Charon Onozuka's page

Update v4.0.0
Been a long since my last notable update, but updated a few notes along with Character Sheet integration to work with Remaster Rules.

Biggest updates are to how Spell Proficiency & Crafting work - so I've updated these to be easier to track. Note that the Party Tab is meant to work with character sheets of v4.0.0 or later and will no longer work with the previous versions due to how Spell DCs changed.

In the future, I am planning to look into the Kingmaker weather rules - and hopefully updating my Time Tracker to utilize those.

Update v.4.0.0
It's been a long time, but a notable update to the sheet.

Going through some of the Remaster rules, updated notes in several places to match new rules. Biggest sheet updates are the changes to Spell Proficiency [No longer separated by tradition, but allow you to track by ability score in case of multiple casting stats] and the Crafting Rules / Tracking in the Formula tab.

Will by trying to run a group through a campaign using the Remaster rules at the start of the new year, and will keep an eye out if I missed anything substantial that needs to be updated to match the Remaster rules.

You also map the dungeon for creatures. Don't forget this use.

Don't see this as too useful. With an imprecise sense the info you'll often get is "there is something vaguely in direction of room." Okay... a dungeon crawl expects there to be monsters/etc. in most rooms. This isn't as helpful as it first seems. At best you'll likely get "something big" or "a bunch of things" as descriptions to go off of.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Abilities the rely of the GM bending over backwards to be good

The other way around: The GM shouldn't bend over backwards to forbid this ability (as you state you'd do by preventing its use on the air or that it should cause issues with other party members).

LOL The GM actually playing by the rules (you can't randomly target air with mental spells) is hardly bending over backwards to discriminate against a PC. Also repeatedly casting an offensive mental spell on allied creatures (PCs/familiar/etc.) is something I'd expect to cause a reaction. (Even if just small "Why are you doing this? That's weird.")

This is a big issue with many GM Dependent abilities. What you think "should" be the interpretation has little guarantee of matching the GMs thoughts. If their interpretation is different than your assumptions, then your ability isn't nearly as effective as you thought and/or you complain that they're harming your character.

-----
Overall, the remastered Wild Patron just doesn't seem to pull its weight compared to the other available options. Is it usable? Yes, in large part thanks to the cantrip hex being improved. Can you growl repeatedly at people for the familiar ability? Sure, most groups will probably allow this and laugh off your character's strange behavior / make jokes about it. But otherwise, it seems incredibly lacking compared to the other available options (kinda like the pre-remaster Witch vs any other caster).

Charon Onozuka wrote:

"Targets 1 creature" Seems to say you need some form of target.

You can always target the air (because there could be an Invisible creature here).

Personally, I wouldn't allow targeting hypothetical invisible enemies as a means to get around the targeting rules by repeatedly casting at the air. You can get around this by repeatedly targeting a teammate, but I think they should be allowed to feel a bit offended by it. ("Why do you keep growling at me??")

Charon Onozuka wrote:

I suppose you can keep aggressively growling at your teammates, but if you are constantly growling & creating spell manifestations in order to gain senses/point out

There are definitely spell manifestations. About growling, I don't see the need (my Familiar has Speech, so it can just tell me what it gets).

Wilding Word: "Your patron’s majesty—or their displeasure—comes in a growl from your throat, making other creatures reluctant to harm you..."

Sure it's flavor text and many GMs allow re-flavoring - but I'd argue there is certainly noise here. [Flavor is part of the fun after all.]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'd see it reasonable that any potential enemies are instantly aware of you and starting combat anyway.

It has a 60ft. range and can sense through walls. So, not all enemies will know about us (and anyway, unless the whole party is using Avoid Notice, enemies know about the party quite often). Also, the main goal is to detect ambushes, and ambushers will wait until you are in the right position. The fact that you cast a spell won't really trigger the encounter and even if it does the ambush is then triggered too far away to be dangerous.

Also, for Scent, you can just position yourself upwind and you are now detecting at 120 feet, which starts to be a lot.

Anyway, let's be clear, if the GM wants to disrupt the ability it's in their power. I agree it's GM dependent. Now, considering that for a Wild Witch it's your main ability beyond being a 3-slot caster I think the GM should actually allow the ability to be as good as it should be. Other classes have Fonts or Bardic Compositions as their main ability so I don't think there's an issue with the Wild Witch being a super scout.

Yup, you'll start the occasional ambush early. Personally, I don't see ambushes actually occur as often as many assume, but there is that use. Compared to nearly every other familiar ability however, this is incredibly niche and will often be replaceable by normal familiar abilities.

Abilities the rely of the GM bending over backwards to be good (i.e. you just happen to constantly be upwind for scent range increase; or giving an imprecise sense more info than it should get) typically aren't good. Same reason I don't see the argument that the GM should be interpreting your abilities differently because the rest of your framework is sub-par.

"Targets 1 creature" Seems to say you need some form of target.

I suppose you can keep aggressively growling at your teammates, but if you are constantly growling & creating spell manifestations in order to gain senses/point out - I'd see it reasonable that any potential enemies are instantly aware of you and starting combat anyway.

I'm curious: Why would anyone bother with Crafting if your feat and resource expenditure only ever brought you to "parity" with others? That's not parity.

And that's the difference. The people using Earn Income didn't have to expend any character resources. They're using their free Lore from their Background or some other skill that they already had anyways. But to be a Crafter you need to invest in Crafting; to Craft at all you need to invest funds, have a workshop, get some tools; to get ahead you need to get a hold of formulas and buy into skill feats and similar abilities.

The other abilities, such as Earn Income, don't need any of that. So yeah, I think Crafting should pull ahead somewhat.

Crafting allows you to Earn Income in the exact same manner as any other Earn Income skill, so in no situation would it ever fall behind.

It also allows you to repair items, identify alchemical items, create items not available in the local market (including higher level), create items when outside of a settlement, and is used as a Recall Knowledge skill.

So yeah, investing in Crafting does more than your background Lore skill. What it doesn't do, is have one player pull ahead in income. Considering how crafters in 1e could gain massively more resources than anyone else in the party - this limitation seems like an intentional design choice in 2e.

Still not a super big fan of putting short range, self-centered AoE abilities on a body with full caster AC and 5 hp per level.

If the familiar abilities are sufficient to be a significant impediment to enemies, the familiar becomes a valid target. And nobody EVER wants that.
At least replacing a dead familiar isn't a huge ordeal in PF2, but still kinda sucks having a decent chunk of the class's power budget (and a LOT of the power being added to the class in the Remaster) being bolted onto something that can be killed.
At least Rangers have to opt in to an Animal Companion.

I dunno, maybe I'm just surly. I've been trying to play familiarless witches since the class's inception. Let's go Wyrm Witch and Cartomancer!

Same here, never was a big fan of them focusing more on the Witch being a "pet class" in 2e, and now seems like they're doubling down on that. Really trying to hold out hope that there will be a non-rare patron allowing an inanimate object familiar or something to focus less on the familiar, but am doubtful. (Wyrm Witch is a particularly sad loss in 2e.)

Being forced to send a fragile target into close combat in order to use a class ability sounds terrible to me. Either your pet gets merc'd in an early encounter and you essentially lose the class ability for the rest of the day (including the difficult boss fight where you really want it), you have to deliberately avoid using a class ability to try to keep it safe long enough to use later (& probably just never use it at all), or you have to reserve your focus pool/reactions/etc. in order to constantly babysit your pet to make your class ability function (which sounds like a downgrade). None of which sound particularly appealing to me.

Quote:

I feel like paizo consistently overvalues familiars and PF2 turning the theming of the Witch into "the familiar class" is a huge part of what made them so lackluster.

The only point I'd disagree on is that I wouldn't really call the existing PF2 Witch "the familiar class" in the first place. It's not a very mechanically important feature, outside the fact that you use it as a spellbook (but we don't really call wizards the spellbook class or ask or expect spellbook facing mechanics and spellbook feats, it's more just background noise like the familiar).

I call the current iteration of the Witch "the familiar class" for two reasons.

1) Prior to SoM release, paizo kept hyping that the Witch would be "best at familiars" without mentioning much else. And then there didn't end up being much else.

2) When looking at power budget for the class, the special familiar rules and abilities are the only outlier compared to other classes. Hexes are focus abilities weaker than the focus abilities of many other casters. Patrons don't really do anything other than establishing casting tradition. And this is then attached to the weakest version of the caster chassis with standard spell progression. When you compare it to other casters - it seems paizo valued a daily familiar refresh and a few more familiar abilities as being a significant part of the power budget.

Overall I'd agree that familiars in general aren't a very mechanically important feature - but I'd agrue part of the weakness of the PF2 Witch was trying force familiars to play an important role they were not suited for.

I want to be hopeful the remaster will at least somewhat realize this - but hearing about special familiar patron abilities in the remaster worries me. Like the spoiler for the Rune Witch familiar allowing flanking (but only when you cast/sustain a hex) sounds... bad. Basically encourage an enemy to swat it and remove you class feature for the next 24hrs. If the remaster doubles down on familiars being important to the class, then this ability will only end up more punishing when it encourages familiar suicide.

I feel like paizo consistently overvalues familiars and PF2 turning the theming of the Witch into "the familiar class" is a huge part of what made them so lackluster. Trying to remain hopeful that they at least somewhat realize this for the remaster, otherwise any hope I have of enjoying the class will be killed if they end up doubling down on the familiar aspect being the major selling point of the class.

Personally, there's maybe three things I really want out of a familiar to feel "witchy."
1) The ability for a familiar to talk / be intelligent enough to banter with PCs.
2) The ability for a familiar to fly/float.
3) The ability for a familiar to be some type of mystical object rather than only an animal (i.e. clouded mirror the whispers secrets, flaming skull on a stick, floating book which writes messages to the Witch, etc.)

The first two are easily accomplished via familiar abilities at level 1 for any familiar, including ancestry feat familiars. The third is currently locked behind a rare patron compared to PF1 which had a number of archetypes doing this sort of replacement with the familiar (or even removing it entirely!) Overall, I have a hard time seeing how forcing extra familiar abilities really supported the Witch theme - especially when the Enhanced Familiar feat and Familiar Master archetype already allow anyone to invest more into a familiar if they really want to.

Honestly, if you were to have a fully AI GM, at that point I'd feel like you were playing a video game. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I love some good co-op games with friends, but it is a very different experience compared to a tabletop game. At that point, rather than paying for an AI to fumble around with tabletop rules/simulation, I'd rather just pay for a video game that selectively uses AI to complement certain features. (I'm actually playing one now that uses simple AI generation for a world of NPCs that develop/interact/grow each month in-game time. While very interesting - there are a number of noticeable issues with an AI handling most NPCs, the most obvious of which is how similar all the NPCs end up being.)

Oh boy, you might be surprised to hear about this but there are MASSIVE Korean and Japanese companies like Hololive that already ARE beginning to roll this kind of thing out with AI-driven chatbot Vtuber streamers and content creators that are raking in money by the truckload.

It is way more affordable to pay a handful of developers to maintain AI and hire artists to create/customize/model/decorate 3d avatars and just duplicate those efforts n+1 times to create their own fleet of AI-generated influencers/actors than it is to seek out, train, coach, and pay actual talented, relatable and attractive entertainers or content creators.

Guessing you're not part of the vtuber fandom, as this is a (depressingly) frequent misunderstanding of how vtubers work. The vast majority of vtubers are actual people using Live2D avatars. Hololive does not have any "AI-driven chatbot Vtuber streamers and content creators." The only actual AI vtuber I can think of is Neuro-sama, whose popularity is partially because on how awkward, random, and inconsistent the AI component is when trying to interact with actual people (along with the developer's constant struggles to keep them in-line with socially acceptable behavior and censoring outputs to avoid getting banned by the streaming platform again.)

Pick-a-List isn't something that harmed the Witch, lacking a strong central mechanic is what harmed the Witch. Most spellcasters have something notable in addition to their spellcasting. Pick-a-List without that is what made the Witch a worse version of whatever class shared their chosen tradition.

Summoner is probably the best example of a class that did pick-a-list well, since they have enough meat to not be mistaken for another class of the tradition they select. Currently Patrons, hexes, and a slightly better familiar are severely lacking in this regard. Even Sorcerer Bloodlines do more for them, and I'd argue those also deserve some tune up.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

Deities are also the apex of divine beings - making them all divine entities regardless of any other aspects. Divine Casting + Selection of non-divine spells makes more sense here. Plus Deities also generally expect to have more worshippers than just clerics, and it is not strange to expect that a deity like Gozreh may have a number of druid followers in addition to their clerics.

The same is not true for Patrons, which are far more varied than deities by default (nothing says a specific patron should have anything to do with occult), and rarely matter to anyone outside of Witches. This makes more sense to have pick-a-list + options that allow certain spells highly thematic to Witches regardless of tradition (i.e. Baleful Polymorph spell currently available under Rites of Transfiguration Feat). Pick-a-list also matches up with the other classes which source their magic from a variety of creature categories (Sorcerer Bloodlines & Summoner Eidolons).

I'd actually be okay with both Patrons and Familiars being opt-in, or shoving all of the "you get special powers from an unknown entity for an unknown price" into an archetype.

Issue in that sectioning off Patrons would remove the entire theme of "how class gets their magic" from the Witch. This theming is kinda essential for every spellcaster - if only to help provide why they are different class option instead of just being archetype/feats/subclass of another caster. "Weird/Spooky Caster" isn't really enough to be a class in my opinion - a couple feats under druid/psychic/etc. would satisfy this, as would an archetype.

Take for example my Strength of Thousands game where it came up immediately when my players came across the requirement of taking Druid or Wizard multiclass dedications. The writers' intention was to ensure the party has access to spellcasting and at least one of the associated skills (arcana and nature), which is a straightforward, typical example of a restricted Free Archetype.

I'd argue there is a bigger intension of theme for the Free Archetype restriction in Strength of Thousands. The Magaambya magic academy is focused around teaching arcane/primal magic. Considering the players are expected to advance within the academy and eventually become teachers - it seems like it'd be a large thematic disconnect if they didn't know anything about casting arcane/primal magic. Not to mention I'd see part of the thematic justification of PCs getting the free archetype as being from their studies in the academy - which teaches arcane/primal magic rather than every archetype possible.

Immediately two of my players ran into issues. The magus didn't want to have to worry about mixing different spell sources, and already had all the in-world qualifications to count as a Wizard, and didn't want any druid flavor, so found the options super disappointing. The Bard wanted primarily to focus on thematic opportunities around going to school from the perspective of music-magic, and didn't like that neither option jived with their theme.

This makes me wonder if the players fully knew what type of campaign they were making characters for. I'm currently doing some prep for Strength of Thousands, and the player who who has concerns about mixing different spell sources is deliberately thinking about playing a Rogue/Druid so they don't have to worry about that.

As for the Bard - I wouldn't consider the player as making a character in good faith if they knew the campaign was based on an arcane/primal magic academy and then deliberately made a character that refuses to interact with the campaign's theme. Nothing prevents them from mixing the themes together (i.e. polymath bard/wizard interested in applying study towards their music magic), or saving the character idea for another campaign. Otherwise, if the player really doesn't like a campaign's theme - then that really should have been expressed long before the GM bothered prepping anything.

Murderhobo

Considering Witches are slotted for Core 1 - I doubt any of the Witch rework will include dragon-specific stuff. Consensus seems to be that the most likely reason for Barbarians/Sorcerers being pushed off to Core 2 is because they have dragon-themed subclasses and paizo want to have the new dragons released in Monster Core prior to remastering those classes.

So any Witch interactions with Dragons in PF2 is likely a long long way off. The best bet for something like a bonded treasure hoard in PF2 would be the Witch rework allowing fairly open options for Witches to select an inanimate object familiar and a generous GM allowing a treasure hoard as opposed to a singular object.

8 dragons in Monster Core divided by four traditions of magic = 1 good and 1 evil dragon per tradition, I would think?

Considering alignment is being removed, I doubt it'll be a good/evil split for any tradition other than divine.

---

While there aren't enough slots for it in this book - Dragons defined by the Arcane tradition makes me wonder if we'd someday get a set of dragons that embody each of the arcane schools of magic.

The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.

Wait, how is that going to work considering Aasimar & Tieflings already have a number of lineage feats underneath them?

Personally, I feel like this is partially a legacy problem.

Previous editions didn't have a Rarity system, so many weapons that were meant to be uncommon in the setting or unique to a specific race/region got tagged as exotic/advanced weapons even if they were very simple to use.

Now that we have a rarity system - I feel that a number of advanced weapons (such as repeating hand crossbow) should be dropped to simple/martial proficiency with just the uncommon or rare trait. Most of the supposedly "advanced" racial weapons even already have feat access in an ancestry feat which additionally lowers them to being martial weapons.

How many more people would be jumping into 2e if it were cost effective to do it digitally? I know of at least three table groups (mine) that would have.

Uh... you do know all the core rules are free online, right? Achieves of Nethys generally has most of the rules content from books fairly quickly after a book's release.

It wouldn't be too difficult to run a game by buying only adventures. If the GM makes their own adventures - you could easily jump in for the low low cost of $0.

I've actually been thinking about how to implement chariot races in the game. How about a Golarion Olympics book detailing a variety of non-fighting athletics competitions?

Like others said, removing Crafting isn't a huge deal as long as you either provide the standard magical upgrades at the appropriate levels or use Automatic Bonus Progression so they don't fall behind on math.

Removing Medicine/Treat Wounds is a huge balance shift that I would say negatively impacts the game. Mandating every party have a Cleric is not fun, nor is requiring the party to spend a small fortune on enough healing potions to keep up. Otherwise, the party will have to quit the day after nearly every combat - which becomes fairly ridiculous narratively.

Also, one think to keep in mind is that Treat Wounds by default takes 10 minutes and makes the target immune for an hour. As long as you keep track of time - this actually makes a difference as many parties will find themselves having to adjust to environmental concerns like running out of daylight while adventuring if they rely on it too much. So while it is easy to Treat Wounds, it does come with an appropriate cost (especially if the rest of the world isn't going to conveniently wait for the party to spend 2-3 hours on a few rounds of Treat Wounds).

Yeah, we have plenty of specific plant ancestries, but no plant heritages! What if I want to play a flower goblin?

This makes me want a versatile heritage were you are technically playing a parasitic plant that used [base ancestry] as their host.

Book of Alcohol.

An entire setting book devoted to nothing but the unique brewing styles of various regions and ancestries along with dozens of pages of new alcoholic beverages of every item level.

Just don't do what the GM that was running the game I briefly wanted to play an Investigator in did: threaten (and he would have done it) to run That's Odd by just saying there's a rubber duck in every room.

If there is a rubber duck in every room that the Investigator is being tipped off about - then clearly there is a greater conspiracy involving rubber ducks! That entire campaign deserves to be derailed to further delve into why rubber ducks are appearing with such frequency and what sinister secrets they might hide.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into that twitter statement. They clarify that it was from the marketing team, and they don't know the intentions of the design team. In other words, all they did was point out something done recently prior to the change without providing much additional insight to the situation.

Considering Impossible Lands was released in November and likely finalized/shipped to print prior to then - there is a time gap that they may not have known this new errata would exist.

Overall, I'm hopeful that they errata the later ancestries to be 2 boost, 1 flaw, 1 free as otherwise those ancestries may as well not have a stat spread.

If they didn't think 3free/2flaw was an issue, all they needed to do was not touch it. That they did, going as far as to remove the option from everyone, tells me that they wanted it gone and used this as a good opportunity.

I honestly wonder if the 3free/2flaw stat line was unintended from the start. From the way the voluntary flaw rules were written, it seems clear they were intended for ancestries which already had a flaw, and I could easily see the writer not considering what happened when it was applied to humans or the +Boost/+Free ancestries that didn't exist at the time.

My biggest worry about everyone having a 3free/2flaw stat line is that it seems like it'd become the one true option for most optimized characters. Outside of maybe Magus, most classes can afford to ignore at least two stats - and anyone who isn't an Int/Cha caster is near guaranteed to put their flaws there since those are the two weakest stats mechanically. As someone who plays at a table of (somewhat reformed) optimizers, I would not look forward to seeing most characters of every ancestry become less intelligent and less sociable as a result.

How +2 +2 +2 -2 -2 can be better than +2 +2 +2 -2?

Tell me.

As I tell you, Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

Because in exchange for one extra flaw, you have complete flexibility in choosing where each boost/flaw is applied, including putting all three boosts towards physical (Str, Dex, Con) or more rarely mental (Int, Wis, Cha) which is impossible with any of the fixed stat ancestries that guarantee at least one boost on each side.

Amusingly enough, when I mentioned wanting to look into 5e more, my group (who play both) talked me out of it. As near perma-GM, they wanted me to keep running Pathfinder because they said it allowed them more options for character creation and allowing them to make very different builds within the same class.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

There's a reason knives have never been a dominant weapon on battlefields across history or altered the nature of warfare like even early firearms did. Even with something like a knife bayonet, it is more effective attached to the end of a rifle (functioning like a spear) rather than using it as a knife.

Knives (or more accurately stone handaxes) were likely among the first manufactured weapons used by humans against other humans. Along with the sharpened stick and thrown rocks; knives absolutely changed warfare. It just happened so long ago that we take for granted that people use weapons to kill other people.

Kinda defeat your own point here. Stone axes (+stone hammers) changed warfare, literal pointed sticks (early spears) changed warfare, knives changed tool use while being functional enough as a secondary (or tertiary) weapon.

This all said I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss terminal ballistics and studies of harm caused in cases of IRL trauma. I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2, but even I can see that this conversation can't go any further without getting too graphic for this forum.

Fair enough. My original response to this thread was meant to answer the OP's question of, "What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?"

In general, my thoughts are that I'd prefer a system that supports a more "gritty lethal game" when mixing firearms into my fantasy. That's not what I come to Pathfinder for, and don't personally feel like it mixes well enough into the system for my tastes. Fine if you feel differently, but at this point I've said my piece and there is little point in me commenting further in this thread.

Why is it just a cut for one but a shot through the head for the other? If it was a knife going through your heart or a bullet in your arm, would you still feel the same about their relative lethality and prefer the knife?

I used the headshot due to the in-game example I posted before of the sniper failing to be a sniper despite crit-shotting a mook 4 levels below them (player understandably immediately wants to flavor this as "Boom Headshot!" upon seeing the rolls/situation)... which is part of why I see the PF2 version of firearms as being an inadequate representation. (Obviously an adequate representation of this in the system would be broken, which is also unsatisfactory.)

But... are you seriously trying to compare the relative lethality of a knife to a firearm? Sure, have them both target the shoulder (normal hit, no vital organs to crit) or center mass (critical hit, plenty of vital organs); the firearm is going to leave a nastier wound, be harder to shrug off, and be far more likely to kill. And that's before considering that anyone actively resisting has a lot more defensive options vs a knife due to its vastly shorter reach.

There's a reason knives have never been a dominant weapon on battlefields across history or altered the nature of warfare like even early firearms did. Even with something like a knife bayonet, it is more effective attached to the end of a rifle (functioning like a spear) rather than using it as a knife.

In the end Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a badass with a dagger is on equal footing against a badass with a polearm who is on equal footing against a badass with a gun. The more you try to emulate the reality of how weapons work the less fun the people on the bottom of that tier list are going to have.

Disagree! A polearm with reach + better damage dice is going to be superior to a dagger in most situations, as would be expected. If a dagger had better damage dice than a greatsword - you can be assured that many would complain for not being believable. "You can make it work" (with feats/options) is very different from the weapons themselves being equal as a baseline.

PF2 is not the simulationist game it sounds like you want.

For me, it comes down more to verisimilitude rather than simulation. I can accept the abstractions of hit points and grumble about small inconsistencies - but the treatment of firearms in a Pathfinder system starts to strain my belief. They feel tacked onto a system that originally wasn't made to support them - and either end up broken (& thus rightly banned) or feeling like Nerf knockoffs instead of a deadly weapon.

Overall, I feel PF2's system does a well enough job for swords/fantasy, but would rather play something else if I'm trying to represent firearms in my fantasy.

I guess I just don't see why that's materially different than replacing the gun with a sword or a knife, because those too can kill someone very quickly without significant training in the real world (while my fantasy fighter can take potentially hundreds of strikes from an untrained novice). At which point it just becomes a critique of HP as a mechanic more than anything else.

The big difference I see is that it is a lot easier for me to thematically justify that your PC character can bat away sword blows from a less experienced combatant than dodge/resist bullets (while simultaneously being incapable of dodging slower projectiles). Also easier for me to justify that a warrior grits their teeth against a deep cut compared to getting critically shot in the head with a sniper (see above) and is still walking/fighting. A peasant ineptly waiving a sword around is laughable, while the same peasant pointing a flintlock at you should be much less comedic.

And there is a massive gulf in lethality (especially compared to training) when comparing a knife to a firearm. Even against unarmed civilians, mass stabbings tend to be much less lethal than mass shootings and more likely for victims to survive their injuries. Meanwhile, the historical introduction of firearms basically started a paradigm shift in warfare that would eventually make most other weapons near-obsolete.

Even with the earliest firearms, compared to a skilled archer requiring decades of training, a peasant with a musket could perform with a week of training. If levels are representative to experience/training - then the peasant with a gun is performing above their level in this situation.

At the end of the day, when the system math makes getting shot with a flintlock hurt slightly less on average than getting punched, I can't help but think that it fails at representing firearms in a compelling way for me. I don't know about any of you, but I'd personally much rather take a punch than a bullet.

I haven't heard of the thing before either - though I have heard about AI and machine learning, so the concept isn't new.

From what you have described, it basically it sounds like an automated plagiarism device. At least as far as scraping GitHub.

Gotta say, "automated plagiarism device" is a great phrase that I will be using in the future to describe certain AI (especially the current issues in the art community with AI drawings).

-----
RE the AI Apocalypse:
There's two ways to take this.

The first is that the only jobs left in the dystopian future will be 1) Owners who make the profits; and 2) Programmers to refine the software as desired by the Owners. Everyone else will be in desperate poverty as they can contribute nothing of value and only a minimal amount of programmers are needed.

The second is to recognize that there are certain fundamental limitations inherent in AI that can't be solved by technological advancement alone, and are very likely to simply be impossible to execute. While the advancement of AI is almost certainly going to cause massive upheaval & change in the working world, there are still a number of limitations that make it undesirable as anything more than a tool for a large variety of purposes regardless of how much complexity it adds.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.

Is that part of the appeal? Most of the time when I see people interested in firearms or crossbows fiction, they're looking to play or tell stories about gunslingers, snipers, monster hunters, or other types of experts. Not novices who get lucky shots. I'd say it's more the fantasy that's incongruous with PF than the weapon.

To put it another way, I see it as part of the appeal of the weapons historically, and find it harms my immersion when the weapons don't match that feel in gameplay (generally, because necessary balance to ensure they don't overshadow weapons that require more skill to use).

This especially becomes true if you're a lower-level PC, and shooting someone in the face is about as effective as slapping them with a wet noodle. With the flintlock pistol example from above, an average PC punching you will generally hurt more than getting shot unless a level difference makes crits more likely.

A person is able to punch above their mechanical weight is with a certain item is not really a niche a game with any semblance of balance is able to portray, ot without a much deadlier paradigm.

Part of it is that I feel an accurate portrayal of most firearms requires a system with a "much deadlier paradigm" than what is available in PF. Firearms either end up feeling unbalanced or inadequate to me with the standard D&D/level-based system, and neither of those are appealing.

For a recent in-game example, a player of mine is playing as a sniper in an adventure path. After setting up One Shot, One Kill + Vital Shot + Critical hit + Attacking a mook 4 levels below them, their first reaction is (as expected) "Boom! Headshot!" However, that would be unbalanced, so had to dial back expectations since the weakest mook in the adventure path (a random guard) had enough HP to survive the critical sniper shot.

In order for the PC to actually live out their sniper fantasy, they'd have to pull off their combo against something so low-level that it no longer gives xp for being defeated. At that point, the weapon doesn't feel thematically deadly enough to actually represent a firearm and instead feels inadequate.

What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?

Personally, not a big fan. I know this type of content has its fans, but if I really wanted to mix guns/tech+magic - I'd rather look into playing something like Shadowrun.

Personally, I think 1d4 for the flintlock pistol is a pitiful amount, much for the same reason I think 1d4 for a baseball bat style club is too small. I would bump it up to 1d6 for both.

Agreed, a flintlock pistol generally hurts less than a thrown dart because the dart gets to add STR dmg due to the thrown trait. People mention that firearms have the fatal trait, but due to how crits work (+/-10), this makes firearms most effective for shooting lower level enemies, which feels backwards to me. While this helps to make them balanced according to system expectations, it doesn't meet the fantasy for me - especially when the majority of shots are thematically described as grazing the target due to not being a crit.

Overall, I don't feel like firearms mesh very well with a level-based setting because they violate the core assumptions of how most other weapons work in a swords/fantasy setting - i.e. that a novice is minimally dangerous compared to an expert being highly lethal. Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.

I think the logic applies to both Kinet and Magus as far as AoO. A melee kinet wants to be in melee, that is why you play it. Having a significant number of enemies shut that down pretty hard just is not fun and absolutely not necessary for balance.

A Melee Magus wants to be in melee too, etc etc.

Once again, I don't see how it is comparable or worth saying a Magus is "shut down" in melee when they are still holding a martial weapon with a full martial chassis.

While plenty seem to disparage the Magus ability to make basic weapon attacks - when compared to a melee blast this attack is comparable at worst, and actually superior at some levels due to TEML advancement.

In order for a melee Magus to be comparable to a playtest melee Kineticist - their basic weapon attack would have to provoke, Spellstrike would have to remove their ability to make weapon attacks in addition to provoking, and the action spent to refresh spellstrike/be able to make basic attacks again would also have to provoke. They would also need to lose all focus abilities that function in melee, lose the option to choose any verbal-only spells, and require a feat to attack in melee without provoking (without addressing the other issues).

I think a fallacy a lot of people fall into (not necessarily you, just in general) is thinking casters always have all these spells prepared. Your options are pretty limited.

If your biggest weakness is AoOs, you have selectable options which help compensate that weakness, and you still refuse to select options which do so, that is 100% on you when an AoO appears.

Something as basic as True Strike not only works vs. AoO enemies, it also is a major boost when you can Spellstrike to boost your hit/crit chance on the damage spike. Part of why some of the first theorycraft Magus builds on the forums were all about how to get as many extra castings of True Strike as possible.

I'd also say an issue that people fall into in these threads is assuming the Magus is expected to Spellstrike every turn and every situation. Considering the action costs alone - the class clearly isn't designed to do that (just like the playtest kineticist wasn't designed around using overflow abilities every round, which is the Kineticist feature that more closely resembles Spellstrike rather than their blasts).

The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.

Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).

Just submitted my surveys yesterday and encouraged all my players to do so as well after our playtest session. Hoping others will do so as well!

As far as I can tell, yes. Kinetic Aura does not currently care if you gather a different element, release your gathered element entirely, or do anything other than what the aura lists, "A kinetic aura lasts until you get knocked out, until the encounter ends, or until you use a new kinetic aura, whichever comes first."

So you are completely free to have snow swirling around you and dealing cold damage (Winter's Clutch) while switching to fire and burning everything in sight.

Some more initial thoughts after spending some time on a rough test character building.

Kinetic Auras Seem rather action intensive, especially if you want to start a fight with one (i.e. Fair Winds). Nearly all of the 1st level kinetic auras seem to focus on difficult terrain - with Air being clearly superior to Earth (buffs allies instead of harming them). Strangely enough, the rules for Kinetic Auras don't seem to be attached to the element you currently have gathered or care about if gather power ends or switches - which seems wrong (and an indirect buff for Universalists). Would be really cool to have a feat / path advancement (for Dual Gate) that let you have 2 kinetic auras for different elements active simultaneously.

Elemental Weapon Due to how melee blasts provoke AoOs, this seems almost essential for anyone intending to be in melee frequently. I'd be okay with it if blasts were more a damage spike (i.e. Magus Spellstrike) but I don't think the class's most basic melee attack should provoke. Also don't like how current rules seem to incentivize going for a weapon with the two-hand trait. Even if melee didn't provoke - this feat seems a bit too good and almost essential for dedicated gate - either to increase damage for air, or grab more range for earth or water.

Cycling Blast While I see what this is trying to do, I think it is something that should either be part of a class path or removed. It seems too good to the point that dual-gate & universal-gate might as well not have a 6th level feat slot. Also dislike this being shared between dual-gate & universal-gate since it doesn't help to distinguish them. (Personally, I'd advocate for something like a dual gather element for dual-gate, letting them gather both their elements simultaneously and use impulses/blasts freely once they got high enough level. Universal would still still have access to more elements, but would have to swap between them and eventually get cycling blast as part of path to help the swap.)

Wings of Air While I love this feat, was very surprised to note that there is no requirement to stay in air element. Seems like this is a bit too good for dual-gate & universal-gate kineticists since they can activate flight and then swap to an element that can deal damage while keeping all benefits.

"Use it even in environments where this normally wouldn’t be possible." Bludgeoning attacks are already possible underwater, just not very good. Nothing in the ability says it removes all penalties normally associated with the attack, just makes the normally impossible actions possible.

I'd expect the earth & air kinetic blasts to suffer from the aquatic combat penalties barring any specific text otherwise - so it seems reasonable to expect this applies to water too with the current wording (though I don't think it should).

Same thing if a barrier of wind was imposing a penalty on all ranged attacks - I wouldn't rule that gather elements makes all kineticists immune to this penalty without some other specific text. The attack is still possible, the penalty being imposed doesn't alter that.

Yeah, from the wording of the ability, I think water blasts would work underwater but still be subject to the normal Aquatic Combat rules pertaining to bludgeoning damage. So auto-miss ranged attacks and a penalty to melee attacks.

Which makes Fire Kineticists better at blasting underwater by default compared to Water Kineticists... that feels very wrong.

[Also, is it just me or do some of the core kineticist abilities seem to be written with Fire Kineticists in mind? Gather Element specifically makes fire kineticists not just usable in water, but better than all other kinetic blasts in water. Extract Element seems highly situational and nearly unusable - except for Fire Kineticists since only their elementals are commonly immune to their blast type. And even something like Elemental Weapon is only particularly unique for Fire Kineticists since it forces the damage type to match the blast (meaning rocks can never be sharp or pointy).]

They also should have a revive option by turning into ash.

To be fair, fire kinda has this with All Shall End in Flames. Can basically nuke yourself and everything around you, turning everything into piles of ash while you get reborn.

But yeah, every other element gets a healing option and there are thematic justifications for healing fire which burns away impurities - so I think there should be something for fire here.

Fair enough, I'll throw my first impression post here rather than making my own thread.

Inner Gate seems like an interesting way to separate kineticists. More initial options for focusing on a single element vs. greater amount of choices when leveling up. I do think the Universal Gate seems to be worded poorly considering we'll have 6 elements total at the official release. Might be better to chose either the 4 western elements (air, earth, fire, water) or 5 eastern elements (earth, fire, metal, water, wood). Granted, this also doesn't cover any unusual elements people may want to appear down the line (aether, void, etc.)

But why does Universal get to change their 1st-level pick every day? Seems like this is trying to go the way of the Wizard and make Universal just better than being more specialized. Compared to dual gate, who get 1 additional 1st level feat (which can't change) in exchange for cutting their blast & options in half, this doesn't seem like a fair trade-off - especially when the earliest big distinction between the two after 1st level is an optional 10th level feat. Dedicated Gate seems somewhat tempting with +2 1st level feats & Stoke Element (Feat 6), but Universal seems to be just best otherwise.

Gather Element seems kinda weird in that it basically functions as a stance, without actually being a stance. The only difference seems to be having overflow abilities that forcibly end it.

Elemental Blast Very happy to see both melee and ranged supported from the start!

Extract Element ...seems highly situational. I'd imagine many players will forget they even have this ability the rare times it becomes useful. As far as I can tell, primary usefulness is allowing Fire Kineticists to not become completely useless against a fire elemental?

Elemental Weapon (Feat 1) Love the thematic, but I'm unsure how this works. Do you get the weapon damage dice / traits when making an elemental weapon? If no, the ability seems kinda useless and just flavor. If yes, then seems at the level of a must-take for elements like air (low damage dice) or earth (low range) to compensate for their downsides. Don't say I particularly like how it changes the damage type to match your element - since other than fire, most elements don't make a lot of sense with this (my earth sword or water spear deal bludgeoning damage). Also doesn't really help avoiding to use weapons if my earth kineticist still needs a backup non-bludgeoning weapon for any enemies where bludgeoning isn't very effective. [Current campaign I'm running is zombie-focused where players have learned they need to use slashing damage to keep up. A water/earth kineticist would be better off with a sickle than ever using their blast, even with this feat...]

Elemental Impulse Feats
Expected that the old elemental options would primarily become feats, no big surprise.

Air
Wings of Air returns! And without the prerequisites! Already love this element, near permanent flight is exactly what I want as an aerokineticist, and will be difficult to resist on any universal gate kineticists.

No Lightning Blast-style impulse? Really feel there should be a low-level impulse that lets you arc electricity at foes.

Earth
Stone Shield doesn't appear to have any limit on uses after using Shield Block? (other than needing to re-Gather Element) That seems like a very good ability.

Fire
Lots of burning, as expected.

Water
Love Winter's Clutch as a snow/ice kinetic aura at 1st level - but think there should also be some type of water (room temp) aura ability.

-----
Overall
Neither particularly attached or against CON as the class ability score, but I feel like the class ability should do something for the class. Right now, it seems like CON doesn't actually affect any Kineticist abilities - which seems wrong.

Dedicated Gate vs. Dual Gate vs. Universal Gate:
Feel like these need more to distinguish from each other rather than just 1-2 extra first level options and a few optional feats later on. Especially for Dual Gate, which is in an awkward spot between the two. At minimum, I think there should be a class feature at some level beyond 1st which has different effects based on which Inner Gate you took.

Personally, I'd expect the Dedicated Gate to be the best at using their element, Dual Gate to have an ability to channel both their elements simultaneously (using either element's impulses freely), and Universal having the flexibility of all elements, but needing to spend time to re-gather a new element in order to swap between them (trade-off compared to dual gate). Also see dual gate as having best ability to mix blasts, while maybe allowing universal gate a feat to select multiple impulse feats with the restrictions they have to be of a lower level and of different elements (to help the issue of limited feat slot restrictions when trying to maintain more than two elements in a build - let them be the most varied while not getting the flashiest at-level abilities).

On a more simple point - my point on HP and burn was dismissing the idea of changing it to pure HP damage in 2E. I am well aware of how it worked in 1E but there is currently no mechanism for unhealable HP in 2E and they have deliberately tried to avoid fiddly things like that in the design. So I was saying Burn will likely not be HP damage in any form in 2E.

I think self-inflicting the drained condition would work for a PF2 version of burn. Reducing max HP is functionally the same as preventing you from healing, and it'd fit the theme of pushing themselves beyond their limits.

PF2 also is very narrow about class options. You get a class feat every even level... and that just doesn't feel like enough space for utility talents, infusions, other wild talents, and normal class feats.

Seems to me that infusions and talents likely would be the normal class feats of a Kineticist (or at least a large part of them). I imagine it'd be similar to how Eidolon Evolutions for the Summoner turned into part of the class feats with a new trait added to them. Overall, the class feat system in PF2 largely seems to be a way to standardize those types of selectable pools of class options from PF1, so the Kineticist talents/infusions would be a natural fit.

I'd imagine a breakdown roughly being something like this:

Basic Class Ability: Burn/Gather Power
Class Path: Elemental Focus which grants the basic blast & either advances or uses a feat to advance for certain things related to that element (i.e. elemental defence).
Class Feats: Mostly Infusions/Wild Talents with element(s) as a prerequisite.

---

What I'd be more worried about PF2 class design is how concerns over page space seem to repeatedly get brought up with classes. I remember hearing that the designer for the Summoner had to really push to get enough page space to actually make the class work. (Personally, I'd consider the PF2 Summoner to be the first really successful pick-a-list caster partially because they devoted enough page space to the class path mechanics to make them really distinct.) With a Kineticist class, it seems like it'd need a significant amount of page space to really work - especially considering how many options would be limited to certain elements (requiring more options overall to ensure each element has enough choices).

Because that is a response to saying limited options are bad - and pointing out that many classes have limited options within them which helps those options have a distinct flavor. Every Barbarian need not lean into that specific flavor of their instinct, but it an option for those who do and helps those options feel unique because others can't easily be copied by others.

I'd also note, Barbarians have a niche of "gets really mad and hits things" as a fallback with the whole rage mechanic to help separate them from other martial characters even if they completely ignore anything related to their instinct.

A Witch's fallback is being a spellcaster, which makes them just 1 out of 7 casting classes (or 9 if you want to count the wave casters) with more to come. What separates them from other spellcasters? Patrons don't do enough, familiars aren't difficult to obtain, and hexes aren't nearly as impressive (or even useful) as many hoped. Those are the 3 main points Witches have to establish a unique identity - and I'd argue Patrons are the part that are best suited to receiving more attention.

How different do a curse, fate, and night witch feel from each other? When you pick fervor and rune - you're really just saying that a divine and arcane Witch feel different, which is a result of the tradition, not the Patron. I'd also note that both feel like inferior versions of the Cleric and Wizard - which is the same issue that Sorcerers were frequently accused of. (Personally, I see Summoner as the first really successful pick-a-list caster, because they devoted enough page space to eidolons to give a meaty mechanic that firmly separates them from casters of whatever tradition they select.)

You know entire reason why people wanted a witch class in PF2 in the first place.

There are several reasons depending on who you ask and you might have seen me in multiple threads during the playtest arguing which ones should have been part of the final Witch.

I'd say "Patrons & Hexes" were my biggest takeaways from the PF1 Witch, and I was a particular fan of Blood of the Coven for expanding Patrons to be more than what the default Patron options did in PF1. The fact that PF2 Patrons are even less mechanically influential than PF1 is probably my biggest complaint with the class, as that's been something I wanted more focus on since my very first Witch character in PF1.

If you look at some of Paizo's views between the playtest & SoM, it looks like their biggest takeaway was "Familiars." I'd argue this is a consistent issue with Paizo seeing a familiar associated with a character theme and overestimating how important it actually is the theme (looks at Magical Child).

So no, it has nothing to do with PF2 being a "class-based system" and having unique class options does not at any point require that class options are limited based on your initial choice (Case and point see Fighter, Monk, Bard, Druid, etc.)

I'd note that a class-based system instantly limits your choices based on which class you select at the start, and makes certain builds impossible. Which was part of the argument in the post I was responding to.

But okay, lets take a quick look at the CRB classes and their CRB feats.

So out of 12 classes, only 4 classes don't have feats limited based on an initial choice, all of which are non-casters. Out of the casters, I'd note the Wizard is noticeably lacking compared to the others, and was was also the one most criticized during initial playtesting for not having enough flavor compared to other casters. Comparatively, the Witch somehow provides even less unique path options than Wizards get, and also receives criticism from playtest to present for Patrons lacking flavor. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Again, patron themes are not the same as patrons. Patrons are a roleplaying choice that should be mediated with your GM.

Many patrons can share a theme and express their individual identity through shape of familiar and lessons they offer the witch. You and your GM should absolutely collaborate on which lessons are appropriate for your patron.

This is the same as saying Patrons are pure RP to the point of being meaningless.

I can RP a Swashbuckler as learning their martial techniques from an influential Fey and collaborate with the GM on which feats are appropriate for such RP. A class feature doesn't to be written into the class in order to do that.

The big issue is that Patrons are written as being a major part of being a Witch, but the actual mechanics say Patrons are largely inconsequential. This is a big disconnect. Unless Patrons get something more to call their own - this will always remain a problem.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited

Limiting them does nothing except make certain builds not possible. It's not a positive.

It doesn't somehow improve design space or flavor. It reduces it.

Once again, this is isn't an argument to limit Lessons as a general practice. This is saying the unlimited lessons do nothing to change the issues with Patrons or expand the space of Patrons.

Also, PF2 is a class-based system. Tons of options have various sorts of restrictions which makes certain builds not possible. If you want to argue that limitations are never a positive - then I don't know why you're playing PF2 when you want a completely different game system.

As far as flavor goes, I'd argue part of what gives different classes different flavor is they have different options which are unique to each class. Even within a class, most classes have a variety of selectable feats/options past first level which are limited based on an initial class path choice. These all make those initial choices have more impact, meaning, and flavor as those selections allow options which aren't open to every other character. [i.e. A Giant Instinct Barbarian can select a feat at level 6 which allows them to grow Large while raging. This is flavorful to Giant Instinct Barbarians, and that flavor would be diminished if every other Barbarian (or worse, every other martial/character) could select the exact same option at the same time. Meanwhile, the Dragon Instinct Barbarian might be restricted from selecting that feat, but they get their own flavorful option with a feat for Dragon's Rage Breath at level 6 which isn't selectable by other barbarians/classes.]

Patrons, compared to other similar class path-style options, are notably anemic when it comes to anything mechanically unique related to them. 1 hex cantrip, many of which are situational at best. Also, a single rare patron allows inanimate familiars, and a single rare lesson that may or may not be linked to that rare patron option. Currently, that's it. If you want to make them more mechanically meaningful, they need something that is limited based on the initial Patron choice since the current 1 hex cantrip doesn't seem to be enough to fill that role.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.

That sounds terrible though. Why would you want to lock people out of hexes?

You ignored the part I quoted and was replying to.

Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.

Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited, since the biggest missing part of Patrons at the moment is having enough unique mechanical aspects to call their own. It is like saying the existence of [insert school] spells develops the design space of a [School] Specialist Wizard, when any other wizard can freely pick up the exact same spell and cast it exactly as well.

Otherwise, Lessons being open to any Witch is a decision I'm largely in favor of - as I partially see it as a way of allowing a Witch to access thematic "witch-like" spells regardless of their tradition. (Which is why I am surprised we still don't have a major lesson that grants baleful polymorph as a spell so an occult witch could turn townsfolk into newts.)

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some lessons/hexes limited to specific Patrons as something to help make them unique compared other Witches. Without owning the sourcebook, I assume this is how Lesson of the Frozen Queen [Rare] is meant to work (being from the same book of the [Rare] Patron Baba Yaga) - but Nethys stripped out the context that [rare] feat is meant to be linked to [rare] Patron.

What bothers me is that other than the hex cantrip..the only thing that patrons gives are a bonus skill and a bonus spell.

Yup, you get a hex cantrip, a spell that's usually already on your spell list, and the skill associated with your tradition. Even worse, the multiclass witch dedication reduces your Patron to just the tradition skill and nothing else.

---

Otherwise, Paizo wanted Patrons to be vague so that players/GMs could use "any" concept with them. As a result, patrons became so vague that they're nearly insubstantial.

They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the class (I still want a class archetype that trades out extra familiar abilities for nearly anything else).

3 Action + 1 Reaction System. Simple to both understand and run, never results in a question of action types mid-combat or other silly confusions. Combined with AoOs not being a default, also makes combat much more mobile.

4 degrees of success. Really helps a number of spells to have results between "insta-win" and "does nothing." Also love things like Swashbuckler having a reaction against critical fail attacks.

Ability Generation. You don't require your ancestry to specifically give a bonus to the ability score used by your class! Allows for far more combinations of ancestry/class, and even an ancestry that gives a penalty to your primary score can use voluntary flaws to hit the max starting score and be viable.

Versatile Heritages. More interesting ancestry combinations available.

Backgrounds. While not perfect, I really like that picking a background is part of character creation with some mechanical impact. Helps PCs feel a bit more like people that exist in the world rather than cardboard murderhobo#37.

Feat Categories (i.e. Ancestry, Class, Skill) Much easier than PF1 to pick up some thematic skill feat or ancestry-related feat without feeling that you are losing combat power for doing so. Constantly getting different types of feats also helps make it feel that you are always progressing/advancing in some way when you level up even if it is not a strict power boost.

Limited types of buffs/debuffs. Far easier to know what does and does not stack. Less ability to stack buffs ridiculously high