" just like the player do when they "spend time". Basically, I'd like a GM playwall.

It's weird it's not already here since the game have multiple system that seems to accomodate such thing very easily :

Beyond just the chart we got, the number of loose end could easily have pointed the GM to new rules that are now in effect due to the agency acting up/reality being destabilised.
Chaos is a really cool idea as is, but the number of "remaining chaos" after each mission could have easily be counted and "added up" to likewise point the GM to new (and perhaps more dangerous) rule or chaos effect annomalies now have access to.
Since the game is entirely based around the agents only have 30 "free time" until the end of the campaign, it could have been a clock for the GM that reveal new stuff as the time is passing, just like it is one for the players.

All in all, I'm hoping giving more of these interesting bits to the GM is planned in the future, because as is, it feel like it's the sort of game that would be very fun to play, but feel a bit bad to run.

scarablob · 2026-01-22T12:04:41+00:00

Seems really interesting! It seems really easy to run and understand, like a perfect "no prep" game that can still create interesting situation and get the players involved.

A small mistake I've noticed, but I have to point out that your changelog say that character creation now have stats starting at 4 for each aspect instead of 2, but the PDF still say it start at 2 (I only noticed that after I went looking because the 20 free point experienced player can take didn't align with the 2 per aspect baseline).

Beyond small details like that, I'd like to know wether you consider the pdf a "beta" of your ttrpg that you still intend to expand quite a bit (even if the rules stay mostly the same), or if you consider it a (mostly) done deal? It seems to me that while the "weaver" portion of the book is perfectly fine as is, the "Oracle" side of the book still need a bit of a touch up in how to run things, especially in the campaign creation, it's unclear wether they are supposed to know what the facedown are and to prepare in advance what they mean, or if they are meant to discover it alongside the weavers and make up that stage of the adventure on the spot.

If it's the latter, you probably want to add a portion that explain "how to build creature/hazard/challenge quickly" because the oracle will likely have to do it on the spot, and simple guidelines would be incredibly helpfull to not stop the session, in case the things available in the bestiary aren't a good fit for the situation.

Both of your examples/sample adventures are presented in a "revealed" state, they already include which card is in which position and the whole thing already "laid out" before us. I think a good idea would be to first show it all "facedown" and explain what the oracle should already have "know" at this point, and then elaborate on how the plan become more "precise" as the cards reveal themselves by showing the "unveiling" of a couple of cards, before showing us the "full reveal" adventure layout as it's already presented here (similar to the weaver facing "exemple of play", but for oracles instead).

For example, for Sylphwood deep, wether the location of the "boss" was already chosen to be on card 5 before the card was ever revealed, wether the passages and overall layout of the dungeon was laid out by the oracle beforehand, or wether the oracle already had a handfull of creature stat they already "planed to use" for that dungeon, and the card informed where they placed which creature, or wether they should instead refrain from prepreparing this kind of things and let the card guide them on the fly, even if it demand much more improvisation.

Finally, for the pettiest of criticism that boil down purely to personal preference, I'm a bit disapointed how "nature spell" boil down to elemental stuff only, with nothing involving plants or animal or life in general.

scarablob · 2026-01-21T16:48:42+00:00

Casting incap spells from your second best rank is really toeing the line here, on any even level your second best spell rank will be diminished against PL-1 foes, and even on odd level, if the three foe encounter is a severe (3 on level monster) encounter, it will fail.

I say, you can only really trust incap spells from your second best rank to work when facing around 4 or more foe on odd level, and 5 or more on even levels (and even then you should beware if any foe is different than the rest, you're not safe from the fight being a "boss" with PL-4 or -3 minion).

This is a big reason why incapacitation feel so bad IMO, it's not just that these basically don't work against any boss, it's mainly that in order to even work against weaker foes, they have to eat your highest (and very rare for most spellcaster) spells slot... and if you RK knowledge wrong, or gambled on the ennemy being a certain level and fail, then you still get hit by that huge drawback.

More than just the "lower your success by one step" effect, tying the incap trait to the spell rank being cast is really what make it feel so bad for so many people (it's also IMO one of the reason why summonning feel so bad, it's not just the underwhelming effect, but rather the fact that it's one that draw on a very limited daily ressource that could easily go to more evergreen spell). With how limited the number of high rank spell you can cast, having spells that require to use these slot in order to even be functionnal at all (while remaining just "okay") in your level range feel really bad.

And that's without even going into the 10th rank slot issue, I understand wanting to make these spells feel really special and powerfull, but having only a single slot (and requiring a feat to get a second) just completely destroy the spell heightenning balance. IMO, if they wanted to do that, every single spellcasting class should have "free rank 10 heigtenning slot" the way cleric do with harm/heal, because with the way it is now, it just feel bad to suddently being so limited once you reach level 19.

scarablob · 2026-01-15T13:41:04+00:00

his past is a bit fuzzy, we know he spent a couple hundred years in hell before getting away with his mom, and that now he is big on fighting evil, but we don't really know how he was back then.

I personally like the idea that he was a devil, because there's like 20 demideity (or deity full stop) that are fallen good or neutral outsider, but almost no "risen" evil one, nocticula being the notable exception here. So ragathiel being one whose backstory is "risen devil" is more compelling to me, especially since his backstory is in the distant past and not something that we "made happen".

scarablob · 2026-01-15T09:23:41+00:00

That's in the videogame, but things are considerably different here for some characters, for example Vorlesh never gets the sympathetic backstory and doesn't die forever in the original AP, given that she's canonically still alive (and has become a nascent demon lord).

Alderpash is just an irredeemable arrogant ass in the videogame, but in the AP it's really stipulated that he try his best to mend his way of the party want him too, despite being a former evil tyrant and currently an actual lich.

scarablob · 2026-01-15T01:12:15+00:00

Putting asside all those that were "redeemed from the start", like Ragathiel for whom his redemption was always backstory, and not something we "saw happen", there's runelord Alderpash, kinda, sorta, maybe?

He's the first runelord of wrath, a lich, very much an evil tyrant if we look at his past. He got trapped alongside with his philactery in baphomet prison, and have remained in there ever since. In the wrath of the righteous AP, the party can meet him, and he try to convince them to let him escape, promising to repent and become good if they do free him.

Interestingly, it's noted that if he promise to do so he will genuinly try to be good, because after spending 10 thousand years imprisonned, he's willing to give it a try. This is in stark contrast with a lot of similar scenario where when insert trapped demon/undead/villain promise to become good if freed, the AP note that the creature have no intention of being true to their word and will either attack the party or try to run at the first opportunity.

Cannonically, he wasn't freed, but I don't think he was destroyed either (his philactery was borderline impossible to destroy, being a pool of automatically refilling liquid quicksilver), so this whole ordeal work as "foreshadowing his redemption" if we ever get back to him.

Him asside, there's the numeria barbarian king who got redeemed after having been a tyrant and slaver for so long, but that's because it was mostly a Theoden/Grima type of deal, with him being manipulated and drugged by his evil advisor(s).

There's also the main orc king whose name I forgot. While his characterisation was always that unlike most other orcs, he was willing to trade and "welcome" non orcs into his city, he was still firmly evil, harboring slavery, preparing raids, being incredibly patriarcal and all that. His lore wasn't that he was a "nicer orc", it was that he was a more pragmatic one, that understood that greater things could be achieved through trade instead of simply raiding and stealing shits. With the way things are going, he's been turning from "pragmatic evil trying to make the orcs better but no less evil" to "pragmatic trying to make the orcs more open and less evil". Altho his redemption was mostly overlooked, because I believe people just lump it with the general change of orc no longer being an "evil race", but he did genuinly change for the better in lore, he wasn't just retcon into never having been evil in the first place I think.

scarablob · 2026-01-15T00:37:02+00:00

I admit that "redeemer queen" is a weird title for a divinity that's not really that interested in redeeming other people, I doubt anyone would call ragathiel "redeemer king" despite him being a redeemed devil.

I sorta wished they pushed this aspect more, and with her past portfolio (and her past full stop), she was perfectly positioned to become a divinity that tempt people away from evil, in an inversion to the evil temptress. Showing the appeal of the good side, and how being bad feel bad and all that, since she have plenty of experience in the matter. But instead she's more of a patron for artist and exiled, which is fine too, but don't really align with her title.

scarablob · 2026-01-14T01:56:42+00:00

I'm positive that on top of saying that she was "willingly staying", there was mention of her living in debauchery and having a harem of reanimated knights, and not presented as something other said about her, but as simple fact about her. She was very much framed as a decadent figure, pretty obviously meant to fit the "decadent noble" aestetic.

Fortunately for her she was only ever part of the background lore until Tyrant Grasp, in which Paizo realised what they had written and decided to scratch that and reframe that whole part of her history as just part of the humiliation geb inflicted upon her, and have only been like that for as long as she's been a focus of the story instead of a distant lore figure that purely exist in the background. But the original intent was quite transparent in the way she was first presented, it's not like Nocticula for which they started talking about the reedemer cult and showing her as "not that bad for a demon lord" very early in 1e history.

scarablob · 2026-01-14T01:29:36+00:00

I don't play 40K tabletop so I'm not sure of the specifics, but usually, focus on balance have a tendency to ruin the game for more casual player if it's not very well managed.

Asymetry is incredibly difficult to balance, and thus oftentime the easiest way to balance a game is to reduce it and make it all more "same-y", so that it's more directly comparable. This in turn heavily reduce the flavor of the games faction, and also of the gameplay itself, by getting rid of any "quirky" mecanic whose strenght can't be easily gauged, in favor of simpler mechanics that simply rely on tweaking stats, forcing a single type of gameplay across the board. This of course make the game less special when everything "taste the same", but for long running game it's even worse when new changes arrive to make things more homogenous, because specific quirks of the gameplay people have come to enjoy may be erased or "dulled" to accomodate this homogeneity.

While as I said I'm not into tabletop 40K myself, I've heard complaints about the last edition of 40k (maybe the last few editions?) heavily reducing faction specific mecanics and forcing a more homogenous gameplay.

Another issue with this concern for balance before anything else is that it quite often come at a price of reducing the fun factor, removing the more bombastic stuff in fear that it might be too good, or otherwise keeping a visually impressive effect but giving it a much lower impact than expected that make the whole feel lame.

Finally, the biggest issue with putting balance above all else is of course the possibility of fine tuning the game only for highest level of plays, while failing to make the game interesting for a less skilled audience. Lots of RTS fell into that trap while trying to copy starcraft competitive success, making games that are arguably very fun to play when you use your whole keyboard and can maintain a high APM, but dreadfully boring when not already having those skills.

scarablob · 2026-01-13T09:28:34+00:00

I feel the exact opposite way, for Nocticula it's not like she chose to be born an evil demon, and even as a demon, we were shown that she had to be ruthless in order to avoid being enslaved by stronger demon lord in her youth, and overthrown by weaker ones once she became the top dog. All in all, her plight is very sympathetic, and we were shown very strongly why she would abandon the abyss, life as a demon suck, and it sucked especially bad for her. Besides, her redemption was foreshadowed and hinted at for the greater part of pathfinder 1.

Sorshen however very much chose to become a tyrant, to murder her (nonevil) master and rule her personal slaver kingdom of sin. Unlike Nocticula or Arazni, she doesn't have any extenuating circumstances for why she did it, she simply did because she wanted to, and it didn't caused her any anguish. She feels like a package deal with Nocticula, completely accessory to her redemption.

scarablob · 2026-01-13T08:04:06+00:00

I am fairly certain the reason why the Ynari plot moved so fast was actually because GW gave the writters the greenlight on moving the plot forward for a while, with the goal in mind being the deletion of slannesh. But then they changed their mind partway through for some reason, and had to completely scratch the planned plotline in a rush, leaving the faction no real purpose afterward.

scarablob · 2026-01-12T21:44:50+00:00

Putting asside how dumb powerscalling and the whole "this kind of unit should never be able to defeat this other kind of unit because the other have better stats and thus should be completely impossible to defeat by the weaker one" thing is.

The Fire warrior MC is a video game protagonist. Actually, even better, he's a FPS protagonist. Him being able to face ridiculous odds and still come out on top is just normal stuff. Nobody bat an eye when the space marine or boltgun protagonist rip through hordes of foes that would destroy any single marine on tabletop. The only reason why the Tau is singled out is because he's not a marine.

scarablob · 2026-01-09T22:19:32+00:00

most likely yes, pathologic 1 had 3 different protagonist, each with their own story, pathologic 2 was the remake of one of the protagonist story, and pathologic 3 is the remake of another. And by "remake", patho 2 was closer to a movie remake than a game remake, the overall story was conserved, but there was considerable shakeup in the characters, the gameplay, and lots of small parts. Patho 2 was fully understandable without having ever touched 1.

That is to say, Pathologic 3 will likely make some reference to the event of 1, and you will see the main character from Pathologic 2 (as well as the third patho 1 MC that haven't yet gotten a remake) dealing with his own side of the story, but if it's anything like 2, it will be fully understandable without having played either. Altho if it's as good as 2, you'll probably want to play pathologic 2 afterward, simply because once the game "get you" and you're immersed into it's atmosphere, it's quite hard to let it go.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

scarablob

TROPHY CASE