BaronOfBread's page

I had a PFS Ancestor Oracle who really leaned into the curse effect and with the Remaster that character is pretty much dead for two reasons. The first reason being that they were Dex based and clumsy would wreck them, but this post is about the second reason.

The second reason is that Meddling Futures, the replacement for the ancestor oracles' old curse, is bad. Meddling Futures has a 1 in 4 chance of getting what you really want, as opposed to the curse which had a 50-50 shot. You can't try to get ready for your action since you only know what is prescribed on that action, as opposed to the curse telling you at the end of your previous turn. Meddling Futures can shut down any action that isn't the prescribed action, so you can't dodge the effect by Raising a Shield or other useful actions that weren't penalized with the curse.

Meddling Futures has some positives, in that it can only shut down one action (unless you try to use an activity like a spell cast) and that you choose when you gamble on it instead of always having it going. But when is it actually good to gamble on getting an improved action vs potentially losing an action? More importantly, how does that math change when taking the gamble costs you?

That's really the rub, Meddling Futures just isn't good enough for a cursebound feat. It gets outcompeted for damage by Foretell Harm and Whispers of Weakness eats its lunch on some skill checks as well as for Strikes (and some other attack trait actions as well). If the idea is that because the feat has a wider variety of bonuses it should cost more, then there needs to be some kind of reliability to getting what you want when you need it otherwise it is just more chances to get wrecked. If an ability is going to unreliably give me a smaller effect than an ability that is cheaper to get and reliable, then that first ability needs a change.

Maybe make the effect more reliable, roll d4s equal to your cursebound value and pick one. Maybe drop the cursebound trait, weaker effects feel justified if they don't increment cursebound. Maybe if you don't use the action during your turn you flat check vs stunned 1 at the end of your turn, getting to choose when you use the action once you know what it is makes the bonus far easier to use. Maybe something else, I'm sure there are upgrades more clever and balanced than those. Maybe its too late for errata to improve it. But I think an upgrade is required for this to not be a dead feat and a dead play style.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't know why you keep arguing that the words "visible" have to written for you...

Let's be clear here, YOU claimed the rules stated that the aura was visible. YOU claimed the rules stated it made the kineticist spottable. And the rules say no such thing. Are we agreed on that?

Quote:

It seems that the designers neither wrote down the elements clearly invisible or wrote down the aura had to visible because they very much left it up to the player and GM to work out how that works.

It is impossible to cover every possible rule scenario. Which is why certain rules like Kinetic Auras, stealth, and a variety of other rules that can't be covered are left more open for a DM an player to work out in play.

I disagree, because I think you are conflating different rules cases. The rules cannot cover and we shouldn't expect them to cover every potential use of an ability. But if a feat, class power, spell etc. always causes some effect, then absolutely we should expect the description to mention that. A fireball may light the area on fire, so that isn't mentioned. If a fireball always, in every circumstance no matter what lit the area on fire, then the description of the spell would mention that, because that's something the GM would have to enforce, all the time, no matter what the player wanted....

I appreciate this particular exchange because you use Fireball as an example immediately after saying something isn't visible without being called out as such. Fireball is a great example of something that is visible without being called out as such. Sure, the spell isn't subtle so you know that wizard cast a spell, there was a "roaring" sound, and you feel really warm now, but the rules don't say you would have seen anything. You know what else isn't called out as explicitly visible? A longsword. No part of their description indicates that they can be seen, felt, or heard. You know about how long they are, that they have one or two edges, and that they are swords.

At the end of the day, things are noticeable or not in-fiction based on what the group decides. Some things don't need any discussion, like a fireball (hopefully), and others apparently do, like an open kinetic gate.

I propose an errata to the Inventor's armor innovation. The subterfuge suit should be +2 AC/+3 Max Dex instead of a +1 AC/+4 Max Dex because the Inventor who chooses that as their innovation can't cap AC until level 5.

[I, too, shall shorten things a bit]

I like mutagens, lots of my characters have some alchemical abilities. I can understand not liking them, but I sure do.

I see Aid used by players in games I run fairly regularly, though I don't see it much in the games I play in (different groups). I find that Aid is not as strong/reliable as Clue Them In, but I admit that is certainly partially because I rarely run or play above level 10. If Aid is frequent and reliable at a table, Investigator is significantly worse because Aid can also cancel out the benefit of Pursue a Lead.

As I said, any specialist ...

We are just going to have to disagree here. I think being able to match (or almost match early on) dedicated specialist classes in their primary skills while also being better than everyone else in multiple other skills should nominate a class for "best at skills".

As for the Rogue, yes the Rogue will likely be better at DEX or STR (but not both) skills at half/most levels. Any other skill group is a wash, however, because while the Rogue could start with a 16 WIS, they can't start with 16 WIS and 16 INT without sacrificing their DEX/STR. While a low level Rogue has an easy time starting with a better bonus in WIS skills (which lasts until about level 9), they will be behind in any INT skill. This, and the Investigator is still getting Pursue bonuses on other skill groups, letting them easily make up for their required INT investment by just being +1 on most things (until they are +2).

The swap of "can" and "must" really bothers me on a flavor level. It reads to me as "My plan to shoot the guy isn't going to work, so instead I will shoot the guy." That change also benefits the Investigator with a big two-handed club more than the Investigator with a bow or rapier, because the club guy doesn't care about losing out on the Strategic Strike damage. He's just as happy with the free action pseudo-True Strike and his Power Attack.

What I would rather see is medium armor proficiency (because I actually do like the smart muscle archetype) and a couple of feats. Specifically, things like Dueling Parry, Hunter's Aim, and Tamper. Feats or class features that grant an action or reaction if "You used DaS on your last turn and did not replace a roll with your result" would also be nice. Maybe make them comparable to the Inventor's Unstable feats, with 10 minute cooldowns and powerful effects.

I will also say I think there should be less divorce between melee and ranged Investigator's in these discussions. Investigators can swap between melee and ranged easily because of DaS, and any Investigator who doesn't carry a melee and ranged weapon is leaving value on the table.

We have alignment for a number of reasons, one is that it is short-hand for anathemas and edicts. Let's take some of the Empyreal Lords as an example. Judging by the information available for some of them in PF2 but ignoring alignments: Dammerich would be fine with torture, Lymnieris could support hired killers, Tanagaar would appreciate surprise murders, and Winlas would be down with human sacrifice. Sure, those misconceptions could be cleared up with a few paragraphs describing their holy goodness, but instead we can just list their alignment and save page space. That and we don't have to list every creatively evil act under the anathemas of each god currently listed as good.

We also have alignment because PF2 isn't a system built for a world of grey-and-other-grey morality, it is built for white-black morality with some grey in the middle. You don't necessarily need alignment for that, but it certainly helps. Especially if you want a class that is all about crusading for good; smite evil works best if baddies come with an evil label.

For passives you can at least use Intensive Vulnerability to draw them back out once you hit 9th level.

I'm not sure you can do the free implement swap with Intensify Vulnerability.

Relevant text from Second Implement:

While you're holding an implement in one hand, you can quickly switch it with another implement you're wearing to use an action from the implement you're switching to. To do so, you can Interact as a free action immediately before executing the implement's action. This allows you to meet requirements of having an implement in hand to use its action.

Intensify Vulnerability isn't an action from the implement, it is an action from the class and the benefit depends on the implement used. That said, I think it is pretty reasonable to read it so Intensify Vulnerability lets you do that but I wouldn't count on it.

As a player, I don't like FA. I dislike not getting to make as many hard choices while putting together a character build, it makes build choices feel cheap and largely unsatisfying to me. Also as someone who just builds characters for no reason, FA frequently requires me to either staple a second identity onto a complete character or just grab some power boosts. Ultimately, FA ruins the elegance of making an effective and clean character by adding unnecessary bells and whistles.

As a GM, I have never used FA. I offered it to the group I usually GM for and they decided against it. Most other games I have run were for below level 4, at which point FA isn't worth granting.

As for Forensic Medicine + Medic, I think it is a good combination. Not for the bonus to the healing amount, but for the more available burst healing and action economy help from Doctor's Visitation. You get to do the thing you want to do more often, better, and for fewer actions. Plus, you are out at 4 so it isn't a huge cost.

Without Medic, you can't move and double Battle Medicine someone for huge healing with two actions (starting at 4). Without Forensic Medicine, you can only heal a party member twice a day (pre 7), and only one of them twice.

With only one of them you are a secondary healer. With both you can be a primary healer.

The Methodologies don’t make any major difference to your build. Alchemical Sciences is the most useful. Choose the one you like.

Got to disagree here. Your methodology choice informs the rest of your build, whether you are becoming a solid party medic, the recall knowledge guy, the face, or a buff/utility provider. You can just grab a methodology and ignore it for the rest of your build, but I don't think that is the best way to go.

Athletic Investigator

Having Strength means you miss out on good ranged attacks but you have a reasonable Athletics skill to do grabs and trips as a Plan B.

Worth remembering is that your Devise works for ranged attacks. I recommend carrying a ranged weapon (guns are great for Investigators) even if you aren't good at using it without Devise.

I am going to recommend Alchemist here, but not Chirurgeon because it is pretty underwhelming. I would go Bomber or Mutagenist.

I have played an Investigator with Medic (similar theme to what you have, actually), my experience is that in the early levels you have a hard time figuring out what to do with your actions when your Devise is bad. Investigators really need things to do when their Devise is bad, and Battle Medicine doesn't fit the bill very often. If you don't want to do any magic then you are going to be having a hard time avoiding bad Devise rolls in solo encounters. Melee Investigator runs into action economy problems because if your Devise is bad on the guy you are next to, you have to move to a different one. That said, if you carry a Slide Pistol or something that can alleviate the problem because Investigators are fantastic switch hitters. Just remember that Investigators are kind of squishy for a martial.

As for Alchemist, Alchemists work great with a bunch of martials/skill monkeys. Mutagens/elixirs will help them do what they do better and get around some problems that you normally need casters for. Add in your ability to target weaknesses (which I normally discount because not that many things have weaknesses, but fiends tend to have them so it is relevant here) and let your friends target those as well by passing around bombs, you have a fantastic force multiplier character.

A nice trick is dropping a smokestick on your Rogue and feeding them a Cat's Eye Elixir. They can Hide in the smoke for SA and ignore the concealment with the Cat's Eye.

*edit: If you have a barbarian instead of a champion, then Investigator rises in my estimation for the party. They will want that healing since your party won't have other healing capability and relying on elixirs is kind of crud.

To me there's really not as much separation between rules and lore as people tend to say there is; not outside of the core mechanics of how the game works at least.

... All the other major rule sections (ancestries & backgrounds, classes, spells, feats even, and more) the rules that are there either create lore or are the representation of lore...

For that to be true, you need rules that inform/describe the setting. Unfortunately, one of the major prices of separating the player rules and the NPC rules is that PC rules no longer inform the setting, though they may describe it.

The majority of rules in PF2 do neither of these things. The only part of a class that adds to lore is the intro page because we can't assume any part of the rules apply to the world. An NPC does not have a class, they just do whatever their stat block says they can. They might have features from multiple classes or none whatsoever. Plus there is level scaling and some NPCs being different levels in different situations. Also, the majority of class feats/features are only applicable in encounter mode and specifically in combat encounters.

Ancestries and backgrounds have the same problem classes have. As an example, orc NPCs almost invariably have Ferocity, but orc PCs have a ton of other options and so might not have it (not that I don't see them almost always take Ferocity). Plus the PC version of that feature is different from the NPC version.

Some features do describe the world, like clan daggers or a line of flavor text in a feat tied to some in setting character. But they are the vast minority.

"but I think our "rules heavy" books should be closer to 75% rules than 66% rules."

That kinda feels like splitting hairs if I'm being honest.

Fair enough. If I am honest with myself, I would prefer the "rules heavy" books look like the APG. Which has ~10 pages out of 270 dedicated to lore/context (I counted 9 but I wasn't being too thorough).

By the way, for reference, Guns & Gears has 159 pages with rules text out of 236 pages. This number includes the glossary as rules pages and any page with any rules text even if it is ~20 words or an optional sidebar.

Our "rules heavy" book is ~33% "no rules" pages. Albeit a few of those are full page pictures, there are also a few "rules" pages with two sentences or a tiny amount of sidebar that has an optional rules element.

How much of our "lore heavy" books are rules? I am using Lost Omens World Guide since it is my only "lore heavy" book. There are 35 pages with rules text out of 135 pages, which includes pages with the rules for pesh and similar items as well as those with tiny sidebars with optional rules.

Which means our "lore heavy" book is ~26% rules pages, with most of those pages having only a small amount of space dedicated to rules.

As for my opinion on that bit of data, if there were no rules elements in the lore books I wouldn't care (though there should probably be some to sell flavor), but I think our "rules heavy" books should be closer to 75% rules than 66% rules. A page or two that give a bit of context for automotons is fine, but the history of Alkenstar should be in a Lost Omens book instead.

It would have some similarities to the Binder, in that they choose from a list of "Powers for a day". That said, I don't think the similarities go much past that.

The Runewright should get 3-4 runewords from level 1 instead of the Binder's one vestige until level 7(?) so they have in-the-moment choices right off the bat. The Runewright should also be limited by the action economy instead of cooldowns, mixing various-action abilities together to create something closer to a caster in feel instead of a psuedo-martial with some magical powers. This class could also lean towards a more backline style by putting runewords on other party members that are frontliners, though it would be cool to have a subclass that enables them to frontline by putting all the runewords on themselves.

As I mentioned in my original comment, it would be nice to somehow make use of the existing spell lists instead of making runewords sit by themselves like vestiges do, but I didn't come up with anything I thought was any good for that.

And also the cool rune fluff.

Apparently I didn't make it clear, but the idea is that the runewords last until your next daily prep and you don't expend them when you activate them. When you write your runewords for the day you are selecting which magical effects you have and where they will come from, similar to a prepared caster working with cantrips.

Not sure how this would work with current lore for rune magic in Golarion, but here is an idea I had.

Runewright
You write runewords, sequences of runes that you can later channel magic through them to create effects both great and small.

During daily prep you can write x runewords. You can write these words on objects and willing creatures. More runes/day at higher levels.
You have the Channel Power activity. 1-3 actions, targets 1 runeword within 30ft. You activate the runeword's 1, 2, or 3 action ability.

Here are a couple of example runewords I have tossed together.
Valor, write on a creature
1 action- The runeword creates a 5ft aura for 1 round, granting allies in the aura a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls.
2 actions- As 1 action, but the aura is 15ft and lasts 2 rounds.
3 actions- The creature the runeword is on may Stride or Strike as a reaction and is quickened 1 for 2 rounds. The extra actions can only be used to Stride or Strike.
Ice, write on a creature or object
1 action- The runeword creates a 10ft burst of difficult terrain within 30ft of itself. This terrain lasts 1 round.
2 action- The runeword grows ice on an enemy within 30ft of itself, that enemy makes a Fort save. Success: clumsy 1 for 1 round. Failure: clumsy 1 and slowed 1 for 1 round.
3 action- A wave of cold blasts out in a 30ft cone from the creature or object the runeword is on. The cone leaves difficult terrain for 1 round and deals xd8 damage (basic reflex) to each creature in the cone.

Feats
Meta-rune feats: Meta-rune feats would work like metamagic except instead of spending extra actions to enhance spells, you write them into one runeword each during daily prep. Might need some reworking.
Runedance: Focus spell or once per 10 minutes action that swaps runewords between two creatures/objects.
Feats that temporarily consume runewords for cool effects. Perhaps do things like get extra actions for Channel Power, recharge Focus, or just blow up runes that don't normally do damage.

Subclasses
Safety Words: Gain a reaction that reduces damage from a hit on a creature you have runes on, based on how many runes are on that creature.
Re-writer: You can spend 10 minutes to erase one of your runewords and write a new one. Perhaps scaling to a better rate at higher levels.
Meta-writer: Your meta-rune feats can apply to an additional runeword each day.

It would be good to make the runes use the spell lists for future proofing, but I didn't come up with a way to merge those systems well.

The thing with Golarion is it is basically the world as the modern west coast liberal believes it should be, which isn't a surprise considering where Paizo is located. Good and Evil are measurable parts of the world and are easy labels for what is okay to attack. Through the availability of magic, sex/race can be changed at the drop of a hat, which isn't to say that there were any differences between the sexes to begin with in Golarion (other than what parts they have, if even that). Members of the acronym make up large portions of the population. Vigilante killings are largely considered good, but the death penalty is considered bad.

Using a different moral lens requires breaking Golarion canon or using a different setting.

Non magic for that particular example? Yeah I'd have a problem. But the Thaumaturge is using magic, just not spells.

And not for Find Flaws, as it does not have the magic trait and is therefore a non-magic ability.

BaronOfBread wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

If it's recalling knowledge, why doesn't it use the attribute that is supposed to be used with the skill you are using?

Because you're using a special feature that changes that attribute. Find Flaws is not the first nor will it be the last ability that does this.

Sure. So you would be okay with a non-magic class feature that let someone use Constitution for Acrobatics checks to Squeeze? Or how about Charisma to Perception for finding secret doors? Or Dexterity for bulk limits?

An ability like that needs to be narratively justified. Charisma for recall knowledge is very difficult to justify. The closest thing I have thought of so far is flavoring as a retroactive Gather Information, but then there is the problem of Gather Information being a Diplomacy check (or Society with a feat, but then you use intelligence as normal for Society) so it still shouldn't be recall knowledge.

That said, I think there could be a Charisma based ability that has the same benefits as recall knowledge, but that ability isn't actually recall knowledge.

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

If it's recalling knowledge, why doesn't it use the attribute that is supposed to be used with the skill you are using?

Also, the important part of the statement I quoted was this:

I assume because Find Flaws is not supposed to represent the same thing that recall knowledge is.

Because if that is correct, than recall knowledge should not be the action that the thaumaturge takes.

Intelligence isn't the primary metric to determine how good you are at a skill, proficiency is.

If you assume trained, because anyone who cares will be trained, then additional proficiency is in a pretty tight running with the ability score. The 8 INT master of the same level as the 18 INT trained is at a disadvantage. The master might have a couple of skill feats beyond the trained, but their bonus is worse.

Find Flaws is a case where the game deems it appropriate use charisma instead of intelligence to recall knowledge, I assume because Find Flaws is not supposed to represent the same thing that recall knowledge is.

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Small counterpoint that Known weaknesses works the same (single target) despite being a straight INT RK check. Even more odd is the critical result that gives your allies a bonus against that specific creature. I RP it like "this skeleton has a weak lower jaw."

Oddly, this has never raised the kind of arguments about RK and, in this case, INT vs WIS that we see here.

Why would there be any problem with Known Weaknesses? It is a regular RK. I have thought of the attack bonus as a "this one has a particular flaw in its defense that some of its kind possess."

The way that Esoteric Antithesis is currently written, you end up swinging with the best weakness if you get to use the action. So if you use that feat chain to remove critical failures on Find Flaws, you always end up knowing the biggest weakness of your target. Meta gaming doesn't even have room to get involved.

That is the weird thing about Find Flaws, failure basically means you get a correct thing, an incorrect thing (both from Dubious Knowledge), and with an additional action you also learn and equip the highest weakness. The only case in which you don't get two pieces of useful info is when you critically fail, and even then you know that you got incorrect info from your recall knowledge, which is kind of useful in itself.

I don't want an Int thaumaturge because that is far to similar thematically to an investigator who is prepared, which I can (and have) done by playing investigator.

As for Wisdom vs Charisma, I think it comes down to flavor and where we stick magic traits. Current flavor text/magic traits make me think this should be a Wisdom class. Knowing the ways of the universe and noticing the tiny connections between disparate things is very Wisdom to me. That said, if Find Flaws was combined with Esoteric Antithesis to get the magic trait and some flavor text about convincing the universe to tell you secrets, I would be a lot more fine with Charisma.

I think that is the big hurdle for people to buy into Charisma as the primary stat, because using Charisma to recall knowledge just isn't thematically sound unless magic is involved.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

This is simply not true.

It is from my perspective.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

If you have 10 feats and have to make hard choices, then you don't get to pick the best of each option.

Not true, as an optimizer WILL take the best 10 options by definition or they aren't am optimizer are they?

Do you really think there are only 10 good options, one at each level, for each class that includes archetyping? No wonder you find characters look the same in the early levels. The real wonder is that you think that somehow they differentiate at high levels despite you claiming the "one good option" problem is still there.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

If you compare an alchemist to an alchemist with Free Archetype, the alchemist with Free Archetype will perform much better because he can take all optimal Alchemist Feats while bolting on an additive class like a Wizard

No he will not... You only have so many actions. Add 200 spells per day to an alchemist and 20 rounds of combat per day and they are only going to get 20 spells cast and that pretty much means they didn't get any benefit out of alchemist. Again, there are only so many rounds and actions in an adventuring day so when you have the most viable options from your class, adding the most viable options from another doesn't mean much because to use those, you eat into your main options.

Do you always perform the same three-action rotation each round in encounters? Do you never find yourself in situations where that rotation wouldn't be the best option if you had some kind of spell or alternative strike-based feat available that was also fully powered by your build?

I am beginning to suspect that the reason there are disagreements here is because of a difference in what is considered optimization.

This is the hill you have chosen to die on. Free archetype.

Of old age apparently, since my opinion keeps being challenged with the same points reworded.

As for a response to graystone I have this:

You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.

You will note all of those things take feats (sometimes ancestry, but that is still a resource being used) unless your base class grants them. Those are feats you now have a bunch more of from free archetype, making things come on line earlier and granting you more of them.

and this:

BaronOfBread wrote:

I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default.

By default? No. However it does expand your options, which can be very interesting when you've already explored all the base options a few times.

It does not expand your options; you still have the same selection, you just get to take more at a time. Could you please explain what you mean by "base options"? I am having a hard time figuring out what you mean by that.

BaronOfBread wrote:

Having flaws and weaknesses ... come up with.

Myself, I think THIS is where we diverge: nothing about this optional rule gets rid of flaws and weaknesses. My wizard doesn't get better proficiency limits for weapons/armor [it caps at expert], it doesn't change my saves, it doesn't alter my stats, and while it might add skills those skills mostly need your base classes Skill increases to bump up so the inherent limitation is still there...

When I say weaknesses, I do not mean just what proficiencies you are low in. I include holes in your kit. A wizard doesn't heal in combat, unless he takes Battle Medicine (and he won't be that good at it) or he archetypes. Free archetype makes that easy to get. A champion in full plate tends to not have a good range option and tends to be immobile. Free archetype makes it easy to get a long range cantrip and the Jump spell to get around. A barbarian lacks action economy feats, fighter dedication clears that up and makes it so you don't need to debate getting AoO or your 6th level instinct feat.

BaronOfBread wrote:

Accelerated advancement ...

*shrug* I wouldn't say it's a substantial power increase: it's an increase in versatility but you still have same limitations every character has. As such, it's a lateral move in power for the most part. This too is a place where we disagree, as for most people In know, it's that versatility they want and not a grab for more power...

Versatility is power.

I often use it so I can take feats [class or archetype] that are mostly niche and/or flavor that I normally wouldn't take because they are not that universally useful ... try it out without impacting the party/character performance.

Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype? If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options? Assuming that is true, since a couple of folks have already called them such in this thread, you don't take them when you don't have free archetype because you want a more powerful character. If you play with free archetype so people take these archetypes, you are doing so because you/they do not want to give up the power of other feats so you/they can fill out your/their character concept. You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.

Seems we do agree.

BaronOfBread wrote:

Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype?

Yep, I sure have.

BaronOfBread wrote:

If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options?

Weak? I don't see it.

...

Good to see I am not the only one who likes these non-combat archetypes (one of my favorite characters was an Archaeologist). That said, others cited thinking that kind of archetype is weak and not normally worth taking as a reason to have free archetypes. If you disagree with them about those archetypes, that's great.

BaronOfBread wrote:

That said, it is fine to want stronger characters.

I like more interesting characters, which free archetype allows.

Here we have perhaps the core disagreement. I do not think adding more things to a character makes them more interesting by default. Having flaws and weaknesses makes a character interesting, giving them more stuff takes away weaknesses and makes them less interesting in my eyes. Problem solving is the same way for me: the fewer tools I have, the more interesting the solution I need to come up with.

BaronOfBread wrote:

You might be enabling concepts that have too many identities to be properly made without the extra feats, but that is different.

Or some of us might say that the standard way doesn't allow the breadth of character identity to fulfill the concepts we want to play in a timely manner.

Accelerated advancement is increased power, no matter what name you give it. And if you want that, that's just fine. But I don't want it, which is why I don't like free archetype.

BaronOfBread wrote:

1- Party Homogeneity: In each free archetype party at least one person had Lay on Hands.

With Blessed One being a thing, meaning it only takes a single feat to get Lay on Hands, it's not uncommon for me to see parties NOT using the optional rule have someone with it so I'm no sure that's a very good example.

...

BaronOfBread wrote:

2- Power Increase: ...

Well you picked 3 things that aren't very hard to get in the first place so earlier is relative. A good 3rd action is usually 1 skill away and a focus spell or reaction are 2 though you'll most likely get one from your class easier.

You will note all of those things take feats (sometimes ancestry, but that is still a resource being used) unless your base class grants them. Those are feats you now have a bunch more of from free archetype, making things come on line earlier and granting you more of them. That is a power increase, and makes it so people have more resources to divert to the generically good options that lead to the party homogeneity I mentioned.

BaronOfBread wrote:

3- No Gaps: ...

You have a normal party with skill gaps? I can make a rogue or investigator with almost every skill herself. IMO, if you're making parties with gaps, you are opting to do so. Pretty much the same with abilities: you can usually make a party that covers all the basics if you want.

You can fill all gaps without free archetype if your party works to make sure you do. That said, I see skill gaps and strategy/role gaps in games I run. I do not see this in free archetype games and I suspect it is because it is incredibly easy to fill gaps when you have twice as many feats.

BaronOfBread wrote:

4- Punishes Clean Characters

*shrug* You do you. I'll instead say 'it rewards those that have a concept and go with it, by letting it come together easier/quicker.'

My characters do have character concepts. People who play without free archetype have character concepts. You aren't rewarding having a character concept. You might be enabling concepts that have too many identities to be properly made without the extra feats, but that is different.

To folks bringing up this comment of mine: "In my opinion, free archetype is a crutch. People like it because they like more power. There may be a few who actually use it to take things like Archaeologist to fulfill a character concept better, but I have yet to see it." I should clarify some.

Do you ever take Archaeologist/Linguist/Celebrity without free archetype? If not, why not? Is it because you see them as weak options? Assuming that is true, since a couple of folks have already called them such in this thread, you don't take them when you don't have free archetype because you want a more powerful character. If you play with free archetype so people take these archetypes, you are doing so because you/they do not want to give up the power of other feats so you/they can fill out your/their character concept. You don't need free archetype to do that, you just need to accept that you are specializing into a niche and will have less general power.

That said, it is fine to want stronger characters. I do too, but I want to earn it and I feel like free archetype cheapens that. Yeah, maybe I am a bit of an elitist in this regard, but that is my answer to the "why/why not" of using free archetype.

I have played in several games with Free Archetype and I have yet to like it for several reasons.

1- Party Homogeneity: In each free archetype party at least one person had Lay on Hands. Each party had at least one primary spellcaster with a dedication into a different spellcaster with the same primary stat but different tradition. Each character with full hands had the Shield cantrip. All in all, free archetype led to each party being mostly the same to the others.

2- Power Increase: Free archetypes made it easy for each character to have access to a focus spell, a good reaction, and a good third action. Each character could plug whatever holes in efficiency their build has with ease, which significantly increased their power. The only time I have seen a free archetype party actually threatened was when half the party went ahead and triggered a second encounter while the other half signaled a retreat. Even then, there was only risk to two characters.

3- No Gaps: In a regular party of 4, chances are the party covers most bases but has two or three gaps that result in a meaningful weakness in the party composition. Free Archetype does away with this. The party has more skills and each character has a wider array of capabilities. There is nothing the party has to avoid or work around, they can just brute force whatever they come across except for really high numbers.

4- Punishes Clean Characters: This is the selfish reason. I like to build characters and I do not build them with free archetype because that shouldn't be something I can rely on. When I build a character with a tight build to fit around a character concept, I do not want a free archetype. But if I don't take it, I am weaker than the rest of my party. Not wanting to hold the party back, I have to slap some extra concept on my character like an aberrant growth. Not something I am a fan of.

In my opinion, free archetype is a crutch. People like it because they like more power. There may be a few who actually use it to take things like Archaeologist to fulfill a character concept better, but I have yet to see it.

PS: All this is from player side experience, I do not allow free archetype in games I run for the above reasons.

I listed the options in order of my preference. Part of the reason I want the quick draw finisher the most is because it enables a draw-and-toss combat pattern, letting you once or twice per fight pull out your gun/crossbow and make use of it. It lets the swashbuckler play with some gun use while leaving "I use a gun" to the gunslinger. Also, I think the swashbuckler really should have a quick draw styled feat even if it doesn't let them use guns.

At the end of the day, the swashbuckler can't use guns usefully unless it gets something of the like in this book (or waits for a later book to do something), and the swashbuckler definitely deserves to have some gun use.

A classic image of a swashbuckler is the swashbuckler balancing on a mast spar with a rapier in one hand and a pistol in the other. When we get guns, we should get the options necessary to make this a viable character moment.

A couple of options that I think could do this are:
A swashbuckler finisher that lets you draw a weapon and strike with it, explicitly allowing one-handed ranged weapons to benefit from precise strike damage with this finisher.
A swashbuckler feat that makes weapons with Reload 1 or higher apply precise strike damage and lets them be used for finishers.
A swashbuckler style that lets a swashbuckler use reload weapons with finishers and has a way to build reloading into the standard swashbuckler action rotation, through the style's bonus feat (perhaps a Craft feat to reload with benefits) or just give them an action to reload while doing something else.

The other thing that I would like to see is a swashbuckler style that works with Intelligence. A gear-centric swashbuckler with Crafting as the style skill would be exciting and this looks like the place where it could come out.

I know this is a while after the playtest, but I just thought about it recently and better late than never.

I've done a solo frontline Swashbuckler. You get Dueling Parry, Buckler Expertise, or Nimble Dodge. You choose between Fencer with Goading Feint or Gymnast with Disarming Flair. From there you can grab things like Guardian's Deflection, Attack of Opportunity, and Vivacious Bravado.

You end up quite difficult to take down.

My problem here is that part of the swashbuckler fantasy (at least for me) is that you are a person of several talents. But as the swashbuckler currently stands you will have two talents, Acrobatics and your Style Skill. I don't feel the need to match a Rogue in skills, but I want to be able to do things outside of combat other than my style skill and trained doesn't cut it once you have a few levels.

Swashbucklers basically offer only their style skill once combat is over. You can't have a swashbuckler that can be a full party face since they can't afford to advance Diplomacy and Deception. Knowledge skills are just straight out. Can't be a woodsman. Want to be a suave pirate? Hope you don't mind not being able to swim, cause you can't have Athletics and social skills. As swashbuckler stands, the only way to fulfill a bunch of standard swashbuckler fantasies is to take the Acrobat archetype. Acrobat to be a pirate.

To grant some diversity of skills to the swashbuckler I would give them an ability at 4 and 8 to increase a skill from trained to expert, then an ability at 12, 16, and 20 to go from expert to master. It would let them get two extra Master skills and an Expert. They won't outpace the rogue with this and they won't be reduced to standing in a corner with nothing to offer when "I do kick-flips at it" doesn't solve the problem.

Despite the risk of returning this thread to the scatter mechanic, I want to chime in with my experience playtesting with a blunderbuss in PFS scenario 2-10.

I ran a level 5 Pistolero Razortooth Goblin with Sword and Pistol, Risky Reload, and Alchemical Shot. The dice were hot, so out of the 14 gun attacks I made, I crit 10 of them, hit 3, and missed 1. Despite this, I did not feel like a damage god. I felt like the only reason I was the big damage source was that the other two martials were rolling poorly.

So I went back and recorded all of my attacks from the game log. I did roll pretty badly for damage, rolling average or above only five times. I consistently rolled 16 or higher on my gun attacks which combined with a nerf-wizard to make me crit constantly. That said, when my average crit is 20 damage to my primary target at level 5, I feel like I am not getting rewarded for picking a two handed melee-adjacent weapon. "But scatter does damage in an AoE, and even on a miss!" Yeah, mysterious voice, that 2 damage was applied to my non-primary target 3 times (not counting times it hurt allies) and I missed once. Scatter doesn't get scaled by crit so the extra proficiency doesn't help the near-negligible damage either.

The short range led me to try a tooth-and-gun style build, but Sword and Pistol doesn't do enough to make that worth it (which has been discussed plenty elsewhere, but I wanted to run it through its paces any way). As a result, I made one bite attack in the adventure despite being in melee constantly. I think Sword and Pistol being bad has a strong effect on how good blunderbusses can be since they are so up close and personal.

How do I think scatter can be fixed? Double scatter damage and give us a better scatter gun at advanced. Or if you just want to fix the gun you can make the blunderbuss deadly, and still give us the advanced scatter gun. I like the first one more because I feel that scatter guns should not be crit oriented, as there are plenty of crit guns and scatter doesn't reward accuracy.

At the end of the day, I want to feel like my two-handed gun with a 15 foot range does better damage than a trident, since the trident is one handed and out ranges the gun.

To me, saying "different species/ethnic/regional groups being actually different is bad" is silly. In a high fantasy game like PF2, where one of the big selling points is that character creation is deep and meaningful, if choosing to be a goblin didn't actually mean anything mechanically, the game is failing to fulfill its promise.