Claxon's page

Possibly, but if you wanted to be very strict about things:
Students would need to enter a (lead lined) room and stay in that room for at least 24 hours prior to the test being administered. During that time, casting of magic by students wouldn't be allowed, and attempts to do so would disqualify you from the test (and possibly banned from the school). Test administers would likely have arcane sight, detect magic, etc running during this period to spot any people that might try to inconspicuously hide their magic. Personal items wouldn't be allowed. The school would provide clothing and other items as necessary to the students taking the test.

Basically don't let anyone in with anything that might be magical, and force them to wait so long under observation that most magic would run out. There are some spells that can last for more than 24 hours, but I don't know how helpful any of them would be. A lead lined room would prevent a lot of divination or scrying type magic (IIRC).

Pizza Lord wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Unless you think the servants/cooks/cleaning crew also are wizards?

They're all unseen servants and summoned creatures.

Gotta make those apprentices practice prestidigitation, mending, and mage hand a hundred times a day too!

You can make that argument, but I don't believe it.

Unless an organization is called out out secretive and not allowing any outsiders, then yes. In such a scenario being accepted as a student would make access easier. But still, not really necessary. You could absolutely infiltrate with stealth or even storming the compound.

There's also simply saying "Hey, I'm actually the headmaster and X stole my body. I have knowledge of certain things that can prove my position."

So my point is, that while going through some sort of exam could be a way to gain entrance/access to a facility, to me it is one of the least plausible things.

Claxon wrote:

In reality it only requires the "craft magic item" skill feat to be able to transfer runes.

Well, there's also " This uses the Craft activity" and " If the item is 9th level or higher, you must be a master in Crafting, and if it's 17th or higher, you must be legendary" in transferring runes and Craft. Is it relevant? Probably yes.

That's fair. I guess I'm too used to thinking that if you have the skill, you're going to invest in increasing proficiency, so I often ignore that certain things require advancing proficiency.

I find in interesting that a character has the craft skill, but doesn't want to invest into it.

I guess it's an "extra" skill that the player didn't plan on advancing.

In reality it only requires the "craft magic item" skill feat to be able to transfer runes. If the player does plan on advancing crafting proficiency, they should spend their skill feats on something, and it's not a bad choice.

Still, if they really don't want to you can pay an NPC to do it.

Claxon wrote:

If they can afford a wish, wouldn't they just wish that their son was a powerful and well trained wizard? Like wish is as powerful as the DM wants it to be, so gaining class levels isn't unreasonable.

Then you just have the now magically altered person go and take the wizarding tests.

"Adventurers, I need your help! I'm Archmagister Grimtook. I look like young Byron Meddlestone, but I am the victim of a wish. His parents paid for it and he wished to be a powerful wizard to pass the wizarding test. It gave him my body and powers and now I am trapped in this form which has no wizardly talent! You have to help me sneak into the Wizard's College to confront him!"

So now... he's got to pass the wizarding test in Byron Meddlestone's body to get inside.

I was with you until you said "he's got to pass the wizarding test to get inside".

He doesn't. The test would be to show you're a graduate of the school, so you can claim the influence and respect that are shown to graduates of the school. To get into the school...well I imagine plenty of magically in-adept people go to the school every day. Unless you think the servants/cooks/cleaning crew also are wizards?

Doesn't need to be, no. Just wanted to show Golarian has an example of such a place that may institute this kind of test as part of the 'difficult' to enter idea.

Honestly, I'm amused by the idea of a rich applicant having his parents paying for the equivalent a wish spell to help him cheat only for it to be dispelled. On the other hand, I sympathize with the wizards being so crippled by the huge loans that they can't afford to scribe a 1st level spell.

If they can afford a wish, wouldn't they just wish that their son was a powerful and well trained wizard? Like wish is as powerful as the DM wants it to be, so gaining class levels isn't unreasonable.

Then you just have the now magically altered person go and take the wizarding tests.

Claxon wrote:

In my mind, a wizarding exam would be for 1st level (or under, if that somehow even makes sense) wizards.

And what would a wizard exam even really prove?
If someone is out to cheat the exam, what will they have gained?

Let's assume you can successful cheat the exam, you get what? A piece of paper saying you're a wizard? I don't expect that's going to get you much.

Letters next to your name saying you Piled it Higher and Deeper!

I like you

Claxon wrote:

In my mind, a wizarding exam would be for 1st level (or under, if that somehow even makes sense) wizards.

And what would a wizard exam even really prove?
If someone is out to cheat the exam, what will they have gained?

Let's assume you can successful cheat the exam, you get what? A piece of paper saying you're a wizard? I don't expect that's going to get you much.

I'm assuming access to a fancy wizard-only establishment like Boarverruca's School of Doom. Cheaters and half-orcs are always trying to get in there.

The description for wizards in CotCT player guide mentions the Acadamae: ** spoiler omitted **

Fleshing out a test to RP through is perfectly reasonable, as is having a scenario for a non-wizard needing to infiltrate the school for some MacGuffin.

I think saying that there is a test, and that graduating comes with "influence and acclaim" within the area "near" the school. But it doesn't really need the test to be fleshed out.And infiltrating the school wouldn't need to be associated with the test at all. Lots of people just starting to learn wizardry are likely to be found.

In my mind, a wizarding exam would be for 1st level (or under, if that somehow even makes sense) wizards.

And what would a wizard exam even really prove?
If someone is out to cheat the exam, what will they have gained?

Let's assume you can successful cheat the exam, you get what? A piece of paper saying you're a wizard? I don't expect that's going to get you much.

Claxon wrote:

Well, they still wont be "perfect" ranged attackers. They only go up to master in proficiency, and only for simple and alchemical weapons. So when using their alchemical item attacks, they can be on par with a martial character (except Fighters and Gunslingers) if they had the same dex.

Yeah, sure. Not perfect then, just (delayed) baseline competent. Even master only at 15th.

I think part of the "feels bad man" that players have with not having their desired stat higher at char gen is the delay that you're referring to. Sure, you end up at mostly the same place. But the path you take there isn't equal.

The alchemist as mentioned get's their increases at levels 7 and 15. While most martials get their increases at 5 and 13. So the level 5 alchemist is like 3 points behind their attack from 5 & 6. And same from 13 & 14. So 4 out of 20 levels their kind of substantially behind. Which doesn't sound like that much when phrased that way, but it's 20% of level progression.

Claxon wrote:

If an alchemist chooses bomber specialization, they should have the option to increase dex instead of int.

Are you sure it wasn't an explicit design decision that alchs couldn't be the perfect ranged attackers (including with bombs) considering everything else they have? So they aren't that accurate but they have the whole arsenal still. And dedication can be better at throwing, but can make less things.

Well, they still wont be "perfect" ranged attackers. They only go up to master in proficiency, and only for simple and alchemical weapons. So when using their alchemical item attacks, they can be on par with a martial character (except Fighters and Gunslingers) if they had the same dex.

I think allowing them a trade off of number of items they can make vs accuracy isn't a bad thing.

Luke Styer wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The "must max out your key attribute" is, IMO, a holdover from PF1 or D&D3+. As mentioned, a +3 (or even +2 in some specific cases) at 1st level in the key ability score of a class (which does not always match the most important ability score for a character) is often perfectly fine.

It depends how much of what you do uses your key ability, I think. In my Agents of Edgewatch game, the Catfolk Cleric PC almost never cast offensive spells, and so started play with Wisdom as a dump stat and focused on Dexterity and Charisma. I can’t remember if it was a 12 or even a 10 with Voluntary Flaw, but it barely mattered because she spent most of her time sneaking around and healing the party.

But if you are going to be using the key ability regularly, I think the right math makes not having a +4 a hurdle. Bomber alchemists, for instance, basically can’t get a +4 Dex, and it can be a bit of a pain when it comes to their attack rolls.

This is mostly my point. The "key ability score" has a specific meaning and is determined solely by the character's class (some classes allow more than one choice). The "most important ability score" is what you are referring to with the bomber alchemist (Dex); because the alchemist's key ability score can only be Int, just like the thaumaturge's key ability score is Cha, the "must max out your key ability score" is not always the case. A thaumature (like the combat alchemist, if not more so) will probably be better off focusing on Str, Dex, and Con for combat effectiveness and starting with a Cha of +2 or +3.

Even for a class where the "key ability score" is one of the "most important ability scores," there may be some concepts where a +3 in two scores can be more appropriate (e.g., an elf bard that focuses on Recall Knowledge checks with the feats Assured Knowledge, Know-It-All, Enigma's Knowledge, etc. and ancestry feats to change the "known" skills each day; in addition to spells and probably Bon...

On this topic specifically, I do wish classes (and especially sub-classes) gave more options for key ability score. Well, maybe not key ability score exactly but a choice to increase an alternative ability at character creation. Paizo did it to help guide players toward making the "right" selection, but it doing so has unintentionally left certain play styles less supported. Such as the bomber alchemist.

If an alchemist chooses bomber specialization, they should have the option to increase dex instead of int.

A cleric that chooses warpriest doctrine should be able to choose any 1 of strength, dex, or con.

Again, not as a key ability (because that sets your class DC, and I do think that should stay fixed) but giving an option to increase a different stat.

In a home game, I think it's straightforward for a GM to say "Yeah, you know what you're doing you can make a different choice", but something officially stating that would be nice.

Balkoth wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

But I think your assertion is that PF1E's diegetics are that they're equal, and the gameplay is they're not, right?

I've never gotten that impression from PF1E.

The rulebook literally tells you that a level 20 fighter and a level 20 wizard are both CR20 enemies.

In PF1E, I’m pretty sure a Ftr 20 or a Wiz 20 are each a CR 19 enemy unless given PC level gear.

While technically true, people experienced with PF1 will know that the level 20 wizard is a much much bigger threat than the level 20 fighter. The wizard is a threat in a way that the fighter can't really hope to be. The wizard can bind outsiders to their will and send them after a target, assailing them from a place that most could never reach (a demiplane). The fighter is terrifying if you get within range of them, but it is comparatively easy to not be in range of the fighter.

Tridus wrote:

The difference of course is that in one of these cases, the PC is giving up 2 class feats to do it, which for some classes is a pretty big trade (less so for others).

In FA, you're not making that trade. This is by definition giving power.

That's what I am calling giving flexibility and options. Not power.

Yes, with Free Archetype you are getting more abilities. But none of the abilities that you can get are more powerful than normal.

You get more options of what to spend your actions on. You don't get more powerful actions to use.

And yes, as I said initially, the flexibility is useful and can be considered power as well. Especially in PF2 where combats often feel more like a puzzle to be solved. It is power of a different form though.

In PF2, flexibility is power. Especially when that additional flexibility comes at no price (compared to standard archetype/multiclassing).

Yeah, something that is important to remember in PF2 is power isn't (mostly) found in the form of number adders/enhancers as it was in PF1. In PF2 it's having more options for more situations, being able to contribute in ways you couldn't otherwise and do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do that adds to character power.

A character that gets free archetype, chooses Acrobat, and picks up Dodge Away reaction is getting a huge power boost as they get a reaction to increase their AC and move for free, as well as progression a skill that has some generally pretty awesome feats in it. Unless your character is wearing heavy armor you're bound to get quite a bit out of it (and only then because you probably have low Dex if you're wearing heavy armor).

Squiggit wrote:

When I think simulationist I think a game that dives deep into.. well, simulating some mechanic or idea. Games with complex economic systems or deep social interaction or complex damage mechanics or action systems or elaborate gearing systems.

d20 really has none of that.

I mean, this system, which is a D20 system, has Social Encounters, Victory Points systems, Chase Encounters, Complex Hazards, etc., so I don't understand how this system doesn't have a fair level of simulationist design to it. At best we can say that they aren't commonly used or that they are abstract, but just because something isn't used every 3 encounters or so doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't count, and abstraction is just a necessary part of game design so as to both keep pace and not bog down the game with minutiae.

I think the argument here, isn't that those things don't exist (they obviously do) it's that they're not particularly robust or detailed, nor are they trying to SIMULATE reality to closely. Simulation isn't a yes or no, it's a scale. If we were to put it on a scale of 1 to 10, I would say Pathfinder is maybe a 4. It tries a little and doesn't completely ignore things like chases and social encounters, but it doesn't try to make them super realistic because super realism tends to get very complex and unwieldy for a pen and paper game. Even if a computer game where you can have the computer handle all the heavy work of keeping track of things, it tends to not be fun for most people because it becomes too difficult because of complexity.

Claxon wrote:

Interesting, I can't play Skyrim without turning into a stealth archer.

Start as a mage, by the end I'm a stealth archer.
Start as a 2 handed weapon user, stealth archer.

Doesn't matter what I do. I end up a stealth archer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQLJ6Yp_C0

To be honest, I was thinking of exactly this video as I wrote out my post

I cant play skyrim if im not using a 1hander and a shield. It just doesnt feel right not being able to block.

Interesting, I can't play Skyrim without turning into a stealth archer.

Start as a mage, by the end I'm a stealth archer.
Start as a 2 handed weapon user, stealth archer.

Doesn't matter what I do. I end up a stealth archer.

I think the most correct answer is that the GM should have told you, once both you and the potential enemy were aware of each other, that you were in initiative turn order and that the enemy weren't doing anything obviously hostile and you hadn't done anything obviously hostile yet either. I think making that kind of distinction for everyone is an alert to say "this is a different and tense situation, let's think carefully about what we're doing".

Now likely what happens is your team mates try to pantomime "we mean you no harm" and maybe the NPCs skip their turns taking no actions, and then you cast your spell and now the enemy is upset, but you get a chance to say "we mean you no harm" before they act again.

It's important for everyone to remember that tracking rounds in PF2 isn't only done in combat, you can track rounds whenever it's important to keep track of what everyone is doing.

I know exactly how broken the game was and can be. I've had a party newer to the game that, around level 10+, agreed to poke at things with my permission as GM: they bought wands of buff spells or pearls of power instead of permanent items where appropriate to cheat gp value, sucked down their juiceboxes at the beginning of the day, and cleared out dungeons chaining encounters like mad. And this party wasn't even built anywhere near optimally—they just wanted to see what would happen if the broke the gp economy by abusing how underpriced consumables are.

Personally, I know a good chunk of optimized caster tricks and cheese, which is ultimately around the ceiling of the issues with the game. (lol exploiter wizard, lol Emergency Force Sphere, lol magic trick fireball doing more damage than anything has HP, lol... a lot of things, this barely scratches the surface, we haven't even talked about more complex strategies.) I've seen synthesist summoner in play—though funnily enough, that character died more often than anyone else. I've seen how fast the game can rip itself apart and what kind of arms race it can require to set it half-right.

We just... don't play this way. Yeah, PF2E makes it simple to never have this issue for the most part; Free Archetype is popular and does have combinations worth avoiding, sure, but sticking to "common options unless you ask" is enough to avoid most trouble at most tables. And that is probably the system's biggest virtue! It's very good for newer players mixed with older players, or pickup tables. (The second biggest virtue is the 3-action economy, which I desperately wish I could backport to 1E without rewriting the whole game—the unchained rules for it don't do nearly enough or work cleanly enough.)

It does require a lot of system knowledge and a solid social contract to keep people in-bounds in 1E. But if you already have that, PF2E's virtues matter a lot less. I personally think its biggest benefit is that it, in effect, negotiates a social contract for you; you kind of agree to one by agreeing to play 2E, teamwork-oriented and power-constrained game that it is. I think that's extremely valuable for the wider TTRPG audience, and priceless for society-style play. But it just isn't that valuable for the environment I typically play in.

I understand and agree with you, and am slightly envious of you that you have a group that can play PF1 without going crazy on their power level.

steve0105 wrote:

So what's your opinions on Free Archetypes so far?

I'm going to run a game where the kineticist won't have any combat benefits from the rule, since it barely ties in with anything. Two new players feel it's choice paralysis.
As for the barb he's going the decay route with dual weapon warrior with necksplitters which basically lets him go nuts on damage. (2 actions, if they hit it's a 12 flat damage anyhow from rage, not counting the weapon damage itself) with No Escape at Level 3 which also grants movement as a reaction.
This was an issue in my previous games as well where the barb (who used more or less this same combo but with Vicious Strike) and fighter was the only one doing crazy numbers in damage while the others took flavorful archetypes and felt left behind in combat at least, which let's be honest, is a big aspect.
It's the most accepted variant,, but would limiting it be a good idea? Would saying something like limiting the archetypes available be a good idea.... Any experienced GMs please help me!

I don't know how they are getting a class feat at level 3, because they only get a general feat, which can only get them a level 1 class feat if they are human ancestry via Natural Ambition, of which No Escape does not qualify. Free Archetype only gives you additional dedication/archetype feats at the same levels you would normally gain class feats (besides 1st level of course), so I'm confused how they are getting this option by 3rd level.

As for limiting it, our group only allows the free 2nd level dedication feat, which means players can either just take it for a free benefit (Acrobat dedication comes to mind; free scaling Acrobatics as a 2nd level class feat is pretty bonkers), or they can take an option and pick class feats/skill feats for levels where they feel like their original options are garbage. You can restrict it further and have it be based off of a profession (like Herbalist, or the aforementioned Acrobat), or limit it specifically to character...

Interesting, I don't know that I've heard about group that only gives the archetype dedication feat for free, but it does help to mitigate any concerns about free archetype being a huge power level boost. I mean while Acrobatic dedication is really goof as a free feat, it would help address issues like the OP described about a barbarian taking dual weapon warrior and getting lots of big combat benefit for free. I kind of like it from the aspect of "if none of your class feats are attractive to you, this lowers the barrier of entry for getting other archetype feats". I definitely built some characters where like every few level ups there's not a class feat that really calls to me, but spending the feat on an archetype which in a lot of cases doesn't give a big benefit (I'm thinking martial characters taking martial archetypes) doesn't appeal either.

Yeah, you're overthinking it.

Instead of giving an exhaustive list of actions/checks you might make and the skill that goes with them, the One for All feat is saying "whatever that normally is, replace it with diplomacy".

Personally, I like Free Archtype as a GM, but prefer to provide a "curated list" of archetypes that are available to players rather than allowing them to choose any they like. Because of the issue you highlight, some players want to choose an archetype to enhance their characters backstory. Some players don't even have access to any archetypes that would really enhance their combat capabilities. And some benefit greatly from being able to choose any archetype they like.

I would talk to each player about what they might like to have available, and make a list for players to choose from. I would avoid including archetypes that have big obvious damage increasing capabilities. Profession and Faction archetypes are generally pretty safe. If you have a theme to your story like the players are all sailors on a boat, then pirate archetype can be a great one to give for free.

You should also probably just tell your players you're not looking to give them free archetype as a means to increase the power of their characters, but simply to make a more well rounded character with a wider more interesting background. Tell them explicitly that archetypes which are clearly power boosters simply aren't going to be allowed.

Something else you might consider is simply giving "double" the class feats. Basically every class gets a class feat on even levels (many classes also get a class feat at level 1). What I'm suggesting is you give a class feat at every odd level as well. This helps your kineticist by being able to choose things that will help them. It can allow everyone to archetype if they like too. However, you still have the issue of people potentially choosing flavorful vs impactful choices, and choice paralysis.

Personally, I would go with tell players they can get a free archetype to expand their background and not as combat focused power adders.

Claxon wrote:

PF1 was never intended to be the cakewalk that optimized players turned it into. What you see in PF2 is a system that you (as a player) pretty much can't do that at all, but the GM can adjust if that's the story they want to tell.

WatersLethe wrote:

Yeah, frankly, A LOT of issues can be laid at the feet of a refusal to recognize that many groups played PF1 on extreme easy-mode with hyper optimization, and PF2 has easy-mode options built right in, but people don't want to use them.

A lot of games I've sat through have not been cakewalks, even running AP material; the amount of times we would've TPK'd without hero points is probably a modest double digit count by now. My typical Saturday game group (where I'm a player) isn't optimization-oriented, though, and I'd rather make a build that reflects my character concept mechanically or just does something kind of funny.

This isn't pick up and play, though. It's a pretty stable group that's been going more than a while and has gotten through multiple campaigns with the same GM, and the GM and I (who are the more mechanics-oriented people at the table these days) tend to try to help the other players get their characters to be able to do what they want them to be able to. We have a decent idea of the powerlevel of everyone's character. That setup is more of the exception than the rule. I acknowledge it's pretty different than a full group of powergamers rolling up to the GM's basic, by the book Rise campaign.

That's the kind of experience you're supposed to have. But if you play with a group of optimizers you go from what is intended to be a (sometimes) challenging (and sometimes easy) experiencing to a cakewalk.

You freely admitted in your post your not playing with a group of optimizers.

The experience you have in PF1, is probably close to their play experience you have in PF2. In PF1, optimizers could "win" the game before any dice were ever rolled, because their characters were so above the expected power curve. In PF1 things were decided based on your character selection alone for the most part (with an optimized group). You could look at the PC stats and the enemy stats and know with a pretty high level of certainty what players were going to do, and how the enemy would be able to cope with it. Often it was severely one sided, with either the players shtick working (such as a grapple focused character completely shutting down a two-handed weapon based enemy, and then tying them up) or failing (the enemy has Freedom of Movement). PF2 changed that dynamic so that there are degrees of success, and critical failures and successes are relatively rare, but when they do happen they have those same kind of intense effects.

I have Gm-ed PF1 games where the players can blitz through a multi-encounter dungeon and still have time remaining on their minutes/level buff spells. There's no way to tell those stories in PF2 unless the dungeon is stocked with level-4 and below enemies.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it.

You yourself just admitted it can absolutely be told byrunning lower level enemies against the party.

PF1 was never intended to be the cakewalk that optimized players turned it into. What you see in PF2 is a system that you (as a player) pretty much can't do that at all, but the GM can adjust if that's the story they want to tell.

Agreed.

Telling the same story doesn't mean your character can grapple and tie up enemies in a single round.

It means being able to say "the heroes fought valiant and overcame the enemy, including grappling, swordplay, and magic".

So yeah, it's more of a truism than a real promise of anything specific, and thus not really able to be broken. In order to not be a truism, you would need a radically different system from anything that D&D or Pathfinder has been for the last ~30 years.

Even if people hate me for saying this, if a game needs to ask players to adjust their expectations, it indicates underlying issues with the game itself. It's fine to want the game to be focused on balance, but we shouldn't invalidate others' opinions simply because they expect a product to align with established norms. It's like an ice cream store deciding to drop chocolate, strawberry and vanilla to make only lemon mint and then complaining when customers expect chocolate, strawberry and vanilla.

I definitely don't hate you, but I don't think you're right either.

The problem is experienced player's and their expectations, from older and different game systems creating certain expectations that aren't fulfilled.

If Paizo had called the new edition Golariverse Fantasies and told everyone it was meant to be a "whole new system" we'd probably have very different conversations.

Not every game system supports every idea players might have, they can't and they shouldn't try (the ones that do try end up not be very good and super shallow in my experience).

This isn't a matter of Paizo not offering chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. This is an issue of Paizo not offering mint (not chocolate mint, just mint) or horchata flavor ice cream (at least in my perspective).

R3st8 wrote:

Even if people hate me for saying this, if a game needs to ask players to adjust their expectations, it indicates underlying issues with the game itself.

"Issues," maybe, but not necessarily problems. If I'm watching a drama, but looking for a comedy, I probably need to adjust my expectations. That's an issue with the movie, but it's not a problem with the movie.

Quote:

It's fine to want the game to be focused on balance, but we shouldn't invalidate others' opinions simply because they expect a product to align with established norms. It's like an ice cream store deciding to drop chocolate, strawberry and vanilla to make only lemon mint and then complaining when customers expect chocolate, strawberry and vanilla.

"Sir, this is a Wendy's" isn't an invalid response if a customer orders a Big Mac.

Bingo! That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.

Then go play a different game.

Yes I'll agree that there is still aboiut a 50% failure rate in feats of all types that are just too weak to seriously consider. but the good options are there. Open your eyes.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

They all suck except the 10 or 15 that don't, and the ones that are good are...

So you might choose 5 over the life of your character and you are complaining that there are only 15 good ones!?

I can kind of understand, because chances are you will end up with at least two of the same general feats on every character.

But honestly I think it's kind of a good thing, to the extent that there aren't a huge pile of useless feats that no one is going to take like there were in previous editions. That said, I would like the number of interesting general feats to be a bit more than there are. I end up with Fleet and Canny Acumen on pretty much every character.

Claxon wrote:

It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole.

I think the bigger issue is when there is no hole that accommodates the desired peg.

Do you have an example of what you mean? And I will preemptively refer you back to my statement about not trying to make pop-culture characters or accepting that you will only represent facets of them.

But because we're in a class-based system, often the class that best accommodates a concept doesn't actually accommodate it, and the mechanical experience of playing the character is disappointing, which is especially frustrating in PF2 because the mechanical experience is what we're buying.

Let me tell you a secret, though Paizo has written multiple mechanical systems, they primarily think of themselves as a company that writes adventure paths and scenarios. I understand that a lot of players only look at the mechanical system that has been created (that was designed to go with those stories) but that's not really the way to look at it. Remember, you can go to Archives of Nethys and get all the mechanical tidbits from all the main line books for free. So you're not buying (or rather shouldn't buy) the "mechanical experience", not unless you really want to.

It's fine when you look at the game as a game. But it's not so attractive when you want to bring character concepts to life.

My advice for this problem is:

I do not enjoy breakable systems, as the real "play" of them occurs in the character sheet or the GM prep work to counter the build instead of at the table.

PF2E could use more equally viable options, but splatbook fatigue is a factor, and archetypes are how they get around the worst of that.

Any given character is going to be good at roughly three things, and the challenge is in making sure that doesn't become Too Good at one thing, or meh at six things.

Agreed. PF2 has been pretty well designed to avoid options that break the power ceiling, although there are some options that create a lower than desirable power floor.

And players ideally would pick out the 3 things they want to be good at, and figure out what options support that. While understanding that choosing to be good at one thing sometimes also means choosing to be bad or mediocre at another thing, like choosing to be good at spell casting typically means being bad at martial things. There's a few specific options that blend it a bit better (magus and warpriest cleric, but the effectiveness of the blend is up for debate).

Errenor wrote:

Yes, PF2 is a class based game and not a pure construction set. But there are a lot of possibilities to approach the game "from unexpected angles".

Let me preface this by repeating that PF2 is my favorite RPG, but character generation sometimes feels pretty constrained even to me. I think critics often exaggerate the issue, but I can’t deny it is an issue.

I understand what you're saying, but I would reword the statement to say it is bounded, as constrained feels overly negative.

The system is design to help new players build a character in an intuitive way, and I think it does that. Want to build someone good at fighting? Try the fighter.

Where the system breaks down and feels "constraining" is when you try to do things with a class that it isn't designed to do. I understand that's unsatisfying to many people, but I think it's mostly a good thing.

Earlier I read a thread where someone was complaining they couldn't build a melee focused Witch using Witch's Armament. It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole. I pointed out that if you absolutely wanted to use Witch's Armaments for some reason, you're better off playing a fighter with the witch dedication and picking up the witch feats.

But something that is even better supported and can fit a similar niche is an Animal Instinct barbarian.

I think the problem is too many people come in and they're like "Oh I wanna make this class do this thing it shouldn't do" instead of saying "I want this character that fights with their hair or other natural weapons" and seeing what the best way they can represent that concept is.

Agreed, and honestly if I were going to make a character that used the witch armament feat specifically....I'd probably make a fighter mostly using the free hand fighter feats and take witch's armaments to get some different attack options (probably the teeth and hair followed up by wild witch armaments for the ranged hair attack).

Probably not as good as going straight fighter, because you're wasting a few feats on picking up attacks that aren't any better than buying weapons, but for a theme it's not debilitating.

Have to look at what synergy there might be to gain from witch dedication.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Actually looked back at the nails, they are agile but not finesse. That was part of why strength was needed.

Only the hair armament has finesse. Curious though with the hair all the athletics based traits make str still good to have.
I guess with hair you can have wands and staves in your hands and use hair to trip or whatever.

Another 'why it is bad' argument is that you can get similar or better from a couple different ancestries, freeing up a class feat for other things. Some examples include a slag may's iron claws if you want to go str, or a nephilim's or catfolk's d6 finesse attack if you want to go dex.

IMO Paizo puts feats like this in to function as a third action option. If you think about it as 'this feat gives me an extra MAPless attack if I can't get out of melee and I've already cast a spell...but with my proficiency and attributes it's about like another PC's MAP -5 attack' then you're probably thinking about it right. If you're thinking about it as 'I want to use this feat as my build-defining, go-to attack option' then I think it's not really designed to be that.

Yeah, this is a good way to look at it.

This kind of option (something like Witch Armaments) is not intended to be a "main" action, but to round out options you have and provide an occasional 3rd action. To me, this is a bit similar to a martial character picking up spell casting dedication. Rarely are offensive spells going to be effective due to lower casting stat and proficiency, but it can be worth it just for access to self buffs. Or you can think of it a bit like picking up skill feats for things like Bon Mot.

You're not building your entire character around only doing those things, but they're nice to have in certain situations.

Now, even with that in mind I personally think a witch is better served by simply finding options that will get them out of melee range and let them engage the enemy with something they are better at. Heck taking the Acrobat dedication just for better tumble through is probably a better use of resources in my opinion, but Acrobat gives a lot for the cost of a class feat.

There should really be more archetypes that promote skills for free, or they need to remove it from Acrobat (and I think there might be like 1 other offender).

This is generally good advice, but I think your focusing on it to much. It sounds more like the player wanted realism to beat out mechanics. Two buff guys should be able to manhandle the caster. But they didn't get the desired result with the method that seemed obvious to them. That seamed to ruin their immersion as well, since it didn't make sense to them.

But to me, this is the problem, everything else is a band-aid.

The problem is the player expectations.

In real life I expect a single (non-glancing) wound to be significant enough that most enemies would surrender or run away. But we know it doesn't work that way in game. Accommodating "real life" expectations runs counter to how the game works in a lot of cases. Players need to learn the system and what it's expectations are. Or else they're just going to keep running into spots where their expectations are so far off from the game system that it will just continue to be a problem.

Yeah, leading question work better in a (near) real-time conversation (at least in my opinion).

Claxon wrote:

Errenor wrote:

BomberJacket wrote:

On a related note (because this also came up,) does Spiritual Armament transfer the properties of metals to the damage? Like, if I have a cold iron dagger, does hitting an enemy with Spiritual Armament trigger cold iron vulnerability?

Does the spell say so?

Not that you're wrong, but you could provide a better direct answer.

I know. I just frequently don't want to. A bit tired of questions which look like people haven't even tried to read the text first. Though I guess a distinction between damage types and material special properties is not that obvious.

I guess I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm going to respond to the question that was posed, I can either be circumspect and basically tell them to (re)read the spell. But that presuppose they haven't.

I prefer to work from the mindset that they have some experience that is creating in a grey area in their parsing of the text, that leads them to think "maybe...."

The answer is almost always no, don't extrapolate, and only do what the text says.

BomberJacket wrote:

On a related note (because this also came up,) does Spiritual Armament transfer the properties of metals to the damage? Like, if I have a cold iron dagger, does hitting an enemy with Spiritual Armament trigger cold iron vulnerability?

Does the spell say so?

Not that you're wrong, but you could provide a better direct answer.

No you don't benefit from special materials of the items used, as the spell doesn't specify that it does. In general, assume spells only do exactly what they say they do, don't try to extrapolate.

Well, think of it like this though, Spiritual Armament is a single target spell.

At spell level 5 shadow blast does 6d8 to every creature in a 30ft cone.
If you cast Spiritual Armament at level 4 it will do 3d8 (or 4d8 as a 6th level spell) to one creature within 120ft. So it has a big range, but only hits one creature and does even less damage. Now the caveat is that you can make this attack multiple times per round (for each sustain, but also suffering MAP)for up to 10 rounds.

It is a good spell, but unless you're attacking a creature with a specific weakness, it's not a standout in my opinion.

Now let's compare to a longbow with a striking rune, that will deal 2d8 damage (probably 2d8+1 potency+1d6 element rune). But that attacks doesn't cost a spell slot. Someone can literally do this all day (ignoring exhaustion that would probably set in, and needing to pick up arrows).

So is spending a slot to do average 13.5 damage vs 13.5 average damage for a longbow worth it? Only if you can do something like triggering weakness. At least IMO. Otherwise you're basically just keeping up with a bow user.

The only thing that's kind of exploitative is you can carry around one of every energy type bomb and use it to deal repeated energy damage without expending the item. And you don't even need a high level item, because the damage is determined by the spell not the item.

It makes the spell super flexible. Other than that high level of flexibility, there's not much here that's a problem.

Claxon wrote:

It causes immobilized and off-guard. Off-guard reduces the enemies AC by 2 (which consequently means that they get easier to crit).
He felt the off-guard was wasted due to the flanking going on.

Claxon wrote:

The monk should have used 1 action to grapple, 1 to flurry of blows, and something else each turn.
I know what's optimal. At this point he knows what's optimal. He just doesn't like "needing" to use Flurry of Blows rather than increasing the grapple somehow. He doesn't like hitting things. He'd jaded and a bit different in that regard. And he's used to looser rules system and PF1.

Off guard from grapple wasn't wasted. Normally only the 2 people in flanking position can benefit from flanking. And it requires those people to get into position. Which can be hard, even with a caster, if they keep moving. Even more so if they delay to move in between the two would be flankers turns. Grapple helps stop that too, which helps them to be able to flank even had the player botched a grapple check.

Regarding "needing" to use Flurry of Blows...you're player is going to have huge problems if this is the way they think about the game. FoB is the monks primary ability that they get for free. It is literally their main class defining feature.

It would be a bit like someone playing a fighter, and choosing for their fighter weapon mastery the firearm category and never using firearms, and then complaining how their fighter sucks and isn't better than anyone else.

In PF2 you cannot play against the core abilities of a class and ignore them and be very successful.

Things like grapple, trip, and other maneuvers are strong in the right circumstances, but they will not win combat on their own.

Your player is much better off if they forget everything they know about Pathfinder (from PF1) because that's how different PF2 is. Hell, maybe they'd be better off if they just reframe the game as some other fantasy table top unrelated to Pathfinder 1.

Squark I don't follow exactly, using Marvelous Mount the player isn't getting a climb or swim speed.

If the spell is cast at a high enough level, it can get an "air walk" type effect, a "walking on water" effect, and full on flight.

I mean, what exactly the creature is isn't terribly important. It could look like anything.

The important part is, normally a large PC couldn't even benefit from Marvelous Mount. I assume you're willing to ignore that part of the spell though, or else you wouldn't ask the question.

I went through the list of huge creatures on Archives of Nethys for PF2 Remastered, and the first creature I found that I felt made sense was the Elephant.

people just need to track their PC changes per level as some simple book keeping can solve all the "I don't remember what happened" lame excuses. Snap a pic of your character sheet, or scan it, or just copy to a new character sheet every couple of levels.

Commentary
Again, IF you roll HPs some (nice) GMs let a PC lose minimal HPs with a level loss so there's a minor buffing to the statistics to compensate for the level loss.

I would have agreed with you back when I still played 3.5, that it would be worth tracking the changes.

But since PF1, PF2, and Starfinder almost completely did away with any mechanics that reduce XP or level reductions I disagree. 99.9% of games it doesn't come up.

The way I would handle this is to:
1) Never introduce the Deck of Many things or other mechanics that would result in XP or level loss (but let's assume I did)
2) I would just use the rule for Negative levels (that was quoted earlier) in place of actual level loss:

For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature’s negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.

It produces a penalty, and when the player "levels up" they just remove the penalty going back to where they were before the XP loss/level loss happened.

Don't get me wrong, a deity who focuses on undead unwillingly transformed and are trying to avoid the evil of their undead condition could absolutely make for a cool deity. Perhaps they might give special spells that allow characters to sate their hunger for a time. Perhaps even an archetype that gives focus spells, that includes the spell to sate their hunger and hide their undead condition. But the deity would also understand that mistake can happen. That your bound to lose control eventually, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Repentance and restorative justice for your actions would probably be a big deal too for such a deity.

Perhaps such a deity even has a mandate for all followers, that if and when you are able you should seek to undo your state of undeath (and have some sort of high level ritual that would return you to your physical condition before you were turned undead regardless of time passed or anything like that). It'd probably be a rare ritual tuned specifically to the user of the ritual only.

I think playing a grappler is awesome, it is a very powerful debuff - in the pf2e system. Nothing compared to the "i win" spells or moves in pf1e, your players will have to move from this mentality to a team-based approach, and granting three others a +2 to hit is massive.

It is still totally doable to feel powerful in the system, it just means that the DM has to move away from lvl+3 enemies and use a more varied approach.

Coming back to this thread, I saw this commented and wanted to pile onto this sentiment.

Apply off-guard to the enemy for a -2 to their AC.
Have a buffer in the party, Bard's Courageous Anthem give a +1 bonus to attack.
Combine that with a fighter in the party, and that fighter now has a 25% higher chance to crit than compared to a non-fighter baseline character (fighters have +2 to hit compared to most other martials, except the Gunslinger [but only for certain weapons]).

Claxon wrote:

More than anything I think this is a misalignment of expectations coming from PF1 and expecting the same tactics to work.

Unicore wrote:

It sounds like 3 martials were all trying to grab the caster instead of kill it? That is just bad tactics in PF2.

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, if that's the case, then the scenario makes more sense to me. Once the monk had the grapple, everyone else should have been piling on the damage instead of attempting to apply a non-stacking condition. The monk should have got a few hits in too.

I think basically the monk was hoping he and the champions could subdue the boss caster without actually hitting the boss caster and bringing them to 0 HP. Not necessarily in one round or anything, but I think the monk player finds hitting stuff boring. He basically wanted to basically work with the champions to say "Okay, we've grappled/pinned/tied up the boss and ended the fight" rather than inflicting (non-lethal) HP damage.

Again, he didn't expect to win round 1 or something, but once he grappled the boss and I told him "Okay, the boss is now immobilized, off-guard, and has a 20% chance to fail spells" he was like "Wait, that's it? And I can't do anything more unless I crit succeed? And I have do this every round? And the champions can't help me subdue this guy beyond a +1/+2 bonus with Aid? This doesn't make narrative sense."

So going back to what I said before, player expectations are a problem here.

Grapple is actually a great condition to impose on an enemy. It causes immobilized and off-guard. Off-guard reduces the enemies AC by 2 (which consequently means that they get easier to crit). Immobilized means they can't move and get away from your allies. And they also have to make a DC5 check for any action with the manipulate trait, which includes lots of spells (but I don't think all of them).

This is a powerful debuff to a caster.

The monk should have used 1 action to grapple, 1 to flurry of blows, and something else each turn. And his friends should have walked up and wailed on the caster that can't run away and has an AC penalty.

The player here simply didn't understand that grappling while good, does not put the enemy into a "I've lost" state. It doesn't allow them to avoid hitting the target, and avoid reducing their HP. Pretty much only magic can do that, but only sometimes (it's not super reliable).

Probably the main problem here is your players being veterans of PF1.

In PF1, grapple was an I win button, especially against a caster. It just completely shut them down. It doesn't do that now, for good reasons.

More than anything I think this is a misalignment of expectations coming from PF1 and expecting the same tactics to work.

Honestly, PF2 is a harder game for veterans of PF1 because they bring in so much baggage from how they used to play and try the same tactics to fail spectacularly. I know because I was one of those people.

This actually leads back to your example of easy to resist the temptation at the beginning but harder down the road. I would say it's the opposite. The hunger should be harder to control at the beginning, but with ever moment of successful control, it becomes easier next time. Never fully gone, but manageable.

I strongly disagree.

The reasoning that addiction that were familiar with gets easier is because:
1) You stop using the substance (in the case of Undead they're always powered by negative energy, they never get stop using it)
2) Habit - people develop habits after quitting that enable them to avoid the bad decisions they made in the past (but Undead don't get that opportunity).

Ultimately you can imagine scenarios where this isn't the case, but what I'm saying is for D&D and Pathfinder up until the Remaster, the way I have described Undead and Negative energy working was simply how it worked (with some very rare exceptions in spots). That's simply my preference for how Negative Energy and Undead should function in this kind of TTRPG fantasy setting.

I'm not saying you can't have another setup in your games, or other style of games though. Undead (specifically vampires) in Vampire the Masquerade have a very different source of undeath and lore behind it. As a result, those vampires aren't inherently evil, although they do often lose their humanity and become more evil over time. But the Vampire the Masquerade video game kind has you become a hapless vampire who has to make many decisions that can lead you to become a stronger monster but lose your humanity in the process. It's just a very different genre of game.

Before I continue I want to say this is a conversation I'm enjoying and want it to never be anything else. If I am coming off as argumentative or rude, please let me know.

Yes, I don't know. I guess I just like the idea that while these are curses and diseases, they don't necessarily make a person good or evil, your choices do.

You're not being rude at all so don't worry, it can be hard to interpret the tone of people's words on the internet. Sometimes we have say something in our mind and think it sounds fine, only to have it read by someone else in a very different way. I don't find your words or question inflammatory, but genuine curiosity. Hopefully mine come across as my view of this shared setting. It is not necessarily the only way to play in the setting, although I have strong feelings about this specific bit of the game. Some of those feelings are from playing with power gamers who constantly tried to find ways to play in our games back in D&D 3.5 and PF1 when it was huge benefit to be undead, but didn't want to deal with any of the consequences that should have logically followed.But also for narrative reasons. Anyways, going back to the point.

There is absolutely narrative room for plenty of curses and disease that don't make a person evil. In fact that's the default for most curses and disease.

But when it comes to Undeath, what makes it interesting for me is that is is corrupting. It's supposed to change you. Otherwise (in the past) it was just "hey, here are some free super powers". PF2 toned down how much benefit to being undead there is, but for me you can't change the narrative of Undeath being corrupting. For me it's always been a matter of how long can you maintain who you were in Undeath.

Edit: Something I just thought of, to me Aranzi is the perfect representation of this issue. Aranzi was powerful force of good, and at one time the Herald of Aroden. Aranzi was killed by the Tar-Baphon, and later returned to life as a lich by the interference of a ghost necromancer. With the personality of her being very different prior to her mortal life or time as an angle/herald. She is now a divine entity after the events of [redacted].

Why are they corrupting?

This is not trying to undermine you, but rather the question I find myself focusing on with this line of thinking. Why do we assume undeath is inherently corrupting. As you pointed out, The Mummy, the Ghost, and the Skeleton all require no even remotely evil acts to sustain them.

Why is this break from natural order considered more unnatural than the wizard summoning a massive fire ball? Or forcing animating life into non-flesh based inanimate objects?

Again, If my GM thought your way, I wouldn't argue, not my table, not my place. Just thoughts bouncing in my head.

Well, allow me to expand. I should say within the context of Pathfinder and DnD, if you look through all the history and lore about Undead it has always been corrupting and evil. Urgathoa was the first Undead in the Pathfinder setting.

Even the writing of the archetypes in PF2 heavily implies evil acts, but doesn't specify it because of the baggage related to the alignment system. While alignment was removed for legal reasons, and also because it mechanically had become mostly irrelevant. And because people used it as a bludgeon to constrain others or justify their actions, instead of a tool to guide how a character might behave without other considerations.

And if I recall written examples correctly, while there have been non-evil examples of Undead they were neutral (I think was one example of a good ghost).

And I can get behind neutral Undead. Perhaps you have a ghoul, afflicted by the condition against their will trying to maintain their humanity as much as possible. They consume the flesh of humanoids, largely by raiding graveyards, but occasionally succumb to hunger and attack the living. To counter these things, the ghoul does as much good and positive things as they can because they know they're doing acts of evil.

Also recall that Negative Energy (Void Energy) kills all living things. I wont rehash all the description of it that are out there, but the short answer is that to me the corrupting part is simply a narrative part of the concept of Negative/Void energy.