Caralene's page

I would say it's more robotic than before, not so much restrictive, which is different. The code of conduct hasn't really changed in Paizo's eyes (except for poisons, but that's such a minor change that it's borderline non-sequitur), but given a set of priorities, not unlike Asimov's Laws of Robotics that have "laws" which precede one another, but have their own intrinsic value.

Does that make it better? Kind of. You're having far less fatal errors resulting in crashes, AKA "gotcha" GMs imposing their shenanigans on players, which is a net gain for the consumers. Otherwise, not really.

Is it more fluid than before? Not particularly, it's less free-form and open to interpretation compared to previous editions, but the previous editions have proven that a less-codified anathema creates more problems than one given priorities, meaning this might be more preferred.

Does that mean it's a straight-jacket for players to roleplay or participate? Not any more than previous editions. In fact, there is still wiggle room for certain codes in regards to their intent and application, so players can play up or work around those things, and it can still create awesome roleplaying moments.

Source on paizo changing stances on poisons?

Staffan Johansson wrote:

keftiu wrote:

The problem is that mechanizing different types of humans can very quickly go some very gross places.

True. But heritages for other ancestries aren't strictly tied to ethnicities – there is some correlation ("heritage A is common among ethnicities B, C, and sometimes D" or the inverse "ethnicity A often have heritage B, C or D"), but it's not a strict thing ("all As are Bs"). And while it's definitely an area that does need some sensitivity, I think there's definitely room to expand there.

I think the main danger is to reserve the "cool" heritages for "exotic" folks (that's not the best term, but it's what I can come up with while posting). If you were to add, for example, "Desert dweller", "Forest folk", and "Mountain men", that would send the message that folks from those places aren't "normal" humans, which could be bad.

Hmm. Perhaps one way of dealing with it would be to add one heritage that gives a second ancestry feat, and then make more cool cultural ancestry feats for humans (ancestry feats generally have less of a risk of being gross than heritages).

Maybe something like "Deeply rooted" that says "pick one first level ancestry feat with a specific ethnicity as a prerequisite" or something?

I think what you just described is what would need to be specifically actively avoided to make more variance in human heritages/feats interesting. Ethnicity requirements might be the worst idea possible.

A solo caster never gets help from their allies, debuffing the enemy either. They also don’t have a dedicated player learning how to play them over the course of 20 levels.

That's not entirely true. Lots of encounters have enemies that are capable of debuffing, even if its not explicitly through spells.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

It's the automatic assumption that "oh we spotted a small animal, it is spy" instead of "We spotted a small animal, stew is on for tonight" that would take me out of the game and think the DM was being hostile. Especially if you spotted a squirrel and responded by sending a crack elite squad after it; that's just a ridiculous overreaction to what should be an extremely common occurrence.

I grew up in a rural area. There are a lot of animals per square mile (there's quite a few in the urban area I live in now, actually). Issuing a red alert over every woodland creature, even one that might not be typical for an area, seems very far from an intelligent reaction. Even a guard leaving their post to chase after an animal should be frowned on and limited to no more than a round or two, especially in a world where familiars exist.

Because familiars can scout, yes. But they can also provide a diversion if every blue jay and cat is going to result in a several round chase scene.

Doesn't this just nerf any type of familiar that isn't picked to look like a small harmless creature common to the adventure's main biome? You wanted a familiar that was obviously marked by your patron, I guess it can't scout then. You want something that isn't an animal, no scouting for you. I'd make a blanket ruling at my table that all familiars are so obviously not a normal animal that they arouse suspicion just to keep things fair between animal type familiars and supernatural type familiars.

in fairness, lots of the "specific creatures" that aren't animals as familiars have their own unique abilities. It should be pretty obvious that a demonic or magical familiar like a faerie dragon is going to blend in less.

Okay, we can play word games if we want, but all I am saying is that I disagree with the notion that changes need to be made because the equation is out of balance, because I do not find it to be a problem. YMMV

I don't think it's a significant issue but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's word games. We were pretty clear and specific about what we were saying.

The notion that enemy casters are OP and PC casters are UP. Of course they are different because the rules for PC casters are more defined and "creature" casters are largely able to be whatever the author envisions. Different does not mean better/worse.

but the point is that in most cases the math for PC casters is slightly underpowered. That isn't the case if you fight an APL+1 caster as they're literally scaled better mathematically and when spells are successful they're debilitating.

Squiggit wrote:

Specialist wizards were probably a mistake, tbh. They seem to come with a lot of expectations from players that don't really translate into gameplay.

As seen here it seems like a fair few people want to play a version of the PF1/3.x specialist wizard who can deeply specialize in that single school and feel rewarded for doing so. When making a new edition of a game you need to keep in mind that it should support as much of what the old system did as possible.

I totally disagree. I think that a new edition should certainly be similar, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that it should support as much as what the old system did as possible.

There's an insane amount of content for pathfinder 1e and that style of game. It certainly sucks if there's a missing aspect of 1e that you liked, but I think they would have been pigeon holed and not been able to make the kind of game they want. I love that they were willing to shake things up and take risks for 2e.

They've got animate dead. Unlike the ritual create undead, it's not evil so a neutral character can cast it without any problems, Pharasma specifically might have a problem with it though.

I've been wondering about animate dead. It says there's no evil trait, but I imagine most people would see that spell and consider it evil in golarion right? I don't know a ton about the lore but I just assume that to be the case

Arguing anything with Verdyn seems like a losing proposition of frustration and bad faith

People ITT keep saying this and accusing them of being rude but to be honest they just seems like they're blunt. I haven't seen anything ITT that appears to be bad faith or trolling, it seems rather unfair the way you're treating them to be honest

Even an outlandish anime like Trigun or pseudo-anime like Wakfu* (both which feature crazy gunplay) would avoid having Rebounding Shot be a regular thing. Maybe once to beat a boss, but not reliable, more like a desperate long shot. And something one wouldn't expect in those worlds that a major portion of super gunfighters (a.k.a. all leveled Drifters) can do that at will.

"Oh, that. Of course I can do that. I just don't." Uh...wuh?

*both have what would translate into PF2 as highest level play, and would be good sources for gun tricks (as well as other hyper-heroic shenanigans).

Counter to that is the really obvious example of dante from devil may cry, or nero. They've both done tricks like this in the series. Even lady i think has something similar.

I agree that it shouldn't be uncommon, since you could literally build it and never use a firearm.

Caralene wrote:

I'm really surprised people are upset that this is too cartoony.

Pathfinder is known by many communities as the "anime-esque" version of DND due to the power scaling and stuff.

I absolutely love it.

I'm tolerant of cartoonishness to a certain extent. That being said "cartoonish" and "anime-esque" are very different things.

Like a rocket jump in team fortress is silly and dumb, but whatever, it's fun. Using your gun to Yosemite Sam through the air is a bit too far.

If I had the time I'd create a list of examples on either side of the arbitrary line, but in the mean time I ask that people accept that it's fine for some people to say something has crossed their cartoonish tolerance line while for others it hasn't.

It's not useful to say "This one weird thing was added a while back, therefore everything is fair game. Looney Toons are canon now"

where did I say it's unacceptable to have that opinion?

I just think it's wrong and silly, and contributes to martials being less interesting.

This is why martials don’t get nice things.

OMG, right??!?!

"WE DONT GET ENOUGH CRAZY COOL ABILITIES! MARTIALS AREN'T COOL!"

>get new abilities

"BUT THESE AREN'T NORMALLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!"

This is the coolest class IMO that paizo has ever unveiled. I am immeasurably excited to make one.

I'm really surprised people are upset that this is too cartoony.

Pathfinder is known by many communities as the "anime-esque" version of DND due to the power scaling and stuff.

I absolutely love it.

I have to say, as somebody who had actively hoped it WOULDN'T be gunslinger because I was worried it would be plain and boring as a class, this looks incredible.

But really, my eyes are on inventor. The inventor alone looks like its going to have more build options than half of the classes combined.

Man, can't get to the PDF, just getting an Internal Server Error. To be expected with such a release, but the suspense is killing me!

are you using brave browser? for me i had to switch to firefox to see it for some reason.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Anyone else have success stories about their players picking up group tactics that elevated their game experience? Any particular events that caused lightbulb moments for the party where suddenly the player who wasn't using their shield realized what they were missing out on, or where a player noticed that they actually massively changed the battle state for the better by using their 3rd action to move instead of attack?

I wanted to get back on this, because I have had the opposite experience. I went into battle with my Animal Barbarian and, for some reason I just do not get, the Paladin went to attack the other way round a big obstacle and thus we, the frontliners, ended up separated, even though it is the worse thing a Paladin can do. I was expecting the Paladin to come and fight by my side, because I knew from playing one that the Paladin is immensely more efficient when close to their allies and enemies so that they can fully use their retributive strike.

But I did not find a proper way to tell the Paladin's player about this because I did not want the group to see me as the guy who tells others how their PC should act. And since this was online PFS, there was no OOC time to tackle this after the game.

Any advice would be appreciated on how to tell other players that there are better tactics their PC could use.

are you good friends with the paladin player? if so you should probably be able to tell him/her whenever you have an opportunity alone. Just something like "would you mind sometimes using X and holding the line with me?"

if you don't know them well it may be better to be more passive about it. Like talking about how good the ability is and how it makes you want to play a paladin so you can defend your allies with that ability.

It's really hard to express it in writing, because at the end of the day the tone and sincerity in your communication will show above all else. As long as you genuinely seem well-intentioned and aren't trying to be passive aggressive it probably won't cause any trouble I would hope.

I can't get over how people really hate on anyone ordinary trying to turn this hobby into a job, but the same people love GCP and Critical Role..

It's be like saying "it's okay for Bruce Springsteen to make money from his music, but No way I'm playing my wedding singer, he has to do it out of love for the craft..."

I will say, that my first experience with RPG's was with a paid GM. I didn't pay for him, and my buddies didn't either. Our School hired a guy to" come entertain the nerds" and that guy introduced us to GURPS (or his own D100 homebrew variant of it anyway).

He ran a massive Campaign across like 10 different schools. All the groups each had a party tied to the same overarching story.

It was amazing, and he definitely put in his 37 hours a week to keep all of us Kids entertained. He even had extra sessions reaching all of us to GM so we could play in our spare time too.

My point with all of this is, paid games have a time and a place.

As an adult I wouldn't pay for a GM, but I doubt anyone could have given us Kids a better introduction to RPG's than that guy, who came to our School once a week.

You dont actually know that all of these people have that stance though. For example I'm not interested in paid GMs because I think its against the soul of the artform and collaborative effort of cooperative storytelling. I also have a heavy disdain for people like critical role because they've sold out on their platform and in many ways misrepresent the hobby to thousands of potential players.

If you're making money off of something you WILL approach it differently than if you do it solely for the love of the craft.

Also, on the concept of a "hustle" and the way you chose to interpret it RD, I think your argument doesn't hold much weight. If a fortune teller and I agree that I'll pay to find out my future via palm reading, I still got scammed regardless of my willingness to pay for the service. That's the entire reason hustles and scams are so predatory.

I'm not saying I think paid GMing is a scam, but I don't think your argument holds much weight.

GM's in many ways aren't just referees, they're also other players. A lot of people want to feel like their DM is actually doing it for the love of the game, not just as a job. It also makes an already unusual (compared to other aspects of life) power dynamic even weirder because money is involved.

Caralene wrote:

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.

PF2 is significantly better than PF2? Huh?

better htan pf1 i meant haha oops

the anticipation is killing me!

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.

Ruzza wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The point of maneuvers is to give martial characters the ability to target a different defense. There are plenty of enemies with strong AC but have a specific weakness in fortitude or reflex saves and can be easily bullied by a Fighter trained in Athletics.

It doesn't matter if you target a different defense if you don't do anything to kill the monster and the effect applied can be achieved in other ways that allow you to do damage.

DF, if you truly believe this, I encourage you to come by for the post-holiday session I'm going to run showcasing the tactics and strategies of PF2.

Come join us, here!

I know these games as well as any. There is nothing you can show me that will change the way the game works.

Grappling CR+2 creatures is a bad idea mathematically. I've tried a ton of different tactics in PF2 to see how they work. Grappling and tripping were two that I worked on using a Flurry of Maneuvers build with a monk maxing out Athletics with items geared towards grappling and tripping.

I found the following:

1. If you don't land the first grapple or trip attempt, you are unlikely to land the 2nd or later.

2. You really feel like you wasted your time trying because you end up spending two actions that do no damage to end the fight faster.

3. Grappling does not reduce the attack capabilities of the creature you're fighting. If it is a high CR or dangerous creature, it can tear into using its full attack completely focusing on damaging you.

4. You lose one of your hands grappling and you can't move either while grappled. So it immobilizes your target, but also you.

5. Your trip or grapple only works if you can get to the target or it can't move some other way. If you trip a flier, he doesn't have to spend a move action to stand up before he moves. It's hard to grapple a target you can't see as in if they invisible or
...

I think this is an awful perspective, and I don't mean any offense when I say that. In the martial arts world, there's a saying that goes something like; Even a black belt can learn from a white belt

Your mind is closed and you're saying nothing can change it because you know everything. Even if you spend all day every day studying the game, there's probably some things you don't know.

Caralene wrote:

One thing my group noticed was that when one of our party members made a habit of actually using trips. It changed the enemy action economy so massively that it's been the most notable improvement we've noticed in our party over the months. It was like night and day. This was some time ago, and we've also found that as our casters started to focus more on debuffing enemies as well makes a massive difference.

I still remember the lightbulb moment for my buddy and his fighter when we were playing and I turned to him and asked "Dude, that thing obviously has double our move speed and an extra Stride action, why haven't you just grappled it yet, aren't you Master in Athletics?"

He said he hadn't taken any feats for it and I just spun my CRB around to him opened to the Athletics page of the skills section. The evil Grinch smile that split his face was just great and I think he might have torn a muscle in his cheek the next week when he realized that we were fighting enemies he could successfully grapple just using Assurance. Kind of like the look on my wife's face in a different game when she realized that any time she wasn't sure what to do with her 3rd action, Goblin Song was always going to be useful for improving the odds of half the party doing what they wanted to do on their next turn.

One of the moments for me when I realized what PF2 was really going to let me do was actually during the playtest while we were playing Doomsday Dawn. There's that encounter with a bunch of deadly goblin archers in a rough, circular room and I thought for sure my monk was screwed until I double-checked the cover rules and started using grappled goblins for light cover and ducking into the niches and using the Take Cover action for even greater effect. Those goblins were beast mode but that AC bonus changed enough crits into hits and hits into misses that it changed tactics for everyone at the table. The champion started raising her shield every round and positioning herself to pop her...

that's so cool to hear.

Another massive thing I realized reading your post was how much shields can help casters. For so long I was completely ignoring shields, but +2 AC, especially on an unarmored caster really , really helps. Shield block is also one of the most underrated abilities in the game especially at low level imo. Can really make or break a fight if you can avoid going down by allowing a shield to break.

I really love that about pathfinder 2e and it's part of why I wanted to make the switch to it. There are so many little things you can do that massively affect fight outcomes. Instead of taking that third swing sometimes its better to take a step or use the assurance trip/shove etc.

OMG. I also forgot how much I love demoralize from intimidation, and battle medicine. Things that I think a lot of people may overlook. Intimidation is such a powerful debuffing tool.

The value vs. boredom factor of repetitive actions is something the design team has had some interesting conversations about.

Anecdotally, I had an interesting experience Seifter and I were talking about recently where a crossbow ranger I was playing had a really diverse set of actions he was taking for the first three rounds of combat (usually one of either Running Reload or Skirmish Strike with a Hunter's Aim or Deadly Aim thrown in alongside the occasional Hunt Prey, but it was always a new rotation) but about round 3 of the fight I was hasted and suddenly rounds 4 through 8 were consistently Reload (Crossbow Ace) > Deadly Aim > Reload (Crossbow Ace) > Quickened Strike. A big part of what allowed that to happen was the nature of the fight itself; we were in a huge ballroom in a shootout with other crossbow wielders, with the two ranged party members fighting from a covered bannister while the enemies were fighting from flipped over tables. There was kind of an interesting flip where as soon as the ranged characters settled into our fixed routine, the melee characters started using a lot more action combos because our covering fire was giving them the run of the battlefield. I think that steady state routine for the shooters was actually kind of appropriate, as it happened when the fight turned into a proper shootout and the party and enemy dynamics naturally chose the tactics that made that steady state routine the right move, but it's always interesting to see how other people view different interactions in the game.

I saw a comment earlier that one thing PF2 doesn't do a great job of is explaining how to do the things that really make it pop, and I can totally see that. The meta for PF2 is completely different than the meta for e.g. 5E and PF1, which focus more of the system mastery levers on the character creation phase rather than in the tactical phase of an encounter. One of the things we would do a lot when planning adventures for organized play was to plant adventures in the season that show...

One thing my group noticed was that when one of our party members made a habit of actually using trips. It changed the enemy action economy so massively that it's been the most notable improvement we've noticed in our party over the months. It was like night and day. This was some time ago, and we've also found that as our casters started to focus more on debuffing enemies as well makes a massive difference.

What do I like about PF2 that makes me keep playing?

1. 3 action system.

2. Balance. It is so easy to run with minimal preparation and still be challenging.

3. Lots of character variety.

What are some things I think Paizo seriously needs to rethink and simplify?

1. Crafting: This system is overly complicated for next to no benefit. Crafting needs simplification and it needs to show a clear benefit.

2. Get rid of many of these small useless rules that don't do anything but create unnecessary rules lawyering like Interact actions for going from one to two hands or one interact action for drawing two weapons for a two-weapon fighter. Or other little rules here and there like if a spell doesn't list the saving throw, then it doesn't do double damage. Or how many hands to use Battle Medicine. It bogs the game down unnecessarily.

It's not fun to have to know too many rules to run the game. PF2 could use a simplification pass.

I agree that crafting is unnecessarily complicated and not even GOOD. it's honestly the closest thing I would call to a trap skill in this game. I also think things like spending an action on holding something with one hand sucks. And potions in general don't feel great to use in combat due to the action economy of it.

It's hard to not doubt somebody's sincerity when they blatantly misrepresent things they claim and express authority over. Sorry, but this character clearly doesn't understand the game he claims to. To say druids lack versatility in pathfinder 2e is dishonest at worst and makes you a complete buffoon at best.

I love clerics the most. they're vastly different depending on the deity.

I've seen this mindset consistently grow bigger in the community and I find it very concerning.

Having to take risky and meaningful decisions in an RPG is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me.

Its not a straw man at all. Just because you know what fallacies are doesnt mean you should apply them willy Nilly. I gave an example of something that would be unrealistic that's related to the subject and explained why some realism clearly matters.

I don't understand how people can argue that DEX-to-maneuvers for finesse weapons is "unrealistic". Realism is not a useful perspective for understanding the rules of any game (chess, RISK), much less a high-fantasy roleplaying game. Nobody plays Pathfinder because it's qualities as a real-world combat simulator, so why are people mentioning real-world martial arts?

And to everyone who has posted that finesse-to-maneuvers is not only "unrealistic" but imbalances the game by favoring DEX over STR, why not remove the finesse trait altogether? After all, in real life Olympic-level fencers are strong and no weak person could effectively use a real-life Elven Curve Blade.

In Pathfinder, a good rule is one that increases options and preserves game balance. Removing the ability of PCs wielding weapons with specific traits to apply DEX to maneuvers fails this test because it further weakens builds that were already troubled, like the Finesse melee fighter, the Gymnast style Swashbuckler, and the Wolf Stance monk.

Insofar as the ability score descriptions attempt to at least somewhat realistically explain what a character is good at, it makes sense to compare stats and realism in my opinion. If a character with high intelligence was supposed to be good at lifting weights due to their intelligence I would find it unrealistic and immersion breaking, regardless of whether or not i can cast a fireball or summon a demon. (unless they used explicit magic to do it)

The concept that just because something is fantasy means reality is completely out of the window is just nonsensical. I expect strength ot be used for things that require strength, and dexterity to be used for things that require dexterity. If attributes have specific meanings to them I can only interpret them in ways they apply to real life unless the game has explicitly said otherwise.

RPGnoremac wrote:

eople do dislikes thing when they are "nerfed", it was also more of a clarification though, since nothing stated they were attack rolls to begin with.

The original wording didn't say attacks weren't attack rolls and the attack trait refers to anything with the trait as an attack. They literally had to make up a new thing called "attack roll" to separate it from attacks because the separation didn't exist at all before.

Now, maneuvers don't pop illusions due to the new rules change, so pretending like it was already perfectly written with all other parts of the game isn't even true.

And a Developer specifically stated it worked that way during the playtest (and the rules did not change with respect to finesse before final print).

So with all due respect, you are incorrect. We were told by a developer whose name is on the front of the book that it worked that way, so please do not invalidate people's reading of previous.

the two tables i play with also assumed that maneuvers didn't work with finesse. Because you're making a skill check with the attack trait, not an attack roll--athletics never says anything about being able to be used with dex so we assumed RAI that they didn't expect finesse maneuvers.

it also doesn't really make sense to shove, trip or disarm somebody without using any strength. Even hip tosses require a significant explosion.

Personally I think the issue lays largely with how the stats are set up. The fact that there's strength and dex and nothing else physical kind of triggers me, since mental stats get 3 (cha, wisdom, intelligence). I really think a power (Explosiveness) stat would be a good separator.

SuperBidi wrote:

I think there's a strong opinion in here. You have the right to consider that maneuvers are a "staple of making combats more interesting" but you also have to consider that some players don't care at all about combat maneuvers (I mean, not as much as you). Most of my melee characters don't increase Athletics.

And the ones that don't care, don't have to take Athletics as a Skill.

My issue is taking Athletics as a DEX melee Class and being pretty awful at maneuverrs for no real reason.

You can say it's a strong opinion, but the reality is that at my tables Players used whatever actions they could to try to be interesting. The Action Economy is one of the BEST parts of PF2, almost unanimously.

By removing 4 basic combat maneuvers from an entire slew of DEX focused classes (which DEX is a combat stat) you remove action variability and stifle combat complexity (one of the reasons my groups like the game).

Quote:

In my opinion, Disarm should be based off Acrobatics. First, because like you I find it logical for a very dexterous character to be strong at disarming, but also because Disarm is very common on Finesse weapons. And, as a side note, it would increase the value of Disarm, as it's currently hyper weak, but making it the only Acrobatics-based maneuver would justify its weakness compared to other maneuvers.

I don't really care how they allow Maneuvers for DEX characters, but maneuvers are DEX based actions.

See most Finesse weapons have Trip or Disarm? Why is that?

Because the themes of using Trip/Disarm are tightly coupled with DEX users.

Disqualifying DEX themed actions from Finesse Melees as you put it is my biggest issue.

If it were Acrobatics, I think that would be too strong (funneling skills would be better than the previous ruling on Weapons with Finesse and Maneuvers) but I'd take whatever I can get at this point.

Quote:

Now, I think you are going into hyperboles. Rogue is commonly considered

You mean...

As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength. BJJ and Judo both explicitly have weight classes because of how much strength and weight distribution matter. And unless you think you're going to imanari roll an orc I dont see how it's that relevant in a weapons based system to begin with.

Seriously. Try rolling with someone who's 40 lbs lighter than you or has no muscle mass. Tripping is absolutely a move that requires strength as well as technique, and it shows when you give against people significantly weaker or stronger than you.

all I'm reading is that you think melee characters should invest in strength or else be weaker for not being strong while being in melee range.

my answer to that is.. Yes, and I'm glad that's the case.

I would really like a cleric archetype that was spontaneous casting

Exocist wrote:

There’s a reason you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting.

There are tai chi in the The Asian Games and wushu, that includes tai chi, has applied to be added to the Olympics plus it's a competitive sport in china. And As I said in my edit in my last post, aikido isn't seen in competition because it's not taught to be competitive and not because it's not capable of it.

Sorry but aikido is not capable of it. No aikidoka will ever out grapple or out strike the likes of a George's st pierre or a demetrious Johnson, etc. The sheer lack of sparring has resulted in it having techniques that frankly arent effective in real fights. Wushu is also kind of a meme art.

In this day and age you can find the best martial artists very easily, because we have a unified sport that allows every martial art to compete. And every successful fighter since 2000 has been successful by using one of or a combination of BJJ, Judo, Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, Karate and Free/folk style wrestling. There has never been and I'd bet as much money as I had available at any given time on my life that there never will be a world champion that actually utilizes aikido or tai chi specific techniques as a base.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.

Can't say I agree: For instance, soft martial arts like Aikido and Taiji Chuan are about deflecting the attacker’s force to his or her disadvantage, with the defender exerting minimal force and requiring minimal strength: they focus on flexibility, and endurance, with less emphasis on strength training. Attacks use leverage, nerve points and the opponents own momentum.

I'm familiar with these as I practiced taekwondo and hapkido when I was younger. I'd say I was a str 10 on a good day and I wasn't bad at melee. Circular movements, pressure points and even joint locks don't take great strength to pull off. I know from experience, it doesn't take much strength to hyperextend a finger. [it's a quick and easy way to discourage someone from continuing to grab you when you bend a pinky the wrong way]

and in actual competitive martial arts aikido and tai chi are literal jokes.

The thing is, it’s not that dex melee is “slightly” weaker at 1-3, it’s so incredibly weak that you’re basically throwing your actions away.

I’ve seen a dex champion getting played in Plaguestone, and heck the first time I started up my magus it was dex based with a whip (lasted like 2 sessions before I asked to respec to strength). You hit worse than a wet noodle. Doing 1d4+0 or 1d6+0 against a HP bar of 30 or 45 is basically a waste of an action. Even critting and doing 2d6 doesn’t do much. 2d6+1d8 from a rapier does a bit, but even that is still far less damage than a strength user with a long sword does. They do more than double (closer to 2.5x) your damage on a normal hit, and still nearly double (~70% more) your damage on a crit. Dex melee still carries the inherent risk of melee as well, it’s not risk free.

Now archery, I agree is ok. The damage is the lowest at the points where the range is most pronounced. But archery is also part of the problem here. A shortbow does more damage than a rapier (same weapon dice, higher deadly). You can flank with a shortbow if you’re so inclined, and very few monsters have AoO at low levels so you’re unlikely to even get punished for doing so. Oh, and it also has a 60ft range. Unless you were literally forced to (such as swashbuckler requiring agile or finesse melee weapon) why would you ever pick a rapier?

Now I do recognise this may create a disparity at high levels as well. After all, I do also think once you get to about level 15, dexterity becomes a much better stat than strength. Your reflex saves become relevantly higher (+5 vs +3) and of course, the damage gap is still shrinking. With how many monsters get super fast, fly or are generally difficult to approach at that level, archery becomes the best weapon choice, and strength gets left behind (dex melee still isn’t good but at least you don’t hit like a wet noodle anymore).

That’s why, in addition to “finesse trait adds half dex to damage”, I’m also going to implement a second houserule...

Even light/medium armors have str requirements. Having a +0 to damage means you literally just ignored STR. That's a silly way to build a character that's focused on dex IMO

edit: i guess its only a requirement of 10. Still you should always have SOME strength as melee.

Zapp wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

What I'm going to talk about here is something my players and I have been having issues with for the little over a year we've been playing 2e

Quote:

The main issue boils down to Dexterity-based martial characters having a lot of issues with build paths and early game damage.

I don't really have any words of comfort.

Pathfinder 2 just isn't interested in the 5th Edition concept of warriors without physical strength.

You need Strength to do physical damage.

Yes, this kind of nullifies the idea of finesse fighters, since if you need Strength anyway, why not go Strength instead of Dexterity and rely on armor to protect you?

And the answer is "that's exactly how warriors act in both real-life and games like AD&D".

The real reason behind "finesse fighters" is that some humans weren't strong enough to become a warrior. These individuals had to rely on subterfuge to compensate for their short-comings in the physical strength compartment.

They became rogues. Or they turn to sorcery. Or they choose peace, and become healers.

tl;dr: nothing (except game build theory) says Dex must be equal to Str. That's mostly something 5th Edition tells the kids today (and turns Dex into a super-stat in the process).

If you want to be a warrior Strength is not optional.

Relying on real world physics for an argument is not exactly a good idea. Besides, there are quite a few martial arts that teach exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. It's entirely possible to be a warrior without being pound-for-pound as strong.

Even judo, the most provably effective martial art that is founded and advertised upon the concept of using technique to outmaneuver assailants, has weight classes in every level of competition primarily because weight/strength are massive advantages.

Let's use an iconic piece of Pathfinder equipment, the humble compass, to drive this point home:

Over here we have One-handed Carl. We call him that because his name's Carl, and he's only got one hand. One-handed Carl wants to use his trusty compass. But, with only one hand, can he?

Yes!

Not only can he hold a compass, but he can also wield a compass, because the Core Rulebook tells us "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively".

How many hands do you need to use a compass effectively? Fortunately for One-handed Carl, just one.

Over here we have Two-handed Carl. We call him that because his name's Carl, but he's still got two hands. Two-handed Carl wants to use his trusty compass. But, can he while also wielding a shortsword?

Yes!

Not only can he hold a compass, but he can also wield a compass, because the Core Rulebook tells us "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively".

Over here we have Nimble Carl. We call him that because his name's Carl, and he took the Nimble Shield Hand feat. He's got two hands, just like Two-handed Carl. Can he use his trusty compass, while simultaneously wielding a shortsword and wearing a steel shield?

Yes!

Not only can he hold a compass, because that's explicitly stated in the Nimble Shield Hand feat, but he can also wield a compass, because the Core Rulebook tells us "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively".

But, uh-oh! Nimble Carl dropped his compass! Can he pick it up?

Yes!

Nimble Shield Hand explicitly states that your shield hand counts as a free hand for the purposes of Interact actions. Then, after picking it back up, Nimble Carl can go back to using his compass just like before.

Ironic you keep complaining about people ignoring your points when you ignored them. Nobodys saying you couldnt hold or "wield" your medicine kit. That doesnt make you capable of actually performing the actions associated with it though.

"Crossbow as a wizard's side-gig" is a pretty specific D&D thing; in any other fantasy setting I've seen if a wizard has a crossbow then magically enchanting their crossbow bolts is a pretty big part of their Deal, it isn't just an extra thing you do

The expansion on cantrip viability was supposed to replace the level 1-5 wizard crossbow, to my understanding. IMO magic characters should be focused on doing magic, it annoys me for the same reason it annoys me for my Maul barbarian to be forced into using a longsword.

Mages using weapons flavor wise is as old as Tolkien though.