Inkfist's page

I think the psychic does very well at high levels as long as they get to refocus a lot. Your games don't allow that which just destroys high level psychics. I know I was doing just fine with my psychic at L19-20 even when we had 2 encounters back to back. Wouldn't have been able to handle 3 or more though.

My experience with psychics 1-20 is that refocusing every 2nd to 3rd encounter is essential, but also in combat they have surprising amounts of throughput via their psyche/mindshift feats.

Granted making best use of them is 100% party dependant and requires buy in for what I tend to call the 'party frag' tactic. (Esentially everyone but the frontliner(s) know to stand more than 20 feet from the Psychic, and the frontliners need to be prepared for every second AOE or so be unfriendly to them with the understanding that the damage they take from the psychic is less than they would take if the encounter went 1-2 turns longer. You ideally stand about 10feet behind the tankiest member of the group and basically chain detonate after dropping a persistent damage spell on round 1.

With the new Commander's 'slip and sizzle' manoeuvre I can see Psychics becoming absolute nova menaces when unleashed.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

We rarely play less than level 12 to 15, so we usually start early always setting up for the higher levels.

Thanks for the answer. That explains a lot.

Characters and groups that started at level 1 and play all the way through to the higher levels are often considerably different than ones that start at the higher level

Yeah. I 100% agree that 'gang up' and 'opertune backstab' are stronger than most class feats, but if you start at level 1 and arent playing with either dual classing or Free Archetype rules you have to make an exceptionally good case for blowing so many class feats on dedications that arent going to pay off for a solid 100+ encounters.

Its very clear from your posts that your table works differently than a great many tables. Some of that difference seems to be that your table does a lot of optimization of both individual characters and of the group as a whole. There seem to be other differences but I haven't been able to figure out what they are.

And that is just fine. You presumably are all having fun and have found balance points that work for your hyper optimizing groups.

But the game is ALSO working as intended when a group of more casual players get together with less optimized characters or when (as in PFS) a random assortment of strangers get together with characters built with no knowledge at all of what else will be at the table.

Thank you, there is nothing wrong with a high powered /highly optimised game, or one with optional or variant rules. You just can't assume it's the default state of the game for people.

The issue with having a martial being buffed multiple times/ or enemies being debuffed multiple times before anyone else acts is while it is *a* solution to encounter, it's often not *the* best solution to encounters. For every time 'buff the VIP' works, there is often one where a sixth rank 'slow' or a 'chain lightning', or even something like a 'banishment' offers more impact or will speed up encounters faster than spending multiple turns buffing one party member.

That and providing average damage numbers without factoring in 'to-hit' is going to give misleading results. If someone is at a high-powered enough table that they ARE hitting 3-5 times a round, then that should be mentioned so that people can factor it in.

From my very many readings of Deriven’s posts, I think, to the contrary, Deriven’s group plays ultra high powered and hard enemies. With a bunch of fairly optimised characters and tactically savvy players.

Yes but that would reinforce the point that his experiences aren't in line with most people's. Probably the biggest evidence of this is that in the 'worst class' thread there is a paragraph or so about how focus power/spell based classes are terrible as parties rarely ever get to refocus between encounters...which once again doesn't line up with most people's experience.

If you are in a tactical group where enemies are often severely debuffed to the point of triviality then it's probably worth mentioning the spell and action costs involved to set up that scenario rather than just assuming it as standard.

My group often runs 'protect the president/superstar' compositions, where everyone typically supports a single character to do ludicrous damage. However, I can't pretend that the 'superstar' does all of that damage without turns and turns of actions and support.

When you casually go 'class X can't do damage' but then a dozen responses in you find their comparison point was a dual class game with assumed pocket caster support and multiple set-up rounds then its *possible* that it may not be either a good or fair comparison. In this case an equal level enemy with moderate AC would need to be Clumsy 3 for the argument that the Rogue is HITTING more than three times in a round where they have surprise attack to be accurate more than half the time. (I.e. a second pocket caster beating the everyone in inititive and dropping 'Synesthesia' before the hasted Rogue gets their surprise attack turn. It's theoretically possible but now the hypothetical assumes either multiple unmentioned pocket casters setting the rogue up, or is a staggeringly trivial encounter. Possible, but neither represents the experiences of most players.

Ok let's look at the hypothetical scenario you've set up, and factor in the claim that hitting 3-5 times a round is standard for your rogue.

The scenario you give is a level 15 rogue with an eleven curve blade with level appropriate runes beginning the encounter unseen, undetected with haste.

I'm going to be extraordinarily generous and say the enemy is a level appropriate block of tofu with no abilities, senses, spells, or anything else other than the 'moderate' AC for an equal leveled enemy. To land a 3rd attack against a moderately armoured equal leveled enemy with a weapon that has finesse but not agile you'd have to roll 16 or higher.

This is with a rogue that has maxxed out stats and runes runes for their level and surprise attack giving you off guard for every attack. With this optimal set-up you are still missing that 3rd strike 75% of the time.

It's both worth noting that a single at-level enemy is a 40xp trivial encounter, and an 'moderate AC' enemy that you could reliably hit more than half the time with that third strike would need to four or more levels below you which would count as a 10xp lackey.

This is not trolling, this is the scenario *you* put forward to argue your case. To reliably hit as often as you claim you have to have had 'haste' cast on you, you've had to sneak up on your enemy, you've had to win initiative, but to hit 'at least 3-5 times a turn' it would have to have been against literally the lowest threat encounter for your level in the XP table.

If we use the encounter XP rules to create a single enemy that will count as a moderate threat then that third attack lands only 10% of the time against an 'off guard' enemy with only moderate AC

Of course the Rogue feels great if you get buffed and spent a night chain critting lackeys. I wasn't trolling when I said that wasn't the standard experience for most people. I'm not saying Rogue isn't a strong class. What I AM saying is either something is very off with the scenario you have presented to highlight the strength of the class, or if this *is* a reflection of your average play experience then your GM is coddling your party beyond belief.

It gets worse he also presumes to be getting haste and reaction damage in this scenario and got frustrated when it was suggested that enemies typically will punish squishy characters who conventiently start their turn next to them and who try to attack three+ times.

White room math is great if you are calculating how much damage you can do to a low AC immobile block of tofu.

You are more likely to find a monster that has multiple reactions, or resistances, or immunities, or forces players into bad choices via saves or by having exceptionaly punishing 2-3 action options. You just have to play through some of the earlier AP's to find how often Paizo is willing to throw creatures that are immune to precision damage and/or crits at you.

Sometimes monsters just grab (and swallow) players. Sometimes they just fly which makes the ranged martials and casters feel great, but kind of screws over anyone that hyper invested their character's wealth in that optimal blade and its property runes.

These hyper cheesy 'class X is better than class Y because of this heavily cherry picked scenario' are unhelpful because they always devolve into 'hypothetical batman builds'. The 1e message boards used to be riddled with players arguing that nothing could beat a wizard, but the second someone pointed out actual play experiences and scenarios then the *hypothetical* wizard was suddenly one who magically had the exact feats, archetypes and options that would be sub-optimal or barely functional for a dozen levels or so, but were perfectly tailored to that exact scenario.

So yeah, apparently the rogue is hasted. If we point out that kieticists can switch hit and deal with flying enemies well then suddenly the rogue will have a flight speed/airwalk. If we point out that assuming that you hit 3+ times a round is unlikely, then the enemy will be clumsy 3 and the Rouge has their pocket caster pre-buff them with a high rank 'heroism'

The kineticist doesn't do bad damage because it has bad damage. The kineticist comes off second best because its a bad comparison point. It would be like arguing the rouge was a sub-par striker because the only measure I used was damage against a bunch of enemies tightly clustered in a 10 foot burst.

You've now added 'Haste' to your hypothetical white room math example.

Not only did you create a comparison point which was perfectly suited to the rogue but now you are just assuming they are being supported and buffed by a pocket caster too?

If your GM is letting a 8hp/level martial safely stand next to enemies and get off 2-3hits (plus reactions) on average whilst also giving them time to be buffed without being targeted or punished...well that GM is straight up coddling your party.

Most martial classes trade damage for versatility. E.g. your 'sword and board' users opting for a shield for defence, or reserving and open hand for manoeuvres. Kineticist strikes stack up pretty well against most of them with the added flexibility of having no action tax to safely switch between melee and ranged without a loss of accuracy or damage. They get a lot of utility and AOE potential in exchange.

Once again they won't beat a hasted, single target specialist at single target damage, against a target that does nothing in response. But they arent *lacking* because of it.

It's like trying to argue that the Rogue needs buffs because its worse at combat when using an eleven curve blade whilst blinded and underwater, or that they they are bad because they lack class feats to give them a burrow speed. Creating unrealistic scenarios that heavily favour one class or another doesn't tell us anything.

It's like saying 'my formula 1 racing car can beat a Mazda in a race...provided that it's on a perfect racing surface and there is no traffic' the second you encounter a moderately sized speed hump you have a problem, and with AP's at least Paizo *loves* throwing speed bumps at parties. In those cases a moderate throughput workhorse preforms better than the hyper-specilised.

The kineticist fills a similar role as the Summoner. They don't have the same power ceilings as most of their peers, but they are given more tools to deal with adverse situations than their peers. For many people that's not a weakness, thats the appeal.

When it comes to single target damage Kieticists can choose to just hit things.

Let's look at the comparison point you made. You have a rogue with what for most rackets is their optimal weapon, fully upgraded, getting sneak attack and not only assuming it hits or crits, but also straight up assuming that they can do this multiple times per round.

That's fine for a white room math exercise, but in actual play I've found it exceptionally rare that I can safely start my turn next to a pre-debuffed/flanked enemy and drop all my actions striking, let alone assuming it's the default state of play.

Now let's look at level 15 kineticist with *just* a level appropriate gate attenuator and the level 1 feat 'weapon infusion'. Without needing to sneak or flank, or anything other than being within 20 feet of an enemy they can hit for 4d8+10 for two actions, or 4d8+5 for a single action (anywhere up to 100 feet away). This isnt factoring in aura effects, other powers, etc that the kineticist has at this level just plain strikes.

Is the kineticst as strong against a single target as a single target specialist as the rogue who is kitted out and is assuming everything is in their favour? No. Is it solid enough damage that can be done outside the reach of the vast majority of reactive strikes in the game all at a cost of a first level class feat? Yeah.

It's like how a kineticist will beat the rogue at AOE every time, but will be blown out of the water by a psychic when the white room math assumes that somehow it's turn 2, and the enemies are weak to will or reflex saves. If you set up the hypothetical to massively benifit one party then the results will skew towards that party.

Having great but conditional damage is fine, but you can't assume it's an every turn let alone multiple times a turn option. Paizo loves building encounters that often screw over certain playstyles. The second the enemy starts flying, or having exceptionaly dangerous 2-3 action options, or can't be flanked, or has multiple reactions per turn then getting up close with that elven curve blade becomes a bad idea.

Having lower but reliable damage with the only condition of being within 100 feet isn't *bad*. It's dependable. Having CON+STR potentially added to strikes within 20 feet is pretty decent. The price the Kineticist pays for not being the best at AOE or Single target damage is to be have reasonable but consistent throughput in more situations.

The stream was like 6:30 am here and I was not conscious enough when I heard this announcement.

Paizo and DE are the only two companies with a direct line to my wallet so I'm feeling (happily) targeted here.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Then I win the Tank Game.....there's no lose scenario here Yurip. Taking it as a zero sum game is purely a you thing. "Wasting" feats to ensure the GM plays by my tank rules means, again, that I "win" the Tank Game. Nuclear deterrents aren't wasted just bc they're never fired ....they're actively doing the thing by just existing.

So instead, doesn't make more sense to invest into more useful feats?

Taking a feat that forces enemies to choose a bad option for them because the (potential) consequence is worse isn't a wasted feat. Let's look at the redemption champion's reaction as a point of comparison. The enemy has to chose between doing no damage or becoming enfeebled 2. In years of actual play I have NEVER seen a GM choose to take the 'hit does no damage option'. Does this mean that the 'choose to do no damage' option of the reaction is wasted? No because its existence serves to warn the enemy/GM what the worst case scenario is. Feats like 'proud nail' or 'ring their bell' make the enemy/GM have to make the decision of "should I smack the party member thats the toughest to hit, and the most durable, *but* isnt much of a threat to me, *or* should I try and crit a squishy, have the tank eat the hit via a reaction and suddenly find myself 'off-guard' against a hard to hit enemy suddenly doing significantly more damage?"

I can guarantee no psychic is going to be upset with 'slip and sizzle' letting them drop an unleash boosted AOE cantrip in exchange for a reaction.

Hell, if they lean in to their Psyche/mindshift feats the 'slowed 1' is less off an issue as 'psi catastrophe' leaving you with a single action on round two of unleash meant that you often had to blow a slot on a single action 'force barrage' or use 'psi-burst' or feel you had wasted your power window.

Battlecry! Seems to be about acknowledging the power of encounter Tempo, with the Commander being very good about accelerating it for the party, and the Guardian slowing it down for the GM.

In the Psychic's case a Commander using 'slip and Sizzle' on a psychic can result in them dropping the equivalent of 3.5 maxxed rank Fireballs worth of damage in 2 rounds which is pretty much going to end encounters. (E.g. opening round 2 with a 'violent unleash'+amped 'shatter mind', reaction amped 'shattered mind' via 'slip and sizzle' and round 3 'psi catastrophe'. Yes that *will* hit at least one of your frontliners with approx 1.5 fireball's worth of damage but it's usually a wash with saving them from taking an extra round or twos worth of damage from enemies)

Any option that let's Psychics squeeze more damage out of their unleashed power windows is a very good thing.

Going against the trend here, I'd like everyone to remember Paizo's output towards the end of 1e where plenty of classes were released, and because everyone knew the system so well they were (mostly) absolute love letters to 1e.

Some of the most fun I had with 1e was with those later classes such as the Kineticist, Mesmerist,Medium and Occultist even if some of them were so fiddly and complicated they needed software to run. (Ah Herolab you made the Occultist with its dozens of moving parts, floating bonuses, and discrete daily power pools sing)

I like it when Paizo gets experimental and tries things out. You can see the blueprint for 2e in the Occultist and especially the Vigilante class. You have these basic chassis that you build upon and choose how you want to build your character, and the Vigilante had seperate pools of combat and social/skill powers to round out characters and make players feel OK with picking something cool and flavourful instead of thinking they would be hurting the party if they didn't hyperfocus on combat. This is pretty much how we ended up getting skill and class feats siloed separately.

While like most people I'd like expanded options for existing classes (look at how well the Divine spell list has rounded out/expanded over the years) i don't think that throttling down the new classes is the way to do it.

Wasn't it changed because DR to all physical types is now baked in as a core function. The playtest you had your armours specialisation type and that was it asides from intercepting.

Now (from what I've seen of the posted previews) its clearer to understand and you don't have potentially two competing types of DR (which makes the lower one redundant).

As a quick question does your group play AP's or Homebrews? I'm asking because the recent 'Treasure Vault' book with its expanded alchemical ammunition options makes Gunslingers much stronger.

This can be seen most clearly in how AP encounters are very frequently written with things like enemy resistances, weaknesses, regeneration etc.

The alchemical ammunition essentially give gunslingers the option to be a 'prepared martial' class, with a suite of bane, elemental, rare metal, and persistent damage options. Careful (or informed) selections shoot the gunslingers effective damage well ahead of other ranged options.

As an example from my table we are playing a certain AP and found ourselves facing a fort full of trolls and their minions. Gunslingers being able to target and exploit a damage weakness, inflict persistent damage to trigger that weakness, and negate regeneration all at once are doing the 'effective damage' of a small party with a handful of level 1 items.

This may sound like an explicitly cherrypicked example (it was the last set of encounters my group faced last week) this just shows how common it is for Paizo to put 'twists' on encounters beyond standard white room math tests. Think of how often hardness or resistance has all but shut down a bow weilding fighter or ranger for that specific encounter? Gunslingers get feat (and trait, and item) support to negate nearly all of that now.

You know the feedback threads posted after every playtest? The ones where Paizo talk about internal testing, and external perception and how people play?

Well, I'd love to see that once or twice a year in regards to Pathfinder 2e as a whole.

Things like talking about how Warpriests are perceived vs internal playtests, or how they were expected to be 'selfish' casters using things like 'heroism' to keep up with other martials.

Or how Witches are seen as the weakest of the current casters, but that there is a slew of new lessons (I hope) on the horizon that should bring them into line with everyone else.

It could be paired with a 1-2 times a year errata update where they can explain their choices and reasonings.

I think it would be healthy for the game and the community as a whole.

Thanks I mean it has the scaling as dependant on your sheath's level as opposed to *your* level makingbit a *lot* weaker as a secondary or tertiary array.

I can't find any wording to suggest that it works this way, or thatbitbwas independant the way faculties are.

Thanks and is it dependant on your sheath level or your nanocyte level? (the way your faculties scale)

Herolab has it as Sheath dependant and I was wondering if I'd missed something?

In regard to the attack given from the 'Swarm strike' knack. It counts as "a special unarmed strike that deals lethal damage, lacks the archaic trait, and has an item level equal to your nanocyte level."

Is his unarmed attack compatible with 'improved unarmed attack'? or does it stay at 1d3 damage with the scaling coming from CON and it's special specialization damage?

Getting 5 "better than a cantrip blasts" per fight is probably a pretty close DPR over an adventuring day

The issue is less pure math on a blast vs blast ratio and one of choice, agency and cost.

For example say I have to pick between say a Druid and a Psychic.

The Druid can tailor their cantrips to hit every save with a couple left for utility, they get better hp, armour, shield block. They can have an animal companion and have enough spell slots to keep some for things like general healing and Utility. By level 4 they can have 3 focus points.

The Psychic gives all that up for having the option to (initially) tank their AC and cast up to 5 of their comparatively weaker focus powers.

Now compare the Psychic to what Bards get as a package and see if any bard would ever give up their class features, composition cantrips, and 1/3rd of all their spells for the chance to cast an amped 'daze', 'mage hand' or 'telekinetic projectile' an extra 2-3 times per combat?

Hey, HEY! it also does 3 + 1 (for every 2 spell levels) damage for your focus point.

Surely that's worth 1-2 8th level spells at high level...right?

Mark Seifter was talking about how you know class design has worked when something *is* balanced but looks 'broken and amazing' (paraphrasing here)

An obvious example would be class feats that allow a draconic barbarian to *become* a dragon.

The issue with the Psychic is that the 'broken' wow factor draw of the class needs to be in its amp cantrips. Because they are picked as a set you give up a *lot* of choice, power and utility for your conscious
mind selection.

...and as it stands a 1d8/spell level version "telekinetic projectile" that's incompatible with metamagic and requiring a spell attack roll doesn't seem like its worth 1-2 level 1 spell slots let alone an 8th or 9th level spells.

Another issue with 'Infinite worlds' is that it's value is highly dependant on what type of campaign your GM runs.

With the same 10ft only radius from levels 1-20 Infinite worlds is serviceable in an AP or adventure that takes place almost exclusively in small rooms and corridors, but that usefulness drops sharply in any wide open space where people and creatures can freely move around it.

So as long as your Space-opera adventure doesn't involve exploring strange new worlds, dangerous locales or wide, exotic vistas then your main class feature is to spend a spell slot on a functional and flexible small aoe effect with a power level roughly equal to a spell level one lower than the one you just spent.

I want a psychic real bad. Im blanking on the mechanics outside the spellslots tho.

Ironically all the spontanious casters stole their mechanics.

Their two big things was undercasting and phrenic amplificications. Which more or less boils down to signature spells and focus powers.

Any new version of the Psychic would need new toys in compensation.

Note: I'm not suggesting that anything really keeps up with Barbarians for pure on hit damage (with the possible exception of precision rangers with an animal companion, using the companion instead of repeatedly attacking to cheese the MAP and get a second bite of that precision damage)

I think specifically in regards to the swashbuckler, a fair chunk of their DPR isn't coming from their own turn (notably the fencer style) with a fair chunk being harder to calculate as it comes from bleeds and opportune ripostes/AoO's.

Using that level 10 comparison, if swashbuckler is building for ripostes they have both Buckler expertise and dance, and goading feint to create essentially a 4 AC difference (5 in regards to a raging barbarian)to fish for ripostes. (2 from the bucker, 2 from goading) with feat to get extra reactions as well. fencing's exemplary finisher+ goading feint also means any riposte/AoO's get are against a flat footed enemy with panache's bonus damage.

It's a bit like how a bomber alchemist gets a chunk of their damage through persistent damage effects as opposed to the direct damage done on their turn.

The average barbarian hit at lvl 10 is 27. The average crit is 60 points. That is with a +1 striking greatpick. That is hard to ignore when other classes are doing 17 or 18 points per hit. The average swashbuckler non-finisher hit with panache is 18.

Isn't that being rather disingenuous? Swashbucklers not using finishers is like trying to do dpr calculations on a Barbarian who doesn't rage, or a Ranger who isn't hunting target VS one that does.

A level 10 swashbuckler with a level appropriate weapon (a +2 striking rapier with a flame rune) makes a single finisher attack each round is doing on average 46 damage with Bleeding finisher (with 1 bleed tick) or around 35 with a precise confident finisher.

That's against average AC for equal level enemies. That single bleeding attack is over two and a half times stronger than your given 18. Hell, with a precise confident finisher is still doing roughly 14 damage *on a miss!* (only 4 less than your average hit with panache)

That and expecting one finisher a round isn't unexpected, as it still gives the swashbuckler 2 actions to set it up.

In my experience, what is and is not worth it in combat depends highly on the opponents.

What about swashbucklers? Between Goading feint and +2 AC bucklers boosting defense directly results in higher DPR through ripostes.

If you are only making one finisher attack a round, attempting to generate panache, and raising a buckler (at lower levels before the stance comes online) with the fencing style you are essentially swinging 4 point difference against a first attack, with even better results if enemies crit fail that goading feint. That setup lends itself to MAP-less reaction attacks especially if an enemy attacks you with penalties.

CRB, p. 302 wrote:

If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties.

The wild order druid focus spell version of wildshape/animal form etc, gives a specific exception allowing you to use your regular to-hits with a +2 bonus if you use your own stats rather than that given by the spell.(page 401 of the CRB)

You keep mentioning Schrödinger's martials, yet it's not unrealistic to plot out the DPR return of 1,2 and yes 3 action options.

It's not just theorycrafting as the opportunities do show up where a 3 action attack sequence *is* the tactically sound one.

3 action sequences should be seen as the equivalent of a casters highest spell slot options as you only have a very limited set of opportunities to use them each day.

To pretend that 3action attack sequence opportunities 'never ever happen' is just as disingenuous as someone claiming they are a valid turn by turn metric.

The Schrödinger's cat ranger :D

I mean, it will never ever happen to have 5 attacks for 3 actions at level 1. It means that your cat and your character are flanking the enemy and this enemy is already your prey (and you are standing, not stunned, not unconscious, etc...) and your enemy survives the 4 first attacks. It happens once in a blue moon.

I see it as viable as 'impossible flurry' which most ranger discussions seem to fixate on (Which isn't a viable round one option till level 19!)

While full three action attack sequences are unlikely (except in 'All the casters are nerfed!'threads) I tend to regard them like a casters highest level spell slot (in that it's unlikely to be pulled off more than 3-4 times in an adventuring day)

That and While hit and run tactics are usually much more viable, full 3 action attack sequences tend to be round 2-3+ options meaning that your enemy has likely seen some focused fire and your sequence is much more likely to finish them off.

Its worth noting that your animal companion also benifits from your hunted target edge which creates different synergies and tactics.

For example you get more out of a bird with precision edge, as you only want to 'work together' once per target for the bleed and dazzled effect. Later on it's flyby attack pairs well with precisions bonus damage.

On the other hand cats with the agile trait on their class and bonus damage against flat footed targets really likes flurry Rangers. (Note with twin takedown this gives a ranger and his companion 5 attacks for 3 actions right from level 1

Inkfist wrote:

Strike with quick draw

Strike with what? Unarmed attacks aren't weapons so what weapon are you striking with

The thing about switch hitting is that you often switch weapons between ranged and melee.

Assuming you aren't being facetious, using Quick draw let's you draw and strike with a weapon that's not your seedpod or an unarmed strike...such as a big d12 weapon...you know switch hitting.

Monks with their stances don't need to swap out to a different weapon when unarmed, but Rangers (who we are talking about here) do.

Inkfist wrote:

quick draw

Quickdraw doesn't do anything for a seedpod so I'm unsure why you mentioned it.

Its a round one option. Hunt target, command companion, strike with seedpod at up to double the range increment without penalty.

Round 2 if the enemy has closed the gap. Strike with quick draw, Strike, command companion for move and strike (the lack of MAP and the companions access to precisions bonus damage makes this viable.

Quick draw enables a switch hitter play style at no action cost if you start every encounter mode with your hands empty.

It's also viable for precision Rangers from level 2 onwards when quick draw becomes an option. With a bird companion that's an opener of 1d4+4+1d8+1d4 bleed and inflicting a 20% miss chance

I think that using your spell casting DC on Crit specializations that require a save isn't the biggest issue, as only a select few weapon groups have saves as part of their crit riders. (Irori is literally the only God, whose sacred weapon features a save on a crit specialisation effect, and seeing as irori is one of the worst options for warpriest I can't see it being that big of an issue)

Sure, although all Clerics can take Channel Smite as it's not Doctrine specific, Warpriest not really get any weapon proficiency advantage in longer term (and they bizarrely have lower DC on weapon critSpec effects, due to it using spell DC). 1-action normal casting also doesn't favor Warpriest (Spell DC).

Also, I actuallly think Channel Smite is using damage of 2-action version of Heal/Harm, since the ability uses 2 actions and nothing else suggests scope of Heal/Harm.

There isn't a difference in the damage between a 1-2 action heal/harm as the static +8/spell level is explicitly only added when it's used to restore hitpoints.

I also think you are looking at the weapon proficiency/spell dc at the highest levels and not factoring in when their progression occurs. With warpriests their proficiency with their gods favoured weapon only falls behind for two levels in the 1-13 band compared to all non-fighter martial classes.

In the levels 7-11 when their spell DC's are delayed their to-hit when using 'channel smite' is the equal of any Ranger, Champion or monk.

Sure you lag behind in Spell DC's from 15th level on, but in over a decade I've only seen 3 campaigns reach that point. Seeing as levels 1-10 see the vast bulk of play warpriests absolutely shine in that band.

(This reminds me of Ranger discussion where most builds revolve around 'impossible flurry' which is a 16th level feat and not all that useable till levels 19-20.)

Realising that harm as a 2 action spell is a a sub-par damage option, but as a single action it's quite decent, single action harms and channel smite giving a second way of delivering them against targets with a high fort save are part of what makes warpriests better than what people think.

I was a bit miffed about utility spells taking a hit too, until I realised what Paizo did.

A lot of the big utility options have been moved to rituals. Is unseen servant nowhere near as good? Sure, but with a bit of downtime and an attempt or two you can make some animated objects that do the same job.

Moving utility to rituals also opens them up to all characters which means as more content comes out everyone is strengthened rather than just extending the Gulf between casters and martials that we can see in 1e.

I think It's less users making people feeling unwelcome and more calling out some *really* bad faith arguments.

For example look at this one literally from this threads OP:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ux7?Unlimited-Martial-Fireballs-How-the-Pend ulum

Where he claims that barbarians 3 action options outperform casters blast options and can do so all day vs a limited resource.

Which assumes that the barbarian in question:

Is already raging
Is wielding a reach weapon
Is a Giant Instinct Barbarian
Is Level 15+
Has taken the feats for Whirlwind Strike
Is positioned in the middle of a horde of enemies
Can Safely use 3 actions and not move when surrounded by enemies
Can consistently manage to meet all the above criteria several times a day.

and

The caster is using a fireball in a 7th level slot as opposed to one of the more powerful level appropriate spells

Someone pointing out the above argument isn't realistic and doesn't reflect actual play experience *isn't* saying that posters like OP are unwelcome, rather that the argument they are putting forth is flawed or misleading.

I'm playing a warpriest so I sit between martial and pure caster for action usage, and anyone defaulting to just move+cast is hurting themselves and their party.

Sure there are times you need to move, but recalling knowledge,demoralizing groups of enemies, sustaining spells, 1 action focus powers, spells, and cantrips or even weapon attacks are all conditionally more useful.

At low levels blending crossbow strikes with electric arc (and reloading every second round) will likely out dpr many martial builds due to the half damage on a save effect.

It's fools gold. Any martial that's spending those rounds on attacks spends the subsequent turns with the dying condition.

Agreed. On paper it seems like martial classes have a distinct edge, but trying to leverage 3 actions next to an enemy often means blowing your hero points in the next round of so.

Martial have some great 3 action sequences, but without magical assistance (taste, greater invisibility etc) they have very few practical opportunities to use them.

I'm leaning to the opinion that Druids that want to focus on wildshaping are better off starting out as a storm druid.

Storm druids start with 2 focus points, a focus spell that's useful early on and an easier to deal with anathema.

If we feat into the Wild order via order explorer and order magic we get our animal shape *one* level behind a pure wild order druid, and you can kind of bridge the gap at 3 with castings of 'animal form'

Wild morph is frankly terrible from levels 1-3, as a focus point and two actions for what amounts to a pair of short swords (that are missing the versatile trait) isn't a good deal. Spell slots are a more limited resource, but at levels 1-2 Magic weapon and especially Shillelagh completely outshine wild morph.

The Halloween special.

A (Pumpkin) gourd headed leshy ranger with the farm hand background.

Take the precision edge and a bird companion for your first feat.

Now you are a pumping headed scythe-weilding scarecrow that attacks people with a 'dire-crow'

The damage is much better than you'd think, and the persistent bleed and miss chances you hand out are

I was actually thinking about a class feature or feat where a Chirurgeon would be able to spend Elixir of healing to use Battle Medicine without being affected from the timeout.

while it isn't a class feat 'godless healing' from the lost omens book boosts your battle medicine, and drops the cooldown to only one hour for each party member.

While it isn't perfect it makes battle medicine a lot more usable and stretches your life elixirs much further

Strange Fatal is strictly worse than deadly as you level then as deadly does add extra dice depending on your striking rune but fatal doesnt. Seeing as deadly weapons also tend towards rogue builds wouldn't a deadly weapon far outstrip the potential of a fatal one?

I think the reason the Vanguard doesn't have stealth is that it is meant to be a big burly frontline, and I can't image any tank from a video game trying to sneak up on someone.

Whilst that was my first impression, you really aren't rewarded for being a strength/con Vanguard. (Especially at low levels) You lack the mobility and gap closers other melee classes have, shields are too expensive and provide minimal benifit at lower levels (especially as you either need to use your move action to tap close or you don't have one due to full attacking in melee).

The last selling point for me for a dex dodge tank was spaceship combat. With either a background or skill synergy you can be a fantastic pilot or gunner, whereas strength based vanguards are either relegated to being sub-par gunners or left out of things entirely.

From what you said it looks like you ran a Strength based vanguard. Asides from running with a Shobhad for the reach 40 foot speed, strength and extra arms it looks really hard to make a Strength vanguard work at low levels. (Hell, I don't think you *can* get a returning spear, riot shield and anything more than the cheapest heavy armor at character creation, which negates the point of the shield as spending even half of its cost on better armor yields better permanent results.

A dex build looks to take care of any reflex issues, though I agree they are susceptible to will based effects.

Personally i'm OK with entropic strikes doing less damage compared to solar weapons, mainly due to hitting TAC vs KAC. I'd actually wouldn't mind seeing the math DPR wise of full attacking using your weapon for the primary strike and entropic strikes for the others using TAC to offset the penalties.

Nice! I don't know how efficient it is, though, since it only applies on the second hit (or subsequent hits, if you get an AoO or something).

Seeing as how the reach for entropic strikes becomes rather large at mid levels+ You probably wouldn't have to fish too hard for AoO's.

Am I reading things wrong or does stacking shikigami style feats+ catch of guard turn the 1gp sledge tool into a 6d6 weapon?

Due to the Wild Order's higher strength, why would you take 2d8+1, or 1d10+1 (agile) when wild claws gives you the exact same to hit, 2d6+3 (agile), lets you use a shield for reactions, *and* doesn't lock you out of speaking or casting?