Gortle's page

Under "Alternative Initiative Skills" rules you can only use other skills for initiative under very specific circumstances established with GM beforehand for each such usage.

The rules are there in the book for using Avoid Notice. It has other benefits like being unnoticed. You also can get circumstance bonuses and penalties for things like cover. The ball is on the GMs court yes, but Avoid Notice is one of the most reliable and simplest to justify. I haven't seen many GMs that will deny you its use.

As a GM I might well say you are in heavy terrain have a -3 circumstance penalty to performance and gain the full cover benefits for stealth. If your GM is letting you get away with the same combo all the time then the game will start to get boring and the GM isn't doing their job very well.

Anyway I agree Solo Dancer is a top feat. If dancing was a theme I thought I could handle in my character concept, I would include it. It is good on any charisma based character.

Gortle wrote:

You just sound like you are complaining that I have a different emphasis to you. Please feel free to write a guide, though I think you really should just post that optimal sorcerer build you want everyone to try.

Woah, woah, woah. I just provided a feedback to your Guide (something I guess you are open to if you make Guides? Or you just expect praises?) and I even put emphasis at the end that I know it's not optimization Guide but I found that few things could be highlighted better and with all due respect you are behaving like I kicked your high horse or something. That was not my intention and telling me how I "sound" from wirrten text is quite rich.

No you are being adamant and dogmatic. That is not my style and is a perfect reasonable thing for me to say.

You still are being aggressive. Words have meaning. Please be polite.

Yes I want to see the full build you are proposing.

Next, few things - if we optimize, we play with Free Archetype.

I don't use free archetype with new players because of the complexity, but otherwise we do always use it.

As for ThrabenU vide on DoD - oh my god, that is really, really bad take on Dirge of Doom.

I agree with you Dirge of Doom is better.

Sorry but when it comes to YTbers like him or Mathfinder (who never does any real math..) - many of their takes are just bad or just purely false, made up purely to go against the grain and have reasons to make click bait titles for engagement.

I respect other peoples opinions and they often make good points. So I do watch a good portion of their output.

The points re ThrabenU I'd like to make are
1) lots of other effects give status bonuses so Courageous Anthem has at least as much of a problem of duplicating the efforts of the rest of the party as Dirge of Doom. If there is someone casting Bless, then Dirge of Doom is definitely the right call.
2) Dirge of Doom is a +2 bonus effectively as it is like a -1 to their attacks and +1 to yours.
3) Fortissimo Composition takes a focus point every round and can't stack with the action compression of Lingering Composition
4) Dirge of Doom comboes really well with Dread Striker on your rogue. I see lots of this in longer campaigns.
5) Yes occasionally the 30ft range is a problem. Mostly you won't even notice it.
6) Your AC and hitpoints as a bard are not terrible you don't have to stay at long distance. A personal peeve of mine is overly cautions casters on full hitpoints who insist on hiding behind worn out martials.

Third: I find Guide lacking in explaining to players why multicalssing into Bard (or Psychic) is so good. It's not just for potentially being able to use Dirge of Doom or Fortissimo on later levels. But it allows us to get Casting Spell activity for Occult, which means we can now purchase and hold in our free hand Scroll of Synesthesia, since we only want to use it on bosses, having 1-2 at start is easy to purchase and at higher levels it's getting so cheap and sooner or later you can just afford wands. Also with just taking Basic Spellcasting we are getting access to Time Jump spell (albeit single cast) which is one of the best defensive spells for caster. Even just for that (especially with human Multitalented feat) occult CHA caster dip is just so good on Sorcerer.

The spell lists are so huge these days there are a lot of ways to play to win. Each of the four spell lists has enough in it that you don't need to archetype for extra spells or more spell diversity. You can do and it is useful but in my mind it is not that good.

If Synesthesia is breaking your local game that much that every caster NEEDS to take it then your GM needs to nerf the spell.

Fourth: Also considering Anoint Ally Explosion of Power build is the strongest blaster build in PF2e and one of the highest (from level 8+) and at some point the highest DPR build in PF2e I would at least put seperated part in Guide to explain to players how to build properly for it, how to combo with your martials, what spells to use, how to set it up etc. And how you can even build solo for it with flying animal companion as your personal bomb if needed. I think this was little too skipped in Guide and I bet some new players would like to know about the full potential of Sorcerer.

The combo you are talking about is covered in the feats section.

Maybe I could highlight it more.

There is more but I get it's not supposed to be "Guide to optimizing Sorcerer" as it's more of general Guide for wide range of players, but I found lack of these few elements...disturbing ;)

You just sound like you are complaining that I have a different emphasis to you. Please feel free to write a guide, though I think you really should just post that optimal sorcerer build you want everyone to try.

First of all: in archetypes there is lack of Fan Dancer as recommendation.

This guide is 6 1/2 years old. Fan Dancer is under 2 years old. I have done some updates but really there are too many options to keep on top of everything. None of my guides are up to date on all the archetypes.

This is the best archetype for optimizing any CHA caster. Period.

Requirement (if GM insists on it) is none, just make character from Tian Xia, whatever. But we take it for 3 reasons:

1. It auto scales Performance to Legendary. This is huge by itself. It also naturally opens Sorcerer for Bard archetype later if required in party as we don't have to worry about getting Performance increases.

Why not use diplomacy or deception or acriobatics or stealth for initiative. It is nice to get a free autoranking skill but by itself Performance does little. It wouldn't be my first choice.

2. Solo Dancer feat allows us to roll Performance for Initiative. This constantly keeps our Initiative even +4/5 higher than your Perception initiative would be. Not only that but all enemies acting after you are off-guard! You can already open up with some attack spell without having to wait for your martials to grapple/prone enemy for you.

There are so many other ways to do this.

3. Solo dancer is SKILL FEAT. Meaning on level 4 with Free Archetype you can finish Solo Dancer at level 4 and already take new dedication feat!

So its best feature is you can stop taking it faster.

Second: I think you skipped over Ancenstral Mage potential too much. The ability to get ancestry innate spells into blood magic spells (and therefore beign able to trigger Anoint Ally Explosion of Power) is huge if you know what spells you need.

I definitely already made these comments. Sorry if I hadn't highlighted them enough for you. My general preference though is to trigger the bloodmagic via some of the single action focus spells that certain bloodlines get.

Gortle wrote:

Sorcerer ***** Powerful single action focus spells and blood magic effects. Charisma based so you have easy access to Intimidation and Diplomacy. The most damaging blaster. The down side is the low hitpoints.

Imperial ***** Arcane spells, ancestral memories and a spell book.
Elemental(fire/air/metal) ***** Primal spells and great damaging focus spells.
The rest **** What you don’t like you can patch with alternative blood magic effects.

I think the Draconic bloodline for Sorcerer would also be up there in the top bloodlines, given that it gets a focus spell breath weapon and the dragon claw focus spell is also surprisingly good (basically a better Electric Arc). I tended to prefer the Fortune dragon bloodline, since force is a great damage type to avoid resistances and arcane gets you that spellbook. Sadly, they recently nerfed it a bit by taking away Howling Blizzard at level 5, so taking one of the other arcane bloodlines may be worth it.

For sure but I also like Undead, Shadow, Fey, and Nymph. It is just the single action bloodmagic ability that you can likely use everywhere is what is making the Sorcerer S rank in my mind.

Also, re: Swashbuckler, One For All works just as well on a Braggart or other type, if you skill Diplomacy, as it does on a Wit Swashbuckler. It's a great support ability.

Yes it is great.

Here's my list including lots of the subclasses. Order within a tier isn't significant, so I'll do it alphabetically. This is based on my experiences as a GM and as a player. If a class has one absolutely awesome option and a bunch of crap ones, I'm rating the best option as that is what you tend to see. I’m assuming a GM with a positive and generous approach to the game. Class balance overall is pretty good, so even the lowest rank choices are playable.
S Tier

Cleric ***** The extra heals you get from Divine Font are fantastic. The Divine spell list is really good these days. Building it can be get complex with respect to Deity choice but common choices like Sarenrae and Ragathiel are great
Cloistered ***** Survivable caster with healing depth but also capable of direct offense.
War Priest ***** Generalist capable of surviving in melee.

Fighter ***** The +2 to hit is probably the strongest option in the game, because it feeds straight into extra critical hits and damage. Reactive strike from the start is powerful. So many extra little features and good defenses. No real subclasses but the main weapon packages are:
Reach and trip ***** Probably the most offensive melee.
Agile slasher and crit fisher ***** Lots of fun.
Shield and control **** A good offence and defense balance.

Rogue ***** Extra skills, powerful reactions, gaining off guard is easy and can use sneak attack multiple times in a round. The only weakness is an overreliance on precision damage.
Thief ***** The stand out best as it can be entirely Dexterity based which gives it so much flexibility .
Ruffian ***** A Strength and medium armour variant which works fine. But the remaining rackets are a let down in comparison.
Scoundrel *** Wants Charisma and uses Feint which is just not as efficient.
Mastermind *** Wants Intelligence and uses Recall Knowledge. Maybe for staying at range.
Eldritch Trickster ** Doesn’t do anything you couldn’t get in a single feat if you wanted.

Sorcerer ***** Powerful single action focus spells and blood magic effects. Charisma based so you have easy access to Intimidation and Diplomacy. The most damaging blaster. The down side is the low hitpoints.
Imperial ***** Arcane spells, ancestral memories and a spell book.
Elemental(fire/air/metal) ***** Primal spells and great damaging focus spells.
The rest **** What you don’t like you can patch with alternative blood magic effects.

A Tier

Animist **** I can’t get past the flavour of this class and haven't seen it. Powerwise it seems over the top though. Which is part of the reason I’m not keen to touch it. Probably A tier just on spell flexibility. But this is just a guess on my part.

Barbarian **** Very tough: rage, charge, bash for huge damage. What’s not to like? Maybe a non melee option.
Giant **** Huge damage and large melee damage
Animal **** Grapple and control
Elemental **** Options for elemental powers
Draconic **** Elemental damage and some area options
Ligneous **** Big damage but slow
Spirit *** One ranged option but probably wants the right campaign.
Superstitious *** A defensive variant that may not work well with certain builds.
Bloodrager ** Reliant on bleed damage which is too slow
Decay ** Reliant on poison damage which is too often resisted
Fury * A subclass almost no one likes as it offers nothing useful

Bard **** a strong balanced occult caster which is really good in support. Stronger in larger parties and has excellent endurance thanks to its powerful cantrips.
Maestro **** is the best muse because of the action compression in Lingering Composition.
The rest are still good as almost all take Maestro as a second muse anyway.

Champion **** a really solid defender with good reaction from the start and great armour.
Justice **** counterstrike
Liberation **** free and moves allies
Redemption **** weakens
Grandeur **** dazzles and reveals
Obedience, Desecration, Iniquity ** just not as party friendly or useful.

Druid **** a balanced caster with good focus spells and reasonable HP. Like the Bard all the subclasses cross pollinate
Storm **** really nice attack focus spell
Untamed *** nice utility shifter, but Paizo has aimed low. You can’t cast while shape changed and it costs too much to swap.
Animal, Cultivation, Flame, Leaf, Spore, Stone *** all have useful features
Wave ** just needs a bit more and really only OK as a secondary option.

Kineticist **** a generalist pseudo caster that can go all day. The subclasses are the various elements but like Bard and Druid you get to mix and match so I can’t really break it down further. Some abilities like protector tree are way too strong, and it still doesn’t interact well with some of the old features of the game like golems. So I really wish Paizo would give it some more attention.

Monk **** a mobile defensive character with great saves in the game. Probably strongest in a party that wants to keep mobile or when you don’t trust the rest of your party. No real subclasses but looking at it by role
Archer ****
Martial Controller ****
Skirmisher ****
Qi caster *** very hard to get to anything to work as your spell DC is MAD.

Oracle **** a strong caster with extra slots and lots of good free/single action curse activities. Easy access to the full range of deities for good focus spells and granted spells. Good HP, light armour and Charisma skills. So many ways to build it. Players who liked the tradeoffs of the old Oracle still miss the lost flavour.
Cosmos, Flames, and Tempest **** can mostly ignore their curse
Ash, Battle, Blight, Bones, Life, Lore, and Time *** can normally cope with their curse
Ancestors ** is not going to live long as clumsy is going to get you critically hit far too often.

Thaumaturge **** a balanced martial with a strong weakness and recall knowledge abilities. No real subclasses, you just pick three from the ten implements for the abilities you want. Though normally Weapon is one.

B Tier

Alchemist *** This should be rated better but everyone I’ve seen play it has not dived into the alchemical item list enough to get real value from it.
Bomber ****
Mutagenist ****
Toxicologist ***
Chirurgeon ** an OK healer but it is not strong enough at it to be worth it as a main feature.

Commander **** wields the PCs as his weapons. Really great as the players start to all lean into it.

Exemplar **** so much like the Thaumaturge as a mix and match character. You can do anything with it, choose your ikons.

Guardian *** a tough Martial defender. It works ok except against casters. I struggle with the flavour of taunt, could we rebrand it to challenge please?

Swashbuckler *** a totally functional balanced martial. It's a pity that the odd but apparently core concept of finisher limits you to one attack per round.
Battledancer *** move enemies around
Braggart **** intimidation based
Fencer ** deception based, probably best as a solitary martial
Gymnast *** a grappler which is great past level 10, as Derring-Do allows him to always roll with advantage.
Rascal ** useful in combination with casters that can target reflex.
Wit **** just fun with a few good insults. One for all turns you into a great buffer. Great with casters that target will.

Witch **** a caster with lots of different builds, a more developed familiar
The Resentment ****
The rest ***

Magus **** Spell strike is a good gish concept. This is a great striker if the combat is static.
Starlit Span **** because you are a ranged striker it's so much easier to get your combo off.
Inexorable Iron, Laughing Shadow ***
The rest **

C Tier

Gunslinger *** If you like the flavour and are Ok using reload weapons then this sort of works. Gunslingers have some cool abilities but reload weapons never really quite catch up. You have to buy all these features just to make your action economy tolerable. When you do a one for one comparison to the Fighter this class just seems inadequate.
Pistolero *** two pistols and an attitude
Vanguard ** big gun and shove
Drifter ** gun and sword
Sniper *** stealth and shoot. A good sniper build, but that needs the right party to work.
Spellshot *** adding some spell damage to your shot.
Triggerbrand ** another drifter

Investigator *** Devise a Stratagem is pretty good but there are trap options and dross in this class. I find I really need to add archetypes to get this to work. Requires a good build and a GM who has bought in.
Alchemical Sciences *** alchemy is just useful
Forensic Medicine *** the extra healing is nice
Empiricism ** helpful ability but it's not going to get used that much.
Interrogation ** very niche

Psychic *** a perfectly functional caster with a nice gimmick. No real justification for why it has less spells than everyone else - other classes get good cantrips and focus spells too. I don’t know the subclasses well enough to break it down more.

Ranger ***The class works and has a few nice powers. But it's full of limitations that other classes don’t have. The problem is that hunters' marks and your edge only apply to what you have marked. So Disrupt Prey isn’t going to work half as often as Reactive Strike. You gain an action economy advantage with abilities like Twin Takedown but it's not a net benefit till the second round against the same opponent. The parties I’ve seen focus fire so well that that often doesn’t come up.
Precision *** a reasonable archer and two handed weapon user
Flurry *** Ok but an agile fighter looks better.
OutWit ** you are just better off with a shield until level 17. The shield gives you +2 to AC and it applies against all attackers, not just what you have marked.

Summoner *** a complex class. Can do a lot of different things, but isn’t really great with any of them. Everything is an action trade off. Lots of ideas but maybe I’m yet to see a real master with it.

Wizard *** It’s not that it's bad - it just doesn’t have the features other classes get.
Spell Blending *** trading two lower level slots for a higher level slot. Not useful at low level. Good for short adventuring days and white room duels, but most PF2 casters have good action efficient uses for their lower level slots, so this is a real cost.
Spell Substitution *** a nice quality of life option.
Staff Nexus *** useful for some flexibility or if you want to span out lots of low rank spells.
Experimental Spellshaping ** This is just one feat that most people don’t rate highly.
Improved Familiar Attunement ** familiars aren’t great, but if you did like them then you would take a Witch instead.

D Tier

Inventor ** the core innovations of this class just don’t give you enough to be worthwhile. There aren’t enough Gadgets. In the end it plays like a Barbarian with worse defenses, lower chance to hit, and a large chance of jamming your core ability.
Armor ** very minor benefits.
Construct ** at least your companion has construct immunities which might make it the best companion.
Weapon ** very minor benefits.

1) Rebel Then King and most of the Pathfinder You tube community did a tier list with thousands of votes and then had a you tuber defend each PF2E class. I don't 100% agree with the ranking of each class but It's great work if you want a tier list based on actual play from people making a living on PF2e Commentary and thousands of voters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wFlV-1OaY&list=PLqnH7E6W-1OCU3-hEB685 x2S-3mftQvoy

2) I think Class rankings are very dependent on where and with whom you play. If you have a regular group with good team work, glass cannon and one dimensional classes do well. To be explicit, Barb's are great tanks when there is a cleric and likes to heal. If you play primarily PFS and SFS or groups in which not everyone shows every session, you can't assume there will be healer or tank or good coordination. In that situation flexible classes that can take a hit are at a premium resulting in a very different tier list.

Rebel Then Kings list is a good take, but it is a popularity list more than anything. He deliberately chose no formal criteria.

The Raven Black wrote:

Wondering if they put the immunity in Sure Strike so that they can introduce items that boost spell attacks.

They didn't. They put the immunity in because sure strike is a Rank 1 spell it was very easily spammable at higher levels while providing a huge advantage, particularly when used by characters that already have good (aka, non-caster) accuracy (which, again, can easily get it because it's Rank 1).

Companies that sell stuff often embellish their motivations.

The Investigator which has an ability which is very similar in effect to sure strike, and has not been nerfed.

The bonus a character recieves from Sure Strike can be better with mediocre accuracy than high accuracy. Though criticals complicate the maths.

Squark wrote:

I don't know what Gestalt is talking about. Grapple is generally considered pretty good (although Combat Grab at level 2 means you only do it directly sparingly). Making an enemy off-guard and forcing them to escape if they want to charge your squishy backline is great.

Having played a similar build in organized play, I quite enjoyed it.

Enemies don't typically have much incentive to break a grapple. They can just dump all their actions into you and make you ask if it was worth it.

Grapple makes sense if you have ranged allies who aren't benefitting from flanking on their attacks. Grapple makes sense if you have a more defensively minded character. Grapple makes sense if your enemy is very mobile.

A Str character can, for the most part, ignore Dex exists. A Dex character can't do that.

Setting aside thrown weapons which are rare anyway as PF2 doesn't like them, missile weapons mostly don't care about Strength (one or two for the propulsive trait is not really that much) and thief racket. So there are some dex characters that can ignore strength.

Gortle wrote:

You're right to pull me up on Barbed Spear. It's not great but the clumsy makes up for the mediocre damage.

TBT I do not think it deserves Green. Yes, the Clumsy stacks, but you need to spend a focus point, 2 actions and succeed at the attack roll to inflict it. The target will be dead by other means before you hit it twice with it IMO. Compared to Wings of the Valkyrie, it is just not competitive at all.

I was tossing up the valuation myself 2 or 3 stars. Likewise for the overall bloodline. I guess I rounded one up and one down as a result.

I agree on the Aesir bloodline being weak and Barbed Spear's damage being too low compared to other Sorcerer focus spells, but how useful do you think its pretty unique ability to inflict Clumsy is? For unlike other abilities, this Clumsy explicitly stacks and not every enemy has Athletics to get rid of it.

Quote:

The spear remains lodged within a creature it hits, making the target clumsy 1 (or increasing its clumsy condition by 1 if it is already clumsy) for 1 minute or until the spear is removed with a successful Athletics check against your spell DC as an Interact action, whichever comes first.

Each consecutive hit with Barbed Spear would make it easier to hit as the AC is decreasing. Few fights last that long, but it also stacks with someone else making the enemy Clumsy (crit spec, Synesthesia, etc.).

You're right to pull me up on Barbed Spear. It's not great but the clumsy makes up for the mediocre damage.

Reasons why I dislike attributes:

1. They follow a tradition of bioessentialism that creates false boundaries around what defines characters. Measuring characteristics like intenlligence has a very troubling, racist history and is still very problematic today. I say this as a college writing instructor who understands that we have no tools to measure such things that are not based upon cultural values that favor in-culture members over others.

So tests are not perfect or robust. Intelligence is a well established robust concept in real world science. This type of thinking is destructive and discounts real factors by negative association and mud throwing.

The more we try to create a small number of “essential attributes” the more likely we ignore other ways to be smart or wise or strong or likeable.

Yes its complex but we are playing a game. We need to codify and simply things.

2. They don’t even do what they say they do well. How often does the party only let the smartest character come up with the plan or strategy to solve a challenge? How often do parties even pretend like it was the smart character that came up with the plan? There are literally no game mechanics that actually represent character intelligence (outside of “magic”) as anything other than “how much data can your brain store”

Generally games uses Intelligence to discover information the character might be able to discern, discover, deduce, or remember. Yes some of the effects of what we might call intelligence is mixed in with other factors and is split over Wisdom, Perception, and Charisma

Gortle wrote:

At the risk of stereotyping

Was a mechanical engineering major, I'm liking the trend of quality-of-life smoothing.

Contrary to popular thought, engineering is about making things easier, not making things harder.

But if force barrage is what's tripping you up, odd hangup. I've had tons of player complaints about drow, never one about spell name changes. Players usually don't care long as they can still do the same stuff. What they complain about is losing access to former options, not whether an old option still exists by a different name.

My groups play a lot of different games. I've just finished another GMs D&D5 game and I'm going to now finish up the back third of Kingmaker in PF2 which I was running before the remaster so that will be a change up. But in also in a DCC game and running another homebrew game as well. I'm not in a Traveller game I could be in, and I'll be looking at Cosmere and DC20 soon. Last year was some PBTA and Shadow Dark.

Name changes are a pest. But yes if you only play one game they are easy to get over.

I feel its way easier to axe a gameplay mechanic that really isn't part of the world itself than something thats more tangible like a whole species.

Yes lore changes hurt, but lore is less important to us as we make a lot of it up as we go along. It's the name changes that increase mental load really hurt. Force Barage anyone?

Its also important to note that TTRPGs as a whole are leaning more towards simplification nowadays rather than having complex systems that require system mastery to learn and use

Simplfication is good, removing the dross is important. Lets do that.

You are still missing that there are different people here. At the risk of stereotyping; Engineers, IT, Physics and Maths geeks were the core player base for a long time. They want a different game from the general public. Don't kill this game by trying to make it the same as everything else.

I personally hope PF3e to fully divorce itself from D&D if possible.

The problem is most of the community has a history of playing D&D and don't share your view. In fact the core are players who resisted the changes from D&D3.5.

Much of that was the encounter and daily powers about which you are complaining and the Pazio designers seem to be pushing us towards.

There are limits to what Paizo can and should do. Everyone has different ideas about that.

Some of my players want Paizo to move to the lite Vancian that D&D5 went to. For me I want to get rid of it completely as I think it doesn't scale well, but I'm unclear about what to do with it.

None of us were interested in WellSpring Magic, not because it was a bad idea but it didn't seem well balanced (too weak). There are a lot of interesting options in PF2 that could work well but have got balance or perceived balance problems that should be revisited.

Though I think your specific feat ideas may be too strong. They are generally objectively superior to a +1 attribute, so they would simply drive optimizers to always take those instead of always taking the +4...but not increase the variability of character concepts. Example, your strength feat gives +1 to attack, damage, and Con. This is strictly superior to the +1 to attack and damage that a bump to Strength would give you, so why would anyone ever bump Strength up to 4 in your system? They wouldn't. So you'd simply be replacing "all fighter players feel obligated to take Str 4" with "all fighter players feel obligated to take Str 3 and the strength feat."

Well what us lost is the +1 to grapple and trip which is important to some builds. If that is not a balance factor for you because of class feature X then we can think about it more.

Importantly its not one feat it was one of 6 different feats plus the default +4 str, I could easily find another couple more. The point being every strength based martial doesn't have to look like a Jack Reacher.

I feel like the point is that every single barbarian and 90% of fighters are exactly as strong as each other from level 1 to level 20. Strength is an absolutely meaningless stat for talking about the vast majority of characters’ uniqueness or description.

So every strength based character is the same and there are commonly 2 of them in parties. Likewise for every other class /ability score combination apart from that there is typically one of them in a party.

It is a part of a description but a bit bland and predictable, we should be doing better.

Paizo tried to hint that a +3 is OK in a offensive ability score but the optimzer community and most of the player base haven't embraced that.

So here is a start at some other ideas, maybe this could be part of an attributeless system but I'm assuming all the attributes are still there.

Characters can take one of these as a free feat at level 1 if and only if they don't have a +4 ability score.

So looking at Strength

Incredibly Broad: You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks. You gain +1 Constitution.

Natural Athlete: You gain +1 to hit and damage with melee attacks. You gain +2 to all Athletics checks except for grapple, push and trip.

Deadly Eye: +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks, and +2 to Perception and Seek checks.

Seasoned Warrior: You know the importance of getting the measure of your enemy. You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks provided you have made a Seek Action, a Lore Check or a Hunt Prey Action in this round or the preceding round.

Dirty Fighter: You gain +1 to hit and damage with melee attacks. You gain +2 to Deception Checks and Dirty Tricks in combat

Perfect Balance: You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks. You gain +1 Dexterity.

Now many you can add more variety and make sure the modifiers always stack and close any rules, progression, or balance gaps. This is just an idea being tossed around.

For sure some similar flavour is already in the game. Every one of these is weaker in same way than just having +4 strength, but each also says something about the character and gets something else. If you want balance these are the sort of powers you need to give a martial to compensate for only having a +3 Strength.

Yes, "rolling up" a character can help spur the imagination. However, it's a major pain point when you have a firm character concept in mind and you have to hope the dice align to what you want to do.

And all of the additional steps with methods to help minimize the pure randomness just move more toward point buy or PF2e's ABC (Ancestry, Background, Class).

Note: I started gaming back in the 1st Ed AD&D days with "roll attributes in order"... and both races and classes had minimum and maximum attribute requirements(!) to qualify for. There was a (very understandable) reason people went toward point buy and other methods.

There were a lot of different rules in different games, plus lot of house rules. There is a time and place for random generation. It is obviously not when you have a firm character concept in mind. That is clearly incompatible.

The thing with attributes I think people like, or at least used to like, is that in earlier editions they were effectively random.

Yes we have lost that randomness. Many people still like it but the majority prefer balance so we have point buy. I always liked rolling up a character and rolling some personality/features and then trying to work out who they could be.

In PF2e that's not the case anymore. Even if you can technically juggle your stats a bit like starting with a +4 in your KAS and a +3 somewhere else, most people usually start with a +4/+2/+2/+1/+0/+0

Now every character has +4 in their primary ability. Every Fighter has +4 strength with only a few exceptions for special builds or unusual players.

The designers clearly expected the players to be happy with starting with a +3 in their primary ability score. But the player base have mostly pushed back against that. So everyone is the same. It is bland and boring.

attributes can sometimes work as descriptors, they more often than not work as restrictions. For example, someone that wants to be good at Intimidation is indirectly making themselves good at Diplomacy and Deception as well

There is a bundling everywhere certain skills and certain powers are gated behind classes, feats and attributes. It is the game.

I think the solution for that particular one is to have Strength as an optional ability for Intimidation. Paizo have prefered to have strong niche protection instead. I'm more concerned that Diplomacy and Deception aren't that good in combat. They need a little tweak.

RE: Attributes, I am attributes' biggest hater. I don't like partial boosts, I don't like how much complexity they add to the system for little to no benefit, I don't like the bioessentialist history or implications or how it sets up some players to accidentally behave in ableist ways trying to roleplay their stats, I don't like having to fight new players more used to narrative games getting very upset I'm not letting them make a 12 DEX thief rogue with all their points in INT. I think anything attributes do to help with the fantasy of a class can be better done with more feats, a number that says I'm strong on my sheet that no one will ever look...

I like having attributes. I think they are realistict and help describe the character. I do think it is silly just handing out large amounts of attributes as the characters level. Are you just fixing a maths problem in the game? What are they supposed to represent in the first place?

It could be covered with a set of feats eg like choose some feats that describe what your character is best at and provide a mechanical bonus. I think I prefer to do both this and have attributes.

I'd prefer if there where a few more options where attributes where not important. Example at the moment you can build a caster with just buff, healing, summons, walls and force barrage. You cut out almost all your offensive options but it is somewhat workable and you don't have to have a good spellcasting attribute. Can we get a class without a primary attribute?

This may rub people the wrong way in the context of the crunchy system that is 2e, but I think it's at least a worthwhile thought experiment to see if we could remove as many modifiers as possible in a future system, in a manner not too dissimilar to how 2e condensed many types of modifiers from 1e.

Modifiers do add to the crunch, and some are how key tactical elements are expressed in 2e, but they also slow down play

I agree. Modifiers are the game. As a player it is what you are trying to maximise at the tactical level. But it the players can't do it quickly enough it just slows the game down. A design can't be perfect until you have taken out the trash.

We probably could do without some of the modifiers. I think item bonuses on skill items are unnecessary.
I also object to having to wear things like a Demon Mask to get an intimidation bonus - it just interferes with my roleplaying of the character too much.

When some of the most basic actions will often involve multiple rolls that each have their own modifiers, gameplay takes more time to resolve

This is probably the biggest area to streamlining. No more rolls to determine modifiers for rolls. It's just a waste of time. Make it all a simple modifier that pushes into a final single roll. Aid shouldn't be a check just a modifier.

I'd also consider all the little ongoing rolls. Thinks like bleeding. Maybe the bleeding stops when you roll a 1 on the damage die. Bleeding is still there but now it is twice as fast to resolve. There are all sorts of things you can do to simplify and speed up the game without reducing its richness.

The worst thing you could do is go to a D&D advantage style system. Because the modifier is so large and so easy to get it devalues all the crunch.

I'm actually quite excited at the prospect of a new edition, especially as Paizo begins to depart from their D&D roots more and more in both design and convention.

Maybe I just find that things are going in all the wrong directions for my taste. No one in my play groups was at all interested in the new playtest classes. The new design decisions seem largely negative to me. There is still lots of clean up to be done with this game. We still don't have a useful Shifter. I'm finding the designers are more interested in adding extra fluff than adequately covering the core game.

I want to see a more serious effort to simplify the game and fix or remove the dross. By which I mean things that don't work reasonably or are adding mass and complexity but not really contributing to the fun.

Moving away from decades-old tropes such as slot-based spellcasting and prepared versus spontaneous

I'm perfectly fine with that. It was too complex and doesn't add enough from mid levels.

my hope is that we get another five to ten years out of 2E most specifically for Starfinder, because they're REALLY cooking over there! From minor QoL things like the Traversal trait streamlining movement rules to great new ideas like the Skill Paragon optional rule and Standardized Ancestry Feats that feel like they should be the new gold standard across both systems, and could pave the way for other ideas like Standardized Class Feats so you don't have so many martial or spellshape feats being reprinted over and over under multiple classes and archetypes and can instead use that space for more unique, flavorful, and interesting options.

I'll have to get around to checking out SF2 but the genre is much less interesting to me.

I would really want to see is a revision of the simple/martial/advanced weapon categories and the light/medium/heavy armor categories

It is a bit clunky but I don't see that it is problematic.

The third and last thing I want is a revision or removal of the 6 attributes.

Revise them if you must but if you remove them you have made a different game. For sure go write that one

* Failing on something and the adventure grinding to a full stop is bad.

Yes and no. Failing and having to try something else is fine. The real problem here is if the adventure or the GM have set the scenario so that there is only one way through. Unfortunately that is the simplest way to write adventures. A better adventure will have multiple ways through. Maybe the players fail and the lock is inpenetrable, but perhaps you can physically bypass it, maybe there is a key to find, maybe an NPC has information about a code or a weakness. I like to give the players options and to explore. This way the players and the dice have agency.

To me that is the heart of traditional RPGs. If you take it away you have a different mostly narrative game. They have their place too and can be great games but they are not the same.

Just allowing the party to proceed on a failure is in a sense cheating. It is bad adventure design. I guess it is acceptable on occassion if you find yourself in a corner as a GM, but not as the default rule.

* Failing on something and having to just try again and again until you succeed is also bad. Even if there's no cost/consequence to it.

...
Thinking about lock picking, we've established the mechanic works okay at the time pressure of an encounter. The rogue getting a potential ally out of manacles while the fighter keeps enemies busy, that's fine. If you fail too many checks, it'll take longer and be a harder fight, or you might have to flee and leave them behind.

For sure in combat the loss of time and actions is often a penalty enough in itself. The issue is out of combat the time pressure is often not there. So a rule to cover both is more complex.

I prefer to use a principle from IT called exponential backoff. Basically if you allow a retry then it takes a lot more time. So if you fail it as an action a retry takes a minute, if you fail it as a minute then a retry is going to take you most of the day. Kicking it from in encounter, to exploration, then to downtime and keeping the total number of retrys finite and sane but not making the result inevitable. As a GM it is easy enough to arrange for consequences to each of these results.

The larger issue is that exploration mode doesn’t have enough crunch to it

Yes the rules have a significant gap there and it is up to the GM to fill it.

In the case of no time pressure and a locked door which will eventually open, it doesn't really matter if a Fail result means "it takes you longer to open the door" or just "cross your fingers and roll the die again". If Tridus' version is doing anything, it's reducing the number of times you need to roll the d20 before you're allowed to continue.

It might matter when you consider the critical failure chance.

Now, keying the result of Pick a Lock to a time penalty isn't the version I would personally advocate for

Of course there are other options, it is probably best if the rules provide some options and the GM applies some judgement about what is appropriate for the situation.

Fail Forward does not say "you failed, I guess I have to open the door for you anyway so you don't have to find a different path forward", it says "sometimes failure can be made more interesting if something happens, including but not limited to, succeeding with meaningful consequences, finding a clue about a different path forward, or even just the situation changing in a way that renders this course of action untenable, do something else."

That part of fail forward is fine as I said at the start. I'm very happy to get more information and have options. So don't keep repeating it please. My concern here is that sometimes a good choice is just to say no and accept that a fail is a fail.

I don't want failure eliminated.

Gortle wrote:

Because you can succeed on a failure suddenly your ability with the skill is not that important. It is perhaps whether you have the skill or not.

Gentle reminder that Pick a Lock is still a trained-only skill.

It is pretty common for people to make simple logic mistakes. Less so when directly quoting text.

I think it was very obvious I was aware it was a trained skill.

The base mechanic is one of the things I'm taking issue with, on those. Locks that require 4 successes and where a failure does nothing are not interesting. If you're skilled at the task you're probably going to have to make 5-6 rolls where nothing really goes wrong unless you get a nat 1. That's not interesting, and the failure case is exceptionally dull because it's literally "nothing happens". That's just what's in the rulebook.

That could instead be a single check with a base time requirement of X and the following outcomes:
Critical Success: You unlock it in X / 2 time. That you have unlocked it is unnoticed by any creatures on the other side.
Success: You unlock it in X time. That you have unlocked it is unnoticed unless a creature is observing the lock or specifically checks.
Failure: You unlock it in X * 4 time. That someone is tampering with the lock is easily noticed by creatures on the other side.
Critical Failure: You break your lockpicks and any creature on the other side is likely to notice someone as tampering with the lock.

That's still a generic rule that can fit in the rulebook, except it's now one check that advances the narrative immediately in one way or another unless it's literally a lock to an empty room.

A couple of issues here.

Often the difference between Success and Failure just doesn't matter. There are many situations where time is not important. So as a generic rule it is problematic.

Because you can succeed on a failure suddenly your ability with the skill is not that important. It is perhaps whether you have the skill or not. So suddenly the wizard can become good enough at wrestling and the cleric at lock picking. What is the difference between a +2 and a +4 in this scenario? Are stats really that important anymore?

This is a different game. There are games that do this and they are valid and have their place. Go play those, don't destroy the uniqueness of this one by destroying it's core.

Why do we need to spoon feed our players and make it so easy for them. Failure sometimes is OK. Force them to think and adapt to challenges.

Ravingdork wrote:

I don't know that I care too much for the idea that PCs can just fail their way to victory.

That's not what failing forward means, though. Failing forward is about failures advancing the adventure, even if it means bad stuff happening. Rather than "you fail to pick the lock, try again," this can mean "as you try to pick the lock, you're spotted by a guard, who is about to run and raise the alarm. What do you do?" The basic idea of failing forward is that failure means progress as much as success, so you're never stagnating: progress doesn't mean victory, though, and failures in systems that do have a concept of failing forward tend to complicate things for the player characters in ways they have to deal with in interesting ways.

Well we need to be clear in our implications here.

Failure should provide information, failure should have consequences. Failure should result in a retry or a plan B.
So suggestions from an adventure writer about some possible fallback options for the GM to divert the players on to is great. If this is what you mean by "Failing Forward" then I'm with you.

However while the GM and adventure writer set up the scenario, I like the players to have agency, I also like the dice to rule. The outcome of actions has to be meaningful and have consequence - including potentially real failure - or else there is no real tension.

I do find attack/skill roll then miss can get a bit boring for players. Which is why I still try to create richer scenarios so that there are other options. Every character should be able to do something more than Strike. I think PF2 is better at supporting these other options with mechanics than most. Personally I like players taking Seek actions and Recall Knowledge type actions to gain a hint from the GM about when they realise they are stuck.

if i am swallowed whole by a demon, and i am a cleric with divine castigation can i cast a 2 action heal spell to affect rupture?

How are you doing piercing or slashing damage?

So no.

Gortle wrote:

You don't understand that Imaginary Weapon and Exemplar cleary stepped outside the normal range of damage expectations that they had established?

For me it was as a distinct change where they went off the rails.

It's funny because fire ray's damage is almost identical in damage.

I used past tense. If you thought Fire Rays damage was the same then you don't understand.

I don't understand the Imaginary Weapon nerf. There was no need to do such a thing as well as kill off one of the two best MC Archetypes in the game. That leaves only . . . Exemplar as the only other good MC and that's if your GM allows it.

You don't understand that Imaginary Weapon and Exemplar cleary stepped outside the normal range of damage expectations that they had established?

But that is not really the main point. You can make a good druid, but the wildshaping is just not strong enough.

Paizo have kept the top line balance moderately reasonable. The system itself really helps. But there remain subclasses and parts of the design space which is clearly supposed to be used eg Wildshape Druid, the Fury Barbarian , the Scoundrel Rogue, the Outwit Ranger etc, that just don't work well enough when doing the main point of their concept compared to the other options.

I think the Alchemical Sciences Investigator works fine as far as power level goes by the way - I'm just not that keen on the other options.

But Paizo have fixed many things like the War Priest, the Superstition Barbarian etc.

This isn't a 'they should suck' this is a '(remastered) swashbuckler is the gold standard of balanced martial power' and 'investigator is roughly where martial with heavy out of combat investment is' which is where a untamed order druid who never uses spells in combat should be, logically.

Maybe investigator could be bumped up a bit but if you try to get everything chasing fighter highs that's just asking for power creep and isn't going to be particularly healthy or fun.

It is illogical to balance out of combat utility versus in combat.

Yes every class should be aimed at around the same power.

If community engagement is so hard, why does every other company in the space do it better than Paizo?

That is too harsh. Paizo are better than all the larger gaming companies.

Pick a lane—either they’re full casters and should be able to cast in form, or their melee damage should be better.

Their melee damage should be better. Some limited casting in form is OK, but they need to be more viable in melee.

Funnythinker wrote:

Untamed druids must invest in Strength just to meet the requirements for their +2 bonus, which means they won’t have spell DCs as high as other orders.

This is just false. A druid can easily start with +3 Str, +4 Wis and keep both Str and Wis maxed out. If they grab heavy armor proficiency then they don't even really need Dex so they can even branch out into either (or both) Cha and Int if they want.

There are issues with druids but being MAD is NOT one of them.

It is false because they only get their +2 bonus on a couple of levels anyway.

But I think both Animist and Druid wild shape less and less at the higher levels. Spells are just so much better.

So you have effectively conceded the point. Wild shape needs a boost.

I just do NOT find the resulting character in any way not viable.

Well it is not viable for me and quite a reasonable portion of the player base.

Gortle wrote:

It is a generalist option. It is OK ish. But it is never great. It does not feel good enough.

As a generalist option it is exceedingly cheap (1 second level class feat Order Explorer or even just throw money at the problem and buy some scrolls). This lets your Str -1 Gnome have the option of being a reasonably decent melee character (NOT on par with a true martial, but moderately decent) when the situation warrants it. I've got a gnome druid and he only rarely shifts but he does so way more than enough to warrant the 1 feat he has invested in it.

Or you go the other route and invest fairly heavily. Raise Str. Take something like fighter archetype to get Reactive Strike. Maybe martial or some racial weapon proficiency to get access to some better weapons.

This makes your character a decent Gish when NOT shapeshifted, relying mostly on spells but able to go into the front line and do the Strike for one action/Throw a spell for 2 actions routine. And then, when the situation warrants it you turn into a better form (maybe better just because of reach and Reactive Strike, maybe you're at one of the few levels where the +2 status bonus for using your own attacks kicks in).

I've played both types and been quite satisfied with both. But both absolutely are spell casters first and melee combatants second. Which is why I'd personally LOVE to see a Shifter class. All of my comments on how decent the druid currently is do NOT change the fact that a decent Shifter class would be a wonderful thing to have

Ok but really this is misleading. It is not cheap. That you can poach a couple of forms cheaply is a separate problem.

For the Wild Order Druid - which should be viable being wild most of the time - you should invest in Strength or many of your feats are shut to you. You can easily spend all of your feats on this. Then you also need to pick up a couple of typically Fighter feats to get a maneuver and reactive strike. Then you still look like a very pathetic martial. Even though it is the focus of your build and you are aiming at the core of your class flavour.

It is the fact that the wild druid doesn't work that well, that is the real problem. Their main ability the +2 status bonus just doen't apply most of the time. It is weak. Yes other builds can steal a few forms and really the martial primary is really the only one that works.

The problem with large parties is the balance is thrown out with regard to being able to focus fire.
If you can concentrate all that damage on one PC or the party can focus fire on one enemy then players/enemies can go puff before they get to act. Or even just totally neuted.

6 players instead of 4 is 50% extra.

I'm running a group of 6 at the moment. My suggestion is make sure the terrain is complex. Split your fire onto at least 2 targets as the GM. I home brew all my monsters and I'm no afraid to step outside the bounds for the numbers of hit points for monster etc.

I think the goal is that a battle form gets you 90% of the melee power of a martial with far, far less investment. You can be a druid that ignores strength but turn into a gorilla that still hits just as hard.

The change I'd personally like would to to make Untamed Form a 1-action spell. It feels like right now it just takes a bit too long to get started in combat if you decide to brawl it out, compared to slinging spells. Making it 1-action would allow you to transform, move and strike in one turn.

But it does not get you 90% of the power. It still falls behind dedicated martials in AC, damage and attack value. A few points in each from mid level for just a simple strike ie about 30-50% off there. Then it falls down from the lack of maneuvers and other abilities martials get. One of the major points of PF2 was to stop prebuffing - it costs you actions - so while you have magic options because of the action economy they aren't really that much of a benefit.

It is a generalist option. It is OK ish. But it is never great. It does not feel good enough.

Then there are all the polymorph rule problems which have been around from the very start. These need to be fixed.

Well I'm just glad we finally have a ruling on instance of damage. Not a clean definition but a probably good enough example.

Gortle wrote:

... Unfortunately that list includes Activate an Item. ...

I think I'd say the companion items rule for "... can never Activate an Item ..." would still be specific enough to trump this spells effect, granting all minus Activate, imo.

Probably. It is just that I have seen specific versus general interpreted many different ways.

Note that I have used two different uses of specific and general in the same sentence to identify the conflict. The actually rules on Specific Overrides General is unclear leaving it to the GM to decide.

Xenocrat wrote:

It is limited to "basic actions," which are a defined group in Player Core (e.g. stride, seek, strike[but not for you!], etc.), and not any familiar ability actions.

"...any basic action it knows." is future-proofed wording.

If you give the familiar Manual Dex, that adds in Interact for Draw, Swap, "Ranged Pass," etc.

Take Cover is another "basic action"

It specifically adds ALL basic actions.

Sounds like the sort of thing some GMs are going to house rule.

Another balance issue here is that casters really like their high rank spell slots, so most people won't want to use this spell until higher levels. So this is very strong from around level 9.

I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build.

The problem is that some people worked the PF1 build system in multiple different ways. So PCs had wildy different damage ouputs and defenses. It became difficult to challenge as a GM without arbitrarily limiting the combos your particular group liked. Especially if you have groups with a few casual players. If your group has come to a satisfactory position then please enjoy PF1.

Making Off Guard have a penalty to reflex saves and otherwise making small changes to the flanking rules to help ranged players might be a part of the solution. Encouraging team work....

I think Paizo intentionally creates some minor imbalance to make things more interesting.

They sure do go out of their way to create different wordings on similar powers. There are a lot of very specific differences which overly complicate the game. It seems to be a design decision.

I don't actually think you can remove attributes because D&D players care a lot about legacy, but it's pretty clearly a feature that doesn't do much except provide ways to make your character worse.

Legacy is important. I for one liked the traditional 3d6 normal distribution of stats because it said something about normal people in your game world. But people have walked away from that.

Quote:

From a characterisation and roleplaying point of view, stats are part of the description of your character

To be honest, I think sometimes this can be detrimental too, because having that stat written down kind of... locks you into a certain reality.

But in many ways stats are reality. I'm a physically imposing person. I can't really do anything much about it, it just is. I don't have to lean into that. I can go a different direction in my life but short of magic I can't really do much about it. Now you don't have to include this level of reality in a game, but it is important to many people.

Anyhow I think I'll have a discussion with my gaming group next week on it and see if they want to try attributeless. I'm playing a game with a lot of radical homebrew at the moment.