Castilliano's page

Adrenaline pumping up to new levels makes all kinds of sense. I'd like to see a Sickened effect afterward too, maybe temp hit points, and bonus to all Athletics/Acrobatics, not simply maneuvers (think lifting a car off of one's child). And combat is innately Risky, so maybe more triggers (like from close calls).

Moreover I'd like more ways to spend Adrenaline, like it's a fluctuating pool one needs to maintain both offensively and defensively (to make up for the class's fragility). Then there's certainly risk, much like spending one's last Hero Point to reroll an attack makes you vulnerable on your next bad save roll or if Dying. That'd help emphasize the risk/reward aspect of the class, having actual resources to gamble.

ETA: Maybe Sickened if you didn't spend off your Adrenaline before combat ended. Not allowed to horde it to play it safe.

Yeah, the consumables have kinda stolen that vibe, unless as Claxon noted, you repeatedly face the same needs (and thus want to save actions you keep spending).

Or Slayer just needs to seem to do more with the Trophies. By which I mean maybe the individual trophies (and tracking of) could be shifted into nebulous & conceptual (much like Esoterica) while the benefits could come in packages (much like Implements).
So you might pick up Dragon Slayer for your trophy case one day, get those specific abilities, maybe with choices for different breath weapons, but otherwise clear and concise. (This would somewhat resemble a 3.0 Binder, kitting out each day to suit one's daily role or next target, rather than last target.)
Or the choices could be stickier, getting beginning, intermediate, and advanced, but with options to switch/rebuild when you slay a significant enemy represented by one of the other monster types. Maybe quickly at that, post-combat trophy-taking with later option for during combat (with some sort of AoE Fear/Demoralize effect of course).

Might get messy balancing with Tools, but if they have their own lanes/bonus types it should be manageable (and allow for more customization).

Yes, it could be an expansion of Swashbuckler. It could also work as a Racket, Hunter's Edge, etc. which funnily enough could all work simultaneously by providing basic Adrenaline bonuses/abilities and access to a pool of Daredevil feats.
That or an Archetype, but that's frequently the case with playtests. Dare I say though that a Daredevil subsystem might work best. (no pun had been intended...)

Trouble is, reading the class's shoddy chassis, one hopes for more bells and whistles from the feats (which yes, the class does provide extra of), yet I don't think the feats pull it off (other than Caroming around for auto-damage). Compare to Monk or Fighter (also w/ no subclass) which both have a strong chassis and defining feats. And gain ample rewards without the advertised riskiness of the Daredevil.

Heck, maybe Daredevil needs subclasses for extra oomph, but I guess there might not be enough distinction.

As I wrote elsewhere, if you can't make Matt Murdock & Buffy with these classes, their names are failures. :-) (But I do kinda mean it, since that's the zeitgeist behind the names.)

More like Stuntman and Obsessed Murderer (though Murderist does tickle my sensibilities). Maybe the latter's name should focus more on the tokens/totems than the slaying part?

ETA: Leaning more toward Hunter (or Trophy Hunter or similar), much like Kraven, looking to take on tougher and tougher creatures, collect and grow strong from the effort (or stolen essence, ingredients, etc.). Time to pull out some hearts and consume your enemy's strength.

"but now that my character is of a level to take the wizard dedication", which would be 1st level, so I'm unsure what you mean. The MCD comes with the Racket already. Do you mean a 4th level feat? Not that it matters unless some program is thwarting you because as others have said, it's all legal in PFS still...as long as you're applying it correctly. Archives of Nethys has all the correct data if some other source is misleading you.

None. No new stories. But that might be too high a bar.
New mechanics which reward thus encourage specific themes? Yes.

Did those themes need encouraging? Seems a bit table dependent. I can imagine some players wanting to pull of some of the Daredevil's tricks, but as noted above, a Risky subsystem could suffice (as could a Trophy subsystem while we're at it).

Unlike previous playtests, I sense no desire to poach abilities from either class for any of my many PC concepts; not even those that one might call a daredevil or who collect gory trophies. Both themes feel like side gigs or flavor, better served by Archetypes if one wants mechanical benefits. Their core abilities feel like they're a step too dependent/niche for PF2's high fantasy and more low fantasy, like Conan.

I doubt I'd use them to make Matt Murdock or Buffy, thus their names fail. The Stuntman/Thrillseeker or the (creepy) Stalker feel more apt names.

Rogue can make such a diverse range of PCs, that we'd need to know what kind of character do you like playing. Do you have an RPing concept? Would you like to recreate a Barbarian-like PC, just with more skills? etc.

Then, who are your teammates, and what are their tactics?
For instance, if you have a Dirge of Doom Bard, then Dread Striker makes life quite simple for you. If there's a Champion, you're a lot safer flanking enemies. Can they cover enemies immune to Precision damage (mostly oozes, swarms, & incorporeal enemies) alone or do you need maybe to use your Archetype to help there? Is there a lot of magic? It'd be quite unfortunate if you were the only front-liner for example (but manageable w/ investments). IMO this plays different from Barbarian who kinda doesn't need to factor in others as much. Like most of PF2, trying to do it all within your own build can tax you too much (and have feebler results than you'd prefer), so check in with your co-players.

The nature of the campaign matters too re: Thievery, enemy-types, etc. and what roles the party would prefer to cover. Like will Deception ever be necessary? Is there a face-PC already?

All Rogues have the advantage that they can do 2-handed weapon damage with one hand (and likely an Agile weapon at that). So what do you want to do with your free hand? Sounds like Athletics, but a shield would do nice if the party lacks tough PCs or in-combat healing; or a second weapon might help w/ damage diversity or provide ranged options (ex. for that Dirge of Doom setup).

And there's Opportune Backstab, an 8th level game-changer that hopefully syncs with your squad. If so, build to endure front-line damage (and yes, Gang Up can help you by keeping you on your team's side of the battle.)

What can help you find a fun Racket might be the 10th level feats for specific Rackets that add Debilitation effects. Which do you like best or cover Conditions allies can't inflict?

Honestly though, Ruffian & Thief feel like the only games in town unless you have specific concepts in mind. A Ruffian Rogue has the advantage they can switch to a big weapon if Sneak Attack doesn't work (i.e. Katana switching to two-hand), plus upgrade their armor & as you mentioned, can emphasize Athletics. But that's quite redundant if a Fighter's providing Combat Grab or Slam Down. I like Champion MCD myself, if that's not stepping on anybody's toes theme-wise.
Meanwhile a Thief Rogue essentially has bonus stat points because they're the martial that can ignore Str (which can open up opportunities with your Archetype, like a 16 casting stat) and being Dex-based makes them solid at ranged combat (say if the campaign's often in the wilderness). Might even want Eldritch Archer and if the front line's too crowded, Archer Archetype has Parting Shot to ensure you get at least one good Sneak Attack attempt per round (at least until you can position yourself in melee, taking advantage of a Rogue's flexibility, maybe with a Free Hand weapon & Blazons of Shared Power). Another positive for Thief is how some high-level Rogue abilities tie into Dex/Stealth (plus it'll expand your horizons after playing Barbarian).

Maybe gave you more questions that answer, but hopefully they'll guide you toward a fun experience. Cheers.

I think Barbarian Rage is troublesome. It's often an energy type, which feels like a non-weapon chunk of damage, but the default Rage, Fury, & Animal damage seem like more weapon damage. Then there are those that add a separate physical type, like Bludgeoning to your Slashing sword, which gets further muddled if the target treats those differently.

Either adding or factoring separately can lead to wonky outcomes depending on the target.

I think a PFS interpretation of RK does allow for useful information because it's explicit that a successful RK check provides useful information (which I'd say means even if the player asks a dead-end question). GM Core's section on RK also advises generosity, such as leading the player toward pertinent questions and providing extra detail.

Yes, GMs can be stingy or even adversarial, but that'll ruin most any aspect of RPGs. Not that liberal info redeems Automatic Knowledge! Assurance just raises the lowest bar to mediocre, doesn't help much if you're emphasizing that skill already (unless to protect from a Misfortune effect). So in any serious combat, it'll help with the minions, maybe.

"Your net healing is..."
"What do you mean NET healing?"

Since PF2 encourages flavoring spells to suit your caster's flavor, this falls into allowed-territory. Whenever your PC heals someone, simply describe the thorns of pain your spell drives into their bones & tissue. Make the player/PC/NPC doubt you actually healed them/cast Heal, even as you say "You get 13 hit points back." "Yeah, but what did you do to me?!"
"You needed healing, didn't you?" Meanwhile the PC who can identify spells snickers.

Dispelling Globe doesn't move. Much different. Requires tactical set up, in combat actions.

Everybody in your party could max out Deception.

"Are you suffering?"
"No." (grimace)
"You sure look like you're suffering."
"Maybe, but those Heal spells only worsen the pain."
"Really??"
"Yeah, I'm wired different. They don't provide comfort one bit."
"Hmm. Okay."
"The Champion too."
"Why didn't he say so?"
"Uh...reasons."

---
I wouldn't say it applies to all his Divine casters, only those subject to his Anathema. So a Sorcerer or Oracle who worshiped him could be lax, perhaps rationalize the infraction to themself.

But yeah, a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon doesn't play a healing role, and other than to prolong suffering, I don't think they should. Much like many of the NPCs/creatures into torture happen to have good Medicine, but do they actually Treat Wounds other than to torture more? As cool as the visuals are, it's a tough deity to justify though Divine has enough firepower now Clerics can choose to play the blaster.

Avoiding retrocausality is a worthwhile guiding principle. :-)

Maybe I'm mixing in DnD lore, but weren't the Elemental Planes necessary before the Material Plane? Their components formed the ingredients in the recipe and such. Then again, components for both seem found in the Maelstrom too (though that might be DnD's Limbo interfering).

Feeling like an original believer discussing a spin-off sect's theology...

Well, it is the Time Domain so teleportation seems metaphysically reasonable as some sort of temporal glitch returning the target into those consequences. And that's the cleanest mechanical answer plus I think it'd be hard to contort into shenanigans.

Yet also remember the portion: "You transpose the moment that the target would be injured to a point later in its timestream." In most of those cases we are talking about different moments, i.e. Grab is typically a separate action taking effect after the Strike.

This gives us two ways to go that I can see:
-Count Grab as separate as it's a separate action that takes place after Delay Consequences is even used. Creature Grabs fine, etc.
-Count the opportunity to Grab as an effect of the attack. Feels a bit awkward, yet the Grab ability says "The monster's last action was a successful Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry," which puts Grab in the correct category/entry even if there'll be an action cost too. That effect gets Delayed too, therefore the creature cannot use the Grab action (nor waste it either). When the Consequences occur, then the creature gets the usual opportunity to spend an action to Grab, but IMO only if they still meet the other parameters for grabbing. (This also touches upon when exactly this one round effect ends. Mid-turn?!)

It does get messy with other effects, like a Warsworn's Scrap Ball attack, but I'm okay with 'time glitch' as a solution. Yes, the scrap arrives wherever you have gone, much like a Delayed fire attack with Persistent damage might ignite you or poison would get injected.

Some abilities might slip by, like Rend. It's not listed as an effect of the original attack, it truly is separate albeit dependent. That seems a GM's call whether to say the Strike hit and only its effects are Delayed (therefore Rend works) or the Strike hit (in the mechanical meta), but hadn't really hit yet in play (therefore Rend's Requirements haven't been met).

Then there's the trigger for Delayed Consequences: "A creature or object within range is hit by an attack." So it's not every effect or instance of damage. Read rigorously (IMO too much so!), only attacks count, which could be read as actions with the Attack Trait, not all hostile actions. If so, one couldn't prevent Engulf. Again, I think that's too strict, but we are in the Rules Forum. Yet the view of allowing Delayed Consequences to work does make the 'time glitch' issue more extreme (albeit necessary I suppose).

Zany example: Imagine ooze tries to Engulf, PC fails save so Delay Consequences. PC uses turn to fly up and grab the Macguffin which the party knew would trap the PC permanently inside its niche (maybe even in an area that blocks teleportation, maybe also petrifying them). Oh, and the ooze was Banished to another plane because why not. Now what happens to the PC 1 round later?

Yeah, while I think I've covered the basics, I don't think there's any singular formula that'll address all the issues from this spell.

That's an interesting question. Unsure there's a Golarioan metaphysical answer (or that it would matter), but mechanically the Strike damage occurs earlier than the spell even if the spell was pre-loaded, so d12s.

While there's a rigorous RAW that aligns with you, Raven, there's also the more natural reading that it's telekinesis and independent of the state of one's body. Paizo has explicitly tried in PF2 to avoid writing to the lawyers plus likely felt they didn't have to spell out the basics of a trope such as telekinesis.

Also, there's the awkward situation that a Sprite casts this spell worse than a Jotunborn when they're otherwise equivalent casters (even with Weapon Storm & weapons of much different size.) IMO, if it wanted size of the caster to matter, they'd kind of have to spell it out, even if redundant by rigorous RAW.

That said, it may have been more balanced if there'd been a size limit that increased with Heightening. Unsure though, given the action & opportunity cost. I guess one could spam it too easily, say with cheap scrolls or a staff. Hmm.

Castilliano wrote:

Okay, so if a swarm with the standard Weakness to Area gets hit with an AoE attack that does X Bludgeoning dice and Y Piercing dice of damage, and like usual has Resistance to both (which are often different numbers), how does one calculate the end result?

let's say you roll a 12 bludgeoning and 15 slashing vs a swarm with resist bludgeoning 10, slashing 10, and area weakness 5.

it will do (12-10)+(15-10)+5

---

if on the other hand we had a swarm with: resist physical 7, resist slashing 10, resist piercing 10, area weakness 5

and we did a spell doing 13 slashing, 15 bludgeoning, 11 piercing it would do:

(13-10)+(15-7)+(11-10)+5

since the slashing and the piercing are simultaneously physical, you won't be applying both the physical and the specific resistance but only th highest, but since bludgeoning doesn't have a specific resistance but it's still physical it would apply there.

So when the damage comes together, Resistance treats it/them separately, yet Weakness treats it/them as one? Doesn't that seem imbalanced? Not that I support triggering Weakness Area multiple times, rather that the single instance of physical damage probably shouldn't trigger two Resistances.

And in that formula, there's room for one of the damage types to not overcome its Resistance, adding a negative number to the mix. Of course one can/should factor that out. Yet how about abilities that combine damage for the sake of Weaknesses & Resistances where hitting with the second weapon could actually lower one's damage? Hmm. Those always seemed written for straightforward attacks vs. one Resistance, but many players prefer diverse weapons.

It's just a mess. And all the multi-proc discussions/shenanigans seem to indicate it's only worsened.

Okay, so if a swarm with the standard Weakness to Area gets hit with an AoE attack that does X Bludgeoning dice and Y Piercing dice of damage, and like usual has Resistance to both (which are often different numbers), how does one calculate the end result?

Thorough, and as RB wrote, impressive.

Also various religions have access to Uncommon spells via their deity, like Abadar churches re: Planar Palace (which means they charge a steep price since it's remained Uncommon). Whether that counts as available depends I suppose, but being such a Cleric is a valid way in PFS to acquire some tricky ones.

I'd read somewhere that all Uncommon options were available for purchase in Absalom (though I doubt I'd allow "all" to include explicitly isolated things, ones the PCs wouldn't have heard of.)

moosher12 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

All my time I've never ran into that one. Can you please put a spoilered title of what book that's from? I'm curious to check it out.

My apologies. It was a joke. This is not from Paizo. It comes from the Dragonlance setting where the mere mention of the name sent people in frothing fits.

I originally read them as just Krynn's name for the same thing so the repulsion never jibed with me (especially from those that enjoy halflings). PF2's sling staff even seems a carry over from that.

--
As for the OP, I had thought of making a non-mammalian PC Animal Barbarian that chooses Ape. And when they Rage they adopt human facets, us being apes and such. :-)

I've played two PFS sessions alongside a Lizardfolk T-Rex Barb, and I'm thinking whether his arms retract when he Rages. Hmm. "You're looking a bit stubbier, buddy."

So what does Spirit Song imply?

Success The creature takes half damage and can't use reactions until the beginning of its turn.
Failure The creature takes full damage, can't use reactions until the beginning of its turn, and is stunned 1.

I think it implies that even by Player Core 2 they didn't know what Stun is supposed to do.

Most often redundant, yes, yet even if immune to Stun or cured of it, the target still can't use Reactions.

Easy, Mastermind Rogue automatically gets their Sneak Attack if they spend an action "knowing", with no roll, no worries.
Master Hunter Ranger provides its bonuses automatically in the same way; first w/ any enemy they have the ID skill for, then just needing Nature w/ the 10th level feat.
And Combat Assessment Fighter...do those exist? They could provide a +1 circumstance bonus to the next attacker (and w/o a Reaction to Aid, since that's often a poor trade for their better Reactions).

Die size upgrades interacting with the two-hand trait on weapons is also something I recall seeing come up on the forums recently that got clarified.

Good. I'd had a staff-based PC I'd shelved because of that. Kinda funny though that a staff for amateurs might do more damage than a staff designed for combat. :-)

At that point it's not Recall Knowledge anymore, is it? And a PC could simply not Recall Knowledge. Why substitute anything? Or are there specific situations to be addressed, i.e. Monster Hunter or Knowledge Domain? If so I think solutions would come case by case, balanced to similar investments.

ETA: In other words, they're already gaining the benefits of Recall Knowledge, so why add a mechanic to give players/PCs even more benefits?

The climactic fleet battle was against Cheliax, where "rise through the ranks and build a fleet to rise through the ranks to build a bigger fleet, etc." forms the party's main endeavor throughout the AP. And yeah, a major, power-shifting event vs. some of the highest level NPCs on the seas. Failing there would have rewritten history. At some table's Golarions it might well be so, especially who rose to rule afterward. It's in that afterward, during the final "rise through the ranks" portion, where the PCs fight the final boss. To me fighting him felt like a diversion/reward/denouement more than part of the main drama itself.

Anyway, when I read about the Chelaxian navy nowadays, I recall how they should probably still be decimated. Especially when their military's embroiled in so many conflicts that would require the country's labor, wood, and troops. I'd like the impact to still resonate, even if Paizo presents a solution that lessens that.

Heck, I'd like to see the Shackles (albeit likely on a captain by captain basis) harry Cheliax more now. There should be many veterans riding off the glory of driving them back a few decades ago, some wanting a bit more blood, or young blades wanting to follow the same path.

If Starfinder 2e content is allowed by your GM, Ysoki Prehensile Tail feat solves part of it by effectively giving you another "hand". You're still paying the actions but you don't have to regrip or swap weapons to do it.

Otherwise there's limited ways to do this. Even Alchemist itself doesn't have a "interact/quick alchemy an elixir and drink it in one action" ability AFAIK that doesn't involve a Familiar (bombs do and that is what makes Quick Bomber so good).

Yeah, I was thinking Alchemist should have a Quick Drink feat akin to Quick Draw. Oh well. But they can make items into their hands so maybe it'd be less useful than I'm thinking (though Quick Bomber seems to cover similar ground, so maybe.)

Yes, Dual-Handed Assault, a good option made better by having a use for that free hand. (Also consider katana because it has an extra damage type and you're a Fighter so damage should balance w/ the Deadly d8. Also earthbreaker for two damages + the hammer Crit Spec (and hammers have a throwing option when you choose a Weapon Group later)). DHA covers your primary attack and you can drink every round. How much do you want to drink (or provide drinks to others) per combat? What gains do you expect from alchemy, a regular buff every fight? Only situational solutions? (No pun intended.) Might you have other uses for a free hand?

Seems by the time you've got your alchemy game established, you could afford the patches. Those are already broken IMO; every NPC equipped with expensive gear and expecting combat should have bought one if they truly were Common. Meaning to say I'd be amazed if a better alternative was on the market.

But also seems alchemy will hamstring your combat strength. Do you have a feat framework? While I think a Fighter can afford the Int, those MCD feats might pale next to alternatives. Are you looking for utility, a way to be more than muscle, or is the juiced up warrior imagery what sells the concept? What'll be your go-to Flourish and Press feats? Stance?

I find the rewording dissatisfying, you do get less of a benefit if you're a caster. It's almost as if they don't want the Archetype to provide casting, but it kinda has to for those without.

There's an odd effect too if you grab a spellcasting feature afterward, in that either you lose that Cantrip (and it might not even be available from one's new list) or you keep it and that the order in which you took the abilities matters (something Paizo/PF2 has otherwise avoided AFAICT).

Also note that pre-Remaster Cantrips whose names have changed are still available in their original form. This matters since many have been switched from spell attack to saving throw.

Other posts sparked this: Golarion has so many options it's hard not to find a deity that reflects one's personality (et al), or one's PC's in our case. Yet if Lamashtu were the only deity (or only known deity), I imagine many anti-Lamashtu people would rationalize worshiping her. Same with many others if sole deity; if that's the pinnacle of divinity, one must set them as the pinnacle of...goodness?

In turn we might consider the "savage" species who only have one deity, maybe only know one deity or only have one that represents them, i.e. Boggards (I think). If there's only one deity matching one's species, might one think that they represented the pinnacle of what it means to be an X? Sure other deities would welcome them, might even have incarnations/faces for all mortals, but cults (incl. North Korea) show us one can isolate a people even among a plethora of options. Hmm.

That also might explain why Golarion humans are so...HUMAN! Aroden was an arrogant such-and-such and so forth. Hence humans represent the biggest chunk of AP archvillains. :-) Maybe Goblins are going through a phase humans already have, where nobler deities rise up and represent. Better angels of our nature and such. Hmm.

Well, we did run into some issues with objectively Good deities having unwholesome aspects (or even Evil sects). This gave moral credibility to controversial positions we still argue over (and recover from) here on Earth (mainly bigotry). Not saying Good deities should be all shining glory. They should have grayer aspects, much like with the Evil deities we've been discussing. But with Good ones Paizo has to call out those non-Good views explicitly. Despite Paizo having a public stance toward inclusiveness and equality that's a tough spot for a company selling escapism when again, these matters haven't yet been settled.

Trouble is I think high fantasy kinda needs touchstones for moral quandaries, while sophisticated fantasy introduces shades of gray. Hard to balance those, but I think Paizo's managed well, at least in my subjective opinion. Separating Holy/Unholy from behavior (correlation more than causation) was kinda genius.

Yeah, that's "fireball formation" as a reminder not to clump together. And that originated in 3.X while in PF2 AoEs (& Engulf, Trample, et al) are more common, even at the lowest levels. Improving one's "fireball formation" tactics is better served by not being in said formation as Deriven points out. I can see an argument how a party heavy in auras (et al) might encourage said formation, but not how said formation should encourage taking MCDs for their auras.

So more imagined into being than being imaginary.

I agree, yet IMO "play what you want" comes with some caveats re: one's own enjoyment. Not that the scenarios are difficult (as I noted their ease above), but so one can participate (or not!) as much as one desires. If you're okay with sucking at social skills, that's a personal thing. In the Advice Forum I'm gonna advise a stranger to have a social ability for PFS, even it's just high Perception/Sense Motive or a meta-knack for deducing how to overcome an NPC's hurdles.

PCs should be balanced IMO for the sake of that player's enjoyment (and so should most scenarios with various paths to success). I don't think any player at that table thought another player's choices were invalid or their PC unwanted; all contributed in important moments & had camaraderie despite most of us being strangers. But I do think a few might've thought of themselves as unhelpful (aka dead weight) when after many skill phases, they struggled to find options (being kind of a sandbox with a list of tasks & appropriate skills). I avoided some of my PC's strongest options because they overlapped with their few, yet once those PCs exhausted those...the players themselves struggled. A majority of the obstacles and time spent that session were skills challenges, with only a spattering of (nonthreatening) combat. So yeah, I'll recommend having something for one's PC to do to help research, investigate, hobnob, or just chase a fugitive through the rooftops given how common skills challenges can be. It doesn't have to be optimal, PFS is kinda easy that way, but it's usually more fun to participate and help with success.

Force has never made sense to me as non-physical because I can't imagine anything hitting something with force without it being a physical interaction, whether concussive, tearing, or whatnot. And how is one interacting with a Wall of Force if not kinetically? Awkward.

BUT, if Magic Missiles are going to be barrages of force w/o a physical aspect (despite its damage being depicted much like gunshots) then continuity should apply that essence across the board.

And Spiritual Armament, once Force, is now Spirit damage, as its name suggests so the imagery's shifted. It's bashing enemy spirits, not their bodies. Yet what of other pseudo-physical manifestations? Do they need to be made of shadow-stuff or only invoke material objects to do physical types of damage? Seems so.

And in that vein, Imaginary Weapon should probably do Mental damage! :P

ETA: If a creature crashes into a Wall of Force, wouldn't the default be bludgeoning damage? Yet if said wall (somehow) struck the creature, it'd be Force damage? Yeah... Reminds me of how The X-Men's Cyclops has kinetic eye blasts somehow transferring kinetic punches without any actual material component, just "energy go smash".

A battle cleric gets martial weapon proficiency at lvl 3 so the dagger won't be a problem for long. You don't have to use your God's chosen weapon at all either.

I want Diablo style necromancer honestly. Wearing Armor with a sword and fighting alongside undead. May have to just wait for Necromancer class.
I've gotten by with characters who actually sucked at social skills.

Yes, the weapon's of least importance.

Yep, there is no Diablo-style necromancer, and I doubt there ever will or can be. While many playtest feats supported a melee playstyle, I found the weapon proficiency insufficient to warrant investment. And the passive undead kinda required using one's actions for that facet. Others and I gave much feedback along those lines which hopefully Paizo implements (or maybe they'll reframe the class's expectations.) As it was, playing a warrior class w/ MCD Necromancer seemed the most viable route for that imagery (albeit with only token undead buddies).

And yeah, I wouldn't recommend a Summoner for Diablo-style either; that takes a lot of investment for a melee Summoner themself to contribute in a mediocre fashion.

Yeah, face-PCs might be common or unneeded sometimes in PFS. But I just played a skills-heavy scenario where we had some dead weight and it was unpleasant watching them waste/struggle with their turns (though the players did give their all). We did not unlock all the treasure on our chronicles. :/ (Funnily & topically enough, Religion alone would've helped immensely.)

I want to continue exploring this bias of "Chaos is wrong, Lawful is Right"... because... wow. are people who are "Just following orders" right? even if those horrible orders are lawful?

was Robin Hood, the scarlet Pimpernel, Star Wars Rebels, Br'er Rabbit, etc all inherently wrong for being forces of chaos?

IMO Chaos & Law are insufficient for measuring correctness. Being against the status quo is good when the status quo is bad, yet vice versa too. Prosperity kinda requires stability, but enforced, authoritarian stability shows lawfulness alone isn't enough for prosperity (if one counts all the tiers of society that is).

So yeah, what's the moral principle that the laws (et al) most support? Or that drives the agents of change? Law has pro-social aspects, yet includes authoritarian regimes. Chaos has anti-social aspects, yet also represents freedom. And we have real world examples of either emphasis failing or flourishing, often with bloody costs for both and unforeseen consequences. (sigh) So IMO the best course is aiming toward goodness & flourishing itself, picking & choosing methods from both sides.

I'm reminded of modern Germany where police & soldiers (et al) are required to refuse orders they deem inhumane, valuing first "the dignity of man and thereby the inalienable intrinsic value of every human being", which is the guiding principle of their constitution. Seems they've learned that lesson to rebuke "just following orders".

Nethys is a fine, safe choice, and comes with Force Barrage, a spell which shines in the kinds of battles where undead minions will struggle (i.e. vs. bosses). Unless there's more to your PC's personality (in which case find a deity buddy) or there's a particular spell you want (then look that up for deities that provide it, if any).

ALSO, like with Summon Undead, Force Barrage doesn't care about your casting stat/proficiency nor does Heal. So you can lower it to feed you physical stats, and contribute fine when you lag behind dedicated casters. I only address this because you've written "battle cleric" and that opens up a fundamental question: "How much battle do you want in your Cleric?" Nethys with his dagger is a mediocre choice (but functional if using a shield) and spell slots will be tight at lower levels. So in a typical battle at low levels, where do you see your PC standing? Armored in front w/ Raise Shield and swinging away? Blasting from the back w/ Cantrips? Using a bow? Throwing?

If your answer is fighting via your undead minions then you'll have to temper your expectations. You'll only have two slots for that, so it's gotta be via Cantrips or Strikes (though yes, at lower levels it's kinda easy to do both, albeit at the cost of one's defenses...which can be where Healing Font keeps you viable). I'm not a fan of Harm Font BTW, though I do have a Void Healing PC concept I'd enjoy playing in PFS if I could find a suitable party.

(ETA: You will always only have two or three slots for your minions because they need your top slots to be competitive, other than a few with unique abilities/immunities that suit a particular combat.)

I think the current best class for "fighting alongside my undead" is Summoner with an undead Eidelon (or even Psychopomp which appears undead, which will disturb party members less). PFS will likely allow you a rebuild once the new version arrives with its expected improvements.

Note that PFS is easier than the APs, plus you'll want skills, at least one for social situations and another for research (likely Religion).

So yeah, gonna need to know more of what you're looking to play as there are several direction to choose from. Cheers.

I think it's folly to rank them along one spectrum as there are too many factors to consider re: the base PC & its roles. This makes for several exceptions. It should be fairly easy to think of examples, and then of counterexamples, muddying everything.

Ex. Kineticist with Protector Tree as mentioned above, but a poor MCD if wanting Elemental Blast and costly in making some baseline Kineticist functions work. Yet then at high levels (16th) any Kineticist can Add Element (if not air already) and grant a Fly speed all day to yourself and five others. That's pretty amazing! (four total feats needed)

Or the Monk MCD, a mediocre boost to martial skills, but what if you're a Wisdom caster w/ so-so Focus Spells picking up Qi Blast at 12th? That's worth three feats IMO (and if you're unarmored you might pick up a Stance w/ a defensive bonus). But is it worth +2 Str also (and the likely cost to one's other defenses)?

Same with a Swashbuckler's One For All which many advisors swear by, is it worth the +2 Cha? Not on my -1 Cha Dwarf Fighter or Guardian investing in other skills and maximizing every action (and likely Reaction) already. And a Barbarian can't even use it while raging. But on my face-Sorcerer who often has a spare action because his martial allies lock up opponents so well or he simply plays in a campaign (like PFS) with lots of skill challenges? Much different rating.

I've found Fighter generally worthless to martials after all the Combat Style Archetypes came out (and misleading to non-martials wanting the Fighter's prowess!). But 4th level Reactive Strike sure helps a melee combatant w/ no good Strike Reactions in their main chassis (except most martial classes do have one).

Wouldn't it be more useful highlighting what each class does give you (and seems to give you, but doesn't)? And noting the exceptional abilities (and when they come online)?

Yes, they lose it.
Champion's Reactions are marked as Divine and so is the Champion's Aura which they depend on. I'd cut all magical abilities as a rule of thumb.

For an NPC that I want to be an appropriate combat threat, I'd substitute their ability; maybe even fool them into thinking their original deity has forgiven them while another deity actually provides their abilities (which likely have a much different flavor the NPC has rationalized!)

In the long term, a PC kinda needs that reaction to balance out and I'd discuss with the player the various directions their PC could head and how that'd impact them mechanically. Retraining or rebuilding might be necessary, maybe even retiring.

Edit for clarity.

Struck me that there are real world examples of evil religious groups available on YouTube. That doesn't mean I can explain the appeal in other than anthropological terms (as opposed to rational or personal), but we're talking megachurches with pastors preaching hate, bigotry, and violence from the pulpit. One hate-preacher nips his naysayers in the bud by shrieking about the witches in the congregation's midst working on behalf of the devil to usurp his leadership. Difficult to speak up against his bile after that. I prefer to think he's lost many congregants, yet his crowd remained large, likely enthralled or at least inured. And the videos were professional, made for public consumption, as in he has no shame of his bombastic insanity.

So yeah, it's pretty reasonable to assume Golarion's deities attract followers even when being overt. It's not necessarily rational, but neither is humanity (& its fantasy kin).

And yeah, on Earth there's no eagle's view objectively labeling that guy evil. That's me using humanistic principles that are pretty universal, but not due to some decree. Meanwhile on Golarion, the citizens probably have similar subjective observations because of conflicting data on what's objective truth, while we as players do literally have the objective truth. Again, it's kinda absurd to say the rulebook is showing a bias within Golarion itself. It might be showing earthly biases, but I think Paizo's shown itself sensitive to such matters (and far better than its predecessors).

Virellius wrote:

It's not just abstract philosophy in Golarion. It's real, actual, observable power.

Following an 'evil' god makes a lot more sense when you can see the actual benefit first-hand.

And, the way I've always run it is that (inexplicably?) the "evil" deities are a lot more likely to offer comfort to someone (to convert them) in a moment of need than good deities are. If pressed for an explanation its because converting a "good soul" to their evil ways is far more beneficial than a good deity saving 1 individual person who.

There's also a concept that deities try not to get directly involved in things very often, primarily because its expected that any deities that oppose them would also get directly involved just to mess that up.

In Golarion lore, it would probably help if there were more established reasons why evil deities seem more likely to intercede on selfish prayers than good deities, but I agree with you overall.

Plus real world cults (much like criminals & narcissists) target folks in need. That willingness to prey on the vulnerable "wins" followers in ways a good deity shouldn't, especially those that support humanity's agency. To the needy, it's hard to discern whether a helping hand is helping for your own sake or more nefarious ends; food's food, community is better than isolation, etc. See love bombing. Once inside, odd behaviors get normalized, building up to outright harm being relabeled & rationalized to become acceptable. Everyone else is fine with it, plus our deity provides us magic and power and in the greater scheme of things those people deserve to suffer and we deserve to prosper. Afterlife? Horrible? Yeah, whatever, that just reflects the way the cosmos really is. Those heaven-seekers will learn it's just the same where they're going, they're just being sold a con job. Angels don't actually want to help you, everyone knows that. /yuk

Reminds me of a German fellow asked about why their government is so charitable to the poor. To paraphrase, he said they've learned their lesson that fascism sows its seeds in the mistreated. So there's a bit of societal=protection built into it, as well as it being a good deed.

---
As for Golarion evil deities being evil only because a book says so, that's absurd. It's the creators of those characters telling you they've created these ones as evil (and with many of those having facets that defy simplistic delineations). So yeah, in Golarion (and I suppose on Earth too), it's very puzzling to suss out what's propaganda, dogma, (mis-)belief, etc. from what's legitimate. There has been and is room for evil people, i.e. colonialists & authoritarians, to inflict harm as worried about here. But this has zero to do with an RPG author handing you a villain.

"Are you sure they're evil? How do I know you're not just spewing propaganda like what's happened in history?"
"Do you think I'm lying about the morality and ethics of my own creations? That underneath my representation there's a truer version of them? Uh...what?"

1. That version of Asmodeus might be less Evil, but IMO is more evil in practice. His rationalizing, catering to the powerful, and appeal to a harmful status quo or even regressive past mirror exactly how I think an Evil Asmodeus would play his hand (and arguably did in Cheliax when taking over).

2, Does Evil exist in this incarnation? Is it a substance, damage trait, or tangible concept any more, or simply liked/disliked behavior? Are devils & demons all similarly misunderstood? If Evil still exists metaphysically, do deities have an inability to be/use/manipulate Evil, is such an inability part of the godly package?

3. With the utmost Evil deities neutered, will the utmost Good deities also have shades of gray? Are they worse than followers believed? And who/what will take over as top rotten banana? What keeps irrational people from worshiping those powerful entities like deities, i.e Treerazer? Where does evil/Evil peak if not with the gods? And kinda repeating myself, but why not deities? Maybe not popular ones, yet with hundreds of them, it seems some would fall under the label of evil (if not Evil).

---
I'm reminded of Speaker for the Dead, where eulogies portray an exhaustive, fair report of the deceased, which allows listeners to empathize with even the evil folk. Not that it redeems their evil. Seems at the end of the day that even the more tepid, sympathetic versions of those evil deities will still be evil if they and their servants operate the same way as originally. Or are there no cults spreading suffering and such? Do neutral or even good religions have bad seeds among them?

Hmm. Seems a lot of work to overhaul and then reintroduce to players. As noted above, there will be baggage interfering with new interpretations so it might be better to rename them.

Yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill if you think Paizo's devs applied "demonization of pagan/outside beliefs" as a criteria in their worldbuilding. Even if done subconsciously as part of D&D's legacy, most of Golarion's deities are their creations created to fit the roles & labels they ended up with, not somebody else's god tagged evil for tribalism (et al). And borrowed Earth deities, like the Egyptian pantheon, lean(ed) more Good & Lawful than Evil & Chaotic. (And I think it was Paizo's sensitivity to some of this issue that led them to extract many Earth deities from the lore.)

As QuidEst listed above, the core Unholy deities (minus one) have palatable aspects, and there are others with fleshed out backstories too. Not sure how much more can be done other than removing Holy/Unholy (which as also noted by others, can be stripped out rather easily). Funnily enough, fans have expressed love for redemption arcs & other positive arcs some Unholy folk. That nuance does exist. On that side. The struggle has been with the Good deities; fans rebuked Paizo for Good deities having non-Good traits (as that essentially gave credence to some real-world turmoil & dogma).

You've also skipped the question of how would one go about developing an RPG-friendly cosmology like you suggest. As mentioned by others, players want the high fantasy clash of good vs. evil, which seems awkward without actual evil deities (or entities powerful enough to counterbalance the forces of Good). IMO Paizo has kinda found the sweet spot where high fantasy can include redemption & corruption arcs, even creatures formed of Evil incarnate.

ETA: As well as having a Good deity with Evil aspects, I think fans would also push back if something deemed evil (by us, even with our differing moralities) weren't deemed Evil on Golarion. I know Paizo's felt it from some let's say tradition-minded segments of society.

One thing to embrace about the Darklands is how huge & diverse it is. The Vaults are more than buried continents, they're effectively new worlds with potential for unique flora, fauna, politics, culture (or lack thereof); whatever Golden Age SF & fantasy exploration tropes you want to highlight. Utopias? Sure. Post-apocalyptic scavengers? If you want. Lovecraftian ruins, cults, dimensional gates? Have at it. Love some eclectic Earth myths not yet represented on the surface world? There's room down below. Heck, there might be a civilization of billions who've been fighting on Golarion's behalf for millennia, long forgotten from being isolated for X,Y,Z reasons (and perhaps conveniently re-isolated after contact).

The unlimited fantastical is possible where both the players and their PCs can operate as outsiders, explorers into realms wondrous.

Yeah, ethics & morality as objective concepts, even entities & substances, severs it from real world comparisons. And we're in objective positions ourselves standing outside Golarion's cosmos. No matter how Cheliax spins their rescuing their populace from the forces of chaos (which I suspect was a false flag), their diabolic, authoritarian aspects remain evil.

To strip away this objectivity would require such an overhaul it'd disrupt more than it'd add. And in turn GMs & players would impose their own moral frameworks on the situation anyway, i.e. of course angels are Good good. If anything I could see Cheliax (et al) trying to introduce subjective philosophy, to frame themselves as just another POV maligned by the power-that-be of other countries for selfish/hateful reasons.

Sure, Earth has subjective morality (at least in practice), but we also have the virtue of deities depending on the POV of who's judging. To devolve deities to tribal/ethnic/geographic representatives would be a step backward in sophistication IMO. If deities were the main characters of Golarion, then sure, I'd likely prefer more complexity, maybe even scales for various ethical attributes. But they operate more as themes, banners to rally around which I'd prefer be devoid of any tribalism, bigotry, or plain ol' confusion re: their natures (at least from a GM's perspective). With subjectivity, we'd need a grid of who thinks what of whom. Oy. And that divisiveness would be rather petty compared to the high fantasy notions of thwarting Evil incarnate.

"I'm just saying I'd like a structure of cosmology that doesn't give an easy simplistic "These gods are good, these gods are bad""

---
Lamashtu & Hei Feng (et al) show that Golarion's deities already go beyond simplistic good & bad. Add in families, (ex-)lovers, etc. for more complications.

---
If not enough (or stripping away Holy/Unholy is insufficient) how would one go about making such a cosmology? Most pantheons have distinct antagonists. Does that too smack of retconning? Or is that simply a necessary component of drama, which an RPG also needs?

---
Let's begin from scratch with the basic notion that a deity is a being that oversees some aspect of reality. Then add the RPG fantasy premise that there's heroing to be done. After a whole bunch of worldbuilding it seems inevitable that we'd conclude with a wide range of "aspects of reality" running the spectrum from bad to good. But by whose metric?? Oh my, now we're involving moral theory and will smash into Euthyphro's Dilemma and many other unanswered conundrums. How did these deities even align themselves with these aspects of reality to begin with?

Even if we establish the bad-good gamut from the GM's perspective (or use a generic principle like sapient/sentient suffering-bad, flourishing-good), wouldn't we get some "evil" aspects like murder & torture and "good" aspects like benevolence & healing? Now how does one assign these morally-laden aspects to deities without the deities being so laden themselves?

I suppose one could mix & match, so every deity reflects some Yin/Yang balance, which kinda neuters them IMO like if the same goddess was pro-healing and pro-wounding. Would the deities have no preferences themselves? Or do the harmful aspects have some good purpose hidden behind them?

Or maybe deities only control amoral aspects, like natural forces. Okay, but that feels like it tightens narrative space, ruling out many classic fantasy tropes that IMO would have to be filled in by other "pseudo-deities" like angels, devils, etc. (And we are including them, right?!) Do you want good & bad merely to be victors' propaganda? Then what sets these forces at odds? (Being mere power plays seems of little interest to mortals in the bleachers; they want to know how they'll be treated, who best represents their interests, and other factors they'll in turn label good/bad.)

---
Okay, starting again.
If all you want, Zoken, is to do away with good/bad labels, then just remove the labels on Golarion's deities. (Maybe even return some of the Good deities their negative traits like misogyny & greed.) Seems pretty straightforward.

Any dynamic cosmology requires opposing forces. We, as hypothetical devs, get to stand above them without labels; so no generic labels. Now how do we differentiate them? (and how many types are there?). Let's keep in mind we're still building for an RPG and we're not telling the deities' tales; they exist to exemplify tropes PCs (& their players) are interested in RPing about.

Seems no matter how one shakes it out, there will be good & bad deities, if not in print, then by the zeitgeist of players' opinions. I think Paizo's done an excellent job allowing for both basic Holy/Unholy warfare while allowing many deities to have more nuanced personal stories (and transitions) for those who want to invest in such.

I respect the Sickened condition (especially if tied to a Will save) all the more because how severe these Swallow Whole/Fast Swallow shenanigans can get. I like to advise support PCs to have some big offensive resource up their sleeve for such emergencies where one might be isolated, but Cave Worms...they can take a beating that'd strain a DPR martial's output. And teleports so often need line of sight nowadays. It's kinda terrifying actually, and with monsters coming out of the ground or walls, it's practically random which PC gets gobbled (leaning toward those with fewer pointy and/or metallic bits.)