Recovered links edition

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

Previous thread: >>95978319

/pfg/ (pathfinder 1e) link repository: https://pastebin.com/RSt0rF0T
/p2g/ (pathfinder 2e) link repository: https://pastebin.com/1zySxwm3
/sfg/ (starfinder) link repository: https://pastebin.com/5yp9s2U3
/s2g/ (starfinder 2e) link repository: https://paizo.com/store/pathfinder/rulebooks/core
/3eg/ (D&D 3.X) link repository: https://pastebin.com/VMRsxB2m
/pacgg/ (pathfinder adventure card game) link repository:
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_games_considered_the_best
The T̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ Vault (seed, please!): >implying

>>CHECK THE SHARE THREAD FOR MISSING MATERIALS<<

TQ: Give me your best homebrew/houserules. Which of your creations are you most proud of?

TQ: In 2e, I give my Caster players one extra slot per spell level. This has basically fixed all the extremely reasonable complaints I was getting in just one low effort change. I would recommend it.

>>96020752 (OP)
TQ: I've got a house rule on how death's handled that I think might be controversial.

Death & Resurrection
>All PCs have access to the Resurrect and Raise Dead spells, and those spells’ costs are waived.
>It’s assumed that the party can find a spellcaster to provide Resurrect at an appropriate rank free of charge in any settlement of at least 5th level. Lower-level settlements may also be able to provide the ritual if they’re home to a sufficiently accomplished spellcaster or to an organization with access to one.
>Any time that a PC would be returned to life via Resurrect or Raise Dead, that character must make a DC 11 flat check after the spell’s completion. On a failure, the spell fails and the character becomes permanently immune to resurrection magic. This check cannot be modified by Hero Points or other fortune effects.
>The first time in a campaign that this flat check would be rolled, it automatically succeeds.

The goal of this is to prevent death from permanently putting a dent into the party's pocketbook, while still keeping resurrection limited and death scary. With the standard rules, your access to resurrection is based on whether or not you'll front the money. I don't like this, because even a successful resurrection results in a party that's permanently behind the wealth-by-level curve (or if someone funds their own resurrection, a single character that's way behind the curve). I think these games are best enjoyed when you have all the toys you're supposed to have at a given level so, instead, I just turn it into a coin flip. The resurrection magic itself is easily available, but whether you're able to come back or not is pure chance. The two possible results here, in my opinion, are both improvements. Either:

>A: you come back with all your wealth
>B: you don't come back, and make a new character with level-appropriate wealth

In both cases you're back in the game and not lagging behind the rest of the party or adventure.

2e
Was looking at the monk focus spell Shrink the Span. I noticed in other teleportation spells, it usually says the spell fails if you try doing it while holding someone else. Does that mean, I could teleport an ally with me when i did it if i was grabbing or carrying them?

>>96021160
Maybe? When something refers to "you", it usually means just you, the caster. So Shrink the Span likely can't bring anyone by itself, even if they were pretty small or mounted on you.

>>96020983
Why not just hand out more scrolls and wands?

>>96021980
Because having most of your power coming from magic items and trinkets doesn't always feel good. Better to just bake it into the character's power.

Besides, those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

>>96022021
NTA, I don't think it is much a 1-1 trade as you think. Wands and Scrolls are distinctly one-shot items you can realistically use once per encounter, maybe twice if you like to juggle or gamble. An additional slot per level is not only more flexible, but also far more per-encounter resources. Combined with how it is about having more of your top slots than your bottom ones, you have far more firepower and volatility in your combat. More magic items plays out to more horizontal power than the raw Basketball Player vertical leap that is additional top slots, and kind of does go mutually exclusive to a point if you want to keep some degree of parity with vanilla.

TL;DR: You can reasonably give more wands and scrolls with less top slots. More top slots and wands and scrolls, too much magic.

>>96020752 (OP)
TQ I expanded the focus point system to slowly convert low rank spell slots into focus spells and I'm pretty happy with it. It's now auto include in anything I run.

I'm running a dungeon crawl with gold as xp right now and it's far from perfect but seems to be working.
The problems mostly stem from the players not understanding their goal is to get loot and leave, not fight every zombie they come across.

>>96022514
>An additional slot per level is not only more flexible, but also far more per-encounter resources.
Yeah

>you have far more firepower and volatility in your combat
Yep

>More magic items plays out to more horizontal power than the raw Basketball Player vertical leap
Eh

>You can reasonably give more wands and scrolls with less top slots.
I guess

>More top slots and wands and scrolls, too much magic.
Meh

>>96021980
Because then it takes your entire fucking turn to cast one spell. Many spells only have 30 foot ranges, so that's just not viable, outside of Paizo APs, since you often want to move or do something to defend yourself. A lot of the casters now have excellent one action spells/abilities they want to use as well. And never mind ever using a three action or more spell or reactions.

Wands and scrolls are nice in theory, but not very fun in practice. I can't tell you how many times I'll pull out a wand to use next turn, then the situation changes and I need to do something else. Now, they're great for spells like Heroism and Tailwind, where you can prebuff them reasonably. But then you're fighting the system itself because it discourages prebuffing through mechanics like low durations on spells and lack of surprise rounds.

>>96022596
Always hold a generally good wand/scroll before combat since you can cast from a staff one-handed
You can use Inscribed robes/shields and Retrieval Prisms/belts if you're worried about hand econ as a caster

Caster hand econ is easy compared to a lot of others. I do feel you on range, a lot of low level spells don't have much but gets way bigger over time

>>96022514
Scrolls/spellbook drops are great and very important to have

>>96022551
>I expanded the focus point system to slowly convert low rank spell slots into focus spells
>The problems mostly stem from the players not understanding their goal is to get loot and leave, not fight every zombie they come across.

Now that you gave them constantly refreshing per encounter resources they're going to farm zombies all day. You only have yourself to blame for this one
Limited resources are designed to put a limit on how much players can farm, they might have to only complete certain parts of a dungeon for example and focus on the goal

>cis white human male fighter with greatsword
time to play

>>96022681
They aren't at the level where they have access to it yet.
The level 5 cleric can cast 3 rank 1 heals per refocus.

I didn't describe the problem well. The problem is that they will arrive in a room, not be cautious, and will mess with things until a pc is killed or maimed, then leave the dungeon.

The little shits actually tried to get me to give them a working prosthetic hand after the cleric played russian roulette with some holes in the floor until he hit lose a hand on the roll table.

>>96022659
>Always hold a generally good wand/scroll before combat since you can cast from a staff one-handed
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but at the same time it feels cheesy and unrealistic in many situations outside of dungeons. I also find the best use of scrolls is for very specific situational stuff, not necessarily having an extra Bless/Fear/Invis. Rather than prepping See the Unseen every day, I'd rather pull out a scroll of it. And that's not exactly the kind of spell you walk around holding unless you're in a haunted mansion.

>You can use Inscribed robes/shields and Retrieval Prisms/belts if you're worried about hand econ as a caster
All good, but some are higher level, uncommon/rare, and/or require constant gold investment. Those help with the problem, but the issue is still with the system and one you will constantly butt heads with.

And in my experience the range issues do decrease with spell level, but focus spells and even plenty of the stronger spells (Synesthesia, Slow, Heal) keep the issue. Fine, give casters lower defenses, but you have to let me stand outside of a single stride range and not within the same range of a breath weapon as my Fighter ally. I've had fights where I was blasting spell from 60+ feet away and it felt good, great even. I just wish the good feeling wasn't exclusively a higher level experience.

Am I missing something with Oracle spellcasting? On Archives it says at level 1 you learn two divine spells, but on pathbuilder its giving me the option to learn 3 spells plus my Mystery spell.

>>96022932
Think that's just an error with Pathbuilder. Sorcerer doesn't have the same issue despite having the same chart, so likely a fault on their end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1lswyyz/new_animist_apparitions_in_mythspeaker_ap_first/
>When an enemy in the aura critically fails a Strike against you, they must succeed at a Reflex save or become off-guard until the end of your next turn.

How embarrassingly situational.

>>96023750
>When you cast or sustain this spell, you can either Step, Shove a creature in the aura using your spell attack modifier in place of your Athletics modifier, or jump 10 feet in any direction (you must land on solid ground, or else you fall).
doesn't this go infinite with itself or is there some hard rule about sustaining that i missed somewhere

>>96023809
Can't sustain a vessel spell more than once a turn.
Classic farmed out bad jargon as well. There is no such thing as jump, the correct term would be Leap.
Hate farmed out crap like this.

>>96023859
Execute AP writers.

>>96021051
I agree with the gold price issue. Though I don't like the coin toss. I prefer it when the character comes back different in some ways, which has mechanical and story consequences.

>>96022596
Those are great points. I remember getting a scroll of lightning bolt a level early, but whenever I wanted to take it out and use it, I also needed to reposition to hit more than one enemy, and I had better options for single target spells. So the scroll ended up unused.

This stems from at least a few system problems. And giving players cumbersome items to make up for caster power is a very poor solution. So is making them use their budget on items that make the other items less cumbersome.

>>96023901
If any number of random players can instantly spot all mistakes, it's shameful that they consistently keep messing up so much with professional writers for the system and people who get paid to proofread/QA.

I want to make a reasonably cheerful human fighter who loves living innawoods, banging elven (wo)men, and hews trees and trespassers with equal skill with his trusty axe in PF2e. I want to do this because I want (need) to play something as anti-edge and happy as I can manage.
Any advice on what to do, and what to not do (outside 'don't play pathfinder)? I specifically am looking out for 'trap' options, kinda new to this game.

>>96024396
What kinda axe, we got hatchets, battle axes, greataxes, and more.

I'm obsessed with landing the perfect disintegrate spell. I landed a level 9 disintegrate on a black dragon and did 110 damage. Everyone clapped and then the gunslinger crit it for 120.

Is it over for me? Pathfinder 2E.

>>96024418
All of them.

>>96024449
Choose one because the whole point of fighter is specialism. It's no good selecting double slice for use with hatchets and then having it be useless with a greataxe.

>>96024418
>>96024449
Rather, I intend on using nothing but axes, of all sizes and uses, and likely will carry one (or more) of each axe.
>>96024419
I mean, you did comparable damage to the gunslinger on a crit.
What's the problem?

>>96024483
Oh, in that case, I am mostly using a greataxe, because you don't hew trees with a hatchet, of course.
I'm just keeping other axes around for throwing, cutting (body parts off for trophies) wood for the fire, might need to use a shield so keep that battle axe handy, that kind of thing.
Main use is great axe, though.

1e, using spheres
I kinda want to make a prodigy with the wrestling and nature (fire) spheres to grapple people while in and on fire, does that seem decent?
Does that sound reasonable

>>96024509
NTA, but you there's not really much you can do wrong with Fighter, outside of trying to build wide for little reason. Their feats are pretty self-explanatory and simple to use. There's not really much advice we can particularly give beyond just upgrade your main axe and give it an elemental rune by Level 8.

>>96024483
>Choose one
Yeah, one weapon group.
The bigger problem with >>96024396 is getting the fundamental runes for all axes. Dual-wielding is no problem, but any sidearm is an additional money sink.
ABP/ARP is a solution to that, but can/will introduce other problems.

>>96024509
Ok good. Start with human, versatile heritage, hunter background, fighter and choose athletics.
A little counterintuitively athletics covers all running and jumping, acrobatics covers balance and acts of contortion. So we prefer the former.
Three bonus skills should be stealth since were a hunter, nature for the same reason, then whatever else. Acrobatics maybe or just lore elves or lore women since we're into that. Always ask the GM if lore women is applicable.
As an ancestry feat choose natural ambition and gain the fighter feat sudden charge. Generic good feat.
As your first level feat from fighter choose vicious swing. Counterintuitively you don't want to lead with vicious swing, you want to use it to dump actions into your second attack of a round when you don't need to move. Trust me on this.
As your bonus general feat from versatile human choose fleet since were a hunter.

As far as stats go raise strength to +4. Then raise three stats to 2, 2, and 1 between dex, con, and wis. I would make con low here because you begin expert in fort. The minmax would be 1 dex but that doesn't feel huntery.

You typically begin the game with 15gp. That is exactly enough for a greataxe and splint mail. If you went 1 dex then make this selection and you're done.
If you went 2 dex then you can choose hide armor here and be significantly more woodsy and save 11gp for use on woodsy things like some spare hatchets, an adventurer's pack, and fine clothing to wear when in the presence of elven maidens.

Then the advancement of the character more or less organizes itself. Just continue to raise the same stats, your athletics and maybe survival, and select feats that sound like axe moves. Swipe is the all time most iconic thing you can do with an axe. Since we possibly didn't take acrobatics blade brake might be worthwhile. Lunge is more likely to get used.
On skill feats, they aren't important. I tend to default to just taking all the running and jumping stuff.

>>96024724
>>96024687
>>96024671
Thank you all for the advice!
Had to step away to model my new kilt (sigh) and blouse, so apologies for not responding sooner.

>>96024724
0 CHA characters can't sleep with elves

>>96025827
>thinks 18 STR characters can not 'sleep with' elves whenever they want
>laughs in Rance

>>96025827
all elves are sluts, no exception
>>96024687
'ware bringing ABP up in this neck of the woods lest you rile the autists

>>96026000
What is ABP, I care little for faggots on /tg/ or their opinions.

>>96026014
automatic bonus progression
variant rule that axes item bonuses and bakes them into level progression. it enables having a variety of weapons you like and not being forced to dump all your money on keeping up on your math, but optimization/balance autists hate that

I'm playing in my first PF1e campaign right now, and I'm perpetually tiny kobold. Is there any kind of magic item that nullifies the penalty for being smaller than your target when trying to intimidate someone?

I love the idea of being a very threatening, very little person.

Redpill me on the animist. I'm looking to play a divine caster in my next game but cleric is boring, oracle is spontaneous, and druid doesn't have the flavor for what I had in mind. Animist seems cool as fuck, but their mechanics read like a lot of complex hoops to jump through for pretty much the same benefit as the other three I mentioned. Anyone got any experience with animist? Are they actually good or is all that complexity for nothing?

I have a monk with a cleric dedication. Would using the shield spell be higher value than raising a shield just for the reaction to shield block? I dont know how much to value +1 ac. The idea of being able to carry around a scroll in my free hand at all times is appealing.

>>96027519
fortress shield mogs the shield spell, even if you dont have shield block. you want your reaction for stand still anyways.

>>96027519
+1 AC is worth a ton BUT it's aiso important to consider that being a kung fu monk with a shield in your hand is fucking lame as hell
personally I'd go with the shield spell, even if you're a weapon monk. free hands are super fucking valuable and monks are THE class to use a free hand with FoB action compression

>>96022774
>Synesthesia, Slow, Heal
Healers and controllers are intended to be mid-range, both are action denial-- one is proactive while the other is retroactive action denial. While blaster spells tend to have much greater range, such as Fireball
This is to make it balanced verse players, players really don't like to face 500 foot range aoe control spells to say the least

Incapacitate spells tend to be more generous with range like Déjà Vu because it adds to it's power level budget. I would say if you want to tweak to give more range, like Laughing Fit, then add incapacitate to it

>>96027157
druid isn't a divine caster

>>96027157
They are very good versatile casters. One of the best blasters, healers and shapeshifters in the game

My only compliant is that the apparitions are kinda set in stone for what's on your spell list. If you have a cool GM they might allow for homebrewed new ones with different spell lists

>>96027621
Also, animists have some of the best focus spells in the game that you can switch with a feat called Circle of Spirits that will also max out your focus points before mid game

The new Shining Kingdom spirit spells go hard too

>>96027157
What flavor are you looking for? Since you don't want spontaneous casters, Witch is also a viable option.

>>96027157
Animist is really good. They genuinely did a really good job with the class. Beyond some personal niggles like how the other Practices than Liturgist are kinda bad and some questionable Vessel Spell design, the overall package does a lot and can let you shift into pretty much any role barring tank.

>>96027690
I'm already playing an arcane-list witch in my current game, I want something different.

>>96027621
>>96027651
>>96027749
I wouldn't have guessed that just reading the class description but I'll take your words for it, thanks guys.

>>96027157
Insane versatility, you can swap out so much of your kit every day that you can always fit into a small niche that the party needs while also keeping yourself broadly useful. Prep the fire apparition pretty much every day and take embodiment of balance and it's basically impossible to fuck up playing an animist. You're so easy to change lanes on, your biggest permanent decision is your ability scores.

You can go in as a weapon striker with high str/dex and embodiment of battle, you can ignore your physical stats and pump your cha to be a face/demoralise or int a litle to be a nerd and just stay in the backlines. You're VERY good as a grappler with lurker in devouring dark if you boost your strength, they took reach-grapple away from deer barbarians in the remaster because it was too good but you can just do that shit.

Animist is powerful and fun, probably the best designed class they've put out in a long time.

>Warping Pull, https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=2486
>...or if the spell would teleport a creature (even if the creature is inside an extradimensional container), the spell fails.

Fucking christ Paizo, we get it already

>>96029881
You havin' a stroke, anon? That spell doesn't have that text because teleporting a creature is the entire point of it.

>>96027519
>The fucking monk shield question
Ask your GM if you can add the parry trait to your fists, or get +2 ac from the parry if your stance already has the parry trait.
If he refuses, you have two options:
1) Get your character killed, your GM refuses to make the barest effort to make monk playable. Your next character should be an obnoxious meta build.
2) Leave the group.

>>96029881
Anon, you are aware that the conditional text you are referring to from the Thoughtful Gift spell isn't an absolute rule on teleportation effects targeting creatures, right?
Casters are cucked, but they aren't THAT cucked.

>>96027749
>>96028666
As a player whose favourites classes were the Oracle and shaman for p1e. I'm so happy they did the shaman justice for 2e after the disappointment that is the Oracle

>>96030773
I think it is more impressive they managed to make a Medium/Binder concept that isn't complete esoteric ass to play.
Remastered 2e Oracle is also a very impressive effort with some glaring holes still left to fill. They really could have kept the Mystery Benefits and create some unique effects on the Curses at the highest level. But it isn't like Animist doesn't have bad options and the room for interesting options is far more open than before.

>>96030480
fuck, I didn't mean to link warping pull. good catch, thats one of the many spells I was irritated about

What type of action is it for a familiar to go in and out of their familiar satchel in 1e? One of my players has gottwn his familiar to be an actual decent combatant comparatively and I wanna know how it works before he starts gaslighting me that it can pop in and out to stab people for free.

>>96034369
Isn't it just a move action to open the satchel? does the familiar have a ranged weapon?

I

D

>>96037706
W
DA NYA

Did anyone else quit 2e and return to 1e because it was too boring?

>>96039202
I feel that 3.pf meta is just pure rocket tag, the meta is baked into the system

>>96024419
Keeping up with the ranged fighter class is impressive
Depending on your feats, there are some ways of juicing that Disintegrate. Are you a Runelord Wizard or Spellshape one?

>>96039916
This might be conjecture, but as someone turned off by the rocket tag and prebuff stacking of 1e, that meta is what makes the system. I don't think those all in on 1e as a system sees it as a core flaw compared to the feat tax bloat --and I do mean feat taxes to do things without penalty, not just "there's this cool thing but I need to follow the proper build guidelines and I hate doing bookwork in this book game"-- and poorly designed options made late in 1e's life. The volatility is what makes the game fun, 1e just made it a struggle to sort through and get to that point.
If you find 2e boring, I don't think the rocket tag nature of 1e is the other side of the hypothetical extreme. I always found the argument to be closer to "I love the rocket tag, I just hate not doing it without 40 extra steps and being in competition with my fellow rocketeers in playing the game." This is why I always believe that a Pathfinder 1.5/1.75e (depends on how you view the Unchained book or Starfinder) is entirely doable, just not economically feasible for a moderately-large company like Paizo.

>>96039988
> just not economically feasible for a moderately-large company like Paizo.
Addendum: Neither economically or legally feasible, as of the OGL shit.
THANKS, WIZARDS. CAN'T UNRAPE THE LICENSE AND GOODWILL NOW.

Should I house rule that Cleave doesn't have MAP?

>>96040017
Cleave should use the MAP as the triggering Strike and increase it normally.

>>96040017
Cleave should use the same MAP as the triggering Strike and increase it as normal.

>>96039202
I play and enjoy both, and am critical of both for both similar and different reasons. They're wildly different metas, but still share a lot of DNA in "there's too much shit that sucks ass, especially feats.

PF1e it's too easy for player characters to get out of control. Spellcasters played properly snowball into playing freeform RP instead of the actual game, a Paladin with just Power Attack and reasonable stats is a nigh unassailable brick to the skull of enemies and all the things that can stop them either grind the game to an unfun halt or are things the spellcasters just no-sell out of the way.

In PF2e the core of the game's mechanics are a lot saner, but all the stuff bolted onto it starts feeling pointless. A ton of stuff feels like it's 2 steps more complicated than it should be, classes feel undercooked so they can resell you basic features as feats, and I simultaneously have too many slots, and yet not yet not enough compared to how strong each feat is.

lmao, https://paizo.com/threads/rzs6mhv6&page=1?The-Myth-of-Flavor-Text

>>96040157
we quit 2e because character building is boring as hell. I may prefess that we do not powergame and are sane human beings who respect the game. Our friend playing a fighter in 2e was more unbalanced to the rest of our party than anything we had in 1e.

Can casters (no multi class) in 2e ever compete with the DPR of martials? If not, what's the point of being anything but a buffbot?

>>96039202
I want a middle ground between the two.

>>96040356
PF2E isn't really a DPR meta but casters with 1-action focus save spells and AoEs do the most sustained damage in the game

>>96040157
>PF1e it's too easy for player characters to get out of control
I find that this is a GM problem over a player one. In a way, I think a good portion of the d20 fantasy space prefer players to snowball and legit HATE any kind of guard rails to it. Not just in the bookwork "issue" ala Prepared Spellcasting, I see it how players praised 5e turning almost all numerical bonuses into Advantage and loathe games where it isn't just as easy to gain. To some degree, I think people expect to snowball into demigods and 30 years of tabletop have done nothing to curb that expectation 'til around now-ish. A likely major reason more narrative games like Daggerheart, Blades in the Dark, Lancer, or PbtA games have gotten rise, not just around the "I hate rules in my wannabe drama club circle" sphere. Hell, I don't even think it is necessary a bad idea, see how people still talk fondly of Mutants & Masterminds, balance is not something players want compared to GMs.

But that ties into the market share issue. When every person in the game are players and not GMs, you just have nogames that don't buy the product. You see this issue currently with the low attach rates of 5e24 compared to 5e14. The GMs don't want to switch (granted more for moral than mechanical or GM support reasons), so it isn't pushing books.

As a 2efag, I always find it questionable how exactly a game like this particularly thrive. But as a 2e GM, I'm the one doing it and the players come to me. Modern games going to thrive by GM support, not just endless glut of player options, and I think this is starting to sink in more and more.

>>96040356
Single-target DPS? No, they just aren't designed that way. Why should they be, tbqh?
It is in crowd control and total encounter DPS that they do better in. Even if it isn't in direct damage numbers, the ability to reduce the danger level of an encounter is far more valuable than solely relying on your Fighter or Barbarian going UNGA BUNGA on some kobold.

>>96040356
In highly specific scenarios, yes. Generally? No. It's complicated. Part of the problem with casters is they're insanely complicated relative to martials, and the high end of caster optimization is what the game was balanced around. "Caster with the exact right tool" is competing against and balanced versus "guy who picked Fighter and stuff that seemed fun".

>>96040342
>a fighter in 2e was more unbalanced to the rest of our party
How?

>>96040439
That's cool. I made a thread on /v/ asking about PF2e since I discovered it recently after being disappointed by 5e. Someone mentioned 4e being superior in both fun and balance, is that true?

>>96040419
I still enjoy PF1e immensely but the game being a nightmare to GM feels like it turns it into a spectacle of system knowledge more than an actual game. That's really fun on the player end to watch your intricate machines warp the world, but I get worried the GM isn't getting to really have that much fun the longer things go on.

>>96040454
I think 4e looks more fun, and far more interesting than PF2e (albeit with its own "fun" and interesting problems, like math fixer feats you need to houserule bake into progression), but unfortunately have been cursed to never fucking play it because resources for doing so aren't as easy as PF1e/PF2e, and only maybe three people I know even like it. None of those people want to GM, nor do they even all get along with one another, and I do not have the time to read ANOTHER fucking system when I'm already playing PF1e, PF2e, and L5R, looking into WHF4e, and prepping to possibly run Lancer myself once other games end.

>>96040419
>Why should they be, tbqh?
remember that scene in star wars where emperor palpatine fucking fries a guy with lightning
people want to do that and not have it feel like absolute shit

>>96040342
How was a fighter OP lol?

>>96040415
What the fuck are you even talking about. DPR is the only meta for 2e because its the only way to finish combat seeing as Heavy CC and coup de grace has been removed from the game.

>>96040419
>Single-target DPS? No, they just aren't designed that way. Why should they be, tbqh?
Because there are countless scenes in fantasy that show spellcasters fucking killing a guy? Now im not saying every caster should just be better DPR to martials out of the box but they should definetly have options to spec into it. Why the fuck does a D&D clone that is 6 years old not have simple blasty support for caster like a spellshape to reroll low damage dice or to shape spells so allies don't get roasted?

>>96040451
>>96040342
Yeah, I'm also calling bullshit. At MOST, a fighter might step on couple toes if they build wide and they can be surprisingly tanky motherfuckers to take down (they really didn't need Bravery, early game debuffs are really hard to stick on them...), but I don't think any 2e class even at level cap could rival the average 1e or even D&D5e character. By design, each class lacks pretty core tools to survive to promote teamwork and defensive play. The average 1e character is expected to just get everything they need and steamroll, while 5e characters don't even need to ask beyond Level 5.

>>96040361
I don't think a middle ground could exist, 1e and 2e have such radical design philosophies. They are 2 different games with different ideas on what's fun. Both can be improved, but you aren't going to create overlap between audiences just by improving on the flaws of each game. Making a better game of Risk won't drag in the Stratego audience, for example.

>>96040454
It's...definitely a take you can get out a bitter /v/-tard, I can tell you that!
PF2e definitely takes some big chunks out of 4e's design and ideas. And you can argue for days whether it was a good idea to do that or if it actually using them properly. But I wouldn't say 4e is a better game. And even if it was, yeah, you aren't going to find people playing it...

>>96040526
That sounds very simple to understand on the surface. But aside from the fact Palpatine was WAY MORE than just the average PC in these games (and his force lightning kinda suck when you remember Mace was the only dude he killed with it in all 9 movies), you have to actively choose how potent a PC can be when you trying to assess for teamplay and balance. Having the crowd control caster ALSO be the dude you choose to snipe the boss' head off from 500ft away with pinpoint accuracy next to the Sniper Gunslinger is going to make one of the two question why are they even here?

>>96040535
generally speaking you get more DPR out of taking lower raw damage options and more options to buff/debuff, and action denial is still incredibly strong because PCs go down in like 2-4 hits and one character being knocked down costs the whole party about five to six actions to fix, which costs you a lot of outgoing damage
it is certainly still a DPR meta but the best way to pursue it isn't actually building for max raw damage

>>96040342
>Our friend playing a fighter in 2e was more unbalanced to the rest of our party than anything we had in 1e.
That's really funny because I still feel PF2e fighter's power is vastly overstated, but at the same time "Guy with reach and a reaction attack" is fucking insane at low levels. The levels most people play and give up in. So I can see why you would mald about that.

>>96040516
>>96040454
4E is not balanced, you have to use the '4EE Index card' to fix the math where some monster manuals are unplayable
All the classes are basically the same with hard baked in roles and number of powers/healing surges
Some classes are just objectively better then others since classes are so similar and pigeon holed into roles the marginal differences are amplified
Everything is bound to the Adventuring Day tm
Since it's a GSL game you don't have access to good online resources, you will need the books and PDFs
Very boring build wise as hardly any of the classes have unique resources
All the powers feel very samey, most Daily powers can be summarized as make an attack roll and monster makes a save do damage with rider effect
The entire meta is le Daily nova damage dump, if you're out of dailies the combat is a slog and die a slow painful death of having a 16% of a control spell landing on a Solo since it needs to bypass 2 die rolls

t. someone who actually played 4e for years and has dozens of their books, it was alright for it's time

>>96040596
>That sounds very simple to understand on the surface. But aside from the fact Palpatine was WAY MORE than just the average PC in these games (and his force lightning kinda suck when you remember Mace was the only dude he killed with it in all 9 movies)
Ok choose any other number of wizard or spellcasters that blow up a dude with a bolt of lightning. You are talking pointless semantics. My semantics comment is Palpatine's force lightning was indeed very powerful and would kill you if another space wizard wasnt equally as strong as him to block it. Windu got fried, Vader got fried just from aoe and Luke only survived because Palpatine was intentionally torturing him. Nobody gives a shit about the sequels.
>You have to actively choose how potent a PC can be when you trying to assess for teamplay and balance. Having the crowd control caster ALSO be the dude you choose to snipe the boss' head off from 500ft away with pinpoint accuracy next to the Sniper Gunslinger is going to make one of the two question why are they even here?
4e was able to perform this easy enough. Maybe Paizo shouldn't of made every caster in the game a toolbox caster and allowed some meaningful specialization.

>>96040684
Thanks. So I was right in thinking PF2e was the superior system! The only problem I can see is that casters feel a little...too weak? Or maybe it's just my spell choices. I feel like I contribute nothing compared to martials. Are there truly dead spells in 2e? I mean can you srsly build a wizard that just does nothing because of their awful spell choices? Not because they play poor

>>96040597
PF2E meta is peel & crit one, it simply doesn't have enough rounds for DPR to matter when the average combat is 3-5 rounds unlike 5E where 10 rounds of combat isn't uncommon

5.5e with the removal of surprise rounds and a lot of the better buff spells is officially a DPR meta, which is often described as a slog meta

>>96040661
Disarm spam and Grimples destroy low level fighters. You have to realize PF2E has no problem throwing fliers at low level parties and 2h enjoyers are typically horrible switch-hitters due to hand econ

>>96040740
casters will ALWAYS feel weak unless you're casting wall spells or maze. the issue is that they aren't actually that weak, they just feel like fucking unimpactful shit to play, so balance autists will piss and moan about any change made in the name of fun. they managed to make fireball an unfun spell to cast. it's objectively 'fine" in the grand scheme of things,but that's all there is to it
they are really shit at low levels and exist basically just to cast runic weapon on a martial and maybe polish off some low health enemy with force barrage

you can absolutely build a dead wizard by picking bad spells. casters are pretty unique in this regard; it's completely impossible to fuck up a martial as long as you put 18 in your to-hit stat, but casters have a bunch of other choices to make and there are a million wrong options

>>96040740
Welcome to the ivory tower design that is 2e spellcasting. Yes you can make a dead spellcaster if you don't pick the right spells and its incredibly easy to do that with a lot of the time it isn't even your fault. Paizo in their infinite wisdom balanced martials around braindead retards being able to play them effectively while the assumption for casters is the player has to be a no life giga autist who knows the entire spell list off by hand while also having access to the GM's adventure notes.

>>96040583
There's also plenty of stories and games where casters are more supportive or resolve things indirectly. Playing a good amount of Dragon Quest and seeing how they handle casters in the party, heavy on the support and debuffing magic over raw elemental weakness exploitation, made me realize what Paizo was trying to accomplish. Spellcasters aren't bad at damage, the numbers are usually comparable to other non-damage stacked martials like Ranger, Rogue, Champion, and Monk. It usually hit rates that hurt and mostly trying to hit AC or Reflex -- being -1-2 off the AC curve without item bonuses and Reflex being STUPIDLY HIGH on most Paizo creatures...
And even regards to "specc'ing for single-target damage", I've come to realize that doesn't mean anything on a design level. There are feats and effects that exist to improve hit rates and damage for casters and their single-target spells. Sorcerers just get a raw damage boost for casting built straight into the class. Shadow Signet Rings existed for many years and they've yet to remove them. The only thing missing is item bonuses ala Gate Attenuators and even then they aren't really that more impactful if you keep by the same level structure and most people still try to tack on Spell DC increases alongside them which casters *don't need* and doesn't really add much to the "blaster caster aesthetic". The only thing I reasonably see is "graze damage on spell attack rolls" but even then I question why other than resource balance arguments.

>>96040721
You are arguing the average PC Wizard should be on the same level as the fucking BBEG of the FRANCHISE. That's why I'm getting caught up in semantics here, dude is Peak Evil. Meanwhile most 2e PCs barely reach Lando or Chewbacca-tier on a good day. Important, but not the dude I expect to one-shot most people.
> Vader got fried just from aoe
I always thought it was more his life support systems getting fucked than the lightning itself.

>>96040740
I would say attack spells are generally weak verses PL+2-4 i.e bosses without some debuffs but otherwise you need to be smart about target/save selection or the GM is throwing too many elite and boss level creatures at the party
But you can certainly make bad spell choices depending on what you're trying to do, since spells are designed for different modes of play(exploring, social encounters, combat encounter etc)-- so make sure to analyze spells closely as they could do more or less than meets the eye

If you tell me your level I could recommend some spells, for example getting a summon at level 1 is huge for any caster. Another body rolling dice, taking a hit and flanking is massive value when spellslots are rare and your action econ is lite

>>96040684
I can believe most of that, but I also don't really care how balanced 4e actually is, I just like the direction it was going more than I do PF2e's, even if 4e nowadays feels more like a scuffed as hell rough beta for a game instead of a real-ass finished ttrpg. Hell, I am still more inspired by 4e Draconic Sorcerer than I am basically any spellcaster that claims to capable of being a "blaster" in PF2e, even if knowing my luck 4e Draconic Sorcerer is probably ass.

>>96040740
>superior system
the superior system is the one you think is fun to actually play

>>96040817
>There are feats and effects that exist to improve hit rates and damage for casters and their single-target spells.
Can you list some of the feats?

>>96040807
>its incredibly easy to do that with a lot of the time it isn't even your fault

If you don't read you spells I guess. If you don't bother to read your own spells and try to study the monsters you deserve to suck though compared to a good caster player

>>96040817
>Playing a good amount of Dragon Quest
I have been out of that series for ages but big huge damage mages have been part of DQ since forever
it has countless dedicated damage spells that nuke like trucks. it has both fire AND explosion lines of spells. it even has a "spend all MP to do ridiculous damage" spell. saying mages are just support is extremely fucking weird. there ARE support classes in DQ, but there are nuclear mages too
this is an insanely weird choice to try to paint traditional depictions of casters as low damage or even not focused on doing damage
most of what people want is the ability to make a character that focuses on it. something like a class archetype you can slap on all casters that changes how your spell slots work
literally just something like "all but one spell slot per level you prepare/add to your repertoire must have a damaging component. add 2 damage per die rolled on damaging spells you cast" or something as a way to hone in on it. just... damage riders. ways to blow through resistances or enhance spells with specific elemental tags. anything at all to actually enable someone to play a black mage without feeling like they're shooting themselves in the foot

>>96040885
>4E Sorcerer

The worst Striker in all of 4E, they're 4EE tier. Ranger and Avenger are the god-kings
There are no really good blasters in 4E, casters are all Controllers or Leaders typically

>>96040907
I always love comments like these because they are just contextless nothingburgers.
>If you don't read you spells I guess.
How does reading spells help with unmitigated bloat of bad content in the game? I shouldnt have to know what ever spell in the game does to play a level 1 wizard.
>try to study the monsters
How exactly am i supposed to study monsters that i have no idea are coming up other than reading my GM's notes? Sure i could do a whole bunch of investigating and i may learn the first 1 or 2 encounters in the day but that's a shit ton more of prep than the fighter or barb has to do just to hit basic combat proficiency.

>>96040740
>>96040780
>>96040807
I don't think this is a 2e problem in particular, as much as it is "Vancian Casting" to use the incorrect phrase. 1e had plenty of bad spells, and so does D&D5e. Any game where magic is more like a deckbuilding game and not "i wave my hands to summon a recreational McNuke, as dictated by my Anarcho-Capitalist background" is going to have bad spells, both from powercreep and the designers creating shitty options. A caster can fuck themselves without proper planning, even with good-to-must-take spells. If you load up entirely on lightning spells and run into an electric-immune foe, that's the cuck chair for you. To say that there should be no spells that are bad is to essentially argue that there shouldn't be "spells" in the way d20 fantasy have approached them since time immemorial.

That said, Wizard in 2e is...definitely hurting since the Remaster. It lacks core options that helps it standout compared to other casters like Witch, Sorcerer, Animist, or Bard. It has the worst of all worlds in regard to the reoccurring caster skub this gets into. It's pretty much just carried by the Arcane list and the ability to replenish spell slots.

>>96040888
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=2114
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6057
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6060
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1137
https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=2
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4130
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1878
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3632
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3108

I try to avoid options that inflict a condition too, or raw stat increases like Heroism. There's options to make your life easier, you just need to take them.

>>96040969
While DQ does have nuke options and characters, mages in most games are usually good for their status game over matching DPS with the martials. Insulatle is routinely way more effective at winning you boss fights than Magic Burst.

>>96041038
>yes there are huge caster damage options BUT this other thing is more optimal so they don't matter
dude

>>96040817
I am playing through DQ 11 at this very moment and the mages in my party are the most broken pieces of shit in the game so i dont know what you are talking about.
>You are arguing the average PC Wizard should be on the same level as the fucking BBEG of the FRANCHISE.
Nobody is arguing that but the fantasy of a wizard fucking up people exists and Palpatine is one of many.
>Meanwhile most 2e PCs barely reach Lando or Chewbacca-tier on a good day.
Common martials are running up buildings and cutting through metal golems with steel swords. Lando and Chewie aint doing that in even the most batshit crazy EU novels.
>I always thought it was more his life support systems getting fucked than the lightning itself.
Yes but that suit is built to block lightsabers and no sell the vacuum of space. His entire suit got fried and got full on skeletal level electrocution by just getting hit by unfocused spray.

>>96041028
This is a weird way of asking for help with your spell selection. If you don't like studying spells I donno why you're playing a nerd class

>How exactly am i supposed to study monsters

Recall Knowledge and reading the quest, talking to NPCs should tell you some details on what you're going to be up against. There are entire subsystems for Research as well.
Stealth is worthwhile for casters to obverse monsters too, get the RKs done before combat gets too hot

>>96041038
>1e had plenty of bad spells, and so does D&D5e.
The problem is the math is so shit for casters that only upper echelons of spells are even worth using. You could get away with suboptimal spells in other games and still have a good time because the monsters didnt save on a 5.

>>96041110
Cool i have to do all this extra shit just to maybe be on par with a retard who swings a sword.

Anyone have some suggestions for low level consumables that would be useful for a kineticist? I've got a fire/earth Kineticist I'm trying to plan some loot for but I'm drawing a blank.

I think it is time to accept that Pathfinder is simply not a roleplaying game

>>96041038
I think problem with Wizard is that players don't take advantage of the prep casting and spell switching, they have two of the best caster builds though

>>96041028
>Sure i could do a whole bunch of investigating and i may learn the first 1 or 2 encounters in the day but that's a shit ton more of prep than the fighter or barb has to do just to hit basic combat proficiency.
Yeah that's the point of playing a caster in d20 fantasy! You LIKE the bookwork, you don't want it to be simple! You want to engage with the world in a different and more effective way than just through swinging a big stick.
It sort of like looking at Investigator and wondering why do they have to Investigate things to be good at their class. The design of the class is based around willing to put research in both your options and the world the GM is setting and taking the risk that you could be wrong about such. Casters are in a similar boat. There are safe options like Fireball, Slow, or Heroism as well as risky ones like Chain Lightning, Summons, Heat Metal, Calm, Overwhelming Memories, Inner Radiance Torrent, etc. Spells whose effectiveness can vary wildly depending on circumstances out of your control. Casters are built on entertaining the idea that the world is a lot more than raw damage numbers. Even in combat heavy campaigns, your spells are going to be as effective as the world allots it to be.

If you don't like that, play Kineticist, play martials, or just play a different game entirely. This is why I don't like the "I hate vancian casting" discussion, it usually comes from actual brainlets who don't understand the value of having 2 intersecting game designs built into the game...

>>96041081
11 definitely has some of the strongest mages in the series in terms of how it scales magic and making sure no member is bad, but other games have more balanced ideas, and ultimately you want to utilize stat buffs, debuffs, and resistance gains even there. Most games usually have that physical damage dealers are usually the ones with the biggest DPS numbers and keeping them alive is more important than damage racing the boss that gets 2 actions...!

>>96041132
If full casters had the prof scaling of expert at 1st, master at 7th and legendary at 15th then straight up all the bitching would go away. Casters could spam cantrips in the first few levels and feel powerful, you could cast shit and it wouldn't matter because they would at least hit more often. All you have to do is nerf slow and fear and that's about it.

>>96041200
why even nerf fear
I guess if you do the heightened version lower the DC by 2 or something but base fear is totally fine. it's a resource and 2 actions vs demoralize's non-resource and one action, it should outperform it

Setting aside the wider problems casters face, I'm mostly bewildered bard and cleric have actually relatively good feats and fallback patterns (assuming you picked a deity with a good focus spell, for cleric) as far as spellcasters go, but wizard is STILL just kind of fucked on all those fronts. Wizard feats blow ass and it starts to feel like spell blending and spell substitution should just be built into the class for how much the defenders ride those thesis's dicks, and I cannot even start on schools.

>>96041200
Cantrips and focus cantrips already carry harder than ranged martials at low levels.
Ranged martials don't come online until mid level and start loading up on damage runes

>>96041132
I can agree to the extent that 2e's math and spell slot numbers does create more competition in deckbuilding your spellbook and it is naturally more unintuitive. The game doesn't really tell you how the meta is going to play out and building for failure on your end just sucks to think about. But also I find that 2e's spells are most consistently effective compared to their peers, who go more for a feast-or-famine approach. Half-damage on save is actually not a consistent idea, much less any status effect landing.
All 3 games have bad, BAD spells. Hell, there's good spells that are just poorly designed like Slow in 2e or Silvery Barbs. But I think the actual spell design of PF2e is far saner and controlled, and the numerical issues are designed to be mitigated through actual play most of the time. Not that there aren't gaps in the level curve and monster design that are just EGREGIOUS, and Paizo APs routinely rub salt in the wounds over, but most of the time you really can't fail to be effective in combat.

>>96041165
Runelord is cracked and Spell Blending is a great option, but the general Wizard is drowned by its lackluster feats, lacking class features, and poor subclasses + focus spells. And since the Arcane list isn't exclusive and just about every other caster barring Bard and Druid have in-built ways to poach spells outside of such with no multiclassing, they really don't anything to do.

>>96041200
I have thought of giving casters Fighter-tier proficiency scaling before, but between how it doesn't really fix the level gaps in accuracy with that particular level scaling (makes like an average 40 to a 50% around like 14 I wanna say) and makes any fight with foes on-par or less against you COMPELTELY TRIVIAL, I rather not...

>>96041219
Even you acknowledge that pretty much most multi-man melees are gonna be squished flat when 90% of the foes will always be at least Frightened 2. A lot of spells would need more changing under Fighter-tier scaling.

>>96041281
Ranged martials get martial HP, AC and proficiencies. They can also shoot from the other side of the map while most cantrips put you very much in the danger zone. So fuck em.

>>96041280
As I said before, Runelord is cracked because it resolves these issues. There's good feats, spells, focus spells, and fallback patterns all added on the kit, and playing around your new restrictions don't weigh you down heavily (unless you choose something like Sloth...). Says something when Paizo had to go "No, you don't get double staff charges, that's silly" and people just shrugged and moved on because everything else was so good.
The remaster just didn't have any particularly good roles or niches for generic Wizards, all the other casters got powercreeped to the moon with their new stuff and rebalances, and the loss of the "generic" 4th slot exposed how reliant they were on it to justify their existence. With no poaching options, less DPS than Sorcerers, and a more restricted 4th slot than them and ORACLES now, they have no way to stand out.

The Array idea could have been an interesting deal if it was better utilized. Unique aftereffects that could be imposed once a spell is casted, or just one-action ideas could have been a cool way to highlight their controlling abilities. But the two we got didn't do that and just sucked. And even worse than similar Witch or Kineticist options for putting down non-spell control options. So they couldn't even get that to their names.

>>96041384
>and people just shrugged and moved on because everything else was so good.
People absolutely did not just shrug and move on, there were shitfits everywhere

>>96041397
Okay there was definitely grumbling and doomposting about it, rose-tinted glasses were on there. But even then, most agreed that while it would be cool as fuck and still reasonably balanced given the anathemas, they didn't need it.

Make Staff Nexus a core feature instead of a thesis to patch Wizard. Not as powerful as blending or substitution, but still gives flexibility.

>>96041331
Not everyone gets fighter and gunslinger prof, most classes do not.

Fighters are the space marine of PF2E and are only good if the DM lets them be good by throwing tank & spanks with no control going around. But they get completely shutdown by a good GM that knows what they're doing. There are many encounters that easily shut down fighters since they're extremely 3-action dependent for press attacks for example; fighters love to full-round turret enemies

Gunslinger has the same prof for guns & crossbows as fighter but few think they're OP because ranged martials are generally considered not very good at low levels. But holyshit are they bonkers mid and high level

>>96041446
I kiiiiinda see that, but it is an ask to have every Wizard be attached to a staff, even if it is good for them. The Personal Staff have to be upkept and maintained with both their spell book and new staves, and some may not find the cane-and-tome aesthetic to match their Wizard. Runelord gets away with it since they very much explain that's just how Thalossian students are, the magical glaive twat IS their aesthetic. Staff Nexus being an optional feature is like familiars being an optional feature for non-Witches. Some people don't want to mess with a generic mechanic on their core class.

>>96041476
simply rework "staff" into "casting implement" and allow it to apply to any object you can hold in one hand (and must be wielded in a hand to use)
allows people to amulets, daggers, staves, skulls, whatever kind of doohickey, steeped in arcane power that the wizard draws upon

>>96040661
>>96040527
>>96040596

>That's really funny because I still feel PF2e fighter's power is vastly overstated, but at the same time "Guy with reach and a reaction attack" is fucking insane at low levels. The levels most people play and give up in. So I can see why you would mald about that.

Yup we quit at level 5. We had a come to jesus moment and realized that 1e is just more enjoyable. You can also be anything in 1e (and you can make it work) which is cool.

>>96041516
pf2e is a huge piece of shit below like level 7, which is a shame because that's when the adventure space is the most fun
1e allowing you to actually realize character concepts is sick as hell but it's also probably the only thing I like about it these days. pf2e fails at it absolutely miserably. it's "pick a class and niche within that class first and then make a character concept building around it" to the extreme

>>96041516
3.pf needs to be run RAI/RAR but I just translate all the stuff I like from it to PF2E because I like the core better

>>96041516
I may also mention that the experience of DMing 2e made our DM take a 1.5 year break

>>96041446
>>96041476
desu it mostly just feels like wizard should get two thesis-I sometimes wonder if the unified theory school should have just been the "get two Thesis" school, but that would have required the other schools actually be good enough to justify that.

Even if that's too good, current unified theory just seems... Shitty? Lame benefits and It has a focus spell that requires you to pay money so it scales and the best way to use it is lugging a greataxe around, which goes completely counter to mechanics and fantasy.

>>96041577
>pf2e is a huge piece of shit below like level 7

You can die to rats and house cats at level 1 as a wizard in 3.pf lol

>>96041459
Im not talking about fighter or gunslinger. A Ranger can fire at a distance of 4x the range of most cantrips while still having better HP, AC, saves and for a 1st level feat gets a second HP blob that also attacks at range for them.

>>96040454
>I made a thread on /v/ asking about PF2e
I would ask why you'd do this but then I remember most 2e fans are crossboarders from /v/ so you'd actually probably run into a lot of them if you did that.

>>96041616
It is actually hilarious if fighter made him rage quit, must have been the sickest crits on the BBEG. GM should have just spammed disarm and filled the map with difficult terrain

>>96041638
golly 2e slurper-kun, I bet you sure do feel silly after reading the rest of the post

>>96041644
Shooting off screen isn't always useful, but yeah that's their big selling point but it's typically useless for indoors dungeons. I know a lot of GMs allow for range increments for attack spells though

>>96041638
That's one of those "not a problem" deals. Early game casters in 1e don't matter as much because realistically, those monsters wouldn't survive the average party anyway. And even if they did "lol, well I'm going to be god anyway, just need to power through" or just find it funny (the only game I've seen where people complain about outright dying in character creation is FATAL, and that has a lot more problems than that...)
2e early game is more balanced (though everyone kind of have housecat durability at low levels, imo) but that also means there's just no raw spikes in power at all, unless you are a Fighter/Gunslinger. There's not a singular moment a build becomes "online", which I can argue is not something people will tolerate. Again, people want to be demigods, they don't get into the hobby for the teamwork or balance.

>>96041618
A thesis and school is already 2 subclasses, even with Unified (remember, it is more the Drain Bonded Item buff that you are concerned about). The problem is they are just missing an extra bit of oomph compared to other caster subclasses, even if the number of features equals out. And even if they did, it wouldn't fix the issue that a Wizard doesn't bring much to a party compared to other casters, it just makes slightly more interested to build.

>>96041678
I'm pretty sure he's either completely exaggerating a Forever GM that honestly was just done GM'ing anyway, or his group's disinterest in 2e as a system. Still saying "you can be anything in the system with over 10+ years of 1pp and 3pp support and doesn't actually care about what you do" complaint after all these years and content additions, it very much just a difference in opinion on game design at that pont.

>>96041768
>A thesis and school is already 2 subclasses
Yea and they're kind of shitty subclasses for only getting two, PF2e seems to really have a problem giving anything any weighty feeling to it, so you end up feeling like you either need more shit or for your existing shit to be better

>>96041705
That still doesn't preclude all the other bonuses a ranged martial gets over a caster at low levels.

>>96041768
>That's one of those "not a problem" deals.

That's a huge problem, low level casters are jank crossbow dodge-rat and have to be carried by soon to be NPC classes.
Math tells a story, my opinion is that 3.pf maths tells the same story every single time of casters becoming god

>>96040596
>Yeah, I'm also calling bullshit.
It's easy to believe. I've played in a party that was a fighter, a warpriest and an alchemist a few years ago, and the latter two felt miserable compared to the guy who was casually hitting on a rolled 3.

>>96041768
>>96041678
nah, he just didnt like the game and lost motivation. He even quit the games where he played.

>>96041805
I'm someone that just believes stacking more shit ontop of itself doesn't actually make for good design. Especially when the major problems come from the subclasses themselves. Very much a literal "2 wrongs don't make a right" deal. I rather we improve the schools and thesis mechanics over letting you just run multiple of each on one character.

>>96041885
You aren't wrong about math telling a story or the miserable level 1 experience of casters, but people understand the "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" equation a lot. They feel like all the extra effort and bookwork I brought up earlier isn't about making a unique experience, but the "required work" to make you godlike. And starting from virtually zero is the same. You understand you will never be a peer to the martials.
And again, if someone ACTUALLY dies to a housecat, that's just a funny story from a gritty, simulationist game. Not a "failure of the game design that made me quit GM'ing for nearly 2 years".

>>96041995
Good to note Warpriest and Alchemist were just BAD at launch/several years ago. Patches have dramatically improved both. Still not Fighter-tier but they are much more workable.

>>96041829
You mean at most levels. With exceptions, casters don't get any evasion effects on their saves until 17, have worse hp at all levels, and get a special class of armor that just says "fuck you, spend feats for armor or get crit constantly and have no rune support" I don't get why they looked at heavy armor and said "hmm, we should do something so that they don't die to every reflex save in the game, how about bulwark?" but then didn't look at unarmored and offer any compensation at all.

>>96041995
In what way? Fighter is a completely different role to those two classes. And if the Fighter was hitting on a three, they were hitting on a 6, that doesn't feel like something to be that upset about unless you had unrealistic expectations for your class in the first place. But if this was a few years ago, it was probably before remaster, so I kind of get it. Warpriest went from "meh" to a top tier option. Alchemist still doesn't seem great to me, but compared to before it is much more playable.

>>96041295
>and makes any fight with foes on-par or less against you COMPELTELY TRIVIAL
Totally. As someone who GMs 2e, my players getting to feel powerful and effective is a recurring nightmare I have. Hate that shit.

>>96042025
> Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"
Yeah that's fun to imagine as a caster player but hardly any GMs likes to play high level 3.pf. It's best described as obnoxious to GM for, rather just play a god-sim TTRPG instead

Goldilock zone is 3-12 if I remember correctly

>>96041805
Wizard should just get spell sub as a feature at level 3 base like it did in the playtest. The rest of the thesis options just need far better balancing between themselves and should have features that expand on them at later levels. This problem is mainly aimed at casters but martials suffer from this too occasionally. Subclasses not feeling unique enough and having to spend feats on subclass abilities that should be features.

>>96042066
>You mean at most levels.
The conversations was mainly centred on why i believe casters should have expert casting thus the focus on low level gameplay.

>>96042083
Drop high power scrolls

Love giving OP consumable to make an encounter easier but if they don't use it and do it hardmode, then they can sell it for loads of gold

>>96042025
>I rather we improve the schools and thesis mechanics over letting you just run multiple of each on one character.
That's part of the point being made, so we're not really disagreeing. I disagree that "stacking more shit" is necessarily bad, but that's mostly because the shit being stacked feels less like "additional things" most of the time and more like "we're forcing you to buy shit you should be getting for free to pad out space", which isn't a wizard-specific problem, just a general problem the system seems to have.

>>96042132
Yea see above, sometimes I just look at classes in general and go "why isn't this just part of my standard subclass progression?" like with champion's reaction feats, or half a dozen Monk feats, or any number of things on other classes.

>>96042132
>>96042179
>I want free feats
GMs can hand out Bonus Feats as rewards/campaign theme you know. I typically hand them out as rewards for finishing acts or if they completely certain quests
Ancestral Paragon, Free Archetype, Dual classing-- all just rules for Bonus Feats

I offer all my players a personal quest-line, often with a bonus unique feat to unlock if it's completed

>>96042234
>>96042173
1000% agree. Player power should only come from my say so. Trinkets and boons I offer them rather than anything baked in. It makes me feel important which is the most important thing when running a tabletop game.

>>96042083
If Fighter getting a +2 to bat a squirrel into oblivion was enough to make GMs rage quit and players feel useless, I don't see how letting every caster exceed the curve to multi-kill basically any low-level encounter would also promote fun. Again, there is a reason why people let the "Wizard die to a housecat" story slide more than the should, the idea that hitting high peaks from level 1 isn't actually that interesting, even for a demigod.

>>96042120
The promise of such, that your early game trials will lead into the land of overpoweredness, was accounted for, as much as Monty Cooke's Ivory Tower trap feats were. It's a ploy on player psychology, taking the idea that everyone starts somewhere to something of a mechanical extreme. They didn't care how the GM would handle once the players are out of the hell zone, so why would the players? That's why I brought up the "Games for GMs" notion before, it is only in recent times where the idea the GM is your friend and should have fun too became a valid part of the discussion. Balance is something only GMs want so they can actually engage with the game as much as the players, so now we have games trying to account for that desire, even if it comes at the expense or the death of LWQW.
Paizo still plays into it, it is valid to complain about the "Sacred Cow" of low defense casters. But they do understand that the curve needs to be curbed.

>>96042179
Paizo is still Paizo at the end of the day... It is also why I brought up the technical differences in what people describe as "feat taxes"; between good feats, necessary-to-function feats, and feats that really should be in the base class. People do get them mixed up a lot, but Paizo and how they handle subclasses/class feature progression sure doesn't help.

>>96042245
I find items the easiest & safest vein to tap for balance adjustments, since they could lose items but feats/spells are harder to lose if they result in something broken

If a player wants five-foot step if they don't move, like 3.pf then some Boots of Olden Dance would be perfect, it would be powerful enough to compete with Boots of Bounding but if it resulted in unforeseen jank then I could always send the thieves guild after them

>>96042025
>Good to note Warpriest and Alchemist were just BAD at launch/several years ago.
Only time it was relevant for me. Says A LOT about the system that its devs made, playtested, and released those classes and thought there was zero issues that need fixing.

>>96042066
>And if the Fighter was hitting on a three, they were hitting on a 6
Not at all. Warpriest and Alchemist were at least 5 points behind because of proficiency and inflexible key ability score. And then naturally the martial items and attack buffs went to the fighter as well.
>that doesn't feel like something to be that upset about unless you had unrealistic expectations for your class in the first place
That's laughable. The subclass is called WARpriest, and it makes you sacrifice spellcasting ability in multiple ways. You'd think you'd get at least decent martial prowess in return, but that was far from being the case. You NEVER got even master proficiency in weapons NOR armor. And you have to max CHA otherwise you lose access to your most powerful class feature. So then spell choices are severely limited as well when you can't have a passable WIS.

And then there's Alchemist who gets awful scaling with nothing to compensate for it.

>>96042278
>Only time it was relevant for me. Says A LOT about the system that its devs made, playtested, and released those classes and thought there was zero issues that need fixing.
wasn't even true, they had day 1 errata for Alchemist! Again, Paizo-be-Paizo. Remember, 1e's PHB had at least 6 different reprints with errata.

Seriously, I'm actually not even if I should respond to this? It would be like me shitting on 1e strictly for Chained Monk and Rogue or the initial launch. Yeah, those were bad options (and technically still are), but they longed since been fixed. Literally every complaint made has since been fixed except for the Key Ability Score issue (imo, probably the Third Worst Mechanic in 2e, behind Inventor's Overdrive and Fighter's Versatile Legend). And even then the ability to circumvent them is just built in those classes.

>>96042266
>recent times where the idea the GM is your friend and should have fun too became a valid part of the discussion.

Hehe it's simple as a GM, if I don't like your game and don't have fun I won't run it! Simple as

LWQW are the least fun to run as a GM and most prep work. I will only do it for my girl in a solo session because I love her and she will use her powers for lewd

>>96041678
The idea of making a player miserable like this makes my clitty tingle.

>>96040817
Dragon Quest spellcasters are also allowed to be good at being gishes.

>>96042382
It's your job as a GM to bully with Grimples

Whiny powergaming fighters need to put in their place sometimes and get done in by basic action and uneven ground if they get too uppity

>>96042234
I mean yes, at the end of the day my position is in fact just that too many things are feats that I don't think should even be feats, which means the only actual answer is... More feats, because redesigning the game from the ground up sure as fuck isn't gonna fly with anyone. Paizo has done erratas and remasters that just bake feats into classes.

I don't really like putting the onus on the GM to fix the game feel for people more than they already do, but it is what it is.

>>96042418
This. My personal satisfaction at getting to epically own a player like that is all that really matters in the end to me.

That's why we play 2e. It's the perfect system for me. 1e could never cater to me in this way.

>>96042326
Fixes aren't retroactive. If they issued a disclaimer shortly after the first release saying "these classes were accidentally left severely underpowered, you should adjust them or tell players to pick something else, lest their choices feel awful" it would have been forgivable.

>>96042278
>>96042453
Both of those classes are sacrificing the ability to hit and do damage for utility. That's why I think it's strange that they had any feelings about the fighter hitting on a 3 or whatever. Especially if they were the ones buffing him. Warpriest is still a Cleric, so they have access to Heal, the best spell in the game. Again, I can't defend Alchemist, how good it is is really campaign and encounter dependent. My group fought a bunch of Shadows one time and you'd think the Fighter was a C tier character and the Alchemist needed nerfs. Paizo obviously has a "thorough" and "rigorous" testing process, but no game has survived players actually getting their hands on it. Some designers do seem to understand their own game now, hence why we have current Witch, Animist, Kineticist, Thaum, etc..

What scrolls should a thaumaturge make sure to have?

>>96042590
>My group fought a bunch of Shadows one time and you'd think the Fighter was a C tier character and the Alchemist needed nerfs
the funniest anecdote I have about alchemist will forever be going several combats before realizing my GM was applying weakness to my bomb strikes twice, because he was applying the splash damage as a separate instance of damage from the actual bomb, and that was why I was so goddamn effective against a bunch of fire-weak enemies every time I threw an alchemist fire or versatile vial and landed a hit.

More surprising was the fact that he just didn't see anything wrong with that until I, the person playing the alchemist, pointed out it was wrong, and seemed disappointed to find out I was going to be doing roughly half as much damage as I had been for the last few sessions.

>>96042385
Kind of but not really?
There's definitely gishes and good ones at that, but it is either them just being one from the get go ala Paladin or Magus, or requires some serious attention in building to get right. The games with vocation changes don't allow subclassing like in Final Fantasy V, and you really can't stat swing characters like that.
I guess you can argue that in some games you can, even if suboptimal, which is more than what 2e routinely allows. But even then, you gotta stretch for specific examples. I picked Dragon Quest out of any other JRPG because it doesn't get talked a lot about in regards to "games where buffs/debuffs REALLY matter" ala SMT/Persona. Offensive magic tend to be good in it but if you aren't doing your due diligence in maintaining buffs/debuffs, you gonna get slapped and sent back to Church.

>>96042453
I know "IT'S TOTALLY FIXED GUYS I PROMISED" is one of the most hollow statements you can make on this site, but between the sheer age of the scenario and the specific comparison between 2 support classes not shaping up to the king of DPS at that time, I really do question what was the point beyond "Paizo ships out shit options". Which...everyone here knows.
And for the record, those 2 have rather specific issues in terms why they had to be sat on to be fixed years down the line, beyond the absurdity of a company admitting they were shit outside an Unchained/Enhanced book. Warpriest had to be a gap filler to deal with the imbalance of Clerics again getting a shitton of armor (back when that was a complaint) and full spellcasting, and Alchemist had to rush out a full system rework with losing the Resonance mechanic. And Warpriest was even fine at launch given what it was trying to do, it just became an issue when the Advanced Player's Guide came out and made it completely redundant with Cloistered Cleric + Sentinel Archetype.

what if casters were more like martials with more variance in the speed of casting progression.

>>96042893
We already have that with full casters and gishes.

>>96042590
>Both of those classes are sacrificing the ability to hit and do damage for utility.
Then they should have something equally as good as what a caster gets with full proficiency. Since having slightly less terrible proficiencies that the caster doesn't even want to use sure as hell doesn't make up for it.

>>96043023
They do and did, even back then. Warpriest had more armor and Master Fortitude than Cloistered or other casters before Sentinel Archetype fucked that up ontop of Divine Font + normal Cleric slots, and Alchemist had a FUCKTON of Reagents to mess around with, ontop of creating unique alchemical items on the daily. Nowadays they both still have these perks and master weapon proficiency.

You are complaining about an issue LONG SINCE FIXED. Hell, Alchemist wasn't even trying to be either martial or caster but a unique idea entirely, hence their goofy-ass proficiency and ridiculous Reagent scaling. Warpriest and Alchemist really aren't meant to be compared to Fighter.

>>96043061
Those are nowhere near as good as what casters get

>>96043145
Paizo said it's fixed so it's fixed.

>>96043186
Hows that boot taste dude sheesh.

>>96042893
I've toyed with the idea of casters getting bonuses based on spell list. Like an occult caster gets their Will save spell proficiency to Expert at 5, and at a certain level they get a reverse evasion effect where creatures can't crit save against their Will targeting spells. Casters already crit far less often than martials (usually only on a 1, where martials can at least get reasonably down to 18 against most enemies) and are spending more actions/resources to do things, I think guaranteeing an effect isn't too much to ask for, especially when many success effects are pretty mediocre already.

>>96043347
Synesthesia on a Resentment Witch is now guaranteed at least two rounds of its effect against any enemy regardless of conditions as long as the familiar stays within proximity of the target.

That seems a bit strong.

>>96043515
ain't it great how like five dumbass fucked up spells and one single subclass for one class have an absolute stranglehold on caster design
I love pathfinder 2e

>>96043529
That's witch enjoyer, but there's a lot more viable blaster caster builds than viable ranged martial builds

>>96043515
No! What the fuck!? That's SO strong! This needs to be nerfed now. What the fuck is Paizo doing?

>>96040780
>they managed to make fireball an unfun spell to cast
True. A boss can extremely easily DODGE an explosion erupting in his face.

>>96040780
>18 into your hit stat

When was the last time you played?

>>96043651
Heh. Another 2e hater demolished.

>>96040740
Casters are not weak but they're generally harder to play. A good caster can carry a party hard if you select the right targets, time your delays and use the right spells at the right time

At low levels, getting a good starting focus spell is a big help

>>96043701
No, just a general retarded newbie who is ngtmi that probably bought the wrong book

>>96040740
>>96043704
If your GM is lazy, just cheat and don't prepare your spell slots ahead of time. Makes the game way more fun as a caster.

Obviously you can't be too blatant with it but no one's going to bat an eye that you have Lightning Bolt prepared if you're in a dungeon with a lot of tight corridors for instance. And who knows, maybe you just so happened to prepare a second casting if you need it....

And if you don't, then that slot can go to Thermal Remedy or Impeccable Flow or something

>>96040817
>I've come to realize that doesn't mean anything on a design level
Laughable. Paizo purposely made it so you can't sacrifice versatility to specialize. And when you kind of can, you can only do it to end up actually weaker (elementalist archetype).

>>96043651
wow holy fuck oh shit oh fuck my legs auuuugh you blew them out auugh I'm bleeding on the floor auuuuugh I have NO GAMES aaaaauuuuugh

>>96043821
You've been bitching for weeks, just quit loser

>>96043317
I bet this is the same guy too. There's no way more than one person could dislike me and think 2e, objectively the best tabletop roleplaying game ever made, is bad.

>>96043515
I'm not too worried about a spell 95% of the playerbase will never actually cast. It's a spell for solo monsters, and those fights are a joke at that level anyway. But if you're really worried about your PL+4s, fine give the reverse evasion effect Incap, but treat your spell rank as one higher.

>>96043921
Not good enough. It could conceivably be used to shut down an entire encounter and that's just plain wrong.

>>96043894
>objectively the best tabletop roleplaying game ever made

trvthnvke

Free archetype kind of detracts from the uniqueness of classes, no?

>>96044055
Depends on how you define that, without it a lot of classes kind of just converge into extremely samey build patterns as you start to exclude the obviously bad feat options and realize which in-class feats are actually really fucking important to making you function, and a lot of archetypes (even multiclass ones) just aren't good enough to justify excluding any of those. Every class will always retain their core loops fine, you're just bolting more shit on.

>>96044055
True. It's why Paizo wisely sealed it away as a variant rule.

All it does is break the game by giving players things like options.

>>96044055
I would say it's for advanced players who want crunch and options, most players do as it opens up some unique builds and class archetypes.
I don't recommend it for a table who has never played a TTRPG before and might get overwhelmed by options and the number of moving parts

Automatic Bonus Progression

>>96044140
I hate this. What's the fun of GMing 2e if the players can just get their +1 from sources that aren't me? They should have to politely ask me and do a little jester dance for their fundies. Plus it's just soooo much more work to implement. I have to go into Foundry and like... change a number. And who knows what else?

>>96044140
Good for special needs GMs coming over from 5E

>>96044140
I prefer ARP instead, but I also adjust the standard DCs down quite a bit because I play PWL and the given DCs in PWL are honestly just weirdly high.

>>96044140
>Doesn't help spellcasters

>>96044165
>>96044161
It's very bias towards already powerful classes. Big nope

>>96044178
PWL helps casters tho since higher level enemies don't default to having +4 on all their saves.

>>96044165
Frees up the mental load of the GM to drop more caster boosting items, and lets casters not have to worry about keeping their backup crossbow or whatever runed up, seems like a win-win to me fuckboy

>but why would a caster ever make a strike-
because paizo didn't give you a 1 action attack cantrip unless you attach a leech to your head, you little fuckboy, now take your shortbow and go

>>96041505
People would freak out because that sounds similar to Thaumaturge

Can a spellcaster use a spellheart to cast outside their tradition or does the spell still have to be their tradition?

>>96041505
That's just how it should work in the first place

Give spellcasters an extra action :)

>>96044262
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>96044267
What sector of society would suffer? How good would it make casters?

>>96044272
Paizo makes them a two action class for a reason and I think we should respect that.

>>96044251
You don't need to match the tradition of the spellheart to use it, just need to be able to Cast A Spell. All the spells except the Cantrip will have set DCs though. The cantrips do scale off your spellcasting stats, regardless of tradition.

>>96044215
then propose a word that isn't implement that also doesn't overlap with other words already in use in the system
it can't be a "spell focus"

>>96044309
Magicheart

>>96044309
Do note I wasn't just complaining about needing to use a staff itself, but the idea that not only you need to learn another system ontop of all the normal Wizard stuff to play Wizard, you need to always be down one hand to carry the staff/implement.
Witch barely gets away with needing to use a familiar and I've seen more people complain about being a "pet class" than actually play Witch. There is a reason why Drain Bonded Item doesn't refer to a real mechanical object, and people prefer the option of using staves, even if it is optimal 9 out of 10 times

When is Dragon's Demand coming out

>>96044197
>Martial weapon
Shortbow is a no-go on most casters and the prof is going to be way worse than their spell casting, reloading is brutal and needs a freehand regardless. A well built caster is going to be using 1-action focus spells, 3-action spells, sustaining, commanding, items and spellshapes very often to make it not worth going for plink damage without appearing stupid

Only time casters should be using martial ranged is to deliver magical ammo augmented with a spell
It's funny that the best martial ranged builds are gishes though.

>>96044262
Just for saying that I'm going to put teleporting demons with reach, reactive strike and improved grab in the next encounter

>>96044262
The game would be objectively better if everyone had 4 actions

>all the things magic users can do, and all the complaints are about how they play second fiddle in combat compared to classes that can only do combat
This is how I know that it's shitposts from buckbroken 3.x fans who do not play the game, still enamored with the fantasy that magic has to be better than mundane methods at all times.

>>96045594
Why does no one do it ;(

>>96045611
Other than teleportation and combat abilities, magic offers nothing that a skill action can't do better.

>>96045612
I would do it if I ever run pf2e again, but tard wrangling this shitshow of a system has just been too exhausting so I probably won't bother.

>>96045611
Gameplay and the rules of the game are like 80% focused around combat. I think its well within people's right to complain that there character is subpar at a large majority of the game.

>>96045619
You really think that?
>>96045639
>combat is the only part of the game that matters
You don't actually play games, or you have a pathological need to be the star.

>>96045640
>You really think that?
I don't think it, I KNOW it because I've played the fucking game, I made a wizard with the intent of being an out of combat utility powerhouse only to discover I'm literally worse at all this stuff than the rogue coasting by on his free skillups and skill feats.

>>96045651
you forgot to mention the part where the rogue doesn't have to sacrifice any of his already ridiculous combat potential while the wizard has to burn all of his combat capabilities in order to prepare the dogshit utility spells lmao

>>96045651
>>96045667
So what skill allows you to detect magic auras and identify magic items?

>>96045787
The skill of the appropriate magical tradition, you fucking retard.
Did you think that was a gotcha?

>>96045787
Arcana
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5119

>>96045806
You don't even need a feat for this one https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=22&General=true

>>96045806
>>96045816
>the spell just says magic yes or magic no like you can't fucking tell that just by looking at it
>the skill action literally anyone can use gives you detailed information that the spell doesn't
Holy shit, what is wrong with pf2e?

>>96045639
Social encounters, exploring and downtime are major parts of the game. Not uncommon for entire sessions to see no serious combats, Seasons of the Ghost is a good example

My Fighter went Ranger for the next campaign because he said Fighter was very boring outside of combat

>>96045611
If they're acting like this, they can go live in the 3.5 thread where they will be bullied

Pathfinder 2e could never...

>>96045827
devs are terrified of people who like playing even slightly powerful characters buying their books

>>96046047
Sure buddy. If a fighter player is bored out of combat then they are fucking retarded. Nothing is stopping the fighter from investing in wisdom or charisma and putting bumps in survival/charisma. Once again because it apparently needs to be said. Martials pay literally fucking nothing for having a role outside of combat while casters have to pay a premium.

>>96046047
>My Fighter went Ranger for the next campaign because he said Fighter was very boring outside of combat
That's his problem, nothing to do with his class. Investigator and Ranger are literally the only two classes that explicitly get out of combat abilities. Anything else is just down to being unimaginative and/or pigeonholing yourself into your class's tropes.

>>96046397
Just Investigator, actually. Ranger doesn't get any noncombat skills anymore, they are all reworked into combat effects like ignoring difficult terrain.

>>96046047
>saying this like a fighter can't just pump survival and be a ranger+
my first level 20 character was a fighter who worshipped gozreh and had survival at legendary
literally just stop treating your class like a roleplaying straitjacket

>>96046411
They get trackless journey which is fucking pointless because you are always going to be straightjacketed to your party. I dont know why they didnt just make it a skill feat that lets you cover your whole party and give Ranger scaling survival with bonus skill feats.

>>96046465
Oh yeah, my bad, I speedread past that bit. It's not much, but technically it's something.

>>96045816
>>96045827
You do need the feat since you can't identify an item unless you already know that it is magical.
>Once you discover that an item, location, or ongoing effect is magical, you can spend 10 minutes to try to identify the particulars of its magic.
How do you know that something is magical? Detect Magic or the feat that gives you Detect Magic. Then you Identify it.

>>96046312
PF2E Magus, Spellshot and Eldritch archer is good fun

This conversation is really making me wonder why more classes don't get an auto scaling skill.
Tradition skills for all casters
Crafting for alchemist
Athletics for barbarian
Performance for bard
Deity's skill for champion and cleric
Athletics or acrobatics for monk
Acrobatics and the style skill for swashbuckler (instead of one or the other)
Nature and Survival for rangers (religion instead of nature for vindicators)

>>96046397
Even in regards to the Combat/Out-of-Combat Proficiency arguments and the martial/caster divide... Yeah, I gotta agree. It isn't hard for Fighter or other martials to get a slathering of handy supportive feats. Alchemist MC, Herbalist, Scroll Trickster, Wandering Chef, Scout, Horizon Walker, Overwatch, Dandy, all just to name a few. Archetypes really do muddy that kind of argument, even if you want to say casters get more out of the system in non-FA games thanks to competiting with feat resources. But the point stands, it isn't hard for the average UNGA BUNGA dude to also be someone that likes to ask questions, research upcoming issues, craft items, earn income, or all the other handy-dandy non-UNGA BUNGA things.

>>96046383
>casters have to pay a premium.
That said, I think this is just a blatant overdramatization, not even an issue. The gap in skills is pretty nonexistent for most martial/casters on average, even fantastic caster feats can be replaced with archetype ones most of the time because magic compensates, and magic compensates! Yeah, you probably can't Command every shopkeep into giving you free shit all the time, but there are spells that either give you bonuses to skills or have out-of-the-box uses to improve your odds. And even if you want to say there are zero spells whatsoever that can do that, skillmonkeys aren't really a powerbudget issue so much as role protection. Technically speaking, I think every class have just enough budget left to have bonus skill feats/increases, if not to the degree Rogue/Investigator gets them. But it isn't particularly interesting most of the time and think these classes can keep that bonus.

>>96046532
Again, I think it is just a powerbudget issue running in tandem with PF2e's weird "redundancy in progression" issue. It does just like to make you improve something you already was going to by default (see why I hate Key Ability Scores) and I don't know why Paizo is like that.

>>96046383
>>96046397
>>96046426

He didn't have a problem with RP, very good for first timer. I know he went deep into religion as a secondary skill for rituals and boons but it mostly came up during downtime rather than exploring. Wanted more tracking, hexcrawl knowledge and stealth skills-- exploring stuff really. He really enjoys stealth.

Players do in fact RP their classes/race/deity/background as their guidelines. People want their sheet to reflect how they RP, it adds weight to it. GMs and players tend to like characters who are on theme and punish/ignore characters who act off script from I've seen from my 20 years of rolling dice.

>>96045827
You don't play the game.

>>96046532
Swash with acro, ranger with survival and alch crafting I can agree with. Other roguish type classes get extra skillups or already have it.

But Acrobat and Inventor dedications are good ways to obtain autoscaling skills

>>96046629
>He didn't have a problem with RP, very good for first timer. I know he went deep into religion as a secondary skill for rituals and boons but it mostly came up during downtime rather than exploring. Wanted more tracking, hexcrawl knowledge and stealth skills-- exploring stuff really. He really enjoys stealth.
Then why didnt he retrain and invest in those skills. Fighters have plenty of budget to do this.
>Players do in fact RP their classes/race/deity/background as their guidelines. People want their sheet to reflect how they RP, it adds weight to it. GMs and players tend to like characters who are on theme and punish/ignore characters who act off script from I've seen from my 20 years of rolling dice.
Fighters are so ridiculously generic you could give them any kind of personality and out of combat quirks. I have a barbarian in my game who loves to play the bongos and has invested in performance just cause. He still has full prof athletics and strength and has suffered no combat downsides for having this quirk of personality.

>>96046592
Yeah you can, I think he over invested into combat with his archetype for what he ultimately wanted

But if you start playing point-man as fighter instead of tanking after someone casted Heroism on you, support would lose their shit lol

>>96046709
Bongos are fun fluff and on theme for a tribal barbarian but they're not going to score you plot armor probably. I think fighters having reputation of +2 puts a lot peer pressure on them to play a certain way.

He's having more fun with ranger than fighter so far

>>96046709
>Then why didnt he retrain and invest in those skills
NTA, but your whiteroom headspace doesn't reflect actual games.
The guy had his reasons.
Maybe the 'generic' quality you are praising was the problem in itself.

>>96046824
I think how inflexible fighter is during combat was a big turn off, if you lose an action it can throw your entire gameplay into disarray as a fighter with press attacks. Just not tank coded either

>>96046824
Retraining your skills to be more useful out of combat isnt white room you sperg. The guy said his campaign was filled with downtime.

>>96046665
>Other roguish type classes get extra skillups or already have it.
Inventor, Swash, Rogue, Thaumaturge and Investigator are the only classes that get extra skill ups or an auto scaling skill, note that swash is the only one of these that I mentioned because I think it should get two rather than one (same as my suggestion for ranger)
>archetypes
Not only shouldn't be part of the argument about basic class chassis, but auto scaling skills should be outright off the table for archetypes. In inventor's case, it cheapens the base class, not that inventor needed to get kicked in the balls any harder, and acrobat is just... what the fuck is wrong with acrobat? Why does this shit exist? This is so horribly pushed compared to other "profession" archetypes.

>>96046644
neither do you, paizodrone, you just fellate it on the forums

>>96046905
Retraining a 2-18 archetype is going to take a lot of time, the party is level 19 and they're entering the final dungeon

It's more in retrospective when they had a chance between the acts

>>96046947
I wish more players liked skill points variant rule

>>96046629
>GMs and players tend to [...] punish/ignore characters who act off script from I've seen from my 20 years of rolling dice.
This is a horrifying prospect.
Oh, you want to play a fighter who isn't a meathead? You want to play a rogue who isn't a scumbag edgelord? Fuck you, rocks fall.
Knowing that GMs and players like this exist is genuinely frightening.

>>96046947
>but auto scaling skills should be outright off the table for archetypes
Bizarre and deranged in ways I can't even respect, if all it takes to cheapen a class for you is the ability to get skill scaling then I think that says more about the class in question than the archetypes.

>>96047033
>I think that says more about the class in question
Yeah, Inventor is that bad, it doesn't need to get kicked in the balls even more.

>>96047004
Having a likable character should be your number one goal at a table. If no one likes you will have a very bad time

GMs will 'test' and ignore obnoxious characters no one likes that derail sessions, hoping to get them back on track or have some character development. All GMs do this to extent, some are more aggressive about it, but all of us have our biases

If your party hates you, they will not give you loot, buffs and won't engage in serious RP with them

An obnoxious character is a death sentence

>>96046963
What the fuck does that have to do with retraining some skills around? You dont need to have complete archetypes changes just to have something to do out of combat.

>>96047048
People getting Crafting skill increases isn't what's kicking the class down, anon, it's the class being shit. I would say Oracle and Psychic have a way worse relationship with their archetypes than Inventor.

I also, admittedly, just think the game is absurdly fucking stingy with skill increases for most classes, without archetypes. I look over at Exemplar and wonder why it has an entire feature that grants it a new thematic trained skill, and then no way to increase that skill further outside of the standard boosts. Fuck's sake Paizo, it could have been an easy unpoachable feat to fill out that barren early list for them.

>>96047360
Nuclear take here but the game would be better if multiclass archetypes were just removed from the game. There also should just be general feats that give you a bunch of skill bumps and extra skill feats. They could literally call the feat skill focus.

>>96047418
I think nuking all multiclass archetypes because a couple of the archetypes are excessive is dumb, but I can at least respect the angle.

My nuclear take is that 2e turning every class into a talent picker class via class feats just ruins the ability to design classes.

>>96047548
a la carte is a design noob trap for sure
I'd add that there being SO MANY decision points while building a character leads to most decisions being watered down, unimpactful, and irritating

>>96047580
One of my favorite classes from 1e is still vigilante. Unarchetyped, oncaster vigilante even, warts and all with its dogshit hardbaked fear features. Every time I look at 2e I wonder if Vigilante being remotely well-liked broke a paizo dev's brain.

My other take is just that ancestry and general feats are fucking awful. You get too few for how weak they are, and must Ancestries get utterly fucked because there's no "common universal feats" to pad their choices out if they don't get any good unique options.

>>96047418
>Nuclear take here but the game would be better if multiclass archetypes were just removed from the game.
Naaahhhhh. You can argue that multiclasses are inherently less interesting than generic or class archetypes, but I think having no MCs is even more boring. Outside of the fact they need to exist to allow for various character concepts to, multiclassing helps parties maintain a wide degree of options without just having that class in it. When you have a game that heavily markets itself on its variety of classes, it will just be difficult to actually play or engage with them without the system.

>There also should just be general feats that give you a bunch of skill bumps and extra skill feats.
I kind of get it but I don't think it would be all that fun. In a world where every skill feat is equally good and fun, having a feat that just gives you a package of them takes too much pressure and challenge out of character building. Weighing opportunity costs is a strength of these kinds of systems.

>>96047548
>My nuclear take is that 2e turning every class into a talent picker class via class feats just ruins the ability to design classes.
Also disagree with this. Outside of how it was easier to count the 1e classes that DIDN'T have their own talent picking mechanic, I don't think class feats are eating that much design space. Otherwise something like Kineticist couldn't possibly exist in this framework. Class feats may be too unimpactful or downright necessary-to-function (Efficient Alchemy, Nimble Reprisal, Diverse Lore, Dangerous Sorcery pre-master, Divine Access pre-master, Animal Skin, the entire Untamed Form feat line, etc.) more often than not, but I don't think they are taking away from class design. I wouldn't think the existence of these feats were denying some subclass or "core ability" to exist that every character of this class should be. It would be like saying every Fighter should have Double Slice by default, not everyone is like that.

>>96047033
Allow for downtime of crafting, use TV rules for crafting
Keep gadget crafting exclusive to inventors, allow them to invent new ones
Ensure that item+ crafting items drop or are sold

>>96047580
Mike Mearls please

>>96047111
What does that have to do with roleplaying "off script"? Of course if you're a cunt people won't want to play with you. That isn't what you said.

>>96046629
>punish/ignore characters who act off script
Wat. How is a Fighter being good at Survival 'off-script'? The only difference between a Ranger and Fighter tracking someone with Legendary Survival are whatever benefits might come from Hunt Prey or being at home in the terrain. Otherwise that's just weirdly backwards metagaming.

>>96047628
General, nah, I think that's actually pretty fine. Biggest issue is how Toughness is in there and how that just completely patches the early game dies-to-a-critical-plus-persistent-damage issue. Combined with how you don't get a lot of general feats and it becomes more routine to grab these borderline mathfixer feats, to the point I question why General Feats exist over some Paper Mario-esque "Here's a Stat Bonus for leveling up! Choose HP/Skill/Save/Perception to Increase!"

Ancestry, though, yeah, that's fucked. It PAINS ME to be a kitsune fanatic and watch they skipped so many times (how the fuck Tian Xia gave them like NOTHING good??). They've gotten better, I don't think I can name a modern ancestry that got fucked over in feat numbers or design. But there really should be "Generic Ancestry Feats" and stuff shit like Natural Ambition, Adopted Ancestry, and General Training in there. It's weird for them to leave such a gaping hole in the design of such despite how excessively freeform ancestries are by default.

My perfect PF3:
>Classes and especially casters have a lot more built in features for subclasses.
>No multiclass archetypes. Just release the class and dev some thematic archetypes that cover bits and pieces of the class like summoner releases with a sister archetype that specs in summon spells.
>Archetypes need to be abit more daring and powerful to be worth dipping into.
>Ancestry is basically your second class and has starting features and feats that are on the same level as your class.
>ARP
>Magic items are rarer and far more powerful. Reduce the investment limit to 3 with certain classes and feats being able to bump it up. Invested items use your Class or Spell DC instead of a flat dc and become stronger with you.
>Caster math is made more lenient.
>General and Skill feat system is overhauled and rebalanced. I have already done this in my game to great success. Paizo are just shit at game design.

>>96045611
This. Everyone who disagrees with me is basically a walking strawman. After all, I'm me and I'm perfect. Why can't all the not mes just love 2e already? It's my favorite game.

>>96047648
>but I don't think they are taking away from class design
The part that makes it feel that way to me is the fact that everything using a class feat system that is AGGRESSIVELY tiered means by and large you expect them all to be equal choices at a given level, but feats have wildly different balances of strength even within a single class and single level tier, let alone across classes and levels. There's no perfect universal fix, I'm just annoyed and shitposting because I don't like how aggressively vertical the access is in a feat system that feels like it wants to be strictly about getting wider, not taller.

>>96047722
Part of my issue with general feats is literally the existence of the generic number booster feats making people seem to forget there ARE any other General feats. Everyone is just taking the same 4 goddamn things.

>kitsune
Yea they're one of the ones that just feel like they got fucked over. Their familiar feat is actually downright insulting for what it is, to say nothing of their shapeshifting. I look at the starfinder shapeshifter and have to inhale copium that a reprint will help.

>>96047673
As much as theater kids like to imagine RPGs are pure improv-- your script as a roleplayer is your character sheet, so if you starting roleplaying as something that is entirely the opposite of what your sheet says it's going to feel like bad roleplaying to the table
Characters need a logic to them so other players can 'yes and'-- if you deify that logic too often and your character isn't believable players do not want to RP with you

It doesn't bother me as a GM, I do it naturally and expected to do so, but other players HATE players who go off script and want to be the perfect/lolrandom main character. This disgust is the very reason why a lot of categories exist in TTRPG: to keep character believable and character scopes in check.

I hope that helps

>>96047800
>There's no perfect universal fix, I'm just annoyed and shitposting because I don't like how aggressively vertical the access is in a feat system that feels like it wants to be strictly about getting wider, not taller.
I get that. Even beyond Paizo-Being-Paizo, never been great at actually creating content when you think about it, it shouldn't be this hard to create a horizontal progression system. There are too many feats that shouldn't be feats and should just be part of the class/subclass progression ala 5e. The number of feats that are just raw power, even by their own design standards and not just a mistake on behalf of some stupid freelancer, compared to the number of feats that are just "why...?" is frustrating. But I don't think any particular thing sinks the core idea of player choice and build freedom, in a hobby that is actively going against the idea of any kind of character building and progression systems at all. Perhaps I'm valuing the attempt being made than actually good results more, but I am attached to this IP as a whole because of the freedom/illusion of choice and creating interesting characters and parties.

that said, their crimes against kitsune kind shall not be forgiven. they have lost the weeb mandate of heaven and shall suffer immense consequences via eternal shitposting until the mofu improves.

>>96047876
>if you starting roleplaying as something that is entirely the opposite of what your sheet says it's going to feel like bad roleplaying to the tabl
This is only a problem if you try and do stuff you're mechanically bad at. Having a Fighter be competent at technical or survival skills isn't defying his character sheet as long as he can actually do them, pretending like you can cast magic would be a problem though if you don't have a caster archetype or something.

Shoot, I even have a smart Fighter myself with Inventor dedication. No one thinks it's weird. He just has a decent breadth of learning, training and and is also well read.

>>96047690
If it's on their sheet and they've built up a good background, it's doesn't feel off script

Ranger has a much better theme and more feats to make it feel cooler I suppose

>>96047920
Reread what I wrote, going off script means drifting too far from what a character believably could do in relation to their character sheet. It doesn't mean you can't do something if not on character sheet though, but it should be believable and follow the logic of the character

The strongest RP characters tend have a strong logic to them that people at the table and GM understand, this is why tropes are so popular when making a character. They're easily understood by others

>>96047743
Post your rebalance

>>96047990
I guess the crux of my confusion is that the start of this convo was about a player ditching Fighter because he didn't have enough to do out of combat, but Fighter has enough power budget that you can take extra fluff options and still be completely competent on the battle map, and they get as many skill increases as any other basic class that isn't Rogue. Going from Fighter to Ranger is not really much of a difference in 'script' leeway, and you could easily build an outdoorsy Fighter character with a little planning, and outside of combat they'd basically be the same PC.

>>96048103
This campaign is almost over, I think his review of level 4-20 fighter is they're fun in combat but feel like a tagalong outside of it when other characters are doing crazy cool stuff at mid-high level

>>96048041
>adds Lucky Feat

Good PF2e series to watch?

>>96048228
There aren't really any. Youtubers quickly realized that there's no money to be made and that the game isn't enjoyable enough to play for fun.

>>96048228
would you really want to watch the people from the larger paizo audience
I struggle to think of something more horrid

>>96048184
What are other martial classes doing out of combat that a Fighter can't though? I guess that's my question. I could see this stance in 5e, my Rogue was never as goddamn sneaky as he got when I multiclassed into Trickster Cleric, but in PF2e it seems pretty simple to be competent out of combat with a little forethought (at least as 'competent' as the system's DC scaling allows). Intimidation is always handy in a pinch for social encounters, you can have your flavor of utility skill like Survival or Crafting, and if you want to be a braniac there's always extra lores. Fighter has the budget to indulge themselves.

I will say that casters get access to loads of really snazzy utility stuff (Guiding Star is probably my favorite spell, thematically) but that comes at the cost of combat resources which can be badly crunched pretty often, depending on the class. I'm just having issues picturing the scenarios in which a Fighter habitually has nothing to contribute to whatever's going on.

>>96048228
Narrative Declaration
King Ooga Ton Ton
Mathfinder
Mythkeeper
Exp to level 3

I find Rules lawyer obnoxious and ideological

>>96048387
I find mathkinder kind of a twat, no matter how accurate his shit may be

>>96048398
He makes plebbit and discord mad asf so he's cool with me

>>96048387
Ooga is funny but he doesn't have any full games right

>>96048426
That's a pretty low bar, they get pissy about everything

>>96048383
I think he feel that way, he went more religious on the fighter learning rituals, but he doesn't do nothing just doesn't feel strong at it and wants a more thematic class

>>96046532
Bard being tied to Occultism is shit

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1lvr2dx/hellfinder_is_almost_here/

Jason Bulmahn is using Pathfinder 2e as the basis for a... modern horror game. To what end, really?

Notably, this was previously called Hopefinder.

>>96050305
>superheroic fantasy powerscaling game
>for horror
bold. brave. stunning. incredible
I guess using pf2e guns is pretty horrifying at times, to be fair

>>96047903
>>96047800
What you don't like your foxfire doing 1d4 extra damage on a crit and only spreading if the enemies start fucking in the middle of combat? It's so bizarre how frontloaded kitsune are. Dark Fields is a legitimately good heritage. If you ever want to make counteract checks, use incap spells, or just know how tough an enemy might be, you can cheat out enemy levels with the reaction. I'm so glad they didn't fuck it over and make it once per day, especially with how easy it is to proc it. And the pest form Change Shape has gotten me out of a lot of jams, giving you better stealth and acrobatics than you can get for a few levels. It's saved my ass quite a bit. We've gotten ambushed a few times at night, but since my character sleeps in her fox form, it's one action to be fully equipped and ready to fight since polymorph just absorbs all your equipment. Another time we had to escape a crumbling temple that was filling with lava, and I just had her jump in our monk's bag while he easily navigated the hazards. I don't think I've seen a use for any other kitsune feat I've had more than once in our campaign , though I'm excited to pick up Fox Trick soon.

>>96046709
Between STR and CON there's only one skill, so it's an imbalanced exception.

>>96050387
I'll be using foxfire on thaumaturge for season of ghosts some time in the future, if we ever wrap up triumph of the tusk on a biweekly schedule
I got a feeling I'm gonna hate it, but I also got a feeling if there's a campaign to hate your character in combat in, it's probably SoG from what I've heard of it. that and I'm playing a fighter right now so I owe some shit-ass character-ness to the DM. but it also seems not too bad with thaumaturge? I really wish there was a decent way to get weapon specialty crits on it, sling's is sick
the orb familiar honestly looks kinda alright to me. for a 1st level ancestry feat you can pick up regenerative familiar and just have a ball in your bag heal you for one non-manipulate action to command familiar, in a pinch, and its reaction to be orc ferocity for an ally within 30 feet is pretty sick. and since it's just an object in your bag it's not in the dangers a familiar usually is. but I'm rocking bell implement, so I doubt I'll ever have my reaction available, and I also won't have the feats to spare for it in a timely manner. I can see it being lame if you're expecting an actual familiar, but for some cheap (ancestry feats are cheap and shitty 99% of the time) opportunity cost you can get some strong defensive utility that can easily prevent some downs. and preventing downs is like the most action efficient thing you could possibly do short of using wall of stone or maze and contributing to the enshittification of casters

not using pest form or dark fields, personally, as good as they are. I went with empty sky because figment is a fun spell. though I might reconsider, since she's planned to be rather unkitsunelike and isn't a lying stealing cheating smug awful bitch, so it's kind of offbase

do we still think champion as a class as just worse than fighter, or has the remaster changed anything?

Coming from 5e obviously 2e is superior but it still has its flaws. Is there some other system that still has the tactical gameplay while being balanced?

>>96050812
Champion was good before and it's doing better overall now, but its feats are still incredibly fucked up.

I think shield of reckoning is actually just a mistake of a feat because it's so good you're stupid to not take it, but it's also locking down your build on a class who already feels like it doesn't get to actually make many real decisions about its feats.

Double fist scrolls going into battle or shield?

>>96051277
Caster's Targe is an option

>>96048228
I thoroughly enjoyed Band of Bravos and laughed all the way

>>96050812
Champion was always on the same tier as Fighter. The Remaster just made it waaaay smoother to build and pilot. Even made the Evil Champs (slightly...) better!
Fighter and Champion lie on different axises of party compositions. They really aren't comparable, and admittedly most of Champion's domination on the tier lists comes from it being the only straightforward Defender in the game up until *next month* with Guardian. Calling it "worse than Fighter" is like saying Bard is a worse healer than Cleric. Teecchhniicaaly true but...not really worth a discussion.

>>96050829
WFRP and Dark Heresy 2e

>>96050829
D&D 4e.
>but i heard it was bad
What you heard was 3ebabies crying that it wasn't 3.75e and/or the complaints of people playing the disgusting "Essentials" version of it that was made to kill the edition in order to generate goodwill over 5e in advance.
Two things to note:
>They changed the way they designed monsters starting in Monster Manual 3. People have made quick formulas you can use to convert older monsters to the new style, and using this will make your experience drastically better.
>As stated above, essentials is a travesty (or at least, the player options in it are). Monster Vault is fine and even contains a lot of MM1/MM2 monsters pre-converted to MM3 style, but essentials classes are horribly designed. Think an entire edition worth of Pf2e Inventors and Psychics.

>>96052162
Power wise its as strong as fighter but design wise its far worse. Champ is carried by its focus spells and reaction. Its feat list is probably the worst designed in the game for a martial and im admittedly still really salty that half of its flavour features from 1e has been gutted from the core class.

Sneak adept+assurance: stealth, does it work or does the word roll in sneak adept mean it doesn't? I've always seen people allowing risky surgery with assurance and that has the same wording.

I just thought about this and it sounds strong but googling it gives no results of people talking about it.

>>96052999
If it has "roll" in it, it doesn't work with Assurance.

>>96052660
Psychic isnt so bad. I do think amp feats are fucking pointless and the classes feats should be more based around reusable psychic abilities similar to Kineticist.

>>96052999
>Assurance, https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5121
>Fortune, General, Skill
>Fortune: A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use. If a fortune effect and a misfortune effect would apply to the same roll, the two cancel each other out, and you roll normally.
>alters how you ROLL your dice

I pretty certain it works, subject to GM decisions as usual

>>96053524
>You can forgo rolling
Please apply the more specific text of the feat instead of the more general text of the trait.

>>96048041
Its all on my foundry but its mostly just rebalances of skill feats from core and team+ content, turning several class feats into skill feats and then making some of my own feats to fill in gaps. The biggest thing is my design stand point is far less averse to feats that allow skill switching.
>>96048203
Lol. A general feat that allows you to start with a second hero point would be a tad too strong.

>>96054203
Link I want to read

>>96054599
Im not linking you my foundry lol

>>96052979
I'm still kind of pissed off that their reaction upgrades are parceled out into feats in ways that are abhorrently limiting, and the focus spells that carry them are basically just... The first ones they get + the 2-4 upgrade feats those take. The only other good focus spells it has access to are domain spells and taking those competes with its shield action compression feat AND its reaction upgrade feats, and then every level up to 12 has a locked-in clear winner for what feat to take because building around Shield of Reckoning is so fucking good that even Justice Champion is better off aiming for it over using a 2H weapon.

>>96056387
I so fucking wish that the Security featline was just 1 feat

>>96056520
If the upgrade feats for LoH and Security at least gave you more focus points, then at least you could have the cope of that. Needing to spend feats to upgrade your class focus spells and not even getting additional uses of said focus spell after spending all those feats is psychotic.

>>96054203
>Lol. A general feat that allows you to start with a second hero point would be a tad too strong.
It really, really wouldn't be at all. I guess in comparison to every other General Feat that's not a member of the Holy Fleet/Toughness/Incredible Initiative trinity it's strong.

>>96056927
Don't forget the ritual of taking canny acumen and then training out of it when it becomes useless, then back into it at 17.

>>96057123
Man I hate that shit, it could at least have the decency to give like, a +1 circumstance or status bonus or something until you become master in that Save. Things that are just useless for massive swaths of the game by design blow ass

>>96057123
Homebrew to fix this shit?

any battlecry news

>>96057337
Homebrew to fix the lack of good General Feats? Well now you're kind of entering into 5e levels of homebrew.

Homebrew to fix Canny Acumen? Probably just "if you would become an Expert in your choice from another source, become a Master in your choice" or something.

>>96057378
The former. or should ai just slap free archetype on and cope with that

>>96057395
Assuming you trust your table, you can kind of outsource that to them. Just ask for ideas of what General Feats they might like to have if they feel the current ones are underpowered.

Obviously shut down anything that's clearly stupid and broken but again assuming you like and trust your players enough to spend minimum 3 hours a week hanging out then that shouldn't be much of an issue.

Anyone got a personal list of some of the most choice potions to craft with brew potion feat? I've only been playing for a few months and using the artemis-tabletop to search up spells for non-personal potions, but I don't have a lot of experience.

my list so far
-Air Bubble
-Ape walk
-Aura of the unremarkable
-Bless
-bless weapon
-burrow
-Detect magic
-detect secret doors
-detect snares and pits
-Ears of the City
-Expeditious Construction
-Expeditious Excavation
-Fabricate Bullets
-Faerie Fire
-Feather Fall
-Floating Disk
-Fly
-Glibness
-Hanspur's Flotsam Vessel
-Heightened Awareness
-Heroism
-Hide from Undead
-Hide from Animals
-Incendiary Runes
-Infernal Healing
-Invisibility
-Keyhole
-Lesser restoration
-Lighten Object
-Lose The Trail
-Mount
-Obscuring Mist
-Pass without trace
-Protection from ____
-Remove fear
-Sanctuary
-Spider climb
-Vanish

Anything else?

>>96052999
I've been told it does not because Assurance is not a roll. Makes sense RAW but does feel sort of annoying.

>>96027519
Alright. What two scrolls would you walk into battle as a monk cleric to maximize value.