Shining Lights and Dark Stars

Throw me in as another vote against the barbarian rage change. I get the theme of it, but it's fiddly, easily forgotten, and not very impactful until it kills a party because the barbarian's rage ended a round early.

Also, I'll agree that strength monks still seem like a trap (though I'm playing one currently). Dex is required for AC, which I'm not terribly opposed to, just something to be aware of.

Also also, do ki strike and ki rush have their spell point costs listed? Cause I'm not seeing them.

Also also also, just to clarify, ki strike and ki rush do NOT give you extra spell points if you take both, correct?

I wasn't able to playtest that much but here is my opinion :

Thanks for the changes to the Paladin!
Why do you put book keeping inside the rage class features?
Hey the sorcerer got a nice boost!
Wait... The wizard gets an even bigger boost? Like... Why? I understand that sorcerers are more "interesting" than wizard, but wizard are a lot more powerful than sorcerers!

By the way... That new lvl 10th feat for the sorcerer that heightens the bloodline spells? EVERYONE is going to take it, why don't you give it for free like quick preparation for the wizard?

Bard: No complaints here. Seems to be the same mechanically, for the most part, just easier to understand. I would prefer if there wan't a feat tax on mix-n-matching Bard feats. (Druids have the same "choose a path" thing, but give out bonuses for sticking to one rather than taxing you for straying.)

You actually get the off-muse feat as well when you take Multifarious Muse, so you're actually in a much better shape than a druid branching into, say, storm order (requires taking Storm Born and you don't get the storm order benefits), wild order (requires Wild Shape and you don't get the wild order benefits), or animal order (requires taking Animal Companion and you don't get the animal order benefits).

Toss us Wizards another spell slot per spell level please!

Mark, can I ask you a question? I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list? When I first heard that there will be 10th level spells in Second Edition, I was really happy, because I thought that means we will have epic rules included in the core rules. But later I found out the 10th levels spells are not that powerful. Many of them were originally 9th level spells and some of them even got nurfed. I'm confused. Why did Paizo separate them from 9th level spell lists and create a 10th level spell list instead? I mean, I think just deleting 10th level spell list and putting all the 10th level spells into 9th level spell list would be a good idea.

Overall I like the changes [rage being the major dislike], but this doesn't really seem to me like a final last update... To me, it seems like a fine midway point but this is it until the actual books come out?

PS: nothing makes me happier than seeing this under paladin: "Only the rules for paladins of good alignment appear here, though paladins of other alignments are known to exist."

Ranishe: spell point powers have a default cost of 1 if none is listed.

So, how are Clerics (and all other casters without the Eschew Materials feat, I don't even know which classes can get that) supposed to use the 3-action Heal/Harm now if both of their hands are full? The new rules don't let them bypass the material casting component of the 3rd action...

I'd like for Barbarians to Rage for a number of rounds equal to CON bonus before making those flat checks.

OR add their Constitution Mod to their Rage Roll instead of making a Flat Check.

I'm still dubious about the utility of Ki Strike. So we're talking about a power with a very limited pool (which is liable to get even more limited if the resonance test is any indication) which gives an minor (+1 accuracy, +1d6 damage, situationally relevant aligned damage) bonus to at most two strikes.

Ki Rush is neat since there are a limited number of times in a day where it makes sense to double move, but it will happen so it's not unreasonable to use Ki for this instead of other ki powers.

Ki Strike on the other hand is something you would use almost every turn if it's free. But it's less dramatic in terms of "what it can do for you" than higher level ki powers. "Hit harder and more accurately" doesn't necessarily seem *worth* less wholeness of body or flying or flash stepping or w/e.

I can see monks taking Ki Strike as a placeholder at low levels then retraining it to Ki Rush once they get access to higher level ki powers.

I'd like for Barbarians to Rage for a number of rounds equal to CON bonus before making those flat checks.

OR add their Constitution Mod to their Rage Roll instead of making a Flat Check.

Some sort of Con base to it would be good. Maybe something like the check goes up by less or doesn't go up at all if you crit an enemy or are critted. Hard to find the balance between flavor and actual ease of use though.

Mark, can I ask you a question? I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list? When I first heard that there will be 10th level spells in Second Edition, I was really happy, because I thought that means we will have epic rules included in the core rules. But later I found out the 10th levels spells are not that powerful. Many of them were originally 9th level spells and some of them even got nurfed. I'm confused. Why did Paizo separate them from 9th level spell lists and create a 10th level spell list instead? I mean, I think just deleting 10th level spell list and putting all the 10th level spells into 9th level spell list would be a good idea.

It's simple actually, Wish was freaking broken, such that I have actually not met a DM yet who hasn't banned it and other spells that are now 10th level. This makes sure they don't appear until the very highest levels, where they belong.

Thanks for clarifying, Mark. That's what I get for trying to read everything as quickly as possible.

I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list?

Because Wish/Miracle/etc. is a separate order of magnitude from all the other 9th-level spells. I'd say even the other 10th level spells still can't match it.

I very much like Ki Rush, and Chirurgeon makes me very, very happy.

As an asides. While the PF1 Investigator didn't exactly grab me (despite being formed from thematic favourites), taking into account how medicine can be used for analyze forensics, I actually very much like the idea now of alchemist MC-ed into rogue.

I'd like to see the Ranger's Precision Edge get a bit more of a damage boost (maybe d8s instead of d6s).

Page 54—In Critical Brutality, before the first sentence, add “You become an expert in all simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks.” In Weapon Fury, replace “expert” with “master”.

Very glad to this revision. I think it will be a significant boon to Barbarians. I'm excited to roll this out for my group's remaining Barbarian (the other switched to Fighter).

Not sure how I feel about the Rage revision yet... In theory, I'm a fan. In practice, we'll see.

perpetual infusions is a joke atm

considering it replaces actual free Quick alchemy procs (1/2 level is gone now)

Perpetual Infusions basically does NOTHING when you get it and when it scales:

+2 item bonus to a single very specific save when you already have +2 item bonus to all saves.
DC 14 poisons that eat a full round to make a +1d4 attack that a monster only fails with a 2
level 7 bombs that do 1dx+1 with 2 actions at level 7
and etc

Absolutely love the attention paladins and wild order druids are receiving. I look forward to seeing what name is given to the Paladin, something that can encompass all 9 alignments and still stand firm.

Alchemists should be able to use the 10-minute downtime to create their perpetual infusions. 10-minutes for 2 alchemical items in their specialty seems reasonable, just give them a shelf-life of 1 hour.

Every class should have an interesting and useful option to take during 10-minute downtime. I think it's become a key part of the game loop of PF2E.

Looks good! I particularly like Pest Form's extended duration for non-combat shapeshifting and hope we can get some more options in that vein.

I do have a few concerns of one sort or another, however:

For Barbarians, I'm not sure on Barbarian Rage duration, just from a playability perspective. Very pleased about the Proficiency bump, of course.

For Clerics, I feel like Channel Energy should probably be 1 + Cha Mod so Cha 10 Clerics get something out of it, but 0 + Cha is probably better than 3 + Cha.

For Paladins, I'm very pleased with the CG Code (it resembles my own preferred version more than slightly), but am a bit concerned by the power level of Reactions, and particularly by Retributive Strike still almost requiring a Reach weapon. Sure, Ranged Reprisal helps (and makes Paladins of Erastil work...well, since they should use a Longbow they only really work with a Fighter Multiclass, but it's a step in the right direction), but it helps Reach users even more.

For Rangers, I like the change but am definitely concerned that they're still pretty much the least powerful Class in the game. Twin Takedown just isn't great even with Hunt Target stuff and they get little else to enhance their combat prowess as compared to, say, Fighter.

For Sorcerers, the changes are neat, but do little to solve the fact that some spell lists are just better than others and so it's mechanically almost always superior to go, say, Arcane over Divine.

For Wizard, I must agree that the boosts seem to raise power level more than they do how interesting the Class is, which seems the opposite of the intent. The issue they present of making the Wizard more flexible than the Sorcerer is also very real.

Regarding Monk: Ki Rush is a great change, but strength based monks still have some serious AC issues. They have to pump up dex to raise AC since they can't wear armor and that still leaves them with much lower AC than any other class. And on top of that they need CON since they're a melee class. Which leave very little for WIS; meaning they will not be able to use defensive abilities like Ki Rush very often.

So str based monks still seem like they're just going to get crit out and die.

Agreed the best build i saw of str monk is going multiclass barbarian for extra AC and damage.

the wizard was always more flexible that the sorcer, that literally was the point. you traded the flexible of a wizard, to cast more times. the real issue of the sorcerer is that wizards stayed the same, but they really didnt get anything in return for losing spells per day.

Aenigma wrote:

Mark, can I ask you a question? I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list? When I first heard that there will be 10th level spells in Second Edition, I was really happy, because I thought that means we will have epic rules included in the core rules. But later I found out the 10th levels spells are not that powerful. Many of them were originally 9th level spells and some of them even got nurfed. I'm confused. Why did Paizo separate them from 9th level spell lists and create a 10th level spell list instead? I mean, I think just deleting 10th level spell list and putting all the 10th level spells into 9th level spell list would be a good idea.

It's simple actually, Wish was freaking broken, such that I have actually not met a DM yet who hasn't banned it and other spells that are now 10th level. This makes sure they don't appear until the very highest levels, where they belong.

Wish isn't broken; it's literally the opposite (as it requires the GM to approve its use on a case-by-case basis). I have never banned Wish in any of my campaigns. At a 9th level spell, available at level 17 (maybe a couple of levels earlier as loot), it already doesn't appear until high-level play.

First Reactions while reading through.

I'm loving most of if not all of the changes here, especially for the alchemist, though I feel like the class still has a few kinks that need to be worked out for each of the research categories, though I'll absolutely check them out in what little play time I have available to see how it matches against my gut.

Bomber: the master proficiency in bombs might be enough to resolve the to hit issue, alongside the alchemist goggles, but I feel like the class wants a proper variant on the spell duelist wand and gloves.

Chiurgeon: what this option grants you feels lackluster, though I know I shouldn't doubt the amount of raw healing alchemist has now.

Mutagenist: Minor mutagens were absolutely on my list of wants, but the issue I have with mutagens and elixirs still remains. They want to a temporary counterpart to magic items, but they just can't compete long term. While they tend to come at a high value for their level(until spells and effects come into play) magic items replicate the value of these. The only thing that stands out as unique for the quicksilver elixir is that you gain a large movement speed boost and it was the expected way for you to play a bomber, because it was the only way to get a good item bonus for your bombs. The reflex save bonus competes with your armor, the hit bonus competes with magic weapons and the skill bonuses compete with skill items. And while for skill items it might mean you can choose to skip the skill item, for saves and attack bonuses, it makes any combat benefits to a mutagens FEEL bad. I'd rather mutagens grant a smaller benefit to combat abilities, but stack with your equipment. I'd would also like to see mutagens move away from being "acts like improved stat" and to something more like types of specialization, such as "duelist's aid" that improves melee defense, "crackshot mutagen" that specializes in ranged bonuses and perception, and so on, since the items are no longer providing direct stay benefits.

Poisoner: The alchemist still suffers from the general DC failure issue that the poisons have. Instead of granting some weak benefits to resisting poison, can the variant have viable poisons at various levels? Maybe it's an issue that's potentially solved eventually by taking some feat taxes and rollout of various poisons trickling out with new rulebook and sprats, but that's a long time down the road, and until then, poison users feel weak and worthless and even then, they'll have a money/formula tax every level to make sure they're using a quality poison so that they feel like they stand a chance targeting the often strongest save at any given level. A feat that allows a Poisoner to combine quick alchemy with poisoning their weapon would be nice. Adding an additive or two for poisons would be nice.

Things I'd like to see for alchemist in the core rulebook other than the stuff I talked about above: Make alchemist compete less with magic items and instead more with magic or a mix of both. I'd like to see more additives for all 4 researches. More items is a no brainer, but the most important thing in my eyes would be tools and bombs beyond level 1, such as cement foam or liquid pellet grenades.

Okay, where to begin really?

With 1.6 being toted as this major class, and final playtest, update, I had more or less said to myself, "the contents here will determine how much I care about PF2 when it comes out." Because, well, classes have been among the most disappointing aspects of the playtest for me. They've been drab, uninspiring, serve as a place where a lot of the different aspects of the playtest I dislike coalesce, and many of them and their options don't really do well what they've set out to do.

But I'll definitely say that a lot of the class changes thus far have been building them up to be... better than the original playtest versions.

But, hoy boy, this update has some issues.

The rage changes should be thrown out. Inherent variability probably should not be in a base class feature. It (and the existing implementation of rage) also works against the thematics and expectations of half of the totems, animal and dragon. No barbarian wants to be "hold on a sec, I need to stop being a dragon/using the natural attacks I have for a round in the middle of combat," let alone because they failed a flat roll that they never get any better at! Why can't a high level barbarian rage longer than a level 1 barbarian? That's dumb!

The wildshape changes... make it better. It's still, I feel, very much a work-around set of changes that don't actually address a lot of the issues that have been raised, though they are better.

But, then, then there's paladin... This paladin update is a mess and shows that the designers definitely have some of their own sacred cows in the playtest outside of +level. To put it simply: there is no way that a PF1 paladin goes to sleep, wakes up in PF2 as this class and can still be called a paladin. This is a holy tank, not a (PF1) paladin. If anything, people should be glad the name is changing.

Paladin's are still locked into a reactive playstyle. Retributive Strike and its ilk may get 15ft range now, but it's still a "Paladin's Reaction". It still doesn't inherently let you use ranged weapons or non-reach weapons well, without taking a feat tax. Not to mention that the different reactions of the subclasses are definitely not balanced between each other at all and the Divine Smite class feature makes it even worse. (I'll definitely say that Might Aura is neat though. That one's fairly cool.)

It also doesn't make any sense as to how allies get any benefits from the reactions in-universe. Like, you can just declare "I retributive strike" and your ally gets resistance against an attack, despite you actually doing absolutely nothing. It's just weird.

As for the new class feats... Quick Block comes too late. The level 12 feat solidifies the NG subclass as the best. And oh, look: "Smite Evil." As a level 12 class feat. And it works like a 3rd edition smite. Ha ha. No. That's completely missing the point.

As someone who's currently running a Wrath of the Righteous game, the playtest "paladin" is rather incredibly frustrating on several fronts. It makes the story and background make no sense if I applied it to the world, and my players who have paladin characters would certainly be frustrated if they got this chassis thrust on them.

*sigh* 1.6 didn't really make me want to care about PF2 more. I'm sure I'll get a CRB pdf or read a friend's but...
Honestly, the most disappointing part of the playtest is that it hasn't made me want to play PF2.

I like most of the Alchemist changes.
BUT. BULK! Is still such an issue and will now be more so due to the Reagent weight. sure it is 10 per L. but that is still now more L than you had under the previous version.

So now... Formula book is 1Bulk. Alch Kit is 2 Bulk. Armour and Weapon are probably 1B and some L. Then reagents, probably less than an L most of the time. Then the crafted items' L bulk.
So that is straight up probably 4Bulk + some L.. Before things like Medic Kits, climbing kits and torches, oil, rope, and other general useful things. If you're a dex based Alchemist? dex, int, and say you wanted to take care of the non magical medicine (not as a chirugen) and perception so you want Wis as the 3rd stat. Well you're already basically at your encumbrance bulk before your even start your character.
yeah later on you can have say magical elswhere storage but that is effectively requiring the Alchemist to spend money on a specific magic item other classes have as an option.
======================

Also I think I would like "daily preperations" removed from the Alchemist section "During your daily preparation, after producing a new batch of infused reagents, you can spend batches of infused reagents to create infused alchemical items"

You should have to make the Reagents during the daily prep. BUT you should allow an Alchemist to USE the reagents in any 10min block.

Gives them something to do during the 10min repair/medic time period AND helps the bulk issue at least a little.

Oh, and the wizard changes. I'm cool with Vancian casting and all (even if it can be a bit of a hassle at high levels with 'I have access to every spell on my list' classes), but... why isn't the wizard just using arcanist/5e casting at this point with these changes? The combination of the spell slot preparation manipulation and the addition of inherent Quick Preparation really just seem to push the wizard to this weird... semi-sort-of-spontaneous place.

Yay for Paladins of any Good!

Also I’m rather excited for Rage, the gradual increase seems easy enough to track/memorize (0>5>10>20) and the variance makes it feel, I’unno, Rage like :3

I'd like for Barbarians to Rage for a number of rounds equal to CON bonus before making those flat checks.

OR add their Constitution Mod to their Rage Roll instead of making a Flat Check.

I like these ideas :3

I really want a Barbarian feat to make it so failing your rage check makes rage end at the end of your next turn, just because "being able to choose where you are standing during your fatigued turn" is going to be really handy.

I'd rather Divine Smite be a core 1st level ability.

Smite Evil was the big narrative moment of the class in 1st Edition. The new reactions are good step in the right direction, but it feels odd to tie it to alignment.

Ah sorta double posting due to two separate topics.

"As long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of the untrained and trained uses of Medicine." Chirrugen

The main benefit is that you use your INT instead. So why not just have the Chirrugen use INT for Medicine instead as their special feature?

The current "use craft instead of medicine" would make a fabulous general Alchemist Feat that any study can use. This would make it an actual very useful class feat for many builds.

Honestly, myself, I would rather just a general Alch Class Feat to use INT for medicine or and give Chirrugen a BOOST to the elixer healing they make A good choice would be to allow them to apply their INT(or healing equivalent to their Splash number) to the healing as a static bonus. This would allow their healing to be better than the non Chirrugens AND prevent the painful "rolled a 1. what a waste of action" elixir drinking that comes up quite often. Currently as I read it. Chirry's aren't "better" healers. They just have more "quantity" but their support items are still exactly the same as on the shelf-while the Bombs and mutagin versions are not. Churry's "quanity" instead of the bomb/mutagins 'quality" to an extent.

Unless I missed a large change, there is really not much of a reason an Alchemist really wants to actually use Craft. Is there? You can craft a bunch of a good usable level to stock pile but it isn't' very useful compared to making do with your daily amounts.
Fact is, I think I'd almost always use my skill somewhere else, somewhere more useful for things so far. Unless my co-players stated prior that they wanted me to craft things for them-I would always rather have another useful skill or a higher level version of a useful skill than craft. You still need to be trained in medicine anyway.

Might be cool to allow a Craft roll of some sort to make extra Reagents once you ran out? Craft needs some sorta Alchemist use if it is going to start showing up in their class abilities or feats.
Or bonus Reagents related to your Skill Profiency in Craft at lv 9 (because we no longer get the extra points due to getting free lowest level stuff)

So, how are Clerics (and all other casters without the Eschew Materials feat, I don't even know which classes can get that) supposed to use the 3-action Heal/Harm now if both of their hands are full? The new rules don't let them bypass the material casting component of the 3rd action...

Fair point, for any spell that needs the material casting options you still need a hand free. The Cleric could avoid that with Emblazon symbol, but now even they can't cast a 3 action heal without having a free hand.

I may be in the minority but I really like the flat checks for maintaining barbarian rage:

1) A feature named "Barbarian Rage" shouldn't be predictable
2) The flat check to remain is very action-movie, a little moment of drama on the character's turn--I actually see this as exciting in stressful combats.

I was in the process of trying to house rule something like this, but this is better than what I was thinking about.

I would not be opposed to there being some kind of feat called "Consistently Tetchy" that allowed, for instance, lawful barbarians to rage on a rigid schedule.

But I like this as the barbarian default.

I may be in the minority but I really like the flat checks for maintaining barbarian rage:

1) A feature named "Barbarian Rage" shouldn't be predictable
2) The flat check to remain is very action-movie, a little moment of drama on the character's turn--I actually see this as exciting in stressful combats.

I was in the process of trying to house rule something like this, but this is better than what I was thinking about.

I would not be opposed to there being some kind of feat called "Consistently Tetchy" that allowed, for instance, lawful barbarians to rage on a rigid schedule.

But I like this as the barbarian default.

I listed the rage variant in the blog as the most experimental for a reason (even in an update that contained those big alchemist and paladin changes): This is the one we're least sure of, also attached to the mechanic that had the highest approval from the old version (many of you liked the 3-round rage just fine). But we wanted to try out the variability and see how it plays to see if it's an improvement. We're not sure yet, and we'll roll back if not.

It still feels counterintuitive to me, giving paladins retributive strike. Regardless of where you stand on non-lawful paladins (all I'll say is that there's precedence with cavalier orders, since they're basically non-magic paladins of any alignment), I'd like to think the Mendevian crusaders are still the main mental image for the paladin. But to be blunt, only being able to deliver a more powerful strike in response to an ally being hit is the exact opposite of charging into battle to proactively fight demons in the Worldwound. Currently, I feel like a fighter, possibly with the paladin dedication, is a better choice for Mendevian crusaders than an actual paladin.

Ah sorta double posting due to two separate topics.

"As long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of the untrained and trained uses of Medicine." Chirrugen

The main benefit is that you use your INT instead. So why not just have the Chirrugen use INT for Medicine instead as their special feature?

The current "use craft instead of medicine" would make a fabulous general Alchemist Feat that any study can use. This would make it an actual very useful class feat for many builds.

Honestly, myself, I would rather just a general Alch Class Feat to use INT for medicine or and give Chirrugen a BOOST to the elixer healing they make A good choice would be to allow them to apply their INT(or healing equivalent to their Splash number) to the healing as a static bonus. This would allow their healing to be better than the non Chirrugens AND prevent the painful "rolled a 1. what a waste of action" elixir drinking that comes up quite often. Currently as I read it. Chirry's aren't "better" healers. They just have more "quantity" but their support items are still exactly the same as on the shelf-while the Bombs and mutagin versions are not. Churry's "quanity" instead of the bomb/mutagins 'quality" to an extent.

Unless I missed a large change, there is really not much of a reason an Alchemist really wants to actually use Craft. Is there? You can craft a bunch of a good usable level to stock pile but it isn't' very useful compared to making do with your daily amounts.
Fact is, I think I'd almost always use my skill somewhere else, somewhere more useful for things so far. Unless my co-players stated prior that they wanted me to craft things for them-I would always rather have another useful skill or a higher level version of a useful skill than craft. You still need to be trained in medicine anyway.

Might be cool to allow a Craft roll of some sort to make extra Reagents once you ran out? Craft needs some sorta...

well, as an alchemist you'd already want to invest in Craft usually.

so rolling Craft instead of medicine, even if it was medicine (Int), will usually be better.

not that i'd complain if it was opened to the other paths as well.

As for chirurgeon, for me, it's hands down the most powerful path atm:

they get nothing out of their "at will" feature, but let's be hinest, no path gets anything remotely useful out of that.

but they do get 50% more healing from their prepared healing AND maximized healing from their Quick healing.

Mutagenic is hands down worthless even for mutagenic alchemists. I mean, all you get is 2 feats all in all... and neither of them is even remotely "unique" in any way. Their "free" mutagens are also basically worthless

Bomber may be able to work with extreme tunnel vision investment in stuff like smoke bombs and debilitating bombs and all 3 1st level class feats and etc (so.. human) as a debuff spammer. They do get the best "free" alchemy.

poisoner at least gets some boosts with 0 cost poison touch, "poison weapon" without multiclass and etc. Although, poisons still evaporating into thin air on a miss AND doing nothing on a save makes them exactly as useless as before (see: 10-20% chance for 1 tick of damage...)

I like the somatic action fix.

Also it looks like all spellcasters got an extra cantrip slot. Good I suppose, could have been a thing given to sorcerers though.

Alchemist is almost completely rewritten and looks a lot better in most areas. Still some pain points for me.
* It doesn't use resonance to make items, so performing class duties doesn't keep it from wearing or using magic items.
* It gets to choose a path, so you don't have to be a bomber, though that is still an available path; also, high level bombs now exist so bombs are useful after level 3 to non-alchemists.
* Bomber alchemists come out the gate with the ability to avoid splashing their allies with their bombs now.
* Chirurgeon's base ability is pretty terribad. Some of the higher level Chirurgeon abilities are good though, like getting free bonus healing items on top of what you would normally make.
* I'm still not a fan of onset times on Mutagens, but at least the new Mutagenist can mostly ignore those. I'd still prefer this research field to get a different benefit and for the onset times to go away, or at least be universally reduced to "onset: start of your next turn." Maybe consider instead the benefit of Mutagenists increasing any bonuses from their mutagens by 1.
* I'm glad poison alchemist is a thing, but poisons seriously need improvement and expansion. In particular, they shouldn't be expended on /attack/, they should be expended on /hit/.
* A bad thing: the alchemist is MISSING a feat to dip into the other fields of study. The bard got a feat for this, the alchemist needs one too.
* Splash damage is still only 1 at all levels... I really want splash damage from a bomb to be half the main damage.

Barbarian is somewhat better. It importantly advances in weapon proficiency faster and can go to Master. But Rage now weirdly has a random duration... So, it is a cumulative difficulty Flat Check each round to keep raging. you have a 20% chance to drop out of rage after 2 turns, a 45% chance to drop out of rage after 3 turns, a 70% chance to drop out of rage after 4 turns, and a 95% chance to drop out of rage after 5 turns and each turn thereafter. I think this works out to being the same or better overall except for that 1 time in 5 you stop raging after 2 turns, but it's kind of (a lot) fiddly.

Bard is better. The feat prerequisites for all the bardic muse feats are hugely relaxed. Now you don't have to do a strict feat chain, you just have to be a member of that muse, and there is a new feat that makes you count as an additional muse while also granting a 1st level feat from the new muse, allowing you to qualify for later feats without having to chain up to them.

Clerics got a nerf that was probably necessary. Channel Energy is now just Cha mod/day instead of 3+Cha mod/day. I think I'd prefer if it was just a spell point ability and added +2 spell points on top of the spell points you already get with your domain, and could be flexibly used with your other domain powers. However, clerics do benefit from the aforementioned somatic component thing, being able to cast with shield and weapon in hand.

Wild Shape Druids look like they're probably greatly improved, including the relevant spells shifting spell level. Not really anything given to other druids though. I will still have to give a critical math focused look at the revised polymorph / form spells to see if they are still AC / attack modifier debuffs like published or if they are better now.

Fighters didn't get paths like the other classes. :( But at least stances are no longer Opens.

Monks see an improvement in the handling of ki. Also, Ki Strike is enormously improved, and there is now an alternate 1st level path into ki, Ki Rush, which is also very very good. The Str based monk still has no way to get AC like a Dex based monk, so eh. Monks didn't get paths like the other classes. :(

Paladins are still reactive, not proactive. :| At least you can now be Any Good, but... Argh.
* Retributive Strike is now the LG paladin ability. It has been completely rewritten and now has 15 ft range. It no longer goes off before the provoking action nor can it prevent that action, so it is going to be easier to track, at least. It instead grants damage resistance to the target ally, and if the enemy is in your reach, you still get the punitive attack. So, at least this is better overall, even without the corner case of ever so rarely preventing an attacking outright.
* NG gets a probably better version of the above that instead of giving a punitive attack, might ACTUALLY cancel the provoking attack and debuffs them if they don't cancel.
* CG's version is the worst, As Is Tradition. :p
* The Oaths are still terrible.
* A few notable feat taxes were added, like Ranged Reprisal which should just be baked into Retributive Strike, or Quick Block when instead they should have just granted the paladin a bonus reaction per turn for their path power.
* Still no baked in Smite Evil. Instead it's been added as a level 12 feat tax, and for some reason is LG only. :( I mean this is trivial to house rule in the final version but I shouldn't have to, especially when this is being presented against the feats for the other two alignments.

Rangers, hm. Hunter's Edge improves Hunt Target a bit, but the flurry option is still bad. All rangers should take a non-flurry Edge unless they are heavily building toward lots of attacks per round.

For the Rogue they expanded on the two alternates to "Dex to damage" a bit so they're more viable now! I like these.

Sorcerer keeps getting the shaft, especially in light of what just happened to the wizard. They get a 10th level feat tax in Bloodline Heightening that should have just been a base part of the class. Still have to choose only two spells to spontaneously heighten aside from that feat tax. Still weak and insufficient powers.

Diabolic Bloodline is at least decent. But Diabolic Edict isn't as good as I thought at first glance, since on a reread it only affects a WILLING target. On first read, I thought you could toss out the second half of the power as a debuff on an enemy, which seems fair considering it costs a spell point.

Wizards now get the single most powerful Wizard feat of all as a base class feature from 1st level, which makes them infinitely more flexible than the sorcerer. Um, okay... I mean, I like it, and you all know I don't like strict vancian so bringing it closer to Arcanist casting is good, but. To have that happen in a vacuum of meaningful improvement to the sorcerer is a little bewildering. They are apparently hugely over-valueing spontaneous casting. The sorcerer just needs a total reconcept at this point.

Animal companions got improved a touch, they at least get better AC now and barding is also a touch better so they aren't as made of tissue paper as before. However, it kind of looks like barding is de-emphasized at higher levels due to all animals just innately getting an item (???) bonus to AC as they level up, which won't stack with the barding. That's kind of a weird decision.

At least it's a start though. I'd like to see animals lose their restriction on item bonuses. I'd also still like to see companions get three actions, so a companion beast isn't somehow weirdly slower than a normal creature of its kind. I realize the concern is companion players getting longer turns but companion turns are much faster and simpler than actual character turns, and the companion's actions are still not as good as a character's actions, not to mention the character with a companion will also have less effective actions than the same character who built for anything other than a companion. It really balances out, just let them have three actions for their pet. You can just say that characters can't have more than one companion, or if there are multiple companions they have to divvy up the three bonus actions among them, or something.

Aenigma wrote:

Mark, can I ask you a question? I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list? When I first heard that there will be 10th level spells in Second Edition, I was really happy, because I thought that means we will have epic rules included in the core rules. But later I found out the 10th levels spells are not that powerful. Many of them were originally 9th level spells and some of them even got nurfed. I'm confused. Why did Paizo separate them from 9th level spell lists and create a 10th level spell list instead? I mean, I think just deleting 10th level spell list and putting all the 10th level spells into 9th level spell list would be a good idea.

It's simple actually, Wish was freaking broken, such that I have actually not met a DM yet who hasn't banned it and other spells that are now 10th level. This makes sure they don't appear until the very highest levels, where they belong.

I see. But I'm still not sure. If Wish or other similar spells are really that problematic, simply making them uncommon or rare would be enough, I guess, instead of creating a new spell level. And Gate was not even that powerful compared to Wish, by the way.

Wow... No more core "Paladin?!". Bold! I like it! "Divine Champion" sounds great.

Giving Wizard Quick Prep? I love Wizards, they're my favorite class, but making them more like the Sorcerer in regards to casting doesn't fit right as a "fix" to issues presented. I actually think this makes the wizard more powerful. The reason I took Quick Prep was because it was eminently powerful! Like I said Wizards are my favorite but sorcs should remain the versatile casters. Wouldn't just giving Wizards another spell slot be better? I'm wondering if the fix was made due to faulty survey assumptions, something that can easily happen to the best of us!
I'm just not feeling the barbarian rage changes, either. Doesn't seem like that big of a difference round to round but then now there's a DC tracking factor. Hmm :-/

I concur with above sentiments that CON should play a role in rage capacity. It keeps its legacy interaction (more CON = more rage), and makes more sense thematically for barbarians as the CON class.

Counting 3 on 1 off is easy.
Increasing flat checks adds a bit of a mental load and book-keeping, though rolling for perseverance is a fun bit of drama.

I like DM's suggestion of guaranteed rounds = CON modifier, but would change the flat check to be 11+ or something after that. So 3-5 guaranteed rounds depending on how you build your character, then some chance rounds after that when you start to flag. The probability of continued rounds at a 50% success drops significantly as well, but allows for those awesome "Oh wow another one" moments.

Gives some design space to influence the flat check as well through feats as others have suggested.

Doesn't seem like that big of a difference round to round but then now there's a DC tracking factor. Hmm :-/

Well, we've always (in PF2) had to track "how many rounds since you entered rage" so multiplying by 5 (or (n-1)*5 if you don't start counting at 0) isn't that much bigger a deal I suspect.

I concur with above sentiments that CON should play a role in rage capacity. It keeps its legacy interaction (more CON = more rage), and makes more sense thematically for barbarians as the CON class.

Counting 3 on 1 off is easy.
Increasing flat checks adds a bit of a mental load and book-keeping, though rolling for perseverance is a fun bit of drama.

I like DM's suggestion of guaranteed rounds = CON modifier, but would change the flat check to be 11+ or something after that. So 3-5 guaranteed rounds depending on how you build your character, then some chance rounds after that when you start to flag. The probability of continued rounds at a 50% success drops significantly as well, but allows for those awesome "Oh wow another one" moments.

Gives some design space to influence the flat check as well through feats as others have suggested.

I'm working on some more detailed statistics about barbarian rage. But one interesting idea would be replacing it with a Con check and increasing the limit to 25 or 30, which should correspond to a 50% chance at max Con.

Wow... No more core "Paladin?!". Bold! I like it! "Divine Champion" sounds great.

Giving Wizard Quick Prep? I love Wizards, they're my favorite class, but making them more like the Sorcerer in regards to casting doesn't fit right as a "fix" to issues presented. I actually think this makes the wizard more powerful. The reason I took Quick Prep was because it was eminently powerful! Like I said Wizards are my favorite but sorcs should remain the versatile casters. Wouldn't just giving Wizards another spell slot be better?

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

perpetual infusions is a joke atm

considering it replaces actual free Quick alchemy procs (1/2 level is gone now)

Perpetual Infusions basically does NOTHING when you get it and when it scales:

+2 item bonus to a single very specific save when you already have +2 item bonus to all saves.
DC 14 poisons that eat a full round to make a +1d4 attack that a monster only fails with a 2
level 7 bombs that do 1dx+1 with 2 actions at level 7
and etc

Perpetual Infusions is an Alchemist At-Will ability... basically the Alchemical equivalent to a Cantrip, something the class rather lacked before. And while the others are a bit harder to compare, comparing the Bomber options to a caster's Cantrips... well, it turns on disappointingly late, there's a feat tax of Calculated Splash (assuming you use the Resonance Test where the target now takes Splash damage too, I noticed that doesn't seem to have made it into this document) and you'll be two levels behind, but otherwise it compares pretty well equally.

That out of the way, I'm mostly going to talk about the Paladin (because of course). And I'm going to start by saying that the Liberator is every bit as situational as I was afraid any CG Paladin-esque with that title was going to be. LG gets a general purpose free attack, awesome. NG gets to either no-sell or debuff the target, great. CG... gets a save or check against a very limited list of conditions, and a Step if they're not restrained. Really? Not even a bonus on the save/check unless you add to your code and happen to be fighting very specific enemies? How often does entangling, grabbing, immobilizing, or restraining even come up in the middle of a fight? Not very often in my experience. And then the step. So the Defender could potentially take an enemy out of the fight, or at least get them closer to it, the Redeemer can either completely negate the attack or inflict a debuff for the entire turn, and the Liberator might deny the attacker a single action if their ally can move, and if the enemy doesn't have reach, and if the ally actually even wants to move to begin with, which there's a strong chance they might not. And then your level 12 option upgrades it... to a Stride at 1/2 distance. Which for most people... is going to be 10 feet. Wow, a whole extra square. And also now it provokes Reactions, just to add extra injury to insult.

On top of the issues with the reaction itself, there's the Divine Smite. Defender, if you can hit you get the bonus damage. Redeemer, if they choose not to negate their Action, you get the bonus damage. Liberator... if you're lucky enough to run into that very specific list of conditions, you get the bonus damage. The other two could potentially use theirs every fight, depending on the enemy in Redeemer's case, but Liberator will probably be lucky if they get to use theirs once per Act.

All that said, for as much as I think Liberator is an overly situational trash bin, I'm in love with Redeemer. The Redeemer is everything I could ask for in a Champion of Good, which is what I always wanted the Paladin to be (whether or not I'll be able to use the term Paladin has yet to be seen, but that's beside the point.)

well, as an alchemist you'd already want to invest in Craft usually.

so rolling Craft instead of medicine, even if it was medicine (Int), will usually be better.

But why?

in general.. I don't think the Alchemist in specific has any real reason to love craft do they?
I could easily have missed some detail somewhere.

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

Power and flexibility tend to be two sides of the same coin for a wizard. Quick Preparation means great flexibility outside of combat, which means great noncombat power, and great power with which to quickly prepare for an upcoming battle.

I would much rather see a little more flexibility with arcane bonds rather than Quick Preparation.