Dimble Beren's page

I've always loved the Swashbuckler class and even released the first Swashbuckler guide back in the days. But I was a bit annoyed by the Remaster and the brand new Bravado trait and decided to let others provide updated guides. I was doubly wrong.

First, after a thorough reading of the remaster Swashbuckler I can safely say it's awesome, in a completely different way than it used to be, but it's awesome (and also balanced, it's now a competitive martial in my opinion).

Also, I've looked at the available content when it comes to remastered guides and they haven't grasped what I consider the essence of the remaster Swashbuckler.

So here's my Remaster Swashbuckler optimization guide

I've called it an "optimization guide" so I can avoid all questions about what a Swashbuckler should look like.

Also, as the difference in effectiveness between optimized and non-optimized is rather low in Pathfinder 2, you can build a satisfying Swashbuckler without following these guidelines. So don't be pissed if you disagree with me.

And finally I haven't described every Swashbuckler feat, mostly because of a lack of time to do so. I may do it in the future, depending on this guide's reception.

Hi everyone,

I wonder how you'd handle such a situation:
A player performs a Finisher with their Swashbuckler and announce that they Ready the Dastardly Dash action.
Technically, the Ready action is valid as the character can perform a Dastardly Dash to perform a Dirty Trick but because they have made a Finisher, they can't make an attack and as such can't choose to Trip. But when the Ready action goes off the character can now choose to Trip as their turn is over and as such the limitation on Attacks.

It's obviously a way to circumvent the rules about Ready actions. But I wonder how you'd consider it as it seems to be valid per RAW?

Paizo announced the Commoner class as an April's fool and... I found the idea interesting. Here's my take on a balanced and interesting Commoner class. Have fun reading it and don't hesitate to comment.

Commoner class

PS: As I'm not a native English speaker, there are certainly a fair amount of mistakes and weird formulations. Don't hesitate to correct me.

Hi everyone,

The rules about Aid indicate that you have to prepare to Aid to use the reaction. But nothing states that using the reaction stops the preparation nor that the Aid reaction has to somehow be used before the next round.
Is it possible to "prepare to Aid" for multiple Aid reactions accross multiple rounds?

Players have complained a lot about Spellstrike triggering Reactive Strike. I think it's a clear information that there's no fun in that. Tracing Runes shouldn't trigger Reactive Strike somehow.

Every round, you can Trace 2 Runes and Invoke them for 4d6 damage per "rank". That's way beyond Disintegrate (2d10 per rank) and doesn't cost any resource (even if it is only usable at melee range).

Someone forgot to make their math homework. As is, the Runesmith has twice the Fighter damage output.

The question is in the title. As you need a free hand to trace runes, it's a bit hard to use a Shield as a Runesmith without baring yourself from tracing runes during fights (which seems intented).

So I'm a bit puzzled.

PFS FAQ states: "Pathfinder Society uses the optional rules published with the liminal on page 143 of Bestiary 3 for this situation, which are reproduced here:

There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."

In the case of the feat Healing Bomb it's a massive improvement. Are both rules meant to interact or is it a case where there's no need for the Bestiary 3 rules as Healing Bombs already consider your ally is trying to get hit?

I had a couple Oracles in PFS before the remaster, namely a Life Oracle and a Tempest Oracle. One of my players had a Battle Oracle.
Since the release of the Animist, I've switched my Life Oracle to a Garden of Healing Animist with Life Oracle Dedication and it translates the fantasy and mechanics in a very satisfying way.
When my player asked me about her Battle Oracle, my first answer was to switch to an Embodiment of Battle Animist.
And I'm now strongly thinking about my Tempest Oracle. Even if I won't go for Earth's Bile, as it doesn't really fit the Tempest theme, but I'm thinking in diving into the madness part of this Oracle with Discomfitting Whispers.

So, I'm wondering if the Animist is the new pre remaster Oracle. And I start to think it is.

We just played Shimmerstone Mine with a few friends. The adventure was nice.

As usual, we faced Legendary DC checks to perform trivial tasks... Like opening a locker. Our Vesk Soldier shreds the locker to pieces with his little finger, no need for an artificial check. It really breaks verissimilitude when you're supposed to play what could be considered a hero. But well, that's more of an adventure design issue than a system issue.

Combats were trivial. SF2 characters are, in my opinion, significantly stronger than PF2 characters. Overall, I haven't felt any form of danger. But that's not a massive issue per se, GMs can just put stronger challenges against the PCs. I'm just a bit sad that bringing a PF2 class in SF2 will certainly lead to a downgrade (and bringing a SF2 class in PF2 will be broken).

I really think there should be a discussion on Augmentations. At these levels, Augmentations give a significant boost to characters (Dermal Plating is crazy good). But not all players want their characters to go through surgery. I know I have lots of issues with Augmentations and I'm unsettled by using them on my characters. It may be cultural or whatever. But I don't want to play cyborgs all the time, I don't want to be forced to play cyborgs to keep up with my teammates. There should be alternate ways of getting these boosts, especially when they are so strong that all characters should consider them.

SF2 spells are stronger than PF2 spells. There are really a lot of incredible spells that are balanced against the best PF2 spells. Akashic Revival is near invulnerability, Rocket Dash is crazy good, Time's Edge, X-Ray Vision, etc... I'm fine with that, caster could use a little boost.

Maps are super big. And I find that excellent, it really changes how you fight, it forces you to completely reconsider your spells. It also gives much more weight to the crazy areas of high level spells. I hope SF2 will keep bigger and bigger maps when gaining levels and increase the importance of high mobility. I even think it be good in PF2.

There are tons of reactions. It was a reaction pinata. Often, for an action to come to a term we needed to proceed to 3 or 4 reactions. That's... a lot. It slows down fights. Of course, we were not specialist of high level play so it took more time than it should have. But still, I question the number of reactions.

As a Witchwarper, I haven't used my Quantum Field at all. There are no feats or abilities that could make it anywhere close to useful at that level. Gaining 5 feet of speed when you have 50ft. speed is a joke. And a 10 ft. radius burst when you are moving 100 ft. per round to chase enemies is unusable.

The Envoy in our game really loved it. I think the class becomes really nice when it takes levels.

The Mystic was healing all the damage the enemies could deal. In my opinion, there's a power issue here.

Well, I think I covered everything or close to. Overall, it was a nice and positive experience. Keep up the good job.

I like skill challenges. Most of my characters are rather strong at skills and I obviously like to play on their strengths.
But recently, skill challenges have become ubiquitous in PFS. Not a single adventure without a chase, the influence subsystem or another type of skill challenge.
And I'm ODing. If I could I'd give the GM my character sheet and go grab a beer during skill challenges because too many of them just kills the fun.

First, it gets repetitive. And unlike combat, skill challenges are not exactly complex/interesting from a gaming point of view.
Second, as they are now fillers, they very often don't make sense.
Third, skill challenges format adventures. A lot of early seasons adventures are no more possible now because the entire adventure would be replaced by a skill challenge. Yes, I look at you Moskito Witch, and yes, I love you.
And fourth, it turns a lot of free form roleplaying/problem solving moments into just a bunch of dice rolls.

And I must admit, from a GM point of view, I have more and more issues GMing them when I see my players having no fun playing them (some of my players are rather vocal about it). So I think this is not just me.

After playing my Witchwarper at level 1, 5 and 10, here's my final point of view on Quantum Field.

Sustainability: At level 1 (without Quantum Pulse at that time), it was impossible to Sustain, period. I've never been able to keep it more than a round and quickly stopped using the ability.
At level 5, it was really hard to Sustain, but possible for a couple of rounds.
At level 10, it was a minigame inside the game to maintain the Quantum Field. With much more Focus Spells, Signature Spells and Anchoring abilities it was now really possible without too much hassle. I had fun maintaining my Quantum Field.

Area: Let's make it clear, the area makes it unusable. It's supposed to be a form of control spell but it's so small that you can't block anything. At level 10, with Enlarge Quantum Field, I was finally able to have an area big enough to include enemies for more than a split second.

Effects: Effects are extremely light, close to useless. Some abilities, like Predictive Positioning, need the Quantum Field to function (I assumed it from the text even if it doesn't have the Anchoring trait) but I don't understand why they are so limited considering how it's complicated to maintain the Quantum Field.

Overall, the Quantum Field is not worth it and as of now should be ignored.

What I would improve to make it usable:

Sustainability: I really liked the minigame of maintaining it at high level, so I'd be sad to see a big increase in sustainability. One thing that must be changed is that Signature spells should maintain it wherever you are. I don't see why offensive use of the Quantum Field should be so hard.

Area: The big issue of the Quantum Field. In my opinion, it should be baseline for the Quantum Field to grow every time you use an Anchoring ability (like what Enlarge Quantum Field gives). It's really fun to see it growing and it makes quite some sense (and pushes you to take care of it). Still, even with that ability, the area is too small. I'd rather either remove the limitation of one growing per round, or increase the original area depending on your level. Or make Enlarge Quantum Field a passive ability that adds 10 ft. to the Quantum Field area (and maybe more at higher levels). But really, the area has to get much much much much bigger.

Effects: Effects are really light, but at the same time the Witchwarper is a 4 slot caster with light armor proficiency and 8hp per level so unless SF2 classes are balanced to be much better than PF2 ones there's not much space left to increase the Quantum Field effects. I think there should be more feats to interact with the Quantum Field and, especially at high level, much better ones. Seeing Twisted Dark Zone as a level 10 feat or the joke of Persistent Quantum Field at level 14, there's really an issue. When balancing feats that interact with the Quantum Field, they should be much better than baseline feats as maintaining the Quantum Field is really hard and asks for a lot of investment, both in terms of feats and in terms of actions.

Skill checks are a massive part of the game. Most of out of combat challenges will be solved through skill checks.
But mechanically there is no single definition of skill check besides the obvious d20+skill bonus. There are actually a ton of very different skill check types with a strong impact on skill competence, ie. the contribution of characters when it comes to skills and as such the way to mechanically build a skill monkey.
And depending on GMs and environments, these skill check types are more or less used, sometimes without even realizing the strong impact they have on balance.
Let me cover the different types of skill checks, and the associate mechanical ways to achieve skill monkeyness.
And then we can have a discussion on how, as a GM, you use these different skill checks. Or on how, as a player, you like some skill checks over others (and what it says on the characters you like to play).

A few definitions:
Skill challenge: a bunch of skill checks rolled by all PCs and whose success is determined by the total number of successes (with critical failures and successes counting double in general).
Skill "types": some skills tend to cover the same areas and are often interchangeable. For example you have magic-related skills (Arcana, Occultism, Religion, Nature), physical skills (Athletics, Acrobatics), social skills (Diplomacy, Deception, Intimidation, Performance), nature skills (Nature, Survival), rogue skills (Stealth, Thievery).
Organized party: party where characters are built in common (through a session 0 for example)
Unorganized party: party where each player brings their character without any coordination (PFS typically)

One skill, one roll:
This is what I consider the most basic skill check from the reading of the book: One character has to roll one skill, the others can at best Aid. Disarming traps and casting rituals are typically following this structure. But on the other hand, I find these types of skill checks to be more and more rare.
In an organized party: Covering all skills is trivial in an organized party so you should always be able to roll. To optimize for these checks, each character should focus on a small subset of skills and skill monkeys increase theirs as high as possible.
In an unorganized party: You should first and foremost try to cover all skills as you can't count on your fellow party members to cover them. Skill monkeys have a lot of trained skills and abilities to improve any skill (like Ageless Patience or skill Mutagens).

Multiple skills, one roll:
Skill check similar to "one skill, one roll" but the GM lets you choose how to handle the situation and as such you have a bit of leeway on what skill to use. For example, you can be diplomatic, lie or coerce to convince the guards to let you go.
In an organized party: To optimize for these checks you no more need to cover absolutely every skill. Each character will focus on a small subset of skills and skill monkeys will try to have a few skills with an outstanding bonus.
In an unorganized party: You don't need to cover all skills but you should cover at least one skill of each "type" and skill monkeys will try to get a high bonus in these skills.

Most skills, one roll:
Some GMs are extremely nice when it comes to creative solutions and you can sell them nearly any skill. Some players are really good at selling skills, too.
In any party: You only need to raise a single skill as high as possible until you reach the ceiling and maybe a second one when you really can't sell your main skill. Skill monkeys manage to break the ceiling through bonuses (with for example Ageless Patience or skill Mutagens).

One skill, one roll per PC, one success:
This is the case when the whole party needs to roll the same skill just to get one success. For example Perception to search for secret doors, Society to remember something or Diplomacy to Gather Information. These checks tend to be trivial if everyone can roll as only one success is needed.
In any party: The main goal is to maximize the number of rolls so skill monkeyness is achieved by being Trained in a high number of skills (preferably all). Abilities like Untrained Improvision are golden. As a side note, an Eidolon gives you an extra attempt if the Summoner has the skill.

One skill, one roll per PC, many successes:
Rare type of skill challenges where the GM asks the whole party to roll one specific skill and determines the party success by the number of successes. Critical (failures and successes) are extremely impactful.
In any party: To optimize for these checks you need the whole party to roll with at least a nice bonus. So now Untrained Improvisation is not good enough. Skill monkeys are Trained in a lot of skills and have abilities to improve any skill. And Eidolons will really shift the odds.

Skill challenge, multiple skills, party success:
This type of skill challenge is rather common in PFS: The challenge is divided in multiple parts, each part asking PCs to roll for a skill among a few, and once the PCs have enough successes they move to the next part.
In any party: It's important for everyone to be able to roll so every PC should focus on being Trained in many skills (but no need to be Trained in all skills). Skill monkeys will have one skill of each "type" with a high bonus. Once again Eidolons will shift the odds (be careful in PFS as this use of an Eidolon is forbidden).

Skill challenge, multiple skills, PC success:
The difference between this skill challenge and the previous one is that each PC has to succeed to get to the next part of the challenge. Chases are the classical example.
In any party: It's extremely important to be Trained in all skills as if you ever end up in a part where you don't have any of the requested skills the challenge is over for you.
Note: It's rather common for this type of skill challenges to propose alternate checks like Perception, attack roll or save. So, strangely, skill monkeyness is achieved... through high Perception, saves and attack rolls as it's easier to increase these than a lot of skills.

Skill challenge, most skills, party success:
In most skill challenges the challenge parts are faced sequentially, one after the other. But sometimes they are faced in parallel and as such PCs can choose which part to handle, technically opening the use of any skill all the time. A classical example is the way PFS uses the influence subsystem to influence multiple NPCs at once.
In any party: Once again when all skills are available the goal is just to have one skill at the highest possible bonus. Skill monkeys manage to break the ceiling through bonuses (with for example Ageless Patience or skill Mutagens).
No retry: Sometimes, you can't use the same skill over and over or you do so with a penalty. For these challenges you need a few skills at the highest possible bonus, which is trivial as every character will raise 3 skills to Legendary.

Skill challenge, party success, high magic impact:
If the GM allows some parts of a skill challenge to be entirely skipped through the use of the proper spell or ability then it can give an enormous edge to the party, massively increasing the chances of success to the whole challenge.
In any party: It's a very good thing for spellcasters and you definitely should have a bunch of utility Scrolls to handle these skill challenges.

Proficiency gating:
Some skill checks will be restricted to characters with a certain proficiency. It's often the case for disarming traps and haunts. The skill bonus is still important but first and foremost you need to be able to roll.
In an organized party: The goal is to raise all skills, so the most important is to avoid raising the same skill twice between 2 PCs. As the proficiency is more important than the actual bonus it's not an issue if some characters raise skills on secondary attributes. Skill monkeyness is achieved through the sheer number of skill increases, so Investigators and Rogues are the obvious skill monkeys here.
In an unorganized party: Now it gets really random. Preferably, skill monkeys should focus on skills that are rarely raised instead of raising the classical Stealth/Athletics/Acrobatics/Medicine/Intimidation.

One Lore:
Sometimes, the GM asks you to roll a Lore check, with no alternative. In general this Lore is strongly implied by the adventure, like Sailing Lore if you play Skulls and Shackles. But sometimes, the GM asks for Accounting Lore and nothing else to understand the ledgers.
In any party: If the Lore is implied by the adventure then someone should be really good at it: You should have a high Intelligence captain if you play Skull and Shackles. If it's a completely random Lore then the chances that anyone has it are super low. It's better to use abilities giving you (temporary) Training in any skill to cover these cases.

One skill feat:
Sometimes, the GM asks you to have a specific skill feat to roll a specific check. You want to influence the crowd? Do you have Group Impression? You need to heal an Undead? Stitch Flesh!
In any party: Well, no real solution for this case. Besides Rogues and Investigators, PCs will have the same number of skill feats and you'll have to be lucky to have the good one.

So, what to do with that?
First, it's important to determine how you handle skill checks as a GM and how it impacts the PCs and through them the players. One classical example is the really permissive GM who allows any skill to be used for any check as long as the player comes with a believable explanation. But think about the effect if you were allowing PCs to also roll attack rolls using any skill, would your Fighter player be happy about it? So this isn't actually nice, it's just eliminating the whole interest of being a skill monkey and players of such characters have good reasons to feel bad about your ruling.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is to use all these types of skill checks, sometimes being really nice and sometimes asking for a specific Lore, skill feat or proficiency to roll. So every type of skill monkey can shine but also non-skill monkeys.
It's also interesting to sometimes give a bone to your players by asking for a check or challenge that will highlight one specific feat or ability. For example, asking for a check using any skill will highlight the impact of skill Mutagens (and as such your Alchemist) in a less forced way than asking for a Crafting check.

As a player, it's important to understand the different types of skill monkeyness. No, Rogues and Investigators (and Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore and/or Tome Implement) are not the only skill monkeys. Summoners and Alchemists are also excellent skill monkeys.
And if you play a class with no skill advantage or a weak one then maybe grabbing an ability or 2 to focus on a specific type of skill checks can put your character in a good light regularly.

Hi everyone,

I was wondering what you think about the interaction between Organsight and Knowledge is power.

Organsight:"You see the target as though it's dissected and arrayed before you. For the duration, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on Medicine checks against the target that depend on its organs, but a –2 circumstance penalty on Medicine checks depending on seeing its skin.
When you Cast the Spell, attempt a special Recall Knowledge check using Medicine to spot and discern a vital organ. If you have a Lore skill appropriate to the creature, you can use that skill instead of Medicine. If you succeed, the next time you deal piercing or slashing damage to the target with a Strike or spell, you deal 4d6 additional precision damage. Once on each of your subsequent turns, you can use a single action to attempt the special Recall Knowledge check again. The extra damage isn't cumulative, so making the check more than once before a Strike or spell has no extra benefit."

Knowledge is Power:"Your academic knowledge about a creature allows you to subtly alter your magic to defeat them. When you critically succeed at a Recall Knowledge check about a creature, you can invoke your knowledge to make the creature take a –1 circumstance penalty to either AC and saves against the next attack you make against it, or the next spell you cast that it needs to defend against. The creature takes the same penalty to its attack or DC the next time it attacks against you or causes you to attempt a save against one of its effects.
If you share this information with your allies, they gain the benefits as well. If not used, the bonuses end after 1 minute."

Organsight speaks of a "special Recall Knowledge check". Special can mean a bit of everything so I wonder if, as a GM, you'd allow Knowledge is Power to be triggered by a critical success to the RK check given by Organsight?

One thing I've been sad to see in SF2 is the Piloting skill. For multiple reasons.

First, most adults know how to drive a car in our world. Sure, they can't make stunts but they at least have a chance to try without a crippling +0 to their check. Considering that space combat was a basic assumption of SF1 I think we can consider that Piloting is part of the job description and as such should be a given.
Second, I have no idea why it is under Dexterity. The main elimination criteria if you want to become a pilot is bad sight, it's kind of common knowledge. Piloting and Perception are massively linked. On the other hand, I absolutely don't see the connection between Dexterity and piloting. It's a bit as if your ability to move your body with agility will somehow translate to an ability to move your ship with agility... That's nonsense.
Third, and this is the main reason, I've been in an SFS party where no one had Piloting and the first scene was a space combat. After 2 rounds, it was clear we couldn't scratch the enemy ship as its shield was fully compensating our turret damage. We decided to just cancel the adventure, not just finish it, cancel as in "it never existed". It's the first time I've ever been in that situation and it's absolutely no fun.
Fourth, none of the SF2 classes is even remotely a skill monkey. So adding 2 skills is not the best thing to do, especially when one is nearly a no-brainer.
I could even add a fifth: I don't think we need more incentive to invest in Dexterity in SF2, it is already looking like a god stat as some other thread shows.

So putting Piloting under Perception (or combining them) would be, in my opinion, the sensible thing to do. What do you think?

Using Pathfinder 2 classes in Starfinder 2 will certainly be forbidden in environments like SFS and around most tables I expect it to be limited by the GM. Both games are compatible but it still means some work to include a PF2 character in SF2.

But I'm wondering about Archetypes. Pathfinder 2 has a lot of Archetypes (and class Archetypes), which are mostly compatible with Starfinder 2. In terms of balance, I don't expect an Archetype to mess up with SF2 balance to the point of being an issue. And there's no real work to allow these Archetypes: A Soldier with Barbarian Dedication stays a Soldier first and foremost.

So I'm opening this conversation about PF2 Archetypes in SF2.

I personally feel it'd be a good thing to allow them all across the board, including during the playtest. A Soldier with a spellcaster Archetype will definitely be a thing once SF2 will be live and as such I feel that testing such a character is definitely a good thing for the playtest. Similarly, the Solarian has a feat to grab a second weapon, it should definitely be tested with abilities like Double Slice or Twin Takedown (unless SF2 Dual Weapon combat is meant to be completely different than PF2's but I question why it'd be the case and what it'd be supposed to be then).

As a GM, I think I'll allow PF2 Archetypes. And as a player, I wonder how you'd react if one of your players bring an SF2 character with a PF2 Archetypes.

I also think about the future: In my opinion, PF2 Archetypes should be generally accepted as part of Starfinder 2 the same way PF2 spells are currently considered part of it. This is really a big bunch of compatible content with low chances of being disruptive, players will certainly be happy to dive into them.

So, what's your opinion?

There's this thing, the "ranged meta", that is lurking around. It's nice to speak about the "ranged meta", to determine what you would do when there's a "ranged meta", etc...

But what is the "ranged meta" exactly?

I've seen it in the playtest book! Here's the sentence: "Remember, Starfinder Second Edition has a “ranged meta,” meaning that everyone’s packing a gun or some other ranged weapon, so a lot of combats happen at a distance using cover and tactical positioning, rather than up close and personal like in Pathfinder Second Edition"

Well, I'll modify a bit this sentence to reflect the actual truth: "Remember, Starfinder Second Edition has a “ranged meta,” meaning that everyone’s packing a gun or some other ranged weapon, so a lot of combats happen at a distance using cover and tactical positioning, rather than up close and personal like in Pathfinder Second Edition or Starfinder first edition"

Because, let's state it: the "ranged meta" is a big pile of crap. I've played a Solarian in Starfinder, I've played with Solarians and melee Soldiers in Starfinder and I've never seen a player complaining about melee combat under the "ranged meta" or any similar term. Because there was no such thing as a "ranged meta".

For a ranged meta to actually exist you need to triple the size of maps. As long as fights will start at 20-60ft. Solarians and melee Soldiers will do fine. And the recent maps I got my hands on (from Cosmic Birthday and the playtest adventures) are all as small as PF2 maps. Spaceships are small, buildings are smalls, all combats happen in small areas, there's not a single fight with enough space for a full ranged combat to happen.

So, please, can we just kill this buzzword?

I create a new topic because the discussion about this point is in a completely unrelated topic.

I don't consider myself neurodivergent. I hope I won't hurt anyone with this post.

When I built my Witchwarper for the SFS playtest I played last week, I took a Paradox, Ancestry and such and then reached the point where I had to choose my Anchor. Reading the mechanical effects, I chose Focal Point. Then reading the description I decided that no. I nearly ended up with no Anchor (I chose Core Memories without much joy).

Clearly, I was unsettled by the neurodivergent vibe of most anchors (especially Tangible Object). I don't want to be this guy who portrays a neurodivergent character without being neurodivergent. Or, at least, if I do it it's with care and input from neurodivergent people, not because an ability that will be useful twice in the campaign says so.

It is easy to find non-neurodivergent explanations for the Anchors. The Tangible Object can for example be a magic or technological item with the power to anchor you to reality. And I'd love to have such explanations next to the neurodivergent ones. Or other Anchors that are not about neurodivergence. Anyway, I'd like it to be an option and not forced on me.

I really like the current design of the Witchwarper because it can satisfy 2 very different crowds of players:
- The beginners, players who dislike complexity and those with low tactical acumen who can ignore the Quantum Field feature and play a 4 slot caster with 8 hp per level and light armor proficiency (which is a very valid character power-wise). They won't get the most out of the class but they don't get the most out of any class anyway.
- The players who like complexity and with high tactical acumen who will engage with the Quantum Field feature which is as of now rather hard to use and complex.

The issue is that the Quantum Field takes a bit too much space by limiting the use of many abilities that don't need to be that limited: Namely your Anchor action and your Warp spells. This limitation prevents the first crowd of players to feel happy about the way they play their Witchwarper as they are far too aware they don't use a significant portion of the class.

Currently, the Anchoring trait does 2 loosely related things:
- It prevents the use of an ability if your Quantum Field is not out
- It Sustains your Quantum Field
So it could be easily split into 2 traits: one indicating that it Sustains your Quantum Field and the other one preventing the use of the ability/spell if your Quantum Field is not out.

Thanks to that change, many baseline abilities of the class could be made available all the time allowing the first crowd of players to play their Witchwarper without engaging with the Quantum Field but still benefitting from most of the class abilities. And as such the 2 crowds of players could be simultaneously satisfied, which is a great deed considering their differences.

As a side note, we will also stop wondering if Anchoring reactions Sustain your Quantum Field and how ;)

These were my 2 cents.

Let's say an ally is affected by a multi-target spell imposing a Condition, let's say Dirge of Doom, and I use an Elixir on them with the Improved Invigorating Elixir Additive. If I succeed at the counteract check, what happens?

Invigorating Elixir counteracts an effect imposing the Condition so from a strict RAW reading it looks like I counteract Dirge of Doom entirely, which is a bit unexpected. On the other hand if I was not counteracting Dirge of Doom itself I'd be counteracting nothing, which would be annoying, too.

Magic the Gathering design team uses the names Timmy, Johnny and Spike to describe their player's affinity. They are very often used to describe 3 different ways of interacting with the mechanical side of games.

To simplify:
- Spikes are competitive players. They love difficulty and challenge so they can express their tactical acumen. On these boards, Deriven is a classic example of a Spike.
- Johnnies are combo players. They love to build unexpected things by combining different elements of the game. They generally like to bring unique builds. I'm definitely a Johnny (also a Spike but less than a Johnny).
- Timmies are players who like to play big. They don't necessary look for imbalance but they want to sometimes be extremely impactful, very powerful. They like to shine like diamonds, even if it's only once in a while.

PF2 is a game that definitely appeals to Spikes: The average difficulty is rather high, there are no shortcuts to easily trivialize challenges.
Johnnies are a bit in a grey area. On one side, I can testify there are a lot of appealing things for Johnnies. But on the other side, you need to really know the game well and master a lot of its elements to build really unique characters. It is much easier to create combos in PF1 for example, where they are much easier to spot.
Timmies... well, Timmies are definitely left on the side. I see extremely few builds that would be appealing to Timmies. And that's why I start this discussion, both for us and for Paizo as I really think a lot can be done for them.

I'll give some example of Timmy-oriented gameplays:

The carry

A carry is a character that starts weak but progresses fast to end up stronger than anyone else. It's a term that started with DotA and other similar games. What is important for a carry is to have a build up phase leading them from unimpactful to overpowered.
Classical concepts in a game like PF2 is the self-buffing gish. The self-buffing gish spends the first rounds of combat to buff themselves and ends the combat much stronger than the other characters.
Another concept is the summoner (the real one, not the class): Rounds after rounds, they bring more and more creatures on the board until they completely overwhelm the opposition.
Carries don't exist at all in PF2 and they would be easy to implement.

The crit-fisher

The crit-fisher is basically a character who maximizes the effectiveness of an unlikely random event to extreme levels. Pick builds and low level archers/gunslingers are example of crit-fishers (based on critical hits to attack rolls). Unfortunately, due to the +10/-10 rule for critical hits, crit-fishing is too easy in PF2 and as such critical hits can't be extremely impressive.
Creating extremely unlikely and impactful options would be very simple, for example extra effects when you roll a natural 20 on a check.

The overspecialist

The overspecialist is extremely good in one niche domain. For example, they are so much of a diplomat that they trivialize Diplomacy checks. That is a concept that nearly doesn't exist in PF2 even if it would not imbalance the game. Still, I feel it's a direction Paizo doesn't want to take.

All eggs in the same basket

This type of characters is based on using extremely costly and impactful actions. The classical example is the Magus or Eldritch Archer who siphon 3 actions in one big event, or the spells that need 2 rounds to be cast. This concept is covered in PF2 but nearly unused outside the Magus class. Spells with 2 or 3 rounds of casting time and extreme effectiveness would be a very nice addition to the game, I'm sure lots of people would love them.

High risk high gain

This type of characters will voluntarily take massive penalties to increase one aspect beyond anyone else. Mutagens, Giant Instinct and Come and Get Me! embody this concept in PF2. Still, they are not impactful enough to really incarnate the high risk high gain philosophy. I'm personally not fond of this kind of characters as they tend to impact the other characters in the party strongly (for example by attracting all attention and bleeding hit points like crazy for Come and Get Me! and Giant Instinct).

The opportunist

The opportunist tries to exploit extremely circumstantial events. The classical case in PF2 is weakness exploitation: abilities that generate a lot of "ticks" of damage (Bombs, spells with Persistent Damage) obliterate any enemy with a weakness. Besides Weakness exploitation, I don't see another similar concept in PF2.

I certainly forgot about other concepts that appeal to Timmies. Still, nearly none of these concepts are covered by the game and I think it's an issue for those who live for the big boom.
What are your thoughts? Especially if you are a Timmy.

One conversation that spilled a lot of electronic ink is: What happens if I ready a Stride when an enemy attacks me? Does it disrupt the attack if I end up outside the enemy reach?

This conversation was pure theorycrafting as kiting was not possible in PF2. But with the release of the Commander, kiting becomes a thing because of Form Up!

Now, the Commander can Ready Form Up! when an enemy attacks an ally at melee range. And if the GM allows it to disrupt the attack, which is very strongly supported by RAW whatever people may object, then the Commander can easily shut down melee enemies by forcing them to waste 2 actions per round (their disrupted attack and the Stride to get back to melee range). It'd be the death of melee bosses.

I personally don't want to see kiting becoming a basic strategy in PF2, that's why I raise this problem (to Paizo, if they read this conversation).

PS: Form Up! is not the only tactic that can cause issue with Ready. Passage of Lines can generate a big mess (who's the target of the enemy if you swap 2 allies?), Coordinating Maneuvers moves the enemy during their turn and Pincer Attack is also a nice choice.

It's not limited to PFS but PFS is notorious for mixing levels. So a low level Commander with an ability like Strike Hard! can give free attacks to higher level martials. I think everyone will agree that a level 1 Commander able to give a free attack per round to a level 4 Barbarian is playing way above their league (I calculated it and you outdamage a level 1 Barbarian 2 to 1 with such a Strike Hard! per round).

There's also and obviously the opposite issue where a high level Commander ends up with only low level teammates and is supposed to carry the party when his own combat abilities are extremely limited.

For those who play in mixed level parties, what do you think about that?

"Dad, what's a Squadmate?
- It's simple my son: if you have at least as much Intelligence bonus as party members then it's just another name for ally. And if you have less Intelligence bonus than party members, then a few teammates won't be full-on party members as they'll never benefit from your abilities.
- Dad, is the concept of Squadmate evil?
- Yes, my son. It's unnecessary complexity and a good reason to be sad when you're excluded from the squad."

squadmates => allies

Ready, Aim, Fire! is a high level (15) ability so maybe it's not much of an issue, but I still wonder what are the rationale and the balance behind this action.

For the rationale, well, you give 3 actions to your teammates... I can find a rationale behind Strike Hard! : Your tactics are so good that you force enemies to expose themselves to a free attack. But Ready, Aim, Fire! grants 3 actions, none of them being much circumstantial. How can a character act twice more each round without the help of magic? What are they doing when they are not being commanded? Twiddling their thumbs?

Now, let's look at the balance behind Ready, Aim, Fire! Let's consider a 5-man party (more common than a 4-man one in my opinion) with 2 casters and 2 martials who happen to have a Cantrip with just Trained proficiency and an ok casting stat (18 which is basic at level 15). Their total damage (with EA) is equivalent to a Greatsword Fighter making 2 attacks. And your MAP hasn't moved so you can also attack yourself. Also, it's at range when the Greatsword Fighter needs to get to melee range. And don't speak about the reaction cost as casters rarely need theirs and you can give 2 Reactions to your allies at that level with Drilled Reflexes (and 4 at 18).

Also, my example is very far from optimized, just basic. You can ask the martials to get to Expert/Master proficiency. You can have a 6-man party. You can have an Eidolon or/and an Arboreal Sappling (or other characters can have an Arboreal Sappling or an Eidolon, hello Summoner and their double cantrip). You can have a Gunslinger in the party. You can even add Amp Cantrips (nothing in the ability forbids it).

I mean, what the hell? An ability that gives 2-3 actions to all party members, when did you think it'd be balanced, Paizo?
Also, what's supposed to be the fun behind it? The whole party has to move to your strategy and if anyone plays a Barbarian, well, sorry guy, you're screwed. For me, the Commander should improve what your party is doing, not force everyone to move to the same strategy because there are so many benefits in doing so that it completely counterbalances the lack of versatility.

I must admit I'm puzzled by the interaction between Plant Banner and Banner tactics: Why do you lose the ability to use these tactics when your Banner is planted? I've tried to see a pattern in there but haven't found any understandable one.

I would have far prefered the Banner trait to only work in your Banner Aura, so you could use Plant Banner and Banner tactics but just need to be close to your Banner while doing so. Losing a portion of your abilities just because doesn't seem right.

Edit: Actually, there's the same issue with Commander's Steed. That's now 2 feats that are incompatible with a bunch of Tactics and feats. I find that very problematic, especially because you don't realize at first that there's a negative interaction as it doesn't make any sense.

Sorry Paizo for such a feedback. I was quite thrilled by the Commander (and worried by the Guardian) and finally I'm disappointed by the Commander (and the Guardian is awesome).

Current Commander is just a 2-trick poney who gives his actions to allies. That's boring, it doesn't look like a Commander to me.

I'd have prefered the Commander to have active abilities. After all, you are suppose to devise tactics to win the battle, not just telling you ally: You attack!

For example:

STRIKE HARD! [two-actions]
BANNER COMMANDER TACTIC
You command allies to attack when the enemies are beffudled by your tactics. Every enemy in your Banner aura makes a Will Save against your class DC.

Failure The opponent leaves an opening for your allies' attacks. Choose one of your Quadmates that can Strike the enemy as a Reaction. Each Quadmate can only make one Strike thanks to Strike Hard!
Critical Failure As failure, but with a +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll.

Or:

DOUBLE TEAM [two-actions]
COMMANDER TACTIC
Your team works together to set an enemy up for a vicious attack. Roll a Warfare Lore check and signal one squadmate affected by your commander’s banner who has an opponent within their reach. That ally can Shove or Reposition an opponent as a free action using your Warfare Lore result to resolve the action. If their maneuver is successful and the target ends their movement flanked by you or another squadmate, you or the second squadmate can attempt a melee Strike against that target as a reaction.

Or:

FORM UP! [one-action]
COMMANDER TACTIC
You signal your team to move into position together. Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner; each can immediately Stride as a reaction, though each must end their movement inside your banner’s aura. Every enemy that uses a reaction triggered by your allies' movement must succeed at a Will save against your class DC or see their Reaction disrupted (but still used).

Or:

PINCER ATTACK [one-action]
COMMANDER TACTIC
You signal an aggressive formation designed to exploit enemies’ vulnerabilities. Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner; each can Step as a free action. If any of your allies end this movement flanking an opponent, that opponent is Flat-Footed to you and all your Squadmates until the beginning of your next round and must succeed at a Reflex save against your class DC or fall prone.

These are just examples, but the goal would be:
- Make all tactics circumstantial. Tactics should be circumstantial. Using the same tactic (Strike Hard!) every round is preposterous. The Commander should adapt to the situation.
- Use your Class DC and Warfare Lore skill a lot. So you know why you have high Intelligence.
- Give more tactics to the Commander (obviously as they are circumstantial) so the class feels more interesting (if I want an easy to use class, I don't choose the Commander).
- Give more freedom on how to play the Commander. As of now, the best routine for a Commander is Strike + Strike Hard! It means that you either use a ranged weapon or a mount. With circumstantial tactics, the number of actions used on your tactics will vary and you won't end up with always the same routine.

Side notes:
- I think it'd be great to have other skills used for some tactics, like Intimidation, Deception, Arcana, whatever, encouraging the Commander to develop a unique set of tactics, skill proficiencies and stats array. I'd love to have some Commanders using Arcana for magic based tactics, while other Commanders will have high Charisma for demoralizing/deceptive tactics when other Commanders will have high Str/Dex and attack more often by themselves.

Hello everyone,

After years of blasting with my casters, I've decided to finally finish my guide to blasting (I hope it'll push Gortle to do the same for his unfinished guides!).

I hope it will convey all the pleasure I have blasting with my casters!

Don't hesitate to tell me if you feel I have forgotten something or if you want to clarify some points.

I just realized that the description of Staves only indicates the need to hold the Staff when casting spells. Some Staves also give bonuses. Sometimes it's clearly indicated that you need to wield the Staff to benefit from it (like for the Staff of Providence) and sometimes it's not (like for the Staff of Healing). Which makes me wonder if these bonuses could be gained without actually wielding the Staff...

Due to a conversation about walls, I came to look closely at Wall of Stone specifically. And this spell is a nightmare to adjudicate as a GM: there are tons of unclear rules around it and depending on how you rule them you can make the spell overpowered or close to unplayable.

Wall of Stone: You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares. The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.

Each 10-foot-by-10-foot section of the wall has AC 10, Hardness 14, and 50 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage. A destroyed section of the wall can be moved through, but the rubble created from it is difficult terrain.

Walls: Spells that create walls list the depth, length, and height of the wall, also specifying how it can be positioned. Some walls can be shaped; you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square. The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once, but it can double back so one section is adjacent to another section of the wall.

Among the things needing adjudication:
- What is an object? On paper, even a small rock is an object. Being nitpicky about this point can lead to the spell being nearly unusable.
- What is passing "through" a creature? You obviously can't pass through their space but from the space and size rules: Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. For example a guard with a Longspear is definitely extending beyond it's space. But how do you rule what creature is extending beyond its space and what creature isn't?
- Can the ceiling "break" the space if it's less than 20-foot high?
- How do you handle this part of the Walls rule: The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once. Considering that Wall of Stone is supposed to be positioned on the border between squares, it's hard to determine what the "same space" refers to. Also, can you make a prison with the wall?
- What if the ground is not flat? I see so many possible answers to this question, from the wall that follows the relief to the one that extends 20-foot high from the lowest point to the one that ends up partly mid-air to the GM who forbids such casting...

A GM who answers no to all these questions will make the spell nearly unusable. On the other side, a GM who answers yes to all these questions will make the spell completely broken: For example, you could make 2 rings of wall around any large size or smaller creature forcing it to break through 2 layers of wall to escape. So you basically eliminate from the fight any creature that can't cast Dimension Door 5 without even a save: Definitely broken.

The Subtle trait is the new black since the remaster. But I want to be sure I'm reading it well.

Subtle says: "A spell with the subtle trait can be cast without incantations and doesn’t have obvious manifestations."

While spells says: "Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures
and utter incantations" and "Spellcasting creates obvious sensory manifestations, such as bright lights, crackling sounds, and sharp smells from the gathering magic. Nearly all spells manifest a spell signature—a colorful, glowing ring of magical runes that appears in midair, typically around your hands, though what kind of spellcaster you are can affect this—academic wizards typically have neat and ordered spell signatures, while a druid’s might be more organic and a cleric’s might be inspired by their deity"

So, there's obviously no question about incantations and manifestations. But what about gestures and spell signature? From strict RAW, they are not removed by the Subtle trait but they still make it rather obvious that you're casting a spell. Definitely less obvious than without the trait, as you no more make sound, smell or light, but still obvious enough to prevent casting in front of anyone. Also, Charm has kept the wording saying the target thinks your spell was harmless.

So it seems the Subtle trait doesn't remove the need for Stealth or Deception if you want to cast such a spell when there are creatures/persons around.

How would you handle it?

So, it seems that the remaster clarifies that your Wounded value is added to your Dying value anytime your Dying value increases. It looks like the game will be much more deadly...

I also wonder what will change in how players will use healing, as healing a downed ally will now be a death sentence in a lot of situations.

This one is a candidate for errata: if you grab an Eidolon through Summoner Dedication you don't benefit from the Eidolon Initial Ability. So in the case of the Construct Eidolon, it means that your Eidolon is a full blown Construct and as such gets all the Construct Immunities. Much better than if you actually had the Eidolon Initial Ability.

Same goes for the Undead Eidolon which ends up being a full blown Undead.

I've worked for 10 years in the video game industry and I can assure you of one thing: I've never seen a single game designer that was considering power creep positively. For sure, there are some games around there with power creep as a core design component but they are the exceptions not the rule. For most games, power creep is an undesired by-product of game design. Still, it's quite ubiquitous.
So I open this conversation on power creep, using our preferred hobby as gaming material.

I'll start this conversation with an example: the Magus, as I think it's a perfect illustration of the release cycle of new content.
When the Magus has been released, the overall point of view on the class was that it was way underpowered. Fragile, clunky, with an extremely constrained action economy but no real asset. I've been among the first ones (if not the first one on these boards) to raise concerns about what you could do by combining Spellstrike, True Strike and Fire Ray (as it was before the Psychic was a thing). I remember clearly some criticism I experienced at that time: Using Spellstrike with a Focus Spell grabbed through a Dedication is obvious powergamer shenanigans, no one plays their Magus like that. Roughly a year after, the default expectation for the Magus is to grab a Focus Spell through Dedication and the community point of view on the class has strongly shifted, with at least the Starlit Span being considered close to broken and the melee Magus being much closer to the average power level.

The Magus is the perfect embodiment of the release cycle of new content. When new content is released, players start to get used to it. They don't know the builds and tactics so chances are high that they will play it "badly" from a tactical point of view. Soon, powergamers start to release their guides and builds and tactics. These builds and tactics spread across the community and at some point they become the default way of playing. And it's at that point that you can really assess the true power level of the released content.
Before that, it's impossible. Especially in a game like PF2 with so many feats, spells and magic items, determining all the potential combos right off the bat is beyond human reach. So no one can really tell when new content is released if it's balanced or not. In general, the perceived power level of a new class at release is lower than its actual power level (there are so many potential builds, powergamers have a lot of imagination) but it's not set in stone and sometimes no one finds anything fancy to do with a class and the basic builds and tactics are also the most optimized ones.

From APG to Dark Archive, Paizo strategy was to aim low. With APG, they aimed far too low. But after APG and before Thaumaturge, I can say that Paizo was spot on. The new classes are roughly at the same power level than Core Rulebook's, I'd even say that they are more balanced as none is as strong as the best CRB classes and none is as bad as the worst. Still, I don't remember of a single of these classes (before the Thaumaturge) that got positive feedback from the playtest nor at release. Because many of them were then perceived as much worse than they are now, especially the Magus even if I start to see much more love for the Summoner.

Unfortunately, this strategy generates negative feedback. New content always feels weak and being excited about new content is important both for players and game designers. So a lot of game designers follow their players' feedback and release content that feels balanced at release...

With the Thaumaturge, Paizo adopted a brand new class design (and I strongly link that to Mark leaving the design team but I may be wrong). The change has been clearly perceived: Players are now praising Paizo's ability at balancing classes. Do you read between the lines as much as I do?
I must admit I don't like this new class design and I've never been interested in the Thaumaturge nor the Kineticist, so I'm late to the party. But I was curious, and from a conversation I decided to "break" the game with the Thaumaturge. Well, it took me a couple of hours to find a build that significantly outdamages a Greatsword Fighter at level 10+ (yes, I'll give you my build, and yes, once again, there is a small shenanigan).

I already see some people disagreeing. It's fine, it's certainly a bit early to jump to conclusions. Still, I have strong concerns about the future of our hobby. And as a wise man used to say: The signs are there and Groetus is grinning.

To be continued in a couple of years.

Well, it's certainly too late, but I'd have loved to see a separation between action (the action points you have during your round) and action (the fact that your character does something). For example, a free action is an action that doesn't cost an action.

Having 2 notions so central to the system with the exact same name generates a lot of interpretation issues. It's also very confusing for beginners.

GM: You are at a table in a tavern, there are a bunch of adventurers around you who are waiting for your future patron. You can introduce yourself.
Druid: I'm a powerful druid, I can transform into a mouse to scratch my enemies' eyes.
Champion: I'm a mighty Champion of Shelyn and I will protect you with my shield and armor.
Rogue: Don't hesitate to stay behind me, mighty champion, as you clearly lack the armor. As for me, I'm an expert of all things... well, I'm expert at nothing, but it'll come sooner than later.
Two-Weapon Fighter: Has anyone seen a ring? A beautiful precious ring, I really need it otherwise my fighting style is just garbage.
Dwarven Barbarian: I'm a Giant Barbarian, the greatest of all.
Rogue: The smallest of all...
Sorcerer: I'm an elemental sorcerer, I destroy my enemies with fire, lightning and ice.
Druid: Wonderful, what's your signature spell? Fireball, Lightning Bolt?
Sorcerer: Heal...

I sometimes wonder: What's the point of level 1? Why level 1 is the basic expectation when it's one of the most boring level to play once you know the game? Why level 1 is not an optional rule, the equivalent of level 0, aimed at introducing the game to new players? Why a lot of APs and adventures start at level 1? Wouldn't it be better to have the first book of APs being an introductory adventure and the actual campaign starting at book 2 so experienced players can skip the lowest levels?

Low levels are the ones we play the most. But as soon as one knows the game (and you don't need tons of adventures for that) they become the less interesting to play. And I actually know a lot of people (myself included) who start campaigns at level 2, 3 or 5 so PCs can be fully fleshed out characters and not half baked ones.
I feel that level 1 is made the basic expectation from the way the book is written, the APs are released and all of that. But if the game was considering level 5 as a valid starting level and made sure APs and such could start from such a level without any hindrance for the players I'm pretty sure it would become as popular as Free Archetype is. Don't you think?

I'm puzzled by the Illusion tag on the Mistform Elixir. First, it's no magical item, which is in contradiction with the tag: "Effects and magic items with this trait are associated with the illusion school of magic, typically involving false sensory stimuli."
Similarly when speaking about magical schools: "All spells, all magic items, and most other magical effects fall into one of the eight schools of magic. These schools broadly define what the magic is capable of. Every spell has the trait corresponding to its school. Some spellcasters, like specialist wizards, have particular acumen with a certain school of magic."

So it's a school of magic, what does it do on an Elixir? On top of it, the description of Mistform Elixir doesn't seem "illusory": it's an actual mist that raise from your skin.

Is it an error?

I was looking at poison damage recently and I realized it's a resource that is not available in these boards. So I made this Graphs.

For comparison, I've put a Greatsword Fighter attack, Greatsword Champion attack and Electric Arc (on a single target). All against High AC and average saves.

And the "points" are the best poisons you can find at these levels. I've only counted one round of damage (so initial save and second save at the end of the enemy round) against average Fortitude. I've considered the poisons' save DCs but most DCs are already as high as the Alchemist DC so a Toxicologist would get the same damage nearly every time.

Hope this helps.

I may be in the minority here but I really like the concept behind the Player Core line of books: Taking a bunch of classes and player options from multiple books, correct/rebalance/expand them and deliver them in a single book.

First, it would be a line of books for players. Because besides the Core Rulebook and the APG, there's not much books to buy if you only intend to play. Sure, you can buy Guns and Gears if you are interested in the Inventor or Dark Archive if you want to play a Thaumaturge, but these books are not really aimed at players and may even contain spoilers (if your GM wants to play the Dark Archive case files for example).
Also, it means that new classes won't be left alone without further improvements. As of now, I don't know if there will ever be new content for the Inventor. As it's not part of the main line of books chances are high that Paizo won't deliver anything regarding it. But if it becomes part of the "core books" I may expect some new options in future books.
And with their inclusion in a core book, these classes will be rebalanced and corrected. Even if current balance of the game is extremely good, there are still outliers, options that don't work as intended or that would need much more space to be fully fleshed out (Synthesist Summoner for example).

That's all, I just wanted to give my opinion about the Player Core books coming soon.

Burn It! increases the damage of "alchemical items that deal fire damage". I wonder how you think Burn It! and fire Energy Mutagen should interact. I feel that a strict RAW reading would deny the interaction. But at the same time a more casual reading would definitely acknowledge that the Mutagen deals fire damage (in the form of a buff or a breath).

What do you think?

I've played a bit my Alchemists after Treasure Vault (a mid level Dexterity-based generalist with Chirurgeon Research Field and a low level Strength-based Mutagenist) and I feel I can now speak about the impact of Treasure Vault on the Alchemist as it has been, in my opinion, very important. I'll cover the classic builds from worse to best.

Toxicologist (red)

You always have a loser, and Treasure Vault just killed the Toxicologist. I've tried to see what could be done with Poison Concentrator and the Toxicologist's first and thirteenth level abilities and the only bonus I managed to find before level 17 and outside some crazy shenanigans using Uncommon/Rare options from APs is a +1 to poison DC at level 9. With the release of so many poisons, this Research Field is now mostly useless. If you want to play a Toxicologist, just take another Research Field.

Chirurgeon (yellow)

Well, there's a big change with Treasure Vault: Chirurgeon is now a thing. If you want to play a healing focused Alchemist, then it's possible: Sip a Choker-Arm Mutagen for reach and deliver a lot more healing elixirs than in the past. As Choker-Arm Mutagen kills your weapon ability, you need to find elsewhere your offensive potential: Wizard/Witch Dedication for spells or Summoner Dedication for the Eidolon (as you are nearly the only build able to get anything out of it). Unfortunately, your healing ability really starts at level 5 while healing is so strong at low level. Also, you won't feel that much of an Alchemist as half of the time you'll be casting Electric Arc on enemies. It's not a good build, but it's a playable one.

Generalist (green)

Before Treasure Vault, the generalist was in my opinion the best Alchemist build. With Treasure Vault, it has changed as specialization now pays. Still, the generalist is a solid choice. For Research Field, I feel that Chirurgeon is the best one if you intend to increase Crafting. Otherwise, you should take Mutagenist.

Bomber (green/blue)

I think everyone knows what is the biggest change for the Bomber: The Skunk Bomb. The single best item from Treasure Vault but also the most imbalancing as the Bomber has been completely rewritten because of it. The main drawback of the Bomber was that Bombs were dropping in efficiency past level 11, ending at the same level than a martial secondary attack at level 20. With the Skunk Bomb (as a Perpetual Infusion), the Bomber switches to a debuffer at high level and stays perfectly relevant.
Still, there are 2 pain points with the Bomber. The first one are the first 6 levels. These levels are hard for most Alchemists due to the lack of reagents, but bombing is especially costly. And it's also demanding in terms of feats preventing you to take Dedications like Wizard/Witch/Beastmaster to give you at will abilities during these tough levels. The second pain point is poison immunity at high level. It will prevent both your poisons and Skunk Bombs to work, greatly reducing your efficiency. These 2 issues can be alleviated with Free Archetype, allowing you to get more of a Bomber/generalist build and as such putting the Bomber among the best Alchemist builds.
As a side note, I only speak about the Skunk Bomb for the Bomber as one issue this Bomb has is to affect allies, debuffing them as much as enemies. If you find a way to immune your fellow party members to your Skunk Bombs, they become available to all Research Fields with Perpetual Breadth.

Mutagenist (blue)

And here's the great winner, mostly because of a single item: The Collar of the Shifting Spider. The Collar solves a lot of pain points for the Mutagenist: Even when surprised, you don't need any action to be under your Mutagen. It opens up all the weapon builds prior to level 11 (as Bestial Mutagen is really weak during the single digit levels). And it also opens up the ability to buff your party members with Mutagens, something that was much much harder before its release.
The Energy Mutagen is the second item I find important. First, you can imbibe a few of them every morning for Mutagenic Resurgence, so you can now exploit weaknesses or protect yourself against a specific energy type. Also, it's much easier to give it to teammates as its drawbacks are extremely manageable and its bonuses are super nice for melee martials. It should become a classic.
There are other Mutagens I find extremely solid choices, especially the Titanic Fury Mutagen that combines a great reach with a very nice offensive boost.
And the Weapon Siphon also helps the Mutagenist a lot at low level. During its first levels, mine was able to compete with other martials in terms of damage output thanks to the combination of Weapon Siphon, Poison and the occasional Energy Mutagen.
Overall, the Mutagenist is really the nicest Alchemist build to play: As a Strength-based martial it is quite efficient at low level. It also has a low reagent consumption and even when out of reagents it keeps most of its efficiency. And at high level if you switch to Bestial Mutagen you have both of your hands free so you can deliver Elixirs in the middle of the fight.

Hello everyone,

I've read numerous complaints about casters in PF2 and even if I really love to play them I must admit I can't completely dismiss the complaints.
As such, I've written my vision of what spellcasting in PF2 should be. I've tried to stay as close as possible to the actual rules, as I think it'll be easier to use as a result.

I'll see if I can test it on the next adventure I'll GM.
In the meantime, don't hesitate to make your comments.

Unchained spellcasting for PF2

I was reading Quick Alchemy and Advanced Alchemy, and I realized that Quick Alchemy limits the items you create to Consumables, when Advanced Alchemy doesn't. So, per strict RAW, it seems that you can create Alchemical Crossbows and other permanent Alchemical Items for the day.
What have I missed?

Hi everyone,

The more I read Stand Still and the less I'm sure about which case(s) generates a disruption:
"Stand Still
Feat 4
Monk
Source Core Rulebook pg. 160 4.0
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You strike out when your foe tries to flee. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If the attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a move action, you disrupt that action."

Because it is triggered by move actions in both cases. Does "the trigger was a move action" separates both triggers or is it a useless reminder? I'm puzzled.

As of now, all APs are either level 1-20, 1-11 or 11-20.
I don't like much the very high levels (15+), I find them complicated and even if PF2 is quite a good system you see more differences in character power levels at these levels.
I also don't like much the very first levels. Mostly because you don't have many options to make your character really stand out.

I wonder why there are no level 6-15 APs? I really find these are the most interesting levels, mechanically. Don't you?

I was just putting a few numbers on an Excel sheet and realized it could be useful to everyone.
So here's a compilation of all the ways to increase your (passive) Reach.

I've included the sneak peeks from Treasure Vault.
I obviously have forgotten some ways to increase it, so don't hesitate to tell me and I'll add them.

I can't find anything allowing a Grabbed creature to Strike at whatever is grabbing it. Have I missed it or is it impossible per RAW to Strike at the creature which is grabbing you if it's out of your reach?

With the coming up release (and considering that no change will happen now), I see the Chirurgeon becoming maybe the best high level healer in the game. Here's how it competes with... well, the competition (mostly the Cleric).

Out of combat healing.
This one is easy. With Medicine going up as fast as Crafting and Perpetual Infusions giving you extra hit points per ten minutes at high level, the Chirurgeon is now the master of out of combat healing (past the very first levels where Rogues and Investigators can grab Continual Recovery earlier).

In combat healing.
2 Elixirs of Life have nearly the same healing output than a 2-action Heal of the highest spell level or second highest spell level (because of the weird progression of Elixirs of Life). But the Alchemist can produce so many Elixirs of Life that it outlives the Cleric easily. The issue with this form of healing has always been Action economy. With a Valet Familiar and a Mature Mount, you could move, draw 2 Elixirs of Life and administer them. But it was a bit clunky as you had to get very close to enemies (and risk Attacks of Opportunity) and because you had to move every time you wanted to heal a new PC.
Now, with the Choker-Arm Mutagen, you can get a bigger reach (10ft. early, 15+ at level 11+). You should have much more freedom in your positioning thanks to it. Still, because of the very weird mount rules, it's better to use a Medium Mount (and a Small Alchemist) than a Large one.
At very high level (13+) or if you decide to Combine Elixirs, the Alchemist has a bigger emergency healing output than the Cleric. But it greatly affects its sustainability so you can't use it too often.
Also, with Soothing Tonic and Numbing Tonic, you can give a nice regeneration to your allies. Unlike the Cleric you are not forced to wait for damage to happen to start healing.
Unfortunately, the Alchemist doesn't have neither the range of the Cleric (even if it gets close at level 17) nor its AoE healing.
Overall, I feel that the Alchemist is able to maintain a higher healing output for longer but with a few situations where it isn't ideal.

Status Removal.
Contagion Metabolizers allow you to easily get rid of Poison and Diseases (especially when you get them through Perpetual Infusions (11+) as you'll be able to do it for free every hour then).
Merciful Elixirs at 10 can counteract Fear and Paralyzed (once again, you can combine it with Perpetual Infusions for at will tries, even if you aim for a nat 20 on the counteract check). Greater Merciful Elixir add Blinded, Deafened, Sickened and Slowed.
The Alchemist can remove the Fatigued Condition for 30 minutes per day.
And Elixirs like Focus Cathartic and Sinew-Shock Serum can help also, even if their lack of efficiency limits greatly how much you can get out of them.
The Cleric can remove a broad range of effects, but for most of them you'll need to prepare it beforehand or wait for a long rest. Channeled Succor (8+) helps with 4 Conditions but costs your Font slots, so you are still quite limited in its use.
Overall, even if the Cleric can remove as many Conditions as the Alchemist, the need to prepare the spells beforehand strongly limits its efficiency when the Alchemist can use Quick Alchemy a few times per day to help with unexpected Conditions. Still, the Cleric can Remove Curse and Stone to Flesh, 2 very important conditions.

Pre buff.
When it comes to healing, there are a few prebuff options. The Cleric can cast Vital Beacon but it's far from awesome, the level 11+ Alchemist can put everyone under Soothing Tonic every 10 minutes which is very nice to use before opening a door.

Disclaimer: I certainly have missed a few things here and there, especially because I base this post on Nonat1s video. Don't hesitate to tell me then.

Conclusion: With the new items coming soon, it's now hard to dismiss the Chirurgeon as a healer. The very first levels are a bit hard (unfortunately as they are the ones asking for the most healing) but once at level 5 the Chirurgeon can be a strong primary healer, I even find it slightly better than the Cleric in pure healing.

I just saw the last WOTC plans for our comrades on the other side of the d20 and one of their plans is to develop AI-GMs.

It got me wondering a few things:
Can it actually be a thing? A lot of adventures are quite streamlined and even if there's not tons of content to absorb (which is what AIs do the best) I'm wondering if an AI can actually be good enough to provide at will content to players when there's a dearth of game running. Maybe not for today, but for tomorrow...

How would you accept AI-GMs? Even considering that they won't be as good as human GMs (and I'm sorry to say that but I'm pretty sure an AI can be better than some human GMs), would you accept to play under AI-GMing? Will the lack of human interaction with the GM reduce the pleasure or will it be fine as long as you get along with the players?

Complementary GMing. That's one thing AIs do the best: helping us. A big part of our hobby can be fully automatized. Combats, for example, especially now that a lot of us are moving to VTTs. Just use an AI for combats and other simple scenes and, as a GM, you can use your time and energy on what's important (story, roleplay, character development). Is it something that would appeal to you?

These days, I'm mostly playing my Psychic and my caster Summoner and they happen to be around the same levels. And I just realized that they are actually super close: both of them are using Electric Arc as their bread and butter spell, with a small spell list on the side to cover the exceptional cases. They fill the same role inside the party: ranged damage dealer + emergency healer + a bit of utility.

Without even thinking about it, the comparison became quite obvious. And I must admit it didn't end well for the Psychic: My Summoner is significantly more efficient. Both are Humans, with a similar level of optimization, so it doesn't come from external factors. I can now state with quite a level of certainty that the Psychic class is weaker than the Summoner class.

To make a thorough comparison:
- Damage: Both are doing similar damage when the Psychic has his Psyche Unleashed. But you can't have your Psyche Unleashed all the time. Summoner wins.
- Toughness: The Summoner is definitely in a better spot here. Much bigger hit point pool, better saves and some excellent defensive abilities available. Summoner wins.
- Spell power: At first glance, it should be the Psychic biggest advantage: Slightly bigger spell list, more Focus Spells and Points, Legendary proficiency. The issue is that you regularly end up Stupefied, which is just killing your efficiency every time a fight lasts 4 rounds (which is far from uncommon, especially for tough fights). Summoner wins because of its ability to last.
- Versatility: The Summoner is massive in versatility. Skill wise, the Eidolon helps a lot. Evolution Surge covers a lot of situations. Between the Eidolon average AC and your high hit point pool you can also double down as an off tank. This is by far the best asset of the Summoner over the Psychic. Summoner wins.
- Feats: The Psychic feats are not really good, the Summoner has much better feats but many of them can be considered tax feats (Tandem Move...). Psychic wins as long as it chooses a nice Dedication to siphon its feats on.

I don't really find anything the Psychic is better at. I find the Summoner class to be just strictly better than the Psychic class. It's not miles ahead, but still a significant difference.
I played a Psychic just to test the class as I was having hard time determining what level of power it had compared to the other casters. I can now state that it's not really a strong class. On the other hand, I have been positively surprised by my Summoner, this is a very solid class, definitely a high tier one.