Excaliburproxy's page

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

It's the people who want the baseline assumption of having their Savage Horticulturist/Landsknecht accepted at every table by default vs. the people who want more control over the content in their games without having to vet everything case by case or argue just why exactly is the Landsknecht off the table all over again.

PF1 was clearly in favour of the former, PF2 is clearly in favour of the latter. Different games, different philosophies, play the one you prefer.

Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain.

The complaint and lack of enjoyment is something purely of your own making.

"I HAVE TO ASK THE GM WHAT'S ALLOWED?"

Yes, like always and forever for the vast majority of games.

Well, now I guess we get to have two rounds of ban conversations then: one to cover rarity and one to cover the GM exclusive bans that have always been around.

If that is the case then why is rarity a game mechanic to begin with?

I foresee a lot of overlap with this venn diagram.

And to empower GMs, used to they would have to fight with players if they wanted to ban something like teleportation or resurrection.

And then you had the d20 site come along and strip out relevance and other requirements for a bunch of stuff (Blood Money comes to mind) so everyone decided absolutely everything was fair game and this was frankly more material than the GM could honestly vet. Moreso since they took from a site that had everything rather than from a specific book that the GM could base an opinion on.

If resurrection and teleportation are both problems even in the core setting then they shouldn't be in the game. It is a house rule that Paizo published.

A whole new edition of the game is not a "house rule".

And they couldn't do anything about it before since...

I get you, but it still seems like a weird half-measure. I say this as a GM who has personally ripped out all long-distance teleportation spells from his setting and replaced them with bespoke ritual-like teleportation.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

It's the people who want the baseline assumption of having their Savage Horticulturist/Landsknecht accepted at every table by default vs. the people who want more control over the content in their games without having to vet everything case by case or argue just why exactly is the Landsknecht off the table all over again.

PF1 was clearly in favour of the former, PF2 is clearly in favour of the latter. Different games, different philosophies, play the one you prefer.

Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain.

The complaint and lack of enjoyment is something purely of your own making.

"I HAVE TO ASK THE GM WHAT'S ALLOWED?"

Yes, like always and forever for the vast majority of games.

Well, now I guess we get to have two rounds of ban conversations then: one to cover rarity and one to cover the GM exclusive bans that have always been around.

If that is the case then why is rarity a game mechanic to begin with?

I foresee a lot of overlap with this venn diagram.

And to empower GMs, used to they would have to fight with players if they wanted to ban something like teleportation or resurrection.

And then you had the d20 site come along and strip out relevance and other requirements for a bunch of stuff (Blood Money comes to mind) so everyone decided absolutely everything was fair game and this was frankly more material than the GM could honestly vet. Moreso since they took from a site that had everything rather than from a specific book that the GM could base an opinion on.

If resurrection and teleportation are both problems even in the core setting then they shouldn't be in the game. It is a house rule that Paizo published.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

It's the people who want the baseline assumption of having their Savage Horticulturist/Landsknecht accepted at every table by default vs. the people who want more control over the content in their games without having to vet everything case by case or argue just why exactly is the Landsknecht off the table all over again.

PF1 was clearly in favour of the former, PF2 is clearly in favour of the latter. Different games, different philosophies, play the one you prefer.

Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain.

The complaint and lack of enjoyment is something purely of your own making.

"I HAVE TO ASK THE GM WHAT'S ALLOWED?"

Yes, like always and forever for the vast majority of games.

Well, now I guess we get to have two rounds of ban conversations then: one to cover rarity and one to cover the GM exclusive bans that have always been around.

If that is the case then why is rarity a game mechanic to begin with?

It's the people who want the baseline assumption of having their Savage Horticulturist/Landsknecht accepted at every table by default vs. the people who want more control over the content in their games without having to vet everything case by case or argue just why exactly is the Landsknecht off the table all over again.

PF1 was clearly in favour of the former, PF2 is clearly in favour of the latter. Different games, different philosophies, play the one you prefer.

Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

If I want to build an arcane warrior that needs a ring of wizardry to be effective, I am still not able to expect that.

Relying on one item/spell/etc to make your build "effective" , does not seem effective at all.

I am not sure if this a system specific problem, as one could argue the same thing about any system, no matter the "rarity" of item.

This is maybe more pervasive than you seem to think. For instance, throwing weapon builds are essentially useless later without returning runes (which are common but still an item that acts as a cornerstone of your character's powers).

Excaliburproxy wrote:

That is mostly fair but I actually think the rule you are quoting casts MORE doubt on whether a player can expect an uncommon option is attainable rather than seeing those options as being something you can expect to get.

How so? I mean it says it's up to the GM (which we knew already), but also strongly advises the GM to err on the side of including things and making them available.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

If I want to build an arcane warrior that needs a ring of wizardry to be effective, I am still not able to expect that.

Asking your GM about this at the beginning of a game seems pretty reasonable to me, and not particularly onerous. It might get a trifle annoying if you have a dozen or more uncommon options, but just one? That seems pretty easy and painless.

MaxAstro's quote includes the words "by default" whereas your quote would imply that there is no "default" assumption but rather taking each case before the GM is the "default". It's a subtle thing but I think Astro's quote alone would build a better case for players "expecting" to be able to attain a given uncommon option.

Right now it isn't onerous but more and more rules are going to be uncommon as the game goes on. I just brought it up as an example of where gaining a specific item can wildly effect the viability of certain builds.

In fact, I specifically expect paizo to increasingly use the rarity rules system to gate materials to counteract "rules bloat" (which strikes me as silly since people who don't like rules bloat don't really buy new rule books anyways).

Kasoh wrote:

What continues to bother me, especially as I've read through the two Lost Omen books is that people buy these books. Pay 40 dollars a book for things they can't use unless the GM says so. There is no wholly player facing product anymore. Its all on the GM which means that the GM either bears a higher expense or you risked buying a fancy book of neat Schrodinger's Character Options.

That has ALWAYS been the the case.

Player: “I just got Ultimate Combat/Haunted Heroes Handbook so I’m totally playing a Gunslinger/Pact Wizard next game.”

GM: “Those don’t really fit the game so I’m going to have to say no.”

Firearms are kind of a special case since those are specifically called out in 1e as not being allowable in a lot of settings and games. If I want to make a gun character in a medieval fantasy game then maybe I should ask if that fits the setting.

Still, that is just one consideration whereas the rarity system touches almost every corner of PF2E.

Also, why would you expect a DM to ban pact wizard, though? It seems innocuous for setting reasons. Is that a balance consideration? I ask this because rarity bans are almost always going to come IN ADDITION TO balance bans.

I mean, even calling it "Mother May I" to begin with is talking down about the whole concept.

The fact that you're acting like the GM is some strict parent you have to beg and plead to have permission to have fun kind of indicates there's a really toxic and unhealthy mindset about the relationship you have with the GM (or the relationship itself is toxic, hard to tell what's perception and what isn't).

Framing it in that way is fundamentally going to taint your gaming experience before you even start, so it's really no wonder you feel that way.

Nevermind that the whole thought process feels a bit bizarre, because six months ago when we were playing PF1 GMs would freely allow or disallow content based on their own whims and eleven years before that when we were playing 3.5 GMs would freely allow or disallow content based on their own whims.

Nevermind, also, that the game makes it pretty clear that Uncommon options are not supposed to be universally walled off, just not something readily accessible. Just like tons of other stuff in PF adventure paths and 3.5 modules and so on and so forth going all the way back until the very dawn of tabletop RPGs.

You're approaching this whole situation looking to dislike it and looking to be upset. So what you're mostly doing here is fulfilling your own expectations.

I still believe that my framing is accurate and that you are incorrectly projecting a lot of emotions and opinions on to me.

First of all, I am not looking to dislike anything and I am also not looking to be upset. I came in wanting to really like Pathfinder 2e and--indeed--I like a lot of things about it. It is the only TTRPG that I am playing at the moment and it is full of a lot of great ideas.

And maybe I am just in a weird situation, but I have generally played most TTRPGs with GMs that allowed access to all available rules except things that they personally thought were broken or did not fit their personal setting. If a rule was published, I did not need to justify my use of it unless it was itself a poor rule in the eyes of the GM. For the most part, I could tell ahead of time if something was "broken" and I wouldn't use it. In general, I could theory craft a whole character without talking to anyone ahead of time.

That is one of the things I liked best about PF1E! Exciting new rules would inspire interesting characters and then next time I generally knew I could play that character with most Gms. Uncommon options make that impossible. Any "theorycrafting" then needs to be done under "what-if" conditions.

And when I say, "mother-may-I" I am not trying to treat the GM like a stern parent, I rather intend to compare the experience of playing the game to playing a game without any rules save that "what the GM says is true is true". A TTRPG without rules is possible and maybe even quite enjoyable but I prefer to play games with well defined rules.

"uncommon" rules are just rules where it is left ambiguous as to whether or not that rule is part of the game.

This just occurred to me when reading through some of the Paizo blogs. Whenever I see something with the "uncommon" tag, I immediately think "well, this might have been neat but it is only usable if I play mother-may-I with the DM". And really, that is essentially exactly the experience I have when I read a homebrew rule online; I know that I will need to justify the use of that rule.

I really don't like this. Part of the reason that I kept coming back to Pathfinder is because I liked coming up with new builds and new character concepts as new official rules were released. When I see the "uncommon" tag, I just feel shut down, though. The rule stops being part of "pathfinder" and becomes part of "a version of pathfinder that no one may ever actually play". This was always really the case since any rule could theoretically have been excised by any GM for any reason. "Uncommon" rules are everywhere though and every instance of it is just another "no" that I will need to overcome ahead of time before I bring a character to the table.

Frankly, I find it very discouraging. It makes me sad, even. It takes away the joy I used to have in learning new rules and imagining new character because it just makes me think of all the rhetoric and self defense I'd need to engage in before even starting the game.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Why or why not? Is this a good or bad thing regarding the rarity system?

Excaliburproxy wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.

No they don't? That is bringing your own values and preferences to the table that another person might not share. And even if you--as a player--value a certain level of simulation in combat, then a GM can always come up with a plot contrivance to play them how he wants; perhaps a necromancer controls the zombies remotely. Spooky!

I mean, I'm pretty flexible here when it comes to freedom of the GM do do what they want, but here I am going to agree with SuperBidi by-and-large. I agree monsters don't "have" to be played according to their respective intelligence, but good roleplaying would *not* have zombies that weren't being explicitly controlled using hit-and-run tactics. Flanking, perhaps, but not hit-and-run.

I should say, if you're running a home game and you want basically all enemies to have tactics, fine. If you're running a pre-made game (scenario, AP, module), then doing this sort of thing isn't really good GMing unless the scenario calls for it.

Well, I run my own games that way because that is what I like best and what my players like best. That said, if I was with a GM that liked to run monsters as described above, I would tend to say that the GM in question is not for me rather than saying the GM is playing the game wrong.

@Mathmuse What if the orcs are harassing the mage or healer rather than slapping the tank like a bunch of mouth-breathing orcs?

I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.

No they don't? That is bringing your own values and preferences to the table that another person might not share. And even if you--as a player--value a certain level of simulation in combat, then a GM can always come up with a plot contrivance to play them how he wants; perhaps a necromancer controls the zombies remotely. Spooky!

Also, if you play like a wargame, then why bother rolling Recall Knowledge checks? Just take the Bestiary and check the monsters' statistics.

Why play a videogame without looking up everything about the game first? Because not knowing is part of the game for the players. It is also the reason why I have not read through every scenario in Betrayal on the House on the Hill.

Then again, if a party wants to run fights with all information 100% above board then that can be fine too. Everyone who plays this game long enough is going to essentially know all the abilities of baseline orcs and goblins anyway.

Playing harshly is not playing badly. It's putting a high difficulty level to combats by playing monsters to the best of their abilities, without crossing the boundary of realism.

Where realism begins and ends is subjective as is the value of realism to a given encounter or a given party. I know for a fact that there exist groups that run games this way and that is how those groups like to play. Given that people play like this, I think the game would benefit from explicitly describing how ascribed tactics effect the relative challenge of a given fight.

Does my previous post appear to be insulting or provocative in some way? Because I'm detecting a hostile vibe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Saying that someone's opinions/thoughts make you "cringe" is generally not a positive expression. I would go so far as to say that it is insulting and I was taken aback by what I read as harshness. That said, perhaps I was reading too heavily into your diction.

I do get where you are coming from if you prefer a purely collaborative gaming experience. Many peeps like challenge and conflict, though.

Nah b&!~*!~!. You can gather the same magic components and just pray to Gaia. Bam magic.

If Gaia is a real-ass conscious being then what you are describing is a god that likes trees and then that superlady is handing out spells to whoever likes trees the best. If there is a god that likes trees then I guess that works. That doesn't mean I need to like it though.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I, perhaps more than Nemo, hate druids and their place in DnD with an undying passion. Trees don't give you super powers. Grow up, Druids.

And, unfortunately for us, neither does reading books. Get real, wizards. :p

If magic were real, you would need someone to teach you how to make the special wiggly fingers in order use it. This makes perfect sense to me.

So why not tree magic instead of book magic? Do you have to kill the tree to make it magical?

Yes. Yes you do. Until you process the tree in some way it is naught but base grist for the machinations of the cunning and cultured practitioner of the mystic arts.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win.

This description makes me cringe.

I would hate playing a game where the GM thought of it as a contest between herself and the players. That sounds totally un-fun to me.

No encounter is ever "stacked" against a GM. If a GM finds am encounter unbalanced, she can simply add some opponents - voila. This, in my opinion, is a far better option than having the NPCs/monsters behave in a way that makes them generic.

I am sorry that enjoying games in different ways makes you cringe.

I bet you have a very hard time on the internet.

The CR system is specifically a guideline to create encounters that players will consistently survive and reduce their resources by a reasonably consistent amount. In that way, encounters are "stacked against" the GM who gain enjoyment from playing NPCs to their utmost tactical efficiency.

To be clear (and to establish my unassailable rhetorical ethos), I actually don't run my games this way, but I know people who do and I am glad that they enjoy themselves.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I think it is either you do that or you have strict rules guidelines for how monsters should be run and those guidelines should also effect the CR of the encounter. This has always been an issue, really. It just didn't matter as much in PF1E because well build players still finished most fights in one or two rounds anyways.

Yeah, I guess it's one of those things taken for granted sometimes that the GM is supposed to role play the enemy actions. But I don't think it's taken for granted this edition, as I said before there's significant book space dedicated to telling the GM to do this. So it's more the GM either being unable or unwilling to follow the game's advice.

Well, I get where some other people here are coming from. Like, there is an model of roleplaying games that some people in this thread are describing in roundabout terms where the RP/exploration portion of the game is in some way fundamentally separate from the combat rules.

When a fight breaks out, you are now playing a different game; now you are playing a miniatures games where the GM and the players are against each other and that is fun in its own right and perhaps a game that is much more fun for the GM. The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win. That can be rewarding for the player and the GM. I would say that 4e DnD works pretty well that way, actually.

Perhaps PF2E is unfun if you play that way and that is arguably a weakness of the system for groups that like that sort of game.

As a side note, I think OP and Collette Brunel (or whatever that poster's name is) would get along well.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I, perhaps more than Nemo, hate druids and their place in DnD with an undying passion. Trees don't give you super powers. Grow up, Druids.

And, unfortunately for us, neither does reading books. Get real, wizards. :p

If magic were real, you would need someone to teach you how to make the special wiggly fingers in order use it. This makes perfect sense to me.

Meanwhile, if magic were real, trees would still use chlorophyll to photosynthesize and otherwise would be useless trash obelisks if we didn't need them for oxygen or food or whatever. I hate tree and I hate that we need trees.

ErichAD wrote:

Combat is an abstraction, not a perfect simulation of events. If this is a tactic that works within the abstraction, there's no reason to assume that it is what's exactly occurring narratively speaking. It also means that thinking the tactic is too smart for orcs, or too meta for an in game creature, isn't a worthwhile complaint to level.

How would you abstractly represent poorer enemy tactics then? Just a change to combat stats, and everything always acts as logically and efficiently as possible?

I don't think combat is as heavily abstracted as that. There is definitely a narrative associated with the actions you take in combat.

I think it is either you do that or you have strict rules guidelines for how monsters should be run and those guidelines should also effect the CR of the encounter. This has always been an issue, really. It just didn't matter as much in PF1E because well build players still finished most fights in one or two rounds anyways.

When is third edition?

Thank you for your time. I'm really excited to play this character.

No problem at all~

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Redassassin2077 wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Redassassin2077 wrote:

The title. After rereading a couple volumes of the manga. I was thinking it would be fun to play a character like that in PF2. Any thoughts on a build?

I remember a bit about that manga.

I would maybe go with fury instinct barbarian and focus on feats that accentuate your athleticism while using medium armor and focusing on Strength, con, and dex (in that order). Maybe build 1/2 elf human? You can pick up raging throw, sudden charge, and no escape all by level 3; fury gives you an extra class feat, your level 1 racial feat can be nimble elf (for speed) and your level 3 general feat can be fleet (for even more speed). Building an elf--especially cavern elf--is also an option but you won't be as tough then and you will be saddled with a mostly superfluous 12 int. You do end up even faster though!

For your level 4 feat, you can choose between fast movement and raging athlete (for them leaps). At 6, you can either pick up attack of opportunity (and retrain no escape to something else; if you change the build to take elf atavism/dark vision, you can get acute scent for instance) or you can get the mobility feat that you passed up at level 4. At level 8, you can pick up sudden leap (especially if you took raging athlete at level 4) or you can opt for renewed vigor to double down on being a real tough gal.

Your skill feats should probably go towards improving your athletics and acrobatics skills. If you are taking lots of jumping stuff, quick leap is great as are a lot of the various jumping feats and cat fall (when you absolutely must jump off a roof to assail your foe).

I'm thinking a elf build is probably the most likely for me. Maybe a point or two to wisdom for those insane perception rolls they pull off every now and then?

Yeah, your 4 "free" boosts are probably going to be Str, Con, Dex, and Wis at levels 1/5/10/15/20

Also, what backgrounds do you...

I would go with martial disciple for cat fall or quick jump. That also maybe fits the Claymore's somewhat esoteric martial training

I think someone made a mistake when they moved this thread to conversions rather than advice.

The title. After rereading a couple volumes of the manga. I was thinking it would be fun to play a character like that in PF2. Any thoughts on a build?

I remember a bit about that manga.

I would maybe go with fury instinct barbarian and focus on feats that accentuate your athleticism while using medium armor and focusing on Strength, con, and dex (in that order). Maybe build 1/2 elf human? You can pick up raging throw, sudden charge, and no escape all by level 3; fury gives you an extra class feat, your level 1 racial feat can be nimble elf (for speed) and your level 3 general feat can be fleet (for even more speed). Building an elf--especially cavern elf--is also an option but you won't be as tough then and you will be saddled with a mostly superfluous 12 int. You do end up even faster though!

For your level 4 feat, you can choose between fast movement and raging athlete (for them leaps). At 6, you can either pick up attack of opportunity (and retrain no escape to something else; if you change the build to take elf atavism/dark vision, you can get acute scent for instance) or you can get the mobility feat that you passed up at level 4. At level 8, you can pick up sudden leap (especially if you took raging athlete at level 4) or you can opt for renewed vigor to double down on being a real tough gal.

Your skill feats should probably go towards improving your athletics and acrobatics skills. If you are taking lots of jumping stuff, quick leap is great as are a lot of the various jumping feats and cat fall (when you absolutely must jump off a roof to assail your foe).

Okay, so I there is big focus on flexibility by most people.

Is it the Arcane spell list provides flexibility that other spell lists don't have? Can you explain what a Primal or Occult caster couldn't do?

Or is it something else? What?

A lot of abilities in arcane thesis add adaptability. They are all pretty good and most have effects that you use different ways each day. Spell substitution is the one that probably gives you the most "versatility" out of combat though.

On a separate note, I like a lot of stuff in enchantment (which you mention somewhere else in here). Hideous laughter is great for shutting down a tough guy's reaction and fear and paralyze is also great to use against bosses since putting a solo enemy down 1 action is pretty okay (which you get when the enemy succeeds) and shutting down their whole turn is great (which you get if they fail). The third level version of fear and the 5th level version of command are also pretty nice against hordes of losers, especially with reach spell. I also think daze is a pretty alright combat cantrip when arc lightning is inadvisable if only because you can still use your third action to chuck a dagger or whatever at some loser. You can also use it for its maybe intended purpose: incapacitating a foe without killing them.

On a separate separate note, Drain Bond essentially lets wizards cast their highest level spell slot 1 more time than any other class (save for cleric with its more limited channel). That generally lets wizards drop 1 max-level spell every encounter and still expect to not run out of spells that day.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

The idea is that a goblin with +8 stealth has a 55% chance of succeeding against your +8 perception (a roll of 10 or higher) rather than a 50% chance (a roll of 11 or higher) which the OP feels is the more natural ideal.

I think it's more that in this scenario you have a 55% chance of succeeding to spot them, but they have a 55% chance of hiding from you if they're the one making the check. In essence the "Active Party" gets a very minor boost because the half-way point on a d20 is 11+ not 10+.

I think the minor mathematical quirk is one which is worth it for the simplicity of on-the-fly calculations (Adding 11 constantly instead of 10 is an increase in complexity). Always a subjective question whether a complexity is pulling it's weight. Obviously some think it's worth it here.

I don't think it ever ends up game-breaking or even visible to someone who's not analyzing the math - and the rules are always pretty clear on who rolls so it's not arbitrary who gets the rounding in their favor. I'm happy with the decision Paizo made, but I don't think it'd break the game at all if you house-ruled DC's were all 11+. Or even just say "Equal to DC is a failure" (same outcome, less math, more sacred cows).

I hear ya. I am just trying to describe the position to the best of my ability.

Honestly, I maybe think the active party should have some mathematical advantage even in the absence of the math's simplicity. At least in a turn-based context, it is more interesting when characters (PC or NPC) succeed on whatever they are trying on their turn if only because it changes the state of the game rather than merely maintaining the status quo.

That is perhaps a little less "balanced" out of combat though.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure that tracks. doesn't that assume the lowest you can roll is a 1? If so you still fail because the 1 tanks your result down one level.

I still think you are confused? Like: I am not even bringing in critical considerations, at the moment. Also: you can't roll lower than a 1 on a standard 20-sided die so you would be making a correct assumption.

To elaborate:
Suppose your perception is +8 and the goblin's stealth is +8.

Your perception DC is 18 and the goblin sneaks up on you. Even though you and the goblin have the same bonuses to the required skills, the goblin is more likely to succeed than he is to fail (since the goblin fails on 1-9, 9 results, and succeeds on 10-20, 11 results). OP finds that weird. He thinks DCs should be calculated as 11+mod so that the goblin will have an equal chance of success and failure which maybe you would expect given that you have equal skills.

So, just to clarify for us simple folks. How does the person rolling get a free +1? That statement makes no sense. My perception is +8, the DC is 18, what about that gives the person rolling against it a +1? It's is just a target number.

The idea is that a goblin with +8 stealth has a 55% chance of succeeding against your +8 perception (a roll of 10 or higher) rather than a 50% chance (a roll of 11 or higher) which the OP feels is the more natural ideal.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Re Ogre talk:

I would argue that even against the ogre, the disarm is probably going to be a bad investment anyways. Damage is much lower risk and will actually end the fight whereas disarming the ogre does not end the fight and requires some characters to burn actions picking up and/or stowing the item (lest they be penalized for carrying a large weapon). Meanwhile, the disarmed ogre can still punch (probs at a d4+7 at +12 nonlethal/+10 lethal) or grab/trip an opponent to open up the target for friends (which he probably has unless this is a fairly routine encounter).

I'm a lot less scared of an ogre punching for 1d4+7, or even critting for 2d4+14, than I am of it critting with that ogre hook for 3d10+14.

I am even less scared of a dead ogre.

Re Ogre talk:
I would argue that even against the ogre, the disarm is probably going to be a bad investment anyways. Damage is much lower risk and will actually end the fight whereas disarming the ogre does not end the fight and requires some characters to burn actions picking up and/or stowing the item (lest they be penalized for carrying a large weapon). Meanwhile, the disarmed ogre can still punch (probs at a d4+7 at +12 nonlethal/+10 lethal) or grab/trip an opponent to open up the target for friends (which he probably has unless this is a fairly routine encounter).

Well, PF2e is now the kind of game where you will essentially never generate a narrative where a swashbuckling hero will disarm his arch-rival since the game disincentivizes the swashbuckler from ever trying in the first place and 95% of idiots who try will fail and waste what was probably their best chance at effecting the narrative that turn.

You can 'raise a shield' while wielding a two-handed weapon?

I did not know that, and it feels very off.

Bows are actually a "1+"-handed weapon. You need your off-hand free to fire but it isn't actually using a weapon. When you are using a buckler, that hand is actually considered "free" but you can't use that hand to hold a weapon. As such, it is actually a decent off-hand weapon with a boss or spikes (which I think are also compatible with bucklers). It is also maybe a possible answer to OP's Longbow-in-Melee woes.

Would you find it off if a character fired a bow twice and then raised their buckled-on shield?

Rougarou. It's an actual mythological creature on earth. They're like French Canadian Werewolves.

It is also kind of a thing down in Louisiana (which makes sense historically). That said, I kind of like the idea of werewolves and the like being introduced as an archetype rather than a race; like: if your ass gets cursed then you can maybe archetype into not losing your character and gain some transforming powers.

I would like goblin to be removed as a race and for "three goblins in a trench-coat" to be added as a race.

I want me a 15 foot pike that forces the clumsy trait on you.

I also want all those dumb gun/hammer(or axe or whatever) combination weapons.

The problem with having threads being moved to homebrew is that while we all know that everyone else's homebrew efforts are lame and amateurish, and therefore that whole forum is largely to be avoided, our own homebrew efforts are insightful and show promise, and therefore are very nearly rules or just very good advice or discussion and belong in forums that people actually read.

That is true of me for sure. I am tired of you losers watering down my excellent homebrew content with your bad homebrew content.

I can't make it on friday but you folks better make these jerks play an all bard party.

Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.

Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.

Here are the issues as I see them: It would mostly boost the power of focus spell casters disproportionately early on and make your second and third focus spell feats less useful (since they no longer grant any bonus besides gaining a new option).

For the former issue, you could give everyone a baseline "focus spell" of some sort. Alternatively, you could just give out focus points in a progressive manner (1 focus point at level 1, 2 at 5 and 3 at 9, maybe); by later levels, you could maybe expect non-casters to have items to spend their focus on.

For the latter issue, you can give those feats an additional benefit, maybe? Like: maybe every focus feat past the first lets you regen 1 focus point as in interact action once per day. You could also ignore the issue but I think there are a lot of powers that aren't very attractive without them increasing your focus pool as a rider effect; for instance, there are certain domain spells that I like for flavor but would never take without the focus pool increase.

Rereading some rules, it seems like you can perform spells with somatic components without a free hand but not spells with material components. There are a lot of spells without material components so maybe you can make a character with a greatsword and just choose spells without material components.

I have not read this whole conversation but it occurs to me that one-action focus spells kind of help this kind of build in terms of viability and damage. The spell Jump will also probably be your constant friend since it will let you get the bespell weapon bonus and move with the same single action.

I would also like to remind people that spell attacks can't get an item bonus so there are wide swathes of the game where this builds weapon attacks will actually keep pace with their spell attacks. Moreover on turns when they caste a 2-action attack spell, the "eldritch knight's" weapon attack in the same round is much more akin to a martial character's second iterative attack than their first. So, if you are fighting a boss, your spell is really your "main attack" that round and your martial attack is more like the "iterative attack".

Also, I am pretty sure that there will be a spell warrior archetype released in the fairly near future that will suit your needs more than fighter multiclassing. That is the scuttlebutt, anyways.

Paizo is taking a hardline anti-furry stance. That is why cat folk aren’t a base race.

I like this.

It's like all classes multi-class into themself.

This adds value to class feats that are of equivalent level to more readily choosable ones, encouraging players to round out their characters in the wake of their primary feat paths.

Question: Why the preclusion of MC language? I am wondering your thinking here...

I have a few reasons:

1 and 2 could just be solved with additional limitations probably. Specifically for 2: when an effect would give you benefits that scale with the number of feats you have, only your "main" feats count. That is maybe going to be a rule that I had in general later on if more rules of this type are added in general.

For 1: I would need to make a call? For instance, I could say that choices of 1/2 your level become choices of 1/4 your level rounded up. Alternately, I could say that you can't take archetype feats with you 1/2 level class feats that rant you feats from another class but you can take archetype feats otherwise with these feat slots.

Point 3 is just a taste thing.

Agile helps a bit, but honestly, sweep effectively does the same thing as agile (though doesn't stack with flank...) for your second attack. If you're making 3x attacks, which is likely rare, then agile is going to be better, but with a free-hand fighter, you're probably not doing that much given you want to use dueling parry.

Sweep only applies when you are attacking two separate target and whereas agile works for iterative attacks against the same target as well (in addition to stacking with flanking, I suppose). Agile is really the strictly better quality.

Oh, on top of my grievances over the fighter's 19th-level class feature, the spellcasters generally receive both a 10th-level slot on top of legendary spellcasting.

Backup weapons by this point might be +3 greater striking, but likely not major striking or loaded up with property runes.

Greater striking is still pretty good if that is your only way to hit a flying target or changing weapons lets your hit a weakness/avoid a resistance or you like to pair two weapons of different categories (such as sword and shield).

It also lets you take maximum advantage of a shifting rune. It's a good ability, yo.

I am rather disappointed by the fighter's 19th-level class feature. For comparison, at 5th and at 13th, fighters gain major class features that are quite possibly some of the best in their category: direct improvements to accuracy (and, by extension, critical hit chances) for their primary weapon. By 13th level, a fighter is legendary with their weapon category of choice, and that is fantastic. Fighter feats generally push a fighter into a specific weapon style, too.

On the other hand, at 19th-level all a fighter receives is... legendary proficiency in all other weapon categories, or merely master for advanced weapons. That is not very good. This is the level wherein backup weapons are at their absolute weakest, since the primary weapon is most likely a pile of runes, so switching away from it would be a tremendous downgrade. Backup weapons may still be necessary at times (e.g. against balors), but even then, this 19th-level class feature only really matters for backup weapons of a different category than the fighter's main weapon group of choice.

For comparison, spellcasters receive a 10th-level spell slot at 19th level. Alchemists, barbarians, rangers, and rogues get better AC on top of auxiliary benefits. Champions receive a great focus spell, and monks improve their accuracy. By comparison, the locked-in fighter capstone is "get better with your backup weapons" at the level when backup weapons are at their weakest.

Extra accuracy for a ranged option (or melee option or off-hand weapon) is still really strong even if your backup weapons are one rune behind in terms of their damage.

No matter what, the general feat should not come online before the archetype/class feat.

That means the champ gets Expert armor at 14, so a general shouldn't give it until like 19. I can see maybe at like 15 since it only applies to one armor type. If allowed at 15, I would require expert in the previous armor type.

The fighter gets expert weapons at 12. I wouldn't grant any form of expert weapons general feat until 15.

Remember, they are burning a mid/high level CLASS feat and making an archetype choice.

No way anything should get expert prior that with a general feat and beat out a multiclass archetype character to it. Even if its for a single weapon.

I don't know about that. Again, the level 11 feat for one weapon can just be retrained at level 12 when you pick up the new and improved fighter multi-class feat. I maybe agree with you about armor proficiency improvements, though? I think that is more than worth it to avoid a situation where many builds more or less "need" to switch to a simple weapon for a several levels (potentially months of IRL play time).

I feel like they balanced animal companions to only take up one feat in your build and then forgot that and made it take up most of your build instead.

But yeah: I am probably going to run my home games with classes gaining 1 class feat at levels where you also get a general feat and maybe an extra general feat at levels where they get ancestry feats.

Midnightoker wrote:

Did allowing Fighters/Champions to get Master Proficiency in Spellcasting "devalue" the Wizard?

1) Weapon and Armor Proficiencies are considered in almost every round of combat while Spellcasting Proficiency typically only determines DC's and Spell Attacks that can be executed less than a handful of times for people who have multiclassed into them.

2) In order to get up to "Master Proficiency" for a MCD in a Casting Class you're going to be sinking a MINIMUM of 4 feats. Dedication, Basic Spellcasting, Expert Spellcasting, Master Spellcasting.

This is a false equivalency.

You could attack with cantrips every round and that would use your spellcasting proficiency. In fact, cantrip/multiclass rouge may be optimal from an accuracy standpoint (since you can get master with your spell attacks and not your weapon attacks).