Exploration Edition

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

Previous thread: >>95879664

/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: How much focus do you place on exploration in your games? Do you prefer to rush from setpiece to setpiece, or make traversal a game in and of itself?

>TQ
Depends on the difficulty of the environment and the party's power level. Common wilderness can be interesting to a low level party, but level 7+? It's just a chore at that point.

Shoulda refreshed I guess.

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 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?

>TQ
Traversal's important until the PCs get powers that make it unimportant. And you're not allowed to whine about rangers sucking if you just cut traversal out of the game.

If the last thread is anything to go by, you all are quite in tune with the Magus and its issues.

What are some good lesser known magic items/runes to take to somewhat patch up the problems? I know 2e devs like hiding character fixes inside their magic items.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pathfinder-dark-archive-paizo-inc/1147638409?ean=9781640787551
Reposting from last thread, Dark Archive Remastered leaked. February 2026.

Weird how they talk about reprinting the Time Mystery Oracle? This isn't just them copy-pasting the original DA book, and we know it has the same page count. But Divine Mysteries already printed them (albeit forgetting to give them Level 10 feats). So like...huh?

Was I missing something with ranger? I tried out the pregenerated one and it felt very mediocre. Monster Hunter never really worked and I barely got to use Flurry.

>>95925613
Getting crits on anything at Level 1 is fairly hard to do. MH is more for the information checking then the +1 bonus at that level since you can't get WIS to +4 on a Ranger. It's a good feat, it just scales a little wonky.
Harsk also runs a crossbow and not a normal Longbow that actually works with Flurry. That's really your problem right there (beyond playing the pregens and expecting good things from them), Hunted Shot + Flurry on a Longbow is a more typical long-range Ranger build.

>>95925664
NTA but I looked up Harsk after reading your post and what the hell is that. He's Flurry Edge but never gets Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot, the two trademark, Flurry-enabling feats???

>>95925613
As the other Anon already mentioned and I was baffled by, the pregen is bad. That being said, ranger builds basically break down into:

>Flurry
The point of the Flurry Edge is that it's one of like two methods in the game of reducing your multiple attack penalty, which allows you to Strike way more often than other characters. The more you Strike, the more value Flurry gets you. Flurry Builds are incredibly simple; the only mandatory feat is Twin Takedown (or Hunted Shot, for ranged weapons), because that allows you to Strike up to four times each round. Harsk, notably, cannot do that.

>Outwtit
This is the edge to take if you want to go all-in on the Monster Hunter feat line. The other edges can benefit from Monster Hunter just fine, but if you really want to be The Knowledge Guy and are scooping up every bonus you can get on those Recall Knowledge checks, Outwit's your edge. The AC is nice to have too, although it kind of stings that you lose out on the consistent precision damage afforded by...

>Precision
Call this the "default" edge. Anything you want to do that isn't "Strike all round every round" or "max out Monster Hunter", you probably want Precision. Precision damage on your first Strike each round? It's free real estate. Pets? Love precision. Ranged? Loves precision. Melee? Loves precision. Anything you want to do, it's going to synergize with precision. Unlike Flurry or Outwit, both of which are very niche edges that basically exist to enable one build each, Precision works for everything.

Also a note on Monster Hunter: the real value of it doesn't kick in until level 10 with Master Monster Hunter, which allows you roll Nature to identify everything. At that point you go from being "ok" at knowledge checks to being one of the best at them.

>>95925760
Is it possible to do a spellcaster ranger? I was thinking of doing a gish that focuses on primal spells.

>>95925767
Depends on where you go with it. Ranger's own Focus Spells are okay-ish beyond Gravity Weapon or Vindicator Class Archetype's.
Taking Druid MC does give you WIS-scaling primal spells, but don't expect to be a good attacker so much as having decent fallback options and good buffs.
Working towards Eldritch Archer does pay off by the end, since being able to do spellstrikes is great. But you can't take it 'til Level 6, so surviving until then is gonna take effort.
The Ostilli Host archetype gives you a magic tumor bug friend that can shot some magic darts for you, but that might not be what you are asking for.

>Grab Starfinder 2e booklet for free rpg day
>3/5 of the pregens are they/thems
lol lmao
Anyways what's the difference between SF 1e and 2e?

>>95925827
1e is loosely built off of Pathfinder 1e and the D&D3.5e ruleset. It very much designed to be its own project, for good and ill (mostly ill). It tries various mechanics like a unified Full Round Attack structure, 6 spell levels instead of 9, a health and stamina system, two forms of AC ontop of flat-footed, so on and so forth. Much like how PF1e and PF2e aren't really comparable, PF1e and SF1e are very distinct entities despite the loose compatibilities.
SF2e (coming in August, not quite out yet) plays more like a setting guide/space expansion for the PF2e ruleset. It is made to be highly compatible and offers more a different meta and experience than its own game, albeit you can play it on its own. It avoids unique system mechanics and takes everything from its sister game verbatim, beyond a different weapon upgrade system, new classes/races/backgrounds/skills, new traits, and new encounters.

>>95925868
so SF2 is more "PF2 IN SPAAAAACE" than SF1 is what I'm gleaning from you. Ok. It seems neato enough

gorum should have just joined a lesbian polycule if he wanted to stay alive

>>95925800
Are there any other frontline spellcasters? I saw warpriest cleric but don't really want to use divine tradition.

What are some good monsters for a library used by alchemists?
Already got a lesser alchemical golem (I scaled it down myself),
Guardian Scrolls.
Giant termites.
What else? Need stuff CR 1 to 7

>>95926196
Animist with the Witness to Ancient Battles apparition is the one full caster that can actively tank its spellcasting for more martial power. It is Divine at base but you get all the other spell lists depending on your apparitions you are hosting.
Warrior Bard takes some setup but you can amp up your hit rates and build up some armor/defense. Occult based.
Magus is Magus. Arcane.
Summoner cheats on this idea by essentially having a big boy body while their caster body sits in the back. Can pick whichever list you like with the Eidolon.
Kineticist isn't a "spellcaster" but it does all the same jobs with all virutally infinite resources, at the expense of breadth of options. Not hard to build into a frontline tank or Striker.

>>95925910
Being PF2 in space is absolutely terrible for the game, because it means it has to be crammed into Paizo's dysfunctional balance/design autism. As flawed as it was, SF1 being it's own close but not the same system meant that it could entirely be its own thing.

>>95926240
As much of a 2efag I am, I kinda agree to a certain extent. There's not really much reason for Starfinder to exist beyond just the split between sci-fi and fantasy fans. Which is harder to justify than normal thanks to how Golarion is such a kitchen sink setting that already indulges in space fantasies. People did ask for a SF2e and I can't say I wasn't one of them, disappointed as I was in SF1e. But it is just a weird vestigial product by design. Not quite a new game, not quite a setting guide. It's just...weird.

But I do think that SF1e wasn't enough of its own system to warrant the praise. It is still 1e under the hood, just with changes no one particularly respects. At most I've seen people praise the reduced spell ranks and making just about everyone 3/4ths casters but I think that's more indicative of the problems with late 1e design than a naturally good idea. I can wait on SF2e's tactical starship rules until next year because I was there to witness the FUCKERY that was 1e's, that turned me off from the game hard. I don't want them to fuck it up again. And I don't think the 1e class designs were good or interesting enough beyond a select few. They didn't even fix the problematic ideas; Evolutionist still had the same conceptual issues Shifter does, except even more in a game where you are expected to be ranged most of the time. And again, it is still 1e. Not even 1.75e designed to test fixes for a possible comeback.
If anything, the failure to launch for SF1e was what doomed PF1e getting further content, it just showed Paizo they hit critical mass and best to make their own system. Start from zero (or as much as you can get with a d20 fantasy system) and work their way up to rake in a new audience that will support their endeavors in striking out on their own. They wanted a Warhammer 40K to sit with their Warhammer Fantasy, two distinct product lines. But just ended up with neither in the end.

>>95924753
I would say just steal more from overlord.
- Have an Elf, Dwarf and Halfling faction relatively nearby.
- Have an eccentric Baron or King hold up in a castle with a small army a few days away as a sort of pressure valve if the players start acting openly retarded.
- A haunted forest
- A rumoured Dragon up in the mountains
- A rumoured massive treasure or powerful artefact in the area (Could have a connection to sealed off evil)
- A rival evil faction
- Fey

>https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1lh7z78/so_with_the_unconfirmed_remaster_of_dark_archive/

they're at it again, they hate anyone having any kind of fun

>>95926527
I mean they even come here to say stupid shit like "Sure Strike nerf is good and needed actually!" so I'm not surprised.

For 2e, is there an existing enemy or hazard that I can repurpose to serve as a Sniper hazard? The PCs are travelling through a trench network, but I want to have snipers watching for a PC to step up and peek out. Two Actions to mark a PC, draw a bead on them and then another two to shoot if they stay exposed, it'd reset after a turn of the PCs hiding in the trench again.

I'm running on Foundry and I can't wrap my head around the formatting, so altering an existing ability is easier than fucking about with the compendium to create new stuff wholesale.

>>95927090
Hazards typically use reactions and a routine of one or more actions.
This works well since whoever sets off the hazard is likely getting dropped or lowered to critical health, then the players need to recover and defuse the hazard with a better understanding of what it does.

I'd have the sniper mark a target as a reaction prior to initiative, roll initiative, then have the snipers routine be to strike the mark.
Then the reaction can play again the next time the trigger occurs, which might be a target enters line of sight, and the snipers can strike their mark on their next turn.

You will also want to think about how players can Disable. Something like survival to create a dense smokescreen or deception to pretend to surrender.

There's a subchapter on the specifics of making a hazard in GMC.

>>95926099
>Transbian Gorum
He would have just killed himself (which kinda happened anyway)

>>95927159
The hazard is entirely avoidable if they just don't go up to the parapet or try to fly, it's technically an enemy but I remember reading somewhere that if an enemy is so focussed on one thing that it's all they can do, then they can be made into a hazard pretty safely? Smokescreens would work to reset its action economy entirely.

I forgot about using Reactions admittedly, but in that case it'd be
>Reaction trigger - PC steps onto the Parapet, flies or goes above the Trench by other means
>Reaction - The PC is marked and the Sniper rolls initiative
>On the Hazards turn, it fires at the PC if still visible.
>Second Reaction, if the PC is already marked and makes themselves visible, the Sniper shoots at them at a slight malus because it's not had time to line up the shot.

Yay or nay?

>>95927212
Yeah this works.
It's a little scruffy since you don't really want to have something using multiple reactions.
You could write the routine this way.
>On each of it's turns it uses Shoot Mark. If no target for Shoot Mark is visible it uses Ready to Shoot Mark with the trigger a marked target becomes visible. The Strike has a -2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll when made this way.

Where Mark is a reaction to apply a mark to a hostile creature that becomes visible and roll initiative, Shoot Mark is a single action to strike a marked target.

You could also make Mark a free action with a trigger, and give it a unique reaction incorporating both Mark and Shoot Mark, then having it roll initiative, and then the fight always begins with it opening fire prior to anyone rolling. It's up to you depending on how you want it to behave and when you want it to apply damage.

Is there any specific place you guys search art for your campaign? Everything is infested with AI slop and not every place has a before:2022 filter.

First time DMing 2e
I was asked to run We Be Goblins (1e module), and I wanted to give 2e a try. Are there any good pointers on how to convert the encounters to 2e?

>>95927342
A lot of creatures can be found with art in the official bestiaries, so if you look at those you can usually crop an image out of the PDFs for use that way.
Otherwise, I actually personally use the AI image generators for some of the creatures, this image for instance is what I got when I put the official creature description for a Leaf Leshy into Bing's AI image generator, which served me well for the one session I needed them for.

What should a Multifarous Muse type of feat for Magus give from the subclasses?

>>95926226
warrior bard might be the best if not the best gish, as it has a reason to strike beyond for the sake of looking cool. a warrior bard who successfully strikes also prolongs a composition, which means more rounds of fortissimo. and you are handing out +1-3 to hit anyway. bard also takes no proficiency hit to spellcasting or status penalty to spellcasting to gish.

hey DM can I buy this staff but it's a dagger instead because the visuals of a ritual dagger are cooler than those of a wizard staff

>>95930238
>can i buy
not directly but you can recraft it, difficulty depends on the level of the staff in question and you can use the stats of any simple weapon
(magus gets a feat to use any martial weapon without a check, runelord can do any spear or polearm without a check)

I am trying to find a way to pirate pf2e adventure books and either I am retarded or there is no good way to get pdfs for free

>>95929261
>bard also takes no proficiency hit to spellcasting or status penalty to spellcasting to gish.
But they don't actually get any weapon proficiency bonuses like warpriest or magus do. You're only going to land that composition-extending strike on a minion.

>>95929261
>might be the best if not the best

>>95930580
man, if you're maxing your to-hit stat it's just not that bad to hit things
flatfoot, debuffs, bard's intrinsic +1 or more it brings
one successful strike per round not difficult to pull off. if you miss, you waste 2 actions (a second one doing a proper sustain), but hitting with your first attack is pretty reliable even with bard's proficiency scaling
could it be improved by having it just be a skald class archetype that gets wavecasting and martial proficiency? probably. but it's still functional for 99% of home games

>>95930580
magus is a martial bounded caster so what is expected of it is different. warpriest is a fullcaster that takes a hit to its spell dc/spell attack which i see as unacceptable as a fullcaster gish is still a caster first and foremost, and while there are plenty of non offensive spells that are good the best casters use a mix of buffs and debuffs. bard has a reason to strike beyond 'its cool' it serves a function that loops into their casting, and casting is their priority.

>>95930998
I would still not bet on being able to reliably make use of that strike to extend. It's a nice thing to have if there are PL or lower enemies, but it's too unreliable against, say, a solo PL+4 encounter.

>>95931031
the neat part is that even if it rarely lands for some reason, your still contributing a whole lot to a party by both throwing out your bard buff and casting a 2 action spell.

>>95931031
>PL+4 encounter
why does everyone judge the game based on an absurd encounter type.
Yes, I know APs like to do that bullshit but that should be outliers, not common stuff. MOST things in this game struggle against the FUCK YOU boss.

>>95931031
basically everybody including paizo themselves has stopped using solo PL+4s and PL+4s are severe encounters anyway which you're generally not supposed to take unless it's mission critical
and if campaigns have tons of mission-critical encounters in general that's fucking bad GMing
overwhelmingly powerful monster that has a good chance of causing losses? you can and should just fucking turn around. hit the bricks. the only reason to fight them PERIOD is "if we don't defeat this thing here and now, [goal] is doomed."

>>95931045
>>95931074
Why is the lower spellcasting proficiency of the Warpriest an issue then?

>>95931190
it's... not?
it's a tradeoff you take for increased martial proficiency, and it's an extremely simple "issue" to circumvent with just spell selection
where did you even pull this point from
why are you swinging at windmills

>>95931190
I'm NTA, but he did stated that Warpriest is essentially cheating in this convo. Master/Master proficiency in both attacks and spells is essentially the Magus package. It's not really a full caster gish like people want and 2e have been skirting around for years. It's not an issue, just one you might argue is too simple an answer for the question.

I do believe a lot in Warrior Bard, I think it is hideously underrated. But it does take some time and build prep to get going, especially if you don't want to multi-muse into Maestro for Lingering Composition/Harmonize.

>>95931216
>where did you even pull this point from
>>95931023
>fullcaster that takes a hit to spell dc is unacceptable

>>95931235
fair. that wasn't my post, I didn't read the post in question, and I think that guy's retarded for thinking warpriest's DC cut is an issue (it fucking isn't)
all I ever said is warrior bards can still reliably hit stuff and that PL+4 solos have gone to the wayside because basically everybody has agreed that they suck to fight. and that you should generally not fight things that suck to fight
I should clarify that it's not bad to simply PUT PL+4 solos into your situations as a GM, but bad players are the only ones that fight them unless strictly necessary, and it's bad GMing to make them strictly necessary to fight regularly
even from a RP perspective, no thinking, feeling, intelligent individual would willingly take a 50/50 (often worse) life-or-death situation without extremely pressing reasons

>>95931279
i said that about warpriest, i simply don't respect warpriest, i don't care if it gets master in weapons. Having max spell dc is more important.

>>95931321
you do you, I guess
warpriest cleric is probably the best single class in the game

>>95931321
well excuse my illiterate benefit of the doubt. sometimes they are that dumb...

If you are playing Warpriest, by default you aren't using attacking spells. You are in the range of most of them and you don't want to be getting hit with AoO, regardless of how much tankiness you gain. Spell proficiency doesn't matter, so you can stock up more on healing and support magic to supplement your tankiness and frontlining. You don't play them like normal clerics.

I wouldn't call them the best class in the game, but the playstyle works well and resolves most people desires with gish classes (even if you can argue it doesn't really count).

>>95931361
warpriest still gets some great use out of attacking spells. you just need to plan for the enemy succeeding their saves
harm+cast down is godlike for example, and cry of destruction is made specifically for warpriest
but yeah most spells should go for healing and support rather than attacking/debuffing. there's two good ways of building warpriest and one still involves bumping wisdom for sticking (failure effects, mostly) offensive spells
the other obviously dumps wis for con and frontlines with shit like athletic rush, bless, etc and having 4 fucking max-level casts of heal every single day

I still think warpriest is kinda bad not because it has poor spellcasting proficiency but because the levels at which it gains weapon proficiency upgrades feel like shit, it doesn't get master armour, and they made the fucking battle harbinger out of spite for the people that wanted a way to fix these issues

>>95931463
Harbinger not getting strength key crushed my dreams

>>95931463
I think all battle harbinger needs is for its aura spells to be one action for them, and that paizo is absolutely fucking out of their goddamn gourds to not have done that

>>95931535
it definitely needed more than that. It needed at bare minimum one action auras and FULL martial proficiency + specialization, to say nothing of not needing to have shit like the additional aura types or "sustain on strike" taxed via feats, or having feats that gave the auras some kind of alternate sustain effect to make all those free sustains even worthwhile.

>>95931535
Battle Harbinger needs a lot more than just one-action auras. Literally, it is just missing 7th Level Class Features and weapon specializations bonuses.

>>95931553
Why is Paizo so lazy?

>>95931959
This stuff tends to be a matter of mismanagement than laziness. Remember, BH came out in a Lost Omens book, one more concerned with remastering a bunch of old content, and the LO writers tend to be as bad as writing game content as the AP freelancers do. And we know they tend to not have real oversight on the actions of individuals, especially if they are left to their own devices. It is well known that the reason Witch was so fucked with its original launch was that they just let the main designer leave the company without finishing it.

Battle Harbinger feels like it an issue there. No one to playtest it, no one to check all the issues, no one say it is an awful idea except just the one or two dudes behind it.

>>95931045
PL+4s are suppose to be fairly rare, maybe once per act

PL+2 with a big hazard is more balanced I find

Have you ever used this, either as a GM or a player?

>>95933124
No, but about... 12? years ago I did get got by The Girdle in an E6 game. We were known faces infiltrating an enemy empire as barely-supported insurrectionists, living in the shadows and kept afloat by what was basically a terrorist resistance, and the party was completely without illusory disguise or similar, so it was nice not needing to be cloaked (suspicious) or work only under cover of night. It was almost certainly GM intent. I mostly just ignored it and treated it like a useful curse. One of the other PCs wanted me to "go Bugs Bunny that guard" a few times but no one else really called attention to it outside of ribbing, and after about 4 ingame months we'd accomplished our goal, so I got it removed.
The GM only tried to make it weird one time and I flatly refused so he didn't do it again and we moved on.

>>95933124
Within the first five sessions of any campaign I run, I have an NPC covertly dose one of the PCs with the alchemical version. Anyone who drops from the game as a result was never welcome to begin with.

>>95933159
Mpreg, not even once.

>>95933163
I could see how this could be an effective sperg filter, but do you give them a relatively easy way to get back to normal? I think it's reasonable to be annoyed with something about your character changing so drastically without your control, but I'd say it's practically a non-issue if it can be easily reversed.

>>95933163
>>95933503
Reminder that it only does anything based on the imbiber's choice, so if you slip it to a character who doesn't want to change, nothing will happen.

>>95933802
True but the alchemical HRT cocktails are not. It allows Paizo's target audience to live out their fantasies of spiking children's drinks with it.

>>95934078
>It allows Paizo's target audience to live out their fantasies of spiking children's drinks with it.
The only people who fantasize about that are weirdo fucks like you.

Alright, Magus combo point hb now ready-ish https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/pXr5PJM8

>>95924632 (OP)
I focus a lot more on exploration in games based around it like Pathfinder adventure card game

>>95924632 (OP)
Pathfinders rules for exploration are awful which feeds into the same problem rangers have in 5e but for the opposite reason. The class is connected to a pillar of gameplay nobody gives a shit about with 2e ranger barely being better at it than a fighter while 5e makes them too good that the pillar is completely pointless. Im planning to implement the journey system from the one ring rpg in my next campaign with some reworked survival feats in my next campaign.

>>95926527
the only change that should happen is reverting the current psychic iconic...

>>95935294
>>95926527
back to the previous psychic iconic

>>95935299
A pic of her was included in the book anyway. Haven't seen anything of the new psychic since.

>>95935299
>compass
Hope the players find the enchanted compass where I roll a d6 and 1-3 it spins nowhere, 4-5 it points to the nearest tavern or brothel and on a 6 it points to the nearest loot soon.
That one's gonna mess with them good.

How angry are people going to be once Starfinder 2e comes out

>>95935845
Most of the jimmies rustled and shitposting was done when SF2e was announced, the playtest came out, and the reveal that Mechanic, Technomancer, and tactical starship rules would be coming out the following year. So any further skub would probably come if Solarion continues to be shit. Otherwise, doubt it will get much more, beyond typical "Fuck 2e" stuff.

>>95936017
>>95935845

I went from being hyped about SF2e to cautiously optimistic solely because all the tech based rules are not included in the core rulebook. It makes me think that either

>Tech rules and classes fucking suck and needed to be delayed or overhauled to fit with the 2e framework
>Paizo is fucking greedy and want to paywall an essential part of Science Fantasy setting (science) to a different book.

I understand maybe if it was just starship rules but come on Technomancer and engineer need to be in a separate book as well?

>>95935845
I don't intend on playing it but a couple of the classes are fine for use in PF2e as gunslinger 2.0, which is nice. I suspect operative is getting nerfed though; fighter accuracy + full sneak attack precision damage is a lot, even before accounting for free running reload that stacks with other reload actions, guns that rarely need reloading, ignoring cover, ranged AoO, and debilitating shot.

2e
For magazines for guns like the Air Repeater, if you have two half full magazines, are you able to combine the bullets into one magazine?

>>95936711
You can't buy the pellets separately from the magazines as far as I can tell, which is weird.
There's no explicit mention of it in the rules, so it's technically "ask your GM" territory, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'd give it a second thought if you're doing it out of combat (in-combat and they'd have to adjudicate action cost, which is a pain).
A lot of people (me included) handwave paying for and tracking basic ammo anyways.

>>95936831
My group tracks ammo. I've seen multiple times gunslingers or gun magus just glaze over how much ammo they have during downtime and then run out of ammo mid combat. It's why when i got a doubling ring for my air repeater as a rogue, i bought 10 mags to hold me over for the rest of the campaign since it's more of a holdout for ranged enemies.

I'm a weirdo so even if the group at large is handwaving ammo I'm tracking my own
I'm the only one ticking off rations and the occasional arrow in triumph of the tusk

In PF2e, how would you mechanically make a character who's very perceptive due to being extremely paranoid?

>>95937171
circumstance bonus to perception, circumstance penalty to will.

>>95935845
Depends entirely on how dogshit the equipment list and classes like Envoy and Solarian are, because chances are I'm more likely to pilfer shit to use in a PF2e campaign than run or play a "real" Starfinder game.

>>95937171
High wisdom. Investigator class for legendary perception and will.

>>95936633
Isn't PF2e gunslinger a little hampered within Starfinder since it's reliant on reloading every 2-3 attacks
>>95937315
>Depends entirely on how dogshit the equipment list and classes like Envoy and Solarian
I have a feeling the core rulebook gear list is purposely ass as most of the cool tech stuff will be behind the advanced players guide

I'm jumping in to a pf2e game as a dwarven bard.
Any tips I could have on making sure I add to the party's endeavors? I am looking at being the talky guy, more a businessman/dealmaker type, while also still being able to contribute to a fight.
I am entirely new to the system, and my resources consist of the core book, with anything else needing DM approval, as this is also his first time running.

>>95937955
you are a bard. use and maintain courageous anthem and you've contributed to combat. you justify your presence with one action per round (or one action ever if you have lasting composition, which frankly you should)
you should have a +4 charisma since you're a caster, just take the relevant skills and roll them when asked. don't sleep on intimidation for combat purposes either, unless that's just outside your character concept. demoralize is an incredibly strong action.
you don't need anything outside of the core book to make any of this work

>>95937955
My advice would be to pick maestro as your muse at level 1 and then the multifarous muse feat at level 2 to take polymath - This will mean you start with soothe as an extra spell which is good and you'll get lingering composition which frees up actions for you, not needing to constantly cast courageous anthem. The benefit of polymath is letting you use performance skill for a wide variety of things, you're not having to spread yourself thin on skill investment.

Dwarfs have a charisma flaw by default but you can choose to ignore usual racial bonuses and flaws and just take two attribute boosts like a human would instead, this is normal, it's not a variant rule. Probably start with +4 charisma, +3 dex (For ac mostly), +1 wis and +1 con (for defenses, you almost never want to neglect dex/wis/con). Dwarf feats in general aren't doing much for you so pick what you want, I'd probably lean into dwarven lore as it's bard appropriate and means some more skill proficiencies. Pick up fleet at level 3, dwarf speed is ass.

>>95937955
The most important aspect to correctly roleplaying a dwarf is casual racism.
If you don't feel up to inventing slurs on the fly for whatever the GM can pull then consider something less complicated.

>>95938056
>>95938086
Thank you both.
The party thus far is:
>human with variant heritage fighter
>elf sorcerer
>half orc (or the equivalent) rogue
>me, dwarf bard
>>95938166
I am playing a polite Johnson; my personal opinions take a backseat to success in my endeavors. Why should I lose out on money and connections just to be an obnoxious ass?

>>95938211
you don't have to be racist to their face but you should at least be able to unleash a tirade to anyone who will listen as soon as you're done negotiating
non-racist dwarves are like non-racist elves
pity you have that halfie there that'd be a sick party otherwise

>>95938211
It's not obnoxious its endearing.
It doesn't even need to be directed at parties present.
A simple
>these rations aren't fit for a GOBLIN let alone my stalwart companions
will go a long way.

My real advice is to get fleet at level 3 because otherwise you are the slowest gazelle.

>>95938226
>>95938230
>non-racist dwarves are like non-racist elves
>thinks you need to vocalize your inner thoughts like an autist at the expense of gold
This is your brain on 4chan.

>>95938248
you somehow managed to not read "you don't need to be racist to their face" two times so shut the fuck up retard

>>95938259
Why say it at all?
You don't have an inner monologue, npc?

It's in the rules unfortunately.
>Beliefs
>Dwarves tend to value honor and closely follow the traditions of their clans and kingdoms. They have a strong sense of friendship and justice, though they are often very particular about who they consider a friend.
Player Core page 42.

Unlucky bro.

>>95938298
>nothing says anything about them openly being hostile or rude to others
Glad we agree.

>>95938312
That's literally what it says.

actually I hope you TPK you whiny dipshit

>>95938086
>+3 dex (For ac mostly), +1 wis and +1 con
I hate how mechanically stale this game is.

>>95938321
So I am choosy about my friends (ie the party) and have a set of traditions I hold dear.
Easy peasy.
>>95938332
>4chan is my life
Tell me about your game group, anon. Mine is 12 members strong, has 2-3 games running on 6/12 month rotations, and has been going continuously for 15 years.
>>95938392
That is a D&D standard, what is your beef with it?

>>95938425
Balance the attributes and make options diverse. Don't make stats feel bad when you're not fully investing in them.

>>95938448
>Balance the attributes and make options diverse
The attributes support the options they are based on.
How would you change this within the chassis created by D&D, or would you abandon it?
If that is the case, you want a different game, but most games have similar issue (WoD, Shadowrun, 40k rpgs).

>>95938448
hytnpdnd

>>95938473
just because pathfinder is based on dnd doesn't mean it's obligated to make the same shitty design decisions dnd makes you disingenuous cunt

>>95938488
So you want a different game.
Attribute bonuses work just fine, so long as you understand the basic math behind them.
Further, I venture to say MOST games have the problem you are talking about, so you want something like PBTA.

>>95938392
Like a lot of things, 4e actually alleviated this by having each save use the higher modifier of one of two stats so there could be a little bit of variety, but this was met with apoplectic fury because it was different from 3.5, the first and only previous version of D&D. I remember someone lecturing me that this specific change was bad because it led to "cookie cutter builds" (whereas having only one possible stat for each save did not, for some reason).

I guess my point is that D&D fans are the stupidest motherfuckers on Earth.

personally I just make suboptimal characters and live with the consequences
(there are often not any because you can just play around your own weaknesses to frequently mitigate situations they might come up in, and thus avoid a roll you're bad at entirely)
(this does not work in nightmare railroad games or games where the GM actually expects optimized characters, but such a game is not something I'd play in)

>>95938473
I don't know what you're on about, when none of that is true.
The designers intentionally pigeonholed casters into maxing DEX, and made it so you get severely punished if you don't. Changing it can be as simple as providing you other options for defense.

Then they also decided to give you fixed scaling on your fortitude and will saves, so you're shit out of luck if your character concept doesn't include CON and WIS.

>>95938559
>I guess my point is that 3.5 fans are the stupidest motherfuckers on Earth.
Fixed.
>>95938599
You can get by with a +3 in your main stat, and the math supports this for 3e and later D&D games.

As an aside, what can I recommend to the elf sorcerer so he doesn't find himself on the outs?
He's new, too, and he is my boy, so I want to help him out.

>>95938645
Tell him to pick nymph bloodline

>>95938599
This. As long as you don't go full retard with all your character options, it'll turn out fine. If you have an unusual stat spread, just make sure to pick good feats or subclass, or vice-versa.

>>95938645
Sorcerer is a great class, but it depends on what bloodline he picks. There are plenty of good ones, but he should just avoid any of the occult ones to not overlap with you. Imperial is a very good, easy one to recommend. It has a focus spell that gives a good bonus to your spells or penalty to enemy saves. Spell selection is where you can easily get tripped up, so once you find out his bloodline we can give some better advice.

>>95938645
Anoint ally and explosion of power are fun as fuck, smack that on a frontliner and burn through your one action focus spells to make fireworks happen.

As for bloodline, they shouldn't pick one with occult casting because you have that covered but anything else is fine. I don't like draconic because they're the only PC2 bloodline without a 1 action focus spell but I really like imperial which is just a classic arcane caster with great focus spells and some solid granted spells and I'm a big fan of demonic which pulls some nice things like slow, disintegrate and elemental blasting from off the usual divine list as well as having pretty solid and varied focus spells.

>>95938274
You say it because you want others to know why some races are lesser.

Has anyone tried using Deepseek for DMing?

I did a little test run with it.
My deepseek kind of knows I'm a horndog, so it gave me a harem of 3 nuns.
But it's been a super casual DM for me so far, let me improvise situations with reactions, looking past some rules here and there, it even made one of my lighting bolts accidentally hit one of my NPCs because it was humid and raining.
It's a funny DM so far.

One of these days I have to see if I can shove an entire adventure path into the Sillitavern description and see how the LLM can DM its way out of that AP.
Since it's o cheap to run per token, I could probably get away with pasting in a giant fully fledged AP.

>>95938645
Will double up on the Imperial Sorcerer bloodline shilling, the focus spell it has is the only metamagic that just a clear statistical boost to your spells. It might actually turn him off from other spellcasters since they lack such a (genuinely busted) ability, but it will get him through the hurdles of early game.

In terms of feats, grab Propelling Sorcery, Arcane Evolution, maybe Spell Relay to synergize together more, Champion MC is good if you got the stats set up for it. There's not too many feats in the Sorcerer's own list you wouldn't realize is good just from name alone, so he should be fine.

What the heck is even the point of the Adept class.
Hit dice D6
Weak BAB
Highest spellcasting: level 5

>>95939224
Weaker cleric-y-thing w/ a familiar that you can throw as a non-heroic caster. I've really not used or seen them used much, except with like monstrous-race shamans.
Even in 3e, I don't think I've seen them used too often for NPCs.

>>95936181
Again, I'm someone that is willing to wait on Tech rules, even if it is disappointing to know for a fact that Paizo hasn't gotten better at writing rules since SF1e first released. But I will say it is better to space out classes, especially the weird Starfinder classes that absolutely show why it is better to give them time to iron out the idiosyncrasies. All the worst classes have been a major result of stuffing them all in one book and essentially releasing 8 2e classes in the span of a month when you combine it with Commander and Guardian is actually pretty absurd for their standards. Given how fucked Inventor and Wizard currently are, I think it is better to let Mechanic and Technomancer bake in the oven longer, even if it does remove a lot of the "Star" from Starfinder.

>>95937851
Gunslinger itself is intentionally hampered, it is why they are fine with making Operative and Soldier at all. The fantasy of gunslingers are sort of tied to their rapid reloading, you don't really see John Military Man from Hit Action Movie-Tie-In-Video-Game Honor of Military-Industrial Complex: Finest Hour be known for his ability to change out a magazine fast (I can't even remember if CoD even have a Rapid Reload perk in any of the games). Operative may be horrendously overtuned at the moment, even post-playtest errata, but the point is that the guns they are good at are not the same as the guns Gunslinger is. Much like how Fighter and Barbarian treat two-handers differently.

>>95939224
It's an NPC Class, it is literally described as such. You give it to the cute plucky cleric girl your Leadership feat grants you and the DM suddenly liked enough to not blow up in an instant or leave in the Rape Dungeon.

>https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5533 is utterly retarded gay idiot useless nonsense for babies, literally just trip the thing or use slam down or something, what the fuck
>https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5540 is SICK AS HELL but at an unattainable level and requires the previous feat
paizo...

>>95939019
LLMs right now are very keen on yes-and-ing unless you REALLY go out of your way to make them challenge you, if you've managed that good job ngl.

I do really wonder though when or if someone will make some kind of LLM that's specifically designed for solo tabletop RP, I feel like you'd have to make a two tiered system, with one bot designed to peruse the system's hard-coded rules such that it can't be bypassed with an LLM's innate desire to yes-Andy, and then another bot for the creativity needed to react on the fly whenever a player wants to do something interesting.

>>95939345
>unattainable level
Are you too cursed with retarded spaz players who couldn't crack level 4 if their children's lives depended on it?

>>95939379
games end at like 7/8 or 12/13 and nobody actually likes high level play

>>95939400
I think you're just playing with retards. It's okay, I feel your pain, things will get better.

>>95939400
NTA but it's always weird to me when I see this in reference to 2e. In 1e that was true, and it's why almost all published adventures ended around the early-mid teens, because the game fell apart at high level play. 2e isn't like that. Before the switch to three-book APs, the majority of published adventures went to 20. Even after that, half of them go to 20. Level 16 in 1e was something you would almost never expect to actually experience. Level 16 in 2e is expected in a significant amount of published material. Do people just not finish campaigns?

>>95939475
Tthat's just a lot of time and commitment to put into 1/2 adventures. I think that's just gonna matter no matter the d20 fantasy game. Hell, I would argue 2e games are completed less because you still have to try and people are already exhausted coming in week-to-week with the same dude at that point. Compared to 1e games where you already broke it 4 levels ago and it is more about bullying the GM to keep running it for the gang to see how more broken it gets.

>>95939475
>Do people just not finish campaigns?
Yeah, something happens to the GM and it blows up :(

Is it true that I should never leave home without Prestidigitation cantrip?
Or will it just end up backfiring when the entire table gets annoyed?

>>95939257
>>95939278
>DM suddenly liked enough to not blow up in an instant or leave in the Rape Dungeon.
Deepseek pulled a dirty one on me. I thought I gained 3 real party members, one if them is an NPC class, and one of them is 1 level behind.

>>95939527
Prestidigitation is 90% flavor in both editions, and generally only creates effects that you could do yourself if you felt like it. You could clean your own clothes, go pick up the cup from the counter, or draw a picture of what you're talking about--but why do those things when you know MAGIC? Prestidigitation exists so that you can say "The object of our quest is..." then mutter an incantation as a fascimile of it appears in your hand. Or so you can be mid-conversation and then go "pen-o, appearus in my hand-io!" as your stylus floats over to you so you can write something down. Its actual real-world applications are minimal.

So, to answer your question: no self-respecting wizard will ever leave home without it. What are you, a peasant?

>>95939527
Nah.
Detect magic and light are the two you never take off.
Prestidigitation is what you take for theme on your gay party magician charlatan character along with figment.

>>95939475
we played all the way through fists of the ruby phoenix and everyone at my table decided none of us liked high level play or its particularities
I do like the feats that are locked behind 10+ because those are the actual gamechangers, and have considered running pf2e again with a houserule where you qualify for class feats of twice your level, and focus spells are "lowered" using inverted heightening rules, and can only take one level 18 and one level 20 feat. but frankly I'm just not actually all that into superheroic fantasy and powerscaling, so I'm not likely to run the system again. it's a good beer and pretzels with the lads time as a player, but doesn't really work well with the kinds of campaigns I like to run

but aside from getting actually cool and fun feats, it didn't really do it for most of it. the number bloat FELT stupid and it was simultaneously rocket taggy but still had ridiculous hp bloat for PL-1/2 monsters. wall of stone, maze, finisher crit for 130 damage. monster crits you in the face for 80% of your life and then swings again. and then death basically didn't matter because resurrection was easy and available. kind of felt like the story trying to sell us on high stakes but the mechanics of the game just making everything feel very silly. FotRP in particular may have been a culprit here, there was kind of nothing at all even remotely threatening besides the bard with banshee's wail that automatically reduces your degree of success by 1 on saves against his spells which... I don't actually know what paizo was thinking with that
that's my own experience with it and I generally don't see much if any praise for high level play in pf2. I will admit that that's my only experience with high level play in it but it took long enough and wasn't fun enough that I'm not likely to pursue it again, and the other guy at my table who GMs (at all, but particularly pf2) had the same general thoughts as me

>>95934897
>>95933163
Huh?

>>95939379
>>95939468
I find it funny how immediately hostile and belligerent 2e cultists get about every single thing. Most games do not go above 15, it's just a fact. And that's not even a knock against the system. Most campaigns just don't have the steam to last that long.

But sure enough "THIS COMMENT COULD BE CRITICAL OF PRECIOUS 2E I MUST DEFEND!" like some kind of retarded robot.

>>95939727
>kind of felt like the story trying to sell us on high stakes but the mechanics of the game just making everything feel very silly.
To be fair, this is the experience with low level play too where the best strategy is to just constantly trip and grab people by their shirt collars. Turns serious combat into a Three Stooges skit or Phineas and Ferb.

>>95939996
sure, but at low levels fighting dirty at least makes sense because you aren't flying around at 70' per action wielding glowing weapons of legend covered in 3 different elemental runes on your way to go to space and kill god (you can just hit god with hellsweep and he falls prone) ('ware the level 20 mundane mountain yaks!)

>>95939996
>Turns serious combat into a Three Stooges skit or Phineas and Ferb
If it works, it's tactical! Tell me you've never used ball bearings in 5e at least once in your life!

>>95940038
and yet it took them this long to give us Dirty Trick, and a super nerfed, inflexible one at that

>>95940059
Really is absurd how bad Dirty Trick is. They made a whole ass subclass around it and they didn't thought it should be good! It wouldn't take much, remove the attack or manipulate trait (removing both is a little much), let you use it with full hands, and let you choose either Clumsy, Enfeebled, or Stupefied. There, DEX-melee fighters are now viable.
If it's gonna be a feat, even a Level 1 Skill feat, it gotta be a good one. You are competing with Tripping people and Bon Mot! That's already more effective than Dirty Tricks are!

>>95940038
>('ware the level 20 mundane mountain yaks!)
ok since I've used this as a criticism before and have already played through the AP a couple years ago I decided to actually look into this since it's been eating me alive and I couldn't actually find a stat block for such a creature on AoN

image is mechanical spoilers for fists of the ruby phoenix so don't open it without good reason

I still find this EXTREMELY fucking goofy and the whole party including the GM spent this entire section ragging on its absurdity

>>95940133
don't forget- you never get an item bonus to it from a weapon trait

>>95940134
Ruby Phoenix in pretty notorious for falling apart in book 3. They exhausted the fighting tournament premise in the first two books (which I did enjoy) and then had nothing left to do in the third so they just set the party in a quest hub to gather the pieces required to get the dragonball wish mcguffin that wasn't mentioned in any of the previous books so that they can access the actual final boss fights/area, which spans like, maybe two pages of the actual AP's contents (not counting the giant stat blocks). The book is almost entirely filler. I do think there's an adventure in there worth playing for the first 2/3rds of it though, and if somebody was thinking of running it I'd probably recommend just ditching the third book entirely and putting together a lower-level fight with the antagonists after the conclusion of the tournament in book 2 to wrap up the plot, which has basically concluded by then (maybe they sweep in immediately after the kaiju attack or something).

>>95940142
>>95940133
neither does it get the benefits of Agile your hands have like Athletics does

>>95940199
Just run the 1e adventure The Ruby Phoenix Tournament instead

I kinda want to do an artifact hunter/tomb robber. What classes fit that aesthetic?

>>95940351
Investigator or Rogue with Archeologist Archetype is the obvious pick depending on how brainy/investigation focused you want to be.

>>95940049
Well yeah but Kevin McCallister was also tactical. Doesn't mean I want every fight to be home alone. Ball bearings are at least a silly gimmick that aren't built into basically every relevant frontline martial's chassis.

>>95940369
I was thinking maybe he stole an artifact from a tomb to use. So maybe thaumaturge?

>>95939984
It wasn't so much a defense of 2e as it was an attack on brainlet players who avoid accomplishing things/doing quests as if they'll get terminal brain cancer the second they gain 1 XP. I am unfortunately all too familiar with these bottom feeders.

>>95940732
Sorry to hear that. Yeah like I said, it's not even a 2e problem or a retard problem. It is more difficult to wrangle a group of players from Level 1-15 than it is from Level 1-10.

Do you ever make a villain level up or otherwise gain more power if the PCs fail to deal with them in a timely manner?

Any good stories?

For Starfinder do you guys tend to make major changes to the setting? I'm toying with the idea of making the Pact Worlds a full blown Republic and having the setting be majorly inspired by the Old Republics Republic vs Sith Empire stuff

>>95940883
I've had difficulty simply wrangling players from level 1 to level 2, but I'm thankfully away from them now and My current group is getting on a good track.

>>95940394
That could work I guess. You gotta figure out where his other implements come from later though, and I don't think it leans into the investigative/tomb raiding angle as hard since Thaums are more on the mysticism side of things.

>1e
>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/hurling-greater-ex/
>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/hurling-ex
>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/hurling-lesser-ex

So every now and again I want to figure out how to build a proper thrower, then get really upset when I can't find anything outside of 'Play This Instead' threads.
It doesn't say I'm proficient with the thrown object, do I need Catch Off-Guard to do this?
Can a Titan Mauler throw even bigger rocks, can Shikigami Style cause more damage?
Since normie and Greater Hurling says I can either throw a bigger rock or throw a rock farther, can Greater go in the middle and throw a slightly bigger rock slightly farther?
What the fuck do I actually need, please help me.

>>95944537
I hate it so much when games are made to be "floaty" like that. The monster didn't even flinch from losing half of its HP from a boulder shattering against it, which also somehow failed to nudge it even an inch.

>>95944634
It does on the second shot, to be fair.

>>95934902
Thinking of changing Spellstrike's damage so that the Strike portion doesn't do damage (runes still apply) but you it does [weapon damage die] x [cascading condition value] spell type damage (force if non-damaging spell). I feel this would encourage players to build up the cascading condition (and benefit from the damage at al more) instead of just "Spellstrike, cascading 1, Spellstrike, cascading 1..." Might need to increase the benefit from the condition with this change.
Any opinions? Other feedback would be welcome as well.

>>95944537
>>95944634
>>95944795
Oh, it's because the first one hits it in the shoulder and the second hits it right in the face.
Never noticed that before, desu.

I remember seeing a homebrew document for a bounded caster Cleric, which someone made shortly after Secrets of Magic. Naturally, it was better than Battle Harbinger.

Does anyone happen to have it saved?

Lore question, although it has to do more with PF2e. I'm trying to figure out which playable PF2e ancestries/heritages live 350+ years (I'm making a custom background for an upcoming campaign with very old age as a prerequisite and I want an idea of who could actually qualify for it within their normal lifespan). Some ancestries list this in their entry (like elves, who typically live "up to 600 years", or Dhampirs, who have "a lifespan similar to that of an elf"), but most don't. I fished up the old 1e table for max age that expands the list to include the elemental kin (undine/sylph/oread/ifrit), who I never realized lived even longer than elves. The list also includes gnomes and dwarves; everyone involved would be in the "Venerable" age category in 1e.

Automatons, androids, and anybody with any of the undead archetypes are in that bucket as well, since they're all immortal. Anything I'm missing?

>>95945787
What about the trox?
Big ugly bugs, maybe they have long lives as well?
Are they even in 2e yet?

>>95944537
Wait, can they even crit?

Cackle feels so bad compared to lingering composition :(

>>95946189
In what way? Cackle is way better because it works on everything that needs sustaining and activates a lot of fucked up abilities for Witches.

>>95945891
That's a good idea. Trox's lifespan isn't listed in 1e, but it IS listed in Starfinder (unfortunately they're, on average, a little shorter-lived than humans). There's a bunch of Pathfinder races in the Starfinder books, which seem to list the lifespans as part of the race entry itself, which is a way better resource than either edition of Pathfinder has. I'll do some digging around in there. Thanks, Anon!

Am I crazy, or does there come a point in 2e where concealment becomes more valuable than invisibility? I was playing with a meme build with the alchemist Smoke Bomb feat and I kind of assumed it would become worthless at highish level, when monsters start commonly having additional sense. Once you get to the really high level, everyone and their mom has some variation of Truesight, or at the very least an imprecise sense like Scent or Tremorsense that allows them to locate invisible PCs, which nerfs Invisibility significantly. However, just browsing Nethys, it seems like very few of them have anything that allows them to ignore concealment. Spamming smoke bombs is still a meme anyway, bu I'm just surprised that it remains usable at all up to the very high levels.

>>95943341
I mean, they kind of already had that with the Pact Worlds vs Vesk war. That was only really "put on hold" because of the Swarm.

>>95946420
It's only saves you a single action

>>95946749
it saves you a single action but it still allows you to set up some crazy shit
as an example, turn 1 summon monster, turn 2 cackle sustain and summon another, turn 3+ sustain twice and start hammering them with your crappy hex cantrip if you don't need to move

>>95936633
>I suspect operative is getting nerfed though; fighter accuracy + full sneak attack precision damage is a lot, even before accounting for free running reload that stacks with other reload actions, guns that rarely need reloading, ignoring cover, ranged AoO, and debilitating shot.

God I hope not, Operative is the only class so far that doesn't completely suck. It just needs skill proficiency bumps like the Swashbuckler

sf2 content being intended to be balanced with and potentially ran alongside pf2 content has got to be the single most self-sabotaging retarded design decision in TTRPG history

>>95947220
I don't know why anyone would want to proliferate the awful 3 action economy

2e
Is the treasure vault (remastered) chakri's Reload 0 feature not supposed to work with Thrower's Bandolier? I can't see a way to copy runes onto the chakri while they're on my wrists.

Chakri: https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=333
Thrower's Bandolier: https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2313

>>95946654
Remember that Imprecise Senses just make the PC Hidden to them. And forcing a boss to waste actions just to locate one(1) party member or swinging with functionally a -10 to hit is still valuable. Sure this doesn't work as well against AoEs but if you're invisible, presumably you're separate from the rest of the party. So forcing the boss to blow their big AoE ability on you is also pretty good.

You are right about the Truesight and it's definitely annoying but do remember that it only has a range of 60 feet. So if you're some kind of Mage or Archer (the people who would want to be invisible) you don't really have to worry about it since staying 60 feet away from the fighting is trivial at like... 7th level let alone 17th level.

And, small bonus, but even if you are within 60 feet, the enemy can still Crit Fail their Truesight check. It's rare but it happens and it's very funny.

>>95947359
That's correct. A chakri on your wrist is not inside the Thrower's Bandolier. So it can't benefit from such.
The Bandolier is such a weirdly implemented concept... I don't know what this game have against throwing builds.

2e
Friends talked me into trying to DM for the first time in 10 years, and I want to try learning the P2E system. Any advice for running a campaign, for people completely brand new to the system? I'll either be re-upping my Foundry sub and trying to use that, or running it through TTS.
Should class choices be heavily limited, or just follow my gut? Any mechanics that I should watch out for, compared to old DND stuff? Most of my real experience is in 3.5, or the FFG Star Wars stuff

>>95948032
Follow your heart and/or gut, whatever is bigger. Whether you think you are good at making full homebrew campaigns or want to run an Adventure Path, just do your research and your best.
>Should class choices be heavily limited
No, no class in 2e is horrendously OP or complex enough to warrant banning. At most I would probably discourage Alchemist, Summoner, Animist, Investigator, Psychic, and Inventor for first time players but they all can be learned and mastered with enough experience (except Inventor, that's just kinda bad...).
>Any mechanics that I should watch out for, compared to old DND stuff?
Understand how the meta of the three-action system changes how you and the party approach combat. Don't just swing for the fences with going all in on attacks, incentivize your players to use maneuvers and kite foes.
Casters are far more boxed in than in typical D&D-likes. They are heavily slotted towards controlling, debuffing, and support. Don't let your players build their slotted spells entirely for single-target damage.
Crafting is not to build super OP weapons and armors but to replace shopping when an item wouldn't reasonably be purchasable.
The most popular variant ruling is Free Archetype. It grants a player an additional feat every even level called an Archetype Feat, which can be used to buy archetypes in place of their class feat for the level. FA is fun and very freeing but do expect some incompatibilities you as a GM have to sort out if you run it.
Shields are not a passive AC bonus, they must be raised every turn to grant such. Shield Blocking is a separate feat/ability that can reduce damage taken at the expense of the shield's durability.
Do not be afraid of mixing "Legacy" and "Remastered" content. Long story short, stuff like alignment damage and spell schools was in the game but had to be cut because of WotC fuckery. Old content before 2021-2022 may require a bit of conversion on your end, but it is far from difficult to do so.

>>95948032
>advice for running the campaign?
you might struggle if you try to do a normal sandbox-style campaign so you might want to either do some grand narrative bullshit or just something episodic. the game does have usable downtime rules so I'd suggest the latter, allowing the players to pick their desired "episode" so you can get ready for it. "the town needs one of these 2-3 things done, which interests you," into a few weeks of downtime, then repeat. you can string things together if you want
ultimately the system struggles if you try to play it like old dnd. you could certainly do some dnd 2e or later railroads though if you're into those
>class choices
nah. nothing's crazy enough to be limited, and it's not your job to know how player characters work either. if your players can't fucking read and figure out how their PC works that's on them. I'm assuming you can trust your players though since it sounds like you're playing with friends. if you're DMing for randoms I'd be more restrictive and actually research PC options, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here
>any mechanics
honestly on the DM side pf2e is very easy here and you share a lot with players. get a combat actions cheatsheet for yourself and your players, and an exploration activities cheatsheet for your players, and just understand how the game works at a basic level. use archives of nethys for enemy stat blocks and be sure to check a monster's traits for any intrinsic properties of that trait that aren't just reprinted in the stat block
I kind of don't recommend free archetype. people will say it doesn't really increase power levels but that's ridiculously false. it only does that if you actually curate the archetypes people are taking, and you more or less can't curate those archetypes without system knowledge as a player, so I'd advise against it. automatic bonus progression, however, may be a consideration. it frees you up from needing to manage the party's gold income

>>95948032
>>95948085
A bit more advice
Mind the Encounter Budget. Don't just toss in a super big boss foe. Use the budget to create adds and other multi-man melees. The game does not work well if you abuse higher-level opponents over spreading out the level range of foes.
Use the GM Screen. https://2e.aonprd.com/GMScreen.aspx
Don't make it a habit to add +5 to a DC. +1 or 2 on the DC by Level curve is fine enough.
Use enemy adjustments. Elite, Weak, Zombies, Vampire, Mutant, mix up the foes in the bestiary.
Automatic Bonus Progression is the second most popular variant rule, though this one is REALLY fucky with stuff like VTTs, alchemical items or the expected item progression. Plus it means your casters will have an EXCESSIVE glut of gold if you remember to actually hand it out. Requires more work on your part.
Read up the Stealth rules. They are wordy but not as unintuitive as they look at first glance. And really, can be chunked down more to a player-sense.
Read up on Recall Knowledge rules. And practice giving out information concisely and asking "What do you want to know?"
Don't be afraid to make something simpler or different. The rules are as much frameworks as they are rules.

>>95948085
I might add Magus to that list of discouraged first timer classes. To play a good Magus you kind of have to comb through the spell list to a degree that might be overwhelming to a brand new player.

And it has the extra layer of managing your Spellstrike Charge on top of managing your spell slots.

>>95948188
If I had to rank classes by ease of use and building...
Autopilot
>Bard
>Ranger
>Fighter
>Psychic
>Barbarian
Simple
>Champion
>Monk
>Sorcerer
>Rogue
>Exemplar
>Kineticist
>Cloistered Cleric
Requires Homework
>Gunslinger
>Magus
>Swashbuckler
>Druid
>Thaumaturge
>Witch
>Oracle
>Warpriest Cleric
Easy to Fuck Up
>Animist
>Alchemist
>Summoner
>Investigator
>Psychic
Don't
>Inventor

>>95948254
Forgot Wizard, fuck...
Would put it in the "Easy to Fuck Up" tier. Runelord in "Requires Homework"

>>95948254
>>95948262
I do have to point out that you have Psychic listed twice and I'm assuming it's meant to be in the Easy to Fuck Up tier lol.

I agree with your list though.

>>95948254
I would move Ranger to simple because I've seen players choose dual wielding precision before.

>>95948516
Still not as bad as crossbow flurry.

>>95948516
Ehhh, that still works in its own fucked way. 1d8 precision is still 4 more damage on average which keeps up Ranger's DPS above something like non-Inner Upheaval Monk. I put something in Simple over Autopilot when there's a reasonable chance of missing the timing, turning off your class, or go net-zero in combat momentum. Even something like Outwit still gets the passive AC bonus, so Ranger isn't something you or the party can really lose out on, unless you are a complete mouthbreather or the GM's Girlfriend. But I can see how mistakes can be made...

>>95949079
Like this. From Paizo.
Fucking why, Harsk...

>>95948032
I was told Foundry is a one time purchase... What a scam

>>95949375
It is, it just that if you don't want to port forward, you need a private server. Forge offers such but that's a subscription price.

>>95949375
You know I think this is probably the third or fourth time in these threads that I've seen someone claim foundry has a sub. Why do you fags love dickriding roll20 so hard? I thought you guys liked being able to make your own stuff but I guess most of you are AP players who need everything to be handed out to you including a place and time to play lmfao maybe the 5e adventurers league is a bit more your speed

>>95950258
?

>>95950275
You believe anything you read online and will never reach the truth. Enjoy paying a sub for something that is free.

>>95944537
Reroll.
Good morning.

>>95946436
Happy to help.
On the side, hobgoblins are on the short side as well; seeing one in his forties is rare.
But that's the army thing, so not sure what you can do with that.

>>95950294
Erm... okay?

*Makes pointing motion with thumb and twirls finger around ear*

Awwwwkward

>>95950258
Try not being retarded.

>>95948122
>I kind of don't recommend free archetype. people will say it doesn't really increase power levels but that's ridiculously false.
That's always hysterical to me, there is absolutely a power increase, and a major complexity increase to boot that makes it awful for a brand new group, but it's really easy to get to the point where the customization of the game feels like complete dogshit without it because too many classes do not function for shit without their in-class feats.

>>95950897
>what? no, of course not. getting access to extremely powerful reactions, additional daily spell slots and expanded lists, exemplar ikons, animist spirits, and all kinds of weapon/armor proficiencies for absolutely free is not a power increase, don't be silly
every time
but yeah I definitely get the latter part. I like FA with curation but blanket "yep just take whatever" results in some massive character strength bumps

>>95950986
to be fair there was always the caveat of shit like champion, rogue, and psychic multiclass archetypes being overpowered. it continued even with exemplar. it's not like these things were unknown.

FA wouldn't actually be a significant power increase if the game was as balanced as it's lauded to be. even getting extra low level spell slots is powerful in combat because some of them randomly scale into the late game without heightening.

>>95951116
i think the game used to be more balanced than it is, paizo has loosened their grip a lot.

>>95950986
I don't mind "just take whatever" or even "fuck dedication limits go ham", especially because I trust the people I'm playing with not to go 2hu on me with some giga optimized nightmare beast.

>>95951116
I would argue Rogue is the only multiclass that gets close to threading any kind of needle between "gives too much" and "is bordering totally worthless" besides caster archetypes (not including Psychic). It doesn't invalidate Rogue and, frankly, you're the first person I've ever seen complain about it being overpowered.

Then again I also am a skill slut and think most classes get completely fucked on that front, so lmao.

>>95951374
Most of the unbalanced archetypes came from core.

>>95951374
>>95951460
Yeah, the multiclasses always been what makes Free Archetype, or at least an unrestricted one, iffy on a power budget deal. But even then, the problematic multiclasses like Psychic or Exemplar would be issues with or without the rule, and most builds wouldn't really be losing anything if they took those options in a normal campaign. What makes them super strong is the dedication being such a one-level dip, not the entire archetype. And since MCs don't have skill feats, your next archetype is going to be at Level 8 at the earliest, so you can't really chain all the busted ones together.

But yeah, I would argue do your due diligence as a GM and see if Free Archetype would be right for you. Variant Rules be Variant Rules.

>>95951378
Since its inception, Rogue dedication + a number of its early class feats have been much better than anything casters could pick up without archetyping.

Casters were seemingly designed with almost all of their power budget being put into spells, but suddenly with Rogue MC, on top of that you can have light armor, a useful reaction, utility, and survivability.

>>95952500
to be fair, since the remaster changed how multiple tradition spellcasters work (eg getting another spellcasting dedication) any tradition that gives spells and allows you to use the correct ability score is also huge. it's very easy for casters to poach other lists now, and I'd argue that that's potentially even stronger than rogue dedication
charisma/dex ones can also pick up exemplar for free and scoop an ikon, resiliency, and second ikon
there's all kinds of good options for casters now even outside of multiclass archetypes. rogue is a nice package but it isn't all that crazy

Kind of want to go Ranger that specializes in Crossbows but also has an animal companion. Would my action economy be too bad with having to reload and command the animal?

>>95952973
it's fine with precision edge since as long as you're using your one full MAP strike you're doing good as a martial
it will get clunky if you need to move but that gets more tolerable with a mature companion

>>95952500
I see that as more of a problem with the way casters, and even class feats in general, are designed, rather than an issue with Rogue Multiclass specifically. If the most inoffensively generic feats possible are better than your entire class feat list, then something is WRONG with your class.

>>95953332
NTA but it's also just kind of a weird quirk of rogue's low-level feats that they happen to be great and easy to qualify for for characters that want to get to and stay at range, while rogue itself doesn't really support a ranged playstyle.

>>95953353
This doesn't really affect anything about my statement. If anything it confirms the long-held belief that class feats as implemented are moronic as hell and moving away from a broader "general feat" pool has been actively detrimental.

>>95953386
I mean, if your point is that the reason casters like to take rogue is because their feat lists suck and rogue is just a generically good option, then I guess I am arguing your point, because--while rogue IS a generically good option--it's also really, really good for ranged characters in particular, including casters.

I'm not really agreeing with the other Anon's point re. Free Archetype (there's an undeniable power boost that comes with doubling your class feats, but I think people in these threads tend to get a little hysterical about just how much of a power boost even the most powerful options actually provide), but I'm pointing out that rogue has more going for it if you're a ranged character than just being "inoffensively generic". The rogue multiclass, specifically, just really kicks ass for spellcasters, since it provides a one-stop shop for two must-have build elements (a reliably-usable reaction at range and an ability to allow escaping from melee opponents) at extremely low level and in a package that's effortless to qualify for. The multiclass has some goodies in there for melee characters too of course, but it's both true and a little weird that the rogue archetype--a melee-focused class--is super high-value for ranged characters and spellcasters.

>>95953332
Just one of the system's many poor concepts

>>95953497
The difference of opinion then just lies in that I don't think ranged characters or spellcasters having such easy access is a problem in the slightest, then. If someone wants to pay the three feats for those things, fuck it, let them. If it's free archetype and somehow literally nothing else catches their eye to take.

Rogue not being very good with range despite having feats really good for it is honestly its own can of worms. It's not impossible, just a pain in the ass, but it does kinda just suck that the best class for throwing daggers at people isn't really the one that is stereotyped as the "dagger guy" class.

>>95953078
Think I should start with Crossbow Ace or Animal Companion? Crossbow Ace seems kind of whatever.

>Casters have garbo class feat lists that are so bad it's a better option 90% of the time to grab Archetype feats instead, FA game or not
>"The real problem is the Rogue Archetype is too strong!!1! Nerf Rogue!!"

Some of you guys need to take a break from 2e and talk to normal people for a change. Your Paizo brainrot is terminal.

>>95953497
>>95953592
I initially brought up Rogue archetype being strong. I actually like it, as well as Exemplar MC. But what I ultimately want is for the majority of feats and archetypes to be as fun as them, instead of disappointing.

>>95953709
Who are you quoting? Who wants to get it nerfed?

>>95953818
Not sure what you're confused about. "Don't let your players pick Rogue FA because it's too strong" is pretty cut and dry. If you want a pedantic argument about me saying nerf versus banning outright (which is actually worse) I'm not really interested.

>>95953807
Then we're in an accord for the most part, cool.

I will say that I do not like poachable weapon ikons, but that is preference and just thinking that making the damage be the weapon immanence is goddamn boring as shit and reflects poorly on the design of Exemplar, rather than it being "too strong". I would have preferred weapons getting some kind of actually interesting, build enabling passive instead (Shadow Sheathe is one of my favorite ikons for a reason) while the damage component was separate feature locked to Exemplar itself.

Has anyone played the PF2e version of Battlezoo Eldamon? I have a player who's really into Pokemon Go and I think she'd be into playing a Pokemon trainer in Pathfinder but I can't find many reviews outside of Youtube shilling.

>>95953592
Oh yeah I'm with you there, I run unrestricted FA and have had zero problems with it. I just thought it was worth flagging (and had the passing thought that it was also a little interesting/odd) that rogue actually happens to be not just a usable but a pretty kickass archetype for the kinds of characters the rogue class itself doesn't really support. Again, I've got no axe to grind with FA. Outside of like, your first campaign where everyone's learning the rules and adding a second layer of class feats might just overcomplicate things, I 'd recommend it to every group. I also use Gradual Ability Boosts and that's given me no problems either.

I think a lot of the problems people have with these variant rules are overstated. If your players want to break the game, it's plenty breakable without FA (at least to the extent that 2e allows itself to be broken: see Edna's party comp for an example of a party that pushes DPR far enough off the charts that it basically wrecks encounter math). And if your party isn't trying to break the game anyway, then FA doesn't push the needle one way or the other. It's been a complete non-issue for me.

>>95954191
Yea no game I've played has been without Free Archetype AND Ancestry Paragon, hell I've had additional bonus rules and the worst optimization that's resulted in is "the champion took Marshal archetype". Which is a non-issue, and most of the time we're more concerned with the fact one player wanted to play a vampire and that archetype is actively nerfing them.

>>95953927
Who wants it banned? If that's what your prefer

>>95954009
That would have been a nice way to separate things. I'd still want the bonus damage to be something you could still get via another feat, like rogue's sneak attack. Mostly cause it feels good on characters who don't get STR to damage and casters who spec into striking.

>>95954341
Read the thread.

Obviously it's your table and you can do whatever you want but nothing in this game is strong enough to actually warrant banning it imo.

"Massive increase in character power!" and it's like one extra casting of a spell per day lol.

>>95954479
The thread doesn't want to ban it. The discussion is about whether it's true that FA doesn't boost PC power, and it's not true.

But the facts are 1. it's not a huge boost that would upset the relative balance of the game and 2. some archetypes are stronger than others
And the thread just elaborated on those two points

>>95954548
*Sigh*

The facts are

1. Saying that you play with "curated Free Archetype" means that you play with certain combinations banned

2. The justification for playing this way was that certain Archetype combinations were overpowered. Many were listed but Rogue was discussed the most

3. If someone plays with Curated Free Archetype and they justify this with certain Archetypes like Rogue being universally strong that means what?

Fill in the blank: They recommend playing with Rogue Archetype______

A. Completely allowed
B. Banned

I can't believe you made me type this up. PLEASE understand this time. I literally CANNOT make this any simpler.

>1e
Thoughts on a high intelligence skill monkey fighter?

>>95954565
You know when I was talking about a restricted game, I was more implying banning ANY multiclass archetype. I wasn't singling any in particular. I don't even think Rogue MC is all that GOOD past the dip + Mobility.
Multiclasses are just the most obvious picks for everyone that want immediate power to deal with the early game hurdles thanks to getting options from 2 classes. Using all the other archetypes available leads to more interesting characters while only slightly increasing things. No one was targeting Rogue MC in particular. That's why everyone was confused with you extrapolating shit.

>>95954565
Rogue was put in question if it can even be counted as one of the strong ones, not if it's the strongest, ban-worthy one.

Rangers should get some "off-type" enabling feats.
Like a level 1 or 2 flurry feat that lets you reload a crossbow as a free action after a successful strike with it (or just merge into crossbow ace as a flurry bonus)
Or a level 12 precision feat that lets you track each weapon's "hits" separately for determining the precision damage you deal
Or something that lets you increase precision's damage die size to your weapon's die size if it's a d10 or d12 weapon
Stuff like that
I just don't like how paint-by-numbers some classes can be sometimes

>>95953631
go human and natural ambition in to both
or if you're human-adverse yeah take a companion first. mostly because "oh btw we had no downtime but I've got this super loyal and friendly wolf now" is always dumb as fuck

>>95954763
This was a leading question. What I actually want to know is how to make something like this work. Surely there's something interesting that can be done with the free feats.

>>95955198
>Skill monkey
>Interesting
Lol. Rogues are better at it. And then Bard and the like are better than rogue. The benefit of Fighter is getting a solid baseline for combat. If you an find the least feat intensive chain to be 'viable', I'm sure you could focus on a decent chunk of skills.

Can someone familiar with the PF1 Psionics give me a good rundown on the classes, pitfalls, recommended feats/items to grab, etc.
I'm not looking tor a build so much as a general guideline

Whats the good and fun free archetype for wizard that is not multiclass?

>>95955923
Magaambyan Attendant and Halcyon Speaker

>>95955923
Time Mage
Beastmaster
Campfire Chronicler
Fan Dancer
Familiar Sage
Ostilli Host
Ritualist
Pistol Phenom
Fireworks Technician

>>95955198
I'd argue Rance is more CHA than INT focused, anyway.
it's not rape if they say yes, you know

>>95957377
>Ostilli Host
This archetype still pisses me off, why isn't there a more generic version that's just "Battle Mage" that lets you do mostly the same shit except it's just shooting magic from your hand? A ton of classes would love that shit, but no. The only thing mechanically is a fucking esoteric ass insect parasite archetype meant for a single ancestry.

>>95957384
They don't say yes very often though.

But he is an expert survivalist and full of all kinds of tricks. I obviously wouldn't exactly describe him as "intelligent" but that's the stat that gives you skill points so what else can you really do?

>>95957443
paizo has zero clue about character fantasies

Quick question, does the Champion Aura and Inspiring Marshal's aura from the Marshal dedication stack with each other or can you only have one or the other?

>>95959046
You can have both, but increases to one will not increase the other. IE The level 6 feat to increase Champion Aura size won't do jack shit for your Marshal Aura. This can be an issue, or not, depending on how your team likes to position around you.

Is alchemist dedication as free archetype bonkers? I feeling like Im cheating because im playing basically almost extra full class

>>95959672
The INT stat requirement is a big roadblock for a lot of classes and the fun stuff tends to be pushed back to higher levels (Combine Elixirs/Directional Bombs/Debilitating Bomb aren't available until 12, Sticky Bomb isn't available until 16, Expanded Splash doesn't become available until 20) or unpoachable (Extend/Eternal Elixir, Uncanny Bombs, Double Brew). You'll never be a real "bomber" like an alchemist is, both because of the limited amount of consumables you get each day and because your bombs lag so far behind theirs due to feat availability. On top of that, your base class probably has better ways to deal damage anyway.

Still, if you've got space in the build for it and can afford to boost INT it can grant you a whole bunch of on-level consumables each day. If you're an investigator or someone with INT as your key stat and grab Advanced Alchemy, then Efficient Alchemy at level 8, you're looking at 10 daily consumables and 4 quick vial consumables per day, which is a pretty respectable amount--although it does cost you four archetype feats. That's more than enough for 100% uptime on Quicksilver Mutagens for an 8-hour adventuring day, which is the best item bonus available in the game and keeps well ahead of equivalent-level weapon runes. Or it's a boatload of poisons if you happen to want to keep some on-level poisoned arrows in your quiver. Or it's a bunch of healing potions for you and the party. And when it comes to the versatile vials, you don't have to pick which they are until you actually use them, which is nice.

It's super situational but I could see a few builds where it's worth taking. I don't know that I'd ever call it bonkers but it's not garbage.

>>95959787
I was looking at something like a witch archetype and in contrast i feeling that alchemist is way stronger bacause of utility. But i might be wrong. I world be happy to see that im wrong.

>>95960128
Yeah for you it'd be almost 100% consumables. Bombs are kind of a no-go due to them being martial weapons and your lacking proficiency, plus your poor attack scaling in general due to being a caster. Poisons aren't a terrible thing to have handy, though, so long as you've got somebody who can take advantage of them. People who use ranged weaponry are best, since you can just coat some of their ammo in poison during your daily preparations and they can choose when to fire it. Melee characters can pre-coat their weapons as well, but they don't get to choose their targets in the same way as somebody who can just pull out a poisoned bolt when they want one. A melee character is basically poisoning the next guy they see no matter what.

Elixirs are always good, and you've got some fun choices. Elixir of Life is an obvious emergency choice, and once you get Combine Elixirs (level 12) you can spend an action running over to someone, another action to create+combine two Elixirs of Life, then your third action to feed it to them for a double dose of healing (which also uses up half your daily versatile vials but hey, at least it's not taking up your spell slots, right?). Soothing+Numbing Elixir is a great combination to put on someone who plans to tank. Mistform Elixir is a great defensive option for yourself, and then you've got mutagens. Plenty of dex-based characters would love a couple shots of Quicksilver Mutagen to snort before stepping into the dungeon. And there's always the more situational stuff too (dark vision, climb, and swim speeds are all available through elixirs).

There's stuff for you there, plus it's super on-brand for a witch to go alchemist, which I love. I'm sure there's more meta picks out there (although I don't know enough about witch to have any particularly spicy recommendations), but there's some reasonable value in the multiclass and it gives you an extra resource that doesn't eat into your focus spells or spell slots, which is nice.

How do you guys handle shops in your games? The rules seem pretty annoying for a GM to mess with on top of actually running the session.

>>95960128
Alchemist is probably the more useful to most classes if they can grab it. Witch can still be pretty interesting and it's a good way to grab a familiar if you want one since it comes as part of the dedication and gets an extra ability when you grab basic witchery.

Stuff like Life Boost is also a good pick-up. It's been a very nice dedication for me while playing a wizard.

>>95961060
This post made me realize I'd completely misread the other Anon's question. My bad, I was giving advice as if you WERE a witch, thinking about multiclassing alchemist.

>>95961027
I just let players buy anything of common rarity up to the level of the settlement they're in. Uncommon is usually accessible but just needs me to check it out unless it's a regional thing. Rare is case by case.

>>95961076
Yeah that was what I was thinking. I do have an alchemist in my game who picked up magical crafting so I do want to give him a chance to shine.

>>95961108
If the game has a lot of downtime, crafting can be okay since they can still expect to make things and have the time to make it cheaper. Otherwise, it's a bit more questionable unless you maybe make them the source of uncommon/rare items (needs formulas for those mechanically though), maybe add a surcharge to settlement-bought items or just make crafting less expensive by default maybe.

How does restorative channel work, it says you can substitute one spell from the font into a debuff remover instead.

Is that one per day, one ever or a one to one exchange whenever you want to? My assumption is the last one as there's no frequency listed but that seems really good and casters don't get good feats.

>>95961411
It does exactly what it says, so the latter as long as it's from your font slots.

I want to do a duelist character that has one hand open for manipulating the enemy. What would be best a scoundrel rogue, fencer swash, or fighter?

>>95961516
How do you want to manipulate them exactly? I'm assuming physical maneuvers would be important to you, so I think gymnast swashbuckler is the best overall. Ruffian rogue and free-hand fighter coming in second.

>>95961598
Anything to do with Feints, Disarms, Grapples, Trips. I just defaulted to Fencer Swash as that uses feints the most. For the swash or rogue I'd use just a rapier, but with the fighter I was thinking bastard sword with that Dual Handed Assault feat.

>>95961637
I suppose scoundrel is still fine then, especially since distracting feint is going to be appreciated by casters and make bullying enemies with trips easier. The skill increases are always nice too.

Fighter always works as expected.

I think fencer focuses too much on feints and doesn't really benefit teams.

>>95961411
You prepare the heal slots as normal.
You can expend a heal spell that you have prepared in one of your font slots in order to cast one of the restorative channel spells instead. You can do this any number of times (as long as you have a heal font slot to expend), and you choose to do so when you cast the spell.

>>95961411
>that seems really good and casters don't get good feats.
It's more of a bandaid fix to roll condition removal into cleric's class features as "the healing guy" while making every other healer have to prepare 4 different spells in order to have the same coverage.
Basically, it's more of a tax on other casters than it is a nice thing for clerics.

>>95961696
Yeah I had heard Feints are a bit unreliable since they have the mental trait. I didn't consider Gymnast but that might be my best option actually.

>>95961759
It's very good at control. When you get Derring-Do at 10 you also just get to roll twice every time for your maneuvers as long as you have panache.

>>95960307
>>95961060
>>95961071
Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the help.
I'm playing the playtest necromancer, and I'm looking into which archetype would help me the most.
I considered the witch and the alchemist, but now I'm looking into more options, like the loremaster. The alchemist still seems the best on paper, considering the amount of utility. Some of the elixirs or mutagens, like dark vision, seem like spells you can prepare on the fly.

>>95961759
It honestly annoys me that Feint has the mental trait. Sure, you shouldn't be able to use it on inanimate objects, but any ambulant creature that uses a sensory system to target PCs should be able to be affected by it, e.g. most undead and constructs.
The really fucked up thing is that Fake Out operates on basically the same flavor but doesn't have mental dragging it down.

Any recommendations for good Kineticist homebrew? Mainly looking for PF2e, but PF1e might work as well.

Thanks!

2e
Am I missing some item or are the only items that give a flat item bonus to Thievery, Charlatan's Gloves and the apex Pilferer's Gloves? Seems weird that even those don't even going up to a +3 item bonus.

>>95964247
Yeah, thieves' toolkit (infiltrator) and a skeleton key.

>>95964483
Do you have to be holding the skeleton in one of your hands to get the bonus or is that only for when you are picking a lock?

>>95964526
Says when used in place of tools for a Pick a Lock action.

Whats the most fun caster? I was looking at Oscillating Wave Oracle.

>>95966287
For most people, it would probably either Runelord Wizard, Resentment/Paradox of Opposites Witch, Animist, or Imperial Sorcerer. Since each of those just have the best offensive casting tools, especially Imperial Sorcerer's Ancestral Memories (I'm always a little peeved at it not even giving a bonus to skills like the original version). Kineticist as well, depending on how you classify casters (I wouldn't but I'm just bitter over them getting Gate Attenuators).
Oscillating Wave Psychic is also pretty neat, but it lacks debuffs to make its powerful psi-spells land more consistently. Makes me wish the other subclasses have some unique rule changes like OW.

>>95966342
Oscillating Wave gives me Final Fantasy Black Mage vibes with the alternating elements.

SF2 Tech Core post-playtest blog post is up: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo7060e?Tech-Class-Playtest-Completion

>>95967053
OW probably have the most blatant video game references. The melee Ignition boost going hard on the 128 Shiki Konokizu from King of Fighters, the mote-based focus spell, swapping between pyrokinesis and cryokinesis...

>>95967211
Feel like they got it backwards, Mechanic needs more a rework while Technomancer needs smaller tweaks, if not both classes.
>We are currently looking at retooling Overclock Gear, perhaps combining it with more versatile Magic Hacks to highlight each programming language’s gear and shifting the focus of some of its class features away from spellshapes.
please don't, the spellshapes were unique, you just need to remove the action cost. Juggling all the effects and stuff was the problem with the spellshapes when combined with the action cost.

where are the rest of the fucking dragons already for dragonbloods/draconic sorcerers

>>95967702
November 5th with Draconic Codex.

>>95966287
I agree with most of what >>95966342
said (haven't played Animist at all). I've actually played a Resentment Witch at higher levels and it's great. Spirit Familiar at 8 is a lot of fun as a one action nuke. Grab Lesson of the Shark and see how much slashing damage you can do in a turn to proc the hex. Portents of the Haruspex is a fun slot machine reaction where you add a random damage type weakness to the next enemy that takes that damage of that type. It actually lets casters leverage their multiple damage types for more damage.

I wouldn't recommend it, but any Witch with Cackle can have multiple summon spells up at once. It's effective at lower levels, but really limited by your slots. At higher levels it falls off really hard, but you can summon some encounter warping stuff. But it is fun, you just need something else to fall back on for most of the adventuring day, and you'll need to study up on your options.

>>95966342
>Paradox of Opposites Witch
What's so good about it?

>>95967836
Trade Death for Life is decent damage and healing for one action and no-save Stupefied is stupid. There isn't TOO many Will saves on the Divine List, but what are there are really helpful support like Fear, Malediction, Roaring Applause, and Ghoulish Cravings. And the Stupefied effect just fucks over other casters until they deal with your Familiar.

It's no Resentment, but it is actually damn good, even outside the comparison to other Divine Witches.

>>95966287
>>95966342
Second for runelord. I've only played wrath but the school/sin spells are decent. Personal Runewell I was a bit mixed on but the status bonus to damage applies to cantrips too, unlike sorcerous potency. You can take a trident for a decent third action due to your proficiency.

Been my favourite caster I've played so far.

>>95966342
>Ancestral Memories
I don't get the hype. It's redundant with basic stuff like inspire courage and demoralize.

>>95934897
>The only people who fantasize about that are weirdo fucks like you.
>The people who want unrestricted private access to children only have the most noble intentions

>>95967595
>spellshapes were unique, you just need to remove the action cost
That goes for PF as well

>>95967774
>Spirit Familiar
>one action nuke
?

>>95970729
The familiar spends the actions.

>>95970762
RIP its other action...

>>95970774
Command a Minion is one action that gives your familiar two actions.

>>95970632
>blah blah blah off topic government tranny terror
>*tink, tink, tink*
AHEM, put PACG back into the OP or I will make the dragonarian and faggots look like the elementary students they are.

>>95924632 (OP)
Im sick and fucking tired of the shit of so much anti caster cope in 2e. Holy shit caster is gutted so badly in the name of the altar of balance, my DM refuses to give me any scrolls or gold and hates me using any form utility and is just pissed even if I just buff, is this how shit pf2e is or am I just cucking myself playing casters? Also is my DM a fuckhead cause they dick suck the pf2e reddit crap

2e
Playing a Titan Nagaji Thaumaturge, just finished Gatewalkers and the party is moving on to Curtain Call. Current stat spread is 4 1 4 0 2 5. Am debating if it's better to use 2 of my stat boosts to get CON to 5 or to use it to boost DEX to 3 and wanted to get the thread's opinion on what is better. My party's other frontline is changing characters to most likely an Eldamon Trainer, so unsure how they play. I'm unsure if the +2 to Reflex is worth the trade off of having 20 more hp by the end and +1 to Fort. The only dex skill i have invested is acrobatics to master for Kip Up and i'm going all in on Tome. Party is not the sneaky type.

Finished Lyra's sheet a bit earlier than "usual" in a given week due to some obligations I've got to get to soon, so no long winded explanations of my thought process.

As always, anyone who wants to see the others I've done can find them here: https://x.com/DrumerThead/status/1938985665808736690

>>95971518
Just pick Mighty Bulwark and ignore DEX and INT.

>>95971563
Ok but Titan Nagaji's armor doesn't come with Bulwark. So I would need to grab the general feat Armor Proficiency to get heavy armor. Which invalidates the whole reason i went Titan Nagaji and beyond that I can't fit Sentinel into my current build.

>>95971518
You...can't double dip on stat boosts like that? It has to be spread out every time. Unless you are rebooting your character going between APs. Little confused.

>>95970606
It is redundant at the start, but having it scale, work with your Blood buffs, and requires no work or teamwork is what makes it good. Demoralize only works once per foe and you may not have a Bard or someone that grabbed Courageous Anthem.

>>95970702
Normally I'm against free action metamagics given how it creates no interesting opportunity costs. But Technomancer have so much going on and double the action taxes just to be its own class, that's honestly just too much.

>>95971609
Guess you'll get to eat the trips then.

>>95971611
I'm talking about the boosts you get at 15 and 20 and using one of the 4 on either CON to go from +4 to +5 or Dex from +1 to +3.

>>95971632
That's what Kip Up is for and also, i don't remember the last time my GM tried to trip someone.

>>95971402
There have been at least several big Reddit posts with tons of upvotes explaining all the ways in which casters are terribly balanced. (they're not good and they feel bad)

>>95971611
>it creates no interesting opportunity costs
I think having to pick between several good feats is interesting opportunity cost. And having to spend your entire turn to do one thing is stale.

>>95971402
Your DM sounds like a shithead. Playing a caster kinda already sucks in general, but with the way the game's set up it can still be nearly tolerable-to-fun with even an average GM as long as you know the good spells and the GM avoids actively fucking you-if your GM just actually hates you then you're shit out of luck and every problem casters have will just be exacerbated to far more unpleasant degrees.

>>95971633
That makes more sense, if a little weird to be planning that far ahead. Just go with more DEX unless you got a Weapon Implement.

>>95972597
Casters need better feats for sure, but if metamagics don't have an action cost or any cost really, why are they even a metamagic? If you had the option to double all your spells damage for no action, resource, or time cost except for one feat, is it really worth being a feat? Is it even an option?
That's why Sorcerers just got Dangerous Sorcery built-in now, it isn't an interesting decision but the definition of a feat tax.

>>95973605
Pathbuilder makes planning characters really easy. I do have a Weapon Implement. Can you explain why I should go CON because of that?

>>95973704
It's likely you have a melee weapon implement so you are going to be in the fray more. You need SOME CON to actually live, especially with the higher levels.
Though honestly I mixed up the 4 with the 0 (captcha fucking up distracted me). 4 CON is enough. You can just go all in on getting the STR up the 5.

>>95971402
What caster are you playing and what level are you? That matters a lot. But yeah, your DM sounds like a bitch AND Paizo has set out to actively fuck over casters. Even just basic shit like them not having a use for Hero Points as good as martials, and basically needing to keep one at all times to not fall over to a single crit.

>>95948254
What's wrong with inventor??

I unironically think that
>Blazons of Shared Power should be allowed to attach to handwraps, seeing as how they already limit you to 1H weapons, because I think Spirit Warrior does not deserve monopoly on that
>there should be a property rune in the 9-12 range that exists solely to apply the bonus of Bulwark to all reflex saves (with a much higher level version to increase the bulwark bonus to +4) because Sentinel and Stalwart Defender dedications are both dogshit feat taxes on native heavy armor users

>>95974127
Conceptually and mechanically, the class is really fucked. It's definitely playable, it isn't like Medium or Shifter or Vigilante, but it lies in the similar vein of "Why did you make this?"
>The customizable item gimmick is really bland and leads more into boring feature trees than getting to make something truly unique.
>Overdrive is a broken mechanic that is painfully awkward, eats all your actions every round, and turns the class fantasy into "Being a broken lawnmower to turn into INT-Barbarian". No one has fun luckshitting out the ability to be the class.
>Construct Inventor suffers the most from 2e's hard-on for massive feat investments for companion builds. Eating up 4 out of your 11 possible class feats stomps down hard on the customization aspects, and again, the innovations aren't impactful enough to replace what you lost.
>Armor Innovation bonuses are entirely passive. Post-remaster Errata does make them ironically the best out of the lot but they still struggle to be an engaging part of the class.
>The INT-Barbarian concept means they are entirely DPS focused, on a class that doesn't get to add its Key Ability Score to its hit rates.
>Being entirely DPS-focused, they don't add anything to a team beyond being good crafters. Since the team can't use your innovations and the only feats that helps the team are Searing Restoration and gadgets, something technically anyone can use, you are utterly replaceable. You don't even get anything for Recall Knowledge!
>Unstable feats poorly scale compared to Focus Spells as of the Remaster. You can only get 2 surefire uses out of them by Level 14 and that is still a feat. Meanwhile actual casters would have 3 FP fully refreshed in 10 minutes by this point.
>Even if all the stars align, your damage output is not better than actual Barbs, Swashbucklers, Thaumaturges, or Monks.
>Almost every concept they have has been completely powercrept by Exemplar.
It's just ass, man... Worst designed 2e class.

>>95974240
>or Vigilante
I could have sworn 1e Vigilante was on the higher end of viable for 1pp martials, but maybe I'm just brainrotted and mixing its 1pp viability up with the fact it has some of the few remotely acceptable Legendary Games 3pp class books tied to it

>>95974275
I'm sure it is less the base class and more the archetypes like Magical Child where you get actual magic that helps it out. Which is a lot more credit than the other two brought up, but that still doesn't excuse the weird design of that class.

>>95974301
Last I checked Magical Child was arguably the worst of those archetypes, given that even with using the Unchained Summoner spell list it just... Got fucking nothing to actually work with?

>>95974312
Probably but I'm a firm believer when it comes to 1e is that any magic is better than no magic. and i love me my mahou shoujo stuff.
Though Warlock and Zealot probably work better.

>>95974143
I'm honestly surprised that their is no armor rune to give medium and heavy armor Bulwark for those that don't get it. You could make it do the same as Fortification with it increasing STR requirements to wear the armor.

>>95973605
>If you had the option to double all your spells damage
That doesn't sound like the PF2e standard. The PF2e standard is a metamagic that costs a feat and an action to use to increase the AoE of your spell by a fraction of its base AoE. But you can't do that if your spell happens to have a duration, so it likely won't even work for the spells you want. And you can't even use it for your small bursts, which need the increase the most. And you can forget about using it for your emanations. And even when you can use it for a cone or line, it uses your whole turn so you can't even position yourself first, which is crucial for those shapes since they originate from you.


And ultimately, increasing the AoE is just more likely to make you hit allies than enemies anyway. But at least Paizo can rest easy knowing no one is having fun with it!

>>95974582
all this over widen/reach spell...
Humoring this for a bit, if those feats were no actions and even comes with a bonus of no friendly fire, would really consider them well designed feats? Or just feat taxes to make spells better?
This isn't some "haha gotcha 2ehaters" deal, I am a little curious as I've always found the "feat tax" discussion weird, even with 1e talk (though I will never defend Precise Shot, have fucked over 3 different Wrath of the Righteous Last Azlanti characters cause I kept forgetting to take it...). I feel like a feat that just makes something you always going to do better to be a clear design error, hence why I don't mind the action cost. Those metamagics could be BETTER (and they really should be General or Skill Feats, imo...) and less restrictive, but I don't really think they should be free, either because they are "bad" or on a spell design level.

>>95974758
Metamagic can be a once per encounter thing, so you strategically have to use it for the most impact, akin to psychic's amps. Or they can be weaker but still usable, similar to a number of sorcerer blood magic effects.

Or give them situational use. Spell trickster does a better job of altering spells than metamagic ever did, and it's a shame they never did more with it. For the cost of a feat, you can make your fireball hit two smaller areas. Or with a different feat, convert some of its damage into persistent damage. Or sacrifice damage to make smoke as well. And none of this taxes you with an additional action.

I don't think having to spend an action to alter your spell has a place in a system where:
1. One third of your turn is the lowest you can weigh an ability without making it free
2. Almost all spells are 2 actions, making metamagic the sole thing you're doing that turn
3. Casters' numbers are low so they're expected to fail, so you're spending your whole turn on one thing that's likely to fail
4. Vancian casting further punishes the waste of a turn by eating up a daily resource (often one of your few strongest ones)

It's no surprise that one of the few cases where spending your whole turn on a spell is acceptable is when you're using true strike with an attack roll spell. Because it somewhat makes up for the faults of the system, reducing the egregious chance of making you feel bad. So naturally that had to get nerfed.

>>95974971
>Metamagic can be a once per encounter thing, so you strategically have to use it for the most impact, akin to psychic's amps
This is one thing I thought they did well with animist - Instead of the same reach spell every caster gets, they have access to "Grasping spirits spell" that's reach once per 10 minutes but on a failed fort save, the target can be dragged 30ft towards the caster. More shit like that would be way more interesting than what we broadly have now.

>>95974971
>Metamagic can be a once per encounter thing, so you strategically have to use it for the most impact, akin to psychic's amps.
Even if I ignore the fact most metamagics aren't powerful enough to have that kind of limitation (I struggle to comprehend why Quickened Spell is ONCE PER DAY), Metamagics already have that "strategic planning" cost built in. Like, you aren't going to use Reach Spell if the enemy is up close.
I think their avoidance of designing Metamagics with resource limits beyond QS is from both D&D5e Sorcerer (read: Wizard subclass that poached them...) arbitrarily limiting and doubling the daily resource accounting with both Sorcery Points and Spell Slots; alongside 1e's issues of needing to prepare metamagics with the spell beforehand if you were a Prepared Caster (Sponts. had what we all know and "love", spending a full-round action to cast an empowered spell). I think they wanted to find a simple way of providing spell alterations --given how much they became encoded in D&D spell design-- without making it a must-take. Hence the admittedly limp versions of Reach/Widen/Twinned/Quickened Spell we know today.

> Spell trickster does a better job of altering spells than metamagic ever did
Spell Trickster is rad, but I understand why they didn't expand upon it. That's A LOT of space dedicated for one archetype to do things for spells they...probably should let you do to begin with (least for the non-Fireball options). It is genuinely hard to make more of, especially for less commonly ran or known spells.

>>95975019
Note that this is still a one action cost and actually not that helpful when you think about it. If used on a foe, why would you want them to be CLOSER to your squishy ass...?
Animist is the best designed caster and I can say more casters need to be built like them and Oracle, but I wouldn't too much stock in that feat for the purposes of this discussion...

>>95975063
>Note that this is still a one action cost and actually not that helpful when you think about it. If used on a foe, why would you want them to be CLOSER to your squishy ass...?
The key wording in the feat is -up to- 30ft. You can just tug an enemy into the edge of party's reach weapon fighter's range or into an ongoing effect. And animists are pretty well stacked defensively for a caster in the first place, 8hp and medium armor is fine.

what if we just made metamagics free action focus spells

>>95975119
That works really well for bard, people fucking love lingering/fortissimo composition. It's a good spot of design but it does mess with people that make good use of regular focus spells. those guys just couldn't really do metamagic and their regular thing.

It's a little late to do this now but it would have been an interesting design space to have some casters like wizard and bard have more emphasis on using focus points for metamagic but stuff like sorc and druid instead be guided towards focus casting, with a spot for a blend of the two being available through archetyping.

>>95974971
>>95975063
(cont.)
Caster and spell design in 2e is always a tricky thing to argue for, cause I definitely do get the numeric listing there. I don't agree with it, and would argue even if most spells were only one action most people wouldn't really have much better plans but to cast another spell if allowed; ontop of how most spells already come with 2 action effects built in already. But I definitely understand how it does lead to a lot of frustration, how little player expression casting in PF2e feels. And metamagics don't help, even if they explicitly add more power or support. Something like Thunderclap Spell or Gusting Spell or even Cast Down can feel like you are merely getting the spell to work "like it should". And with how generic it can be on casters despite it costing their class feats, you don't really feel like this was something the class could do with magic. It needs something like the Apparition or Cursebound tags which are explicitly tied to the core class mechanics to justify it being a class feat, but not every class can or SHOULD have this limitation thrusted upon them. I don't think the limitations behind the Hex or Composition tags are particularly well-liked.

Ultimately, a lot of this discussion is going to come down to subjective feelings on what casters SHOULD do in combat. I'm personally fine with the core design behind them --just costing a resource sink to amp up a power (I kinda don't like amps being psychic exclusive, though...)-- and really can only fault the more basic spellshapes for specific problems.

>>95975103
I still question the wisdom of dragging your foe towards you, compared to hanging back and sniping with normal Reach Spell. 8HP + Medium Armor is pretty handy, but I still prefer them spending the action to come towards me over giving them free positioning, even if it is towards the way of the fighter.

>>95975165
>I still question the wisdom of dragging your foe towards you, compared to hanging back and sniping with normal Reach Spell. 8HP + Medium Armor is pretty handy, but I still prefer them spending the action to come towards me over giving them free positioning, even if it is towards the way of the fighter.
Yeah, I think I agree. My original thought for it's merit was going to be gish animists but the action to activate it wrecks that; you can't activate the metamagic, cast anything of note and also sustain embodiment of battle at the same time, it's fucked.

The only metamagic I ever take is reach and I usually retrain out of that shit the second I can get my speed over 30ft.

>>95975119
Again, you would probably need to boost up the power of basic metamagics like Reach/Widen Spell to compensate them actually asking for a real resource now. And even if I ignored it, I don't think there's a lot of design space there since by nature, the actual power of what you are doing is coming from the spell itself. As stated, having to split between your metamagics and actual class powers is not something like to fight.

>>95975163
>people fucking love lingering/fortissimo composition
I don't think people actually enjoy that minigame so much as just the theoretical possibilities of not having to always keep up your anthem every round. And honestly, that really runs into my point of most people not actually knowing what they want to do with that extra action, I rarely see people do much just move.
>It's a little late to do this now but it would have been an interesting design space to have some casters like wizard and bard have more emphasis on using focus points for metamagic but stuff like sorc and druid instead be guided towards focus casting
They definitely mess around these ideas. Again, Psychic with amps, Oracle getting free metamagics for the cost of raising Cursebound, Technomancer doing...something with the weird overclock juggle..., I think they are definitely trying to find neat ideas for casters to interact with spells with their class identities. Much more than the base classes have been trying to do. But they definitely can do more and put those gimmicks on the base classes (COUGH COUGH WIZARD COUGH COUGH) more.

>>95975063
>>95975165
It's obvious the current versions of the metamagic feats would have to change, so no sense in imagining them as they are with a higher cost. But yes, a more thorough, unique implementation of it would have been nice. Like a lot of other things in the system, we got a slapdash iteration of something from other systems and they left it at that.
>Metamagics already have that "strategic planning" cost built in. Like, you aren't going to use Reach Spell if the enemy is up close.
I don't think that's a strategic choice. Or a choice at all.
I even would have much preferred it if most spells had a specialized 3-action version instead of the generic way of making them that via metamagic.

>>95975265
>most people not actually knowing what they want to do with that extra action
That's a different problem of the system. When you look at the skill list, they overloaded athletics with combat-usable actions, started working on giving deception and intimidation useful stuff... and then just gave up. Skills could have been a way to give players things to do. But it's not that. The majority of it is chaff. So why wouldn't the player undervalue their last action?

>>95975163
You're right. They had good options but didn't take them. The wizard subclass for metamagic felt insulting. We could have had cool mechanics around the concept, but got trash instead.

>>95974758
>if those feats were no actions and even comes with a bonus of no friendly fire, would really consider them well designed feats? Or just feat taxes to make spells better?
Oh and concerning this, it can be made to work if the system had more thought put into it to begin with. If you look at spheres of power, you can pick up a talent that passively gives you the equivalent of reach metamagic on all your spells from that sphere. And it's not a feat tax. Because it's not automatically better than using that talent to pick up new abilities. Or boosting your abilities in other ways.

>>95975575
>You're right. They had good options but didn't take them. The wizard subclass for metamagic felt insulting. We could have had cool mechanics around the concept, but got trash instead.
They fucked wizard up so badly. All the common schools have dogshit focus spells, almost all the silver bullet/utility spells in the game are low rank and easily picked up on scrolls by a witch or sorc.

Every time I see a wizard well made and well played and feel impressed and inspired to make my own, I spend a few minutes on pathbuilder trying to piece my own together and then remember I can just pay a pittance for this level of utility on a different class while also having good feats.

>>95957443
I actually agree that Paizo are way too into their own fucking setting and really need to make more generic ass archetypes that fulfil simple character fantasies.

For PF1e the ranger's favored terrain, planes is an option. Is it a choice between transitive, inner, and outer planes? Or are they specific like heaven, hell, the abyss, and the shadow plane?