Hobit of Bree's page

For the vampire thing, I agree, I read it as "As such, it has no effect on (nonliving creatures or living creatures) that don’t need blood to live". But that's an unreasonable reading given the context. Still, do demons have blood? In a lot of fantasy art they do. Just some of them? I find it unclear what needs blood to live, and sometimes even what counts as alive.

For the strike question, I can't figure out where to draw the line for target from this part: "Any magic of this type that targets the golem"

So I've had a lot of frustrations with P2e when it comes to the rules. Some things are just unclear but with careful reading you can figure out. But other things are debatable. And still others are actively unclear to everyone. Yet we don't get rule clarifications. And it's not at all clear that Paizo has tried to identify all these and fix them in the next edition.

A minor examples:
What exactly is immune to bleed damage? Is a living tree immune (is sap blood)? And if we are to figure it out based solely on "As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don’t need blood to live", why do some creatures (e.g. iron golem) specifically list it? And do vampires "need blood to live"? Heck, are vampires "alive"?

A more troubling (if less common) example:
How the heck do golem immunities work? There are tons of threads on this, and no one seems to know. Golem immunities have a massive number of issues:

Hi folks,
In P2e, is there any spell/cantrip/item that would speed up the process of copying books or other texts?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1646
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=439

So, per the feat (above) the trigger is when "A creature within your reach uses an auditory effect, manipulate action, or move action; makes a ranged attack; or leaves a square during its move action."

Further, from the second link "All speech has the auditory trait".

So whenever an opponent talks to someone else, they provoke from someone with Courageous opportunity (assuming the other conditions, when aren't trivial for most bards, are met)? That seems RAW but likely not RAI?

Thanks!

Hi,
Can the bard "counter performance" work against demoralize?

Demoralize says: "Attempt an Intimidation check against that target's Will DC."

Counter Performance says "You or an ally within 60 feet rolls a saving throw against an auditory or visual effect".

Does the attempt against the target's DC count as a save?

I'm guessing not as it not causing the roll of a die, but the whole DC thing seems like just a mechanical alternative that wasn't intended to have game effect. So I thought I'd check. (Plus counter performance is so rarely useful, sorta sucks for it to not work).

Hobit of Bree wrote:

Notice, it is FAQ, not answers to frequently asked questions. We are trying to list off the questions, link to the discussions and summarize the issues.

1) So you are agreeing with me - the discussion is important especially where its unclear.

2) A FAQ is very similar but different to a list of rules problems. So yes that is a distinction but also a large overlap. But a FAQ without at least suggested answers where practical is a waste of time.

We've just started, but yes. For one question, we give a pretty straightforward answer (but still link to discussions etc.). For the other two we discuss options (and link to the discussions).

We will answer what we can and leave a list of options when that's the right thing to do.

Again, folks interested in contributing should contact me. username: brehob. Account is a gmail.com.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

As a dm I just make a ruling on something that's unclear. Me being the final arbiter at the table is codified in the crb. A community FAQ (a subjective source of argument to begin with) with one member of said community having final say seems like a recipe for disaster. Just wait for official clarifications or cede to your dm's/group's best judgement.

Yes that is totally what you should do. No one is saying otherwise. Yes the local GM should ignore it if he wants. The players still have to accept that. Use of any community based idea is clearly voluntary and only if you want.

Its just that having a place where the rules arguments are listed and examined is useful. Probably for GMs to reference later, most won't have the time to look it up in game. The collected wisdom of a forum is going to be a better anwser than an individual GM in 90% of cases. Even if that answer is rule it in one of these two ways.

Notice, it is FAQ, not answers to frequently asked questions. We are trying to list off the questions, link to the discussions and summarize the issues. Have you looked at what little is there so far?

Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.

My issue is - how do you keep out bias?

Lets be frank. A lot of discussions are about loopholes in rules text. As a player you are easily tempted to argue in favour of a loophole. As a GM you are easily tempted to argue in disfavour of a loophole.

This directly feeds into the RAI vs RAW discussion.

How would the editorial decisions be made on such a FAQ?

Would editors be selected in a balanced way?

How could that be achieved?

Would it try to give a clear answer or rather summarize these are arguments in favour or disfavour of a ruling?

Two things:

I think the rules discussion forum as itself exists as a sort of "wisdom of crowds" knowledge base for the rules.

Like I'm unsure about what a document would offer that "firing off a question in here" would not. If something has a cut and dry answer, you're sure to get it pretty quick.

It may be that you're much better with the forums and search here than I am. But I tend to A) get better results from Reddit then here when I do a Google search B) the answer I'm looking for is often 20+ posts in. It's a lot of reading and I'm hoping to summarize things. It won't *solve* any problem a careful websearch couldn't solve, but it may help speed that process up for a lot of people.

I'm also hopeful it will make it easier for Paizo folks to see where rule issues are seen to exist and perhaps help them organize their own (official or at least more official) FAQ.

To me, RAW is just a clear way of saying a thing. And yes, for sure, RAW isn't always clear. The English language is that way. Good writing/editing helps, but doesn't solve everything.

The reason I do like the idea of RAW vs. RAI is that sometimes, per the section on Ambiguous Rules, you need to get into the authors' heads. For example on frightened impacting AC, my original thought was "I'll bet they didn't mean to do that". But when I found it was intended during the play test, I've concluded that the RAW and RAI are the same in that case, which is a good thing. If nothing else, it's how I read rules, laws, and just about any other technical document. In my line of work, there is a lot (a lot) of bad English (many engineers can't write well...) and trying to get into the authors' heads is a key to success...

All that said, I do appreciate the feedback--it's good to know that RAW can have such negative connotations for people.

One thing that has been bothering me, is that there is no real FAQ for the 2e rules. And there are certainly some places where it would be useful.

I'm proposing a crowd-sourced FAQ. I've only just started, but am hopeful others might be interested in contributing. I thought about doing it on a wiki (wikidot or something) but I think that creates a significant barrier for entry. My goal isn't to figure out what the answer *is* to each question. Instead what I'm trying to do is link to the relevant resources (rules, discussions, etc.) and identify consensus.

So I've created a Google document with an introduction and just one question asked and answered as an alpha version of such an FAQ. What I'm looking for from this group is:
* If anyone has feedback on the format or structure or anything like that.
* Others willing to edit.

If you'd like to edit, just reply to the post where I first announced this with a Google email address you'd be using and mention one or two questions you'd be planning on adding to the FAQ. Or you can do the same by emailing me at gmail (user name brehob).

If this really takes off I'll open a slack or something for discussion, otherwise I imagine the linked thread will be enough.

Thanks!

I think breithauptclan has a good idea.

Post your link in the Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream! thread, where it's Stickied at the top of the Forum, and where there's a bunch of questions already that you can pull from.

Then keep reposting your link as a signature, maybe using an alias, every time you post in the thread.

All of that sounds wise. Not sure about the alias part, but...

Again, if anyone want to join in (or provide feedback on the format or whatever...) let me know.

You can also send me an email if you don't want to post here: brehob@ that google mail address

Good points, but I think there is a chicken-and-egg problem here. It won't get much visibility until it has a fair bit of material and it won't have much material until it gets visible. My hope is that once we get a few people involved and we get to the 20 or 30 questions addressed range getting it made sticky would be viable. I'll probably do a fair bit myself, but it would be great if others are willing to contribute.

But you only need to do it for actual touch spells so your familiar doesn't actually move if the target is adjacent. If the target is further away it takes a move action (with the sprite riding) so it looks like what every one else does.

I'm sorry, not quite clear on your point. Are you saying that you can use spell delivery without doing the command mount action if the mount doesn't need to move?

I'm not seeing that as an option as written. So while it would be nice for the character I have, I think that would be in the realm of a (reasonable) house rule.

If you're saying something else, could you clarify? I'm not quite following you.

Thanks!

I had the permissions set wrong, folks should be able to see it now.

A few thoughts from the OP:
* I struggle with the idea a sprite, mounted on a corgi, cannot touch anyone (ally or enemy) in combat. A medium person on a large mount can. As can a large person on a huge mount etc. It's just beyond weird. Two sprites mounted on corgis couldn't touch each other even if they wanted to. Yes, it's a game, but at some point the game needs to make sense. This "can't touch each other" thing is past that point for me.
* I've not yet played this character in combat. I have played a ranger/beast master who optimized the heck out of their companion (3 feats by 5th level for the companion). This is a ton weaker than that. I think the familiar is going to die a lot just due to area effects. At 5th level, the familiar will have 25 hps. One fireball does 21 points of damage on the average...
* I agree, the spell delivery requires the caster to take the command animal action. It says it right in the description of spell delivery " and command the familiar to deliver the spell. If you do, the familiar uses its 2 actions for the round to move to a target of your choice and touch that target." The familiar doesn't have 2 actions unless you use that. So yeah, casting a 2 action spell in this way takes 3 actions and leaves your familiar in a potentially bad place.

One thing that has been bothering me, is that there is no real FAQ for the 2e rules. And there are certainly some places where it would be useful.

I'm proposing a crowd-sourced FAQ. I've only just started, but am hopeful others might be interested in contributing. I thought about doing it on a wiki (wikidot or something) but I think that creates a significant barrier for entry. My goal isn't to figure out what the answer *is* to each question. Instead what I'm trying to do is link to the relevant resources (rules, discussions, etc.) and identify consensus.

So I've created a Google document with an introduction and just one question asked and answered as an alpha version of such an FAQ. What I'm looking for from this group is:
* If anyone has feedback on the format or structure or anything like that.
* Others willing to edit.

If you'd like to edit, just reply to this thread with a Google email address you'd be using and mention one or two questions you'd be planning on adding to the FAQ.

I reserve the right to make final decisions but hope and expect I won't have to. If this really takes off I'll open a slack or something for discussion, otherwise I imagine this thread will be enough.

Crowd Sourced FAQ.

Hello,
I'm playing a tiny caster (sprite) with a corgi familiar mount. The mount is, per the Sprite rules, small.

Here's what I think is true:

What are you planning on doing with Int 16. Lots of Lore checks?

You can make a good Sprite bard with Int 8 if you want. There is plenty of room there to adjust your Str and Dex for optimal armour use. But you are in a large party so you will hopefully have a relatively reliable front line to be behind and you have a little more latitude with your AC.

Yeah, bardic knowledge and with strength of 1000 I will be getting a wizard dedication. So planning on running with that and getting decent at arcane spells too...

But yes, a party of 6 most likely. So being in the back should be easy a lot of the time I'd hope.

Thanks folks, really helpful.

I didn't look at the traits of a chain shirt. So I think it would be -1 to all STR and DEX skill checks other than Athletics and Acrobatics. So that would hose thievery and stealth I guess? And yeah, a -1 isn't bad.

The Drakeheart Mutagen looks great. Probably not a thing until level 3 or so (I'm assuming such things will be readily available given the setting).

I'd have missed that Counter Performance is a Composition spell. Oyi, that does suck. But good to know.

I think I did the stats in the wrong order? It's 8 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, and 18 Chr.

Reach spell seems really cool. The extra action seem non-trivial on a bard (who probably wants a composition up at any given time). But I'd not considered it, thanks!

And does hefty hauler add 1 or 2 for a tiny creature? I'm thinking 1.

There are some *weird* bulk rules around tiny. As I read it a tiny person carrying a light item treats it as nothing (the exact word is "none". A tiny person carrying a negligible object may well treat it as light! Gah. It's all silly. I may ask in the rules forum if I can't find anything.

But seriously folks, all that helped a lot.

I'm planning on playing a Sprite bard for Strength of 1000s. I'm normally quite the min/maxer, but I've decided to go a different route and I'm a bit worried I've gone too far down that route. It's a big party (probably 6 players).

My concern is that I'm planning on having stats of 8, 14, 12, 16, 10, 18. It makes sense for the character (even a STR of 8 seems like a lot for a tiny character), but wow, does it make for a horrible AC. I'd rather not wear armor with that 8 STR (penalties to everything) so I'll probably have an AC of 15 at level 1. That seems really scary in 2e--feels like I'll get critted every round if anyone chooses to get to me. I'll be mounted on a familiar corgi, so in theory I could give up AC. Or I could even imagine working toward medium armor and just living with all the penalties (he calls himself a knight, so why not?)

Other thoughts:
* Occult spells seem like fun.
* Counter Performance seems crazy good. I don't know why I don't see much discussion of it.

Rules questions
* Should a Maestro with Counter performance have 1 or 2 focus points? Pathbuilder puts it at 2.
* A tiny heavy crossbow does full damage but has a bulk of 1/2 normal?

Advice questions:
* Am I crazy playing a character with such a poor AC in 2e?
* Any other thoughts on the character?

It would be really nice if we got an FAQ about things like this. Sorta makes a huge difference. I see three rulings:
* You can't target a hidden creature with magic missile, because the spell specifically requires you to see the target.
* You can auto-hit a hidden target because of the "automatic hit" part of the spell
* You have to make a normal flat check to hit with magic missile.

I think all three are reasonable readings of the RAW. Be nice to know that the RAI are...

Probably my biggest issue with 2e the lack of support on rulings from the design team.

This question has been asked, check this thread.

Thanks! My search didn't turn it up.

Does a magic missile really have a miss chance? The "automatic hit" makes me think no.

Hi folks,
Can magic missile target a hidden creature?
"... toward a creature that you can see"

Hi folks,
The rules for flourish are "You can use only 1 action with the flourish trait per turn."

If you flourish as a single action, then ready, your reaction happens on a different turn. Can you use the flourish action as part of that reaction?

I'm trying to find a character that can focus mostly on providing buffs to the party--ideally without too much in the way of spells. Basically a military leader. The Marshal archetype seems focused on this and seems decent at it. But what would go well with it as the actual class?

Been thinking bard could work. Swashbuckler might do it, but Paladin seems even better?

Basic idea: Fairly young and gifted low-ranking officer who retired after the war. Basically a good leader and okay military person. Would prefer little in the way of spells and probably lighter armor, but both are negotiable.

Likely using the additional archetype option.

Thanks!

No.

I wouldn't expect that to change without some kind of limitation, since that would be throwing open the doors of unlimited flight at low level.

Sort of. If it was a level 10 item or level 10 feat, it wouldn't impact low-level play. And flying isn't *that* uncommon starting around level 10.

The way I'd put it is that the game does a pretty solid job of capping your "optimization" level. It's quite easy to build a *bad* character. And, IMO, most classes, at least at lower-level, only have 2 or 3 reasonable ways to get to get a good character. Really, none of that is all that different than previous editions other than capping the optimization level.

So just don't fall into any traps (e.g. Fighter power attack isn't something you should be using every round) and you should be fine. Be sure to max your attack stat (duh), take the "required" feats for your class (ranger needs a way to attack multiple times on a single action for example...) and you should be fine.

As far as party building:
* In-combat healing is hugely important. That can be a shock from Pathfinder 1e (less so from 5e, but still significantly more important in P2E than 5e).
* More-so than most other games (P1E for sure, 5e a bit) a tank is really really important in some games. In a dungeon crawl (where movement is limited and bottlenecks happen a lot) it's huge. In outdoor games (where people can move fairly freely) it's still important.
* Having some area attack and some ranged attacks are helpful. Ranged attacks look bad (and are bad from a numbers viewpoint) but the action economy makes ranged attacks helpful. And the low penalties for shooting into combat (generally just a -1, sometimes nothing) without spending feats is big, especially in when bottlenecks are common. Are attacks are, IME, less important than in 5e or P1E but still darn useful for obvious reasons.

So you need one healer, one tank, and probably someone that can do area damage and it's nice for significant parts of the party to be useful at range.

Wasn't sure if this was a rules question or advice.

Is there any way, item, feat, etc. to add the mount trait to an animal companion that doesn't have it?

How many free hands do your need to climb? To hang on a wall? Does that change if your have a climb speed?

Say a character wanted to climb 10 feet and fire a bow while on a wall. Do the rules clarify how that would work?

Yes, so a player of a ranger who wants to shoot lots of arrows will choose Flurry Edge. A player who wants one good shot per turn will choose Precision Edge. A player who wants to use skills against the prey will choose Outwit Edge. That is the customization style in PF2.

Almost. For a precision archer ranger, the first two shots generally go to the hunted prey because of the restrictions of "Hunted Shot". After that, sure, you can put your shot where you want, but those are at -10

I've done the tracking thing once. I basically treated it as my exploration mode action, is that right?

I've yet to find recall knowledge to be useful. Game seems to make a big deal of it. But my only options are "shoot stuff" so knowing strengths/weaknesses of creatures hasn't been helpful (yet). Am I missing something?

OP here. Just made 2nd level as a Goblin Ranger Archer.

Not finding it to be a trap at all and rather liking it. In fact for the first couple of sessions people were feeling like my character was the most deadly (a lot of good rolls). I am finding playing a 1st level martial character to be pretty repetitive, but that's true in most systems (I pretty much always play casters).

There are a three main reasons that the character works better than I'd expected: action economy, kind cover rules, and party composition.

For actions, "move, mark. shoot/shoot" is pretty typical--I've never needed to take a 2nd move. The melee types (fighter, rogue, cleric) often have just too much to do (raise shield, move twice, etc.) and sometimes they don't even get a single attack, let alone two. And while they are doing d12+3 (cleric) or d6+4 (fighter), I'm doing fine at d6+d8+1 as a precision ranger.

The cover rules for shooting into melee are very kind compared to 1e (no penalty or -1 vs up to -8 in 1e). That given our large party (6 folks), that has meant I've been able to attack when only one other martial could.

I'm going with an animal companion and battle medicine at 2nd level. That will give me a lot more to do with my actions and I'm looking forward to having a few more choices to make. Also hoping that an animal companion doesn't slow down my turn much (not ideal with 6 folks). I *am* feeling like battle medicine and animal companion are a lot better than all the other options I'm seeing at 2nd level. They are also what I was planning on since before I understood 2e rules, so maybe I've just not looked broadly enough...

So with only play at level 1, I'm liking my archer.

Lucerious wrote:

My list of complaints about 5e go on for miles. That said, one thing they do very well is answer questions and provide (via third party) an online resource to find all the tweets discussing the rules. One may disagree with the format or the ruling given, but the fact that there is a clear and easy way to get answers to ambiguous rules is great. When I was playing 5e, Sage Advice was a bookmarked site.

Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.

Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.

Errata can be great, but some things just need clarifying.

And I will say, I've had problems with both the 5e sage advice answers (the shield master thing is a good example) and the 2e errata (Manifold Edge errata is just plain old stupid making it a horrible 18th level feat). But I'd rather have the designer's thoughts than not.

I find that being a competent archer with a short bow in hand at the start of an encounter, with the capacity to switch to a melee weapon without wasting an action when the time calls for it is very effective in PF2. Not wasting actions moving into position where the enemy doesn’t have to move is how you gain a big tactical advantage in PF2. Archers get very good options for this.

Seems likely indeed. But for my first pass in 2e, I'm hoping to play a pure archer (well archer with an animal companion). The character has a dogslicer and darts as backup at 1st level, but those are the backup plan. If there are extra runes around the party, I'm sure I'll put runes on the dogslicer, but probably after the wizard does her staff or whatever other weapon she'll end up with.

Also, wow is a short composite bow expensive. Can't afford armor or a buckler to start. Don't think bows really cost 14x a long sword at any point. I think crossbows were generally about 2x the cost of a good sword and english longbows were about half.

Just another way to hose that ranged guy I'm tellin ya.

But seriously, why does a bow cost so much? Not history and I as I said, I think bows are already hosed enough...

You could say kind of the same thing about the Fighter... most of the weapon-style archetypes just wholesale poach Fighter feats. I guess that the fighter is so broadly defined and also so strong doesn't make it feel the same though.

I think the fighter's "thing" in 2e is basically have an AoO (shared with others, but of PCs his is the best and free I *think*) and generally having a +2 attack bonus over all other classes (I think that's right at most levels at least?)

A ranger has their edge, but really that isn't what defines a ranger to me...

Not in all circumstances.

Melee is the lead damage dealer in close-quarters against smaller groups.
Magic is the lead damage dealer in larger groups, especially over shorter periods of time.
Ranged is the lead damage dealer in longer-range encounters unless there are enough enemies in tight enough groupings for magic to step ahead.

It just appears to some people like there's an imbalance, rather than a give and take, because their campaigns heavily lean toward the circumstances that favor one group in particular.

I'm the OP of this thread and also a new 2e player (but a very experienced TTRPG player) and my sense is that this is right. I think they overkilled on hosing archers (d6 die for main weapon that doesn't have a negative trait, lots of runes that don't work with bows, etc.), but yes, I think that if the combats are spread out enough on a regular basis, the archer will likely be fine.

In a tight dungeon crawl, I suspect they will suck--but maybe not. The ability to be useful (even if penalized for cover) in a chokepoint situation may make the archer more useful than yet another melee type who may have to move to a bow.

I think the observation that larger maps just make archers better is valid. So playstyle is going to play a large role.

I really do appreciate all the discussion here, like Albion I've learned a lot. Looking forward to finding out how it all really works (first real game is this weekend).

Makes sense, but having one rules Czar seems like it would be helpful.

Just the rules are vague/poorly-written in places. More than 5e (simpler rules) or Pathfinder 1e (had 3.5 to build off of).

I know we've got the errata. But I'm so used to 5e where the rules questions largely get answers from the involved staff. Here it feels like the rules questions have yet to really be addressed. No FAQ, not much of anything. Pathfinder 1e seems to have a bit more even.

Anyone know if this is likely to change?

Seems weird that order matters. So if I have an archetype already, I can use this and have two.

But if I take this first, I can't later take an archetype until I finish that archetype.

Don't see the need for the lack of symmetry, but I agree it's RAW.

Hobit of Bree wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Hobit of Bree wrote:

A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger.

Mounted combat isn't a thing that is associated with being a ranger.

Having an animal companion has been with the class since 1e as I recall. Beastmaster does it better. I see no reason to not allow the ranger to up his companion at the same level as druid and *every* archetype that gives one. I get they wanted the druid one to be better. But should have improved the druid one, not hosed the ranger. To be able to do that well, the ranger needs to take an archetype. Why bother having the feats at all? Animal companion isn't something you are going to dip into. If you don't level it up, it's useless. So every ranger taking any of those feats is very (very) likely going to do it via an archetype instead.

Feels like suboptimal design. Why have feats as part of a class if it's unwise to take them?

The ranger's animal companion gets to benefit from the ranger's hunter's edge so they tend to be better offensively (or defensively if you take outwit) when they get to the same tier.

Yep. But A) you aren't at the same tier about half the time and B) you are using higher-level feats for all of the improvements. So even when you are on-tier, you are behind on feat slots.

Is the edge worth it? Maybe yes. But probably not. Precision, maybe. Flury? I don't think a -2 on your second attack is much at all. Outwit? Probably not, but at least it helps when supporting. When on-tier I think I'm still better off with free higher-level feats, but it's debatable. When off-tier it isn't close.

TBH I think you overvalue Scout's Warning. In my experience, each member of the party is engaged in an exploration activity while in exploration mode and one of those is almost always Scout which completely negates that feat. I would never consider taking it. Although I might be missing something.

Agreed. But the scout's dedication feat is still useful.

I honestly think they just screwed up the ranger feat. It needs errata.

Hobit of Bree wrote:

A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger.

Mounted combat isn't a thing that is associated with being a ranger.

Having an animal companion has been with the class since 1e as I recall. Beastmaster does it better. I see no reason to not allow the ranger to up his companion at the same level as druid and *every* archetype that gives one. I get they wanted the druid one to be better. But should have improved the druid one, not hosed the ranger.

To be able to do animal companions well, the ranger needs to take an archetype. Why bother having the feats at all? Animal companion isn't something you are going to dip into. If you don't level it up, it's useless. So every ranger taking any of those feats is very (very) likely going to do it via an archetype instead. I'm having a hard time seeing a level 8 build that takes the ranger animal companion and doesn't take beastmaster.

Feels like suboptimal design. Why have feats as part of a class if it's unwise to take them?

Quick question: You can take multitalented even if you already have another archetype dedication. But does taking it prevent you from taking another archetype later? Seems weird, but RAW that's how I'm seeing it.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out beastmaster. That actually solves most of my specific issues. Don't really *want* two animal companions, but eh, it will work.

My suggestion would be to worry less about names of things when it comes to getting your character together. Whether something is entitled "Ranger" or "Cavalier" or "Archetype" or "Class", just go with the idea of the character and use the rules to make that idea come to life. If that means you take Rogue with a Cavalier archetype, or a Wizard with Beastmaster archetype, or whatever, then that is fine as long as it supports your idea.

It's not the name that is bothering me. It's that I feel a wizard shouldn't be out-done in casting by a fighter with a "spellcaster"archetype. A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger. The problem is, as others have noted, for a ranger, that's a wide range of things. Still, I think a ranger needs some niche protection and I'm feeling like there isn't anything a generic ranger can do that any other PC couldn't do better with the right archetype. Casters don't have this problem. Fighters and Champions don't have this problem. Rogues mostly don't have this problem (maybe?). But rangers do.

Niche protection is important in game design so each player can feel they have something special to contribute. It's not clear what the ranger has, if anything. In my mind, that's a design flaw.

I am personally just wondering why all characters and important NPCs don't just start with 3 Focus Points. They could have easily trimmed at least two pages of text from the book just by simply doing this and that space could have been used to define a half dozen or more "generic" Focus Actions or abilities such that make logical sense in connection with the idea of "focus" such as taking extra actions to "Aim carefully" with a Ranged Attack, to gain a circumstance bonus to a Skill Check, or even to remain conscious for one round at a time when you're brought to 0 HP.

The way it was implemented isn't bad, I just think that they make it needlessly contrived and contradictory while also taking up WAY too much space in the CRB defining it over and over and over and over and over it as opposed to giving it to everyone right upfront and tanking the amount of space available in most spellcaster class entries, for real, just trimming the Focus Pool language from Class Feats alone would save enough space for at least 2 or three more Class Feats for any given spellcaster or Focus Spell user.

It is what it is though.

That actually feels like too much. Heal companion, for example, seems pretty big. I wouldn't object to "1 focus point, 2 starting at level X, 3 starting at level Y" too much, but I like the idea that if you want to be able to do a thing more, you have to work at it (by taking another feat that adds to it).

Did this need like three threads?

I tried to edit the subject. Apparently doing that creates a new post. Sorry...