Another side effect is that Enchanters get a boost. In 1e, Enchanters were cool but very limited (there were odd cases like Kitsune Fey Sorcerer), but now...
Have you seen the Wiz Enchanter's Focus spells? Dread Aura lasts a minute, no save Frightened. In 2e this school is a powerful choice.
And now Sorshen can defend herself against the Tyrant.
Battle Herald to come back as an archetype.
Good for Fighters, Champions, Bards and more. We play a game which involves lots of fighting, professional military officer should be an archetype. The PF1 Prestige class was very weird, requiring obscure Monk or Cavalier Archetypes to work. a PF2 Battle Herald (or Military Officer, or Warlord, or Commander etc.) will allow for a more strategy-minded Paladin of Iomedae or a brave Bard barking orders.
I've been making a character inspired by a picture in the Core book, the Bard dancer.
I like the groovy clothes, her attractive complexion, that Mwangi clever magical hippie thing and that 2e Bards have been given the red carpet.
Now we have the Magaambya Academic archetype, just to fit my concept and it's a doozy, especially for a Bard. All killer, no filler. I'll be having that, thank you Paizo people.
The Ancestry stats are very useable. Let's have... a Venus Flytrap Leshy Barbarian with Frog Animal Instinct (for tongue and bite) and Herbalist Background, maybe a skill increase into Performance, for singing...
We have Audrey II from Little Shop Of Horrors.
The best bit is that this isn't wholly a joke build, it's a playable build.
The Pathfinder 1st edition with Arcane Duelist Bards, Sandman, Archaologist, Dervish Dancer, Celebrity, Buccaneer...
It's been a long long time since hey-nonny-no lutists, courtly love simperers have had to be a thing.
...I skimmed through as Bards aren't interesting to me. Even so, I would like to know what's going on with it in case one of my players wanted to be one in the future.
One of your players will play one, so best read up, OP. A Dancer Maestro Bard has a claim to be the best PC buffer in the game. That silly disco Halfling can use a bow or a sword and shield and... still waltz or bogle, and still cast, and still buff. Bards are no longer effete poets with feathers in hats*
*and when was that last a thing? the old Robin Hood movies?
I can imagine many Barbarians going the Intimidation route, Raging Intimidation gives you three feats for the price of one and Intimidating Prowess is just a good idea. Planets do not need to align for a modestly well-built Barbarian to become lethal at Demoralise.
Tangentially, given that boosting Cha is sensible for many Barbarians now, and the free level boosts, I do epect to see a lot of Sorc MCs, people going for a Bloodrager/Dragon Disciple thing. Cool, but I digress.
That's the thing, I don't think chat sabotaged it. Now, they didn't play as nice as some - the Sailor background for Storm Druid fits very happily into such a build for example, and everyone had at least one thing that was unused or deliberately silly, the Chameleon bit for that Druid for example. So even though all three of the other PCs had fun or flavour parts, they were all mechanically quite good builds, they all worked. A goblin who thinks he's a shark... fine. Silly, but works quite well, a viable melee PC.
I'm in agreement with you essentially, Chat and Mark Seifter didn't sabotage him. I just don't know what the alchemist was for. He was... ok at fort saves?
But maybe that's ok too. PF1 Core had some trash like original Rogues and Monks, now they are both pretty good.
Yes, the Sorcerer and Druid weren't badly built at all. The Sorc had good spell, background and skill choices, and Luis played him well. Could not roll dice worth a damn, but here we are.
Mutagen alchemist is awful though. I know the dice were bad, but it would have to be powergamed to be any use at all. Twitch had sympathy for most of the players, but not Cosmo. Dwarven Weapons feat? Unused, and wouldnt have been any good anyway. A familiar? Useless, maybe better had he been able to craft, but useless (and irritating).
The Barbarian was straight-up good, so some things have not changed from PF1, 1st level Barbarians do the business.
I'll join the call for a Commander/Warlord but I'm not sure it needs a class, a general Archetype might do.
In PF1 I loved the Battle Herald, but they were a bit of a pain to get going, generally requiring Standard Bearer Cavalier. In PF2, I want my Bard to be able to do it, be the absolute master of buffs. Huge Cha, stand there shouting Inspire Courage and various Tactics. If the Commander is a class, that's ok, I'm quite happy to take the dedication, but it can be used with so many other classes it might have to be more open. A Barbarian/Warlord or Champion/Knight or Fighter/Commander - I don't have to expand on these concepts for us to see the value in such a character.
There is a bit of a concern with the proposed Cavalier archetype. If Good on a mount and Tactician are both Archetype paths (either general or MC) then replicating the PF1 Cavalier might be difficult. I'd prefer Good on a horse just to be a couple of feats, then it works for Paladins or even a Ranger shooting from horseback.
Do you know what other Heritage is good? That Monkey Goblin.
In PF1 a Monkey Goblin Pirate rogue was a laugh and all, but not all that. In PF2 that pictured PC is very strong. Rogue is a good class, Sailor is a good Background and Monkey Goblin makes it all the sweeter. Grab Cat Fall as one of the Rogue's many Skill Feats and you are a v mobile and deadly striker pretty much out of the gate. Nice.
We're veering off-topic, and Mage Armour was always a bit rubbish, just something to spend a 1st level slot on. The price was very nice for the duration. A proper defensive spell is Mirror Image. Is that any good in this edition? In 1e it was the best defence for the investment, and it wasn't close.
Do need to know this as when my books arrive the first character I'll make will be a Bard, and this the only ranged attack Occult cantrip.
Can we throw knives? Acid flasks,alchemist fire? Put it this way, I want to hit someome with a handful of caltrops for the Telekenetic Projectile damage, then the caltrops fall and makes that enemy's space difficult terrain. Is this ok? A bit good for a cantrip, but ok?
Always down with weird bits of lore like this. Want to read it. I have to applaud any book which discusses the Prophet of Kalistrade.
That prestige class is bonkers. The character has to be rich, but explicitly not enjoy the wealth, unless looking at big numbers is your jam. In return they get... the worst PrC in the game, a semi-sorcerer an Adept would look down on. I can't think of a way to make one mechanically playable. Roleplay-playable is easy, we don't have to look far to see examples of blinding monetary greed.
Edit: One of the authors, Mr. Hillman, is very aware of this:
Mona supports the attempt.
Ha ha. Good luck with that, the class is hopeless. :)
Oh boy, it's really good. Cannot wait.
The Befriend a Local activity rule is a great idea and should be used in the wider game. It lets a PC interact with an NPC using mutual skills, rather than just Diplomacy. Thus a low-cha Wizard doesn't need to use Diplomacy to make friends at the university, he can use his Arcane skill, to talk to other nerds, that is their interest. Similarly, a gruff Ranger can go into the woods with a local guide, they can hug trees or whatever these types like to do and become friends based on the PC's Survival check. An excellent rule.
It seems a pity that two of the most obvious, least immediately interesting backgrounds are so mechanically good. Entertainer is not a particularly imaginative background for a Bard to take, but Fascinating Performance as a free feat is hard to ignore. It's so good. Similarly with Warrior. For an intimidation Barbarian (going on the route to get Scare to Death) that Intimidating Glare feat is gold, but a Warrior Barbarian isn't so inspiring.
On the other hand, both of those backgrounds are so broad that a decent back story can be made. Entertainer is anything from a jester to a playwright to a rapper. Warrior can be a guard or a gladiator or that village boy who must venture out for a trophy to become a man.
Edit- just seen the Age of Ashes players guide (gasp!) and for that barbarian, Dragon Scholar is just as good and much groovier. Get that. Dragons!
Wait, what's an enigma muse? New muse or a rename of a playtest muse?
I guess it is the Lore muse renamed.
Very odd feat though, especially as Enigma/Lore Bards will rinse most knowledge checks anyway. The wording doesn't help, does the GM just show the player the stat block, there, knock yourself out?
Not only does Kroft have a party of 17th level adenturers as allies, she does have cards to play, with them, at least. In CotCT, those PCs end up with their own Deck of Many Things!
How do NPCs work? Given that we no longer have Commoner, Aristocrat, Expert etc. what does an ordinary human person look like in the Bestiary? And how do we make her an expert (a sailor for instance)? Just give her Sailing Lore and Acrobatic proficiency? How are HP and other normally level-dependent attributes calculated?
Whoa there. I have bought them, not recieved them yet, nor do I expect them. The shop is totally legit. Bought and paid and now I can't wait for the postman come August. My dice might come quicker though, something to play with.
My coyness about the store is that Paizo shipping is v expensive outside the US and I'm not sure about advertising other resellers.
Anyway, roll on August, can't wait. I'll have rolled up 2e's baddest Bard within hours of feverish reading, 640 pages or not
IIRC the base assumption for a scoundrel rogue is a feint build, so 16 dex / 16 cha is probably what you want for them. More important for getting a +2 cha may be the potential to build an Arcane Trickster off of the Scoundrel Rogue chassis using a Sorcerer multiclass or being an ancestry with racial spells.
Arcane Trickster has so many possible builds now, expect to see loads of them. Your suggestion is very good, that chassis is also ideal for multiclass Bard.
In other news I have finally bought my books! Hooray!
I'm in the UK (so direct from Paizo is not ideal unfortunately) and I don't like Amazon so I shopped around and got a good deal, don't know if I can say where.
And even though I have to play online, I was so excited I bought a bunch of dice too
Pumpkinhead, Grognard, you are right we shouldn't derail the thread.
That chart is bizarre. Very happy to discuss it in a different thread. Only Humans and Drow are any good? Mountain Dwarfs have a Fighter limit?
I'm glad in PF2 that our boy Kaliban can become a Fighter 20 and he'll probably be casting 8th level Arcane spells. It does say something about the superhero power levels, Kaliban would astonish Gygax and Arneson but I like the ultra high-fantasy gonzo direction Pathfinder has become.
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
Nobody in their right mind doesn't love the concept of Swashbuckler, but I can't justify it as a class in PF2. As an Archetype (get good with rapiers, have a focus pool for Panache substitute), my goodness, yes please. There is too much crossover.
Fighter: We'll already get the Aldori Swordsman, and it's a fighter with a sword, no problems, more specialisation would be better.
Rogue: Again, we have a person who is handy at fencing. Merisiel herself is fond of a rapier, it's a thing.
Champion: A CG Liberator of Cayden Cailean wants a tankard in one hand and an epee in the other. This absolutely calls for a Swashbuckler archetype.
Alchemist: I'd like the Investigator to come back, but one can pull of a Sherlock Holmes type with this.
Bard: A flashing blade with quick wit and an eye for the ladies is a known trope with good reason, needs the archetype.
I could go on, but it's clear that many classes want to be able to swashbuckle, so many classes should be allowed to, thus make it an early-entry (and very good, please Paizo) Archetype. My one concern is combining it with other Archetypes, Pirate being an obvious example. How do you combine the two? A Fighter or Rogue with both the Swashbuckler and Pirate Archetypes makes a lot of thematic sense, but wouldn't have much of the build together until teenage levels. This is fine for a powerful enemy like a level 14 Pirate Queen, but tricky as a level 1 PC in a PF2 version of Skulls and Shackles. Minor problems though.
As for the others, I'm in broad agreement:
Witch: Hexes as focus spells/cantrips. Prepared Occult, with other spells from patron lists.
Oracle: Everyone loves them, the Curse/Revelation this was great, Divine Sorcer just doesn't cut it for me.
Kineticist: Can probably be done with Cantrip/Focus spells and Con stat in exchange for armour and weapon Expert/Master improvements.
Mesmerist: Superb and creepy class, can almost certainly be done as a level 1 Bard Archetype though.
Antipaladin/Tyrant: Not my cup of tea, but the rules are aready here for these baddies. The only discussion is the name of the NE version. MFer?
Shifter: Conceptually neccessary, but i wonder if it can be done with an Archetype? There are solid reasons why a Monk or Ranger or Fighter would want to be one. Barbarian can already do it a bit. Even Rogues should - a sneaky rogue who can turn into a bird or a cat is a solid PC.
Battle Herald/Tactitian: I know one was a PrC and 4e did a Marshall and the other was a Cavalier Archetype, but this please. We can probably do something with Bard/Champion multiclass, but It'd be nice to have a tough non-caster who hands out bonuses and coordinates the battlefield. I'd like to see clever generals with high Int or Cha who make those stats work. Bear in mind that in PF2 a PC gets a boost to four stats every few levels, by the end of a career it will be commonplace to have Int 18 Fighters and Wis 18 Rangers. May as well use it.
Brutish Shove looks very nice, especially with a Rogue in the party. Bop the enemy and it's a sitting duck for a Sneak Attack, every round (there won't be many rounds).
The power trajectory in PF2 looks steeper than PF1. At level 3, Kaliban has +7 Will (a good number in this edition), 44 HP and is ok at spells already. Compare that competence to a level 1 character.
Leaked photos of the multiclass pages of the new rulebook show Kaliban's pic on the Wizard multiclass page. And here he is, casting Shield before whaling on someone with his big hammer. He's named, he's built well and he looks cool. Good chap. I welcome our new iconic Kaliban!
I haven't seen a more boring and tangential discussion about a minor aspect of our game since the endless dross posted by fascists arguing for Paladins to be heartless cops.
Check this out:
I care a lot about our game and while I'm no cheerleader, I have been telling my friends and colleages on the down low that we play a good game. We play a game that is liberating for the mind. We play a game that brings friendship and imagination and a happy, inclusive environment.
I'd like to point newbies to this blog, but alas no. We can't get hype and spreading the word, we get folk who get upset about the definition of a 'week' in game time.
And they call us nerds.
the point about a 'prestige' class is that in PF1 one must be of a certain level, and in PF2, while that level limit may not be required, hoops must still be jumped through.
Thus in this case, your build for the class looks good, though I disagree with you about the Dedication feat and entry. The requirements to take the 'prestige archetype Arcane Archer' or whatever it will be called are more likely to be Trained in a bow (or crossbow) and Trained in a magic tradition, (even if just at cantrip level). It makes sense on a narrative level - if you want to be an Arcane Archer, you must already know how to cast a spell and draw a bow, but also it creates that level gate, for most people being able to do both ok will be about 6th level anyway.
There might be some early entries in the instance of Arcane Archer - Bards, Elves, Clerics of Erastil -but they are thematic anyway insofar as Pf1 is concerned. Similarly something like Mystic Theurge can be level gated simply by requiring Trained in two different traditions, Arcane and Divine the most obvious.
James Jacobs wrote:
Alderpash used to worship Baphomet. He doesn't any more. Gone off him recently (and not much there to worship). May even have converted to Iomedae if it gets him out.
Captain Morgan wrote:
It is indeed a feature. Here is a fun thing to do.
1. Be a Bard, borrow your Barbarian friend's Dread Blindfold.
2. Be Legendary in Performance, have Fascinating Performance and Legendary Performer. You are headlining Woodstock at this point, everyone loves you.
3. At the climax to one of your hit records you put on the Dread Blindfold
(Maybe not profit, it's possible someone might get hurt)
On the other hand, I do like how merely investing sufficiently in a skill can create superhuman effects. A Bard with Legendary Perofrmance and all the feats, like Fascinating Performance becomes world famous (if he wants) and can fill stadiums with fans both rapt and malleable. It's extrememly powerful, but only as gonzo as something like Scare to Death, with similar Intimidation investment (Combining the two however...)
Yes, that was awful, Reactionary, where every member of the party were bullied as a child. How did so many timid people all become adventurers? Entire parties of Scoobys and Shaggys, no Freds or Daphnes.
At least Reactionary can be roleplayed (poorly). There's that awesome one which boosts caster level but you have to have been raised in the woods by a weird monster or something.
Gladiatorial Lore is a funny one. Look at the crunch for the Gladiator Background:
"Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Charisma, and one is a free ability boost.
You gain the Fascinating Performance skill feat, and you’re trained in the Gladiatorial Lore skill."
+Cha and Facinating Performance. Perfect. Expect a lot of Bards to have come straight out of the fighting pits and know about weird weapons (which they can't use) and lions and tigers (which they can't fight).
I didn't play the playtest so please bear with me.
What has happened with NPC classes, Commoner, Expert etc.? Are they gone? I can imagine they might be for simplicity and as things in the new bestiary are simplified it's esy to make a low-level Human 'monster' without many features.
On the other hand, it seems that Backgrounds shoud still work with NPCs. Blacksmith background for example, or Sailor. They don't need lots of fighting ability to be Trained in Crafting or have Sailing Lore as a feat. Even giving a cantrip is a simple addition, it'll do for an Adept.
Red Mantis Assasins are awesome, I loved slaying the tricky blighters in Crimson Throne. So many cool things like the nasty swords and the scorpion summoning. I do wonder how they become a 2e archetype? it's great that any class can potentially become one, but their special rules are very niche. For instance, I loved their narrow but interesting spell list (losing these is one of few downsides to 2e).
This reminds me of the Deific Obediences in PF1, especially the good deities. Some requires one just to be nice (Erastil or Sarenrae for example), some had bits to do with the portfolio (Shelyn wants a peice of art or poetry, Kurgess like to see you hit the gym), but some were trivially easy. Desna's is wander around for a bit. Cayden's is have a beer and sing a song. Iomedae's is literally just pray with your sword, which you would be doing anyway, Paladins love doing that sort of stuff.
If this is the standard to regain focus, it's not difficult.
Evil gods on the other hand have much tougher rules (except Rovagug which is funny).
Yes, this. My PF1 Paladin is exactly this. Medium armour for speed. No shield, don't need it. Two-handing a longsword (for Iomedae). Fist into battle, he defended the party by discouraging others from the front line - in a party of four with him, the others would typically be a Wiz, a Rogue and a Divine of sorts, why should they risk their necks or have redundancy in more than one frontliner? PF2 appears to need more than one melee fighter in a party to make the Champion worthwhile.
Glad to see coverage of Rahadoum.
It's an interesting country that might become more powerful in this edition. The Godless Healing feat is mentioned, but the Medicine skill is vastly boosted and there are plenty of folk who can heal adequately without a deity, bards and Alchemists and even some Sorcerers (Which has implications for Razmir but I digress). Rahadoum can now get away with not having Clerics, at least for crunch. Spiritual values in a world with proven gods is another question.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Red Mantis Assassin has always been popular, so good call, though it is uite hard to do as an archetype with the niche spells and specialist summoning. I suppose they can add some invisibility spells and dual-weilding and call it good.
Mwangi Expanse is definitely Magaambyan Arcanist. None of the archetypes known so far are specifically for casters, this one is (and how!). Not too hard to implement either, and I'd imagine Wizards, Sorcerers and Druids can all get something out of it.
It's a lovely idea, and now rules-compatible.
The bard puts on a play, the Rogue and Sorcerer take the lead roles, the Barbarian does a bit of stunt work and clowning, the Wizard does stage management and special effects. All of it can be role played, yet not too much hand-waving, die rolls are still in effect.