Hitlinemoss's page

The boringly obvious answer is probably Summon Undead. Thematic relevance aside, summon spells are a nice way to get a good amount of mileage out of a single spell slot, and you can have the summon flank with your own thralls. Something like Ooze Form or Aberrant Form might be relevant for similar reasons (though once you're in a battle form, you can't summon new thralls).

Hitlinemoss, that comes back to the repeated question of how well will enemies determine what a Thrall is? A wobbly post that flanks. Or more accurately, isn't: a creature with agency/actions/durability/etc.

It's a new class, so Thralls can't be to prevalent in Golarion, and if one is shaping the Thralls to one's whims, they can resemble most any undead (some of which have such diversity already that it should take a Recall Knowledge check that no enemies will bother to spend the action on). Plus summoning undead w/o a body has been around awhile, so that seems the more likely assumption (and that's only for savvy enemies). Since Thralls do attack upon arrival, their initial appearance marks them as a threat.

I'm mostly just trying to say that it'd make more sense for thralls to be able to attack more than once (with the same action cost as summoning a new thrall), both for the sake of verisimilitude and because it would make thralls being able to flank more intuitive.

One minor thing I'd like to note about necromancer: by default, thralls can't do anything after being summoned, and that feels kind of weird from a narrative standpoint (especially given that they contribute to flanking as if they could attack). In terms of direct combat threat, creatures should basically be treating them like statues.

You can probably justify this with something along the lines of, like, "creatures need to keep an eye on the thralls because they don't know whether or not the summoner is going to do some weird magic thing with them", but I think it'd be easier to just have Create Thrall say that, if you Sustain the spell, an existing thrall can Stride and/or Strike. Would make the thralls feel more like actual present creatures instead of just a vague spell effect (and would also help in niche situations where you don't have room to create a new thrall next to a creature for whatever reason, e.g a fight in a tight hallway), but it'd be fine in terms of gameplay balance because it'd be functionally similar to just summoning an entirely new thrall.

I'm still concerned about guardians having below-average weapon proficiency compared to other martials. While raw damage output obviously isn't the main goal of the class, I feel like a defense-oriented melee class shouldn't be outright discouraged from trying to make Strikes, especially given the class's martial flavor (and especially given that existing defensive classes, namely champions, don't have the same limitation). If you can't use a weapon well then you feel more like a very insistent punching bag rather than a cool protector guy.

Sure but once you're into 'a player is committed enough to their backstory concept to want to change their starting languages' you've already left the realm of things the ancestry system cares enough about to have a sidebar about. Anyone who cares enough to go to that extent can discuss it with their GM, who would also probably appreciate having advanced notice of such a thing lest they accidentally make an encounter that hinges on one person knowing Elven because of course the elf does.

Notably, one thing they don't want people to do is to pressure their GM to let them swap languages because a sidebar says so. Purely in a vacuum, Elven is a more potent language than Halfling, for instance. And there's the actually useful non-ancestry languages, like Sakvroth. You can say that 'well an experienced GM can settle these issues' but an experienced GM can just let the player change the language without a sidebar saying so too.

The ancestry system cares enough about "playing against type" for the variant attribute boosts (and, more recently, mixed heritages) to be a thing, at least. And I'm not saying "let players do this without requiring them to talk to the GM about it" so much as "have the rules specifically say you *can* ask the GM about it", which would give more leeway to players trying to come up with unusual character concepts while still giving the GM the option of a hard "no, I'm not allowing that".

I also don't really think that languages are really more or less potent than each other in a vacuum; while Elven is theoretically "stronger" than halfling (since Elven society is both larger in scope and more likely to have, say, ancient magical artifacts or whatever), in practice whether or not a given language is useful depends on the campaign itself (e.g if the party is trying to track down a famous halfling hero, or if they're exploring some distant continent that elves have never laid foot on, then Elven is a less attractive option). I don't really think minmaxing language selection is something to really be concerned about.

I think the ancestry language does one more thing that isn't noted - it gives functional access to cultural feats. After all, how are you getting Elven Lore without knowing Elven? And of course loads of ancestry feats are written with the assumption you are an active, participating member of that culture, so if they write an exception for elves not knowing Elven, they'd have to also note that those elves can't access elven cultural feats. Or, well, they can assume that most people play elves who are Elven and anyone who really, really wants to play a non-Elven elf to the point they would rather not know Elven can do it themselves and figure which ancestry feats they can't take while they're at it

Now, you may say, what about Adopted Ancestry? But the inly ancestry who can take that at level 1 is humans, and they get a free pick of languages anyway. If you're in a game where non-humans can get adopted ancestry at level 1 for free if they abandon their cultural ties, you're effectively creating a new ancestry with access to physical feats from one side and cultural feats and language from another side, and once again that's not the Player Core's remit to handle.

I get the idea you're going for, but I feel like if a player's backstory involves them not growing up among members of their own culture, they'll just... not pick those feats. While a lot of ancestry feats are culture-based, there's just as many that are more based on physiology.

This is less a mechanical concern than a "players might pick feats that don't make in-universe sense" concern, and I feel like that's kind of a non-issue since if a player is committed enough to their backstory concept to want to change their starting languages then they're almost certainly going to be paying equally close attention to their feat selection.

I think it's important that the ancestry rules mostly represent "how to be a typical member of this ancestry" since most of the time if you're picking an ancestry it's because something about that ancestry appealed to you.

If you actually want to be a Dwarf who was orphaned as an infant and never learned Dwarfish, then you can probably work out something with the GM, but even if you were raised by kindly members of a different ancestry maybe at some point in your life you decided to learn the tongue of your people.

No, I think it's good that the ancestry statblocks list the default languages an ancestry should know. I just wish that swapping those languages out for something else was something the rules explicitly said you could do with GM permission.

It's like how the default attribute boosts for dwarves (+CON, +WIS, -CHA) work well for "dwarf-y" classes like barbarian, cleric, or fighter, but you also have the option to swap them out if you want to play something that wouldn't be common in dwarven society, like a dwarf bard or dwarf wizard.

Likewise, I think with languages we should have a similar option. It could be interesting to play a dwarf raised outside of dwarven culture, completely disconnected from their own people to the point of not speaking the same tongue, and exploring how that would affect their outlook on the world.

I know that you can generally work out these kinds of changes with the GM on a case-by-case basis, but I wish there was a rule you could specifically point to in this regard, you know? Like how there's guidelines already for custom mixed heritages or long-term disabilities or altering undead player options to provide the full immunities of the Undead trait.

As in, some quick line of text somewhere saying something like "with the GM's permission, you can switch one or more languages from your ancestry with other languages you have access to."

• This would make it easier to play characters with unusual backstories, such as being adopted by members of another culture, raised by wild animals or mythical creatures, or the like.
• There's already precedent for characters that don't fit the "default" of their ancestry, in the form of the variant attribute boosts, the Adopted Ancestry feat, and the rules for mixed heritages.
• Languages as a whole are largely a flavor concern anyway (i.e, the only mechanical difference between any two languages is just the fact that they're different languages, and therefore if you don't understand that specific language you can't speak it).
• I know that technically this (like many other things) is something you can already ask your GM to do, but it would be nice to have it explicitly supported in the rulebooks for the sake of tables that stick closely to the exact rules-as-written (potentially including Pathfinder Society play?)
• This is also just the kind of 1-2 sentence addition that should be easy to fit in as errata or something (though to be clear, I'm not an expert on how structuring physical books actually works).
• For the record, I'm specifically bringing this up because Monster Core changed the kobold monster statblocks to speak Sakvroth instead of Draconic, and while that fits well with the new post-remaster lore for kobolds, I would like the option for a kobold character raised in a dragon-worshipping tribe to speak Draconic (or anything else, e.g a kobold raised in a devil-worshipping tribe to speak Diabolic) without needing to go out of my way to invest character options (e.g improving INT, taking the Multilingual skill feat) into having the ability to do so.

Also why are people calling it "Lazylord"? Is that just based on the 4e Warlord?

The term "lazylord" specifically referred to a 4e warlord (or similar classes in other systems, though I think the term originated with 4e) that does no actual attacking themselves and instead focuses entirely on having their allies do the fighting on their behalf. In the case of PF2e commander, this would be accomplished by avoiding the Strike action in favor of tactics that allow allies to Strike (like Strike Hard! and Ready, Aim, Fire!).

I haven't tested the class myself in an actual game, but looking at the playtest itself, it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to do this (the main advantage being that you can near-entirely dump STR/DEX in favor of other attributes). It's like playing a warpriest that dumps WIS; you're limiting your offensive options, but you're still effective at supporting your allies. That being said, I do think that it's probably *better* to be mixing in your own Strikes, since all of the "allow an ally to Strike" tactics seem to be two-action activities and that means that on turns where you want to use two actions for something else you won't be doing any damage at all. But I appreciate that the option is there to play a character that focuses on battlefield tactics without necessarily being a combatant themselves.

I'd be shocked if draconic bloodline were the same, although it might be.

I wouldn't expect much about the bloodline itself to change (in regards to bloodline skills, granted spells, bloodline spells, or blood magic effect). The Draconic bloodline as it is currently doesn't really conflict with the new dragons (or, at least, the new arcane dragons), and you already needed to pick a specific type of dragon for the bloodline anyway. It's not too much of a stretch to just keep it as it is currently, aside from your tradition matching the tradition of the dragon you chose.

On the other hand, Wyrmblessed is already its own separate bloodline with a different tradition, different granted spells, and a different blood magic effect. What *might* happen is we might see different bloodlines for different dragon traditions? I'd prefer this, in my opinion, because that means the specifics of each bloodline can be tweaked to better fit the specific kinds of dragons they're based on.

By default, a familiar's modifier for most skill checks is just equal to your level. The Skilled familiar ability would increase this to your spellcasting attribute modifier plus your level for one skill of your choice.

Partner in Crime doesn't care if the *familiar* is a master at the skill for the auto-critical success, though, it cares if *you're* a master.

The text for Snagging Strike has always been a bit confusing, and it looks like the reprinted version in Player Core 1 is identical (aside from replacing "flat-footed" with "off-guard").

Here's the text of the feat, as a refresher:
"You combine an attack with quick grappling moves to throw an enemy off balance as long as it stays in your reach. Make a Strike while keeping one hand free. If this Strike hits, the target is flat-footed until the start of your next turn or until it's no longer within the reach of your hand, whichever comes first."

My point of confusion: what does "within the reach of your hand" mean here, exactly? I need to have a hand free to use Snagging Strike itself, of course, but what about afterwards? Is my hand now occupied, or does my target just need to stay within that hand's unarmed reach? Snagging Strike isn't a "real" grapple (i.e, it doesn't impose the Grabbed or Restrained conditions), but is the design intent that I'm keeping the target flat-footed with a loose grip, or just that my initial attack involved a quick pull on the arm or something and they're just off-balance until they take a few steps away from me?

I've searched several places online for an answer about this, and nobody else seems to be able to come to a consensus either. This is frustrating, because this seems like a fairly essential feat for a free-hand fighter build, and that's the exact build where knowing what your hands are being used for is important. For instance...

• • If I hit a target with Snagging Strike as my first action on a turn, can I then use other actions that require a free hand (such as Combat Grab or Dueling Parry) on the same turn while keeping the target flat-footed?
• • If I hit with Snagging Strike, then pick up an object with my free hand (such as a potion or a weapon), does the target remain flat-footed? What if I use the hand for some other Interact action (such as opening a door or reloading a weapon)?
• • Does using Snagging Strike end stances that require a free hand (such as Disarming Stance or Dueling Dance)?

If anyone has a definitive ruling on this feat, I'd like to hear it.

Hitlinemoss wrote:

Something I'll say about swashbuckler is that I think Panache is too specific flavor-wise.

Swashbuckler and rogue are really the only frontline martials that are designed with DEX-based melee combat in mind, and since rogue is so reliant on Sneak Attack, swashbuckler is your main option if you just want to focus on fighting your foes head-on with a finesse melee weapon. The problem is that swashbuckler also kind of expects you to act like an intentionally flashy show-off, and Panache's mechanics reflect that in a few ways (gaining Panache from non-style-related skill checks to do something flashy, for example). This is perfect for the "typical" swashbuckler that *does* want to go out of their way to look cool in fights, but it makes the class kind of clash with characters whose personalities are more serious and practical-minded.

That's not to say I don't like the classic, show-offy swashbuckler aesthetic, of course, but I think the class could benefit from *not* having that be the sole default flavor. It would be nice to have room for other character concepts, like a tribal skirmisher or a cold-and-methodical fencer. (Though an alternative solution might just be to leave Panache as-is and instead give fighter more support for DEX-based melee builds somehow.)

Fighters make excellent fencers though. They have lots of great feats, plus that sweet +2 to hit. You can just as easily build a Fighter with Charisma and Deception for Feinting as you can a Swashbuckler.

In fact, part of the core problem many have with Swashbucklers is that Fighters can make so much better fencers than they do.

From the standpoint of a STR-based fighter, yes, definitely. From the standpoint of a DEX-based fighter... still yes, but the STR-based fighter does pretty much everything that the DEX-based fighter does (in regards to melee combat specifically), and it does it the same or better. It'd be nice for fighters to have a few melee-focused feats that reward high DEX or something. At the very least it'd be nice to see some DEX-based skill feats that are more directly useful in melee combat; the only one that really comes to mind is Kip Up, and that doesn't really interact with your DEX itself, it just requires master Acrobatics.

I think in the broad sense I'd just like to see more options overall for DEX-based melee builds. (Without making STR obsolete, of course.)

Something I'll say about swashbuckler is that I think Panache is too specific flavor-wise.

Swashbuckler and rogue are really the only frontline martials that are designed with DEX-based melee combat in mind, and since rogue is so reliant on Sneak Attack, swashbuckler is your main option if you just want to focus on fighting your foes head-on with a finesse melee weapon. The problem is that swashbuckler also kind of expects you to act like an intentionally flashy show-off, and Panache's mechanics reflect that in a few ways (gaining Panache from non-style-related skill checks to do something flashy, for example). This is perfect for the "typical" swashbuckler that *does* want to go out of their way to look cool in fights, but it makes the class kind of clash with characters whose personalities are more serious and practical-minded.

That's not to say I don't like the classic, show-offy swashbuckler aesthetic, of course, but I think the class could benefit from *not* having that be the sole default flavor. It would be nice to have room for other character concepts, like a tribal skirmisher or a cold-and-methodical fencer. (Though an alternative solution might just be to leave Panache as-is and instead give fighter more support for DEX-based melee builds somehow.)

Something I noticed is that Area weapons (or Automatic weapons using Automatic Fire) base their accuracy off of class DC, rather than proficiency with the weapon itself. This seems unintuitive, in the sense that a class that's good at using weapons but doesn't have an outstanding class DC is weirdly mediocre at using shotguns and the like compared to single-target weapons. This mainly sticks out to me in the context of classes like Fighter and Gunslinger that get better-than-normal weapon proficiencies but fairly standard class DC. (I'm aware those are Pathfinder classes, but the fact that Soldier is explicitly designed to not encroach on Fighter's design space suggests to me that the basic game mechanics are still designed around the existence of these classes to some extent.)

A potential solution (aside from adjusting class DC scaling itself) could be to either have these weapons work like the Blast property works in PF1e (where the attacker makes an attack roll against each target in the area, rather than each target making a saving throw), or else have the saving throw be against a DC equal to the target's attack bonus + 10 (similar to how skill/save-based DCs work). Though that's just my immediate thoughts, so I'm unsure if that could cause other problems somehow.