I’ll only speak for the ones I know a fair amount about
Sorcs: pretty close to perfect to be honest, I would maybe suggest some of the blood magic effects need tweaking, since some are just generally whilst others are so bad you may as well forget they exist.
Oracle: Divine access should come with their curse/mystery at level 1 I feel. Also some of the curses are so much harsher than others. Like bones for example. They need to either tone them down or up the benefits.
Investigator: When I built an investigator I felt like I was constantly asking myself, “and then what?” Like it felt as though the class had a fairly narrow use case, and all the tools it needed to do that one thing very early on. Then never really got anything else after that, like every combat was gonna be extremely similar from level 1-20 regardless of what you’re facing.
I think its a case of the Occult list being the best at what is perceived as the "optimal" way to play a caster on these boards.
I.E providing large flat numerical advantages to your martials and debuffing/crippling enemies ability to hit or take actions.
There are other ways to play the caster which the Occult list isn't best at, but those ways to play are perceived as less efficient. Although in reality a lot of that comes down to the types of encounter/none combat related challenges you're expecting to face in a day.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If multiple weaker enemies is what you're facing then it isn't a waste of resources, what you're doing is actually just assuming that only single target high CR encounters can be challenging. Which is the whole problem.
If instead of a level 10 party facing 1 cr12 enemy they might face 2 Cr 10 enemies or you could have a level 10 party facing 4 CR 8 enemies.
Getting Synethesia on half the encounter is significantly less impactful that getting it 100% of the encounter. Getting it on a quarter of the encounter probably isn't worth the slot.
Using battle field control to slow them down or separate the enemies, so they can swamp your fighter, as quickly, or they take an extra turn or 2 to reach you backline is much more valuable that making 1 quarter of the encounter less effective.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It strikes me that if putting heroism on your striker and synthesia on an enemy is enough to demoslih everything a team is facing, perhaps they’re not facing many encounters with multiple enemies.
The more enemies you introduce the less valuable buffs like heroism and debuffs like synth become.
Giving rise to AOEs and battlefield control becoming more useful
Big old disagree with that one
For one thing, a lot of people very vocally didn’t like that.
And the shifter concept has all the werewolf/were whatever themes tied into it where you partially shift, it has the idea of only changing an arm. Or your legs or whatever, a different kind of partial shifting. And shifting into anything other than an animal or plant. Like an ooze or dragon or demon or angel.
All of which is pretty distinct from a druid.
It doesn't though, nobodies saying make a sub class that can only access one type of spirit.
Nobody is saying your character would have to choose to only access, ancestors or spirit guides or whatever it happened to be.
The suggestion is they have a particular spirit they specialise in contacting. Not that they contact exclusively.
Heck, the "whatever spirits happen to be around" could even be a subclass all of its own, that explicitly doesn't specialize. Although to me thats more of a medium than a shaman.
Nothing about what I posted says it can’t commune with all spirits, just that where it draws its power from is narrowed down
All shamans commune with all spirits to draw all their powers to me sounds homogenous.
Can commune with all spirits, draws their powers from a specific subset they always connect with allows more variety,
The problem with the 1e shifter was the features the forms granted had very underwhelming powers and there was basically no point staying with the class post level 5 (I made 3 of the suckers, I'm fairly familiar)
The concept of "turns into a monster/animal and fights as it" was never the issue.
I feel like shifter archetypes were going in the right direction though.
Shifter traditions being "changes in animals vs changes into an ooze vs changes into other planar beings vs changes into dragons" would be a great place to start.
It just needs those shifts to be actually impactful. Developing the strengths those forms impart should in my opinion lean big into the feats element.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement "really should be the person who talks to spirits, whichever ones are present"
I'm not sure that's a universal agreed spoken or unspoken understanding of how the shaman should work.
Or at least, "whatever is available" being where they draw power from.
Sure they can contact any spirit anywhere perhaps, but it doesn't mean they draw power from "whatever happens to be around"
I took the Alchemical crafting feat, maybe thats why you were seeing.
When only 2 classes in the game match or beat it at something that still sounds pretty special to me.
Not being the single best at something in the whole game, doesn't mean you're not great at it. If people only ever played the class that was strictly best at the role they were aiming for class selection would be wildly limited
@gisher - I believe I used 2 on con since I started at 8 right? Being an elf if not I’ve missed one, easily fixed :)
Ancient elf she’s like a great shout though, Thankyou.
@Raptor - yeah regarding trying to lean slightly into damage, it seems like the investigator has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to being a skill monkey/knowledge bot. Therefore I figured I could afford to spend a few resources trying to sure up a weakness. Big damage in one shot seemed like a fun way of doing that
thanks for the alchemical guide, the whole thing is a bit daunting haha. I was already thinking the Jezzail looked like a good shout. I’m also planning to carry a sword cane for surprise points.
I was also planning on being the scout. What are the mutagens?
To me Shaman says
Ancestor magic/general ghost magic/land spirit magic/ animal spirit magic and I imagine those differences could be how you break up their traditions.
I’m not sure if I’d want them to be a full caster, or maybe closer to something the Thaum, where they have access to skme form if magic but not full caster.
In terms of sensitivity, honouring ancestors, having a connection to landscape, or having a connection to the dead on general, is a mythology that occurs in all sorts of human civilisations all over the world, it’s not culturally specific.
So I don’t think using those ideas in fantasy is particularly abhorrent, especially if you ground them in people/places from your own setting, which are obviously distinct from real human earth dwelling ones.
Maybe drop the word Shaman for something less culturally specific. Spirit speaker or medium (is that just as culturally specific) or Seancer (not a word?) ♂️
So as some of you will know, I've been steadily learning pf2 by making characters, but so far all I've made is spell casters.
I started with a barbarian doing animal path cause I like the stag aesthetic, but I sort of ran out of steam with it. Then I was reading an investigator guide and it struck me it seemed to be about delivering one big attack around, which sort of appeals to me (I always wanted vital strike to be better in pf1)
One big strike lead me towards sniper rifles, and then I thought, why not try doing a Investigator hybrid into a gunslinger, it'd certainly teach me new stuff about the system between archetyping and weapons and leaning more martial and also guns. Given I'm understand they have slightly janky rules.
So without further a doodle, here is Myron West, the uptight Elvish investigator.
Name: Myron West
Its pretty straightforward I think, just have a tone of skill based tricks for knowledge that I'll completely forget I can do. Do some stealthing, do some scouting, do some sniping, do some knowledge checks all that.
Range seems better for investigators anyway, since you've got to do the whole Devise Strat and doing knowledge checks and stuff, doing one bit hit saves moving around if you're ranged.
I mean it seems like a rule set worth investing in though doesn’t it?
It’s not like only wizards could use it, it could be wizards main thing, and dedicating unto wizard might let another caster create one spell.
Like a wizard could get 2 spells (one at max level one at half rounded up or lower if they choose) when they get expert, again at master and again at legendary, so by max level wizards get 6 spells they made up.
So they could end up with 1x 2nd level, 2x 4th level, 1x 5th level, 1x 8th level and 1x 9th level.
Let people live their bigby’s hand fantasy. Or whatever.
And then maybe a feat route for classes like the sorc or witch to build 1 or 2 of their own.
It could also be a dedicated arcane thing, to give the people who think arcane has been laid low, something to smile about.
I've often thought that Wizard should have some rules around being able to develop their own spells.
They're arcane masters and academics right? Surely the best way to represent that is to have them develop a new spell or two?
Like I can CPR, but I'm not a doctor, a doctor might be able to do heart surgery. A great Doctor might develop a new surgery.
I tend to think it makes more sense to rank classes based on a particular role like... for arguments sake
Single target DPR:
Multi Target DPR:
and then rank each class relative to how good it can be at that role, say on a 1-4 basis. Assuming of course that you build for that role with the class options available. So for example, a Sorc would get a 2 for healer, because although of course a draconic sorcerer would be a shit healer, we're giving them the benefit of the doubt they went Angelic.
2) This will work well
3) You can do it but you won't be great at it
4) This'll be a bad time
So for an example, with the Sorcerer you might get something like
Single target DPR: 3
Multi Target DPR: 1
Battlefield control: 1
Skill monkey: 3
Seems more useful than saying
Oh yes a Sorcerer and a Barb are both great tier 2 classes that'll help a party. Because they'll both contribute totally different things.
After doing a bit of research of my own, I think I'm leaning towards an animal instinct Barbarian, going down the stag line.
I've always found Stag's pretty special and one of my shifter characters also relied on them. The charging line of feats seems like a fun direction to go from there, too.
Are there any obvious problems with that I'm not seeing, or obvious synergies I should see? :)
I like to learn systems by building characters, so far I've done a blaster sorc, a bones oracle, a controller/blaster style druid and a summoner using the anger phantom.
Generally my tastes lean heavily away from martial characters (as you may have noticed) but I feel like it'd be useful to make at least one and so far I've felt totally uninspired.
for PF1 the only full bab characters I ever created were, a shield champion brawler that definitely wasn't just captain America. An ooze morph shifter, a fiend flesh shifter, a kasatha unchained monk and a human snake bite striker/devoted muse (dedicated to fighting with war fans lol). I think the common theme was, overly complicated characters that had a lot of moving parts, for what was probably worse return than just playing a barbarian or whatever lol.
Might sound like a fair few but thats 5 out of 35 odd characters I made in the system. I did make the odd martial ish character with the 3/4 BAB classes, like an archer inquisitor and a fencing investigator.
But generally I lean towards blasting, debuffing, buffing, controlling or weird utility in my character creation.
So my question is, within PF2 what sort of character creation direction do you think might suit me?
Masters of ray guns and flying saucers!
To me the fighter has always sort of been defined by the absence of defining features.
People say they’re “weapon masters” but I always felt that was a pretty narrow field, like am I to believe the swashbuckler isn’t a master fencer? Or the rogue isn’t a master of daggers, or whatever else.
So really most Martians are a weapons master, it’s just fighters are “masters of many?” Maybe? But then how many players play fighters switching between and ace and a sword and hammer etc.
Not many in my experience. So really I think the fantasy of the fighter is very thin. It’s the absence of definition for me.
If the fighter class had never existed I don’t think it’d be missed much. Not in the same way a cleric or a wizard would leave a gaping chasm in the fantasy if they never existed.
I recently designed a home brew version of the witch that was focused on chanting and sustaining hexes and focus spells.
I gave it only 2 spell slots per spell level in exchange for better hexes and better focus spells because I thought it made sense to make them the meat of the class.
So I’d like to see something that did that
Yeah I think they’d probably exist in a similar design space to the rogue, as a skill class with unconventional melee abilities, slapstick guy might be a manoeuvre specialist, a drudge would be a demoralising debuffer, the Mime would have battle field control. Imagine miming a wall only for your foes to physically run into one.
Acrobatics, stealth, thievery and Performance would all be logical skills for them.
I quite like the concept of a luck based character.
I’d be interested in what their equivalent of bloodlines would be?
I’ve also always thought a clown class could be a funny road to go down, with diciplins like, the mime, animal master, slap stick, and drudge style ideas.
Sort of like a martial but in a much more unconventional way.
I’d echoe what Nicholas is saying you don’t need to be a solo melee character and I don’t think it sounds like a fun time to play that character anyway, especially if it isn’t a play style you naturally enjoy.
Anything with an animal companion or that summons or that has an eidolan seems like something worth your consideration.
The fact the rest of the party is ranged/support improves the validity of the idea, not harms it.
That’s an elaborate way of saying spends an action to gain a damage bonus and some other small but helpful bonuses to checks.
The oddest thing about the class to me is the implements it has to wonder round with drawing power from, but due to the clunky rules around empty hands you’re sort of pigeon holed into working a certain way.
Caster that Amps cantrips is different but I wouldn’t say it was odd at all, seems like a reasonably logical place to go design wise.
To me oddness isn’t about having a slightly jaunty mechanic/action economy
It’s about the flavour being slightly left of field and the mechanics enabling that. The implements sort of go in that direction but then the mechanics don't co-operate.
It’s like a sanitised toned down version of the occultist from pf1, going round with tons of weird magical items all with their own weird powers attached. Like a novelty magical Christmas tree.
Having a magical talking sword (or whatever) as a class feature or communing with ghosts and spirits of the wild to fight for you or whatever else.
Not just, has a magic item, they have to have in their hand. That they use an action to gain a bonus from.
I think you’ve convinced me, seems like a really fun character. Although due to the obvious pit falls, I don’t think I’d like to play one as a prepared caster. Sorcerer definitely seems like a better shout.
Being able to flex to a signature blast or a more generally useful control spell when summons won’t work (due to range or confinement on the battle field for example) seems like an occasion that’s liable to rise a fair amount, would be annoying to have a lot of prepped slots given over to it.
Have you thought about a summoner?
You’ve not got a divine caster, psychopomp or Angelic would give you a divine caster. Go into medicine or take the oracle dedication and try to build a healer or not if you don’t fancy it.
But either way you could stay back and use the Eidolan as a pseudo tank, without having to worry about tanking yourself. Since it doesn’t sound like that’s something you’re particularly excited about.
Could build it to get bigger, for reach and attack of opportunity and build for trip or grab. Wouldn’t have to worry about doing damage, just get people stuck falling over.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
If it was a genuine question why did you start by already assuming you know the answer?
“How much game experience have you got to inform this opinion” is a genuine question.
“You don’t play this game much do you?” Is a patronising assumption.
I think you’ve made your statement too broad and opened yourself up to easy rebuttal.
There is a trend in post CRB classes towards muddied up action economy to achieve comparable or weaker results next to core classes.
Obvious examples include the thaumaturge, magus and summoner.
Having actions needed to get your ball rolling isn’t a new idea, bards and barbs for example have those “taxes” they’re not really a problem.
The problem with the post CRB classes that are hampered by this is they’re overly complex (summoner) or overly fiddly for relatively little gain in exchange for not really matching simpler classes.