Camellen's page

Scaling proficiency in advanced weapons not specific to an ancestry or culture should be available to non-fighters/non-humans, but it probably should have a non-negligible cost.

Yeah, this is what I'd think. If they had a feat similar to the fighter's advanced weapon training it would open up a ton of builds. Even if it required the character to be trained, that's a lot easier what would currently be required (by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat followed by the relevant class feat).

Rogue should have something specific too, I think, even if just for agile/finesse weapons. Since they don't have martial weapon proficiency, it's even more difficult for rogues to enter themed archetypes than other martial classes- even archetypes that are thematically very close to rogue.

I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

What exactly is the difference between a falcata and similar martial category weapons?

Falcatas are cool. What other reasons does a person need? Regardless, motivation isn't the issue here. The issue is that there is an entire class of weaponry that is nearly inaccessible to most martials.

Edit: Inaccessible as in weaker than other alternatives. From levels 3-4 it's equal, and from levels 12+, but only with heavy feat investment

With the release of Treasure Vault, I was excited to look over the new array of weapons available for characters to take- but I noticed some snags as I planned out specific builds. The build I had in question was a Ranger using falcatas, but this issue expands to other build types as well. So the question was, "How do I get this build to work?" So I thought I would gather all the ways a player could gain training in advanced weapons.

Level: 1
[Ancestry] Weapon Familiarity: Reduced proficiency requirement in specific weapons.
[Human] Unconventional Weaponry: Reduced proficiency requirement in ancestry weapon OR an uncommon weapon belonging to a specific culture.
*[Class] Fighter. Scaling proficiency in all advanced weapons one step behind martial weapons.
Level: 2
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Aldori Duelist and Red Mantis Assassin. Grants scaling proficiency in specific weapons. Must have proficiency to begin with. Increase level to 4 for non humans. Required Feats: Two. RIP rogues that wish to take the Red Mantis Assassin dedication.
Level: 3
[General Feat] Weapon Proficiency: Limit of Trained.
Level: 4
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Butterfly Blade Dedication. Grants scaling proficiency for butterfly blades, must have proficiency to begin with.
Level: 6
*[Class] Advanced Weapon Training [Fighter], all advanced weapons in one group scale to your highest proficiency.
Level: 10
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Provocator Dedication: Increase to one advanced weapon to trained.
Level: 12
[Archetype] Diverse Weapon Expert (Req. Fighter Dedication), trained in all advanced weapons. Total Feat Cost: Two
*[Archetype] Advanced Maneuver (Req. Basic Maneuver, Fighter Dedication), take the Advanced Weapon Training feat. Total Feat Cost: Three.
Level: 16
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Performance Weapon Expert (Req. Provocator Dedication), gains expert proficiency in one advanced weapon.
Special:
*Same applies to Gunslinger, but only to firearms and crossbows. Uncommon.

All these together show that it's very difficult to get scaling proficiency with an advanced weapon that you aren't explicitly incentivized to get via a specific route. Rogues have an especially difficult time compared to other martials due to the need to gain martial weapon proficiency before they can gain access to advanced weapons via weapon proficiency, making certain archetypes difficult to qualify for. Going back to my first example, the only way to make a functional ranger using a falcata would be through the fighter archetype. This would take three feats (one of which providing little benefit), wouldn't come into effect until level 12, and take up space that could be used for other class feats and archetypes to fit the build.

I can't help but compare this to Pathfinder 1e. A martial character could (from levels 1 or 3, depending on BAB) take exotic weapon proficiency to have access to a specific weapon with the same level of proficiency as other weapons. Yet in this, a non-fighter martial struggles to gain proficiency. I understand the idea of fighters as being "experts of weaponry," yet fighters are already a level of proficiency higher than all other classes- there is no need for them to be the exclusive owners of advanced weaponry. Certainly, advanced weapons aren't so powerful that they are worth 3 feats of up to 12th level, right?

With that in mind, I think there are a few options available to allow non-fighter/gunslinger martials to use their preferred methods of destruction:
-Martial Classes can gain access to advanced weapons at a level one proficiency lower upon reaching expert proficiency
-A class feat is added to all martials 1 level after expert proficiency that functions identically to the fighter's "Advanced Weapon Training" feat.
-All martial classes gain a themed version of the above feat. Rogues can gain scaling proficiency with an agile or finesse weapon, barbarians with a melee or thrown weapon, monks with a monk weapon (requiring Monastic Weaponry), and so forth. This keeps the theme of individual classes, but allows them access to advanced weapons that fit that theme.

In any case, I just hope there are feats added that allow me to live out my fantasies of a falcata ranger without having to resort to multiclass shenanigans. If I missed anything, please fill me in, because this wrench in my character build does sting.

GM here. I originally ruled against it, as I had thought that Eldritch Trickster stated that you could take a multiclass archetype that had access to the Basic, Expert, and Master spellcasting benefits- which Magus does not have (it has the Basic, Expert, and Master bounded spectating benefits).

However, after going back to Eldritch Trickster, I noticed the exact text read, "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat." While Magus has the bounded spellcasting, the feats themselves are listed as "Basic Magus Spellcasting," and so on. The feat's description does state that it grants bounded spellcasting benefits, but I rules in favor of the name since "feat" was specifically called out rather than the benefits themselves.

To Paizo, sorry if this is too early to be discussing Magus multiclass stuff! Delete if you need to.

So I'd like to make a warpriest work, playing a melee (or even an archer) oriented cleric sounds like a fun idea. But the Warpriest doctrine as depicted in the core rules seems sorely lacking. To compare what the 20th level benefits are of each doctrine:

Cloistered:
Legendary in Spellcasting
A free Focus Spell (1st lvl class feat)
Expert in Unarmored
Expert in Deity's Weapon
Expert in Fortitude

Warpriest:
Master in Spellcasting
Expert in Light and Medium Armor
Expert in Deity's Weapon
Trained in Martial Weapons
Master in Fortitude

The warpriest has to sacrifice legendary in spellcasting, which is huge- they're the only spellcaster that doesn't actually get legendary in spellcasting. This makes their offensive actions for spellcasting sorely lacking, as their spell attack and DCs are going to be behind the other classes. They don't even get better weapon attack to make up for it, since they reach the same proficiency as a cloistered cleric in their deity's favored weapon (and only trained in all martial weapons). Sure they get it earlier, but that doesn't mean much when you realize you've gotten all you're gonna get out of your proficiency at level 7 (and at the cost of expert spellcasting).

Now take this: the Sentinel Dedication feat. For a small 2nd level dip, you get light and medium armor proficiency, which increases at the same rate of warpriest's improvement. In that case, the cloistered cleric (with one feat) now equals or eclipses warpriest in all areas except in fortitude saves. However, there is no similar feat for Warpriest to shore up its weakness in spellcasting.

I remain optimistic that the Magus playtest releasing Monday will have a better presentation of what a mixed martial/caster can accomplish and how we could improve the warpriest to better scale along with the other classes. Hopefully, what we learn in the Magus playtest can help with an errata for the Warpriest as well!

That cover art... wow! Using this as my phone's background now, can't wait for the real deal!

Relics, eh? A throwback to Weapons of Legacy perhaps?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like the idea of Aasimar as an ancestry where the heritages are things like Angelkin, Musetouched, etc. than I do with Aasimar as a heritage or archetype available for any ancestry.

This is my preference by far.

Going along the same line of thought, we could add something like "Native Heritage," granting access to feats of an ancestry you specify and changing your size to fit the ancestry (or work the size differences into the planetouched as a base).

I'd really prefer not to resort to "humans by default," and pretending nonhuman planetouched only exist in homebrew.

It seems likely we'll get them eventually.

They may well be Heritages (in the vein of Half Elf and Half Orc) rather than Ancestries per se, though. My personal theory is that they'll be 'modular' Heritages you can apply to any Ancestry the GM allows. Which would be pretty cool, IMO, and make a lot of sense.

I'm personally in support of the modular heritages as well. It fits really well, and we might be able to use it for templates that previously had a level adjustment as well (separating stronger abilities into ancestry feats).

There was treat wounds again but I don't think it was any different from before DC 15 heals 2d8 takes 10 min.

The Fatigue condition that Jason mentioned was a little less bad than in the playtest. Only -1 to AC and saves no mention of Hampered 5 or of the penalties increasing with every action you take.... but they didn't get into combat so maybe those are still there and just didn't come up.

They also didn't benefit from exploration tactics, if I recall (due to fatigue).

Eh, I feel like I might go the easiest route myself; dump the PF1e adventure loot and use the recommended loot progression for PF2e, using the original loot as a guideline.

Consider me part of the kobold plushie cult fan club!

Bleachlings are an option! 10/10 fantastic update!
Humans can multiclass into anything! 10/10 will maybe break the game but hilariously fantastic!
Goblins get annoying songs! 10/10!

Blog said wrote:

Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

In the "Positives and Negatives" blog, they've expressed that they're already looking into alternatives for resonance due to its lack of popularity, as well as highlighting some of the issues they've run into with it.

Sorcerers and bards, the two spontaneous casters we will see in this playtest. Bard was previously a "half-caster," with reduced access to spellcasting in return for a plethora of abilities. In PF2e, this is reflected by lower overall spellcasting capability compared to its dedicated caster relative (sorcerer, gaining an additional spell per level), and having several powerful cantrips that interact with its other abilities.

Now, with sorcerer established as the "spellcasting class," it seems odd that bard would be the class to have the 8th level "additional heightening" feat, directly related to having more powerful spellcasting capability as opposed to the typical bard abilities (dealing with powers augmenting their cantrips and so on). I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or simply a quirk written in for an unknown reason.

That leads to a final point, the case for Universal Class feats. I've seen many complaints about certain feats or techniques being gated behind certain classes. Now, take the "Additional Heightening" feat described above. Imagine this was made into a "Universal" class feat, available to any who meet the prerequisites "Spontaneous Heightening class feature." Or Power Attack/Double Slice, "Trained in a martial weapon." Widen Spell, "You are a spellcaster."

You could add a variety of depth to character creation without taking too much away. Fighter could still have access to many open/press feats not available to other classes, with some unique abilities besides. As an added bonus, you might save page space avoiding the extra entries on the classes that would normally gain them. The problem comes in when you look at terms of balance. Martial classes will likely have more to benefit from in variety, since many spellcasters will already have access to a feat that would otherwise be made Universal. Would Double Strike be too powerful in the hands of a Barbarian or Rogue, and how does a Monk's ability to take Power Attack change things? Of course, these are all questions that would have to be asked to address multiclassing balance anyways. A potential solution would be to increase the level requirement, with a special note at the end stating "Fighter and ranger treat -X- as a level 1 feat," as an example. Thoughts on how a universal class feat system might affect balance? Would adding another group of feats make character creation needlessly complicated?

TL;DR for Developers:
1. Sorcerers don't have access to additional heightening. Oversight?
2. A universal class feat system including feats such as additional heightening, power attack, Double Slice, some metamagic, etc.?
3. Would said universal class feat system adversely affect game balance?
4. If yes to 3, does multiclassing adversely affect game balance?
5. Would the cost in game balance be significant compared with the improvement in enjoyment to the players?
6. Would it make the game significantly more complicated?

Would fungi and molds be considered plants for the leaf druid anathema, or might there be a fungus-based druid introduced later? Because a druid focused on mold and decay sounds pretty sweet.

Edit: Nevermind, saw that they were considered different! Decay Druid, here I come!

Camellen wrote:

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

"Some things make you flat-footed to everyone, but usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you or that otherwise has the drop on you."

I should have re-read that bit. Oh well, we can always hope! I'm always excited for options that might make combat a little more exciting. Maybe a feat (like the teamwork feats) that treats an enemy as flat-footed to you if allies are flanking you? We could get some pretty exciting builds out of this!

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

The largest problem, while many of the commenters claim that morality is an objective truth in Golarion, the fact is that morality is subjective for the real-world GMs and players that deal with a morality-based system.

A player decides to kill a cursed innocent to prevent the curse from spreading to the rest of the town. The player argues that it is a good act, he's doing it to save the town. The GM argues that murder is always an evil act. What about when attacking monsters? Or evil creatures? If you attack a drow first without proof that they have done wrong, is it an evil act? Is laying ambushes for monsters evil? Eating meat as an omnivore? What about the town over, that considers it evil to burn their dead due to spiritual beliefs? Would it be evil for the paladin to cremate their dead? For the sorcerer to use burning hands on the town's zombies? Or is it only evil if you belong to the town?

I'm not saying you can't have a system of objective morality. But, because morality is not inherently objective in the real world, the constraints of this morality need to be clearly written and defined. Not a paragraph detailing what evil is, but a defined list of what constitutes an evil/good act, what would cause a shift in alignment, and how a clearly-stated intention can affect it. This way, if there is a rules concern about an alignment-based mechanic, the player (or GM) can bring out the book and read, "According to X, this is an evil action." If such rules are not clearly defined, it will continue to be based on the subjective beliefs of the people playing the game- which is only fine so long as the players have the same moralistic views.

If the game cannot have a defined list of good or evil acts (It does not need to be pages long, but it needs to be clear and precise), then it is clear that morality cannot be used as a game mechanic due to its subjective nature.