Downtime Edition

>>IF YOU ARE ASKING A QUESTION, PLEASE SPECIFY WHICH GAME YOU'RE PLAYING<<<

Previous thread: >>95847178

/pfg/ (pathfinder 1e) link repository: check the share thread
/p2g/ (pathfinder 2e) link repository: check the share thead
/sfg/ (starfinder) link repository: check the share thread
/s2g/ (starfinder 2e) link repository: check the share thread
/3eg/ (D&D 3.X) link repository: check the share thread
The T̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ Vault (seed, please!): >implying
>>CHECK THE SHARE THREAD FOR MISSING MATERIALS<<

TQ: Do you use any house rules to manage downtime? Do you even run downtime at all?

Would Proficiency Without Level be the right choice for a setting like Eberron?

>>95879678
I would say yes, given that eberron is so heavily dependent on the proliferation (And genuine usefulness) of magic items as a central tenet of its setting, and PWL actually allows items with static DCs to function.

>no PACG
>russian OP
not even gonna bother with this general and their constant arguments anymore. The dragonarian deserves death and I wont be replying to his faggot ass again.

>>95879678
I don't think so, PWL is only really suited for something like a west marches game in which you have PCs of differing levels in one party.
>>95879686
I'd just houserule that things don't have a static DC, have them scale off caster/class DC or if that's too powerful, introduce a skill or feats to upgrade a character's proficiency with magic items.

>>95879664 (OP)
>human
>male
>Fighter
>polysexual
Is this build viable in pf2e?

>>95879691
The next clique fuck I see cram that stupid fucking off-topic meme game wikipedia link into the OP gets their balls crushed by abadar's debt collectors

>>95879664 (OP)
Downtime is a big part of the game, especially if you use subsystems for leadership and influence

Only houserule I have for downtime is that players take turns

>>95879716
>Human
>Fighter
Yes.
>Male
Better than the alternatives.
>Polysexual
You sank your build instantly.

https://bsky.app/profile/paizo.com/post/3lrntsso7to2b

Rather powerful, really.

>>95879686
I see, makes sense

Eberron is suppose to be a grittier political world where regular large armies are powerful and intrigue is everywhere

>>95879715
I don't think it's just for West March, but if you want a more grounded and grittier world. You might want to avoid introducing too many powerful entities though

> just houserule that things don't have a static DC, have them scale off caster/class DC or if that's too powerful, introduce a skill or feats to upgrade a character's proficiency with magic items.

It's more balanced to have upgraded versions available to be bought. I typically allow crafters to upgrade those items for half the difference if they roll well. Same with upgraded versions of summons

>>95879730
Pathfinder Card Game is an rpg by paizo and more relevant than Monster Match or Baldurs Gate 3

>>95879749
This thirdy fag is ritual posting repeat spam now and mods dont give a fuck go figure.

>>95879715
>PWL is only really suited for something like a west marches game in which you have PCs of differing levels in one party.
Not true. It's just that proficiency WITH level is only really suited for a setting where individuals rapidly get better at doing everything over time and before you know it, they become gods to those who are below them.

>playing 2e
>DM says there's going to be a lot of cool political intrigue and investigating and stuff in the campaign
>take Bon Mot
>precisely 0 enemies in 5 sessions have been able to understand any of my languages
>ask GM about
>"Yeah I kind of just wanted to run some classical heroes vs monsters thing"
OOPS!!!!

>want read some 1e
>go to that mega where there are all the books and more
>contents were completely wiped, now there are few wod books
Grim. Have any smart anons saved this collection on torrent at least?

>>95879989
There are, as the OP suggests we should have a dedicated share thread in the catalog that someone will likely be able to point you to for whatever you might need.

2e. Character concept's a reformed bandit. The campaign/GM "promises" to be lighter on the combat side of things and more about social and exploration.
Level 1 start, no FA. I wanna go Rogue still, but I also wanna use a quarterstaff and larp as a monk. Not actually TAKING monk, just yknow. Repentance and a quarterstaff of some form combined with athleticism.
But I'm hitting a snag with my actual weapon choice. The basic Staff "works" but it's kinda shit. It forces me into Ruffian since it doesn't have finesse. But Ruffian is MAD as all hell unless I completely dump DEX which I don't want to do.
I like the whipstaff since it's got finesse and parry, but it's two-handed, and Staff Acrobat 1) doesn't include it in its supported weapons (but I'm sure I could just talk to my GM about it) and 2) is Athletics-based for the most part, so my dex investment turns stinky when I try to do any of the fun pushing/tripping shit. Yes it's a mostly combat dedication in what is promised to be a non-heavy-combat campaign but I'm also a rogue so I'm gonna have a billion skills and skill feats anyway. And it's kind of important for getting the character concept to work in my brain because a selfish 2h weapon like a whipstaff isn't going to do a lot in the way of support.

Any advice?

>>95880121
I'm having a hard time coming up with anything besides "grab a whipstaff and hit stuff with it." One thought I had was to just carry a regular staff in one hand, take the Martial Artist Dedication for the monk unarmed attacks, then grab the Duelist Dedication for Dueling Parry. You'd make your unarmed attacks with kicks and punches while parrying with your staff, which you've effectively spent two feats to transform into a shield. However, that requires you to sink like five feats into it to just get it basically online, which is not in any way worth it. An alternative is to grab the Mauler Dedication instead of staff acrobat, since Crashing Slam allows you to trip without needing to bother with an athletics check, but that doesn't come online until level 12, which is an eternity.

So yeah, I don't have any advice other than that I thought about it too and reached your same conclusion. You'll play like every other rogue in combat but at least you'll have a buttload of skills for all that social and exploration stuff. It's not a bad build, it's just a super standard one.

2E
Is there a table for environment damage or something equivalent? I had a player push a monster into a fire pit but I was unsure how much damage to apply.
Also if a spellcaster casts a spell targeting a hidden ally and fails the DC11 to use it on them, does it count as the spell still being cast for anything that actually cares about just the cast?

>>95880520
>Is there a table for environment damage or something equivalent?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2769
>Also if a spellcaster casts a spell targeting a hidden ally and fails the DC11 to use it on them, does it count as the spell still being cast for anything that actually cares about just the cast?
Yeah, it still functions like missing the target. AoO still procs, spell slot is still gone, triggers still go off. You just missed the ally, gotta get your order of operations down better.

2e, is the nightmare domains initial spell 'Waking Nightmare' good on a champion? its effectively a damage bonus like dragon domain but, it can fail, allies profit off it too, its only towards one enemy. You can perpetuate the frightened 1 for an entire encounter if you are either unholy with the Aura of Despair champion feat, or any sanctification of champion if you get the hobgoblin's Remorseless Lash feat. In either case do you think its worth the investment?

>>95879979
Had a similar experience. Our GM keeps trying to run political intrigue and deep social games using Pathfinder 2e but he's terrible at it (and the system isn't really built for it). I think we finally we able to get through to him recently. Hopefully.

Reposting from the last thread.

I have a Starlit Span build planned out through Level 13. Currently at 6. I'd feel bad but the thread is 50% just arguing with the obvious Russian shitposter again otherwise.

Stats as Start

Str - 10
Con - 12
Cha - 10
Wis - 12
Int - 16
Dex - 18

Stats at Level 5 (And then pump Dex, Int, Wis, Con)

Str - 10
Con - 14
Cha - 10
Wis - 14
Int - 18
Dex - 19

Draxie Sprite Ancestry (Not optimal but whatever)

Ancestry Feats:
Evanescent Wings
Energize Wings
Hero's Wings
Invisible Trickster

Class Feats:
Force Fang
Starlit Eyes (GM loves Concealment)
Expanisve Spellstrike
Runic Impression
Rapid Recharge
Overwhelming Spellstrike

Free Archetype Feats:
Psychic Dedication
Basic Psychic Spellcasting
Psi Development
Rogue Dedication
Sneak Attacker
Evasiveness

Skill Feats:
Cat Fall (from Background)
Streetwise (from FA)
Steady Balance
Magical Shorthand
Rolling Landing
Kip Up
Aerobatics Mastery
Foil Senses

(Acrobatics, Arcana and Stealth all at Master)

General Feats
Fleet
Incredible Initiative
Toughness

Nothing really to put for class features except that I took Imaginary Weapon so I guess I'd ask what some reqs for Property Runes/Spellhearts/Good Magus friendly spells that aren't the obvious ones are.

>>95880536
how do you miss an ally with a mental effect that isn't even a projectile

>>95880536
>>95880770
2e is slop made my people who have never gamed with another person who wasn't tied up against their will. And they've never been outside.

>>95880770
This is just the rare instance of YGO Card Text Effects and simulationism going against some common sense. Just like in YGO, "targeting" is a defined term that interacts with many of its rules. Concealment being one of them. You don't really want the idea that stuff like Mirror Image or Invisibility DOESN'T work against Fear or Synesthesia because "LMAO ITS MENTAL YOU CANT PROTECT YOUR BRAIN". But this also means that stuff also works against targeted healing effects when you are concealed. Most people tend to handwave and just assume the party has mental bond that lets them share senses and know where they always are and doing at all times (and you can argue that RAW-wise the Stealth and Observation rules works on an individual cassis, so the party or individual members have some way to keep track of each other and not be Hidden from one another that the foe doesn't know) but the game doesn't run on that logic nor should it assume such.

Again, knowing the order of operations to prevent the party being their own worst enemy is a valuable skill and one PF2e does routinely test. This is why the Delay and Ready actions are a thing, and why people was shitting on Ranged Combat last thread. Team synergy is not a given. This is why so many generals of the ancient times is so applauded for being able to tard wrangle two groups of men to kill another group at the same time.

>>95880898
sense allies wouldn't exist if PCs just knew which mirror image was real or where the hidden rogue is

Any rules on familiars carrying stuff? I couldn't really find anything conclusive.

>>95880914
Piggybacking off this question with "are there any rules for familiars sharing spaces" by just chilling on someone's shoulder?
Say I'm a mosquito witch and my familiar's a spider and we're all level 1 and the fighter's 30 feet away from me. So I use Runic Weapon and deliver it to the Fighter by having my spider stride over and climb up his leg, delivering the spell by touching, and then cast Buzzing Bites on an enemy.
Does this work? Is the spider familiar in danger, is he going to move with the fighter, and is he sharing a space and thus going to benefit from Familiar of Swarm's Heart and have concealment?

>>95880914
On the opposite end, we have a case of UNDEFINED rules going against common sense...
By default, all Tiny creatures have a Bulk Limit of 2 + STR modifier. So 2 since they don't have a STR modifier. But someone can argue (yes this was argued here...) that an undefined score is not a zero so the game just breaks...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2164

Familiars can carry things, as seen by abilities like Toolbearer or Valet. The game does assume that can hold things, they just cannot Activate them on their own. Does lead to the funny idea that RAW-wise, a Familiar can Repair Items or Administer First Aid as long they have a toolkit + Manual Dexterity, but opening a potion bottle is too complex for them.

>>95880911
I never even knew that feat existed. lmao.

>>95880955
Any creature can "mount" another larger creature, though the GM will have to agree that they can move and mount in the same action. And Tiny creatures can share spaces with larger ones, and IIRC 4 Tiny creatures can share one space together.
>Is the spider familiar in danger,
Yes. A familiar can still be targeted, affected by AOEs, all the typical stuff. It's not like they went inside a Pokeball.
>is he going to move with the fighter
Yes, just like how you don't tell a creature you mounted to "Carry You", you simply let them Stride and you will follow.
>and is he sharing a space and thus going to benefit from Familiar of Swarm's Heart and have concealment?
Yes. Being mounted is considered sharing a space.

>>95881004
That's about what I figured. Does the shoulder spider get any cover? Or do I have to have the spider crawl around inside the fighter's kilt or across her back or into his ears for that.

>>95881032
Technically yes, the rider of a mount is always considered to have Lesser Cover. So a Familiar have a passive +1 to AC as long they are on someone's shoulders. If they were just sharing the space, no, they have to actively Take Cover to benefit from it.

>>95881043
Makes sense. Looked it up myself and
>https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2436
>you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted.
That's brutal. I guess getting fireball'd or burning hands'd at level 1 isn't too likely though.

>>95880737
Looks good to me to be honest. I think the reason nobody commented was because it's fine as is.

Although personally I prefer Cleric Multiclass over Psychic. Arcana and Occult have too much overlap and Imaginary Weapon, while it does deal a bunch of damage, I do prefer the utility. And of course Psychic Dedication (and the Psychic Class in general) is total dogshit after you nab IW or some other Cantrip Amp.

I see some people talk up Psi Strikes but it feels really clunky to fit in. Especially on a Magus.

Like you already seem to have figured out, the extra d6 from Sneak Attack will proc far, far more often. Especially for a Stealth Archer build like you've got going on.

Investigator Archetype is also quite good if your GM isn't a big autist. So obviously not as universally useful as Rogue Archetype since 2e attracts a very unpleasant type of person, especially in the GM role. But I don't want to make assumptions about your group.

Is there a random encounter builder tool anywhere? Like having a party level and size and filling difficulty's XP budget. Maybe having weight for tags, so you could say a 100xp fight for a 3rd level party with Orcs, or something.

>>95881559
Nah.
It's the sort of thing that would be worth vibe coding though since even the builder everyone uses is buggy and doesn't include hazards.

Which reminds me, I need to go write a gold as exp calculator.

This sucks. I had three character concepts I wanted to bring to an upcoming campaign and wasn't sure which one to go with, so I built 'em all and started some solo stuff to see which one I'd like the most. But it was a witch, a rogue, and a thaumaturge, so I figured I'd round it out with a proper beatstick. I ended up making a yaksha exemplar for it and it's actually sick as hell.
Then I looked at what else I can do with the character and I can very easily pick up (2)champion dedication->(3)fleet and radiant epithet->(4)nimble reprisal->(6)champion's reaction->(7) whose cry is thunder, and have a truly ridiculous amount of defensive utility
and I can retributive strike anything that doesn't hit me and if it DOES hit me it takes d6 electricity damage for free.
And that just sounds so fun and I actually love the quickly-invented flavor/characterization I put together. The only real issue is I'm -1 AC at level 1. Also I kind of fell in love with the khakkara.

Not mechanics-related but I really like the portrayal of Daemons in PF as malicious embodiments of death/entropy. They are the coolest fiend type in the Outer Spheres.
A much more original, and creepier, depiction of Neutral Evil than Yugoloths imo.

>>95880121
>But Ruffian is MAD as all hell unless I completely dump DEX
What?
There are literally only like 3 MAD classes in the game. Champion, Bloodrager, and some Inventors. You have four ability boosts, you need dex, con, wis, and strength. You're fine.

>>95882028
How is your AC bad? You're a medium armour class, you have strength, and your ancestry doesn't dump dex. Assuming you're pumping str/con/wis/cha for that champion stuff and leaving dex at 0, you should still be at 16 AC. Which is fine.

Vindication edge should get +1-2 to all their attack rolls, not just spell attack rolls
They would still be second worst hunters edge after outwit

>>95880898
>You don't really want the idea that stuff like Mirror Image or Invisibility DOESN'T work against Fear or Synesthesia
Yes I do. It should just work against attacks.

>>95881060
>Because you can't move your body as freely while you're riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted.
I don't understand why they bother explaining, when not even being IMMOBILIZED hinders your ability to move freely enough that it would impose a penalty to Reflex saves.

>>95883120
being immobilized not affecting AC or reflex was always one of the most insane things to me
muh balance

>>95882476
it'd still be better than rogue vindicator

>>95882476
Outside of it just making Fighter with extra steps, Vindicator Edge not really supporting magic would mean it is missing a piece of the Inquisitor fantasy. It's supposed to be their it-factor, letting them semi-competently gish. The big issue is that they didn't many good Focus Spells for them to use, either on the Ranger or the Vindicator side. Judgment is nice enough and you can find some good Domain spells, but that's pretty much it. Mark is just shit, even if you set up your Hunted Prey beforehand. And all the other Ranger spells don't gel together, beyond Gravity Weapon and Slime Spit.

I find the CA to be incomplete, even if it treads along all the things people want out of an Inquisitor package. There needs to be more to supplement the spellcasting. And maybe grant Monster Hunter as part of the initial package, since that's a big help. I honestly don't think it is a bad kit, just again, incomplete.

>>95883666
As for Avenger, I'm a little lost on what's it supposed to do? It lacks focus in a way Vindicator sidesteps (by being based on a concept that never had focus to begin with...). Zealous Inevitability make it seem like it is a Divine support, Twin Takedown and Slay make it seem like a DPS killer, Shadow of Death is a ribbon that make it feel is meant for NPCs?? And there's barely anything that synergize with being a Rogue to begin with?? It felt like they did that because they didn't want to double up on Ranger CAs, despite it allowing more space for more focused feats...

It really should have just taken the 4e concept for wholesale, be a Champion + Rogue mix. Give it some divine magic that makes it easier to debuff foes and kill with spirit damage strikes. Let you teleport towards foes that harm your allies. It can still do the Doomed shit but make the status do shit for everyone, not just the angriest Cleric in the room, like making a Doomed 2 foe off-guard to everyone. Double down on Rogue's offensive support nature with a Divine twist.

>>95884206
its screaming to have at least built in cleric spellcasting feats as additional ones

>>95884306
I'd make Zealous Inevitibility come in at either 2 or 4. the dedication itself sucks ass and it's exclusive to you anyway, it's not like it can be dipped for
and then yeah I'd make the doomed stacking help more teammates and just focus on that.
>at doomed 1, -1 to all Will saves as the target first comes to grip with its doomed future. -2 against Divine effects or effects originating from a character sanctified in a way amenable to your deity (language)
>at doomed 2, the target becomes frightened 1 and can't reduce its frightened value below 1 until you are reduced to 0 hp
>at doomed 4, it becomes frightened 2 and can't reduce its frightened value below 2 until you are reduced to 0 hp
it's a flourish that relies on a successful hit on a hunted target, it should be pretty fuckin strong as it ramps up
frightened on later turns means your intimidators still get to intimidate turn 1 when they normally would
I liked twin takedown on a rogue, until I realized it had two one-action flourishes
then just give it some cool unique focus spells. honestly, focus spells and cantrips are how they should do ALL of these weird gish class archetypes since they auto-heighten

>>95884326
Ehhhhhhhh, yeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh but not reaaaaaaaallllyyyyyyy.
Inquisitor back in 1e kind of had the problem a lot of 3/4th Casters did, where the spell slots were more supplemental than character defining. They were nice to have and put them heads and shoulders above anyone that didn't, but they didn't really do much. Again, nothing about Inq's kit really synergized together at all, it just had enough good options to not care about being coherent. So I can see why it didn't bother tossing in Cleric spellcasting or making it a Bounded Caster, might as well save the space for focus spells that sell the Inq Fantasy better.

I do think if it wasn't stuck in War of Immortals tight-ass page count, it would have had those options, but I don't think it particularly need it, especially with as competitive as Ranger/Vindicator feats already are. It's not like Bloodrager or Spellshot where the entire point IS the spellcasting on a class that didn't traditionally got it. At most, I could see it doing the
>Special: You can select the Cleric Dedication without obtaining the necessary Prerequisites or obtaining 2 additional feats from the Vindicator Archetype. Your deity must match the one you selected when you chose the Vindicator Dedication.
dealio.

>>95884432
If something hits Doomed 4, they do just instantly drop dead. It's why it is so infuriating Zealous Inevitability have the Flourish trait, it actually would be crazy if you could spam it. After all, what the fuck is going to survive more than 4 melee strikes from you + the party anyway? It really doesn't have a purpose beyond taking up your Flourish for the round. Rather it just be once-per-round if they were so afraid of it.

>>95884507
>If something hits Doomed 4, they do just instantly drop dead
which is thematically cool, but also they do get a save against it and it has incap. so it's basically just a ribbon and for flavor
it's also why I think giving it permanent frightened 2 is basically fine. it's mostly insurance against a boss fight going on too long and ensures it's doing more than nothing against PL+X targets
I think it's fine to have flourish but once per round wouldn't be bad either I guess

>>95884578
No, they just cannot hit Doomed 4 with the save in place. You have to change how Doomed works, not just the check.

>2e Remaster

How do you build a Runelord?
You need STR for polearm attacks, DEX for unarmored defense, INT for spells and CON to not die

paizo got a big boner for martials making spelll attacks for some reason in war of immortals, what the fuck happened.

>>95884597
You can go human and get medium armor at level 1 but it doesn't solve the 6hp wizard problem.

The real answer is that the polearm is a symbol of office for a runelord, not something you ever actually want to be running in and smacking things with.

>>95884597
Don't bother with STR, use a finesse spear. And the only reason to ever actually attack with it is a feat that requires you to crit the attack, so you're never attacking with it anyway.

>>95884597
Post-remaster, the Polearm is mostly for aesthetics. You CAN use it to Trip things if you put some of your skill trainings into it, and you can use something like the Dancer's Spear if you really wanna strike stuff, so you don't need to stack up STR if you don't want to.
Most Runelord stuff is pretty self-explanatory beyond that. They very much are Wizards+, now with a couple Divine spells in between them.

>>95884611
If there was a time and place to bring back some fan favorite gish options, doing it right after Player Core 2 was probably the best one. They wanted to at least experiment with different ways of getting martials to do some spell attacks without always giving them all Spellstrikes, and for the most part they were sufficient. Plus in a post-Kineticist world, a melee character having direct access to a wide variety of elemental damage isn't too farfetched anymore.

>>95884611
it's a real mystery because even full proficiency/ability score bonus spellcasters don't want to make spell attack rolls

>>95884597
spear is pretty vestigial if you even want to be swinging it
the only real deal is if your gm think that having an extra spellslot by combining staff charges is "too strong" or perfectly fine considering you are witheld by wizard chassis

>>95884597
>he wants to dump WIS in 2e
Oh no no no no

>>95884936
I do it all the time and it's basically fine if you play half decent and have a functional build otherwise
there are no scary will saves until mid/midlate game and by then you've had time to shore it up with situational bonuses
simply don't roll perception for initiative/take incredible initiative
also, minimize enemy caster existence. you can just kill them. stupefy is strong, reactive strike/whatever is strong, grabbing them makes them need to pass a flat check to manipulate, etc
always bank a hero point for feeblemind or whatever. if you dump wis you've probably got con instead so you shouldn't need them for dying rolls/fort saves
it's a tradeoff you can make up for like anything else
wis is great but only necessary for wis casters or just tables that constantly slam you with PL+3/4 casters and for those you can just build to fuck casters in general

>>95884306
It's access to big two-handed weapon sneak attacks that you have to jump through like 4 hoops to get
It's kinda nice for that alone but the rest of the CA is a mess, WHY DOES IT HAVE ALL THE DUAL WIELDING STUFF THAT'S NORMAL ROGUE STUFF ANYWAY FUCK

>>95884597
gishes do not exist in 2e
you are either casting spells or using a weapon
no character is capable of doing both properly
the closest you'll get are classes with vestigial spellcasting like magus or martial classes with archetype casters - you never cast a spell that requires an attack roll or save, just buffing spells.

>>95883666
Avenger is good by virtue of being a rogue, it's literally impossible to make a rogue bad

>>95885455
I'd argue that picking an option that makes your character worse is, in fact, bad, even if it's on the strong rogue chassis
you don't get a whole lot meaningful out of it vs ruffian, which doesn't lose surprise attack and isn't forced into a dead feat at level 2. big weapon dice aren't really worth anything in the grand scheme of things, especially on a rogue that would much rather have agile weapons anyway because of how sneak attack works

>>95885455
no unique debilitations make it bit annoying however

>>95885488
The main thing I want to try with avenger is ignoring all the doomed condition shit and going in as one of Urgathoa with haft striker stance and twin takedown for fat fucking scythe crits while still getting to take advantage of agile but I can't get over how grim a turn 1 that'll always end up being.

Stance into hunt prey into I'm fucked unless quickened or an enemy has already approached me.

>>95885590
I'm dumb, I can just go into the stance round 2. Round 1, hunt>stride or tumble behind>strike works perfectly fine.

>>95885590
why would you want to be the one approaching unless the enemy is a caster

>>95885619
Round 1 tempo is important. You want the whole party to jump someone and beat them down before they can act.

>>95885613
Do you think the extra damage is gonna be worth losing a Strike on turn 1 compared to just actually dual wielding? I guess it's not the end of the world either way.

What's your guy's experience with the werecreature dedication with free archetype? My human sylph lineage ranger recently got infected with lycanthropy (werewolf) during a session and decided to try it out. Was originally an air Kineticist archetype but wasn't using the stuff from it as much. Since my character is wearing the Stag Helm from the Stag Lord, I decided to sort of flavor them as a wendigo with it merging with their hybrid form and beginning to follow Erastil to temper their bloodlust and protect the group's settlement whereas before they only followed similar morals to the deity.

>>95885774
thematically seems pretty fantastic but i can't tell how useful WC will be in your campaign regardless of class due to not letting us know the style and difficulty

My buddy wants to run starfinder and from I can tell it's pretty much DnD in space. What stuff should I know going in (besides reading the rules of course)

>>95885811
there is a 99% chance that he won't run it as dnd in space and will run it as futuristic dnd on one planet

>>95885803
Its Kingmaker for PF2E in the Stolen Lands (currently we're level 5) with the Kingdom management stuff being a bit more streamlined since it was a bit janky with the module on foundry for both us and our DM (one of the kingdom events was the werewolf we dealt with). Currently playing with a precision mostly melee ranger (can use composite bow or returning handaxe for ranged) with a blazing bastard sword we got from an undead in a crypt and having a pet spider (reflavored scorpion until I can change it to the riding tarantula later on).

Group comp is a human sorceress and elf druid as ranged support and the other martial who's the ruler of the kingdom being a human dromaar heritage Macho Man Randy Savage inspired wrestler archetype swashbuckler who keeps repeatedly shoving enemies to the ground/grappling for me to reaction attack and both me and the druid have pets in the mix (their pet being a badger) that would make pack attack later on add onto the precision damage.

Question about stealth. I have these two Dero hiding in this cave to ambush the party. The top Dero rolls well and is unnoticed. The bottom Dero doesn't roll as well and is instead undetected. The top Dero goes first and fires off a bolt. Then one of the heroes goes and moves up to hit the top one and he's carrying a torch. Do they automatically see the bottom Dero now that there is no cover blocking them?

https://downloads.paizo.com/Myth-Speaker_Players-Guide.pdf
>The Myth-Speaker Adventure Path involves many open, natural environments that won’t impede Large PCs.

I wonder if Paizo will have the guts and the effort to move away from the dungeon crawl structure.

Aerokestes offers the falcata, an advanced weapon, as a favored weapon. What can we do with this?

>2e
how does free archetype work with class archetypes?
i.e. bard wellspring mage

>>95886458
It doesn't. You can't use your level 2, 4, or 6 archetype feats if you use a class archetype in a FA game.

>>95886456
what dungeon crawl structure
I've played in 4 APs and only one had a proper dungeon and it was abomination vaults

>>95886463
ffs. nuke paizo

>>95886458
If your GM isn't a bitch they'll let you ignore the limitation

>>95886463
Sure you can. They just have to be spent on normal class feats and your FA stuff has to be from the CA only. It's not that complicated.

>>95886458
With some finagling. I've got a player putting together a Runelord wizard right now who I'm letting archetype into Sentinel with their FA while spending class feats on Runelord stuff.

Is this RAW? No. Do I care? Not really. The variant rules require a little extra thought to fit together with expanded content.

>>95886439
I feel like I'm getting a little lost in your example but to answer the general question, yes, they'd see anybody hiding behind cover if they walk past that cover, and they'd see anybody trying to hide in darkness if they walked up to them with a torch. Hiding requires that someone has either cover (e.g. hiding behind a curtain or some bushes) or concealment (e.g. hiding in dim light or darkness, or in a particularly foggy area). To quote directly from the Hide entry in Player Core:

>If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again.

In game-terms, someone can only Sneak or Hide (or remain hidden) from someone if that person can't observe them with a precise sense (which is usually--but not always--vision). In plan English, you can't be hidden from someone who's looking right at you.

>>95886458
Most GMs would just argue that IS your Free Archetype.

>>95886514
>Sure you can. They just have to be spent on normal class feats and your FA stuff has to be from the CA only.
You still can't use your level 2 archetype feat unless your CA has a level 2 feat as an additional feat.

>>95886526
What are you talking about? EVERY class archetype have a Level 2 feat, it's called your Dedication. Not even martials skirt around this.

>>95886542
>You must select (Class Archetype) Dedication as your 2nd-level class feat.
CLASS FEAT. Not "you must take it at level 2". You MUST use your CLASS FEAT on it. Which means you can't use your 2nd level archetype feat, as there are no valid options.

>>95886548
They write it like that because by default, archetype feats don't exist. Free Archetype is a variant ruling, thus it requires a bit of work from your GM. EVERY archetype asks for your class feat, with FA superseding that rule so you can use an Archetype Feat in place of such.

>>95886559
>thus it requires a bit of work from your GM.
So, you're using house rules to smooth over the issue, but the issue still exists and has to be smoothed over in the first place. Sure, most reasonable GMs will do something to make it function, but RAW, you must leave your level 2 archetype feat blank unless you're playing a Vindicator or Battle Harbinger.

>>95886573
>>95886548
FA gives you extra class feats specifically for spending on archetype stuff. Pls read da rulez

>>95886573
>The only difference between a normal character and a free archetype character is that the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2751

Even the text refers to Archetype Feats as "extra class feats".
I don't understand how you view Vindicator and Battle Harbinger different from Wellspring Mage, despite having the same functionality. They all have a Dedication, even Flexible Spellcaster where it is its ONLY feat.

>>95886548
>>95886573
>If you select this ability, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and you proceed normally afterward.
The general rule for class archetypes says this, just that you have to take the dedication at 2 and not that it has to take your class feat. But the other anon is correct. By default, you can only take archetype feats with class feats. All of them, not just the dedication. Free archetype gives you another feat selection that can be used on archetypes. It's just a case of specific rule (free archetype) beats general rule (archetype feats take your class feat). Your interpretation could be stretched to say that free archetype feats can't be spent on archetype feats at all since archetype feats require class feats, but that's obviously not the case.

>>95886595
Vindicator has a level 1 archetype feat (domain initiate) and therefore has two ways of utilising the feat: Either you play as a human, take domain initiate twice at first level, and then you can immediately exit at 2nd level, or you can just take domain initiate with the archetype feat. For battle harbinger, you can take Vicious Swing.

>>95886593
>>95886595
>>95886603
Every online character builder works like that anon said, including the official ones. You're choosing to read the rules in a generous manner that makes logical sense, but the rules simply don't work as written.

>>95886603
FA just gives extra class feats that can only be spent on Archetypes so anon is just flat wrong.

>>95886626
Yeah I'd missed what >>95886593 is showing. If free archetype feats are explicitly called out as class feats, then this is clear cut. It gives you a class feat at level 2, you spend it on the dedication at level 2. There's no argument.

>>95886595
>>95886626
>>95886633
ffs load up pathbuilder and check this shit yourselves
IT LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK
YOU ARE HOUSE RULING IT
which is fine, of course, but THE ISSUE STILL EXISTS, it's easy to fix, yes, but that doesn't mean that the issue doesn't exist. jfc paizodrone fucks

>>95886548
>base game rule doesn't explain how it works with a variant rule
woah

>>95886645
You need to filter and scroll down. It's not in "Archetype Class Feats", it is stuck in the Dedications section. And pay the site $5 to use free archetype in the first place...

>paizodrones
okay, so it is just the same troll. that's a massive headache off of me, cause I was genuinely wondering if I was dealing with an illiterate underaged user....

>>95886645
Bro I don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong. I already had this character built to load up and if works.

>>95886645
Pathbuilder isn't any more official than AoN is, anon. It's just Paizo sanctioned.

>>95886645
>pathbuilder
Not really giving my opinion about the rule itself, but third party app does not really have much say in here.

>>95879664 (OP)
Pathfinder 2e starts in 4719 AR, right? What years did Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder start in again?

>>95886842
PF1 was whenever pathfinder launched irl, + 2700 years after that. as for starfinder I have no idea

>>95886842
Pathfinder 1e was 4709 AR, I think

Starfinder counts years from the Gap, but I can't remember the actual year

>PF2e
How bad is it if I DON'T take Stand Still as a Monk? There are a lot of attractive level 4 feats (such as Flurry of Maneuvers and Harmonize Self), but sacrificing a reaction strike seems excessive and I don't know how it'll pan out in practice.

>>95886931
how do you have reactive strike as a monk?

>>95886931
Monks don't get reactive strike. Stand Still is their equivalent version of it.

>>95886931
You're going to want a plan to get ahold of some kind of reaction, otherwise you're just leaving action economy on the table. Do you *need* Stand Still at 4? No, barbarian doesn't get Reactive Strike until 6 and they're fine. But you're going to want a solid reaction at some point, and by the time you start getting to level 6-8 you're getting to a point where you're spending a significant amount of the campaign without anything to do with that reaction you get each round. Not having a reaction is a big opportunity cost.

So, you could push Stand Still back, but I'd say to squeeze it in at 6 if you don't want it at 4. 8, in my view, is really pushing it. Or, alternatively, grab some other reaction instead. Going through the game without any reactions is definitely a handicap, and it's a particular shame on monk, because Stand Still is actually pretty good. It won't be the end of the world if you never ever get a reaction of course, but from a build standpoint it's basically never "optimal" to leave that action empty.

>>95886985
Thanks. I'm a bit sad that something so critical requires spending a valuable class feat slot, but it is what it is. I'll definitely try building around it. I'm also planning on using Aid more, but it's something I just learned about and haven't had the chance to try in the game I'm currently playing, so I have no idea if that would be good enough use of my reaction.

>>95886954
>>95886963
When I said "a reaction strike", I meant a strike as a reaction, not literally "Reactive Strike". I know Stand Still exists, it's in the post.

>>95887043
monk is actually a solid user of aid, yes
given that flurry of blows condenses your actions you can easily just stride->FoB->prepare to aid and have very efficient turns
if you want to pick up any of the aid-boosters you might not even necessarily need another reaction. aid becomes very strong. +2/3/4 to hit all the time for someone with a greataxe or whatever is incredible

>>95886985
Wow this system really is just like 5e

I just put up with looking at mark seifter's balding heroine addict face to hear him try to squeak about power attack/vicious swing and he doesn't even know how hero points work
he said it was roll again and take the better result.which frankly it kinda should be, if only because "I'm gonna spend my HERO POINT on this roll that I failed at" to get a critical failure instead feels immensely shitty and unfun
but man

>>95887593
>he said it was roll again and take the better result.which frankly it kinda should be

That was one of the first house rules I implemented, along with:

>Spend 1 Hero Point to force a creature that has just rolled a save against an effect you created to roll a second time and keep the lower result. This is a misfortune effect.

I don't like how, with the normal rules, if I'm shooting an arrow at someone and the d20 doesn't go the way I like, I can use a Hero Point to reroll it, but if I'm casting Daze on them and the d20 doesn't go the way I like, I can't. It just seems like a needless asymmetry.

>Fixing Whirling Throw
Make it an alternative Grapple, like Overextending Feint is to Feint.

>>95888412
Make all "Attempt an [Athletics maneuver]" feats like Submission Hold into alternatives of their respective actions and give Mixed Maneuver to Wrestler.

>Be 2e designer
>Enjoying my mid-morning goon sesh where I think of subtle ways to make Spell Attacks worse
>Brain blast
>Why not take the part that makes Area attacks annoying, your own allies getting in the way, and transplant that mechanic into Spell Attacks through the "allies give enemies lesser cover against your attacks" mechanic
>Submit ticket
>Coom
>Post nut clarity. Realize that this possibly hurts the precious Fighterino indirectly
>Panic.jpg
>Hear the rest of the office has already started masturbating to the idea
>Too late
>Spend the next few years making this mechanic less intrusive for Martial Archers specifically to fix my mistake and hope nobody notices.


Praise Balance.

>>95888796
This is what I imagine it sounds like when anyone with the stupefied condition tries to speak.

>>95888807
Nah. I'm a designer at Paizo. That's literally exactly what happened.

The guy who changed True Strike, excuse me Sure Strike, to be on a ten minute cool down got promoted to upper management.

>>95888796
https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Precise%20Shot
just gonna post this here. no particular reason. im sure this never got much play.

>>95889506
>No particular reason
Well the reason is you're butthurt I insulted 2e and also you can't read (these go hand in hand)

Anyway, no surprise, but you're missing the larger point that I wasn't criticizing the concept of a range penalty in and of itself : )

Hope this helps!

>>95889560
No it's still just incomprehensible babble.
Reads as if you've had your brain scrambled by either magic or 4chan.
Or you're using linguistic trait actions without knowing common.

>>95886458
it really depends on the GM
I let my players have two archetypes at once with if they have a class archetype but they can't get a new FA until they finish both

>>95889582
>No it's still just incomprehensible babble.
Yeah we've already established that you can't read : )

honestly the players should be the only ones who make rolls
enemy attacks, players make an armour save using the attack bonus to calculate a fixed attack dc
player casts fireball, makes attack rolls against the enemies' reflex dcs
etc

>>95889735
Sounds pretty good to me. Would make it so you're not sitting around doing nothing for 30 minutes waiting for you turn.

How broken should a campaign focal point artifact be?
I'm currently writing/running a 10-20 campaign to continue to story from shades of blood. Close to level 20, in order to progress my players will need to recover this artifact. They may be using it for a while... not sure how broken to make it, or what other effects to add.

>>95889735
as a GM my ideal would be that the only dice I ever roll are for random encounters/reactions and secret stuff like recall knowledge, so I'd definitely be down for an alternative rule that allows player-facing rolls
my experience GMing pf2e (online only, I don't have the luxury of playing at a table with my friends) has been that as soon as someone's turn in initiative is over they immediately check out until I call on them because they won't have to do anything else for the next 5 minutes
pretty harsh contrast to games with team initiative but that would be a disaster in this game
I'm also an AC telegrapher/save announcer (only after the defense in question has been targeted) already, so I wouldn't even have a problem adjusting to "the monster's approaching and attacking you, defend at -17 and -12"

>>95888926
>The guy who changed True Strike, excuse me Sure Strike, to be on a ten minute cool down got promoted to upper management.

I understand the joke, but please god tell me this didn't happen

>>95892821
That did happen, Sure Strike has a 10-minute cooldown because it was such a no-brainer to run multiple copies of, especially on Magus. It did needed reigning in, especially as many designers already note it made creating spell attacks more risky. But leave it to Paizo to overcorrect and make it absurdly unwieldy.

This is the one place that the 1d4 round counter they randomly fell in love with should have been.

>>95892854
oh, I was asking about the promotion thing

I knew about the demise of Sure Strike and agree wholeheartedly about the the 10 minute cooldown idiocy, but leave it to Paizo to return once again to their dumbass roots

The archetype Flurry cooldown, if you were to put any cooldown any at all...

>Monk's Flurry [Feat 10]
>Prerequisites: Monk Dedication
>You gain the Flurry of Blows action. Your fists’ power, however, exceeds your conditioning; once you use Flurry of Blows, you can’t use it again until after your next turn.

>>95892854
> It did needed reigning in
How about fixing spell strikes so you don't need to run Sure Strike just to use them somewhat effectively and thus not a "no brainer" to run?

Speaking of fixing things that aren't broken, some monkey made the current VTT 2e module worse for no reason.

>>95892854
What boils my piss is Paizo used True Strike as an excuse to never give caster's any kind of item bonus to spell attacks. Now they have nerfed and casters still get fuck all.
>>95893547
FoB didn't need to be nerfed in archetype. Monk should of just got an inbuilt buff to it as a feature at level 9 like giving you less MAP when using it.

Monk flurry, you make both attacks at current MAP
Archetype flurry, you make both attacks at MAP-1
it's really that simple

>>95893649
>Monk should of just got an inbuilt buff to it as a feature at level 9 like giving you less MAP when using it.
It's funny because Fighter already has Agile Grace, so they would be even in that case. Monk absolutely deserves something similar to make FoB more useful in general and Godbreaker usable

would there even be anything WRONG with using sure strike repeatedly on a strong attack spell?
it's three actions and two spell slots. even at high level play (which isn't good or balanced anyway) you're still giving up a ton of your low level spells that often go to extremely powerful evergreen stuff like tailwind and whole-ass reactions in favor of hyperfocusing on one, maybe two higher level spells. spells that CAN still miss and STILL need 2 actions to cast and so on
someone doing that is completely focused on doing damage and basically nothing else. you're giving up a load of utility to blast. it's a self-solving "problem" if the damage even ends up being high

anyway I'm gonna use surestrike on thishyur 2 action meta strike once per day because I only have one casting of it per day and the 10 minute cooldown does nothing to me

>>95893649
>>95893674
>>95893695
look at these powergaming losers trying to make an already amazing class overpowered, you should just enjoy your privileged ability to treat unarmed strikes as being magical, unlike every other class that needs an item to do that! /s fucking kill me

>>95893695
my heart goes out to monks who got new final feat and fucking rangers and fighters use it better

>>95893547
Of course that's not a real thing, we've been dealing with the same troll for nearly a week now and he can't even remember that cover rules is a common D&D-clone ruling. Do you really think he has any real knowledge of Paizo inner workings?

>Flurry changes
Honestly, just being Level 10 is enough of a nerf compared to 8. Fighter deserves the pain, but Flurry never actually been that notable a build pickup. Hell, it isn't like Fighter can't grab stuff like Twin Takedown or other 1 action double strikes, beyond the ones they ALREADY HAVE built in their fist list.

>>95893638
I know you just gonna go on your Spell Combat idea, so I won't go too far in here. I will note that it isn't really Magus's fault that Sure Strike is so notable on their kit. After all, they basically the best at using Spell Attacks barring fighter, so of course they like it. The problem is just how Sure Strike is designed, Advantage is just an incredible thing to give out for cheap. It's why it ISN'T the default Hero Point rule, it is on average a +4 to all your rolls and that's just absurd to give out by the hour. It's why I think >>95893649 isn't quite right, it's still too good to ignore entirely for caster buffs.
It really need to be like 5e's version or like Guidance where it is just a simple stat boost OR higher rank so it isn't so cheap to run on things like scrolls and wands. The way it is, even with the 10 minute cooldown, is still rather absurd. I used to brainstorm Warpriest running it in their Divine Fonts to make up for how FUBAR'd they used to be, that's how I know it is a big design issue.

>>95893674
>>95893695
You know Flurry is fine, right? It's good. It's a good option, it doesn't need to be changed! It does everything a Monk would want it to! Not everything needs to be god-tier, don't fix what isn't broken! Don't be Paizo!
Can agree that Godbreaker should be better. That's just...badly designed in every respect of the phrase.

>>95893730
My theory with godbreaker is they made that for wrestler and then realised some monks would go fucking feral if they didn't have automatic access to it.

>>95893745
>Honestly, just being Level 10 is enough of a nerf compared to 8.
archetype flurry was always level 10, and hell, I'd argue that fighter isn't even the one most impacted by the change (given all the stuff they already have access to), it was probably Barbarian (specifically animal) and Rogue that got hit the most

>>95893754
>then realised some monks would go fucking feral if they didn't have automatic access to it.
And yet there's so god damn many appropriate feats on other unarmed-related archetypes they didn't do that with?

>>95893716
It's less a case of it being overpowered so much as not really an interesting thing to build around for how much design space and mental stack it takes up. It's why I don't begrudge the Spell Combat Magus Anon's idea, even if I disagree with it. Having so much power based around this massive boost in accuracy for one action + spell slot is...not really smart design. There's no real opportunity cost, a decision to be made. Yeah, it can fail, but there really wasn't a better option anyway. If that's really all what people want out of Magus, then why even make the class and not just a funny feat for casters? You see how the logic just falls apart the more you compensate for this badly designed spell.

I don't necessarily believe Paizo when they say it is the only thing that stops casters from getting item bonuses, but I do understand the logic there. At the point they would be Legendary in Spell Attacks, they can load themselves up in this massive boost, so at what point do you just say they always have Advantage on this anyway, if not just auto-hit? It really is just one of those things that snowballs into Poor Player Behaviors that 2e wants to curbtail as hard as possible, for good and ill. I don't think the Sure Strike change was enough to do anything but people off. But something DOES have to be done if we want more room to experiment with Attack Rolls in general.

I think ideally every class is as good as fighter, just in different ways, and it can all be accomplished by just adding some minor things to class chassis. they don't even have to be big, they just need to play into a certain niche of the game
basically what they're trying to do now, but just a bit more
many classes still have level 1 feats that could just be part of the chassis or a subclass selection, and in most cases doing that kind of just accomplishes that

I also think that the problem with spells is just that most of them are fucking BAD and could similarly be fixed with just tiny number tweaks
"every +1 matters :)" is an unfortunate truth that leads to shit like being 5% more likely to hit being seen as ridiculously powerful, when it can still just... not do anything, regularly, repeatedly

>>95893791
just. fucking. delete it entirely and give spell attack potency runes. boom. done. easy. there is no need to experiment with rolling a d20 against a target number. if the accuracy sucks and that is what is making people not like spell attacks, then fix the accuracy
they don't even have to apply to spell DCs. they can cost less gold because they don't. just make them only apply to spell attack rolls, and the whole thing is fucking fixed
make gate attentuator analogues for them if you have to follow that item level progression for some reason. just fucking any kind of item bonus. spell attack rolls fucking suck because the math of the game assumes AC is targeted like martials do
every. single. bit. of advice is stuff like "oh use flanking" "debuff the enemy if your attack spell is missing" misses the point ENTIRELY where martial attack bonuses are doing the SAME THING and getting the SAME BENEFITS.
SPELLS COST MULTIPLE ACTIONS AND OFTEN A LIMITED RESOURCE TO USE. IF AN ATTACK ROLL IS MADE USING AN ABILITY THAT MEETS BOTH OF THOSE CRITERIA, IT CAN AFFORD TO BE AS ACCURATE AS A d12+4 WEAPON STRIKE.
PRODUCE FLAME DOES 2d6 DAMAGE. THIS IS WORSE THAN d12+4.

ITEM BONUSES TO ATTACK SPELLS WILL NOT BREAK THE GAME.
the math is oh so tight mmm fuck yeah so fucking TIGHT and that means it can fucking afford to be loosened up and I have no idea why people think the tightness (aka the shittiness) of it is ironclad and flawless

why fucking EXPERIMENT
people like spellcasters because they RELIABLY AFFECT THE ENEMY

>>95893745
>I know you just gonna go on your Spell Combat idea
That's another guy. I just don't think nerfing Sure Strike was needed at all and it's not really that strong. A caster spends a limited resource to ensure one(1) spell hits. Woop dee doo.

It's badly designed in the sense that it's a band-aid fix for a larger problem. But the solution isn't to peel the band-aid partially off without fixing what's underneath.

>>95893844
Martials are generally locked out of status bonuses unless a spellcaster helps them. Shadow Signet also exists, which turns spell attacks into crit machines

The only problem with some spells is the range honestly, you should be targeting difference defenses because you can

>>95889735
I used to do that for my old 5E group, where they made AC saves

Worked out pretty well and they really liked it, if they nat-20'd they parried the attack

>>95893745
>and he can't even remember that cover rules is a common D&D-clone ruling. Do you really think he has any real knowledge of Paizo inner workings?
I can't believe you're still sperging out about being unable to read...

Thanks for revealing you're a big retard who types up a wall of text over not reading the post he's responding to. I guess that makes you the big baby who cries when 2e is criticized in any way? Even if I was a troll, I'd still be a higher quality poster than you since I'm not a braindead edition warrior.

>>95892854
>especially on Magus
Why doesn't it have the usual safety net "if your next action is an attack" wording?

Spellstrike combo point
>Arcane Cascade as cursebound-like condition, starts at max value 2, increases to max 4. Gives condition value to strike and spell damage.
>Spellstrike requires you have 0 condition value (increases as you level), increase value by 2 on use.
>Specific 1A Strike and subclass specific actions (Leap, High/Long Jump for Aloof, Reload for SSpan, etc.) reduce value by 1, limit once per round per action.
Can Spellstrike on first turn, doesn't just jack off in the corner to reload it, can burst on back-to-back turns at later level.

Spellstrike combo point
>Arcane Cascade as cursebound-like condition, start combat at value 0. Max value 2 at 1st level, increases to max 4. Gives condition value to strike and spell damage.
>Spellstrike requires you have 0 condition value (increases as you level), increase value by 2 on use.
>Specific 1A Strike and subclass specific actions (Leap, High/Long Jump for Aloof, Reload for SSpan, etc.) reduce value by 1, limit once per round per action.
Can Spellstrike on first turn, doesn't just jack off in the corner to reload it, can burst on back-to-back turns at later level.

>>95888796
You say that, then you say compare Ignition with a long bow attack that gets a -2 to attack if the target is within 30 ft with possibly only two 2 damage on a crit

Spell casters absolutely mog martial ranged options outside of say gunslinger. By the time they start getting good you have shadow signet and all full caster get legendary in their spell casting

Martial range is only good at extreme ranges

>>95894013
why actually would you pick a longbow over a shortbow when it doesn't have volley and still hits the entire map

Holy light and moonlight ray kinda fuck though.

>>95894059
My point exactly, most ranged options are garbage outside of like two classes

>>95894086
>shortbow
>60' range
>strike twice (can be pretty condensed to 1 action by two classes that are likely to use it (ranger/bow monk))
>in bow monk's case totally compatible with stunning fist
>deadly d8, avg. 4.5 extra damage on a crit
>deals 2d6 damage if both attacks just hit
>faster profiency scaling for the levels that matter
>potency runes

>ignition
>30' range on classes with less HP and AC
>roll one time
>d4 persistent damage if it crits, can generally be averaged to also about 4.5 damage assuming two rounds of persistent which is pretty fair
>deals 2d4 damage, but with far worse action economy
>slower proficiency scaling up until the basically-nonexistent level 19
>no potency runes

diabolic edict would be pretty fun if it didn't require a willing target

>>95894013
if you're using a longbow, you know point blank stance. this is non-negotiable.

>>95894138
2d6 for shortbow on hit is if you have the runes at like level 5 if it's your primary weapon.

At level 5-- Ignition would do 4d4 or 4d6 on melee since it auto heightens for free, also it sets them on fire on crit. A free side-arm when you don't want to spend spells slots. No gold, no feat or any real investment and if you do some classes give good rider effects and spellshapes

To get shortbow as good as ignition you'd have to spend nearly half your level 5 budget on it

>>95894013
>-2 to attack
>still higher than the spellcaster's attack bonus because lmao spellcaster progression and lmao no potency runes

>>95894214
bro you keep mentioning the persistent damage like it is mathematically possible for you to crit on any enemy that won't die in a single hit from a martial

>>95894214
I added a few lines so it got lost, but it's 2d6 for striking twice at level 1, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and keeps its action economy equivalent to casting ignition

If I take a Psychic dedication on a non-occult caster, can I apply the amp effect of the cantrip to castings using my main tradition?
e.g. Elemental sorcerer grabbing Oscillating Wave, can I amp a Primal Ignition?

>>95894247
Two attacks at level 1 is going to have a 20% hit chance and 5% crit if you don't have agile or sweep

Low-levels one big attack is way better than MAP'd attacks

>>95893939
Because Spellstrike/Spell Attacks are already attacks. And no one use Sure Strike on maneuvers, that's a hilarious amount of overkill.

>>95893844
So there's a genuine case to be made that casters SHOULDN'T be good at hitting AC, not as much as martials. If you can already hit 3 different defenses, why do you also need to be good at hitting the one martials are practically locked to? It's why Paizo have already said they don't like what they did with the Shadow Signet Ring, it is an item designed to make casters as good at attack rolls as the class designed around them.

Granted, this was all before they made Gate Attenuators and shat on the idea, so ultimately they want casters to step on martials toes to SOME degree. GAs very much are the most balanced approach to the idea and they can't really argue casters' suffering when Kineticists just exist.

>>95894285
No because it is technically not on your Sorcerer spell list but the Psychic one, your amps only apply to your psi-cantrips. It doesn't really matter because your spellcasting proficiency is universal and Sorcerer and Psychics are both CHA casters, so you aren't really losing out on anything but the Primal/Occult trait swap.

>in addition to all of its other limitations, which I'd honestly have been willing to overlook, 2e Sleep is a 5 foot burst
mother of god

>>95894403
Casters should get easier access to selfish status bonuses that doesn't consume a spell slot. Like a simple spellshape that gives +2 status on a spell if you spend an action to empower for dealing with PL+4s

Spell caster item bonuses should come from crafting classes through gadgets, alchemy and potions-- just like most martials depend on spell casters for status bonuses, since they tend to have the hand econ to use utility items

>>95894062
I want my hell's rebels game back so I can moonlight ray more devils...

My players are pretty disinterested in combat if its not their turn. Any way to fix that?

>>95894403
Then don't have attack roll spells in the first place since they're a noob trap. Let them invest in weapon/unarmed attacks and have it be decent if they want that avenue.

For anyone who's actually played it, how much combat is there in Season of Ghosts, actually?

>>95895021
Have more than 1 big enemy for the party fighter to whack so the party has to actually worry about what they're doing and who's getting smacked with what.

>>95895021
Have players describe their actions and make sure you describe what the enemy doing, combat should be an action story. Reward hero points or allow for bonuses to rolls when they spend them if they describe the heroic action

You can allow for more freeform reactions, like just dropping prone, letting them grab onto a mounted PC or grabbing someone's hand if they're falling re-fluffing some reactions like Grab an Edge

My shining kingdoms book arrives tomorrow

Thats all I got going for me right now, thanks for reading

>>95895459
That could work. I'm pretty bad at painting a picture with words so I tend to just say "The monster hits you" or "You hit the enemy"

>>95893649
>What boils my piss is Paizo used True Strike as an excuse to never give caster's any kind of item bonus to spell attacks. Now they have nerfed and casters still get fuck all.

what got me was how it came out of nowhere(at least in my perception), THEN I saw all the usual suspects going on and on about how sure strike was "too powahhhful"

what the fuck is magic supposed to do then? The Magus is a gish. They are a martial and a caster, thats the gimmick. Why wouldn't they use spells to help their signature class feature actually work.

>>95894403
>Granted, this was all before they made Gate Attenuators and shat on the idea, so ultimately they want casters to step on martials toes to SOME degree. GAs very much are the most balanced approach to the idea and they can't really argue casters' suffering when Kineticists just exist.

Someone, SOMEONE at Paizo thankfully realized that if the Kineticist was going to function at all as a pseudo-martial, they NEED an item bonus to their attack rolls

>>95895895
I thought it got nerfed because of the Wizard Staff Nexus build that actually dared to use spell attacks by loading up a staff with True Strikes. God forbid a Wizard has something cool and powerful.

>>95894403
Except Paizo logic falls apart when you realize that casters are already spending twice as many actions with the potential for less damage (thanks for taking mod away from cantrip damage, btw). There are also enemies in this game where you can ask what their lowest save is, get will as an answer, only for your spell to do literally nothing because it's mindless or immune to fear or something. Here's another scenario, I need to do fire damage, but the enemy has a high reflex save. Damage type versatility is supposed to be a strength, so why am I being punished for using my options? Fire is also one of the few that even gets the chance at this option, which is another issue that should have been addressed with all these books coming out, yet we still lack low level ways to do damage through will or ways to do good cold damage, outside of Frostbite, before level 7.

>>95894470
>Like a simple spellshape that gives +2 status on a spell if you spend an action to empower for dealing with PL+4s
No, that's just a bad idea because there's no reason to not cast that all the time.
poor player behaviors, don't really have to explain much there.
>Spell caster item bonuses should come from crafting classes through gadgets, alchemy and potions--
I do agree with this, if because Magus already circumvents the safeguard in place of no alchemical boost to INT/WIS/CHA-based attack rolls. Spellstrike being an incredibly wide piece of design hinderance rearing its ugly ass once again... And stuff like Insight Coffee already proves there can be class-dependent alchemical items.

>>95895028
I used to believe in this idea before more status bonuses/Bless used to be super shitty. But as it became easier to gain buffs, I prefer the back and forth that's going on. Again, you are supposed to be decent in hitting AC, not good. The very old playtest versions, where every Martial was capped at Expert and training was only +1/2/3/4 revealed the original intent, they were cycling around the 45% hit rate mark.
I do think Spell Attacks should be better DESIGNED, mind you. Either having some form of graze/splash damage or much better value ala Blazing Bolts, but I don't think they are supposed to be noob traps. Since AC is an average defense most of the time, it is supposed to be a fallback option.

>>95896004
Spellcasting is supposed to be difficult. Guessing wrong on the spell is as valid as the Fighter being stonewalled by a Physical-immune foe. And the "elements with bad defenses" is more a self-correcting problem as new spells get made and target more stuff. For example, Rage of Elements made Cinder Swarm and Flames of Ego. Snowball, Claws of the Otter, Purifying Icicle and Chilling Spray are low-level cold spells. And all the low level Will-targeting damaging spells is Occult's hoard, for whatever reason...

>>95896125
>>95896004
(cont.)
>Except Paizo logic falls apart when you realize that casters are already spending twice as many actions with the potential for less damage
For the most part, if a martial missed one Strike, the odds hitting the other is already pretty miserable, so most non-fighter based builds are pretty one-to-one in terms of expected DPS, if not below. it's hard to call something like Investigator, Thaumaturge, or other marking classes as outpacing casters. And even assuming they are a bow user who is fine missing out on damage for action economy, they still are dipping into a resource and end up in more constrained circumstances.

The way the 3 Action Economy plays out, if you aren't really uber-spec'd for damage, most classes are playing alongside casters in terms of damage, thanks to moving and how metastrikes are designed. Otherwise we'd be shittalking Double Slice more often than not.

>thanks for taking mod away from cantrip damage, btw
Yeah, I still don't get this change, even after over a year with it. It just make low-level play more annoying for the simplicity of tabletop play. It keeps cantrips consistent in design with spells but cantrips aren't supposed to be consistent with spells...! Can't play Devil's Advocate there...

>>95895918
I don't have too much a problem with the Easy Bake Oven approach to Kineticist. It's why I hated people asking for Burn to come back. It is supposed to be accessible in both martial and caster respects.
I just have an issue with how Gate Attenuators just exist as is. After all this belly-aching and bullshitting, a caster-esque class that have infinite resources isn't warping the game to have moderately better ways of targeting AC. It's still not as good as actual martials but that's all it needed to be. A simple +1/2 to push them on-curve.

Sometimes I just don't understand Paizo and how they view their own game, even after all these years.

>>95893844
>ITEM BONUSES TO ATTACK SPELLS WILL NOT BREAK THE GAME.
The people who act like the game will break down into unplayable magic slop are usually the ones also telling us how great the system is. These people have such high regard for a system so fragile and resilient that small modifiers will make it unplayable to them.

I myself have changed spell DCs to follow skill bumps in my games so full casters start at expert and get bumps at 7 and 15 while gishes start at trained and get the same bumps. Hasn't broken the game and the spellcasters feel a lot better in the early game which was always the problem with casters.

>>95893892
>Martials are generally locked out of status bonuses unless a spellcaster helps them.
Spellcasters are usually locked out of circumstance bonuses and penalties martials give out so I'm not sure what your point is? Also the spellcaster is a retard if he isn't putting the status bonuses on his martials.
>Shadow Signet also exists
A level 10 uncommon item.........great.
>The only problem with some spells is the range honestly, you should be targeting difference defences because you can
I hate this fucking nogames take. Yes we know anon but that rarely turns out to be the case at early to mid levels where you don't have the luxury of having every spell you could possibly need at hand at all occasions as well as certain spell traditions having very little spells that target certain saves.

I swear every Paizoids advice on playing casters always boils down to "Just play high level casters yo!".

>>95894013
>My fully kitted out high level spellcasters mogs the level 1 featless martial.
This is why people dont take you seriously.

>>95896125
>Guessing wrong on the spell is as valid as the Fighter being stonewalled by a Physical-immune foe.

It would be if it was distributed in the same way at all. How many enemies do martials struggle against, versus how many do casters? Occult is miserable in early levels because basic skeletons and zombies are super common for APs and GMs to use. Elemental resistances are plentiful, while weaknesses are less so. Lots of things are just anti-magic, whether it comes in the form of a save bonus, or immunities. And this is all before the Recall Knowledge minigame.

On the martial side, I think I can count with one hand the amount of enemies I've seen with physical immunity. Incorporeal creatures absolutely ruin their day, and maybe oozes because they can't be crit. And don't get me wrong, my argument isn't that things should be more immune to martials, I think they should have more creatures for casters to shine against. Last I checked, there weren't any monsters weak against mental damage, make up some. Have some monsters that just get fucked up by magic with a weakness to spell damage and put them at the front of APs. Stuff like that doesn't fix some of the problems with casters early on, but it would help change the perception of them being weak or buffbots. They could at least do that if they truly feel their math can't stand up to casters having runes.

>>95896861
In general most if not all monsters should have weaknesses. Most humanoids (including PCs) and normal animals should have a weakness to poison for example (Just to give poisoner builds an actual purpose). But yeah you are correct that Paizo should really focus on balancing out the bestiary a bit more.

2e
So my party has a bunch of Abysium and we recently hit lvl 11. Was talking with another player who is playing a Bomber Alchemist and I made him realize he could make his bombs Abysium because of Advanced Vials. Any other fun precious material we should get him?

>>95896861
skeletons are a nightmare enemy
why the fuck do they have resistance to fire/ice/lightning, too? extremely goddamn annoying enemy design
more than once I've seen a new player have a fighter and a sorcerer with eg. produce flame. the fighter's sword mysteriously loses all of the force behind it when it touches the skeleton because that's how physics work, and the sorcerer goes next and hits produce flame, also does nothing, and everyone expresses confusion
>>95896876
more weaknesses would be great. as it stands the weaknesses/resistances system is nearly entirely based on punishing you for choosing the wrong options (often on your sheet, which sucks and is shitty design) instead of rewarding you for choosing the right options
it feels fucking bad and isn't fun. skeletons have all these resistances but no weakness. the ideal for a skeleton guard would probably be a weakness to bludgeoning, resistance to slashing, and even more resistance to piercing, but a bit more HP so that a level 1 character hitting a skeleton guard with bludgeoning damage is guaranteed to scatter them like bowling pins, and characters without the "correct" tools still have some other options, while walking into a crypt armed with only a spear ends up as a mistake.
unfortunately (even with the current system/design) because of the fundamental rune system, without ABP or ARP you are absolutely turbofucked by resistances constantly and can end up hosed because of a sheet choice you make for RP 99% of the time, like "my dude was a town guard so he still uses a spear now that he's an adventurer" and that choice can EASILY never reward you with hitting a weakness as well
ABP/ARP opens that entire world up and I think that's generally healthy. you can have a sidearm if you need to switch to it

>>95899031
But they didn't bother making any worthwhile items besides the weapon runes, what the heck are the players going to spend their gold on!?!?

>>95899031
Skeletons have low HP for their level while slashing and piercing damage is hard to do against bones which i assume is where the elemental resistances come from too. They make a great comparison to zombies which have extreme HP but low ac and a weakness to slashing. Honestly i think zombies and skeletons are the best designed creatures in the game and i wish most monsters followed suit.

>>95899340
Magic items that you imported from 5e.

>>95883120
>>95883438
This is why I refuse to treat 2e as anything more than a fucking glorified boardgame and only GM it for turbo casuals who don't care about immersion or anything more than THOG ROLL ATTACK beer and pretzel players. Some dipshit (probably Jason Bulmahn) unironically looked at the rules saying that being PARALYZED by something like ghoul claws or straight up paralysis spells has ZERO impact on your ability to backflip out of the way of a fireball or dodge a breath weapon, but RIDING A FUCKING HORSE (or dinosaur, or riding drake, or some fantastical agile monster) is almost as big a penalty as failing a save against the biggest debuff in the game synaesthesia is beyond parody.

>>95899506
not gonna say I agree with the design (I think it's terrible) but it's an entirely gameist approach, since "losing actions is punishing enough" probably
the issue is it makes zero fucking sense in the fiction
similarly there's no coup de grace or anything
in the games I've ran and played in we've always ignored a lot of the real nonsense. guy's asleep? sure just chop his fucking head off with an axe no problem, he's dead
fully paralyzed? auto crit

>>95899576
>>Unarmored defense monk is paralyzed
>No penalty to reflex saves and even keeps evasion crit success upgrade to take zero damage from a grenade going off in his face
>Summoner and his red dragon/literal demon eidolon from the fiery pits of the abyss caught in same explosion
>rolls twice and takes the WORSE result instead of the better, Crit fails and drops dead on the spot
>Effects that are multi-hit but not aoe like chain lightning are even worse and straight up delete you from existence because you're taking twice as much damage (monk dodges lightning while paralyzed and wearing a toga btw)
I hate secrets of magic so much holy fuck what a shitty designed class

>>95899649
pf2 is best played as a goofy cartoon game

Either or, but preferably
>1e
How would you equip a character to come off like he's a miner?
Aside from picks and maybe hammers, what would his gear look like?
Could you fluff heavy armour to be improvised safety equipment?

>>95899791
Forget picture my fucking ass, fuck you.

>>95899791
Children's clothes? A lollipop or some toys

>>95899340
A stronghold and some hirelings to manage it
More unique items can funnel in from there

>>95899828
Dude, work with me here.

Does foundry have any automation for Doubling Ring / Blazons of Shared Power for transferring runes to the second weapon or do you have to put that stuff in manually?

>>95899909
No and it's a pain in the arse. Running with automatic rune progression atm so I don't need to worry about it, but if I did I'd probably figure out how to write a macro that does by reverse engineering runic weapon.

>>95899791
Traveler's Any Tool CL20

Maintenance Overseer's Ring

A miner's helmet with Continual Flame

Dwarfs don't give a fuck so you could even give it stoneplate

>>95899031
>You are absolutely turbofucked by resistances constantly and can end up hosed because of a sheet choice you make for RP 99% of the time
There's not going to be a point where something you pick for "roleplay purposes primarily" is going to be helpful. You admitted that it isn't supposed to match the situation you find yourself and refuse to adapt. Yeah, ABP makes it easy to run sidearms, but you can't say you can't just...buy a sidearm or invest in a Versatile weapon in normal games.
I can agree more monsters should have more and impactful weaknesses. But you can't just say "I made a shitty build because I love my aesthetics, why doesn't the game cater to my aesthetic???".

>>95899576
Yeah, that's one of those absolute gameist things I'm gonna accept because I know the moment a GM pulls that stunt on the player, they gonna beg Paizo to remove Ghouls and paralysis entirely from the game.
I might even say just rename Paralysis to something like Spasms just to say you have SOME control, just not enough without considerable effort.

>>95899649
>Effects that are multi-hit but not aoe like chain lightning are even worse and straight up delete you from existence because you're taking twice as much damage (monk dodges lightning while paralyzed and wearing a toga btw)
No, the same effect that targets the both of you only deals the higher amount of damage/healing.
> Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
SoM aged HORRIBLY but Summoner is honestly the one thing they put the most thought and respect towards. There isn't a lot wrong with the core class or Eidolons, it is mostly the stupidly linear feat tree they are stuck with.

...and Summoner MC....

>>95900630
you're missing a point
you can have a spear and have it suck against skeletons, I'm not advocating for it to NOT such against skeletons
I'm advocating for it to ever actually come up as something good. there's a gulf of difference between the two, and wanting to play spear guy without feeling punished is a legitimate desire
according to AoN there are thirteen total monsters that have a piercing weakness
the game routinely punishes you for not using a bludgeoning weapon as your primary and packing a backup shortsword or halberd
one of the stated goals of pf2e design is that sheet choices should not matter nearly as much as table choices and the imbalance between physical resistances/weaknesses flies in the face of that from start to finish

>>95900630
>but you can't say you can't just...buy a sidearm or invest in a Versatile weapon in normal games.
you pretty much can't for most of the game, because the cost of making that sidearm actually usable is horrifying, and otherwise you're just better off using your actual main weapon.

>>95900848
Having a sidearm be the same as your main weapon IS prohibitively expensive, but that's why you don't...overdo your sidearm. Or if you need to spend a good while over it, transferring runes between items is only 10% of the rune's cost. Or if its not a two-hander, use the Doubling Rings to copy runes. Or use a combination weapon. Or a versatile weapon.

There are genuine options here beyond just bashing your head against the bludgeoning-resistant skele-boi. You can't adapt to everything but you can do yourself SOME favors or let the team handle.

>>95900764
Again, agreed on the weaknesses. It is infuriating how little monsters have piercing weakness (shoutout to poison weaknesses....) and I kinda blame bows for such. While I believe content options are self-correcting problems, when you are redoing MULTIPLE Bestiaries and shoving such into core splats, I think at some point someone should say a monster should be a pincushion.

It's not that I like defending Paizo, I just understand why some things are grittier and rougher than others. 1e or 2e, I do understand they have some ideas that isn't broadcasted the best but do provide important experiences, it is why I stick with them over Wizards or Games Workshop or Steve Jackson Games. I do appreciate some of their idiosyncracies. But there are stuff they can ABSOLUTELY do better in granting to the players and their production lines, over...whatever the fuck was last week's Pride Month post....

Anyone ever run Seven Dooms for Sandpoint? Hows the difficulty of it? I have 5 players and they tend to like more of a challenge in fights.

>>95895046
Reminded me.
Anyone? As a metric, more or less than book 2 of Triumph of the Tusk? Or some other metric, Idunno.
The impression I get from the player's guide is like 1 or 2 combats per level.

>Bootlicker unironically defending the Sure Strike nerf because mommy and daddy let the internet raise him so he thinks corporations are his friend and shielding them from criticism is his Champion cause.
Zoomers are genuinely so fucked.

honestly I tend to put a weakness on half the enemies I run that don't have a weakness just because enemy HP bloat is fucking absurd in how rapidly it outscales PC damage

>>95901815
look I'm a paizohater arguing with him but I think it's fairly obvious he's counterarguing because of how he perceives the game balance and not because of paizo themselves
there's nothing to "shield" them from here because they aren't going to see it here
in spite of paizo's best efforts, every table still has a different experience with the game which leads to differences in balance perception
that's why this isn't a heated shitflinging babyfight it's just some people sharing thoughts that happen to conflict. but it is still 4chan so yeah there's backhandedness and hyperbole
>>95900949
the entire sidearm thing is why I just never want to run without ABP/ARP again. it functions as a fix to the issue and leaves me and my players satisfied for the most part, but it still sucks when a player just really wants to marry his concept to a certain weapon, which seems like a very innocuous decision to make, but it has massive complications later in the game and most of them end up not feeling very sensible (eg no piercing weaknesses). I've seen it happen multiple times and it's always a feelsbad nofun moment that detracts from the player's opinion on the system, and I think that's kind of a flaw
>I kinda blame bows for such
that is actually probably it now that I think about it. which makes me like it even less honestly. letting bows shred certain things is good actually when they don't get any ability scores to damage. that would have been a great counterbalance for that
yes ranged damage is safer and easier on the action economy but y'know, people fucking die when they get shot. it's a huge immersion drop

>>95899350
I actually agree, even though I brought them up as problem enemies. It sucks that more enemies don't have interesting combinations of weakness, resistance, and stats like them. My issue is the lower level ones being immune to so many spells and leading to the caster playing behind the martial playstyle so many of us hate, with no compensation anywhere else. Casters have access to so many damage types, sonic, mental, etc. but aren't really rewarded for it despite that being an argument for their "power." Fire is the only element that you should keep on hand at all times to tag weaknesses, the rest are doing neutral damage or resisted. Maybe you'll get lucky that day and fight a hellhound to put frostbite to use, but it feels like a crapshoot most of the time.

2e, it seems like a real pain in the ass to find consistently useable reactions for casters, unless you try to be a gish.

>>95903174
Pretty much. They are kind of locked behind the Shield spell, Counterspelling, or a few reaction spells like Lose the Path or Eat Fire if you don't want to break into archetypes.

>>95903174
My favorite thing to do in Free Archetype games on spellcasters is take rogue as my first dedication. Every full caster's gonna qualify for it immediately due to being unarmored. Nimble Dodge is a level 1 rogue feat that gets you a consistently-reliable reaction all the way to level 20. Mobility is a level 2 feat that effectively lets you Step up to half your speed without triggering reactions. Both are super valuable for spellcasters and you can take them in either order right at the start of the game and then branch out to whatever other dedications you're looking at afterwards.

Nimble Dodge, notably, does not trigger on Strikes ,but on attacks, meaning that it also works against enemy spell attack rolls. This obviously applies to non-FA games too, bu then it's a lot more build-specific. In a FA game I can pretty safely recommend this for just about any spellcaster, it's universally great.

I hate Beastkin with every fiber of my being. Another cool concept turned to shit by Paizo. You get one d4 jaws unarmed attack. There are no feats to gain claws, or pincers, or anything else. You can't even turn into an actual animal until level 17.

>>95903401
just use awakened animal instead, it's largely disenshittified

>>95903401
>You get one d4 jaws unarmed attack.
Frankly natural weapons in general feel like one of those we forgot this isn't 1E anymore things and need a complete rework.

>first game at a new table
>skeletons, level 1
>everyone's using elemental damage, a sword, or a halberd
>throw down my shortsword, run at a skeleton, unarmed attack
>GM hems and haws because of nonlethal
>point out RAW undead aren't immune to nonlethal even if they're immune to unconscious, they get destroyed at 0hp, and I'm still hitting the thing with a blunt weapon
>4 damage on the nose with +1 strength yeehaw
>it's a "how do you want to do this" GM
>"uhhhh rider kick"
>"give me an acrobatics roll, DC 15"
>red flag tripped. frown, roll it, pass at least. "you leap into the air yadda yadda"
>all future "how do you want to do this"es are just "I punch it" "I chop its head off" etc
>"why'd you stop doing cool things with your finishing blows?"

>>95903423
The problem with AA is it turns you into a furry. I dont want to play as a furry, i want to play as Sif with a greatsword in my jaws.

>>95903449
Well the point of a feat is to grant you a boon which Paizo seems to have completely forgotten about. I dont know why they didnt just make special unarmed attacks gained by feats basically a martial weapon proxy giving ancestries who have them a legit advantage.

>>95904019
to play the pedant, they do have some legit advantages in that you're immune to disarm and don't drop them if you fall unconscious, which I think it fair enough to lose a measly die size for
I think if the ones you got from base chassis ancestries sucked but could be upgraded via feats, and the ones you got outright from feats, to be fucking worth it, and functioned as martial weapons (in terms of dice/traits balancing) with the innate benefits of being unarmed attacks, it'd be a lot less shit. that's generally pretty easy to amend, you can just increase the die sizes for all nonstandard unarmed attacks from ancestry feats/features by one across the board and allow existing feats to exist and enhance them further
they're often balanced vs simple weapons, which I think is a mistake because frankly they're a huge part of an ancestry's power budget, and balancing them (baseline) vs martial would feel significantly more fair

>>95904151
Well it boils down to ancestry and ancestry feats having wildly different power levels. One feat gives you a shitty unarmed attack while another gives you a full blown class feat.

2e, it seems like a real pain in the ass to find consistently useable groups of players

>>95903232
It's the meta pick though

Sell me on Starfinder anons. What's the appeal? Why should I play this and not Star Wars Sagas or any WH40K ttrpg for example? Also, which of the two editions would you recommend?

>>95905113
Because you want to play a D20 game in a "DnDFinder, but far future" setting.

>>95905113
>1e
You are grossly addicted to 3.x and need more options and upgrades than you will ever need. Dont remember items being well balanced cost efficient or interesting or any of the subsystems that set it apart from your average d20 game.
>2e
You are grossly addicted to Pathfinder 2e and want to play Scifinder 2e now with less unique options, pathfinder 2e "balance" now ruining firearms, and less subsystems that will never get used until they sell them back to you in a future splatbook.

Is it normal that my GM uses party level DC for every mundane skill check like climbing a tree? I'm a caster with +0 athletics so he adjusts those for me but to some achievable number. We're level 10 and seeing martials climb ropes or trees in exploration just seems like a 50/50. A lot of harder DCs are near 40. Is there a better way to get a +2 to checks in exploration apart from guidance and someone doing aid? Aid says the DC is 15 but it's currently 27 or so.
First 2e game, been playing for a year and a half. GM is a good friend of mine.

>>95905937
>Is it normal that my GM uses party level DC for every mundane skill check like climbing a tree?
No, not even slightly.
Untrained = DC10, trained 15, expert 20, master 30, legendary 40

>>95905937
No, he should be setting DCs based on how hard the task is overall, not Oblivioning every challenge.

>>95905956
also if it's a task that the character should be reliably capable of while not under pressure, a roll shouldn't be required in the first place unless you do it during combat or something
the roll should only be required when the character is pushing their limits to accomplish the task, whether that's because they're doing something difficult or because they're working under tight time constraints

>>95905937
>Hard DCs near 40
That's not even ON LEVEL for 10, man just doing everything wrong.

>>95905937
>level 10
>near 40
Suggested DC for a "near-impossible task" for a level 10 character would be about 37. If the DCs are that hard, ask your GM, is this logically a task that should be nearly impossible for the character in question.

>>95905937
Are they climbing animated rope and whomping willow trees?

>>95905956
Alright thanks, been reading the rules much more lately, explains a lot. Just occurred to me a while ago that we're getting worse at some skills if I do the math. I'll try to bring it up next session

>>95906073
No, last level we were breaking into a Lich's mansion and decided to climb a regular tree next to the wall and jump over. Lost a lot of health because of bad rolls from the climb and then the jump, our fighter fell down on me too while I was watching. I bought some helpful steps scrolls now for the team since we got a greater fire staff as loot and sold it.

>>95903423
Awakened Animal has fuckall feats and you screw yourself over for the first five levels if you try to use a versatile heritage to get access to any.

>>95904151
I'm still kind of pissed at claw dancer for being advertised as the "claw upgrade archetype!", yet being a fucking stance dancer archetype instead. I like the archetype playstyle, but it feels like it completely misses the point of any complaint about natural weapons, and even about Monk in general.

>>95900764
>you can have a spear and have it suck against skeletons, I'm not advocating for it to NOT such against skeletons
Why poke skeleton if you can strike him with spear like a staff with metal tip? Or does your GM prohibit using weapons in different ways and you can only attack in one single way?

>>95906359
Because that's not how 2e works. I do agree that spears should 100% have versatile B as a trait.

>>95906592
:::^^)^:^)^:::^^)^:^^:^^:^)^^:^^:^))))) that's what haft striker stance is for :^^)^^:^:^:^)^:^^:^)^^:^:^)^)))
pick the feat to walk your dog, apollo

Not gonna lie, this is like, THE design I think of when I think of the proto-typical "Brawler". I also can't get over how much I just love the class, it just feels like it gives you so many options as a martial but not so many that you feel like you're playing a punch-caster like PoW.

Any word on what the new thaumaturge implement is/does?av

>>95908065
I think we're still a month off from any hard details about that book coming out

kinda wish thaumaturges got second implement faster
how am I supposed to assemble the bell the book and the candle

wtf, why does disintegrate need to succeed in AC and then a fortitude check in 2e?

>>95908751
It was like that in 1e too, but you just had true strike to ensure it hit and obviously targeting touch AC. Going against save and AC is definitely a lot worse in 2e though.

>>95879664 (OP)
TQ: No need for rules. Yes, downtime is run if the situation merits it.

What are some good monsters to have alchemical simulacra of for a dungeon? Designing an alehcmcial library. Got a lesser alchemical golem I scaled down, and a few guardian scrolls, but I don't know (1) what monster would be cool for an alchemical simulacrum the PCs fight and (2) what other alchemical-related monsters of challenge rating 3 to 7 to put in this dungeon.

>>95909727
Tucker's <s>kobolds</s> homunculi

>>95909755
><s>kobolds</s>
what did he mean by this?

>>95909803
I forgor how to strikethrough

>>95896615
>>95896610
Shadow Signet is common and 10 is mid level

>>95905937
Climbing a normal rock or rope should be a fairly low DC that a regular human villager could do it

>no wight race or dogshit archetype
why...

>>95901915
ARP is too biased towards martials, giving them nearly a 50% bigger gold budget. Attach potency crystals to sidearms as the lord intended

If you run ARP, I do recommend giving casters something to compensate them

>>95901860
Most GMs complain that solos go down too fast at high levels since the party crits way more often with more actions/compression

Never dismiss the idea that your damage dealing players may in fact be bad at the game and adjust the encounters/loot drops to reflect that. I can't count the number of top shelf items new players just vendored to buy some shitty rune for weapon they'll never use

>>95899506
>has ZERO impact on your ability to backflip out of the way of a fireball

I assume you're talking about reflex saves. You can definitely house rule that saves and all checks qualify as an act, thus auto-fail if paralyzed or unconscious, but it applies to monsters attacking players as well
Players change their opinion very quickly when they start dying without getting a save

It does piss me off that off-guard doesn't give a penalty to reflex though. I was thinking of publishing my hazards that players can produce by interacting with the environment(such as electrifying water, freezing water, smoke) that give penalties to the three saves

>>95906592
>>95906359
Technically you can use it as improvised weapon, or using a simple weapon's stats isn't a bad idea. It also keeps the versatile trait relevant beyond just runes

I don't think skeletons are scary since you can punch them to death, use improvised weapons/use a stick as a club or throw things at them for bludgeoning damage, but zombies can be a nightmare if you're cornered without the right weapon

>>95910196
I made my own
short of formatting, thoughts?

>>95910603
Fueled by Spite could maybe use a sentence on how long the mark persists and whether you can have multiple. Otherwise, it seems okay.

>>95910811
I was thinking 10 minutes, and no limit on multiple marks
most of my concerns are just "is any of this shit too powerful"
I'm pretty sure it's all more powerful than most of the existing terrible undead dedications. maybe ghost still beats it out. which is ultimately fine
might axe the resiliency feat, it was only in when I was struggling to come up with 4th level feats for non-martials to care about
I think ideally every archetype should have at least one strong compelling option at each level

>>95910340
>Most GMs complain that solos go down too fast at high levels since the party crits way more often with more actions/compression
NTA. Both are true IME.
Because HP increases linearly (past the early levels, at least), the distinction between lower-level enemies and higher-level enemies in terms of HP diminishes. High-level combat is a slog against more than 2 enemies, and (often) ends faster than it used to against single enemies.
In really simple terms, if everyone has HP equal to their level, then at level 4, a level+2 enemy has 6 total HP and four level-2 enemies have 8 total HP. At level 16, the level+2 enemy has 18 HP and the four level-2 enemies have 56 total HP. The latter's a slog even if the d20 bonuses still scale hard enough that you're not at serious risk.

>>95903232
also if someone cares enough about getting blank +2 to saves, rogue will let you get master reflex at 12 so whole 5 levels faster than their own chassis gets will and faster than uncanny acumen will upgrade (which you will want for perception anyway). Yeah it doesnt have the autoupgrade which is why it's not an autopick but still

>>95910102
What the fuck does that have to do with me mocking you for comparing a level 1 featless martial to a higher level kitted out caster?

But since i have been dragged into that argument then i will say that the anon is 100% correct apart the uncommon part. Having a patched in non fundamental item to fix your shitty math is terrible design and shows that the designers are far too up their own asses to admit they are wrong and just add potency runes for spell attacks. I as a player shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of the magic item list just so my spells fucking work to a reasonable degree.

>>95910811
>pic
Why did he do it bros?

>>95912183
He's just playing blood pig.

>>95910239
>a gold cost for every swing of your weapon
I don't want to play in a dystopian world

>>95910239
I give them better math and magic items. I also give martials cooler magic items to find and buy instead of the same +1 Striking crushing guisarme they always make.

I wish casters had runes/better math so that everyone could focus on the real problem that the vast majority of spells are shit.

Every class should use a unified proficiency track of lv1 trained, lv5 expert, lv13 master, lv19 legendary for their "main thing".

>>95912875
Casters having better math elevates the shit ones into being moderately useful because you actually have a chance in popping the failure effects. Most of the meta spells in the game completely ignore the math entirely and the few which do can be toned down easy enough.

>>95912862
You can't put crushing on a slashing weapon

>>95913085
Sorry my mistake. I meant the Bec de Corbin.

>>95913058
For a primary offensive ability track? Yea, probably, it would require some adjusting of certain numbers, but arguably that would just make the game EASIER to balance as would have not changing all the proficiency tiers from +1's to +2's after playtest.

I'll be an odd man out and say that one of the only things I think Starfinder 1e did better than PF2e was introducing Weapon Specialization at level three instead of FUCKING LEVEL SEVEN.

Does Pathbuilder have stuff for the relic system or if not is there any Custom Packs for it?

is blood lords good
I like the idea of a bunch of scheming dickbag minor undead working their way up the corporate/gubmint ladder, but I don't think I trust paizo AP writers to pull it off tonally, narratively, or mechanically

>>95879664 (OP)
PF2e

Is there any reason at all for this to be a level 4 feat hidden behind a dedication? Considering it just gives you the option to be nonlethal with your attacks, I don't see how it could be so gamebreaking that it needs a whole dedication and requires a PC to be at least level 4 before picking it up.

I ask because I'm a relatively new GM and one of My players is playing a Champion of Sarenrae with Batman's no kill rule. I can't imagine that anything would be significantly unbalanced if I just let him have this ability for free, and after all I would expect a follower of Sarenrae to be trained to use their weapons non-lethally.

>>95915156
It should probably be a general feat. Class feats should be made specifically for your class and how it functions.

>>95915156
any character can always attack nonlethally with a lethal weapon if they take a -2 to the roll
this feat just removes that -2

>>95915156
Generally the ability to add or remove Nonlethal to your strikes without penalty is a feat (Takedown Expert for example or class feature, so that's pretty congruent with other stuff.

>>95915156
>Is there any reason at all for this to be a level 4 feat hidden behind a dedication?
The same could be said about so many feats it would make your head spin, anon. But to answer your question, no, it's like, barely general feat tier.

>>95915199
That's what I'm thinking. Another character is a former criminal rogue who's being helped in redemption by said Champion, so I feel like the option to knock out instead of kill would be useful for her too.

>>95915237
Yes but practically speaking is there any balance reason for this? I can't see how it would crack the game at all to give it to a level 1 PC for free.

>>95915255
I see, so it's just precedent.

>>95915286
Thank you.

>>95915390
it won't break anything, no
most games with less autism just allow PCs to choose to KO instead of kill

>>95915399
GM can also choose to have your target use dying rules rather than being dead at 0.

>>95915407
there is that, if you want to keep track of it and all the initiative shuffling
I think the cleanest thing to do would be to just say that either player chooses whether to KO or kill and that's that, or enemies are removed from initiative and die in d4 rounds

>https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4799&Redirected=1
>no Incapacitation trait listed
>"this is an incapacitation effect"
???

>>95916223
If the whole feat had the incapacitation trait then the strike itself would be subject to it. Written like this, it only applies to the stun.

>>95916243
Oh. That makes sense I guess.

>>95916223
Looking at it, I think this is just a weird debate between designers on how Reminder Text works. Originally I was thinking like >>95916243 here but there are feats where everything has Incap, Strike included, like Barbarian's Silencing Strike or Ghoul's Paralyzing Slash. It's actually inconsistent!

How's my Magus (among others) fanfic so far? https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/M89l6Vvf
Wanted to give non-arcane Studious Spells but decided against it. UB gets a pass since their's is Paizo sanctified[/spoiler

How's my Magus (among others) fanfic so far? https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/M89l6Vvf
Wanted to give thematic non-arcane Studious Spells but decided against it. UB gets a pass since Whirling Scarves is Paizo's handiwork

PF2E
Whats gonna be the main differences between a Scoundrel Rogue and Fencer Swashbuckler? I wanted to do a feinting character. I guess swashbuckler would do more damage and rogue would be better out of combat?

>>95916537
Rogue has a better class chassis and benefits the party if you crit your Feint. Generally fencer is more selfish compared to scoundrel. Rogue also has an easier time with dual-wielding.

>>95916409
Its a neat concept but the execution is a tad inelegant. I personally think you should be charging up for the spellstrike instead of depleting your cascade. This is how i would do it:
>Spellstrike
Spellstrike needs you to be in cascade and burns through it all when you use it. Spellstrike deals 1d6 per cascade value of the same type as your cascade. The damage increases by x amount of dice at x levels.
>Cascade
Basically works like nu-oracle cursebound where you increase its value by performing actions and spells with the arcanum trait. You gain damage equal to the value of your cascade condition x 2. The damage is dependant on the last spell you cast.
>Arcanum trait
Slap this on focus spells and feats that let you do cool animoo shit.

2E

Is there any way to make a full Kineticist work with unarmed attacks? I just want it for flavor, I want to hit with elements infused in my fist, not hit with an element like you do with Elemental Blast. All the things I try fall off because no proficiency scaling and I don't know how to fix it.

>>95917593
If you refuse to use Weapon Infusion on your blasts and reflavor, since that just lets you do physical damage with blasts? Not really, you're fucked.

Is there a decent way in PF1e to have a character that's permanently attached to another? Like if I wanted to take Leadership to have a permanently implanted sentient cybernetic doodad act as its own character.

Is investigator any fun to play? Seems really dependent on the adventure.

Nothing quite informs me just why 2e smite is kind of shitty like playing a 1e Paladin and ripping something open with 700 unresistable damage. I can see plenty of devs who used to GM for 1e throwing up their hands at this.

Still going to be mad about Divine Grace and the auras, though.

I noticed that they didn't put a Dedication Prereq before this feat even in the Bastion Archetype page.

Does that mean I can just take this as a Class Archetype Feat whenever even if I'm not a Fighter?

>>95918229
No, as of the remaster they put the Dedication Preq box in the tag itself.
Breaks a couple premaster things like Flexible Spellcaster, but that's a given.

>>95917826
>Seems really dependent on the adventure.

It is. The combination of the INT key ability score, rogue-tier perception scaling, skill increase and skill feat access, their basically free access to circumstance bonuses on checks related to the leads they're pursuing, and their mystery-based feat list make them genuinely the best mystery-solvers in the game and rogue's equal when it comes to skill monkeying around. The buffed version of Strategic Assessment that they got in the remaster also makes them arguably the best in-combat recall knowledge users in the game (the only competition is thaumaturge). If you happen to be in a combat-light, mystery- and intrigue-focused campaign, investigator is a powerful pick. There's two problems, however.

The first is that this is Pathfinder, and "combat-light, mystery- and intrigue-focused" campaigns are an extreme minority in general and basically nonexistent in published adventure paths. The second is that a LOT of investigator's class abilities depend on the GM playing ball with you and/or slow the game down while you hash something out with them. Like, every combat, it is IMPERATIVE to know whether or not the enemies in that combat qualify for the free-action version of Devise a Stratagem or not, and the GM is the only person who actually knows the answer to that, so you two are going to be hashing that out in every combat encounter where the answer isn't obvious. Similarly, it's vital to getting the most out of investigator that you know which skill checks qualify for your Pursue a Lead bonus--you'll know this one most of the time, but, again, ultimately the GM decides and how much of this is a conversation with them kind of depends on how much they feel like giving you. Personally, I found investigator just a pain in the ass to play. It's not that its weak necessarily, it's just that interacting with anything as an investigator has an extra step or two compared to doing it with any other class. It felt clunky.

>>95918234
Yeah but that feat doesn't have a Dedication tag.

>>95918605
well that feat itself isn't a dedication.
When a feat is inside an archetype, it loses its normal class tag. But as part of the archetype, being that archetype becomes the prerequisite.

Remember, the formatting of AoN isn't the same as in the books. If something is in an archetype, it means you need to be that archetype.

2e
Just want to double check something, if I have Intimidating Prowess as a skill feat and I have the bard feat Versatile Performance. I still get the circumstance bonus to demoralize checks even though i'm using Performance as the skill and not Intimidation?

>>95918714
Just says when you Demoralize so it's legit.

>>95918738
Thanks. Talking about Versatile Performance. Am I missing something with the skill feat Half-Truths or is it rather bad. Like if you are going to be the party face, you are probably going to be lvl both those up so it's maybe helpful for 2 to 4 lvls when the Master and Legendary come online. The best thing I can think to do with it is combine it with said bard feat since then you only have to lvl up Performance and either Deception or Diplomacy to get most of the benefits of the other.

>>95918861
Use case seems mostly to be able to Lie without actually lying.
Lying is a pretty common anathema for holy aligned champions and clerics.

The feat allowing the use of skills in place of others seems secondary.

I'm starting to dislike this system
I'm tired of combat taking literal hours
Looks like it's time to look for something else

>>95916762
The main reason for how it is was to dodge the "Noooo, why can't I Spellstrike on my first turn?!" criticism.
If I were to change it to a charge up version, I'd probably combine your idea with the other anon's "no Strike damage" idea. The extra damage from spending Cascade would be your weapon damage die per cascade value to keep the damage about the same as it is now.

>>95919140
Based. Good luck anon.

>>95919470
>The main reason for how it is was to dodge the "Noooo, why can't I Spellstrike on my first turn?!" criticism.
Those people are retards. The Magus entire problem as a class is its completely straightjacketed to the spellstrike mechanic which basically makes it an MMO loop class with very little room for variation. Most of its feats are just shit variants to spellstrike.

This version still gives you a Spellstrike but you have to build up to it by doing cool shit till you finally go Nova.

>>95918594

The way I see it, yes, an investigator is genuinely the best investigator in the game, but not by that great a margin over a ruffian or thief rogue. Conversely, a ruffian or thief rogue is significantly better than an investigator in a fight (and far less GM-dependent!), so in a game as combat-focused as Pathfinder 2e, a ruffian or thief rogue is generally a more competent pick.

>>95919568
Not that I disagree that too much power in Magus is tied to Spellstrike --and this is ignoring the idea that people play Eldritch Knights and the like to hit a nigga with a spellstrike-- but you are going back to the original pre-master Swashbuckler or Oracle problem. If you are spending so much of your turn trying to get to a point where (You) and only (You) actually benefits and you can play the class now, are you even playing the game at that point?

You might as well erase Spellstrike and make up a new mechanic if the MMO Rotation gets to you that much (and also avoid all the other classes with a pretty clear rotation like Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Swashbuckler). There's a reason even 1e avoid temporary ramp-up mechanics for its classes, it is too unreliable and too much effort to feel like you are playing the class.

>>95920005
I would argue this is more Rogue being overtuned than any particular flaws of Investigator, imo. I think the class has a good amount of potential and "being the best at investigations" can be wider than just bullying the GM into solving the mystery for you. Still, there are classes that better balance the RP, Exploration, and Combat phases of the game like Thaumaturge, so you gotta really appreciate the nicher benefits more than the whole kit-n-kaboodle.

Anyone play in society games? How strict are they on actually owning the book before getting to use the stuff in it?

>PROBLEM: Magus kind of sucks because its best option, Spellstrike, is both fiddly and underwhelming, and otherwise it's just an extremely shitty martial that can't do damage or take a hit.

>SOLUTION: Make Spellstrike even more fiddly while no less underwhelming so that the Magus is forced to spend more actions as an extremely shitty martial that can't do damage or take a hit.

>>95921082
It's not that simpuru

>>95920212
>you are going back to the original pre-master Swashbuckler or Oracle problem.
It has more of a reverse nu-oracle than either of those two. You gain more damage for your strikes and your blow-off spellstrike the higher you get in your condition.
>If you are spending so much of your turn trying to get to a point where (You) and only (You) actually benefits and you can play the class now, are you even playing the game at that point?
You play the class by performing cool shit with the arcanum trait. The cool shit comes from feats and your focus spells. The difference is the class isnt just built around pulling off spellstrikes every round.
>You might as well erase Spellstrike and make up a new mechanic if the MMO Rotation gets to you that much (and also avoid all the other classes with a pretty clear rotation like Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Swashbuckler).
Ranger, Thaum and Swash are nowhere near the same level as locked in to rotation as the Magus and the fact you would even try to use those classes as some sort of gotcha tells me your not arguing in good faith.

>>95921281
Either accept the fact that Spellstrike is the only reason Magus exists and make it suck less (EZ Mode: no recharge, doesn't set off Reactive Strike), or get rid of Spellstrike and give Magus other reasons to exist (can cast Spell Attack Spells at melee range by making a Strike which also replaces the Manipulate tag, benefits of Arcane Cascade are changed to just bonuses you get instead of some dumbass stance/activation mechanic, maybe un-gimp its fucking spell slots as long as I'm dreaming).

>>95921452
Yeah, it's not that simple. Please, show the class if you have something.

At this point I almost think they should just restrict magus to only spellstriking with in-class cantrips. "Can oneshot a boss with a crit" seems to be the only defense I ever see towards magus but that seems like an unintentional indictment of its design given the spellstrike damage is never the part being complained about.

>>95920890
>Anyone play in society games? How strict are they on actually owning the book before getting to use the stuff in it?
Unless youre playing with paizo jannies no one gives a fuck but suss it out with the dm first

>>95918148
If 1e Paladin got to you, you probably wasn't cut out for GM'ing 1e to begin with given how Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Witch were all right there. Single-target nuke damage never was what made things unbalanced in 1e, after all.

>>95921621
It's an odd aspect of spell design itself people don't argue about spell attacks. Most accept that WHEN THEY HIT, they actually do good damage. Shocking Grasp was Magus's best friend because the damage scaling was so high. And since Magus is all about making these spells hit, people accept that it was a somewhat-valuable niche, as swingy and impractical it is in the grand scheme of things.

It hard to back down from this kind of spike damage design. Look at D&D5e24 Paladin discussion with them nerfing Divine Smite to not be stupid and see how bitter it made people. If you going to hit someone with both a strike and spell, the end result has to be better than hitting them with such separately. And to many people, it going to be "the enemy exploded".
I do think if you HAD to change Spellstrike so much, just doing the 5e Divine Smite deal of post-strike magical nuke damage for a spell slot/focus point is probably going to be the simplest solution.

>>95923022
>If 1e Paladin got to you, you probably wasn't cut out for GM'ing 1e to begin with
Casters absolutely cause more problems, I've been also playing one of those and the amount of warping of the game and narrative that happens just by existing is comical, but I also don't think "the only purpose of a martial is to one-round kill literally anything you point it at" is a really healthy or interactive paradigm, and Paladin being a brick shithouse capable of overkilling anything by several orders of magnitude while functionally unable to interact with the game in any other meaningful way is still insanely silly.

>>95923227
It is still Paladin, mind you. A lot of the other effects that makes it a good class does come from the passive auras and Lay on Hands, ontop of the wide array of optional features that mesh into a rather overtuned package. It is just outcompeted in the meta of 1e as a whole. I don't think it is necessarily just the damage output that made it such a...dead-end in design.

You are correct, it is why we are having the 2e Magus discussion as we speak. Classes really shouldn't go all in on spike damage, no matter how much the playerbase loves such. It is why, even if I disagree with the homebrew anon's take, I do understand why Magus should get more design that focuses less on such. 5e Warlock is kind of in a similar place.
Just that unlike Magus, Paladin have a LOT MORE going on, so much that focusing on the damage is a little too reductive. You could make a good argument that Paladin being a base class at all was a mistake, purposely overstuffed in options and designs that made it too much a Master-of-All for the sake of a gimmick that actually wasn't that interesting to witness in a campaign if you aren't a Baby Goblin Murder Philosopher GM. But that is more an overall concept issue over a Pathfinder issue.

This is all to say Champion is kind of cool and I get why some of the extra features are really nerfed.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pathfinder-dark-archive-paizo-inc/1147638409?ean=9781640787551
Make sure next thread gets this news, Dark Archive remastered comes February(? could be a placeholder date).

>>95923373
>The same page count
Poor Psychic

>>95923319
The damage output is just one aspect, is the thing, other classes (like Barbarian) also have damage that gets out of control. Being a brick shithouse though, that is a big deal, I am playing a class that just ignores the vast majority of what's thrown at it, which feels good for ME, but it's really understandable why so many people just HATED Paladins and caused all those horror stories. Your only actual counterplay to challenge one as a GM a lot of the time is either starving them out (which punishes everyone) or narrative punishment, the latter of which is extremely hard to do right and incredibly easy to fuck up.

Champion is really cool though, yea. I'm playing one in a 2e game and the contrast between a Justice Champion and a 1e Paladin is really funny. I do think they went overboard with siloing and nerfing a lot of those old ribbon features for 2e, and it feels shitty to make you choose between those and... Ones that make Champion... Work? Like Expand Aura?

>>95924632
>>95924632
>>95924632
Freshly baked.

I kinda wanna make a small, dense 5x5 (ish) hexcrawl minicampaign for monster race PCs. Mostly because 2e has some really funny low level "human commoner" statblocks that I want to use.
I'm thinking basically just a little sandbox with some shit to do in it, terrorizing a small rural town named Pleasanthearthshiresdale or something and its countryside. Probably going from level 1 or maybe 2 to 3 or 4 or so, or just whenever the PCs all die or the town's finished. All very tongue-in-cheek Overlord 1/2-style evil, cashing in on the inherent goof of the system and its shockingly competent day workers.
My idea pot currently contains
-Farmlands to ravage
-A lake and fishery/docks. Maybe the lake has a lake monster in it, or maybe there's a way to corrupt it and fuck over the town
-A logging camp
-A roadside inn about a day out of town
-High level heroes to avoid (or entrap and defeat)
-A cleared-out dungeon to claim as a base
-Pleasanthearthshiresdale itself as a growing frontier town built around a silver mine
-Some other lesser monstrous factions (that probably hate each other) to try to collaborate with
-Also probably some bandits to either collaborate with, pay off, or destroy for being h*man
-Some kind of long-sealed powerful evil to unleash. Like a fallen paladin or mad wizard or something with a special hatred for the town

Any other ideas?