IvoMG's page

You can customize one Mech with 2 or more pilots, pooling everyone's points.

Well, that's the point of my request. I know you can customize a Mech for 2 pilots or more but the idea here is for a 1-1 campaign. Where each Pilot has its own mech. According to the book that would only be possible by reducing the mech tier by 1, the problem with this rule is that there's no Tier 0 Mech. So for this type of campaign, the party should start level 2.

What about Power Armors, which are similar to mechs?

They are really different both in concept and in mechanics. Power armor is basically an exo skeleton with heavy armor, it works like heavy armor but boots the player's strength. Think of it like Edge of Tomorrow armors. When in combat the armor does work like heavy armor (Providing AC and EAC to the character wearing), you are hit and take damage.

Even though we don't know how Mechs and Starships will be in the new version I made this post so that Paizo could see things from a different side or a better even balance.

I'm not going to request some kind of crazy stuff but, when you guys are designing the gameplay for mechs and Starships, please take into consideration some types of campaigns that were not considered in the first Edition. That is 1 to 1, what I mean by this is one Pilot for one Mech or one Ship.

Why would I request this kind of design?
So that I could play campaigns like a dogfight in space where every player has their own unique starship (like star wars) for mechs I would Say, Evangelion, Gundam, or even Macross.

--- Mechs---
What I mean by this is, at level 1 a player does not have points for a mech of his Tier, and there is no Tier 0 Mech. This means that a campaign that is focused on Mechs should start at Level 2 with Tier 1 Mechs, in the best cases.

I get the design idea that a Party using Mechs can fight more serious threats +3 encounter difficulty (if I'm not mistaken), the mech would probably be out of combat but the characters would be able to finish the fight out of the mech. I also ask you to consider the situation where mechs are the main focus of the campaign and the characters are powerless to fight serious monsters (like Pacific Rim, Evangelion, or even Power Rangers)

---Starships---
For ships is the calculation for the Encounter difficulty, it's strange when working with multiple ships.

---Mech vs Starships---
Since Mechs use the same rules as players, starships are a different thing that will do an incredible amount of damage to mechs and players, would it be possible to make mechs and starships fight on the same scale?

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

One thing I just noticed - Suppressive Fire also affects allies. The save against damage is fine, but also heavily debuffing your allies seems like a lot.

Friendly fire isn't.

Heh. Now I want a feat or class feature or something called "To whom it may concern" that picks one target at random out of a group that you're slamming with area effect and deals extra damage to them in particular.

"It's not the bullet with your name on it you need to worry about."

I suppose it might also work as a boost to crit damage when targeting multiple enemies with an area effect.

Hahahaha that's cool

I get feeling that soldiers at very least need to get legendary class DC at some point even if they don't get legendary weapon proficiency eventually. Would be kinda pity though if none of starfinder classes get legendary weapon proficiency even at the 19th level.

I think that they should have something legendary, be it weapon or armor.

Losing Operative, Mechanic or Technomancer would be absolute failure for me. If the goal is to make Starfinder an expansion for PF2 that absolutely relies on importing PF2 classes, that really weakens it in my opinion. If the goal is to have Starfinder be an actual game in it's own right, those are 3 huge character niches that cover vast swathes of scifi characters and absolutely need to be in the core.

I agree.

Saying a Rogue is an Operative and Inventor/Alchemist are Mechanic is not making the game Stand-alone/compatible, it would make "here, buy PF2e to play these classes that you loved from Starfinder".

They should release the 7 original classes, and release the other classes on SF2e Playerbook 2.

Perpdepog wrote:

This works particularly well if weapons' DCs are set by their level, which I expect will end up being the case.

Do you mean that you expect weapons like this to have static DCs? That seems incredibly unlikely to me. This aspect is one of the most heavily criticized in PF2 already and that is when the DC isn't even for something you'll use all the time. I'm imagining the outrage when the DC constrains your entire combat effectiveness... yeah, no way.

I'm kind of divided in this aspect.

I also think that there is no problem in calculating the weapon DC by Proficiency+DEX or STR (like wizard's spellcasting, just need to make clear that you should never add tracking into this math)

I also don't see a point in a soldier being really good at using Automatic fire and being completely useless when firing the weapon without Automatic. Why I say this is, Soldiers will probably rely on CON for HP and AOE attacks, STR for increasing bulk. They probably will invest in the last case in WIS/INT or DEX stats. Their AC and REF will probably come from Armor (that will have a DEX 0), so I don't see much point in having DEX.
But of course this will be part of build thinking, the way soldiers are, they are kind of awkward. If we go for DEX or STR, they would need Feats for both Heavy and lighter armors (to be durable that is)

I will admit that Con as a main stat still feels weird on as martially martial as a soldier is supposed to be. I get where the fantasy comes from, but it does still leave them lagging behind other martial classes when actually shooting things, which just feels off to me. True, it's only a +1 difference most of the time, but it still sticks out.

I tend to imagine martials' designs as "I am this good at attacking, and also..." Like the barbarian is that good at attacking, and also does heaps of extra damage with rage. The rogue is that good at attacking, and also has skills and enough extra damage to make up for using generally smaller weaponry. The ranger is that good at attacking, and especially good at attacking that one guy in particular. I'm down for soldiers to be that good at attacking, and splashing out their damage to everyone around who they hit, but them not being as good as the other martials at doing the martial thing still feels very strange.

I think the soldier is not going in the damage orientation side of martial. From my understanding so far they want to make him into a tank/support role.

I'm not against this thing but I also like to have options, Giving him damage/Tank/Support feat and features should be the way to go. People can mix and match for a Damage Dealer, Support, or Tank focus or go into a Hybrid character.

Not every group is the same and having some classes that can dip into other roles might be useful for these groups where they lack.

I honestly feel like using Con as the Soldier's KAS is more trouble than it's worth: at the end of the day, Con feeds into HP and Fort saves, nothing more. A Soldier with Strength or Dex as their KAS could be given 12 HP/level and legendary Fort saves and still be one of the toughest classes around, particularly given their heavy armor proficiency on top. Dex as a KAS in particular would avoid class DC and ranged Strikes having wildly different modifiers and accuracy levels, and at the end of the day it should be up to the Soldier to decide whether to opt into Strength for heavy armor, or Charisma for good Intimidation checks. We don't need feature bloat just to have Con cannibalize the function of other attributes, and I can only think of one other instance of attribute modifier replacement in 2e (Esoteric Lore using Charisma rather than Int), so classes can have diverse options without needing to make one attribute work like the other.

I think that all physical stats are useful to a Soldier.

Balancing this out would be hard. Like in Starfinder, heavy guns can have a strength requirement, forcing players to use a secondary stat.
I would probably save CON as key score for Vanguard and leave the soldier as DEX/STR. Increasing the HP per level to make it more durable also looks like a nice idea.
Having Feats that rely on CON Modifier would also be a great optional way of suggesting to players that they should increase Constitution.

One thing I just noticed - Suppressive Fire also affects allies. The save against damage is fine, but also heavily debuffing your allies seems like a lot.

Then I think it's a miswording problem. Because the paragraph starts with "You have a knack for using powerful weapons to hinder your

I'm looking for the ability to either destroy cover or otherwise strongly encourage enemies to leave cover. That's something I would want my "heavy" to be able to do.

I think there is something like that in Starfinder but I think it was too complicated because you had to know the material, the GM would specify hardness and such... not practical.

Demolish cover would be a nice name for it lol. BOOOOOOM!

I think X-com 2 Grenadier has some skills like that. It would be awesome if they took some inspiration from that game.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Skabb wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.

This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.

I like that the soldier can be con/dex or con/str, but I would address the issue by making area weapons use weapon proficiency but key off of Con or Str instead of dex.

How to do this might be tricky. Since PF2 is loath to do straight up stat substitions. Like the Kineticist attacks with Con, but that's because it uses its Class DC for attack rolls.

You could do "use your Class DC or your Attack DC, whichever is greater" though.

Finesse is a trait that has you substitute dex for strength, just use that wording but remove "can" and the target ability mods.

Yeah forcing players to use CON modifier instead of Dex for using certain weapons would indeed solve the problem, and everyone could use the weapon with weapon training.

Teridax wrote:

Driftbourne wrote:

I like the idea of the Suppressed condition scaling. That would allow for more than one soldier to use suppressing fire to pin(slow down) someone down in a crossfire. If the stacking of the attack penalty is too unbalanced then maybe just stak the movement penalty. I like that This would help encourage teamwork,

Thank you very much! While conditions in 2e don't stack by default, it could certainly be worth having the option to stack certain conditions like suppressed or frightened to support your teammates as you shoot.

I wasn't thinking of stacking the bonus math, but increasing the condition value like in the scaling example. Suppressed 1 become Suppressed 2.

I think that suppressed 2 is a better thing, and suppressed status should have a maximum value

Qaianna wrote:

Heh. This makes a little sense if you see soldiers’ training as ‘good enough for government work’ — you know how to shoot good and can control the machinegun for effect but you’re not a designated marksthing.

Huh. I was thinking that this would suggest a class path for those soldiers that are designated marksthings, but that's not quite right, is it? The squad's designated sniper would probably be an Operative.

Yeah that's what I think to. And a Tactician type would probably be an Envoy

IvoMG wrote:

Soldier Division: Not every soldier is trained the same way and this reflects on their behavior in combat, though this might be a bit troublesome because the soldier role might overlap some of your companions, but hey the more options you have the better. It could also work like Cleric Doctrines that change your proficiency depending on the Doctrine you picked

Thank you very much for the kind words! I also agree that you could have doctrine-like separate progressions if the Soldier is meant to progress differently based on specialization (you could have one spec that's geared towards legendary armor proficiency and another towards legendary weapon proficiency, for example). Out of curiosity, what overlap would you see occurring between the listed divisions and other characters?

Let's say you had a Soldier in a Marksman training school, it probably would overlap in the role of the Fighter or Operative. Or if the soldier went to the Officer's academy to learn battle tactics and be a field commander, it would probably overlap with the Envoy. Just some speculations, but I think that if you wish for them to have these features you might be better of going on these classes. But perhaps is the same as the war priest, they do have armor and weapon proficiency but they are not Fighters or Paladins.

IvoMG wrote:

Quick cover I don't think it should be a feature but instead a level 2 or something Feat. This is pretty useful on Sci-fi scenario with many guns.

Quick Cover being such a useful mechanic in a gun-heavy game is precisely the reason why I made it a core class feature and not a feat. If it were a feat, then it would likely become a must-pick for every Soldier, which wouldn't be good for build diversity. As a 3rd-level feature, though, every Soldier will get it, but also nobody multiclassing into the class can get it either, so it can also be allowed to be stronger than your average class feat.

Not exactly a must-pick, I think it depends on your GM playstyle. This feat could also be a General feat for every class to pick in SF.

I liked the
Soldier Division: Not every soldier is trained the same way and this reflects on their behavior in combat, though this might be a bit troublesome because the soldier role might overlap some of your companions, but hey the more options you have the better. It could also work like Cleric Doctrines that change your proficiency depending on the Doctrine you picked

Quick cover I don't think it should be a feature but instead a level 2 or something Feat. This is pretty useful on Sci-fi scenario with many guns.

I will be using SF2e rules adding classes of PF2e as options for the players.
As a GM I will also be using the Monster Manual from PF2e.

I won't be importing things from SF2e to PF2e, whenever I play PF2e it will be a separate thing.

I think that you can have both. Some Themes would be great as Backgrounds while others as Archetypes.
The problem in doing this is the amount of work that would require to make a lot of feats for those new archetypes.

Don't worry, I know what you meant ^^. What I meant if range was heavily individualized for many guns, you would basically have to have multiple dozens of the respective attachments. Maybe as many as 1 for every +5 range increment up to possibly the hundreds. This wouldn't actually save much space and be quite convoluted.

What I'm hoping for is a relatively standardised progression depending on several weapon "archetypes", which your system would support much better than the current one. If all else fails, very unusual weapons could still have their own special attachments. That should save on space at least.

Attachments could be generic, and available to a set of weapon types, this would save a lot of space and leave room for further creations.

Attachment structure:

Namme:
Description:
Attachable to:
Number of attachment slots:
Grade:
Common:Does X and cost Y
Tactical:
Military:
Legendary:

The attachment would use a similar structure as feats and spells.

IvoMG wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

I think the separate listings are done to allow you to see what each level does at a glance, without having to calculate it first. Because it isn't just the stats you listed that are changing, it's the range increment as well and this will be different for most weapons. Combined with the rest, that's 5 things, which is honestly too inconvenient. And given that it might not stop there, I think the current model works decently well.

That's the beauty of PF2e Weapon table, the Magig upgrades are the same for every weapon, therefore you don't need them to be described on the same table.

Yes weapons on Starfinder advance in certain ways as they level up but this can be done by attachments, small things that you can put on your weapon (like in real life). Things like Scopes, Bigger magazine... This will give players options to customize their weapons for situations.

If they done it like this there is no need for multiple entries in the table for the same weapon. As time passes, they can also add more attachments in other books and campaign settings.

Besides, if you look at pricing they are all standard. If you pick a Longbow on PF2e and give it magic or make it compatible with a higher level character it does not increase range and etc as levels go up. Some might say it's low-tech equipment but, I say, it's a game, and things need to be balanced (in a way).

Yeah, if it was just the usual +1 and added damage dice (which have to follow the PF2 model anyway) that wouldn't be an issue. The question is whether the range increases for example are standardised or not. If they are, then your way would 100% be better. You would just have a box that says what types of weapons can mount what customisations and done. If they are not, then that doesn't really work.

Let me put this in another way

I think the separate listings are done to allow you to see what each level does at a glance, without having to calculate it first. Because it isn't just the stats you listed that are changing, it's the range increment as well and this will be different for most weapons. Combined with the rest, that's 5 things, which is honestly too inconvenient. And given that it might not stop there, I think the current model works decently well.

That's the beauty of PF2e Weapon table, the Magig upgrades are the same for every weapon, therefore you don't need them to be described on the same table.

Yes weapons on Starfinder advance in certain ways as they level up but this can be done by attachments, small things that you can put on your weapon (like in real life). Things like Scopes, Bigger magazine... This will give players options to customize their weapons for situations.

If they done it like this there is no need for multiple entries in the table for the same weapon. As time passes, they can also add more attachments in other books and campaign settings.

Besides, if you look at pricing they are all standard. If you pick a Longbow on PF2e and give it magic or make it compatible with a higher level character it does not increase range and etc as levels go up. Some might say it's low-tech equipment but, I say, it's a game, and things need to be balanced (in a way).

As it's written on the Field test, and this also takes the same route as Starfinder weapon table, I would suggest changing the layout to the same as Pathfinder.

Even though making different Listing for weapons gives a feeling of new weapons to use, they are not, they are practically the same with some small upgrades. This structure takes up too much space.

Instead of making 3 listings for Laser Pistol, make one listing for each weapon then on another table for a Quality Grade (or some other name) for the upgrades and prices

Commercial - - AS in the table
Basic - Tracking +1, Plus 1 Mod
Common - Tracking +1, 1 Extra Dice, Increase ammo consumption for energy (this does not make sense for ballistic weapons
Tactical - Tracking +2, 1 Extra Dice
Advanced - Tracking +2, 2 Extra Dice, Plus 2 Mod, Increase ammo consumption for energy
Military - Tracking +3, 2 Extra Dice
Mastercraft - Tracking +3, 3 Extra Dice, Plus 3 Mod, Increase ammo consumption for energy

Weapon Mod, this system would allow players to create or customize their weapons like the weapons in real life.

Scope I, Increase weapon range by 10 ft (increase by 5ft each tier), Only on Ranged weapon
Silencer I, Reduce the noise the weapon does when firing, only on Ranged
Reinforced Grip, Reduce the multiple attack penalty by 1, useable in melee and ranged weapons
Expanded Magazine, Increase Magazine size, for battery upgrade to the next tier.
Light frame, reduce the weapon Bulk by 1, it can never go below L
Efficiency Regulator: Reduce Ammo consumption by 1

Attachable accessory: Grenade Laucher, Bayonet, Shotgun or other smallarms (sound, electric... too many options)

IvoMG wrote:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency - Since the Soldier is supposed to take a beating, maybe it would be good to give him the same proficiency as Paladins. Being Legendary in Heavy Armor and Master in weapons in top levels.

I could get behind this. One interesting quirk about the Soldier is that despite being a martial class, and despite being a tank, the class only has one starting expert saving throw proficiency: perhaps HP is meant to be the extra-strong defense, but I'd say legendary Fort and AC in combination would go a long way towards making the class feel like a walking tank.

Yeah, you are probably right, besides if all Soldiers use Constitution they will probably end up looking like the Vanguard. Better leave Constitution out of the attack equation.

IvoMG wrote:

Soldier Class Feature:

Unwieldy and Area Weapons: You use your body to stabilize these weapons before making an attack. You may use your Constitution modifier instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifiers.

I'd really like to see something like this. In general, I think the Soldier ought to be able to specialize in certain weapons, particularly big, heavy weapons that are too cumbersome for most others to use effectively. We haven't seen too many unwieldy weapons yet, but a feature like this that would make the Soldier especially good with unwieldy weapons would cater to their theme.

The one quibble I'd have, however, is that I'm personally not a fan of replacing...

They could have this feat at a higher level, similar to Reaction Strike (Old attack of opportunity), it's basic for the fighter but, it's a level 6 feat for the Paladin and Barbarian if I'm not mistaken. Another point is that if their Proficiency is not as good as the fighter it will be basically him spraying bullets at a single target (with no accuracy). This feat could give him 3 attacks using the second multiple-attack penalty. It probably would work like spending 3 actions attacking with 0 -5 and -10, but saving one action.

Piloting lore makes your team scientist the best pilot rather than the hotshot rogue though.

As far as compatability goes, I don't think it breaks compatibility if starfinder has skills that pathfinder doesn't like computers or fly spaceship. The skills just don't DO anything in PF1 because.. well. No one had a computer. (till you get to numeria anyway...)

Or they could just make flying part of acrobatics.

To me there is no big deal if they add a Skill that is relevant to the system or the world. A character made on Starfinder would still be compatible with Pathfinder.

What I mean is this: You can create your solder using the Pathfinder Sheet and use it in the game session of a Fantasy setting without too much effort. Or you could create a Fighter using PF2e Rules to use in Starfinder game using Starfinder Sheet and skills because they are relevant to the world.
To this is what it means when they are saying compatible.

IvoMG wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.

Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic-related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.

Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.

From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.

Why?
Riding skill is no longer present in PF2e, and you don't do tests for mounted combat, you spend one action to gain 2 for your mount.
Let's say you are driving a car and shooting, you would spend 1 action to drive (move the car or activate weapons) and 2 for firing your gun, that's it.
For more complex maneuvers, well probably reflex in case of a defensive action.

I think that Piloting is a bit more complex than riding a horse but, it's so much common in Sci-fi. But how well can you pilot? How well can you manuever?

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even in PF2, piloting is its own lore and is one of the options you use to drive a vehicle. That Driving action you are talking about would definitely use it. Given that some of the most common other skills - Nature (for the pulling animals) or Athletics (for physically moving parts of the vehicle) - are no longer applicable in SF, I doubt that Piloting Lore will be retired. It's basically only that and Crafting left for most mundane vehicles.

There is also another reason to keep it - it's a lore. Lores are much more narrow than full skills, so they're ideal if you only want to use a small subset of said skill. That fact also allows them to be much cheaper. A background/theme will get you up to trained as a neat little gimme and the cheap feats...

Yeah, Lore Skills, I did forget that Lore Skills come with many flavors in PF2e and they are not actually typed in the sheet.

Hello everyone.
I don't know if Paizo's staff will ever read these posts but I created this topic so that we can center our comments on what to add or modify the Soldier so that it's easier to see.

The soldier should not be a Fighter in space. I agree, but I also think he should be good with weapons or armor and be focused on weapon traits and adding more effect for them. One of the best examples of this is Starfinder's Shock and Awe. Many of these fighting styles from SF1e can now be converted into feats due to the PF2e structure, this is great, we can have more than "two" Fighting styles.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency - Since the Soldier is supposed to take a beating, maybe it would be good to give him the same proficiency as Paladins. Being Legendary in Heavy Armor and Master in weapons in top levels.

Soldier Class Feature:
Unwieldy and Area Weapons: You use your body to stabilize these weapons before making an attack. You may use your Constitution modifier instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifiers.

Soldier Feat:
Burst Fire - 2Actions, when using automatic weapons this allows you to make 3 ranged strikes against a single target using your gun, each attack will be made with a penalty, and the 3-shot ammunition is spent even if the target dies in the first ranged strike, if you don't have ammunition for burst fire the remaining shots are not fired but, penalty to attack still apply.

I would assume that Starfinder 2e would have the same total number of skills as Pathfinder 2e. Some will get new names eventually, I assume that a couple of the "magic" skills will be condensed so that we can make Piloting a skill rather than a "Piloting Lore" check like it is in PF2.

Probably the most likely source of slots is "combining the magic-related skills". Which would give you 2-3 extra slots for things like Piloting and Computers.

Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Medicine, Society, Stealth, and Thievery are probably the same as PF2.

From my perspective, there won't be piloting lore or skill.

I think that Piloting is a bit more complex than riding a horse but, it's so much common in Sci-fi. But how well can you pilot? How well can you manuever?

Staffan Johansson wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.

I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.

Bombs are martial weapons though.

That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).

I thought the issue was that they didn't want AOE attacks to use weapon proficiency because that would make Fighters better than Soldiers at doing them. Bombs in theory have a similar issue, which is resolved by giving bomber alchemists a number of special abilities that improve their bombs so even if fighters would me more accurate, bomber alchemists make bombs more useful.

OK but we have the same problem of weapons to use Class DC. For example imagine that Paizo make or allow Kineticists in SF2 (something very plausible once the class theme is very agnostic to both fantasy scenarios). Kineticists goes up to legendary DC, so Kineticists will be so good as a Soldier with AoE guns and I think this isn't intended.

But someone can say "so just adjust the rule to be exclusive to Soldier Class DC" but this creates another problem, now these weapons only work with Soldiers what's also what I think isn't intended.

Also, we have other problems. Most armor doesn't affect reflexes so this armor will be way more effective than heavy armored (with...

Using the class DC feels wrong because it's a weapon and class DC is always based on class core attribute. The thing about class DC is that caster classes also can't use these weapons because they don't have class DC, even though they are proficient with the weapon.

You don't need to worry about "A fighter can use this weapon really well and will have many AOE options". Even though this statement is true, it's not about using the weapon but what they can do with it, from my understanding they will only be able to fire them, while a soldier can draw much more power from them from feats and class features.
Also, these weapons are really heavy meaning that a Fighter wielding them won't be able to carry too many gears.

I'd say the best comparison to weapons and a class in Pathfinder would probably actually be firearms and the Gunslinger: you'd think bringing a gun to a swordfight would solve every problem, but as it turns out, firearms kinda suck on their own. Even the Fighter, with their legendary weapon proficiency, is not really going to go for a firearm over some other ranged weapon, like a bow. The Gunslinger is good with firearms not because firearms are inherently strong, but because they take a deliberately weak range of weapons and massively juice them up with statistical and action economy benefits. Each way's Slinger's Reload and deeds basically let the Gunslinger do many more things at once with a firearm (or crossbow) than anyone else can, and it's this benefit in action economy that makes firearms shine. Even then, the class isn't a damage-dealing beast like the Fighter, and is instead more supportive.

With this in mind, I think what would help the Soldier would be to not only have expert starting proficiency in AoE weapons, but also to have special actions that specifically add better action economy to their two-action attacks via extra riders. The Soldier's options right now I think are a bit crowded out because every AoE attack they do applies the suppressed condition -- past that, you're just piling more power onto the same thing, and that's not really how Pathfinder 2e operates. If instead they had one firing mode for suppression, and other firing modes based on build choice for mobility, some other kind of support, and so on, the Soldier's role as an AoE weapons expert would be cemented through both action economy and varied options, in addition to the best possible proficiency. I've written a brew that attempts this, and might post it in a separate thread.

Hahaha This would be fun. When wield heavy weapons the soldier uses the recoil to repostion in the battlefield when firing lol the first thing that came to my mind was a small Ysoki wielding a Heavy cannon being tossed back after firing... this could be fun.

What topic do you intend to create? Soldier suggestions?

I really hope so! In fact, I'd say mechs are more interesting than starship combat or vehicles. I'd be happy if we got mechs in the Core rules, and starships and vehicles in some kind of subsequent release!

I would trade Starship for Mechs any day! But I'm greedy and I want both lol!

Seriously now. Considering they are using PF2e rules and Mechs already use the same Player Combat rules in Starfinder, so technically is way easier to adjust Mechs than to reinvent Starship combat. Although considering the scenario, I have to tone my expectations down because Ships do take a bigger role in SF than Mechs do.

My guess is that the book will be the same as SF1, Players, few Ships, and few Vehicles. Later releasing a book for mechas and another for ships.

My wish is that Player Handbook has Player and Mechas rules. And another book exclusive for Ships and a ton of rules and options for it, and later another one expanding Vehicles and Mechas with more options, since it's a subsystem that not everyone will include in their campaigns and also use rules completely different from player combat.

breithauptclan wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Well, that is the best fix I can think of if we are sticking with using Class DC for AoE weapons.

I think a better fix would be to have AoE weapons have their own proficiency category just like PF2 Bombs do.

Bombs are martial weapons though.

That's the point. So... similar to how Alchemist gets proficiency specifically in Alchemical Bombs (but no other martial weapons), the Soldier could get proficiency in AoE Firearms. Then it wouldn't have any strange interactions with Class DC or the lack thereof - such as Wizard getting up to Legendary in Spell Attack and Spell DC (so using Spell DC for classes that have that instead would be a problem), but is completely untrained in Class DC (so couldn't use AoE Firearms well no matter what weapon proficiency they pick up).

I thought the issue was that they didn't want AOE attacks to use weapon proficiency because that would make Fighters better than Soldiers at doing them. Bombs in theory have a similar issue, which is resolved by giving bomber alchemists a number of special abilities that improve their bombs so even if fighters would me more accurate, bomber alchemists make bombs more useful.

And I quote a Sci-Fi bounty hunter... "This is the way."

The thing with skills and how they will convert is going to be problematic. Going from "x" number of points to spread around (or focus) to a "you have this number of skill proficiencies at trained" and then are limited to a single skill increase every so often can be daunting. Don't forget that in PF2e you add your level+stat bonus+proficiency to skills that you are at least trained in but it will seem very limiting and the ability for all classes to be the "jack of all trades" will be diminished

To be a bit more precise, Adding level+Proficiency only apply to skills that you are trained in. If you are not, you won't add your level, rolling only with your attribute modifier.

To be a Jack of all trades you would need to invest any new skill training into new skills.

There are advantages to the PF2 system, the main one being that the skill DCs don’t become nearly impossible to balance at high levels.

I am hopeful that the new edition will be an improvement. I can imagine a number of things that could be improved by using the PF2 system and I must say that I have come to really enjoy the three action system.

Although the two systems will use the same rules, I expect there to be differences in how they are used. As an example, I expect the Medicine skill to be quite different. I will be disappointed if a Master in Medicine with a Med Bay can not Resuscitate a person. There are already ways for characters to use an Advanced MedKit as if they had a Med Bay. There are also vehicles that can provide a Med Bay.

That's true but this is something that is expected from a Sci-fi universe like Starfinder. Flying is another example, can't fly? Well, buy a Jetpack... Things like these are easy and accessible with technology.

My group stopped playing Starfinder because the system really became unbalanced at high levels. PF2e has a really tight math at all levels, to me this is really good news.

If we get too many skills it will be troublesome to add points to them, although sometimes it makes sense, no one knows everything.

For those that wish for a point buy system, whenever you would gain a skill proficiency, you would gain 2 skill points to add on skills of level lower than the proficiency. In other words, if you Get expert training you could raise 2 skills by one up to 4 points, a master up to 6, and a legendary 8. For trained you would still require to spend 2 points.

Actually, it is not because both games will be compatible that they won't differ in terms of skills.

Most Probably arcane/nature/religion and Occult will be replaced by Mysticism and Piloting, life/physical science will be added

I anticipate that psychology will be replaced by perception (sens motive)

I don't think they will be adding piloting. In PF2e all characters already know how to ride, so they will probably tell that every character know how to pilot.

I mean this works nicely because you are concentrating in Piloting that you use your actions, when you attack and wish to use a weapon on your vehicle is only fair to have multiple atk penalties.

I completely agree and I would make a few suggestions:

Soldier Class Feature:
Unwieldy and Area Weapons: You use your body to stabilize these weapons before making an attack. You may use your Constitution modifier instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifiers.

Heavy weapon specialist:
This could work like a rogue sneak attack but with Unwieldy and Area weapons, where you would add a d6 to the damage you do with Unwieldy or Area Weapons (only when using area, not a normal shot).

Soldier Feat: 2A, Burst Fire, when using automatic weapons this allows you to make 3 ranged strikes against a single target using your gun, each attack will be made with a penalty.

Regarding SF1e to SF2e, I don't see a problem with using the same rules:

Automatic:
When you make a full attack with a weapon in automatic Mode, you can attack in a cone with a range of half the weapon’s range increment. This uses all the weapon’s remaining ammunition. Roll one attack against each target in the cone, starting with those closest to you. Attacks made with a weapon in automatic Mode can’t score critical hits. Roll damage only once, and apply it to all targets struck. Each attack against an individual creature in the cone uses up the same amount of ammunition or charges as taking two shots, and once you no longer have enough ammunition to attack another target, you stop making attacks.

Blast:
For each attack you make with a weapon with the blast special property, roll one attack against each target in the cone, starting with those closest to you. Each attack takes a –2 penalty in addition to other penalties, such as the penalty to all attacks during a full attack. Roll damage only once for all targets. If you roll one or more critical hits, roll the extra critical damage only once (or any other special effects on a critical hit that require you to roll) and apply it to each creature against which you score a critical hit. You can’t avoid shooting at allies in the cone, nor can you shoot any creature more than once.

Line works almost like Blast and Automatic

For Explode I they should really use REF but the DC would be specified by the weapon, Soldiers might have feats to increase this DC, and some weapon upgrades might also increase the DC.

Also for gaming purposes, I would also give Automatic weapons as an Agile trait.

I don't really see the problem of making one attack roll against each potential target. Some might say that that's a lot of rolling, but it's still the same number of d20s being rolled – they're just all being rolled by the attacker rather than by the defenders.

I don't see a problem using SF1e Automatic rules, considering that you will be using the 2 actions...

"In addition to making ranged attacks normally, a weapon with this special property can fire in fully automatic Mode. No action is required to toggle a weapon between making normal ranged attacks and using automatic Mode.

When you make a full attack with a weapon in automatic Mode, you can attack in a cone with a range of half the weapon’s range increment. This uses all the weapon’s remaining ammunition. Roll one attack against each target in the cone, starting with those closest to you. Attacks made with a weapon in automatic Mode can’t score critical hits. Roll damage only once, and apply it to all targets struck. Each attack against an individual creature in the cone uses up the same amount of ammunition or charges as taking two shots, and once you no longer have enough ammunition to attack another target, you stop making attacks."

A soldier could have feats to reduce the ammunition cost, Add critical, Autofire and reload with the same actions and etc.

Teridax wrote:

Already, this is somewhat the case, given how the Soldier gets to apply suppression with those weapons and gets dedicated feats, so I think that could be developed upon further (for example, with expert-to-legendary proficiency specifically for those weapons).

This is where I'm at. What I hope the soldier develops into is a class that specializes in a type of weapon trait (not just area weapons), kinda like how fighter specializes in a type of weapon, but instead of specializing by having the best chance to hit, they specialize by getting specific action/feats that interact with weapon traits in unique, more efficient ways.

I haven't though of that, it's kind of cool

Even what little we have for SF2e is clearly outside the design paradigms for PF2e, I have no idea how people can look at how weapons work and the soldier's stat-replacing class features and think "yeah this is going to be completely identical".

Hahaha So far I would pick a d12 weapon-wielding fighter with power attack instead a d10 heavy cannon Soldier (with any feat)

I've been thinking about this today and I'm ultimately unsure how I feel about it. I see the value, it decouples the big heavy weapons from dex! You want to be a strong, tanky Soldier you can have that strength option for your doshko and still bring a big gun to bear with automatic fire or explosions. We also see this sort of design in Pathfinder 2e often, where a class that doesn't have their 'attack' attribute as their key attribute often have ways to make up the difference that they lose in accuracy.

That said, while I think it's very cool to give soldiers a way to effectively scale up these weapons while focusing on their key attribute, I'm not sure the class DC fits for it. For one, the progression ends up entirely separated from the weapon, something you can see in the field test. At level 5, a soldier gets to be a better shot with their gun as their proficiency improves to expert. However, this accuracy boost ends up having no effect on their core focus of automatic fire and AoE effects, as their class dc then lags behind at trained.

Obviously, we don't know where the class DC bump comes in, but if we look across the various Pathfinder 2e martials we find that it's usually around level 9. That's four levels between you getting better at your gun, and then getting better at what you want to do with your gun. There's also weird knock-on effects, such as how spellcasters often have spell attack and spell dc, but no class DC and thus can't interact with these functions. Or how down the line you may end up with something like the Pathfinder 2e kineticist who doesn't have proficiency in the weapon, but has high scaling class DC and thus is very good at the alternate fires of these guns they don't know how to use.

I feel like the cleanest solution is to decouple these effects from Class DC in general, and maybe make them interact with weapon proficiency more directly. An attack roll against the Reflex DC of creatures in the area for example, and then give the Soldier a class feature to more directly...

I agree, it does not feel right to me because I was imagining a Wizzard using a cannon with high effectiveness, but that's really not the case cause Wiz don't get class DC.

But still, I find it strange that other Martials use the Area weapons using their Attributes instead of the Constitution (The reason why Soldier is Constitution).

Great minds! I'm of the exact same opinion: I can understand why they did it this way, but the implementation so far in my opinion is just clunky and unintuitive. I definitely agree that these AoE weapons should use weapon proficiency, with the caveat that 1) these weapons should not be good even on a Fighter or Gunslinger, let alone your average Pathfinder martial, so that they don't get to opt into good at-will AoE, and 2) the Soldier remains the best class for using AoE weapons. If these weapons are being tuned around the Soldier, I'd rather give the Soldier more features and feats to squeeze more use out of AoE weapons than design their AoE attacks specifically around the Soldier.

1) I think these weapons should work just fine with Fighters or Gunslingers, the only difference should be your feats to squeeze the most out of the weapon. Let's say, fighters have a Power atk, that lets you increase your damage, but other classes don't. As a Soldier, you could have similar feats for Area weapons while the fighter should not.

2) For the soldier, The Weapon DC scaling should work exactly or similarly to Wizzard Spellcasting DC. To keep math purposes at bay. The fighter could have the same DC, the difference would be in the feats as mentioned in 1.

Don't forget that scatterguns do half damage on a succesful save (that's what a basic save means, for those unfamiliar with PF2), lasers do no damage on a miss.

Scatterguns also get the tracking boost to their class DC, which is not a normal aspect of PF2 play, where neither class nor spellcasting DCs can be boosted by items as far as I know. So reflex saves will be a bit harder than yoru PF2 intuitions might suggest.

Yeah, I forgot about that half-damage part. But still d6 seems a bit low for a shotgun, but then I realized (after reading a comment) this is a simple weapon, and also has 1bulk so it's light. A heavier version for cone should have better dice.

"This weapon has been developed with several
integrated targeting, stabilizing, and homing systems. Attack rolls
with this weapon gain an item bonus equal to the listed value."

I don't think Tracking will work for this purpose, but it should work when a Soldier decides to go against enemy AC instead Ref. The text says Attack rolls and not mentions anything about DC.

IvoMG wrote:

Hi Guys,

Is it me or the ScatterGun looks way under-tuned?

Laser Pistol Hits with 1d6 while the Scattergun is held with both hands and has fewer bullets and hits with the same dice.

I think it's just you. Area weapons should generally be two handed, and I'd go so far as to say they should always be two-handed at simple. Otherwise, you fire off an area attack, and then shoot with a pistol in the other hand with no penalty. Mixing area and targeted shots seems to be the point of the rotolaser, although automatic means that it's still not a trick that you can do more than once on a single clip.

IvoMG wrote:

You can hit multiple opponents with the shot but costs 2 actions, while the pistol can shoot 3 times (multiple atk penalties do apply).

The pistol takes three actions to shoot three times, and firing off three shots means you're actually going to have to reload during the fight. That third shot is at -10. Also, if you're firing off three shots a round, you are actually going to run out of ammo faster than the Scattergun.

IvoMG wrote:

Area atk, even though it might look fun I have some concerns:

- If you are trying to hit enemies with High Reflex saves it will be hard.

... As opposed to trying to hit enemies with high AC not being hard? There's an important difference, though. If you're trying to hit enemies with high reflex, you're probably going to do half damage, but if you're trying to hit enemies with high AC, you're probably going to do no damage.

IvoMG wrote:

- If the area DC is set by your classe DC not by your proficiency with Ranged weapons, that means that for one character you can use Constitution Modifier for atk, and for another, you would use Charisma... this does not feel right.

At least to me, this actually does feel right. The Envoy, rushing in and shouting a distraction before unloading a blast of shrapnel. The Soldier, advancing implacably while firing off cones of destruction. The Mechanic, loading up shrapnel...

When I told it was 2 hand it was comparing to a one hand option. Sure for a Rotolaser you can use a single ranged atk but this would require dex for shooting while the Area would require your classes attribute. A Laser sword would probably do a D8 and also adds your strength to it, also being one-handed. Shotguns should pack a punch and a D6 does not feel like a punch to me. Also, the Range is 15, which means almost melee.

The Technological aspect is supposed to be equivalent to magic but it feels a lot weaker, due to limited aspect (reload, buy ammunition and etc) I think it should be a little worse than focus spells but better than cantrips.

Regarding to 3 atks yes you have to spend actions for it and you probably would miss on your third, meaning you would be better of doing something else but that's still an option for you.

It's indeed a simple ranged weapon and they probably will do a d8 or d10 version of cone weapon.

What I meant when using class proficiency for Area atks is strange, correct me if I'm wrong, but caster classes have a DC equal to their spell casting, therefore, if a Wizzard uses a scattergun at high levels it could be used as Legendary, better than a Fighter (master) this to me sounds not that great for martial classes (Since they don't have magic).

In my starfinder experience I never seen anyone in my table to use scattergun. Because the range is short, damage is low, it has a area of effect but you not always have enemies packed together.

I’m not seeing the alleged issue with flight.

If GMs don’t want jetpacks in their PF games then don’t allow them. PF adventures won’t be built around all SF options being allowed.

They’re compatible with each other, not balanced by each other.

Totally.

So in the end it's up to the player and GM to decide what to use and how. But they should work just fine System wise not Lore wise.

Hi Guys,

Is it me or the ScatterGun looks way under-tuned?

Laser Pistol Hits with 1d6 while the Scattergun is held with both hands and has fewer bullets and hits with the same dice.

You can hit multiple opponents with the shot but costs 2 actions, while the pistol can shoot 3 times (multiple atk penalties do apply).

Area atk, even though it might look fun I have some concerns:
- If you are trying to hit enemies with High Reflex saves it will be hard.
- If the area DC is set by your classe DC not by your proficiency with Ranged weapons, that means that for one character you can use Constitution Modifier for atk, and for another, you would use Charisma... this does not feel right.

I loved playing starfinder with friend had a campaing from 1-11 and some one shots missions. Had a lot of fun, when PF2e was released we played it and I was always thinking how fun it would be if Starfinder used this system.

Good thing:
-SF2 and PF2e using the same system is a good thing, for players (old and new) and for Paizo. Using the same system allows players to migrate from one to the other without much effort.

I have been thinking It will be really awesome to combine Pathfinder 2e system and Mechs to create some nice fantasy setting. Also using PF2e classes on SF2e looks very promising... Cyberpunk Monk, Shady Company Ninjas, Chainsaw Axe Barbarian (from another universe)...

Worried:
One of the Armor Systems that I don't know how it would work is Power Armor... In SF1 these are completely unbalanced. If they do the same thing it will be a mess.

Wishes:
I wish they remove Starship combat from the core, don't get me wrong, I love starship combat and I think this is one of the main flavors for Starfinder universe. But the reason for this is that I wish for a separate book for this completely dedicated to Ships, Mechs, and Vehicle rules. Why? These are all optional systems that you might or not include in your adventure. Having a separate rule book for it would make sure they work together nicely together and have more options. Also without the Book, we can also use the Old Ship rules with a few adjustments.

As many people have complained that they would like to spend skill points like in Starfinder, I would like to suggest spending points separately as an optional rule (it's optional) from 2-8, in the end, it's the same thing but you would be spending points individually instead +2, ranks would remain the same (from U-T-E-M-L)

Is there a reason why you can't stack flamming runes on your weapon?
3 Major flaming runes would be 3d6 fire damage against flaming, frost and shock, 3d6 one of each.
House rule this would be interesting?

Runic Path

Blood:

In undeath, some death knights find a special affinity for the blood and bone of the living. They carve into their enemies, sustaining themselves with deadly sanguine strikes, while using the bloody, shattered remains of the dead to fortify their own defenses. These crimson-soaked knights bend the very rules of mortality to control the frontlines of the battlefield. A dark guardian who manipulates and corrupts life energy to sustain themselves in the face of an enemy onslaught.

1st: you gain the blood shield reaction and touch of corruption devotion spell.

Blood Shield

Uncommon Death Knight
Trigger While wielding your weapon defensively with parry and an enemy within 15 feet damages you.
By hardening the blood within you to protect yourself from harm, you gain resistance against the triggering damage equal to your constitution modifier + half your level (minimum 1), regardless of damage type.

Frost:

Combining martial prowess with supernatural cold, frost death knights leave their enemies chilled to the bone—and broken of the will to fight. Unlike mages who learn to harness frost magic to great effect, these death knights are born of it, rime gripping their decaying hearts. These frozen undead warriors wield dual blades to strike with ferocity and inflict deathly cold upon anyone who would stand against them. An icy harbinger of doom, channeling runic power and delivering vicious weapon strikes.

1st: you gain Frost Strikes action, which lets you freeze the weapon in your hands and touch of corruption devotion spell.

Frost Strikes

Free action, once per round

You imbue the rune weapon in your hands with the cold of death, your next melee strike you also deal additional 1d6 cold damage, at 11th level, the extra damage increases to 2d6, and at 19th, the extra damage increases to 3d6.

Special: If you are wielding a two-handed weapon, increase this damage dice to d8, if you have more than 1 runic weapon, frost strike also applies to that weapon, as long as you are wielding it.

Unholy:

While free from the Lich King’s grasp, some death knights still embody the ever-corrupting nature of the Scourge plague that once threatened to consume Azeroth. No matter their allegiance or cause, they remain defilers of life; and nowhere is their callousness more on display than when threatened. Inflictors of the most aggressive of diseases—and masters of raising unhallowed minions from the ground—these unholy death knights are vicious melee combatants, capable of striking with the force of an undead legion and unleashing pestilence that would bring their foes to ruin. A master of death and decay, spreading infection and controlling undead minions to do their bidding.

1st: While holding your rune weapon with one hand, once per turn you can change your grip by adding a hand to the rune weapon as a free action, you gain attack of opportunity reaction and touch of corruption devotion spell

I will be using champion as basic, but without the legendary armor for this class and i am still thinking if making the Subclasses with different proficiencies like the cleric doctrine even necessary or worth it. The Death Knight is also Untrained in any Ranged Weapon.
Blood i took from Selfish shield from champion, Frost based on Hunters Edge, and Unholy i though of it as something that lets you cast a spell and put your hand at your blade again (giving the casters vibe)

This is what i came up with:
At first Level:
Death Knights Curse
All death knights are inflicted with an "addiction" of sorts; referred to as the "eternal hunger" by Highlord Darion Mograine and as the "endless hunger" by the dread Instructor Razuvious. A death knight will feel immeasurable pain and agony if it is not inflicting suffering and/or death on a regular basis, if you can’t do this within a week of your last kill, you will become wounded 1, this wounded condition does not stack with itself, meaning, that if you spent a month without killing you will still be wounded 1, you can still increase your wounded by other means. While you are in pain and agony you cannot remove any wounded condition. Joining battles where at least one enemy has died counts for this purpose, the death knight does not need to be the one to make the last hit.
Death Knights are undead, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects, you can still be healed normally by medicine. Unlike other undead you are not destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points, use dying rules normally. You still need to breathe, eat and sleep.

Rune Weapon

The souls of those you have slain are forever trapped inside your blade. The rune weapon is the source of your powers, if it is destroyed, you lose your focus pool, any undead minion under your command turns into dust and you can’t use abilities that have the runic trait. You keep any other Death Knight abilities that don’t have the runic trait. You can create a new rune weapon or change rune weapon by doing the Rune Carving ritual. At the end of a week, where you can’t wield your Rune Weapon, you become doomed 1, if you already have doomed increase that value by 1. Once every week you increase this doomed value by one. While you have no Rune Weapon you cannot decrease your doomed value, not even by magic.

At first level you can choose a Slashing weapon in your possession to be your Rune weapon, this weapon was used to take your life and turn you into a Death Knight. Add the parry weapon trait to this weapon if it does not have it already.

Please correct me if any mispelling or bad choice of words, english is not my native language. Continue next post

Also, I would strongly caution against giving Frost legendary in weapons. That gives you VERY little room to work with giving them flavorful Death Knight abilities.

Legendary in armor for Blood might also be a poor idea, because you can give them other means of being resilient plus bonus flavor abilities. However, if you did stick with Legendary in armor, I think Paladin gives you a good idea of what kind of utility you can expect to balance that with.

Frost could be based on ranger/fighter feats to make tons of hits, of course i can also change the skin of feats to give them cold vibes and add others.

Evil champs have resilience (selfish shield) and have legendary armor, i can't use barbs because thei do have rage bonus damage and lower AC. Im afraid if i don't give them legendary armor i have to make up for it by making feats or features to realy compansate that.
Perhaps using magus as top ending at master is not a bad idea, blood will take resilient feats and features, frost damage and weapon oriented and Unholy will be more focus spells oriented.

Try a Bones Oracle, invest in heavy armor and weapon proficiency, max out your strength and charisma. I think you'll get a bit more bang for your buck going that direction than trying to go with Champion (bad mechanics for it, I think) just because DKs are sort of anti-paladins in WoW. Half of what a DK does is cast spells, whereas Champions in P2e are 90% martials and 10% focus casters.

You may not have the same martial proficiency but you'll have spells like animate dead, vampiric touch, and a bunch of themes around becoming undead and using negative energy. I've had a player basically go this exact direction (martial Bones Oracle) for a one-off at level 8 and the character worked really well and seemed to have a lot of options and cool flavor.

Plus, with Oracle you don't really have to houserule anything. No alignment restrictions, full access to necromancy and full casting, interesting curse (you rot!), all sorts of things that I think play well with WoW DKs.

Suffer well.

Thanks! This helped me alot. This bone oracle has some promising features and also the focus recovery from oracle.

I was thinking on going with Focus spell class to reflect rune recharging (oracle seams to help on this) from the game and feats with other spell-like abilities. But still would need martial support.

One classic DK skill is Death Coil, it would work like touch of corruption (evil champs) but with ranged (maybe 1 action touch, 2 action ranged 30ft), perhaps i can give all DK touch of corruption at level 1 and by feat level 2 turn into death coil.

I always thought they were anti-paladins. I think the Desecrator (NE Champion) chassis is another possible starting point. You could put a spellcaster archetype on that and get a few spells to simulate the various powers, but I think you'd do better by making a custom AT for the Champion that has the abilities you need like cause plague and chill weapon. After you've got most of the powers sorted you can then look at turning the AT into a complete class.

Thanks for the reply.

I was wondering if AT is the way to go because there are so many feats to add. And how would the AT increase the casting proficiency of focus spells or class DC, is that even possible or at least balanced? Would i make one AT for each specialization or once you pick the AT you already choose between blood, frost and plague?

What do you think to start striping the champion from what is gods related leaving a blank space for adding new stuff. Remove all "good" and god related feats. Add stuff from other classes then create what is lacking.