Castilliano's page

Your ideas mirror many of mine, especially that of the value of definitive subclasses. I think the class playtest has most of the seeds present, but hasn't explored the ramifications of what it has nor extrapolated enough, ex. the Runesinger concept has been talked about despite being one feat with minor impact. I'll expound later.

Miroku, the monk from Inuyasha. Uses ofuda to blast, seal, & debuff much like aforementioned characters.

The Warded Man, from novel, unarmed warrior empowered by runes drawn directly on his skin (whereas most have them on items). They represent most of his ability, bringing him up to par with his demon enemies (who few mortals can survive against, much less fight).

Dr. Strange & friends when making those glowing-glyph-bucklers and more, though once off a surface, runes seem less rune-ish and more special effects.

Marvel's rune magic & that arc when some characters were covered in runes that scaled them up to boss level (IIRC).

Mostly I think of Scandinavian lore; etching runes into one's equipment, at portals/landmarks, on stones perhaps in patterns or held up high w/ prayers making them glow, runes sketched into dirt, or scarred/seared onto flesh.

I do not imagine just drawing a rune w/ the speed of a blade onto a moving enemy (especially with the different physiology of some PF monsters). That seems absurd, though Paizo could rectify by reflavoring the rune as adjacent/under the target and moving where they do, or the Runesmith drawing (or maybe calling) the rune then applying it.

I understand wanting to reduce loot, but it rubs me the wrong way that enemies become poorer due to a PC's choice to be poorer. (Poverty fad?)
In fact, keeping that extra loot solves the problem of less diversity & shallower resources by providing the inverse to the PC's allies. It's kinda expensive to buy upward, and with the wealth curve I don't think anything's being bent any more than the VoP bends it the opposite way.

Imagine grabbing your downed ally's gear, and then dispersing that among the party. Would that bump anybody above the power curve? Especially, as noted, with the VoP PC stuck waiting for the "now it's required" levels. They'd all be more comfortable spending consumables, but not gain access to anything they couldn't get by pooling their money. I've heard that recommended so the main martial can get a Striking weapon sooner.

From the treasure charts, the wealth bump would represent getting treasure slightly less than a level earlier. If that's too much seems more a matter of opinion & campaign. I've played, and heard about, APs where you struggle in the early levels because of less fluid treasure, where selling the items would hurt a lot. Or in one case where you needed those items to survive, but that left y'all underequipped in traditional ways.

And as RD said, this is Homebrew Forum territory. And reduces treasure fluidity, since the gear, campaign-centric, and thematic loot of the foes won't be reduced, it'll most likely be the loose change.

As above, plus they might have a spell, breath weapon, Grab, tactical Stride, etc. to perform after their first Strike. So always use on first Strike, it's likely their larger attack too (rather than their Agile one), and while you might be less likely to avoid a hit, you're more likely to avoid a crit so it's effectively even on damage prevented. And you can't use it on the second Strike if the first disables you from taking Reactions (most likely from a crit dropping you, but maybe some carrier effect like paralysis (et al)).
The exception being if there's a reason to avoid getting hitting twice, Rend being the most likely example of a crit-like damage spike to avoid.

Yeah, with such a robust frontline a Cloistered Cleric would be well protected, and the greater proficiency matters IMO in a party lacking much spellpower. Warpriest suits more if you're going to armor up & Shield Block or get a beefier weapon. Since a bow wouldn't get the extra damage that martials get, it won't do that much past the early levels (where yes, it'll be a nice third action). But since you'll likely be busy with other third actions like Medicine, Recall Knowledge, moving, casting Shield, etc., I wouldn't put too many resources into the bow, and as noted, there's always a crossbow for those few times you do get to shoot. And some of those one-action Focus Spells you'd have to choose from make a worthwhile substitute too (like for Earth or Fire).
So with a crossbow (maybe even heavy) plus a Focus Spell, you'd have two rounds/battle (more w/ more Focus Points) to cast + attack, which is half of many battles, and you'll often want to do other stuff anyway (but always casting when possible, even if only a Cantrip).

I say this having GMed for a guy who invested a LOT of feats into archery as a caster, and the guy simply lacked the opportunity to use it much since in tougher moments he'd always have to resort to his best spells + an action to keep himself alive.

And yeah, Rogue MCD doesn't actually help you much with Thievery directly, though yes, it does plump up those meager Cleric skills and that light armor would be nice if Cloistered. I'd be torn, but Medic is quite strong as noted (and you can stick near the Champion to provide your PC damage mitigation & emergency healing).

An unspecific Class DC can be any Class DC that you have simply because any Class DC IS a Class DC that you have. There's no cause to over-interpret.

I believe this is the reason Paizo culled down all the spellcasting proficiencies to the highest because martials had this advantage over casters when picking up abilities outside their class. And it's balanced since the PC is still buying feats at 2x the level (and so many of these pricier feats would become near worthless if stuck at Trained). Class DC centered classes like Kineticist label their abilities as "Kineticist Class DC" specifically to avoid poaching abilities that would be too strong via MCD. (Their feats are their shtick more than other classes whose primary abilities remain above superior to those taking the MCD for it.) The Remaster came after the Kineticist and did not alter the wording of previous Class DCs nor the abilities based on them. Paizo makes no mention of this "very important if true" distinction.

Playtest survey is extremely important.

Arguably most important, as it seems like they sift through every comment in the survey. While I'm sure there's input from the forums, it'd be imbalanced to give them equal weight since there's a lot of repetition from a small segment of their customer base.

As somebody who has theorycrafted a few builds based on exploiting Sure Strike, I understand and defer to Paizo's wisdom. The spell remains strong for that 1/combat w/o becoming core (which arguably no 1st level should be into later levels). Also I'm glad I hadn't launched any such PCs in PFS yet.

There is one important thing to be gained: PFS acceptability.
Undead Masters have to be Evil, which yes, can be converted to Unholy, but that's still off limits for PFS players. Of course a book that features Necromancers would be the perfect spot to update the Undead Master to have less evil variants. This would allow other undead-themed builds to acquire an undead pet too w/o the 2xlevel cost.

The one thing I just want to be sure and say is that I am not interested in playing a Runesmith as a blaster. I want to play it as a competent martial who can provide meaningful party buffs and other support. I would expect to get more value from etchings than from invoking.

This isn't to say that I don't want blasting to be viable -- because I hope it is able to support that playstyle for people who want it. I just hope that the power curve on the blasting isn't *so* high that they have to weaken the parts of the toolkit that I am actually interested in to keep its overall power in line.

Thank you.

So many directions and themes to link into, right?

But if you're leaning into Eldritch Archer, then Fighter's superior. Ranger's archery strength is in Hunt Prey (which you can't do with the 3-action arrow) and action compression on said prey (which doesn't jibe with it either). Meanwhile, the Fighter's accuracy augments the effects. And with Felling Strike and that 10th level Slow one, you have other single-shot options that help a party out.

Personally I wouldn't be able to resist playing a Care Bear w/ rainbow powers, at least until other bear characters came to mind. The decision paralysis would be...unbearable. *no remorse*

Ooh, Bard-a-bear.
Barbearian.
Oh my, too much punnery.

Another thematic solution to not depend from corpses is that necromancer could use "material components/locus" to create the thralls like bones for osteomancers, pieces of flesh for caromancers or piles of funeral ashes for vitamancers. And the rest of the undead body grows from magical energy. These components doesn't really exists mechanically being part of manipulate trait.

This means that thrall would keep their current mechanic of being created from nowhere but with a better explanation of how it's made.

I was thinking along these lines too, where the Necromancer carries tokens to transform, i.e. teeth (perhaps from a hydra for fans of Ray). Whether Necros recycle them, pluck their own hair or nails, or whatnot doesn't really matter; that little flavor smooths over the "from nothing/no once living body" or "tapping the (evil) Void itself" issues.

And yeah, I agree the Thralls need to have more options, some worth a feat, others that simply should be possible w/ an entity that can Strike. Heck, some worth a Focus Point, maybe destroying the strained Thrall rather than sacrificing it. Even if mechanically the same, having the flavor of rampaging undead feels better IMO than popping them like fuel. (Also, if they're the fuel and the Necro can supply that fuel indefinitely, a Thrall's existence is more a hiccup than a substantive participant.)

Typically medium bodies also don't make difficult terrain, with room for GM adjudication say if you're holding a doorway against a horde and it's reasonably become clogged or topple some larger creature. (I almost always do it with Huge or larger creatures.) Apparently zombie thralls are squishy & chunky enough they make difficult terrain, but not so much as to be slippery. And it decays(?) in ten minutes.

Given shared metaphysics, the others should leave detritus too. I think one would have to pile up a lot of corpses from the other thrall types to hinder movement because they have less substance than normal creatures. I'd say too unreasonable an amount to expect in an encounter except Necromancers can spam them so fast that sure, it might occur.

Has this become an issue in play? Or theorycraft?
Seems a similar (non-)issue occurs w/ martials, if one were to try to pick up a Barbarian's Rage, Sneak Attack, a Thaumaturge's MCD version of their damage boost, and so on. Lots of potential to stack there too, but has it surfaced outside of for silly speculation (maybe only mine, possibly Raving Dork's too).

Has anybody found it worthwhile to pick up an imbalancing amount of "silos"? Seems it'd be rather costly, with little to show for it that couldn't be gotten elsewhere easier.

I was thinking about the different pools of resources like this the other day, except I was considering it a positive, not a problem to be solved. If we want more classes, it's kind of required so we don't end with Star Trek aliens, just reskinned humans, or in this case "martial chassis + one shtick" & "full caster + one shtick". Those are simple enough to homebrew (much less balance), while Kineticist & this pair are beyond anything I could have dreamt up (much less balanced). That's professional output there IMO.

ETA: balance clause

My image of Gnomes comes mostly from Gnomes, that coffee table book from around 50 years ago which portrayed them much like brownies, or tinier versions of garden gnomes for that matter with the same conical hat an all, living a rabbit-like lifestyle in burrows. Shannara helped too.

I wonder how much del Toro's gnomes have influenced the younger generation, i.e. Gnome Chompsky? "Whaddya' mean they don't have a bite attack? They're tiny shark people."

*The Warded Man has entered the chat.*

(Peter V. Brett novel, title also The Painted Man in some markets.)

DMurnett wrote:

Necromantic lore

Necrotic Lore

It sounds better (IMO)
It covers dead things not raising dead things.

:)

"What is that?!"

It feels there should be an option (likely an Uncommon feat & certainly barred by PFS) for a Necromancer to become Unholy. That wouldn't need to be playtested though, and might run into the wall that even themed Sorcerers w/ good/evil Bloodlines can't get Holy/Unholy Sanctification except sideways via MCD Cleric or Champion, which might be what wannabe-Unholy Necromancers need to do too.

Not sure it's worth one's Dedication, especially with few (if any?) Consecrated spells in Occult, but it's on theme if that's what one wants.

You could thrall-ify skeletons from oozes & tree creatures, zombies from ant swarms & exploding frost worms, and little spirit guys from soulless creatures. It's weird, but intentional. Mechanically, I'm fine with it.

Whether or not this breaks verisimilitude would be a matter for playtest feedback. I could kinda shrug it off, though I'd prefer some sort of meta-explanation that cleans up the detritus. Perhaps the ability is really tapping into the death "energy" more than the available body for instance. Or death excites the Necromancer so much they pop out a thrall. Cuz yeah, it can create some wonky imagery.

ETA: Even an in-world "nobody knows how this mysterious connection/transformation/whatnot occurs" would work for me.

ETA2: "Through the magic of handwavium."

Hitlinemoss, that comes back to the repeated question of how well will enemies determine what a Thrall is? A wobbly post that flanks. Or more accurately, isn't: a creature with agency/actions/durability/etc.

It's a new class, so Thralls can't be to prevalent in Golarion, and if one is shaping the Thralls to one's whims, they can resemble most any undead (some of which have such diversity already that it should take a Recall Knowledge check that no enemies will bother to spend the action on). Plus summoning undead w/o a body has been around awhile, so that seems the more likely assumption (and that's only for savvy enemies). Since Thralls do attack upon arrival, their initial appearance marks them as a threat.

It doesn't mention ENTIRE space.
Yes, it could lead to a giant's arm becoming your thrall. Or head, which would be kinda crazy cool. Or it could be a slushy ooze of flesh & blood, or bone shards collecting together in whatever semblance you want. And yeah, that could be in the middle of a corpse big enough to alter terrain.

Should probably wait until the playtest forum opens up, but I think the thrall is not dependent on the source simply because it doesn't mention size at all, so you get the normal effects of making a thrall: one that's Medium or Small.

While I think it'd be interesting to create different size thralls, I'm unsure of the power ramifications, like would that make other abilities too strong because of extra space covered. It might lead to a "bag of rats" scenario where your team intentionally summons & kills a (weak) Huge creature so you can make a Huge thrall for some absurd consequence.

What they said.
Older D&D modules routinely had lists too, for the few that featured cities that is, and might be free online. The City of Greyhawk campaign stuff and module A4 are a couple off the top of my head which had lists. There's one where the party infiltrates the the capital of Iuz (demonic ruler w/ country of same name) if you want high-level, unholy dangers plus a decent system for detection & retribution by authorities. Apologies for forgetting its name.

That said, I'll lean into what Mathmuse suggested, where you can take most any list you do find and adapt it to suit the levels & themes of the city, but that even better is to work from a list. I've done this often to great effect, where I have several plot-connected encounters to choose from which aren't connected to specific locales. A few might merely be window dressing to demonstrate dangerous territory (where one can't expect to bide one's time!) and to set up some iconic fantasy encounters, but most will be creatures with backstories & motivations. And some of those will be innocuous albeit relevant, kinda like window dressing, but linked to larger themes, entities, organizations, etc. (like Mathmuse gave some examples of). Or one might create choices for the PCs where there's little combat threat, but what's the moral path? What impact might adventurer wealth have on the (real?) orphan stealing food? (Negative as well as positive.) I'm thinking in terms of a campaign I ran where the party worked out of the same city, so long term consequences mattered. I wouldn't add such distractions to a tourist stop unless its triggers had immediate ramifications.

And rather than roll off the list, I typically roll 2d20 and look at the lower to get a feel for danger level (or higher if itching for a battle or in hostile territory). Note the numbers are vibes, not encounter levels! Though I did roll 2 20s (after rolling a 1 to even have an encounter) while the party was resting some miles from a legendary dragon's lair. They scurry-teleported out of there ASAP. :-)

ETA: Much like Starfall's situation above, the main issue I have with city encounters is the realism. How tough do citizens have to be?! How special is the party if challenged in mundane settings? Maybe make it known these are unusual or specifically targeting the party (or their sensibilities which citizens lack) or more a matter of RPing or so on.

So the necromancer does not reanimate the dead, and the beings it summons are just tokens for abilities....then why call it necromancer?

Why not?

Anything resembling a Diablo Necromancer is unfeasible in perhaps all TTRPGs, if only for time's sake if not balance. And in real world lore, necromancy never required reanimating the dead, only manipulating them or tapping into their power, both of which this class does.

I would think never, at least not in any way that combined both martial & caster aspects at full power. The reason Battle Forms can't cast spells is a matter of balance more than physiological verisimilitude. So what would you be willing to give up as payment for this to fit in a PC build's budget? Not much left if one can assume a competitive dragon form while full casting w/ a breath weapon on top. And you can already take the form alone (w/ BW) or be the full "dragon-themed" caster alone. The Druid's ability to swap between martial/caster makes it perhaps the best class for combat versatility, and I don't see the power curve shifting so much.

About all one might expect (and I do expect it w/ a shapeshifter class or dragon-themed shifter archetype/subclass) is a longer duration as dragon (much like Wild Shape allows). But note that even w/ Wild Shape one has to cast a few levels below max to truly extend the duration to always be in form. (Heck, even monster dragons have to give up some martial abilities in order to pick up spellcasting.)

So yeah, given all that, nope, not gonna happen.

BUT, with all Ancestries now having access to what were the Kobold's dragon feats through the Dragonblood Versatile Heritage you could get somewhat closer than before, albeit humanoid.

Easl wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

Necromancer is an int-based, prepared, occult caster with 2 slots per rank. At level 1 they get a focus cantrip called Create Thrall that, as 1 action, makes a thrall w/in 30ft that lasts a minute. Thralls are creatures with 1 hit point that are always hit by attacks and always fail saving throws. They have no actions, but can provide flanking (some feats/focus spells let you move thralls or have them attack with your spell attack modifier). You can destroy your thralls to do various things...

Wow that doesn't sound like a minion master at all. It sounds more like a bank-resources-before-the-fight-then-spend-them-during concept. Personally I'm okay with that, but it's probably not the concept that a lot of the folks clamoring for a necromancer wanted.

That post left off a number of things. I added one just above your post that elaborate more. I think it is looking a lot like a minion master class honestly, though kept within the balance of PF2e and avoids the 30 minute turn issue.

Exactly. This minimum-maintenance minion method abides to PF2 principles (or that of any polished TTRPG IMO) while providing the ongoing onslaught of undead. One thing I had liked in concept was the D&D4 minion, though its execution created narrative gaps I couldn't abide. The Necro's mechanics smooths those over by tying minions directly to the power budget of a separate entity. Genius. I had kind of envisioned creating creatures in combat, but this extrapolates and refines that so well. (Note I don't recall that I've ever called an RPG mechanic genius before.)

Plus, I'm thinking it's likely that Necros get the opportunity to pick up an undead companion w/ a feat chain. That wouldn't (necessarily) warrant playtesting, if only to give more time to the newer mechanics.

I imagine some interesting archetypes along these lines.

I hear what people are saying about wanting other minion-type characters, but if a central conceit of the necromancer class is devouring essence from the minions and blowing them up, ie. treating these hordes as extrememely disposable, then I for one would be a little grossed out if animals and any kind of sentient creatures were added into the mix.

Summoning spells already heavily take the ick factor out of old versions of the spells by making the creature simulacrum of real creatures, but that is a simulacrum you create with your own magical power that barely exists in the material plane for any length of time. Using your own energy to create a bunch of thrall minions that you then blow up/drain feels a little too energy inefficient to make any sense. I see the necromancer as harvesting the body/spirits of existing dead creatures as narratively viable without being nearly as terrible as being the animal mass murderer or angel blower-upper. [/QUOTE

"You have my bow."
"And my axe!"
"And my angel blower-upper ability!"
*record scratch*
"Okay, so we're agreed ten's too many, right?"
*much nodding and agreement*

Depends on the Stance's benefits, doesn't it? (Or Stances'?)

Spitballin'

Firstly, I agree that they should at least meet "generic martial" standards, esp. given that Inventors (et al) do! Likely they don't get a damage bonus (except as reprisal?), but dang if it wasn't easy to build a better guard with other classes who get to keep their attack Proficiency.

It would shift dynamics more toward the first Strike (which is already a popular tactics and already a majority of one's offense). So look to them to filch feats like Power Attack, urr...Vicious Swing. Or it might lend to more of a skirmishing style, which seems antithetical. And then there's the Cantrip + Strike style (which with Bulwark they should have the mental stat for, though not the later Proficiency).

In a similar vein, I'd think having better alternative actions would dissuade second+ Strikes; namely actions tied to rebuttals and temp defenses (like a Vicious Strike counterpart for Raise a Shield). And much like equipping a shield lowers to one-handed die types thus lowering damage, maybe they could kick that vibe up (down?) a notch. Lower their die type to be even better defended. I could see swapping for DR "because they're so committed to minding their enemies" or something.

Such an anti-Agile penalty would deter Athletics attacks for most, I'd think. That was their strength, though that being their strength is IMO indicative of a poor chassis since even casters can excel at Athletics.

Lost steam...
Cheers.

Since the PC has this ability that triggers off of X, an ability to respond to X must exist: as that's exactly what the feat is describing.

Some those the PC senses the opening, then the player accepts on their behalf. I'm thinking mainly of the Strikes. The player might deduce a Concentration action or Crit Fail Strike occurred, but the unaware PC's thinking "AH HA!" and lashing at the opening. If the player wants to wait until there's a specific type of trigger, then there might be issues as yeah, that discernment isn't granted.

As for the others, I don't think that the ability to respond requires full knowledge there either, such as IDing a spell first. The player/PC doesn't need that knowledge IMO, only to know whether they can respond to it or not. From that the player (and likely the PC) can deduce more, but I accept that. My "respond to X" ability didn't trigger, so it wasn't X. And I'd rather tell them when they had the chance, rather than require them to ask with every potential instance.

Sense the Unseen, for example, seems like it'd always trigger though that does lead to issues if the player preferred saving that Reaction for another use. Doh! Time to discuss at the table beforehand (and being it's high level, hopefully that's normal.)

So yeah, I'm not sure "can't know the trigger" is the proper phrasing when yes, it's a trigger that the PC explicitly has the ability to respond to.

It's not a good loophole (much less "very good") unless you can find a GM that'll allow it. Feedback looks negative so far, never mind my personal repulsion should a GM of mine fail at such an easy adjudication.

If asked, I'd call it a bad loophole since it suckers the caster into wasting a spell slot on Mystic Armor. One more spell in one's repertoire for one less spell slot? At first level, that's a trap IMO, given that even 1st rank spells can turn a battle.

Speaking of which, who's suggesting passing out free 1st rank scrolls? Just rhetorical to point out that "often" seems a stretch given the lack of threads. (Unless it's on Reddit, which is foreign to me.) I'd agree if you're gonna run a low-level party through a gauntlet of attrition, it'd be wise to account for the casters' needs, but I wouldn't call such earned treasure free. I might also agree w/ casual players tossed together at a con or house party who have no sense of PF2 resource management, and just wanna go heroing. But at a weekly table? No need, no desire, learn safe tactics, get Reach, etc.

One, Oracles & Bards get light armor which is typically better.
Two, you'd quickly age out of level 1 Mystic Armor, then what?
Three, slots are the more valuable commodity at low levels IMO. I feel Mage Armor lost its oomph in the PF2 transition, too much to use except in contrived situations.
Four, what both of them said. Stating that such an option were reasonable would raise a red flag with me re: that player's ability to participate in good faith. There's a mindset behind seeking out such exploits that can poison a table. And advising it... *eyeroll*
Five, according the rules, the rules are not law. One can reasonably determine that the passage was written with the understanding the caster could still cast the spell, and that this was a benefit for the sake of continuity. Otherwise there'd be odd hiccups re: vulnerable windows or lapses in enchantment durations. This smooths those over for cleaner narration.

The only exception is if you Ready an attack action, then MAP carries over (otherwise that +5 would lead to lots of Readied 2nd attacks).

There are several ways to "best represent" from a playful recurring shtick (which you can achieve with impulsive use of those Ancestry abilities) to it being the end-all-be-all of all PC build choices.

Via the simplest route (not having read the aforementioned Animist), you could find one or two illusion spells you'd like to build around then find the deities that provide one (or more if lucky) to their Clerics while looking out for Domains with illusion/trickster abilities too.
Divine Sorcerers can also pick up spells this way, and the Charisma amplifies one's Deception & Performance for further trickery (as well as any innate spells). Unfortunately the Divine Bloodline spells are a bit light on illusions.
Ex. Both deities that give Illusory Object give Creation, both which fit the theme. Unfortunately Illusory Creature has none, and Illusory Scene comes on late (IMO) though Likha also has Illusory Disguise.
(Tons of deities have Creation BTW re: world-shaping).
Also consider Sivanah.

If you need even more emphasis on such spells, you'd need a different list as you've noticed. But that wouldn't prevent your PC from acting as if a divine wellspring (even if mechanically not). I'd recommend Bard, perhaps with a divine Archetype like Blessed. Best of both worlds IMO, with lots of illusion options backed by (and perhaps infused with) some divinity flavor. (And few other players regret bringing a Bard to the table.) And you'd have the Diplomacy & Deception.

Coming from the "reality-warping" side, no class does that better all day long than a Kineticist, likely Wood & Earth to cover the more obvious and impactful materials in nature though Water & Air might have more trickery. Not illusory, but since they're Con-based, you should have the stats to boost Charisma too and get an MCD. Or again, Blessed, albeit w/ fewer feats syncing. If inclined to melee there's MCD Champion (which come to think of it blends well w/ the elements that don't provide cheap armor though it's non-thematic elements might lure you away from the shtick.)

Note that PFS expands the list of available Ancestries quite a bit.

There are TONS of flavorful suggestions, and I wouldn't count the ones you've listed as particularly strong (nor weak) so I'm unsure how to advise you on this. I would think physiology applies more to shape, especially specific parts, than to psychology like Undaunted (however physiological that is at its root). Still you might find disagreement as I've recently seen people advise Unburdened Iron for non-Dwarf PCs as if that's training, while I think of their stockiness/physiology as too important for a non-stocky Ancestry to take that feat.

I do love that Halfling feat though, and take it on all my Halfling build ideas. Going Elf can get you a nice Cantrip (i.e. Shield) or +5' move (and Elf Step at 9th, though skip if the Rogue has Mobility). Gnome grants access to some really cool magic abilities too, though arguably all the Ancestries have cool abilities if they sync with your PC, i.e. Goblin has many good Stealth feats. Like I said, TONS, and then there's whatever suits the campaign/playstyle too, i.e. I avoid 1/day feats, but they're quite strong if running hexploration with limited encounters/day.

Casters cannot do melee well. You'd be better off playing a martial and taking witch archetype if you want to be good at fighting with hair. This game isn't built for casters to do martial fighting well. It's a very secondary form of fighting for them.

This.

I've explored these Armament options because I also like the imagery, and I can't say they do much better on a martial since weapons/Stances are so good, and getting an unarmed attack via Ancestry is much simpler (and earlier, and often with perks available). Which is to say if I were to make a witch-themed or hag-themed melee combatant, I doubt I'd even dip into Witch. I'd toss a whole bunch of witch flavor onto a different chassis (which would vary by what emphasis I was going for).

What they said.
Also, one must readjust expectations from PF1 where grapple (and other options) could shut down most anybody. Much like save-or-lose spells now need a crit fail to impact at full power, a lot of insta-win martial tactics (like Disarm) require a crit success to work. This means targeting weaker defenses is a valuable tactic, and that one must suit one's tool to the foe. So even a "grapple guy" should expect to skip grappling in many instances, though as noted, it's a solid debuff, one that many martials can't access due to having full hands.

And it's about balance, much like players wouldn't like an at-level creature shutting down their caster PC w/ one maneuver (w/o some luck/unluck which can be alleviated for PCs w/ Hero Points). On the flip side, when fighting minions, PCs can destroy enemies because crits will happen.

So, between six of us the OP has basically all main possibilities, lol.

At least my "This is very GM-dependent case" came true.

I think the arguments support that what/whom you're carrying would not take any damage. But it feels wiggly/GM-dependent until framed so clearly because there's this reaction as if somebody's getting away with shenanigans. The only trickery is that a PC with wings is carrying their buddy to the ground...a staple in all media featuring winged folk (even if they're poor gliders, etc.). That's the trope the PC paid for with a feat and likely why they'd taken the Ancestry too. Heck, people who can land safely consistently get portrayed catching their allies and breaking both their falls. And yes, most examples break physics, like even for the feat at all, but such is the norm in high fantasy (et al).

So yeah, if they can carry their ally, they can descend with that ally safely much like they can with anything else of that bulk. And they can't if the can't carry them, though I might allow heroic endeavors to mitigate some of that (w/ some rolling & risk involved).

Note that your example examines Legendary saves, which as well as being legendary w/ little room to go after that, are an extreme example. Many saves cap at Expert. And a reroll for a Legendary save gives you a really good reroll (high chance of success) vs. a reroll on a poor save which is giving you less of a chance to succeed so those poor-save rerolls need that extra boost so they're worthwhile.
So more equality in results for same Mythic Point investment, even if it's imbalanced in the initial benefits.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't agree with this. I think it is provably wrong, but doubt anyone would do the study to test it.

It's very easy to prove: Navigate to the play by post section of this forum where even combat rolls come with descriptions and roleplay.

Roleplaying is what we do, no dice can stop us.

He seems in a bubble where he thinks only his method gives his results, results I (and so many others) have achieved at RPG tables for decades, tables where roleplaying involves a distinct role one plays. Anthony Hopkins doesn't break into a comic monologue as Lecter, not matter how clever or memorable the words. Jim Carrey & Robin Williams have to swallow their humorous ad libs when they play their most acclaimed dramatic roles.

And I can attest that theories re: creativity support the concept that limitations & inspirational seeds increase creativity. Frameworks have been essential to many creative endeavors. So I'm unsure what portion he thinks is "provably wrong", only that he disagrees despite the weight of observations demonstrating otherwise. And I'd love to be corrected by data so I could update my understanding, and appreciate my tables that much more.

1. Rolls and stats don't interfere with roleplaying, if one wishes to roleplay. Tables that abide by the numbers (to even the utmost degree) can be as immersive as tables that don't. As default at my tables, players are assumed to be speaking in character.
2. Being able to surpass one's PC's abilities is not RPing "in character". Presenting that as superior RPing is laughable. It means the player's divorced from their actual role (or as others have mentioned, that many of their stats & abilities have little to no purpose).
3. Ask improv performers or drama students how they feel about limitations, heck creators in general, and most will have recognized that limits augment creativity rather than hinder it. So yeah, using the results of a roll as the seed for RPing enhances it, not lessens.

Not caring what you and your table prefer, Derivon, only clearing up the misconceptions about those who play by the numbers, most of whom embrace RPing just as enthusiastically.

This is all good advice...if it matches what you want.
"Good" is very relative to what you're trying to accomplish, what role in the party you want to fill. An 18 Wisdom backed w/ Dex & Con for durability will get you to "good" automatically. Now what else do you want to do? What kind of party are you traveling with?
Heal more? Take Medic.
Blast more? Much of the advice above covers that.
Extra skills? Rogue Archetype, unless there's a specific skill, then there's likely an archetype based around it.
Party needs a face? Go with Intimidation for a good 3rd action, maybe Rogue Archetype to boosts skills faster (and plump up the low amount Cleric's get).
Does the party need Recall Knowledge holes filled? Need longer buffs? Want consumables to suit tricky situations? As well as healer/caster, you can fill most any role that doesn't involve melee combat, at least as a good secondary or backup, maybe even primary, but it all matters on what you call good in the context of what would be good in the party and campaign (which have much more impact on builds than in previous editions IMO).

Yes, and no.
The action itself is not the Strike action (IMO; I can sympathize with the counterargument), so it would not qualify for the extra action from Haste.

This is the part before the aforementioned quote:
"While the spell persists, you can command one of your dragons to spit a missile of energy at a creature within 60 feet by using a single action, which has the concentrate trait."
That's the action, it's unnamed, but not directly taking the basic Strike action which Haste is granting. Then it goes on to describe what happens when you take that action, you Strike, so MAP, etc. factor in.
This is much like how one can't use Haste's bonus action to take other actions that essentially are Strikes, but aren't the Strike action, i.e. Skirmish Strike, Silencing Strike, and other 1-action Strike feats.

You are issuing a command. Doing so empowers you to launch a ranged Strike. It's persnickety, but seems clear once you parse the steps.

Except presumably you've already made the choices for each of those tables, i.e. high this, low that, so all you're doing is moving one notch higher and filling in the blanks. You'd have to fill in those same blanks if you used a PC/PC-like system. It's reading a chart X times vs. doing basic math X times. Both are non-issues.

And the current NPC system doesn't require equipment (from where??) to maintain the math, nor suffer the aftereffects of a treasure surge should the NPC die.

Meanwhile, a creature of X level, NPC class or not, has meaning. What does "Level 8 Driver" mean? With the current split levels, it means they're a level 8 obstacle when say in a race vs. PCs or level 8 assistant/boon for PCs if helping them drive/race/et al. You also know their other level for when they are as a combatant. That's about as straightforward as it can be.
But with an NPC system, what's that single number re: level denote? Sure, they're a level 8 Driver, but how does that translate into combat? That shouldn't be consistent, should it? Not all equally good drivers will fight equally, one would think. Would they be worth level 8 XP? Count as a level 8 ally in combat?

And you'd need a ridiculous number of feats into the highest levels. What does a high-level feat look like for a stripped down creature? How many will they accumulate, making running them more and more complex? (As well as building from scratch that much more of a headache.)

As mentioned, summoned creatures in PF are not creatures w/ lives (or unlives) that the spells yank theme away from (which is how D&D had it, which led to moral conundrums). So yeah, whether they're a platonic manifestation, summoned from a platonic realm (which I suppose the Golarion cosmos contains), or come from the caster's notions themselves though infused beyond them, who knows. But no moral qualms here, no baggage on the minion's part, and only an extra ability to determine who's an enemy (but not who's an ally, so it might regard disposable neutral creatures as allies out of ignorance). I'll add an unnatural tendency to remain in combat (even if not suicidal)!

And yeah, I like the phrasing in PF2 as a GM, as it gives me a veto in the situations listed by others above. But most players respect norms thankfully, and do come prepared, making them more natural to run the creature. (I had one player whose PC argued with his eidelon, at times considering it out of his PC's control, even if under his own.)

I do not understand the table etiquette of the GM in question, as that's disruptive hyper-vigilance that goes against PF2 norms IMO. I guess online it'd be difficult to nix a player's unreasonable request if the token's controlled by the player? Can GMs not back up a step should a player overstep with their minion?

It just struck me that the post-Remaster lack of alignment means these minions will have fewer desires, qualms, or guardrails. Hardly any, if any, generic creatures come with Edicts and Anathema so players shouldn't just come with stats, but a summary of the critters' standard personality. (And thinking a player can't see the stats when obviously they chose the creature because they have seen the stats...silly.)

One point is that PF2 NPCs can have two different levels (or more if desired, but why?). There's their combat level should the PCs face them in combat, and then a level representing the PCs facing them in another venue. Some GM books give examples.

So you might have a lawyer the PC warrior could easily one-punch out on the courthouse steps, but if faced in the courtroom itself that lawyer might destroy the party's face PC in a legal brawl. That lawyer would count as low-level as a combat obstacle and high-level as a legal obstacle. They are neither low nor high level until applied in context. Their durability might be tied to their lowest level, yes, but one might give such a lawyer a high level Will save for example, to resist Intimidation and mental magic which would be important in Golarion.

Similarly with a noble who might be pretty darn good at fencing (mid-level), but legendary at scheming (high-level obstacle in those venues). And they might have another combat level for when they're decked out in their best magic items. And another non-combat level for some side hobby, like gaming. And so on, as one's narrative requires.

So the goals of these proposed NPC classes can already be achieved in the current system, and without the GM calling on Rule Zero. The GM will need to adjudicate a bunch, but once the goals are determined the creature creation charts make crunching numbers simple (much simpler than building via levels like a PC).

Perhaps the only unplayable builds I've seen are when someone tries to build the opposite of what their class's chassis supports (with a shout out also to those trying to be so superior at two discordant styles that they fail at both). So they're naturally advancing in all these areas they make little to no use of while investing most everything trying to reach mediocrity playing against type.

The most common example is the 6 h.p. caster wanting to Strike in melee, though the opposite of a martial trying to emphasize spells > Strikes to where they're ignoring their attack stat(s) would also apply. (Though it seems players simply know that doesn't work as I've never seen that).

As for inferior, there are similar cases where players think a half-hearted investment will pay off, i.e. they get a good AoE via an archetype perhaps, but with such a low DC it's only worth two actions if there's a cluster of low-save enemies who also have a Weakness to it. (Which mind you can be a valid situation! It's just not something to advertise as if the PC's filling in that role in a party.)

Then there are PCs with distinct gaps, like the heavy-armor martials who can't contribute during ranged combat perhaps being most common, though PCs with zero city skills also could be an issue.

Not sure it'll work breaking this all down as if there's some granular, specific facts. I think principles might have to suffice.

Feasible? No.
No, as in never, not using Witch as a base class.
There's simply too much weight given to being a full caster, and it's a cost you cannot overcome with stats, equipment, feats, and even spell buffs all added together. Even ditching Int, taking armor feats, a martial archetype, etc., one can make a mediocre melee PC at best, and that's only while one's buffs are active. This would not suffice in a normal campaign (much less a challenging one), though if playing easy mode, sure.

You could make a witch-themed melee PC, but you'd need an actual martial class for the chassis. Perhaps take the Witch archetype (or Trick Magic Item, Pet/Familiar, and other feats to give you the witch flair). With some reusable spells, like Cantrips & Focus spells, you could cast most every combat while also excelling at melee.

A Magus would be a decent, prepackaged hybrid, though they are more complicated than normal to run, but would be simple to witch-ify.

Also unsure what alternate rules you're using that allow an 18 Str (which one can only get when one's class bonus is in Str).

Given the basic brute monster nature is most like a Barbarian, I'd consider Reactive Strike as a 6th level ability which might crowd out other abilities for monsters in that level range. For a more martial monster, i.e. Hobgoblin military, then I'd put RS as a basic ability, but also avoid damage boosts other than high attack, like building a Fighter. But there's a reason a lot of low-level monsters do less damage than a PC would, i.e. carry mediocre weapons, so yeah, there's a sense of balance to be considered.

As for tying it to Reach, I'd think in terms of the monster doing less damage, like a polearm does less than a greatsword. Also there might be less defense, as if using both hands/no shield or parry even if not using both hands. But as monsters accumulate more and more power (via levels), my concern lessens. As noted, RS is common enough, so parties should have methods of dealing with it.

Paizo generally gives monsters an off-turn effect, like an Aura. A Reaction is the simplest choice, with RS, Nimble Dodge, & Shield Block being common or oft-emulated. So with that principle, yeah, I'd consider giving out RS with each build, but I wouldn't grant it offhand. Nor would I add a second off-turn effect (that doesn't burn a singular Reaction that is) until the higher levels.

In the case of the Dullahan, they are trading the utility of the hatchet (agile + ranged option w/ it's odd lower attack/higher damage). So I'd see switching to a Reach weapon as an even swap much like if a PC (or enemy NPC based on class levels) swapped out for the same. In some situations (party, tactics, setting) this would be an absolute power bump, but in others there might be loss (no ride-by throws, less utility, harder to interact with environment).
Not saying I would do that with a boss Dullahan. That's rough, though getting flanking on a skirmishing target (which they seem built to be) would likely trigger RS attacks already (especially getting around that large horse it rides).