Darksol the Painbringer's page

The issue with Necromancy as an Arcane school is that Necromancy is mechanically rooted in Divine tradition. To identify Undead (or other similar creatures), you need a Religion skill, not an Arcana skill. Sure, there is Additional Lore (Necromancy), but that's honestly not very helpful, nor is it baseline to the school.

Also, all the other Undead/Necromancy-based options (Sorcerer Bloodline, Summoner Eidolon, etc.) are all Divine. Not Arcane. They have more/stronger spells related to Necromancy on top of it all, meaning Arcane spellcasters are at a serious disadvantage by comparison.

Honestly, the whole "Arcane Necromancy" trope doesn't really fit well with Golarion mechanically (and by consequence, narratively), and is ultimately a holdover of both PF1 as well as classic tropes that seemingly don't function well here anymore. Even with Tar-Baphon and Geb, they are able to do so because the setting/plot lets them, and are ultimately anomalous artifacts of what is typical within the setting/mechanics.

I totally disagree that medium armor is a trap option. The difference between medium and heavy armor is literally 1 AC point, and unless you are a champion or take sentinel, the armor specialization bonuses literally don't matter. Not to mention that medium armor specialization bonuses aren't bad either, worse than heavy, but not bad either.

Medium armor also allows you to get your Dex at +1 and forget it exists for the rest of the campaign, while heavy armor if you aren't proficient with it already takes away a feat you could have used for something else. In all honesty, I feel heavy armor for certain classes is more trouble than its worth really.

Bulwark says hi.

You can say that you don't need Dexterity as a stat with Medium armor, up until the point you get absolutely destroyed by a breath weapon or a spell.

Speaking as an ex high level champion, this was precisely how I got destroyed in a lot of combats. Neglecting Reflex Saves is not much different than neglecting HP, since there is usually a correlation between the two.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype.

The armour specialization benefits of medium armour armour are often better. It is lighter on the dex requirements. It is a valid alternative.

Who gets armor specialization?

-Champions (and their dedication tree)
-Fighters
-some Sentinels

That is it. Two classes and a couple archetypes which it is feat-locked for. For what, up to 4 less damage on certain types of strikes? Hardly groundbreaking or a significant balance point compared to most other things you get. Justifying the feat expenditure is very hard since it isn't available until higher level anyway, and class feats are usually more important the higher level you get, especially as a martial.

As for the whole "less Dex" argument, you are suggesting it is worthwhile to constantly critically fail Reflex Saves to maintain the same semblance of AC that a light armored character has. Whereas you could just bump Dexterity like everyone else and not be crippled when a Fireball comes your way. And there is no Bulwark trait to handicap that choice with Medium Armor.

Is anyone suggesting that they intend to take this feat without warrior muse? Nethys seems to be suggesting that warrior muse is a requirement here.

But, really, if you're talking about this feat and then complaining that it means that you have to make strikes, you're looking at it wrong. The point of this feat is that it's for bards who already want to make strikes. If you are not already a bard who wants this thing, then this feat is not for you. If you are already that kind of bard, then it's a nice little action efficiency booster on the martial strikes you were already going to make.

Pointless distinction is pointless to make.

Bards making strikes isn't a problem. Basing your spellcasting/buffing efficiency on making strikes is where the problem is, since you can very easily have several rounds where you do nothing but apply a song, whiff, and move or do nothing with your third action, all because your strike rolls are garbage or you're up against a really high AC foe.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Farien wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Everyone stop looking at the Alchemist and his weird half-baked science fair project, you trying to poke holes in his theory is making the guy self-conscious and sad that he didn't work harder.

Exactly. Everyone should be looking at the Blowgun instead.

Oh, wait...

Fun fact, Striking Runes wouldn't work on a Blowgun either for the same reasons Gravity Weapon wouldn't apply to a non-dice-based Alchemist Bomb. No dice = no damage bonus.

Blowguns are forever trapped at dealing 1 point of damage period, even if it is a +4 Major Striking Blowgun.

The most expensive paperweight in the game, I think.

Which indicates that your ruling of 'no dice = no damage bonus' is a ruling with problematic repercussions and doesn't work as intended.

It's really not. The important things that have damage dice still function, whereas things that don't have damage dice do not. When the rules are expressly written to include certain kinds of things and exclude other kinds of things, and don't create problematic rules interactions, the idea that it doesn't work as intended when it actually effects everything that it's intended to effect, doesn't really track.

Just as well, it's not really an issue, and you trying to make one exist when it doesn't even affect 99.99% of games is such a non-factor that I can't even take the argument seriously. This is like that time I argued that a spell that can target 20 creatures but having a range of touch doesn't function to its listed optimal potential; there comes a point in time to just let the stupidity go since it doesn't matter if it is adjusted or not.

IMO it's about the damage dice going 1d4, 1d3, 1d2, all the way down to 1. So a die-upgrade would bring it up to 1d2 (though perhaps even 1d4, I don't recall if PF2's die-ladder mirrors the one PF1/3.X used to have.)

Funny you should mention that, since by RAW, Blowguns cannot also benefit from die size increases, as the result of 1 is not factored into the die size increase chart, nor can we be certain that it would increase to 1D2, 1D3, or 1D4. Or even straight to 1D6.

I seriously want to know who is using a Blowgun at 20th level as their primary weapon for this to be an issue, and as for alchemical bombs, those things are so poorly written as a mechanic that I think I would have much rather preferred pre-errata Battle Medicine over that garbage.

Would Synesthesia, as written, be too strong as a 6th level spell? 7th? Too weak for 9th?

Genuine question. I don't have a dog in the hunt.

Asking for a level change doesn't really help much, especially since it has a 9th level Heighten entry which gives it pretty potent uses for multiple weaker enemies. That being said, there are ways to balance the spell out without changing the spell level.

1. Give it the Incapacitate trait. This means you can't just trounce a high level boss with a 5th level spell by them either rolling bad or having a bad save being targeted. It also means that if you want this kind of debilitating power to use against higher level enemies, you need to spend up for it. Plenty of other save/suck spells have this trait, why shouldn't this one, which gives 3 significant debuffs, compared to other ones which do not?

2. Reduce the overall durations/effects of the spell. On a success, make it only inflict Clumsy 1, a Flat 3 for targeting/spellcasting, and -5 movement for a round. This enforces the 'still does something on a success' while not making it extremely powerful as it usually is. On a failure, apply the full normal effect for a round, enforcing that when enemies fail the spell, it's still extremely powerful. On a critical failure, apply the full effect for a minute. This still gives it its niche, but also doesn't turn it into a complete save/suck spell. It also works quite well with the likes of True Target, et. al., giving your party a single round to absolutely wreck a given enemy.

3. Make it accessible to other spell lists, like Arcane and maybe even Divine. Now, instead of requiring a specific class of spellcaster, other spellcasters can inflict this spell effect and won't feel left out of doing what is likely a key component of their class for the party.

4. Have each effect produce its own save, which each Critical Failure instead inflicting a stacking Stunned 1. This means the spell might be effective sometimes and sometimes not; I think this would be an interesting thing to implement, giving it both a unique mechanic as well as an unusual/occult element to it, but I probably wouldn't do this both to keep the spell simple, as well as because it can still inflict serious problems if you roll bad on just one of these saves.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say?

It really doesn't, not when only 10 of those feats are any good, and maybe 50 of those spells are any good. When you have only a couple feats over the course of a few levels worth taking, and only a few spells over the course of a few levels worth taking, the idea that there is a decision paralysis to be had doesn't track.

Honestly, the amount of "dead" or nothingburger spells in the Arcane list or class feats for spellcasters, simply means that it's bloated with useless options, it doesn't add much to the decision-making other than another "Nah, this sucks." At best, it makes newer players waste more time to go through a majority of useless options to essentially either stick to the same optimized loadout that most spellcasters already take, and at-worst, they slip into the 'trap' options that Paizo keeps printing out; and players who played spellcasters in the past wonder why they're boring or uninspired.

You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.

Sifting through the trash isn't really a complex thing, but it is a menial and time-consuming task, since you might actually find something useful among the trash, and I can understand players not liking spellcasters from this perspective. However, this isn't really a "decision paralysis" thing; to make it "decision paralysis," you have to have numerous good options that have strong parity against one another. Having a dozen trash options and one or two good options with clear distinct niches does not constitute "decision paralysis," because it becomes clear that if you build Path A, you take Option A, and if you build Path B, you take Option B. The other options don't matter, even if you decide to make up a Path C.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.

It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.

So you add Gravity Weapon bonus to Blight Bomb but not for Acid Flask?

Yes. No dice = no bonus.

The answer is clear: no weapon dice = no damage bonus.

It would be like asking if Gravity Weapon applies while using a Silver weapon with Grapple trait to grab an enemy with a weakness to Silver.

Armor Proficiency as a feat is really only worthwhile if you only ever scale to Expert Armor; the issue is that a lot of these classes that are limited to Expert proficiency usually don't possess any of the higher proficiencies to begin with, such as most spellcasters. Sorcerers, Wizards, Witches, etc. all don't get any proficiencies past Expert, and also don't even have any proficiences to begin with.

There are some classes that do have proficiencies with armor that don't scale up past Expert, such as Druids, Warpriests, and Bards, but if you are a class that scales to Master (at 19th), by the endgame you will probably want to retrain to acquire Sentinel. Of course, since most games don't make it to 20th level, the odds of such a choice having a serious impact on your game will be highly unlikely.

Or what could we rename the mimic? Hungry Object? Faker? Poser?

Or, of course, the Owlbear? Raptorbear? Birdbear if you're feeling alliterative?

Our group hasn't run into a mimic yet, but we have dealt with the legally distinct Bearowl, so there is that. It can even fly/glide some with its vestigial wings, whereas Owlbears just have beaks and bird eyes/head instead of jaws.

As for the Mimic, I will probably rename them as Imitators, adding to their already devious and deceptive/copying nature.

Reach Spell only affects the Range at which you can affect an enemy with a spell; that is, the Range entry of the spell. Dizzying Colors does not have a Range entry, therefore it does nothing to it. The listed value is for its Area, a whole different metric entirely. To adjust this value, that is what the Widen Spell feat is for.

So it seems there is general consensus on the effect of dying values with force barrage but a player just raised another issue with the spell for us.

The GM targeting Sitsi with 2 missiles targeted a second PC with a third missile. Foundry VTT only lets you roll one 1d4+1 at a time with this spell, so we’ve been doing it where we roll once for each missile, but apparently 5e with magic missile does it where you only roll 1 time and then apply this result to all missiles. Apparently foundry does this with PF2 as well because of the simultaneous damage rule, but that feels wrong to me, but maybe my instinct is off. How do other people resolve a rank 1 casting of force barrage with 3 actions? Do you roll each missile separately? Do you roll once for all missiles? Is there a clear rules reason for this or just personal preference?

The reason I dislike rolling only one d4 and applying it to all missiles, even if they were all targeting different enemies is that it makes the spell 25% chance max damage, 25% chance minimum damage for 50% if all results with every casting. That just feels off compared to other spells. Rolling max (or min) damage with 6,9,12 or even more missiles seems very off to me as far as spell intention. What do you all think?

5E isn't ran this way, and sounds more like an issue of VTT glitching/laziness than an actual rules issue, since the written rule is quite clear, each missile does 1D4+1 damage, and each missile's damage total is combined to a singular total before applying it to an enemy.

I just finished painting Reaper’s Henchmen & Hirelings boxed set, and it has the topic of hirelings on my mind more generally, and I was thinking about a Cleric hiring out of the Henchman’s and Hireling’s Guild.

But since my knowledge of the Golarion deities is a little sketchy, I decided to see who folks thought would fit that bill.

As others have said, Abadar is a solid choice since it's literally a God of money and cities and stuff. Granted, their weapon of choice isn't the greatest (Crossbow), but it is still something.

Asmodeus is up there, though is more about sticking it to them with the fine print than being an actual adventurer. Still, if you dot your eyes and cross your tees, it can be functional.

Cayden Cailean might be interested as well, even if the payment is free room and board and all the booze you can drink.

Heck, even Gorum might work if killing is involved; they aren't ones to shy away from a fight.

Well, if the idea is "Urgathoa dying means all her undeath reaches all the corpses of Golarion," then the concept of "Killing goddess of undeath = unstoppable undead tide forms" makes sense. For those saying that she should just end herself and let this come to pass, it is entirely possible that either A. She cannot kill herself by her own means, and baiting someone who can into doing so is probably not a wise decision, B. She still has instinctual self-preservation (which is why she won't just kill herself), meaning she won't kill herself for her own subjects, or C. Killing herself will release Rovagug, which would end up destroying everything on Golarion anyway, including the undead she loves, making it a pointless "sacrifice" for undead to take control of the world.

Also, on the topic of Razimir:

He could be an unaware Clone or avatar of Nethys that got 'spun off' during that deity's Ascension and not activated until a given event or something.

Razmir is the 'little engine that tries to become a deity but ultimately never will,' and as a result it's impossible for him to ever become a god, nor is he easily manipulated to the point that he could be the spawn or clone of a god, so him ever becoming a part of the Core 20 (or even as a deity choice for Clerics et. al.) won't happen, and him being the contingency for Nethys also likely won't happen.

Put simply, the memery behind Razmir suggests he won't change, even if we end up in a PF3, or if he somehow makes it into SF2.

We've had talks about that too, yup. The total lack of international relations is pretty funny.

I would imagine that this is largely to keep themed adventures self-contained and not have them spill into every other different region in the world, but the idea that no nation ever has formed an alliance or has declared war or secures trade agreements, etc. seems absurd, especially since there is plenty of lore that suggests these things do happen in-world (even if it's often in regards to whether certain nations are warring or not).

I mean, it's not difficult to ascertain that, say, Riddleport gets shipments in from Magnimar for goods, for example. But because this isn't particularly relevant to the plot, it makes sense that the setting doesn't really spell this out in any fine or even particular detail (unless an AP or something focuses on this as a plot point).

This is a really cool dragon concept, one that is extremely flexible in its applications. It can be one that was a double agent for a warring nation. It can be one that wants to bring closure to lost loved ones by transforming into their image. Heck, it could even be a 'fashion' dragon that just wants to be the newest fad of Golarion!

I am appreciating the effort going into making these dragons significantly different both from themselves as well as the original source material. I'm drawing a much better connection to these dragons compared to the originals, and honestly, I might throw this at my GM based on the current homebrew going on at one of my tables, because this would be the perfect subterfuge/espionage.

My complaint for runes is the lack of "lesser" runes for lower level characters, and the ironic part is that Paizo has already laid the groundwork for it all by nature of their Troubles in Otari/Beginner Box magic items. Plenty of these magic items are a basic "+1 Weapon with 1 [element goes here] damage," which is quite exciting, and also adds spice to ABP groups, whom don't get magic items almost ever (at least, not for the first like 5+ levels or so).

We already have a baseline for their overall power, which is 1 [element goes here] damage, and we can easily incorporate the rules for their relevant ancillary effects, price, requirements, etc. from the existing standard runes.

Is a rogue with Disappearance and Blank Slate really as brutal as it seems?

I cast this spell after getting Blank Slate in a dual class rogue/magus game and it was like I was unlocatable. Nothing could challenge this invisibility other than a Seek check just to locate the square you are in and you're still invisible or a non-divination spell like faerie fire hitting you. It works against all senses and blank slate blocks nearly every possible divination locate you.

How do some DMs deal with this combination?

There isn't a whole lot, but there's a few things:

1. Make yourself impossible to hurt/damage. Fly away from them, throw up an Anti-Magic Field, Heightened True Seeing, etc. This will make them either waste time/resources to get to you, or it will make their tactic effectively pointless.

2. AoE Attacks. You might not know the precise square, but you can still guess the area they might be in and snuff them out that way. If you can nuke the entire room (all without hurting yourself), then their invisibility doesn't matter there, either. Bonus points if you affect the other party members too, but I can understand that being tough since tactical players make doing this tactic not very smart.

3. Create consequences for attacking you. Fire Shield et. al. are good examples of this, since these do damage without you needing to target the invisible person. The stronger the better; plenty of enemies in higher levels have such abilities on their person, so make sure to use them.

4. Put more pressure on their allies; just because you can't deal with the invisible character doesn't mean you can't force more punishment on the other PCs (that would have otherwise gone to the invisible PC). Downed PCs hurts the party's action economy bad, and if the invisible PC cares about their party members, they will spend actions getting them back up instead of killing your monsters, which gives your monsters more longevity.

Cool. We gonna get Mithril, Orichalcum, and Cold Iron dragons too?

It's a countdown. That by definition also makes it a duration.

Be it long time home groups, short term pickup groups, convention groups, or random society groups; online or off, for over 30 years, they have all--without exception--ruled that a roll of a 1 meant the creature could use their breath weapon in the following round, potentially allowing for consecutive rounds of breath weapon use.

This notion that it is not a duration and that you must skip a round, right or wrong, is absolutely a foreign concept in my (extensive) experience.

Anyone else notice how Mark Seifter likes to shake things up with his unofficial comments?

Except this proposes that 1D4 = 1D4-1, which makes no sense as a mathematical construct, since you can have results of 1=0. And no sane person would propose 1=0.

It also wouldn't be the first time that things which have been "established" for years turned out to actually be wrongly played the entire time. Errata simply brings these things to light.

That being said, the rules for building creatures makes the intent crystal clear: breath weapons cannot be used in consecutive rounds, meaning the interpretation resulting in breath weapons in consecutive rounds is incorrect as of PF2.

And no, the arguments of "critical hits recharge the breath weapon" doesn't change that.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Why should it be allowed?

What...? Because that's literally how the rules work. It's not a loophole just because you don't happen to like the way things are.

A GM who isn't following the rules--and hasn't alerted his players well in advance that he had no intention of following the rules of the game they all came together to play--is doing a grave disservice to his table.

If the developers wanted it to work differently, they would have put a different system in place.

What makes it a loophole is that you are getting 8 hours out of a spell that would normally take a slot that following day to acquire its benefits. Same goes for things like Wands, Staves, etc. You are getting a use/expending charges from the previous day for something that would normally cost charges that following day to do. It's not as bad for instantaneous spells (like Heal, Soothe, etc.), but it's still noticeable for them too, since those will still impact whether you have to expend slots to heal up the following day, or for whether you need to save time from doing Medicine checks instead, and so on.

As for changing the system, not really, all it really needs is a clarification or clause that states previously cast spells end once daily preparations are finished (except for those "until next daily preparation" spells whose slots have been expended for, of course). Super simple to implement and enforce, doesn't break the balance of the game, etc.

So even though PF2e encounters are balanced around the party going in with full resources, rest casting still falls under "too good to be true?"

Because "rest-casting" is going beyond full resources in a given day, on purpose, which goes against the set balance point.

Question: how does the Starlit Span archer do with lesser/standard cover being an impact? When I was playing a sniper gunslinger, I constantly had to work around that, and Starlit Span, as presented, seems to need a lot of those 3-action turns, especially if you're recharging manually instead of conflux.

Starlit Span specifically has a Conflux spell that works around it compared to any other Hybrid Study.

Sure Strike also works around it as well.

I really just don't like how easy and safe starlit span is while melee magus feel extraordinarily clunky and hard to keep safe

It's why some people argued that Starlit Span should be in Arcane Cascade to be able to utilize Spellstrike at all, and honestly, all the melee Magi should be able to ignore AoOs from Spellstrike while Arcane Cascade is active; yes, it's forced action economy, but melee is already incentivized to use Arcane Cascade for bonus damage, and Starlit Span basically has no reason to ever utilize Arcane Cascade (unless they Switch-hit, which isn't really a smart way to build Starlit Span IMO).

While I don't really want to engage in this back and forth debate, I wanted to say that I feel that the rules about Move actions that do no leave a square (I assume this is what everyone is referring to when they say "stationary move action") are pretty clear.

Player Core pg. 422 wrote:

If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.

My understanding is the developers designed it this way so that you couldn't disrupt an enemy to keep them on the ground if they were standing up from Prone, as described in the following video:

Ask a Paizo Designer #17: Do Reactions Triggered by Standing Prevent the Enemy from Standing?

While I don't disagree with this, the problem is that the rules don't actually express this intent appropriately; Stand Still's wording doesn't preclude this potential disruption from happening by RAW, and it's not like Stand Still is specific enough to apply strictly to movement, and not just actions with the Move trait.

In the original rules, it used to be that each action in the Cast a Spell activity had its own traits (such as Concentrate for Verbal, Manipulate for Somatic/Material, etc.), and it basically clarified that if any of those actions are unable to be completed (such as by being disrupted or otherwise being unable to act mid-action), the entire activity is similarly wasted; if you follow the example they give, the intent is pretty clear.

It's relatively outdated now, and should be clarified, since I imagine not all things are like what Cast a Spell used to be.

Reactive Strike disrupts actions if you roll a crit. So yeah, at that point it kinda needs to resolve first. When you roll a crit.

I'm not sure how I am supposed to quote a rules citation for Reactive Strike not specifying if it resolves before or after the triggering action when it doesn't crit. Quoting text that doesn't exist is a bit difficult. But its non-existence would be my citation for saying that Reactive Strike does not specify whether it resolves before or after. Feel free to post a rules citation that contradicts my claim that such a rule does not exist.

And the first post in this thread contains the rules citation for stating that if the order is not specified, then the GM decides which resolves first.

Uh, no, the trigger determines the order from which the reaction takes place, and not the resolution of the reaction: When the creature declares it is performing an Interact action, the trigger for Reactive Strike is met (a creature is performing an action with the Manipulate trait), and the Reactive Strike is executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves. The argument of "Reactive Strike takes place afterward" makes no sense because then the action is complete and the Reactive Strike no longer has a trigger to work from, ergo you would never be able to apply Reactive Strike if the argument is that, sometimes, it applies afterward.

And you said it yourself: There is no hard rule that states that Reactive Strike's resolution varies based on its result(s), not even the potential disruption that you put so much emphasis on for determining when it takes place (which, again, would be in direct conflict of its trigger if we treated it as such), so this supposition of "Well, Reactive Strike only occurs first if it disrupts" likewise has no basis.

I honestly believe this whole thread strawmanned the meaning of that paragraph, because this is likely talking more about if two Reactions on the same Action take place (such as if two Reactive Strikes triggered on the same Interact), and not about whether Reactions can or cannot circumvent Actions (which, when they are specifically designed to do so, goes against that design principle to argue that they sometimes can't).

That was my argument though, dunno where you got the "zero investment" from. You DON'T need to invest to having 3 legendary profiencies. Having 3 legendary skills means you have invested to be super good in 3 skills(or perhaps its for your dumb stat, but you still want to keep rolling the skill for roleplaying reasons. Or perhaps you just wanted skill's legendary skill feats even if you never roll it) and not that good in any other skill, while game math wise its not too bad to spread them around to be like legendary in 1, and master in 4 or legendary in 1 and expert in 8.

Sidenote, Age of Ashes isn't really best example of "standard experience"

I disagree. Plenty of things in this game requires a minimum proficiency to attempt things related to skills, and when you have 4 players in a party, that is 12 Legendary skills (if not more with a Rogue/Investigator in the party). When the cost of Expert skills is the denial of Legendary skills, it's extremely hard to justify those costs when the hardest content demands Legendary skills.

If a published official Paizo AP does not count as a standard experience then any relevance of standards likewise can be dismissed, including your "standard DCs." Really, the only reason that AP didn't end in TPK right there was specifically because of the non-standard effects we had; I am willing to admit that without the added "buffs" the AP provided, it would probably TPK any party.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained. And the game assumes that all relevant skills will be boosted to Legendary if you want any modicum of success for them.

Oki, why do people keep claiming this point? Its straight up not how game math works. Level 20 DC is 40. If you have +4 stat, expert skill, no item bonuses or circumstance bonuses, you succeed on dc with 12. In that scenario only thing legendary proficiency does is lower success number to 8, which you can already do with alternate ways to get bonuses or item bonuses. If you absolutely min max skills, +38 skill bonus is only "required" if you want to consistently succeed against level 25 DC 50 skill tasks.

Like yeah, don't get me wrong, legendary proficiency is super useful, but all game math "requires" at high levels is minimum bonus of around +8 from combination of proficiency and stat modifier.

And I kinda want to avoid assumption that players only face higher level challenges of skill, hazard or creature sort and thus only those are relevant when it comes to theory crafting.

Game assumes you will have 3 Legendary skills at 20th level (6 if you are Rogue/Investigator), and that only 4 of your 6 attributes will be 18 or higher; this whole "+4 and Expert training" is already going against the grain because unless it is a save-based skill, you aren't likely to have +4 or higher for it, and that Expert training is likely the reason you are lacking a Legendary skill, which gives you unprecedented power with that skill via feat scaling and/or proficiency requirements. Again, for people saying they are doing "zero investment," they sure like moving the goalposts to their favor in an attempt to demonstrate their point.

As for 20th level challenges, very rarely will you be facing creatures that are also 20th level. And if they are 20th level, they are usually way overstatted for that level. The hardest fight in AoA is 3 level 20 "unique" creatures that would thrash any other equal level creature because they are purposefully beefed up compared to other creatures at that level (or even creatures of a higher level); and no, we are not talking about the Elite template.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained. And the game assumes that all relevant skills will be boosted to Legendary if you want any modicum of success for them.

This is said all the time, but it really isn't true - a standard 10th level DC is 27, and if you're trained in an INT-based skill with a +4 in INT at that level (i.e. started at a +2, not super invested), you can buy a super-cheap +1 item bonus to the skill to end up with 10 level + 2 trained + 4 int + 1 item = +17, needing a 10 on the dice to succeed. Even at higher levels, a standard 15th level DC is 34, and if you're trained in an INT-based skill with a +5 INT, you can get a +2 item bonus for 15 level + 2 trained + 5 INT + 2 item = +24, again succeeding on a 10. I'd love for INT to give a few more skill increases over the course of the game - I like the suggestion for getting a every INT mod increase over +4 giving you a skill increase. But pretending that you need Legendary for a modicum of success just isn't true - a dirt-cheap item bonus and a decent ability score will often get you close to a 50/50 shot for on-level checks.

You're acting like this requires zero/minimal investment, which is just plain untrue. There's a few issues with that being the case:

1. You are having an 18 Intelligence by 10th Level. This usually comes at the cost of other attributes not being at 18 (or higher), and is assuming you are starting with an Intelligence of at least 14 or higher, which is usually because you are invested in Intelligence due to your class. And if not, well, then that means you've dumped one of the other main attributes to reach this level, which comes at an opportunity cost that is hard to justify for what little Intelligence otherwise provides to characters in general, undermining the whole "zero investment" argument you're presenting.

2. Buying a "cheap" item does both go against your investment totals as well as your potential item "slots," meaning if you have two items that occupy the same slot (that isn't a ring, necklace, etc.), then it's competing for other items as well, which again, undermines the "zero investment" argument, because now I have to invest in a slot that I otherwise wouldn't have invested in, and if I'm already pushing my investment slots, I will have to either ditch the item bonus, or ditch one of my other investments.

3. Standard DCs aren't that standard; they kind of oxymoronic. The only times I see "Standard DCs" mentioned are in regards to class abilities requiring a DC, like the Bard Focus spells, or the Inventor feature, in which case odds are you are investing fully (or almost fully) into that to maximize the effectiveness of your class abilities, in which case, so much for "zero investment." Otherwise, looking at DCs in regards to monsters and hazards, they don't follow those rules, and things like the Rarity rules boost those "Standard DCs" into a much harder category, hence the Legendary demand. There's also the aspect of certain things outright requiring a certain proficiency to even attempt, like the checks for finding/disarming traps, or scaling effects on abilities/feat access. Guess Trained is good enough for everything, right? Let's not forget the Static DCs, which are either pretty basic and don't require any investment, or can be solved via Follow the Expert most of the time, and the other half of the time can be done via spells or other subterfuge, meaning even the argument of "invest in it for the Static DC challenges" doesn't hold water.

The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained. And the game assumes that all relevant skills will be boosted to Legendary if you want any modicum of success for them. Given that Trained to Legendary is a whopping 6 point differential, it's basically a Nat 20 fisher, which you already are doing anyway (in which case, why bother with the training if it doesn't change much). Even if the argument is "Well, you get access to more Trained skill activities," this still falls under the previous statement's problem, which is that in the higher levels, it falls off really fast, meaning having the capacity to do that skill activity is really, really worthless. By 10th level, Trained skills lose a lot of relevance, since the game is assuming you're running around with Master (or at the very least, Expert) skills.

The Bonus Languages aren't necessarily a bad thing, but when you have access to feats like Multilingual, and are already boosting Society as a skill (to get more out of your Multilingual feat[s]), eventually getting access to Legendary Linguist, the added languages lose value. Not to mention there are spells that fill this niche as needed.

Recall Knowledge is also iffy (even if now it's streamlined), because not all Recall Knowledge keys off of Intelligence. Society, Crafting, Arcana, Occult, and any Lore skills do, but Nature, Religion, and even Medicine do not. Speaking as someone who played an Investigator all the way up to 14th level (at which point we TPK'd), and taking all the relevant Recall Knowledge feats, the amount of times I was stymied by a lack of both skill training (i.e. scaling to Master) or by it being non-Intelligence based (and therefore not worth investing since I have other attributes to boost), was so massive that I ultimately felt like I wasted these feats, since the odds of me finding out any useful information was pointless, or we just never fought enemies of a favored subtype. (It also doesn't help that I am relatively familiar with certain monsters, meaning from a meta-game perspective, Recall Knowledge is already a pretty niche use, but even despite that, the Reason Rapidly feat was basically an action burner just for the sake of burning actions.)

The "Int to Attack," while it seems neat on paper, isn't really helpful because you are having to expend two actions for it (one for rolling, one for committing to the attack), and if you fail the first roll, you're committing two other actions to either make a piddly attack on another target, or are having to expend separate actions instead (which likely aren't offensive, or even still have their limits). Even if you succeed the roll, you're still limited to one set of "sneak attack" damage per round, while we look at Rogues who can get upwards of 3, 4, or even 5 Sneak Attacks in a round, depending on their build. And what does Investigator get for it? Not enough to warrant its significant weakness in damage.

There are definitely ways to tweak Intelligence to make it more desired (even if not right away), but as it stands, it's not very helpful, and even for classes who utilize Intelligence as a main attribute, it's feelsbad compared to other classes who use Wisdom or Charisma.

Orikkro wrote:

There was 4 printings of the CRB already in a few short years. I foresee at least that much if not more for PC1,2 GM Core.

I'm not sure what you gain by only buying PDFs. They are not updated any more frequently than the physical books. And they have all the same errors as the physical books.

You're kidding, right? There's plenty of reason to sticking to PDFs. If I spend a standard amount on a PDF, but I could spend three times as much on a physical book, and I only use it for convenient rules reference, it's quite clear which is the more economically sound choice from a consumer perspective. Sometimes people don't want to spend triple the value for a physical copy of something when an electronic version does the same thing, except probably better in a lot of cases, such as searching for certain things; a glossary only does so much.

Also, while it is true that PDFs don't get updated any more frequently than physical copies, when PDFs do get updated, you can simply go download the new version and delete the old one if the concern is you want to play with updated rules, no added cost, and very little hassle. With books, you have to go out and spend another 60+ dollars (or whatever it costs in whichever country you hail from) to get an updated version, and then you're left with an outdated, not-as-helpful book that you can either scrap or use as campfire accelerant. Or, you can go and physically alter the book yourself with the changes, but it becomes tedious after awhile, and you can easily miss things, meaning it might not be as accurate compared to going out and actually buying an old printing instead, and having to physically alter them does affect their resale value if you're wanting to sell them back (to a collector, for example).

Off the top of my head:

-Don't force players to take a bad DaS roll to fight an enemy; DaS is feast or famine in most fights, and in some fights (solo bosses) is completely useless if you have a streak of bad rolls. Even third actions have their limits, between Demoralize, Battle Medicine, etc. And having to take two third actions because you roll bad once isn't compelling or helpful gameplay.

-Intelligence is a bad stat in the game, so forcing them to boost it instead of a stat they use for combat is pretty feelsbad. Also, if the Investigator is meant to be the detective type, having them be Wisdom-based makes more sense IMO because it becomes more of a sense of intuition than book smarts. That isn't to say book smarts is bad, but the best detectives use good intuitions to solve cases, not textbook knowledge.

Might post more later, but I would need to actually sit down and think it out.

Well, going further than Broken means it is Destroyed, which makes it to where nothing is salvageable except maybe Talismans.

Otherwise, if the item is merely Broken, they should; the runes are part of the item, so repairing the item would include fixing the runes as well.

Players casting fireball in a room full of people with no one having a chance of figuring out who cast the spell is not something I would ever allow as a GM and would strongly caution any GM from considering. Pathfinder 2e is not “mass murderer the role playing game.”

The feat doesn't mean you can't ever be pinpointed as being the spellcaster behind a given magical effect, especially if you start doing suspicious stuff afterwards (or suspicious magical effects emanate from you). It also doesn't mean you're going to go around and murderhobo everyone (even if it is indeed a possibility, probably something that's been done long before this feat came to pass), so we can take these claims of badwrongfun and pitch them into the trash where they belong.

It just means they won't immediately identify you as casting a spell, which is precisely what the feat is accomplishing and what the feat is meant to accomplish. The feat doesn't deny people from putting two and two together, or from taking guesses amongst the crowd and getting lucky by identifying one of the PCs as the spellcaster, like you seem to think it doesn't.

The nature of subtle spells appears to be "you don't notice when someone is in the process of casting the spell, but you can notice what it does." Which suggests that more "countering the spell as it is cast" you'd be more interested in a counteract check to dispel the effect.

Like if someone is lurking around while invisible, or you found out the duke has been mind controlled you want to end the magical effect, not "prevent it from being cast in the first place" because of how causality works.

This is, I think, how subtle spells are supposed to work. It's less clear how this is supposed to work with "using conceal spell to make fireball subtle."

Yeah, it works against Counterspell because Counterspell attempts to stop the effect from coming into place, it doesn't stop an effect already in place; that's what Dispel Magic is for. (Or Remove Curse if you're Cursed. Or whatever it might be.) And it's not like this feat prevents a magical effect that it creates from being dispelled.

Fireball would be more subtle than Lightning Bolt because the effect isn't originating from yourself; using spells like Burning Hands or Acid Arrow would quite clearly be problematic, since these effects originate from you. Other effects would be significantly harder to pinpoint the origin from.

I often wonder if Daze was written the way it is, is because they were flirting with the idea of making it a 1-action cantrip.

I don't think so; if there would be any spell-based effect(s) that would warrant being 1-action, it would be attack roll based spells simply because for players they are highly inaccurate compared to save-based effects which still do something on a successful save.

If it was 1-action, then I could see the justification for it being awful (since then you could spam it 3 times in a round), and even if that seemed a bit much, limiting it to once per round would still be adequate, since now the big draw isn't just that it's a Will Save effect, but also because it's good on action economy and still does something offensively.

From my reading of the pre-remaster rules, maybe there is funny business with finishing off an undead with nonlethal attacks, because they can't be knocked out and nonlethal damage can't kill a foe, but there is no issue otherwise.

The remastered monster core is going to see a lot less undead with immunity to the mental trait, especially after the book of the dead has made it so that there are many zombies and skeletons that can think. I think James Jacobs said something about that in one of the paizo con panels.

Non-lethal damage doesn't kill, but Undead have special rules which state that they are destroyed when they hit 0 HP (just like constructs), meaning it doesn't matter if you try to finish them off with non-lethal or not; 0 HP = destroyed undead/construct, it doesn't matter how it gets there.

It is perfectly fine for tables to write daze off as a bust. It is hardly unique in that place. If your table places negative value on nonlethal damage then that is kinda the end of the story.

But if you are trying not to kill an enemy, your spell options are terribly limited and daze is actually the best cantrip available to you, no matter how bad it is, because it is the only option available to you without spending a class feat that will be competing with all the level 1 and 2 feats for most casters. I too think the version we ended up with is probably an extra conservative, probably excessively conservative, revision away from something else that was going to be tried, but it was probably a combination of being the only mental cantrip (which is a trait that has feat and amp support for psychics), and the only nonlethal cantrip that ended up dialing it back.

Sure any table can house rule it if they want, but without that daze is probably a write off cantrip unless you have to do nonlethal damage, in which case, players will choose it anyway. It doesn’t need to be better to hold on to its niche, so it probably felt safer to keep it the way it ended up, than trying to change it to the way it sounds like someone had written it up to be.

Really, if you aren't trying to kill an enemy, it can't be that hard to deal lethal damage to get them to 0, stabilize them, tie them up, and get them talking with Diplomacy/Intimidation, or whatever you're trying to do. Most GMs handwave the enemies out when they hit 0 for simplicity and/or lack of plot relevance, though if PCs talk about tying one up for questioning, the GM is likely to allow one or two to survive (becoming stabilized if the PCs attempt to do so), in which case, we have now undermined the non-lethal aspect even more than before.

Granted, this isn't foolproof; if a fight drags on and the PCs then decide to try and stabilize an enemy, chances are, the timeframe will have passed, and their ability to get an opponent tied up for questioning will be unavailable. But more often than not, if the PCs want to make the attempt and do so quickly, they will do so in a reasonable timeframe that is likely to succeed.

The biggest reason why I see Daze taken by spellcasters is because it's a Will Save cantrip, the only one of its kind. No other cantrip matches it on that front, and honestly, while that gives it unique value, it's shouldn't be used as the reason why the rest of its attributes are bad, especially since affecting Will Saves should be a de facto spellcaster tactic.

You might be interested to know that undead aren't immune to nonlethal. They're immune to unconscious, which is a different thing.

So it seems.

Regardless, using non-lethal damage on them isn't really a meaningful distinction then, since using Daze to bring an Undead to 0 HP still destroys them by RAW.

The point is not that it would not be an improvement, point is that it would be in line with what Thief can already do and it would not unbalance the game.

Ruffian is very good, but it is still behind Thief. Best niche it has currently IMO is going for Mauler and getting to Improved Knockdown to apply Sneak attack twice with The Harder They Fall and set up you and your group. All the weapons you posted here would matter little for this strat. Most relevant trait there is Deadly d8, which only really matters when you roll high on the deadly die anyway. Were the Deadly die higher I would agree with you, though (Deadly only really matters when it can make an enemy last fewer hits afterall), but as it is, yes, it would be fine if you exclude damage die reduction shenanigans for better weapons.

Also, with current rules the lance can be used at horseback, turning it into a one-handed pseudo d8 reach weapon with deadly d8 already. Why not take that as the new standard instead?

Ah, yes, because if the Ruffian is better at the Thief at some things (such as wielding a reach weapon), it breaks the game because it makes Thief unplayable. Said nobody ever, because Thief Rogue is running around with max Dexterity and still dealing the same amount of damage while not purposefully dumping their save attributes to account for needing a secondary attribute (Strength), and can also wield competent reach weapons now (whereas before it required significant investment). The whole "Ruffians wielding Glaives breaks the game" argument is so flimsy and baseless because it implies that adding a couple traits that only trigger in certain instances makes them overpowered compared to a subclass that entirely removes the need for an attribute for the entire game. Sorry, but at no point would I ever pick Ruffian over Thief, and at no point would I ever say Ruffian can outpace Thief in any category, and the Martial weapons boost exacerbates this even more, since now Thief can use the same playstyle as Ruffian, which was really the only actual benefit behind Ruffian.

Interesting feat combination. Though as you note later, it's easily outpaced by Thief when Precise Debilitations come online (which is actually earlier than Improved Knockdown, meaning straight out of the gate, Thief is utilizing this tactic better than Ruffian is). Of course, it does require burning at least 3 feats, 2 of which become useless feat taxes at the end.

The Lance is one example where the D8/D6 arbitration makes no sense, among several others. Battle Axe versus Hatchet, Quarterstaff versus Bo Staff (both two-handed), Longspear versus Glaive, etc. are all prime examples where the D8/D6 arbitration fall short and feel stupid. I'm fine with the flat D8 restriction because it's less arbitrary and more consistent with the ceiling that the feature initially presented. It's quite obvious a few traits aren't going to absolutely murder the Rogue ceiling, since the big traits (Reach, Deadly) were already available in the first place.

Squiggit wrote:

Is there a particular reason why you're worried about ruffians with longswords specifically?

Because it's a power boost from before remaster which I don't think the rogue needs.

Sure, pre remaster you can jump through considerable hoops with an opportunity cost to get a D8 attack with a one handed weapon but a newcomer to the game armed with only the core rulebook couldn't get there.

Newcomer used rapier and/or shortsword. Or a longspear if a ruffian.

And one of the trade-offs for doing lots of damage with a longspear and all those skills was that a rogue was comparatively fragile.

I know that I'd prefer a longsword/shield rogue to a longspear rogue at least until gang up kicks in or Reactionary Attack. Especially with shield block the durability compensates for the lack of reach.

And obviously the longsword is only the floor of what can be achieved with a martial D8 weapon. I chose it for my example precisely because it is NOT anywhere near the best option but still has potential issues.

Why do people think getting access to all martial weapons, regardless of subclass, is not a power boost? And that for some reason, the Ruffian in particular is somehow getting more compared to any other subclass and should consequently be nerfed for it? The Ruffian subclass already pays for their increased access by being MAD and by having a damage dice restriction, there's no need to nerf them further by imposing a harsher damage dice restriction, especially since the Ruffian is designed around being able to Sneak Attack with weapons not normally able to be used with Sneak Attack.

People bringing up these other Martial weapons to Sneak Attack with make me go "Well, how is that much better than a simple version of that weapon?" Or "Why wouldn't I just go Thief Rogue and be less MAD while doing the same thing but better?"

In fairness, one of the reason why d8 finesse weapons aren't an issue is that finesse eats up a huge portion of the trait budget, so those weapons are (in theory) about on par with d8 simple weapons without finesse trait-wise.

Well, in theory, anyway.

Okay, but then why allow Ruffians to use non-finesse weapons if we're still going to balance them around the power level of finesse weapons? It would be easier and quicker to just give them the same limitations as any other subclass, but just give them access to Medium armor and a set of feats.

Hmm... I've been thinking about it, and it actually makes perfect sense to limit Ruffians to simple d8/martial d6... if the intent was to increase versatility but not power; it's a sidegrade, not an upgrade. If we assume that the Longspear Ruffian was their balancing point, then that puts the Ruffian's optimal offensive weapon at a d8 weapon with [Reach] and no other traits. Allowing d6 martial weapons gives them access to a wider selection of traited weapons, which in turn allows them to be built in different ways, all of which are balanced out by doing slightly less damage than the vanilla longspear (some of these other ways may, yes, be traps, but may be preferable nonetheless depending on the character's intended personality and background).

The first thing of note is that it gives you a much wider pool of weapons to choose from, which in turn also gives you a much wider pool of weapon traits to choose from. Some of these are traps for a Rogue, yes, but that's okay; PF2's math is tight enough that choosing, say, a [Sweep] weapon over a [Reach] one isn't enough to break your character. (And of course, you can always carry both, and choose which one you want for any given situation! Sometimes spreading the damage a bit can be useful, after all, if you've got a couple nearly-dead enemies clustered together.) Some of them give you access to maneuver traits, which can be pretty nifty for an Athletics specialist Ruffian. And probably most significantly, some of them have have both [Reach] and other traits, allowing you to sacrifice a little bit of damage to enable other tactics without juggling weapons if that's your jam.

And this pool-widening, in turn, lines up with how weapons are balanced: You can choose between a higher damage die with minimal features, or drop the die down a bit to buy more features for your weapon. You get your longspear if you want to build for damage, you can knock the damage die down to a d6 if you want more versatility, and you can knock it down to a d4 if your game's as horny as Calistria if you want to add [Nonlethal] too. Everything's a tradeoff; nothing outright surpasses or overshadows the longspear, preserving the versatility-vs.-power balancing that the game applies to weapons as a whole. In effect, the rule is the game's way of acknowledging that [Reach] really is worth a whole damage die size increase in & of itself for the Ruffian. (Conversely, if d8 martial weapons are allowed, then the Ruffian gains access to both the lance and the injection spear, both of which are direct upgrades to the longspear. Not to mention all the other d8 weapons which have both [Reach] and other traits.)

Is it the best way to do this? No, not at all; it's heavy-handed and rather clumsy, from a purely mechanical design perspective, and most of the best non-longspear options were already available thanks to being [Finesse] and/or [Agile]. But it is both effective and, perhaps more importantly, quick. Locking out d8+ martial weapons provides an ironclad guarantee that the Ruffian's raw power maxes out at a d8 [Reach] weapon with no other traits, unless a stronger simple weapon is released (which is unlikely to happen), without having to think about whether any specific martial d8s are or aren't viable; it makes eyeballing weapon balance a little bit quicker, and a little bit easier.

Okay, but what is the issue of implementing an upgrade to the subclass when every other subclass has received one? I don't think Ruffian was really any stronger than Thief to warrant it not being able to receive an upgrade of some sort; being MAD is punishment enough. And it's not like it goes against the subclass identity to permit D8 martial weapons either, since its whole schtick is "you don't really care much about being some dexterous cad, you're just some big brutish brigand who wants to bash/stab/cut people in the face." And even from a balance perspective, the biggest jump from a Longspear is to a Glaive, which gets Deadly D8 (which only triggers on a critical hit) and Forceful (which only triggers when making multiple attacks in a round, a generally bad tactic unless fighting mooks), so the idea that it's permitting a weapon that's too strong seems absurd (especially given its worse critical specialization).

A wider pool of unused weapons isn't really helpful to the class because it's basically bloat for the sake of bloat. I could pick up all of these other D6 martial weapons, like Hatchets and Morningstars and what-have-you, but there isn't a whole lot of parity between these options, since most all of them are (unsurprisingly) outclassed by the Longspear, both by damage and by trait relevance. I mean, sure, this is a conservative approach, both because the Remaster isn't meant to significantly change things (even though it has in some aspects), and because it's clear that Rogues were meant to be limited to D6 given that their previous Martial proficiencies were all D6 weapons, but honestly, I do not see an issue with a Ruffian walking around with a Glaive while a Thief is walking around with an Elven Branched Spear, these options are pretty well balanced amongst each other. Except, Ruffian doesn't get access to utilize a Glaive because...reasons. So they are ultimately forced to an "inferior" weapon. Even something as simple as "I can't use a Longsword instead of a Shortsword" seems quite arbitrary to me.

Another issue I have with this is that we already have restrictions based on the Sneak Attack feature: The weapon must be an Agile or Finesse weapon (if melee, unarmed, or thrown), or must be a ranged weapon (which is plenty hard enough to apply with outside of certain tactics or feats). All the Ruffian does is essentially change that restriction to instead be based on die size, which isn't a complaint in and of itself, but when it's done arbitrarily like this, it's not exactly a feelsgood moment when other subclasses had a lot more tantalizing weapon opportunities open up to them by comparison. It would be like if there was a spellcasting subclass that said you have access to any damaging spell across any tradition, but could only prepare damaging spells if all of its damage dice are D10s or D12s.

I mean, yes, it's quick, and consistent with their previous proficiency list, but I don't think it's necessarily an appropriate change. Sure, Longspear Ruffian isn't the only way to play the subclass, which seems to be where all of the complaints are stemming from, but it's honestly more than that, with Longspear Ruffian essentially being the peak form of the subclass, and the complaints range from "I can use a lance while mounted, but not unmounted," to "I can use a smaller axe like a Hatchet, but not a slightly bigger axe like a Battle Axe," to which point you might as well just ignore the subclass option and stick with the same weapons as every other subclass.

The subclass that didn't get enough from their subclass was obsviously the mastermind. But the thing is that subclasses are generally not supposed to give you an incredible amount of stuff.

If you look at everything the Ruffian gets, it's:
- Str instead of Dex (if you want)
- Medium Armor
- Critical Specialization
- A larger set of weapons to sneak attack with.

It really doesn't need more things.

Well, Strength makes them MAD, since you are going to want Wisdom (because Will Saves and Perception/Initiative are important), Constitution (being only a D8/level class is squishy as-is), and Charisma (since they get access to some special Intimidation/Demoralize things). That means you are either sacking Dexterity entirely, or one of these other attributes that offer equally important statistics.

As for Medium Armor, it's a trap; I cannot in good conscience make a Medium Armor character since the game's math assumes you are boosting Dexterity for the saves alone, having the side-effect of boosting AC as well means you're either going back to Light/Unarmored anyway, or you're taking Sentinel and dumping Dexterity entirely (because Bulwark lets you effectively dump Dexterity). And failing/critically failing Reflex Saves in this game is basically a death sentence, otherwise a trait like Bulwark would not exist.

Critical Specialization isn't specific to the Ruffian, because other subclasses get Critical Specialization as well for the same circumstances, so touting this like it's something superior isn't saying much. At best, it gets a better Critical Specialization (Clumsy 1 versus Flat-Footed to all), but that's marginally better, and I would honestly say the latter is better against larger enemies, since it's harder to flank without being way out of position.

As for the larger set of weapons, it gets about the same or even less than the other subclasses, simply because they don't have to worry about proficiency die size, and only about traits. Most Finesse doesn't go above D8 anyway, and the only Agile that goes to D8 are Monk Stances, meanwhile Ruffian is restricted to anything that is a D6 or less besides Simple weapons. Really, the new restriction just enables non-optimal builds, whereas a whole bunch of newer weapons have been enabled for non-Ruffians (Thief with Elven Branched Spear is probably very close to damage compared to Longspear Ruffian).

I find rouges very good at killing a target with a first attack action, especially when they are flat-footed to you. And you can get a third attack agaist the first target benefiting from sweep if you attacked someone else for your second attack. The hatchet is a very good weapon for a ruffian, I am surprised people are arguing otherwise.

Yea, it was before the remaster, but they weren’t proficient in it, so it was a hassle to get. The remastered rogue buff still benefits the ruffian, it just so happens that the ruffian already had martial weapons they wanted proficiency in. The sneak attack attack change is about diversifying the weapon choices without creating a totally new ceiling on their power. I think that was a smart move. Their ceiling was already very high. The thief getting the unarmed strike boost feels like it is lifting the ceiling, but only marginally so, if at all, because thieves already had D8 weapons with as good of traits as unarmed attacks do. To really exploit it, you need monk MC and a level 10 feat. That is already a lot of build commitment vs: you can do this right out of the gate.

If Ruffians didn't have access to a D8 Reach weapon beforehand, I might have agreed with this sentiment. The fact that they do have access to it kind of debunks the notion that it was a "smart move."

When your second attack can be at -3 instead of -5, so anytime you have 2 melee targets, you are in much better shape. When you do have to make a ranged attack to get a second target, then you are at -4 instead of -5, assuming the 2nd target was within reach of your long spear and you didn't have to move. Then you can potentially make a third attack at -7 against your first target again, or a -8 against a target at range, instead of -10, which is exactly as good as you could do with a regular agile melee weapon.

While this is good from an action value standpoint, it's bad from a tactics standpoint because not focus-firing means you are still letting enemies keep their actions by staying conscious, ergo saying attacking another enemy at -3 is more of a trap in actual play since the real draw is attacking the same enemy at -4 and potentially downing them before their next turn. Yes, you are more likely to hit with a secondary/tertiary attack, but spreading damage around isn't as helpful for defeating an encounter. You are also now suggesting making a third attack (even with reduced penalties) is a good use of actions; enemies don't just stand still, meaning odds are you will want to move to set up flanking for sneak attack, and even while Hasted, I would rather see it used to enable your other actions for other things (like Demoralize) than to make a third attack with more-than-hefty penalties. Unless you are a Dual-Wield Fighter or a Flurry Ranger, attacking more than twice is a trap.

As for range attacking, you can literally attack anyone with a Longspear from the same distance you could normally toss a hatchet at, which is 10 feet of range. Not only will it be more accurate (not relying on Dex to attack), but it will also do more damage on average (D8 vs D6). The only time this will be relevant by comparison is if you need to affect an enemy that is 15 feet or more away, but can't get closer to them, in which case you're suggesting using a weapon with a penalty instead of substituting for a better weapon entirely (which is now much easier to do thanks to the Swap action).

I do appreciate showing the bad tactics that are enabled by letting Ruffians use trap martial weapons, though, and if that's the reason for Ruffians being stuck with D6 Martial weapons, then quite frankly I'm not seeing the "buff" people keep talking about.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I love how a class who doesn't need a buff gets a buff and people complain about the buff being too small...

Saying it's a "buff" doesn't really track when Longspear Ruffian is still the top tier build for the subclass by nature of having the best trait and the best damage dice there is. There is no reason to take a D6 Martial weapon other than for flavor purposes (or for Flickmace, which is already nerfed to oblivion and flimsy for its cost). At best it is a sidegrade for non-optimizers and at worst it's just a quality of life change.

The complaint is that the "buff" is needlessly arbitrary and overly restrictive when the point of said "buff" was to remove the overly restrictiveness it originally possessed; the expectation that it would simply be replaced with another even worse restriction wasn't really on the table here.

Of course, I imagine this restriction was put in place because the few martial weapons that Rogue originally had access to were all D6 weapons, and Paizo was too afraid to allow D8 martial weapons when Rogues didn't have access to them to begin with, even though ironically, Ruffian Rogues are already running around with D8 weapons anyway.

It is trivially easy for a returning hatchet to out out damage a long spear for a ruffian who is boosting dex to 16. Agile and sweep are a big accuracy boost for one shift to the damage due. The changes to the ruffian give you proficiency with this weapon at level 1, and is thus a buff. A ruffian can even carry both easily.

Not really; if you are using the Hatchet as a ranged attack, it is having -1 to attack rolls while doing an average of 1 damage less (since it's only D6 compared to D8). This would be like saying a 16 Strength Ruffian does equal damage to an 18 Strength Ruffian; it's simply incorrect.

Even with subsequent attacks, it is only at the same amount of accuracy while having the same reduction in damage, and only pulls ahead either when you make 3 attacks in a round (poor use of actions), or decide not to focus-fire by switching targets (poor use of tactics, unless you have already defeated an enemy with the first attack, which, while not impossible, isn't necessarily the standard for combat, either).