Fabios's page

keftiu wrote:

guns being kind of bad mechanically unless you play The Gun Class feels like one of the most bizarre facets of PF1 to bring forward.

I think it may be a 'least worst' option.

Highly realistic guns would have everyone using them, which really causes the fantasy setting to suffer.

Highly realistic gun class would make the gunslinger superior to other martials. That also causes the setting to suffer.

So Paizo making guns sufficiently bad that the gunslinger with feats + gun combo is only 'on par' with a fantasy martial swinging a sword, is maybe the best choice available. It makes space for a gun-totin' PC, without making either the weapon or the class so powerful that they become the one and only optimized choice.

The problem Is that guns aren't as good as a martial swinging their sword, they're an awfully useless class of weapons that, in any other case, would be considered bad.

Fatal IS a trait that's basically only useful on fighters and to dpr calculators, and It works Better in both of those cases when you make a lot of strikes per turn

So! I despise gunslingers and now i'm gonna, respectfully, write why :3

1- The class doesn't have an identity

I believe that the gunslinger fundamentally doesn't have a mechanical idendity.

-it Isn't a crit fishing class: weirdly enough the +2 doesn't really make Crits something the gunslinger excels at:
-they're not common, sure It has the +2 of a fighter but a fighter also sets up his own buffs and with reactive strike It DOUBLES the already augmented chance of critting. The other crit fisher of the system, aka longbow flurry ranger, still has a higher chance of critting by pure virtue of striking a LOT.

It doesn't even benefit that much from crits, base damage Is quite low (even with fatal) so its crits are not worldbreaking (in fact, a gunslinger's crit Is worse than a starlit span's hit!) and neither do they apply great debuffs like a fighter can do (cause, let's be honest, the best thing about fighters Is that at High levels you basically cast "shut his PC off" with each crit)

This also ties In with, i think, a wrong pov the community has about gunslinger: "oh! He needs support, he really benefits from It" but... Who doesn't? If you give a ranger with a gun the same support he's gonna rock the same if not Better, everyone likes support! Gunslinger benefits a lot because it's much much WEAKER without It! So the difference Is more felt

-The class doesn't have a proper identity

I think that the class, other than cheesing encounters if there's a Cliff but that's something everyone with a gun can do, doesn't have a clear identity and that hurts its design tremendously.
Let's take barbarian as an example, no matter what you do, no matter how you build him, he's gonna be a chonky boy that hits hard. What's gunslinger's deal? Not crit fishing, not damage, not really support either (fake out doesn't count, like, sure it's broken af but It shouldn't be an auto pick for everyone); many people would Say it's action compression. But. BUT. What are you gaining from It? Likes guns have AWFULL action economy and so you fix It with your various reloads. You Haven't gained anything! The gunslinger, as a class, uses weapons that are purpousely made bad so he can fix them, it's a net nothing overall! Capitalism the class! (Create a problem and buy the solution)

The point of Companions is that you cannot think as they have been a fully independent creature but as an improved 3rd action for your character. For example.

A character with Cavalier Archetype and Impressive Mount feat can use the horse to move at 40ft for “free” or 80ft using only one action to command the companion to move without risk to trigger a move reaction (who will trigger the reaction will be the horse) besides other uses.

A LVL 1 Precision Ranger using a two-handed d12 weapon with a bear companion could flank and make 2 strikes vs a hunted target, one of them MAPless, doing 1d12+STR+1d8(precision) and another with MAP-5 doing 1d12+STR while makes the bear to strike using jaws doing 1d8+3(STR)+1d8(precision) and a MAP-4 Strike with claw doing 1d6+3(STR) allowing this character having 2 more strikes with a bit weaker damage in place of its 3rd action.

IMO, these are very good improvements for a 3rd action. I'm not saying that wort nor that they are cheap due to the feats tax along the progression, but it has a point.

The problem with this Is that they scale so badly that they're not even an improved third action anymore, from level 10 and onwards they're strictly a WORSE third action

If they only cost a single class feat to get and keep up with, even if they're not great I think that might acceptable trade off.

I agree with this, since they're so... Bad i always either see them on casters (aka: carry me through level One and Two mahoraga) or on characters with free archetype (therefore they can Just disregard the feat taxi).

You either let them be Better or let them be cheaper, cause right now only casters can use them without feeling like a trap option (and that's only because some casters feats kinda suck and Simply adding hps up front Is usefull)

I think the best companion Is actually the construct, by mere virtue of being super cheap to heal and replace that you basically have a kamikaze that Just dies every fight and spams trips

This Is my personal argument on why companions are lame/bad.

So! First, definition: animal, construct, undead companions.

Second, argument: companions, in my opinion, are inherently flawed and contraddict aspecta of pf2e's interior design:

1- they require a massive feat taxi which offers almost purely vertical growth, to have your companion you MUST spend at least 4 feats which all give your companion REQUIRED numerical growth, aka:
-feat tax
-feat chain
-vertical growth
And those are all things that pathfinder 2e specifically tries to avoid mixed up!

2- they're lame as hell, companions have practically no customization, with construct literally having none at all, and every item Is utterly useless; if you wanna focus on your companion there's literally nothing you can do (Napoleon meme), they're Stuck with being the same from level 1 to level 20

3- they scale horribly, this Is caused by Two things.

1- the gaps between feats are too big, companions generally start to really suffer from level 11-13 and from level 17-20 because their scaling Is tied to feats! And there aren't any to cover those specific levels!

2- their numbers are Simply too low, look, i understand that their only utility Is being a meatshield and grappling but It comes to a point where the player's map actions are Better than the companion's non map actions!

Trip.H wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

... In PF2, there aren't any unavoidable attacks. Even your example gave you a 40% chance, with a reroll to avoid the effect of Belcorra's Feeblemind spell. ...

Dude... an RNG outcome is not player agency, how is this something that needs to be explained. Rolling the RNG generator has 0 choice involved, it's not agency. Holy crap I didn't expect to get this far in with that kind of misconception being present. Rolling a save is a cutscene that the player is forced to advance, there's 0 agency involved.

That's the trade-off for using dice rather than having to physically perform the actions of your character or using some other skill-based method of action resolution. It's inherent to the design of any game that uses dice, cards, or other pseudorandom means to generate a range of outcomes.

Quote:

If the PC has 0 hero points, the idea that it is *literally* possible for Belcora to go first, and then use Feeblemind to end a PC with 0 decisions/variable actions taken by the PC, is completely nuts.

(and the existence of such spells itself changes the meaning of hero points, which then need to be saved due to being the one single lifeline against such instant, unavoidable death)

"If a person is just sitting in their living room, the idea that it is *literally* possible for them to get hit by a stray bullet without any warning or time to react is completely nuts." (and the existence of such events itself changes the meaning of being comfortable in one's own home. In some cases, one might feel compelled to design their home to be bullet-resistant or wear a bullet-resistant vest to feel safe. This is clearly unacceptable and an example of poor design.)

Do you see how wrong it sounds when you apply your ideas of what make a good game to real life? If we want to simulate risk and chaos with dice, we have to accept that certain undesirable outcomes are and should be possible. The further we stray from the idea that, as unlikely as it may be, bad...

Are you unironically bringing up real Life in this? I Hope you're being ironical cause no One in the history of ever has ever wanted true realism in games, games are literally the opposite of realism conceptually and philosophically.

Claxon wrote:

You ever play Dynasty Warriors? Where you're one person killing hundreds and sometimes thousands of enemies? That's my jam.

Yeah, they're terminally boring to me. If I want to bash buttons, at least give me a Bayonetta or DMC where there's a challenge in getting good combo scores.

I mostly play BattleTech 2018 modded to the gills with an ultrahard difficulty mod, and I'll still go into battles 10 difficulty ratings (in a rating system out of 40) higher than me and walk out untouched.

Quote:

Can I play a super tactical game where I'm thinking through every decision and making the "best" decision with the knowledge I have? I mean probably, but that's not what I want to put into the game, and it's not fun for me to put in that amount of work.

I don't get this mindset at all. If you don't need to sweat at least a little, where's the fun in overcoming challenges coming from?

If i wanted to overcome a challenge i would either go play professional football or get down and prepare for my wittgenstein exam for my philosophy Major. Y'know, things that actually would be useful. I wanna play a roleplaying game where i'm not Stuck in my boring cog in the machine world, ever Heard of escapism?

Fabios wrote:

Fabula ultima, call of chtulu, not the end, the last Torch, Kids and bikes, dungeon and dragons 4th edition

I can list systems, too, but doing so doesn't make them objectively better.

Each One of those system Is modern, a great winner in its own niche and has a much Better game design (cause It follows ACTUAL game design, not copying a dumbass in his basement winging It).

Oh, add lancer, 20 times the complexity and build variety of pathfinder

Fabios wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

This is not some lazy isikai anime in which the party is overpowered and invincible right out of the gate. This is a tabletop roleplaying game, possibly the finest there has ever been. To insinuate that the math is badwrongfun is an insult to the developers that spent countless hours getting the math exactly right for the type of game they wanted.

This isn't about game design, but about heehawing one's personal preferences as the only correct way. Anyone who reads this thread and says otherwise are the ones being disingenuous.

"The finest there has ever been"

LOOOOL! pathfinder 2e Is the best d20 ttrpg ever that's for sure, but It's soooo far from the best ttrpg ever, It's actually exilerating that a system so convoluted and messy can be defined as the "finest"

Name something *objectively* better. Not subjectively, not your opinion, objectively better.

Fabula ultima, call of chtulu, not the end, the last Torch, Kids and bikes, dungeon and dragons 4th edition

This is the "better game" to me, so I'm sorry for having the wrong fun, I guess?...

Again, with all due respect and without being mean, yeah you're kinda wrong.

There Is One such things as personal preferences (which are sacred and i cannot argue againts them) and game design (which can be treated as an academic subject), and here we are talking about game design, not personal preferences.

Like, i know this metaphor might sound stupid but It's the best i can come up with: i'd rather read furry smut all day long than reading the kharamazovs Brothers, and those are my personal preferences, but i would never, in a discussion that tries to be objective as much as a discussion can be, Say that an ao3 monster hunter world's smut fic Is Better than One of the greatest novels to ever be written

Personally I agree with Deriven on this, there's no real issue with these numbers. It makes the early levels "more deadly" because honestly, why wouldn't they be? You're new to adventuring, or at the very least out of practice and likely to take a beating in all out combat.

This kind of reasoning Is, and i don't mean to sound unkind, genuinely the reason the ttrpgs space hasn't evolved much in all these years: you're applying narrative "common sense" reason while we should all apply ludo-narrative academic reason in such situations.

The main purpouse of EVERY SINGLE GAME EVER Is to be fun, not to be realistic, not to be accurate, but fun, this Is the reason there's not a secret roll to see if you're gonna die from a stroke all of a sudden, It's the reason that shooters gun don't work like in real Life.

If we Want to create Better games we should completely ignore common sense and focus on academic game design

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm not convinced the underlying math at low levels is problematic. I suspect that perception stems far more from the imbalances found in some of the earlier adventure path modules, which are known to have been calibrated poorly as the rules were still being written at the time.

The lack of an HP buffer combined with the most rapid period of numerical scaling in the game objectively make combats against higher level enemies more lethal. You are correct that the early modules are balanced poorly, but part of that is just that the encounter-building guidelines are not functional at low level. A single APL+2 enemy feels more like a severe (or rarely extreme) threat at those levels. APL+3 is a nightmare.

I also, personally, think the encounter-building guidelines have a hard time hitting "engaging, but not lethal" at low levels. My experience is that there's barely any daylight between "snoozefest" and "people are getting crit to the ground frequently" if you follow the encounter builder, especially with the lack of APL-3 or APL-4 enemies to fluff out encounters.

Low level encounters fail to hit that sweetspot specifically for the math problems that game has at that level range.

Fabios wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I don't really like this analogy because between the two only one of them is a proactive way to engage with the enemies in combat. So it's not really like running out of arrows at all. It's more like a character with Reactive Strike having a fight where characters don't provoke very often.

i don't think something being proactive Is inherently Better than something being reactive

That's not the point, the point is that people are expected to make more proactive than reactive actions and the distribution of actions, accessibility of consumables etc. reflect that. Shield Block is reactive, hence it is balanced around doing its thing less frequently.

My point Is that It doesn't really make sense since champion Is an inherently reactive class.

Tridus wrote:

To be fair: if your character is built around shield blocking, running out of shield block can feel lousy. It's like playing an archer and running out of arrows except its much easier to carry piles of arrows.

I don't really like this analogy because between the two only one of them is a proactive way to engage with the enemies in combat. So it's not really like running out of arrows at all. It's more like a character with Reactive Strike having a fight where characters don't provoke very often.

i don't think something being proactive Is inherently Better than something being reactive

Fabios wrote:

...on par with a sturdy of the appropriate level (which Is basically the bare minimum for ANY shield really).

When you're looking at what the team designing the game have decided is the absolute best-in-class benefit for something as being "basically the bare minimum" the issue is one of personal perception, not the actual function of the game elements.

You're basically setting yourself up for disappointment by default by having tricked yourself into thinking a massive bonus a character can get is actually something that only gets you to the baseline so anything less is "subpar" even though that's not really true.

In my experience this kind of skewed perception is a common byproduct of people that are trying to play the game with high-difficulty challenges yet have overlooked the effect of the arms race aspect of that proposition so instead of the challenges being set to a difficulty and kept there even if the players make choices that will help them overcome that difficulty the challenges are being set up to be particularly hard even after making the useful choices - resulting in the false appearance that if the characters weren't built so strongly they would fail and die, when the actual case is that the GM just doesn't need to actually push the difficulty to that point in the first place for players to feel reasonably challenged. And if they did do that, the players might not come away from the experience so sure that if they don't have sturdy shield levels of shield blocking they are missing something important.

The point that you May not understand Is that in a game such as pathfinder 2e since, mathematically wise, your power level Is STRICTLY controlled by level progression (unlike previous editions) when we speak about numbers the best you can get Is usually (and in case It Is) the literal bare minimum. Are you saying that a shield lasting three shield blocks when i can do It twice per turn on myself or an ally Is "the best there Is and actually super strong" hell no It Isn't. This Is the same reason why everyone only used sturdy shields pre-remastered, everything was too frail to ever be useful otherwise and same thing applies here, every shield that doesn't match a sturdy IS too frail to do anything and i have, thanks to the guy above, the math to prove It.

I wouldn't care about all of this if i played in a homebrew game with an expert game Master, but since both of those things aren't true (playing extinction curse with a new GM) i have to punch above my Weight since paizo's writers can't for the Life of them design a normal AP, cherry on top we also have a newish player that decided to play a summoner and, with all due respect for him since he's new, doesn't have any idea on how to play One, i'd rather play the most boring and optimized champion that has no tiè to its backstory mechanically wise than have a new player cycle through characters because "single +2/3 enemy" Is the only thing that paizo published until 2022. (Btw, i'm not english so i don't know if i sound mean or anything, i don't know how to exactly moderate my tone when i write in english)

If you're curious about how i came to this conclusion i Simply followed the lessons that abomination vault taught me

Also shields rarely broken unless you frequently try to block critical damages with them (what usually doesn't worth unless is to avoid to become immediately unconscious). So if you repair your shield between every battle (just need some minutes specially if you have Quick Repair) you probably will have your shield ready to be used. Also once that Shield Ally allows to turn every shield almost like a Sturdy Shield you can simply swap your shields.

On most level, a fella here did the calculations above, shields break with four non-crit hits. Four shield blocks, for a Quick shield block champion that's ideally two turns

Folks, what i meant by what i said before Is that the "highest reinforcing rune for your level" doesn't Bring a steel shield on par with a sturdy of the appropriate level (which Is basically the bare minimum for ANY shield really).

It means that, practically, now you're not really saving that much cash, Just buying useless specific magic shields (there are literally THREE good ones ability wise: spellbound, clockwork, indestructible) because otherwise a normal steel shield with your blessing Will not be worth Two pennies if you're above level 7

Fabios wrote:

Because It doesn't really do that, since It gives you ONLY the rune appropriate for the level your shield won't have the maxed out stats. You Need lower level runes anyway (this Is how It's written, i Hope i'm wrong)

I'm not perfectly fluent in all the rules, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but reinforcing runes are fundamental runes and those simply get replaced/upgraded as they increase, you don't put previous runes on. Unless reinforcing runes are different in some way that I'm unaware of.

That Is, i think, the problem. You're still required to buy shield because the rune on its own doesn't get you a shield as strong as a sturdy One (aka, the bare minimum).

Fabios wrote:

Tactical Drongo wrote:

[

while I have also mixed feelings towards the new shield ally, this looks a loot like whiteroom mathematics
I doubt that even half the players get the chance for two shieldblocks per turn
and the extra hardness, while not much, still is useful, pathfinder is famour for a single point making a difference
also you seem to assume that every player blocks every strike at the maximum damage, while there are players out there who pace their shield blocks for critical moments and against strikes that do little to no damage against the shield

then again, with your last answer it feels also like your opinion is set in stone and you are going to ignore most, if not all, of the arguments presented here

-"oh but you'll have more shields to choose from" problem Is most shields are terrible, spellbound Is decent only for a while and then requires me to spend on reinforcing runes to keep It up since shield blessing only gives the appropriate level runes, which doesn't max out my shield, same thing for fortress and clockwork.

I'm somewhat confused by this statement, why would you need to spend on runes when it's already giving you runes of the appropriate level? Unless you mean to get the +1 Hardness bonus for already having the highest rune?

Because It doesn't really do that, since It gives you ONLY the rune appropriate for the level your shield won't have the maxed out stats. You Need lower level runes anyway (this Is how It's written, i Hope i'm wrong)

Fabios wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like it just fine. You get reliable access to a shield that you can use for blocking, no matter what loot drops or what shops or crafting are available. That extra point of hardness on an already Sturdy shield is gravy.

Also, blocking three strikes in a battle covers most battles, no? Not only is that a decent amount of damage mitigated, you also have your main class feature competing for the same reaction resource.

Anyway, looks like a matter of taste to me.

In my opinion It really doesn't, a champion with shield of reckoning and reactive shield should AT LEAST use two shields blocks every turn, and if you're not using viking's second shield then you're not gonna last more than three rounds.

Also, +1 hardness Is... Pathetically useless, with all due respect It could've been taken out completely

I guess the value of that hardness increase depends on the damage your taking at each level and how many hits till it breaks and finally how much damage mitigation do you need based on your HP at that level.

Take the high damage average from the GM Core strike damage table for comparison.
I put level - high average damage - shield Hardness - shield BT - # attacks till break against high average damage (BT/ (Creature high average damage-hardness)) - PC HP - damage reduced by shield if used till it breaks against high average damage.
Shield stats include Shield ally and sturdy shield for the level. PC HP is champ human with +2 starting Con to +3 at level 5 +4 at level 10 and toughness taken at level 3.
-1 - 03 - 05 - 10 - NoBr - 020 - NA no shield ally yet
00 - 05 - 05 - 10 - NoBr - 020 - NA no shield ally yet
01 - 06 - 05 - 10 - 10.0 - 020 - 50 no shield ally yet
02 - 09 - 05 - 10 - 02.5 - 032 - 15 no shield ally yet
03 - 12 - 08 - 32 - 08.0 - 047 - 64 regular steel with shield ally
04 - 14 - 09 - 32 - 06.4 - 060 - 63 sturdy (minor)
05 - 16 - 09 - 32 - 04.5 - 078 - 45 sturdy (minor)
06 - 18 - 09 - 32...

Seen these calculations, would you agree with me that shields break excedingly fast especially at higher levels? Isn't It absurd that my shield can barely last Two turns if i actually use It?

[

while I have also mixed feelings towards the new shield ally, this looks a loot like whiteroom mathematics
I doubt that even half the players get the chance for two shieldblocks per turn
and the extra hardness, while not much, still is useful, pathfinder is famour for a single point making a difference
also you seem to assume that every player blocks every strike at the maximum damage, while there are players out there who pace their shield blocks for critical moments and against strikes that do little to no damage against the shield

then again, with your last answer it feels also like your opinion is set in stone and you are going to ignore most, if not all, of the arguments presented here

My opinion Isn't really set in Stone for magical reasons, my opinion Is based on arguments that Haven't been really addressed not by your nor anyone.

-"oh but you'll have more shields to choose from" problem Is most shields are terrible, spellbound Is decent only for a while and then requires me to spend on reinforcing runes to keep It up since shield blessing only gives the appropriate level runes, which doesn't max out my shield, same thing for fortress and clockwork.

-"oh but you'll save so much Money" which you Will not, because since you're forced to have backup shields you'll have to put lower level reinforcing runes on them because Just the shield blessing doesn't automatically maximize them.

-"you'll never shield block twice per turn that's absurd" reflexive shield+shield of reckoning. The most BASIC thing every shield champions gets and that lets you do that twice per turn, you can't Just ignore that.

-"oh but every +1 Number counts" It doesn't. A +1 to hit Is a +5/10% damage based on the Attack roll not a flat +1, every flat +1 Is basically useless and you can't compare them, especially since that +1 Will cost you loads of golds (which, AGAIN destroys the purpouse of the shield ally change)

-"why should you block every strike, you should use them on less damaging strikes" while it's common knowledge that you don't shield block crite you can't fix a weak shield by using It less, because less blocks you use more damage you take and since your whole usefullness as a class Is defined by damage mitigation you're gonna significantly weaker.

I don't have my mind set in Stone for dumb reasons, but for some debateable ones

I like it just fine. You get reliable access to a shield that you can use for blocking, no matter what loot drops or what shops or crafting are available. That extra point of hardness on an already Sturdy shield is gravy.

Also, blocking three strikes in a battle covers most battles, no? Not only is that a decent amount of damage mitigated, you also have your main class feature competing for the same reaction resource.

Anyway, looks like a matter of taste to me.

In my opinion It really doesn't, a champion with shield of reckoning and reactive shield should AT LEAST use two shields blocks every turn, and if you're not using viking's second shield then you're not gonna last more than three rounds.

Also, +1 hardness Is... Pathetically useless, with all due respect It could've been taken out completely

I don't think that "It's cheap" Is a great class design, like, if i want to be a shield guy i wanna spend on a shield.

Also labbing out the shield hps i kinda realized that without that boost they're pathetically low, like, i'm THE shield guy and i can barely block three strikes.

Thirdly you also cannot "cheese" this problem with the viking archetype, rule wise second shield doesn't work as you Need to prepare the blessing in a specific shield.

ALSO you don't even save cash! If you do the math the previous thing made lower tier runes Better than current ones (example: a level 4 sturdy shield with shield ally Is Better than current level 10 sturdy shield!)

Fabios wrote:

-i get no progression, It gets boring when you basically gain NOTHING of value inbetween level 1 and 7 (1 to 6 feats suck and everything you Need Is already given at level 1)

Blessed, a couple 'bonus to save' feats, auras, expansion of auras, a full reactive strike if you don't like how your champion's reaction is working. It seems like a pretty solid set of options to me.

Quote:

i wanna be a tank and play Someone big with a shield but now shield Champions get basically nothing for being shield Champions (worst remastered change ever, if i wanna play something i Will be able to spend Gold for It)

They get several abilities that buff the use of their shield - making it tougher and blocking more useful or buffing shields of the spirit.

But as someone else mentioned, there is no equivalent of 'aggro' in this TTRPG. Enemies can choose to attack whom the GM wants them to attack, and you have to use tactics (i.e. get in their way, with a reaction, or have your other party members move to unattackable positions) to prevent them from attacking other targets.

***

If you are looking for aggro specifically, then the upcoming Guardian may be something you should look into. While it got mixed reviews on these fora during the playtest, it seems pretty clear Paizo was at least trying to give that class an "attack me not them, or suffer bad consequences" vibe.

I really dislike the Guardian, i regard Its whole class as the result of an hangover.

Tho, on the main point: the aura i could get reduces frightened, which Is usefull when it's usefull but also insanely situational, Attack of opportunity and bonus to saves are also (sadly) reactions! Which adds more "should i shield block or champion reactions" tò my problems. Like, nothing really "adds" tò my character, they give some situational stuff which Is cool but meh.

I'd like to thank you all foi r the partecipation, i'm tempted to play a champion for a following game but everytime i think about It i see nothing but problems.

-i get no progression, It gets boring when you basically gain NOTHING of value inbetween level 1 and 7 (1 to 6 feats suck and everything you Need Is already given at level 1)

-i wanna be a tank and play Someone big with a shield but now shield Champions get basically nothing for being shield Champions (worst remastered change ever, if i wanna play something i Will be able to spend Gold for It)

I think the main problem is that the OP thinks of 'Tanks' in mmo turns and not in tabletop terms

being able to get hit by all the enemies in an encounter standing upright, mitigating damage and forcing them to 'waste' their action on the character while the healer pumps lifepoints into them

I'd disagree that there Is any fundamental difference in concept inbetween a mmo tank and a ttrpg tank.

A tank has to do Two things:
-take aggro
-being able to resist damage After taking up aggro.

How would you define a tank otherwise? Cause every glass cannon can take aggro quite easily

I think the Champion can hold its own on lower levels as well, and don't follow the "low value" proposition at all.

Especially the new Defensive Advance makes it quite efficient to play a classic redeemer with a shield.

The +2 AC makes quite a difference, and shield block is about 25% of total hp at first level, every turn.
The damage reduction quickly stacks up as well, and enfeebled 2 on a boss is something that makes casters envious for quite some time.

With Lay on Hands being a really strong focus spell, and deities domain giving you a second focus point and other options (ranged spell attack, or athletic rush or...) the package is quite good.

Of course sword+board is not the only viable playstyle.
Its a bit sad that the "evil" edicts are mostly bad, but that's kind of another discussion.

Imo the sword and board has been nerfed when they Uber nerfed the shield divine blessing/ally

To Captain Morgan (i feel cool, it'e like a debate on a journal or something, i get to put a title).

-i am ignoring everything the champion has because i am looking at lower levels and that's kinda the whole thing we're talking about y'know? Shieldblock Isn't that great because your shield breaks easily and it's your only line of defense, lay on hands Is also pretty risky as It usually triggers reaction, while i agree It's godly i also don't think that It's worth as much as the barbarians hps out of being tied to a punishable action. While yes i'd Absolutely agree than you can have two focus points and in that case It Is a very strong, basically a top spellslot self heal every fight.
I'd Say that the biggest problem i've seen Is that champions practically lack strong level 2/4 feats as oaths are situational and mercy Isn't all of that.
Also, i'm not ignoring shields, but everyone can use One equally as well until level 8, and now that blessed shield has been Uber nerfed Champions aren't really THE shield masters anymore

TheNobleDrake.

I disagree that only disincentivizing enemies from attacking your allies makes a tank, cause otherwise you could take a glass cannon and enemies would be naturally drawn to attacking them. A tank not only has to attract blows, but also resist them

To BigHatMarisa;

-blessed shield has been nerfed into the ground for no particular reason, now It only gives you a reinforcing rune appropriate for your level, therefore the champion Isn't really Better at using a shield than anyone until shield of reckoning comes in play at level 10.
I also highly disagree that as a champion you can forgo strokes as they're are your main tool of pressure, your defenses aren't nearly as strong to the point that they can genuinely stall an enemy, as a martial you HAVE to contribute to damage otherwise you're doing an enormous disservice to your Party by drowing out the fight.

to Firelion.
-i disagree, a champion's reaction Is a mean to an end, to tank.
It Is made to discourage enemies from targetting your High value Friends and target the low value champion and force a lose/lose situation, you can notice that there Isn't really a lose/lose situation in lower levels: if the enemy chooses to target you then since you're Just as tanky as any good frontline (less than a barbarian that has 33% more hps and a monk with Drakeheart), sure you can argue that they're losing by not targetting an High value damage dealer, but at that point you could've just played an High value character and contribute much more (champion Is an insanely good class but doesn't really get to work until midgame when they get their feats and their reaction catches up to the damage scaling).
It's "working fine" because martials are overtuned until level five, but conceptually It doesn't really work.

To captain Morgan
-the reason that barbarians are much tankier than champions at lower levels Is understood by talking about how AC doesn't have Linear scaling while hps do.
Barbarians have 35% or so more hps than Champions and that contributes a lot in lower levels, where their AC only differs by 1 point and where most attacks Two/three shot you, +1 AC Is about -10% damage taken overall, but that -10% damage taken Is only appliable if you get hit thousands and thousands of times (also, for every enemy that hits on Eleven+ that +1 Is only a -5% damage taken) and that Simply Isn't going to happen, that +1 could mean everything or nothing and it's all down to an enormous level of luck.
Barbarians? Oh yeah they can get hit One more time before they go down, it's a fixed value that's highly preferrable to a mere -10% damage taken that May or May not exist.

Monks, meanwhile, can Just cheese with drakeheart mutageni lol

Quick post, something i've Always thought but never have written down:

So, what's the deal with Champions? They're a tank, so if you hit em you waste time, but if you try to hit anyone else you're wasting time because they'll protect them, but what happens when the First proposition Isn't true? Prior to level Seven the champion doesn't have anything that truly makes him a tank, sturdy as for sure but It's basically a fighter and if you don't take lay on hands as a devotion spell it's literally a fighter, so, in that case the question would be, why wouldn't the enemy Just hit the champ? Sure it's not great but since the champion doesn't have great defenses It's not really a problem Isn't It? Both monks and barbari and are MUCH tankier than him at lower levels.

And that'e It, did everyone ever had a similar thought

PS: in case Sorry for any writing error and any tone error, i don't Wish to sound anything but chill in this case, been thinking about this because i May play a champion

There's no notification system here, so go crazy.

Oh, dammity, well! Gonna wait the fella comes back, or Someone else's gets interested

The kineticist has thousands of combinations and possibilities. Could you give more details about what you want to do with this character?

Because in your build I saw earth, fire, wood and metal and a multiclass with rogue and I kind of didn't understand the context of this combination.

Let's start from the beginning. What is the basic idea of ​​your character, both thematically and mechanically?

Btw, does replying while quoting another comment send a notification?

Right! So, she's the daughter of a japanese inspired noble house of earthbenders that fled to pursue her passion and to work in theater as an actress.

Conceptually She uses her charisma both to perform for her audience and to sway and lie her way through things, She prefers finesse over brawns in social encounters.

Ironically enough her gameplay Is the complete opposite, in a team where she's the only real Frontline (the other being a magus) she's supposed to wreck shit up and to handle multiple enemies in the frontlines at once (lava leap) and/or stall through terrain manipulation to let her ranged allies (which the magus also is, he's a starlit span) use that range, wood Is what i used to accomplish this second thing.

The rogue dedication you see Is a, well, clumsy attempt to fix my skill choice: since i have free oracle free archetype But don't Plan to Bring religion to legendary i can't get Expert and Master spellcasting, rogue Is a way to Bring my proficiencies up so through skill mastery so i can keep evolving my spellcasting ways.
That's One way to build It, the other way would be to gain, as a second archetype, bastion at level ten and in that way be able to gain a second shield block and become a traditional tank at level 14 onward (alloy of flesh and steel+double shield block; bastion Is not essential to this idea but a second shield block and shield related feats would turn me into a BEEFY girl)

Hello! I'm Building a kineticist for a campaigns that supposedly Is gonna go from level 1 to 20 (we're level 5 now) and while i have my build set from level 1-8 i do not have It further! I'd love to get y'all help here or on another platform, whatever you might prefer.

Here is the build link for Misaki. To view this build you need to open it on an android device with version 248+ Pathbuilder 2e installed. https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=819977

This Is the pathbuilder. I have to specify that we're playing with free archetype so y'all gotta add a flame oracle's archetype on that

It is an RPG. You learn to play from the experience. These games are not simple bored games. You want the players to develop their own play-style and think about building a character mechanically and creatively including personality, motivations, and getting into doing a bit of acting. When they first start, you want them to get into the spirit of the game, which is playing make believe with rules.

Problem is: the game changes drastically from low levels to mid levels. my point is that 1-5 pathfinder is a COMPLETELY different game than 7-20 pathfinder mathematically speaking

Since there's going to be, or there already is, a stream of new players coming to the game i think that this argument is not at all unproper to discuss.

in my opinion the game fails at teaching new players how they should play the game: low levels are COMPLETELY focused on damage and innate survivability:
-the first since a crit can and probably will oneshot most enemies, and heavily injure some bosses; plus there aren't really any worth debuff spells to use, focusing wholly on damage is therefore not only the most effective strategy but highly incentivized by the fact that enemies WILL also do that! "three fighters and a bard" didn't come out of thin air.
-by innate survivability i mean the survivability of the base chassis of the class, in later levels thanks to items and abilities almost everyone will have resistances and means to significantly reduce damage taken, at lower level the best you have it's shield block which, while incredibly effective, doesn't really permit any serious stalling. (a high level kin can tank a boss due to abilities, a low level barb can tank a boss due to his enormous hp pool).
these two factors, coupled by the fact that some classes genuinely get an enormous spike around level 7+, have new players focus on raw numbers and come to conclusions such as:
-rogue suck (sorry, had to :p)
-casters suck
-the best party is 3 martials and a buff oriented caster.

what do you think?

Simply put: do i apply burn It bonus to the bonus damage applied to my striker through dragon barrage?

Is there any other way to boost Said damage?

pre scriptum:
-i'm not too well versed in english, so i'm sorry for eventual errors
-if you don't agree with me -10k aura/s
-this is my opinion, i'll say this now so i don't have to write imo after every sentence from now on

First step: look out for what your party needs, every strong party comp needs at least:
-a dedicated healer and multiple diffused healing options + out of combat healing sources capable of fully healing the party in at least half an hour

-two frontliners

-one competitive font of single target dpr and two secondary damage dealers
-about those secondary damage dealers, area blasting and ranged damage dealers
should be present

-a caster, literally any caster will suffice.

-math adjusters (buff, debuffs)

-good recall knowledge and good skill coverage (at least one master in every relevant skill such as: diplomacy, deception, nature, arcana/occultism, religion, stealth, thievery), most of those skills can be aided through magical means but cannot be fully replaced until high level spells come into play

ps: unconventional party comps do work, but you need a good reason and a good plan behind them, playing them straightforwardly won't work

Second step: now that you found what role you need/want to play let's do a general rundown of what each role has to do.
(to clarify, characters can cover multiple roles but not equally well, it's strongly advised to choose something which is capable to be top tier in your "main" chosen role)

Healer.
a main healer is anyone who's capable of spamming the heal spell, it's probably the best spell in the game and the highest/most reliable source of healing. (chirurgeon is an exception to the rule, by my personal calculation it doesn't seem capable of fulfilling the main healer/only healer role, but i admit ignorance in this case)
-secondary healing option include things such as battle medicine, lay on hands, water kineticist things and generally every source of non spell-slot healing, it doesn't match a cleric but it sure as hell fills the gap and frees the healer's action to do something proactive in the fight and to not just react

Frontliner.
Anyone capable of handling themselves in the frontline, no one except a high level kineticist, a shield champion and a barbarian is capable of holding their own alone in the frontlines so every frontliner needs a buddy.
a good frontliner needs:
-a high/good AC + a way to boost their own AC and get that classic +2 circumstance
-a good amount of hps (at least 10 total hps per level)
-threat either through damage or control (for most frontliners: maneuvers)
-some way to reduce damage, the most common way to do so is shield blocking but resistances etc are also very strong
ps: rogue is kind of an exception to the rule, it offers basically nothing tanking wise but it has such an enormous threat and out of combat utility that it works perfectly anyway

striker/damage dealer
Their work is to output the most damage while keeping themselves alive to do so.
a striker's main job is to do damage, and to reach said objective dpr calculation is a useful mean; but a striker who only does damage is poorly effective.
ranged striker's need to focus completely on either damage and their other utility since they don't contribute with their hps, functionally reducing the party's hp's reserve
melee strikers need to optimize so that they're able to survive without a cleric pocketing them, this also applies to actual play through careful positioning
area damage, usually outputted by casters, can't really be optimized and therefore you should just try to not target high saves/resistances

Casters:
this is a far too broad point to discuss (i'm sleepy)

Math adjusters
This is something that everyone can and should do, anyone should try to apply debuffs and buffs in any given situation, the easiest and most common situation is "off-guard + -1 status" paired with a general "+1 status".

Third step: choose your class and make the character with your chosen role in mind
i can't give tips for every single class and tip, but i can suggest to look up various guides online which are usually very helpful

Deriven Firelion wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

blasts do terrible damage. They are the worst. I stop using them usually after the first few levels because the feel so terrible to use.

I mean, Elemental Blasts are basically like using a crossbow without the whole "need to spend actions reloading" thing. The damage isn't *terrible* if it's a changeup sort of thing. Like if you use a 2-action impulse that's not overflow, it's "why not" damage.

I hate them. They feel terrible. I almost always activate a stance when I activate my aura. Stances go down when the aura goes down with overflow, so I have to activate them again when I activate the aura. Far better use of my actions.

I would have rather had the blasts do martial weapon damage and be customizable with runes. Using them feels like some throwaway ability you're using because you have nothing else.

But do you never use 2-action non-overflow impulses? There are plenty of good ones- Flying Flame, Timber Sentinel, Sand Snatcher, Tumbling Lumber, Molten Wire, Conductive Sphere, Ignite the Sun, Cyclonic Ascent, Furnace Form, Spike Skin, etc.

Some Kineticists will overflow somewhat infrequently, so the need to turn their auras back on is minimal.

Problem Is, most offensive two actions non overload impulses are terrible. Flying flame Is literally cantrip damage, lumber thingy Is a literal meme that server no purpouse, Timber sentinel Is broken but It's not the average thing.

Okay, so the same way that bad weapons affect martials and bad spells affect casters?

Kinda? Bad weapons don't really affect martials, It's sad but most of the weapons are there because paizo needs and exscuse to print out stuff. Barely a fifth of the weapons ever serd actual play.

I would Say It's more akin to spells but in reverse.

There are thousands of spells and most of them are useless, but since there are thousands of them you still end up with about a hundred great choices and then random stuff you can pick up with scrolls.

There are less than a hundred kineticist feats, and most of them are not bad, but since you're limited to Just 17 (no scrolls for you) every feat "slot" matters A LOT! Therefore every slightly subpar/situationally cool but useless feat gets swiftly swept under the rug.

If you wanted to translate that to casters i'd Say: hypotetically prepared casters disappear, scrolls/wands/staves disappear and you can only know 15 spells. Then everyone would naturally only pick the best of the best

Fabios wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

[Fire]

Ignoring kineticist feats when calculating damage would make about as much sense as calculating a caster's DPR with a crossbow.

Is anyone doing that?

There was talk about how Barbarian is 60% effective without feats.

Yeah i Said that tò explain why, from a design standpoint, a bad feat Is not equal If It's a barbarian's or a kineticist's.

A kineticist relies completely on feats, and as such a bad feat has a higher impact on the whole class. Damage wasn't the point.

[Fire]

Ignoring kineticist feats when calculating damage would make about as much sense as calculating a caster's DPR with a crossbow.

Is anyone doing that?

Kineticists being able to change feats easily counteracts a lot of their planning requirements. Pre-planning is just kind a default design challenge with feat systems and the rest of the classes face similar challenges, even wizards, so it's not a special situation

I wouldn't mind seeing a cheaper way for them to get a second skill boost, even if it stops at +2, if simply to stop them from spamming their one great skill at PFS.

The problem Is that the kineticist Is heavily incentivized into talking "unproper feats trees" aka feats that synergize with each other directly. Basically no other class does that, feats trees are at worst 2/3 feats, a kineticist feat combo can be 5/6 feats/Gates long, and without ANY of the Rings the chain collapses.

Also, the kineticist Power comes directly from feats, It's feats are what gives him vertical growth while in every other cases the feats give orizontal growth. A barbarian without feats Is at 60% Power. A kineticist without feats Is at 10% Power.

Without pre planning you'd Need months of in game time to fix a bad build

You could do a quick calculation and find that, ironically, without Its many aids (aura junction and incendiary aura) a Fire kineticist loses most of Its damage in a theoratical full damage build (aka: blazing wave+thermal nimbus+aura junction and incendiary aura) 45ish% of the kineticist damage doesn't come from impulses! But from triggering weaknesses and the persistent damage from fiery aura.

I had noticed this before, but I forgot to comment. But are you comparing his DPR with melee or ranged martial?

Because come on, let's ignore the aura for a moment.

Oracle? Why?

I played a Fire/Water Kin and was often our top DPS. And we had Barbarians in and out of the party often. They would top me for DPS for a bit, but only because I'd be spending half my actions healing the up from some rank of dying...

And I almost never got into melee.

My problem with kineticist after playing 3 of them is not about combat power, but out of combat. With the main stat as Con, I found I didn't have enough skills and was at best number 2 on any skill I did take.

That meant that as soon as any battle ended, unless people kindly avoided taking certain skills, I was more or less benched.

I could roleplay this or that all I wanted, sure - but if it mattered someone else would need to be the one doing it so we'd have better odds of not failing.

Combat wise, there are plenty of easy paths to making a strong ranged DPS that can just keep going all day long. And I can do it while also being a healer or mitigation.

And it's really not a complex class at all. You pick your impulses, and then you spam them. And you don't need to think about managing when to use the "good ones" because they have unlimited uses.

Most turns could be an impulse and movement or raise shield, or an overflow impulse, open gate, and blast.

The gameplay makes a red box basic DnD fighter look complicated.

And it's pretty easy to pick impulses. You can quickly go into any element and spot a whole set from 1-10 that will a specific playstyle. Once you hit level 11 it's open season and you can start changing yourself around for the needs of the day,...

Once again, without disregarding your experience, that's not what the math says. Without being in melee until level 10 (aka, without using your aura junction) your damage Is in no way comparable to that of a striker, and it's dwarfed by that of a proper barbarian.

Also, on your second point, It's braindead Easy to play but hard to build (aka, literally what the game tries to esplicitally avoid) since you have to find the best impulses and disregard the rest.
You can easily build a completely unfunctional kineticist, you can't do that with almost any other class

.

I think part of the issue here is that, as Agonarchy says, you're trying to specialize a class that is intentionally generalist. The nature of Kineticist is that it has a suite of feat options (like weapon infusion, which is practically mandatory imo) that ensure it always has a decent option to contribute. If you start specializing with something like this Oracle archetype build, you start losing your fallback options, get stuck forcing one alright trick, and you're screwed if it doesn't work—the exact opposite of how the class is designed to function.

I disagree. The kineticist, in my opinion, Is an inherently specialist class which Is forced to generalize since most of its feats are bad.

Practically speaking; a kineticist doesn't have many choices, they have, give or take, 14 spells they can choose as they level up; that's an insanely low Number! For a generalist! What i think goes on Is that, since you have a handful of good feats, you're incentivized to build around them and then, when you're done, look around to find other good feats to pick up without any cohesiveness (i Hope It's a real Word).
I'll give a dumb example: my kineticist Is mainly Fire/earth, with Oracle dedication, the only other thing i could get would be the aura junction+thermal Nimbus at level 5, but that'd leave me with useless feats (bar Spikeskin) until level 12! And therefore i took wood as a new element so i could take wood's Good feats.
I DID became a kind of generalist, but not organically. Sorry if i explained myself poorly

On an unrelated note, i want to Say Two things, One Is inherent to the discussion One Isn't.

1- kineticist It's not a weak class at all, It's pretty strong, my critique says that having half the class composed of barely usable stuff and the other half of Absolutely bonkers must pick doesn't make for good design.

2- are my standards too High? Cause when Someone says that flying flames has good damage i'm appalled. But they're surely not lying for the fun of it, so the problem Is either their or my expectations. Who's right In this case?
PS: my "High standards" for stuff might be like that because my First real experience with this system was abomination vault

Build toward the tactic you want rather than just cramming the highest damage you can find and then being frustrated.

Weapon Infusion gives you a max range increment of 100, which means your actual max range is 600, and if you're using fire that means you can burninate the countryside around the enemy even if you can't hit them.

Burning Jet helps you keep out of melee range.

Scorching Column keeps your enemies from closing.

Crawling Fire extends your range even further, starting at 30' and then you can make it move 40 with each sustain, plus you add an obstacle for your enemies.

Volcanic Escape helps get you out of melee.

Kindle Inner Flames lets you boost the allies you want in front of you, including archers.

Solar Detonation is a fancy fireball with 60 range.

Architect of Flame gives you yet another barrier starting up to 120 feet away.

Furnace Form gives you flight so you can stay out of reach.

Walk Through the Conflagration is a 120 foot spicy teleport.

All Shall End in Flames and Ignite the Sun have a range of 500 feet.

Most of the kit is absurdly range-focused!

It's true that you can do even more damage in close range, but that's the standard tradeoff for melee. You can attack at insane ranges, so your enemies can be dead long before they can reach your aura's range. The nice thing about a kineticist is you can build for multiple ranges and tactics. Some of the same tricks you use to keep a distance can also be used to force targets to stay close.

As for the rest, my earth/water kineticist can literally create jacuzzi hot tubs from thin air using Extended Kinesis (create stone, expand stone into tub, create water, heat water, convert some water into steam). Also great for boiling food and making tea.

All due respect, have you actually played a Fire kineticist? Cause every feat you've mentioned Is situational and has low damage. Sure you can hit stuff very far (three strides/Two from a fast creature) away but not for a good amount of damage.

Preface: i have no idea on how to quote stuff, so i'll Just answer point by point without quoting, Sorry :[

1- many of the general feats available to all kineticists don't do that, they mainly boost what you're already doing. Then there's the pet which turns into a summon which Is really cool but also hard to pull off before level 10. Those general feats are there to round of the rough edges of the class, not really to keep them from being overspecialized, imo.

2- with due respect: no. Fire kineticist's damage Is kinda low without being in melee and hitting the weakness multiple times, being able to do something indefinetly doesn't really matter much if Said thing doesn't contribuite very much.

3- those two feats matter much more in the early levels, everyone who's played a kineticist knows that your blasts are mainly there to refresh your kinetic aura as their damage gets pretty insignificant as you level up. Overall your elemental blasts contribute less and less as you level up your character

Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I'm not grabbing Kineticist to play a blaster, I'm grabbing them to play someone with control over an element in a way that actually impacts the narrative. That works pretty well. My fire/metal Kineticist can run his restaurant with just ingredients, creating cookware from nothing, and when the local Mafia-types threatened him, he was able to threat far more retaliatory property destruction back than any other class because everything's at will, backed up by a bucket of hitpoints. My wood/air Kineticist trickster is able to fly around invisibly whispering to people from a mile away pretending to be their conscience, all while being able to provide healing, unlimited food, and ungodly amounts of protection. He's more fey-like than a fey Sorcerer would be.

"Kineticist is a poor choice of class for people focused on damage" is fair enough. That's especially true after the Remaster boosted Sorcerer's blasting damage.

I really don't want to sound mean but... That's not entirely my point? Kineticist surely has a crap ton of very interesting interactions but this Is not the right game for this kind of stuff. Partly It Is but pathfinder 2e Is fundamentally a combat game, and in a discussion about design i really think that the matter of discussion should be combat (or at least out of combat challenges) related.

What i wanna Say Is that kineticist Is deceptively complicated, with a HUGE emphasis on deceptively.

Their capability to impact the narrative Is top notch. But everything else, especially for a new player, Is ROUGH. very very ROUGH