A Drifting Shoebox's page

While I don't have much of a problem with Daredevil as a name, I do look at it and kinda wonder why they didn't give it a native d6 lethal fist and call it "Brawler", given that it's... Definitely very much filling that "open handed, lightly armored maneuver focused combatant" class that 1e brawler definitely wanted to be (to kinda dubious result). I can only assume they wanted to avoid "monk 2" callouts, but I don't think they really dodge that as much as try to hide it behind a thin curtain.

I do think it's very apparent from the fact that spellstrike needs to be recharged that the intent was to avoid every round just being spellstrikes, and I agree with that conceit! Big hits you need to recharge are intrinsically a "cool" thing! But you need to make sure that off-turns where you are NOT spellstriking feel just as shiny and unique to the class as the "on" turns, otherwise people will do everything in their power to avoid them-that's where I feel like the bag was fumbled here, especially with Arcane Cascade being a further action economy wrench with no springboard mechanic to actually get you going.

Just because it's maybe "balanced" right now doesn't mean it couldn't be designed in a more interesting way. You have to lure players into your desired play pattern with things that incentivize that desired pattern, and when the shiniest toys all directly point almost entirely at Spellstrike, they're gonna assume that's the thing they should be doing almost to the exclusion of all others, even if that's wrong.

The easiest way maybe would have been if there was a more tangible incentive to use recharges and other actions completely separated from Spellstrikes. Just avoiding MAP from conflux spells really isn't enough-heck force fang is right to not even need to think about it. Sure, the threat of Reactive Strikes on Spellstrike is there, but being told "just do basic actions instead of your shiny toy" will just hit a lot of people's brains like sandpaper, especially just doing a raw spell cast when your spell prof and int mod feel like they're lagging behind for most levels. There's... A lot more to the conversation that could be had about what you COULD be doing with magus's feats to help, but it does start to feel beyond the scope of this thread.

Making a ton of strikes always feels like a spook compared to just "what is the opportunity cost in actions (and feats) of a weapon with reloading" and weighing if you think that cost is worth it to you. If it just feels like a bad trade, then it doesn't matter how good the math on it actually is, you'll always feel like the resources spent elsewhere with a non-reload weapon are better, even if you're making the same number of strikes overall.

As far as gunslinger subclasses go, I think a lot of issue with it my circles face has kinda come down to how a player would naturally assume a subclass is meant to give you a primary playstyle, when it's actually seemingly just "extra situational tools" for most of them? Which tends to lead to disappointment, because most people I know pick things because they go "that sounds cool, I wanna do that", rather than "I'd like that in my back pocket for if the situation comes up".

To get specific to a subclass I've always considered when making PCs, a Drifter gunslinger's advantage really doesn't appear to be that they're a close range powerhouse, it's that if a situation needs them to be right next to something, they have the flexibility to still get something out of it while giving flanking to the other melee characters (that hopefully exist in their party). At least until Stab and Blast actually props up the melee side to turn it into a proper switch-hitter-you are using a combination weapon for your melee, right? Meanwhile, Triggerbrand's whole identity seems like it hinges like giving up more power and flexibility to get Stab and Blast a little quicker, via Triggerbrand Salvo.

For Magus... Each subclass does have issues specific when I look at them, Arcane Cascade as it exists as a "turn subclass on" feature alwayes seemed just poorly conceived to me ever since it got surprise-added after the playtest, with too many barriers into making it a "good feeling" action? That button needs to feel good to press, and with the current ways to make it even able to be pressed, I don't think it's got the sauce even if it's technically "fine". Especially when I look over at other class's "turns [sub]class on" actions? If it had magus-unique 1 action "cantrips" that worked with it, or else it combined with some other action to turn it on ("any time something lets you recharge spellstrike, you can instead enter cascade" maybe?), that could help? But there's a lot of factors going into Magus, not the least of all is that everything has to compete with the shiniest, jangliest set of keys that is "What if Big Spellstrike tho?", even if I desperately think the class deserves more focus (and ideally options) on its non-spellstrike turns.

It's hard to point a finger at but it feels like classes who got buffed needed no buffs and the classes which got changed people wanted that but the OGL stuff got nerfed aka Wizard.

- Did anyone ask for Barbarian to get free rage at start of initiative?
- Did anyone ask for Rogues to get crit success on all 3 saves, add dex to damage on unarmed strikes as a Thief, and a buff to Ruffian racket?
- Did anyone ask for Alchemist Toxicologist to be this cheesy? (I.E, put poison on everyone's weapon

I can pretty easily say "yes" to at least half the stuff on here, the stuff that I didn't see being asked for was either just outright baffling (the Rogue saves) or just a natural result of not getting the fix that would have made an "intended" playstyle actually functional (Toxicologist, with Alchemist's non-bomb action economy being absolutely abysmal). The key there though is that the stuff being asked for was also usually in tandem with hoping for positive changes to classes that (IMO) absolutely needed it more than Barbarian and Rogue.

My experience with the Remaster is that the ceiling of quality has felt much higher, but the consistency of it has definitely gotten broader. A lot of restrictions being loosened in many areas has renewed my interest and gotten me more excited, but the design misses and almost random-feeling tightening of restrictions in other areas counterbalances it and makes me start to remember the days of PF1e at its height, where I needed to keep documents dedicated to either the laundry list of homebrew, or for keeping track of stuff that got errata gutted so hard my friends wanted easy access to the old versions.

All of that still kind of results in an overall improved experience for my ttrpg circle granted, but seeing stuff like devs semi-regularly cycling out tends to make me furrow my brow and get why the consistency feels worse. I like when things have a consistent "vision", even if I maybe don't agree with that vision, you know?

A lot of stuff in this thread has been pain points I've definitely had to grapple with, despite the actual in-session time I've spent with the game being quite fun. Possibly some of the best "d20 fantasy" from a strict gameplay quality perspective, to the point I'm still looking at the game as something to potentially try GMing myself when time permits (and current games end), since it looks downright relaxing compared to when I tried to look into 1e.

But outside of game night, I definitely do often just feel immensely frustrated by the entire chargen and progression process. It's just a constant sensation that I'm asked to pick far too many feats to the point that it becomes annoying, but individual feats are often so weak I feel like I actually don't have enough slots to make it feel good. Too often I feel less like I've been given customization, and more like it's a weird puzzle box designed specifically to attempt to mentally trap me for thinking too much about it.

Optional rules like ancestry paragon and free archetype help my brain worms, as do 3pp or homebrew adds ("gain a free level 1 skill feat for a given skill when becoming trained in it" has been a godsend for my groups), but as a broad stroke that just feels like it puts an even bigger magnifying glass on the weird opportunity cost each feat category has when there are "notable outliers". Ancestries with the same kind of feat, at the same level, where one ancestry just has obviously better versions; classes who have class feats at given levels that are so obviously better than everything around them I marvel at why it wasn't just built into the class instead of feeling like a check to see if a player is asleep at the wheel. Almost enough to make me think "class feats" don't feel like a system that suits every class.

It's definitely soured me on archetypes and the dedication tag, for anything besides multiclasses, and made me really wish that a more robust "general feats" list had instead been where most of the stuff from archetypes lived (I say, giving Sentinel the stink eye from my Champion). I get why Paizo DIDN'T go with the insanely broad, high impact general feat pool, and tried to silo with archetypes. I played-heck, still play, 1e-every time I open that feat list without a guide filtering it I start giving myself a headache. But that doesn't mean I like the 2e archetype system as-is.

I think what attracts me to the class, as the potential next thing for me to play, is a multitude of things. The fact that it has a very evocative gameplay loop, how trivially easy to refluff away from the its "godling" fluff into something less over-the-top, and how it is potentially capable of a wide variety of things in a given set of turns even if it's not the best at any given thing. In a lot of ways, I think it fulfills a pretty good chunk of what I want out of a spellsword better than some of the actual "gish" classes in the system does-I just have to blow a few feats on energized spark first so I can do some cheeky elementally-charged attacks.

Which kinda spins into one of the bigger hurdles I faced faced when planning a few out to maybe play in future campaigns-building one is complicated, yes, but part of that is just how many things seem really underwhelming. It could really stand to have both a few more options, and tweaks on the underperformers. Leap The Falls has been mentioned, but I can't not rag on it as one of the worst offenders. I also look at Mated Birds in Paired Flight and get the impression it sort of feels like someone took a level 4 and 6 feat and mushed them together to make a level 10 feat?

Playing a bomber in one campaign, and watching a player struggle to play a Chirurgeon in another, has been a pretty interesting experience. Neither of us had event bothered considering the class before the remaster, since it looked like such a planning nightmare in the early levels and really set off the brain worms of the other player.

I think the class is really fun, and can be pretty effective given the right circumstances. Versatile Vials, when pacing allows recharge, feel pretty nice. It definitely feels like the class is very biased towards throwing bombs (and the Bomber subclass) and hoping your GM likes enemies with elemental weaknesses, and the ways to maximize the effectiveness (in a general sense) of most anything else the class wants to do seems to involve play and build habits that drive me and some friends absolutely mental. That's probably not as big a deal to do for some people, but it's definitely been a challenge my playgroup has had to tinker with to get satisfying.

I think that no matter how balanced shields truly are, the number of "little fees" you pay to use them is going to feel flat out bad for some groups. Regardless of how small those "fees" actually are, it's still kinda undeniably a 6-7 step process to use a shield, and that's going to be felt. Especially by a new player at low levels, picking one up and trying to block for the first time on their shiny new fighter/champion, unaware of all the little potential nuances.

That last step, of tracking shield HP/BT, is definitely the one that frustrates new (and even some veteran) players in my usual circles the hardest. I'd wish there was a "hard" and "soft" block to compromise, where soft blocking just means less resistance and no damage to the shield, but that just adds another step and complicates the process further.

In lieu of any actual rules changes, I just have to keep suggesting to new players that, if they have party members who want to seriously use shields and everyone isn't rocking Exemplar's Mirrored Aegis which occasionally makes me wish Champion's Shield blessing had that same 10 minute auto-repair clause, even if it's ALREADY likely the best blessing, they need SOMEONE speccing into crafting and quick repair.

I definitely had not intended to imply Spellstrike shouldn't be the focus, so I definitely misspoke there. I think the focus is relatively equal between editions, but the emphasis feels greater in 2e to me because of the nature of the design goal of an "off-turn" that has a relatively strict recovery of what is essentially an "action you borrow from the future". It's a good goal that I want them to continue exploring, but its current implementation just seems like it encourages unintended behaviors that result in an entirely new cookie cutter meme build. The way "Starlit Span with Psychic Dedication for Amped Imaginary Weapon that just ignores everything but spellstriking" is so often held up just feels a lot more egregious to me than shocking grasp scimitar (or longbow snowball eldritch archer) ever felt.

I strongly disagree with the notion that there weren't an equal number of viable (if still weaker) alternative build paths for 1e magus, even if the momentum of the "meta" is so overwhelming, but in the end that's kind of worthless to the now. In the present, I just wish that the "off-turn" parts of 2e's magus (conflux spells, cascade, regular spellcasting) could tie more smoothly together as either setup or recovery for its "on-turn" spellstrike burst, and the "best build" didn't involve stealing another class's focus spell while completely ignoring noticeable chunks of your actual class.

To branch out a bit so I'm not just rambling about shapeshifting...

Free archetype has proven to be pretty important for making characters feel properly customized, but it's also a lot more common than I would have expected at the outset. With that in place, I'm much happier with the level of customization available. Versatile heritages pull a surprising amount of weight there for me.

I gotta echo this one, it kinda feels like without free archetype (and, truthfully, Ancestry Paragon and an additional "bonus level 1 skill feat for becoming trained" houserule) I don't think my usual gaming circles or I would have had nearly as much fun? I'm equally surprised that Free Archetype is as common or well regarded as it is.

PF2 Magus feels so much better to be around.

This one actually doesn't quite feel like it clicks with me, and I think it's just because whenever I see the frustration with 1e magus, I don't really feel like 2e magus actually learned all the right lessons from it's predecessor? 2e's version just seems to be doubling down on the importance of spellstrike's burst damage by tying even more of the kit into spellstrike, while downplaying everything else (to the point a lot of people actively ignore parts of its kit), and I just don't think that's really a healthy design if the goal is avoiding repetitive, samey builds and turns that stake it all on gambling for a big hit.

I do think 1e magus was a mess with too few "good" build paths, partially as a result of erratas that took away options, I just find the idea of it being "one-trick" within those builds sort of weird given the way 2e magus is designed.

As for compatibility, I don't consider that a copout. The big point is that I can go find a PF2 GM or PF2 players for an SF2 game. Grabbing something cross-system will have balance issues, and "shapeshifting alien starfish are much better shapeshifters than mystical foxes" is a fair balance difference.

I do not think it's incorrect that Astrazoan make sense to be better at it, when it's their entire gimmick to be "the shapeshifting ancestry". That doesn't really bother me. I just also don't think it's unfair of me to find that the feats other ancestries have usually just feel extremely undertuned, and Astrazoans being so freestyle with it just makes that feel more glaring. I don't mind some refluffing, I already have a refluffed Astrazoan idea in the pipe even, but I'm going to start narrowing my eyes when the opportunity costs don't even seem to pretend to feel remotely fair.

Like, "it can go on any ancestry!" doesn't dissuade me from thinking Beastkin Critter Shape is anything but insulting; or the Hybrid Form feats multiple ancestries have are even remotely worth any feat by themselves, let alone a level 5 feat of all things. To just pull two random examples.

To speak specifically to the at-will face change thing, I remain kind of annoyed by Astrazoan in SF2e given how... Oppressively limited most shapeshifting in PF2e is by comparison? Astrazoan is getting to just do nearly everything I might have wanted from something like Kitsune, plus a couple bags of chips and some soda, far earlier and for less investment. Sure, "Starfinder 2e has different balance assumptions" and "just homebrew it", but that feels like kind of a copout given how heavily compatibility is touted.

I'll admit a lot of my interest in Starfinder 2e once its full core is out stems very heavily from compatibility with Pathfinder 2e. Being able to combine both for a more tech-advanced fantasy setting, while adding in a ton of new classes, is a lot more interesting to me than a bespoke standalone thing the way SF1e turned out to be. I have waaaaay more interest on playing an Envoy or Solarian in a version of Golarion (or homebrew) that evokes second era mistborn, or one of the settings from the likes of Final Fantasy or Tales of that's full of magitech, than I do in trying to deal with a setting specifically focused on space sci-fi.

I did, however, still really enjoy reading stuff about Starfinder's setting and some of its ideas back during SF1e, even if I did not at all like playing in it. Corpo Culture Drow might be the first time I could say I actually just liked any Drow lore, for example. Maybe with SF2e's full release, I'll be more inclined to give playing in that setting a chance.

[snip]

I can agree with pretty much all of these, save the 1+ weapons thing on thaumaturge. I think having a martial repeating 1-hander would be a way better answer-though I have made multiple posts recently saying the repeating crossbows should all be martial, so perhaps I just have a bias.

WRT Magus's arcane cascade, occasionally I wonder if Kineticist's channel elements isn't the place to look to for ideas. Just ditch the stance rigamarole entirely, since it already requires casting a spell, and give some kind of very basic action ribbon (vanilla strike or stride?) for entering it. Could maybe mean having the design space to include "spending" your cascade on something to avoid it being a fire/forget outside of combat, though that would mean an additional on/off resource to track on top of spellstrike.

The only real other addition I can add overall is mainly just removing manipulate on thaum and magus for actions intended to be taken in melee. Being in melee and risking reactions from movement and other normal actions should be enough danger, and both already benefit massively from going the ranged weapon route due to each adding lots of bonus damage..

I must have missed this. What did the remaster take away from the fighter?

If we don't count count "other classes getting better, while Fighter didn't change much"? Really just the ability to squeak in access to a second weapon group at full proficiency via archetype, for the level 5-18 range, which is... I dunno, didn't feel like super necessary to lose, even if most of the archetypes that did it are improved for non-fighters now via adding advanced weapon access. (Except Martial Artist, bizarrely? That one just lost the proficiency equalizing text and gained absolutely nothing)

I can understand why the design of Fighter would put it as someone's "worst" class, albeit not if power is an issue. It is the pinnacle of "Strong because big number", and it has excellent, unique feats on top, that to this day make me wrinkle my nose a little at being fighter-specific. That said, the only part of the class that truly bothers me, specifically is that I do not think access to at least a second weapon group in that level 5-18 range would really... Break it. A trip focused Guisarme Fighter is already probably the strongest thing you can do with the class and has been from day 1, if someone wants to double slice with an axe and sword, or spend the extra feats to swap between a sword and bow, I'd just let them use premaster dedications, or pay a 6th level fighter feat and just do it if they wanted to that badly.

A lot of the time when I find a reason to be annoyed by stuff in 2e, it always feels really... Petty and granular, even if it's valid.

In general, there's the beaten horse of thinking spellcaster design in general sort of fumbles the bag in the broad strokes, over many small things. Especially when a new player comes in and picks one up without guidance, but enough of it functions that it doesn't feel worth getting too upset over. I will say that the low level psychic and wizard experience almost made two friends quit the system permanently, but they bounced back with coaxing (by playing different classes entirely).

I'll be extra petty, and say Battle Herald Cleric, specifically, does not feel like it was a final draft. Playable? Sure, I guess, but it just feels underwhelming (not even true "full" martial scaling? With everything it loses?) and like it squandered any interesting ideas it had (all those free sustains on auras to play with, but no unique sustain effects?).

Enough points have been made about Inventor all I feel I need to do is +1 that. It might be one of the few times I'd say I'd wince when seeing someone bring to play in a game, sharing a rare position with playtest guardian (who I don't think is worth expanding on, on account of still being playtest).

Alchemist I am torn on, I am having fun playing one, so I can't call it the worst, nor say I'd be mad to see another player pick one, but it very much feels as though it will be receiving tweaks and buffs via errata and bandaid items until the system is sunset for a 3e. Maybe had I picked any subclass but bomber I would be way more miserable towards it.

Thaumaturge I have mixed feelings on. It is incredibly good and I'd never be annoyed to see one in my party, I'd like to play one even, but it feels like it is sewn together from utterly disparate class pitches that result in something fun, but primed to start long arguments. It's the most straightforwardly easy, strong recall class, yet it's KAS is charisma. It's a tool-focused semi-magical implement class like 1e Occultist, yet it's also a dedicated monster hunting martial class that wants to focus down one target via strikes. I (mostly) love how it plays, yet I get frustrated by the design and narrative space it occupies.

Magus feels as though spellstrike's design dooms it by forcing everything in the class to be designed to account for it existing at all. Focus spells, spell slots, feats, everything. Starlit span doesn't help matters by just flat out ignoring an entire feature (Arcane Cascade) and still being the "best one". I don't even know what levers you'd be able to pull to free up breath for ANYTHING else, because the inner gambler in me knows that the high of a crit slotted strike is the entire reason some people touch the class at all.

Yea, I'll echo again that as they're currently statted, I still do not fathom the two advanced repeating crossbows being... Well, advanced weapons at all, when compared to the likes of the shortbow. If you took both statblocks and made them martial firearms, would that truly cause any dramatic problems? Aside from maybe being better than some other existing niche martial weapons, but "there's a lot of bad weapons" is already I complaint I see even outside the discussion of firearms.

As far as gunslinger itself and the "issue" of needing to pay for running reload, it sorta feels like it suffers a similar problems some other classes do, where the budget for hardlocked class features seems to flat out not be large enough to actually encapsulate both fun situational nigh-ribbon abilities, as WELL as every foundational tool you'd assume them to get, just as a byproduct of trying to tie everyone to the class feat structure. It's not really something ruining the system, mostly minor inconveniences, but it's been a burr in my boot to have the (relatively rare, mind) times when looking at the feats at a given level for a class and you have one that is just so above and beyond the rest for what the class wants to be doing, that it just feels like a hard knowledge check on a new player.

By a similar token, it feels like Fake Out does an insane amount of heavy lifting for the idea of Gunslinger being a "support"

It's worth noting that Gunner's Bandolier exists, but explicitly does not work with quickdraw, which is a pretty crippling factor as it means it's not really any better than simply reloading normally, unless you're looking to save a feat on free-hand reloading, and don't want to just use a slide pistol or something instead.

I do often look at the Repeating Crossbow and Repeating Hand Crossbow and wonder why they're advanced weapons, especially when looking at the air repeaters. A Martial repeating firearm would by necessity likely need to lack fatal, but it would be nice for it to be there at all, for those classes who don't want to focus on crit-fishing, but still want to have it as an option.

I suppose I was remembering wrong about there being more things like final surge then, and just assumed that one of the other mutagens probably had a similar effect rather than trying to go through the entire mutagen list to double check. I still maintain that the ability to end early (without needing to be an alchemist with feats you likely only want specifically FOR the cancellation) would be a nice bit of QoL to help assuage new player concerns (among other reasons), but I'm not about to die on that hill.

I am also curious about the RTV, and other books with alchemicals. Alchemist and the items they use have had a slow, steady upward trend in quality and ease of use (at least, as easy as "here is a class dedicated to using this massive list of consumeables" can be), so I'm willing to be patient to see how things get handled-even if I wish it wasn't uh. Quite as slow.

My own experience with mutagens is that their drawbacks are all wildly different levels of severity, and that makes it just much easier to sell for some people than others. A War Blood or Silvertongue Mutagen are both practically free, and thus trivial to talk a party member into accepting. Drakeheart is unique and a strong situational case has gotten made for it, while a Fury Cocktail or Quicksilver all give intense pause or downright hostility to the idea for everyone I've played with. I've seen too many hits or saves be 1-2 points away from turning into dangerous fight swinging crits, or 4-12 hp from someone going down, to ever argue with them there.

The fallback shutdown of Drakeheart (and a few other mutagens, if memory serves?) was always kind of interesting to me, and I wish mutagens in general either all had something like that, or at the very least that the mutagen trait had a universal "one action to just cancel the mutagen, with no other effect". It'd not solve the bad taste the drawbacks give people I've played with, but it would be some peace of mind that it wouldn't be hard to back out if it's become too detrimental.

Naming aside, thrilled to have Zadim and Imrijka back, and attached to two options that I'm hotly anticipating, with mechanical/fluff niches I'm pretty into, for classes I'm already really fond of. Need Avenger and Vindicator rubbed all over my eyeballs, so waiting for it is gonna be tough.

Oh, I get that but not maximizing str further widens the gap in damage with still putting yourself in greater danger. You have better defense if you maximized Dex but then why even offer str?

I assume with the intent of giving pure melee builds the option to exist, even if the agile restriction is kind of weird and counter to that. I definitely agree that it's not in a great place right now but the playtest weapon list is doing it absolutely no favors. I do feel like it's got a decent idea for a subclass though, and hopefully survey feedback can help it get polished up.

I could maybe see a split to a "full melee" strength subclass and a more focused "switch hitter" that leans into the agile/finesse and pistol route, and gives you some extra damage to make up for having less strength?

Striker definitely seems like it's made in mind with options and weapons that the playtest just, uh, doesn't actually have a lot of? Your best option for melee appears to be playing something like a Pahtra or Vesk for access to a feat that grants you a 1d6 agile finesse claw, if you want to exclusively build with things that are in the playtest (discounting the ability to swap your ability boosts to the two free floats).

I think it's probably in a mildly rough place, but could pretty easily work fine as long as it gets more support for its playstyle. It doesn't mandate Str, and a Dex switch-hitter playstyle would be really welcome.

It would create more space for someone who wants to go for a second mental score instead of just dumping every increase into STR/DEX/CON/WIS every 5 levels, which is maybe less optimal in the long run, but is a nice build variety enabler IMO. I've played with at least one person who'd have absolutely loved to have that as an option, given they wanted to play a monk with Cha secondary.

I think my only complaint with this feat is entirely that I would have expected it to be a level 2 or 4 monk class feat, rather than a feat tied to a specific heritage (even if it's one I personally really like and want to use). Even then, it... Doesn't really feel particularly like it's going to break anything?

I have a feeling bomber will still probably be the clear top dog for alchemist's subclasses, but even so I'm definitely still stoked by this iteration on the class, it sounds like a much more solid foundation for someone to start out playing, and for designers to iterate on.

So wait, Quid said there's a feat to let your Animal Companion speak, but then immediately says it eventually upgrades to Improved Familiar? Safe to assume this is just referring to familiars as your "animal companions", and my dream of combining animal companion and familiar features into one creature is remaining unrealized?

Oh man, really wish I kept a running list of all the archetypes I actually liked of every class, because there are far too many to keep track of, and even more that end up being "cool idea mediocre execution". I don't think I could even give a real "top 5" in order of actual favorites, even just narrowing it down to core+alchemist classes. More just "the first ones that come to mind", except maybe one.

1. Promethean Alchemist (Alchemist): This archetype is the exception to "first to come to mind", because it is without a doubt my favorite IDEA for an archetype, to the point where I'm playing one right now despite a laundry list of complaints. Having a custom-built construct pal oozes flavor, and it has so much potential story for how the alchemist got to that point... If it didn't feel like it shot both your knees off with little to show for it. You lose your features that let you directly contribute and can't get a single one back, and the homunculus herself has a fixed progression, mediocre scaling, and dubious customizability. It's a narrow, narrow niche, but I hope it gets more love.

2. Gun Chemist (Alchemist): Y'know, aside from keeping Poison Use when it really shouldn't have, this feels like it's close to perfect for what it's intended to do. Cull some of the feature taxes on it (coughInfusioncough) and make some more alchemical cartridges and this would be a dandy addition.

3. Monk of the Empty Hand (Monk): You know, I heard about this a long time ago, and then again after I watched Thunderbolt Fantasy and got a taste of one of the last episodes. I got kind of excited by the idea of a monk who can beat down normally, or grab a branch and turn it into a deadly killing implement, but was let down by how expensive it was in Pathfinder to be far less effective than just punching someone normally. Hopefully with a rewrite it can turn into something better in 2e.

4. Tattooed Sorcerer (Sorcerer): With the personal discovery of Bloodline Familiars, the Advent of Bloodline Mutations, and Arcane Bloodline being "Just That Good", this one has fallen out of favor with me whenever I start making sorcerers, but a tattoo-covered mage is just so appealing on a conceptual level. Tattoo Familiars are still the coolest kind of familiar.

5. Dervish Dancer (Bard): I always come back to this one when it's time to roll characters even if I don't get to roll one out (darn groups, always having three other people clamoring to be charisma-based classes), because by golly if it isn't one of the coolest gishy-swordmaster-type archetypes out there... If only the wording on what was a passive and what was an actual active dance was a little clearer.

Honorable Mentions outside of core+alchemist classes goes to:
Silksworn, Haunt Collector, Panoply Savant (Occultist) - The first one is probably the coolest excuse for a caster to wear fancy clothes and is a really interesting casting-focused archetype, even if it lacks the raw power of a fullcaster. The latter two occupy a similar niche in my mind, but Haunt Collector wins out on cool factor. A warrior channeling the power of a ghost in his blade is absolutely radical.
Kensai, Bladebound (Magus) - Both have excellent flavors, and are absolute joys to use on their own or together, but feel like they suffer a bit from problems and limitations of the Magus and its options. Kensai, in particular, suffers from poor early features (Perfect Strike, getting Fighter Training twice), as well, which would hopefully get a little bit of a tweak if it gets a remake for 2e.

Alchemaic wrote:

Mother of god, a good Alchemist archetype? Purchase instantly justified.

Sounds like you're enjoying the gun chemist? That section was fun to write.

I got a preview of Gun Chemist from a friend, and I have to say that of the last dozen or so alchemist archetypes that have been released, it's the BEST put together one I've seen. I saw the words "gun" and "alchemist" and had my heart sink, only to be met with something that defied expectations to go above and beyond. I personally feel like it will stand tall among the likes of Vivesectionist, Beastmorph, and Grenadier as a distinct, supported way to fashion your alchemist, and is something I am absolutely stoked to get my hands on when my group finally gets around to a fresh set of PCs. Albeit maybe with a couple minor tweaks I run by my GM, but it's still the first time anything has gotten me genuinely excited to try to use firearms in pathfinder.

The only actual gripe I feel I can weigh against the archetype itself, since I mention "tweaks", is the "quick-clear-alike" ability is more like a "slow clear", feeling a bit too costly for what it does, and like it's shoving "just take Amateur Gunslinger for the real thing!" at me. That's hardly a dealbreaker though, since it doesn't bring down the rest of the archetype enough to hurt it. Other gripes aren't archetype-specific, so they're not particularly relevant.

Logic doesn't always work. The archetype SHOULD be better than going companionless, but isn't. Since going companionless is an option thats what you have to make the comparison to, not an arbitrarily decided worse option.

I'm failing to follow this train of thought. If your argument is that a Vanilla Hunter with a dead animal companion is somehow better than an archetype that trades out the animal companion for something and still lets you keep the "benefits" of a dead companion, then perhaps I'm either missing obvious sarcasm somewhere or missing a very important detail contained within the class. The only painful thing I see is it loses teamwork feats for summon-related things, but that seems to be a trade of one meh feature for a different meh feature. If you can enlighten me, I'd be glad to know what I'm missing.

A Drifting Shoebox wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to compare it to the Hunter's Feral Hunter archetype, rather than the base Hunter? Base Hunter's aspects seem a very unfair comparison, given how many ways it can actually be used.

A problem with the archetype is that its not better than going old yeller.

If you're not going to have an animal companion at all via shooting it in the head and leaving it dead, not having the animal companion to begin with is logically better. Feral Hunter also makes it a better comparison to Shifter, as has been mentioned before, as it then would be doing the same sort of thing(s).

Rysky wrote:

So far the complaints about the Shifter not measuring up to Druid align with complaints about other classes not measuring up to Wizard. *shrugs*

And the complaints that it doesn't measure up to a hunter that goes old yeller on their animal companion?

Wouldn't it be better to compare it to the Hunter's Feral Hunter archetype, rather than the base Hunter? Base Hunter's aspects seem a very unfair comparison, given how many ways it can actually be used.

Honestly though, with the information so far and the way the pitch for the class went, I'm most surprised at Minor Aspects not being all-day passive effects, with Major Aspects being the Minute/Day major effects you can blend into your wildshape forms. That sounds like it would have fit the "chimeric shapeshifting" that was being billed a lot better.

I assumed that that when Dragon78 was talking about the hunter's having a longer duration, he was referring to the default hunter...and that if he was talking about a hunter who murdered their animal companion or an archetype, he would have specified.

Edit: Edited for clarity.

To be perfectly fair to Dragon, he's technically "right" about even default Hunter having a longer duration, because it is in fact "all day" when applied to your animal companion. The self-buff is pretty much a ribbon tied on to it, and people are upset that the Shifter seems to have only gotten the ribbon and not the meat it was tied to.

Beyond the shifter, what new competitors do we have for the top ten worst archetypes of all time list? Anything in the ballpark of the Brute Vigilante?

A friend knows I love magus conceptually, and likes to tease me for it, and he showed me the Nature Magus from his copy. I have to say that just thinking about those trades makes me cringe.

While I highly doubt it, I kinda hope that the book touches on and gives something nice to Alchemists who try dabbling in constructs. The lack of any way to use extracts to fix up constructs they build, and the lack of support for the construct-based archetypes, feels like a lost opportunity. If nothing else, I hope this book prompts someone to go back and think about it for a future release.

That out of the way I'm REALLY looking forward to this. The Poppets from AA2 were a nice tease, but didn't quite fill in my desire to just see more cool, new stuff. Hopefully the old construct modification stuff looked back over and updated/added to, in addition to new varieties of constructs for the roster.

Acid and Ice Bolts cost 40 gold, Fire cost 50, and all are craftable with DC 25 Craft (Alchemy). They do normal crossbow damage +1d4 of relevant damage type.

A bit of a shame, if I have to be honest. I guess it was probably too much to hope for a special crossbow ammunition that gets treated as a splash weapon for the sake of adding an Alchemist's Throw Anything damage bonus.

So how expensive are, and how exactly do the Acid, Fire, and Ice Bolt alchemical weapons work? I want to hope that alchemists may finally get the chance to make crossbows finally shine, but I'm not holding my breath on these things being anything but adding a minuscule amount of split damage and that's it.

Gorbacz wrote:

There's place for Khaijit, there's place for Neko Neko Chan, and there's place for Josie and the Pussycats.

Yup, and all of those places are in Golarion. ;-)

Something about Catfolk still confuses me. If Catfolk are so varied, why haven't they gotten any variant heritages, especially since Kitsune effectively get one now? It's hard to believe that a race that's supposed to have such variety has so comparatively few options for racial abilities. I don't suppose there are any plans for them in the near future, since this book just came out recently?

Ravener's design still bugs me, but I harped on that already.

So I got a chance to look at the catfolk section, and the Ravener Inquisitor archetype looked really cool and almost exactly the kind of thing I've been dying for the Inquisitor (or warpriest) to get... Except then I noticed an important, missing detail: It doesn't modify the Inquisitor's main mental score from Wisdom to Charisma for any class features. Catfolk have a wisdom penalty, and despite being "one of the most diverse races", they've yet to get a variant heritage. A lot of the Oracle revelations you could select (or that would be really fun to use) are also based off of Charisma, making the whole archetype feel kind of hastily slapped together. Granted, a race having a penalty in its casting doesn't mean it can't work in a game, it just ends up being unintuitive.

I know charisma-based stuff tends to get shoehorned with divine wisdom casters, but catfolk already got got the short straw (No alternate racial traits at all? At least that I saw.) from what I can tell, so even if the archetype isn't a racial one, this feels like an immense missed opportunity. I can't imagine this wasn't an intentional part of the design, but is there any particular reason WHY it didn't give us the opportunity to finally have a "half-casting oracle"-esque archetype?