JiCi's page

I would love to see at least one of those big belly dragon designs that were popular in cartoons before dragons became more feline in design. Mix things up a bit.

Dragons date WAAAAY back, be in European and Asian mythologies before Tolkien got a crack at it.

BTW, you guys are concerned about the "lack of an ice-based dragon". How about that for the meantime, I give you damage types for each tradition?
-----
- ARCANE: Force, Mental, Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Poison

- PRIMAL: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Fire, Poison, Electricity, Cold, Acid

- DIVINE: Fire, Spirit, Sonic, Cold, Electricity, Force, Mental

- OCCULT: Poison, Sonic, Mental, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing
-----
This is loosely based on the damage type spells from those respective traditions make use of.

Oddly enough, none of you commented on the lack of a line-shaped breath weapon XD

I get what you're asking a lot better now, but they have to actually make and publish new dragons, not just slap an extra coat of paint on. That's why the horned dragon is meaningfully different from the green dragon, and why the empyreal dragon is meaningfully different from the gold dragon.

I understand, which is why they should keep the "remastered OGL dragons" at a minimum in the Codex, like I said.

I just think that "remastering OGL dragons" should take at most 25% of the Codex.

Like, how many times do we need to be reminded that Red dragons breathe fire, are evil to the core, eat elven and human females and live in mountains? We get it by now.

At best, give me TWENTY pages (2 per dragon) with the updated stats for all 10 dragons (Adult stage only; the rest can be done on our own) and "be on your way". Seriously, 20 dragons and 50% being the same species rehashed for the 35th time is getting annoying.

Paizo even moved AWAY from those, introducing 8 new dragons. However, it would be a decent closure to "quickly remaster them" and NOT give them the lion's share of the Codex.

JiCi wrote:

Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?

... Huh? I'm sorry, I'm really lost on what you want.

What feats do dragons get? What damage types do dragons do that got changed in the remaster? What spells do dragons have that aren't covered by the spell change rules?

Do you just want the red dragon reprinted with "Telekinetic Hand" instead of "Mage Hand", and named a "fire dragon"? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Essentially, a Remaster Errata for Bestiary 1 and 2, replacing every single "OGL stuff" with "Pathfinder Remaster stuff"

At this point, just offer a Remastered digital version of those books, so Paizo won't have to clog Draconic Codex with dragons that could have been updated elsewhere.

JiCi wrote:

BookBird wrote:

I believe the Red Dragon becoming Cinder Dragon was mentioned sometime in one of the Paizo streams, regarding the Shining Kingdoms release. Also, we (probably) know the name of post-OGL Black Dragons; in a Reddit AMA done by Ossian Studios for the Dragon's Demand crpg, they mentioned that to be remastered compliant they've renamed the Black Dragon into the Bog Dragon. Unsure if this is canon, as someone commented that they're surprised Ossian was allowed to reveal this, and Mark Moreland replied something to the effect of "yes that is interesting" with an upside down smiley.

My point still stands that they still didn't officially remaster the OGL dragons in books.

We got an errata for Secrets of Magic, making it 99% usable in the Remaster, but nothing on Bestiary 1 and 2?

Pretty sure a Paizo Blog post could solve everything.

Secrets of Magic got errata around the rules changes. There aren't any rules changes impacting the OGL dragons. I don't know what you want them to "solve". If an old book says "red dragon", you can just use a red dragon; you don't need to use a cinder dragon.

Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?

JiCi wrote:

Aren't what "archdragons" supposed to be???

If I recall, it's the non-OGL replacement for the term "great wyrm" - basically, the term referring to the oldest and most powerful of dragons.

My reasoning is how not all Archdevils are deities like Asmodeus, just like not all Demon Lords are deities like Lamashtu. In both cases, they grant spells and domains nonetheless.

For me, those "archdragons" feel like VERY ancient dragons, powerful enough to grant divine favors.

Aren't what "archdragons" supposed to be???

I believe the Red Dragon becoming Cinder Dragon was mentioned sometime in one of the Paizo streams, regarding the Shining Kingdoms release. Also, we (probably) know the name of post-OGL Black Dragons; in a Reddit AMA done by Ossian Studios for the Dragon's Demand crpg, they mentioned that to be remastered compliant they've renamed the Black Dragon into the Bog Dragon. Unsure if this is canon, as someone commented that they're surprised Ossian was allowed to reveal this, and Mark Moreland replied something to the effect of "yes that is interesting" with an upside down smiley.

My point still stands that they still didn't officially remaster the OGL dragons in books.

We got an errata for Secrets of Magic, making it 99% usable in the Remaster, but nothing on Bestiary 1 and 2?

Pretty sure a Paizo Blog post could solve everything.

JiCi wrote:

How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though?

For the record...
- Chromatic and Metallic Dragons have been mentioned with new names, and since they were already converted, they would need remastering. This doesn't seem to be this complex.

So, presumably the upcoming (MC2) Cinder Dragon is our remastered red (as well as, y'know, the diabolic also being a remastered red), in the same way that the horned dragon is our remastered green, which means we'd only be getting at most three other remastered chromatics. I'd honestly rather they didn't do that - having five dragons for the sake of equivalency with a license that isn't being used anymore seems like a waste of creative effort that could be better used for new and original ideas.

On the other hand, I also want an ice-breathing dragon please!

See? That's my problem...

and not "officially renamed, as seen in the Errata for Bestiaries 1 and 2, now using Remastered rules"

What's so complicated about renaming and reflavoring the OGL dragons again?

BTW, you guys want ice-using dragons, but both White and Silver are locked behind "copyright issues".

Those could be reserved for Starfinder though.

Seeing that Strafinder will be compatible with Pathfinder, that could be an alternative, just like Dragonkins being a "Starfinder playable alien ancestry" that can be used in Pathfinder.

Well, leaks happened... including a Draconic Codex... which will apparently contain a new ancestry: the Dragonet.

You know the small dragons people wish to play for a while, it's coming :)

Well, remastered errata'ed notes could be a few pages for any and all dragons. Chromatics, Metallics, Primals and Imperials could be updates in a few pages without the whole stat blocks.

How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though?

For the record...
- Chromatic and Metallic Dragons have been mentioned with new names, and since they were already converted, they would need remastering. This doesn't seem to be this complex.

- Primal and Imperial Dragons need remastering as well, being from Bestiary 2 and 3, respectively.

- Outer, Esoteric and Planar Dragons need full convertions, never appearing in P2E since Bestiary 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Planar Dragons in particular will need something to match the new and improved Planes.

Barnes and Noble must really hate dragon themed suprises. That's a pretty interesting list of features for the Lost Oments book.

That or jokes aside, they may think it would boost their sales.

I mean, that's like leaking dinosaur-themed stuff in the 90s :p

Huh... apparently, Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was leaked by a Barnes & Nobles page...

Dragons! The very name invokes power beyond reckoning, fire that can melt mountains and fangs the size of swords. To face a dragon is to face the ultimate challenge of any adventurer’s career. The reward for victory: gold, enough to twist any mortal’s heart into a bigger monster than the one they just slew. Inside this tome lies the secrets of dragonkind, as well as those mortals who look upon them with awe or with bitter envy. Research a fearsome foe or summon the courage to make an ally of these primordial beings and put your strength and wisdom to the test. Success will see triumph beyond measure, while failure leads to an ignominious end within the dragon’s maw!

Inside, you’ll find:

• Statistics for over 20 types of dragons, including expansions on the dragons found in Monster Core and Monster Core 2!

• Statistics for the ferocious archdragons, the oldest and mightiest dragons of their kinds!

• Expanded background and lore for dragons, including information on dragon physiology!

• Nine draconic deities for dragons and adventurers alike to worship!

• Ancestry and heritage options to play a draconic character of your own, from expansions to the dragonblood and kobold to a brand-new dragonet ancestry!

• Draconic pacts for those brave enough to tie their fates to these dangerous and magical beings.

• Character options for characters of all types that wish to claim the power of dragons, including the draconic acolyte archetype to take on the physical features of your draconic benefactor!

Huh... apparently, Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was leaked by a Barnes & Nobles page...

Dragons! The very name invokes power beyond reckoning, fire that can melt mountains and fangs the size of swords. To face a dragon is to face the ultimate challenge of any adventurer’s career. The reward for victory: gold, enough to twist any mortal’s heart into a bigger monster than the one they just slew. Inside this tome lies the secrets of dragonkind, as well as those mortals who look upon them with awe or with bitter envy. Research a fearsome foe or summon the courage to make an ally of these primordial beings and put your strength and wisdom to the test. Success will see triumph beyond measure, while failure leads to an ignominious end within the dragon’s maw!

Inside, you’ll find:

• Statistics for over 20 types of dragons, including expansions on the dragons found in Monster Core and Monster Core 2!

• Statistics for the ferocious archdragons, the oldest and mightiest dragons of their kinds!

• Expanded background and lore for dragons, including information on dragon physiology!

• Nine draconic deities for dragons and adventurers alike to worship!

• Ancestry and heritage options to play a draconic character of your own, from expansions to the dragonblood and kobold to a brand-new dragonet ancestry!

• Draconic pacts for those brave enough to tie their fates to these dangerous and magical beings.

• Character options for characters of all types that wish to claim the power of dragons, including the draconic acolyte archetype to take on the physical features of your draconic benefactor!

I think that we're too accustomed with Paizo giving us 5 dragons per Monster Core/Bestiary...

Still, having more dragons leads to more bloodlines, draconic examplars and other related materials.

The Dragon Spit feat would need to be remastered as well.

JiCi wrote:

This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.

I could agree to that, but I think generally speaking d10 and d12 weapons wouldn't be on that list, do recognize that there are a few that currently have d10 as an option (Talwar). My point is that there would need to be restrictions on what was allowed to work.

If the Khakkara is legal as a Monk weapon, I don't see a problem with others, like the Talwar :)

This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.

Gotcha. They opted for "more than the minimum" and come up with a more interesting and unique approach to dragons so that we'd have more categories of better-differentiated dragons that are recognizably "Pathfinder". They probably could have done what you described, but it wouldn't really generate additional interest. Folks already have those ten available.

Then again, nothing prevents them from creating their own dragons to further distance themselves from the OGL.

"Reprinting" and "re-imagining" are mutually exclusive things, so I'm a little confused by what you're asking.

I initially thought Paizo would...

It does beg the question why they haven't reprinted them post-remaster though...

Is it really that big of a mine field to reimagine the OGL dragons?

Well, here are my hopes:

1) The heart, or core, should level like the brain, or computer, because that would save a LOT of Mech Points when designing the form.

2) I just realized that no vehicle has a "duration", even in SF1E. Maybe in Starfinder, they discovered an ever-refilling technology for fuel.

3) Apparently, if you cannot use your own abilities while piloting a mech, the colossiborn shouldn't be able to either. I personally think it's weird that most class abilities cannot be utilized in a mech. There isn't any extra module/upgrade to use them either, such as "Spellcaster Core" or "Solarian Crystal Node".

JiCi wrote:

From what I've heard, Chromatic Reds are renamed Cinder Dragons and Chromatic Blacks are renamed Bog Dragons.

So... pick White or Silver and you're good :)

Please let it look good, nothing against designers being creative but red has always been by favorite so I want at least this one to look really good.

The designs are Paizo's own, but the names are OGL.

For instance, D&D's Green Dragon has a crocodile head, whicle PF's version is wedge-shaped and nose-horned.

JiCi wrote:

Squark wrote:

As far as dragons I'd like to see... Cold-based dragons are conspicuously absent and a noteable point of pain for a local player's barbarian concept.

It's not just that...

In the Remaster, they ONLY focused on the 8 new dragons, leaving both Primal and Imperial Dragons out of the loop. Dude, even Outer and Esoteric Dragons from P1E haven't still showed up.

Sure, but the non-OGL legacy content is still usable in PFS (And in home games, you can continue to use whatever dragon you like). The dragon-themed classes even have guidelines for using Imperial Dragons and the original primal dragons as your draconic exemplar (Although they are missing alternate bloodline spells). But if a player in PFS wants a cold-based dragon as their exemplar for a new barbarian, sorcerer, or dragonblooded, they just don't have that option right now. Hence my highlighting their conspicuous absence since its something some I play with has complained of.

From what I've heard, Chromatic Reds are renamed Cinder Dragons and Chromatic Blacks are renamed Bog Dragons.

So... pick White or Silver and you're good :)

As far as dragons I'd like to see... Cold-based dragons are conspicuously absent and a noteable point of pain for a local player's barbarian concept.

It's not just that...

JiCi wrote:

I'd love to get more Primal dragons, well, ELEMENTAL dragons.

Here's what I would like to see:

This is an absolutely incredible list of dragons right here.

Thank you ^_^

In short, I took all 6 Elemental Planes and paired them with a good and an evil dragon, again based on their descriptions. Crystal Dragons are friendly, while Magma Dragons can lash without warning ^^;

This is similar to how in Rage of the Elements, each Plane has a good-natured and an evil-natured deity... except Metal, which has deities that can both Heal and Harm, and Wood, which both presented Deities can heal.

I am aware that Forest Dragons are native, or at least have established themselves on the Plane of Wood, but those are Imperial Dragons. Sky and Sea Dragons could next in the Plane of Air or Water, respectively.

I'd love to get more Primal dragons, well, ELEMENTAL dragons.

Here's what I would like to see:
Elemental Planes - Good dragons - Evil dragons
Air - Cloud (done) - Storm
Earth - Crystal (done) - Fossil
Fire - Radiant - Magma (done)
Metal - Alchemy - Rust
Water - Wave - Brine (done)
Wood - Oak - Blight

I'm aware of alignment removal, but... given the descriptions, the current dragons are not as "morally grey" as they behave. Umbral dragons are considered "Primal dragons", but since the Void isn't an Elemental Plane, I'd "remove" it from that classification... and add a Photon Dragon for the Creation's Forge as its counterpart.

- Storm Dragons are destroyers and always surrounded by a storm cloud. Its breath is a line of lightning.

- Fossil Dragons are hunters, wearing their preys' bones as trophies. Its breath is a cone of poison, causing petrification/calcification.

- Radiant Dragons are almost angelic in design. Its breath is a line of divine energy.

- Alchemy Dragons have sleek bodies, almost liquid-like. Its breath is a line of acid, but with various secondary effects, rolled at random.

- Rust Dragons are bulky and have rusted objects stuck on their hides. Its breath is a cone of rusting acid.

- Wave Dragons resemble whales, with fin-like wings. Its breath is a cone of cold.

- Oak Dragons resemble detailled wood statues. Its breath is a line of wooden flechettes/splinters.

- Blight Dragons resemble sagging topiary sculptures with a rotting aura. Its breath is a cone of poison with a rotting effect.

For me personally my lack of satisfaction with fleshwarps as the sole aberrant ancestry is more that their current design is more in line with, results of alchemical accidents or treatments, Dr. Frankenstien experiments, and things like mana-waste mutants. While one could stretch and reflavor some of their abilities, I'm looking for something more lovecraftian, more in the realms of "you have been touched by the old ones", than what the class offers now. And something with a tentacle attack which their current natural weapon feat doesn't give.

Your best hope is that Starfinder updates the inhabitants of Aucturn, the furthest planet in the Pact Worlds. Paizo did reiterated how alien races would be compatible.

The Colossiborn is a new playable alien race detailled in Mechageddon.

It's basically a Tokusatsu creature heavily inspired by Super Sentai, Power Rangers, Kamen Rider, Ultra Man and the other 1,001 Kaiju movies out there. The BIGGEST selling point of this race is how it can transform into a Huge version of itself, using the Mech-building rules.

This is... where I have issues, because I feel like some infos are missing...

1) There's this part:

A colossiborn has a heart instead of a power core, and a brain instead of a computer.

However, it doesn't explain anything else... Does the mech form come with either a Mk 0 Dynamo or Mk 0 Eternal power core? Does it get stronger as you level up? Do you need to spend Mech points to upgrade it? Please note that the "computer" goes up a tier per 4 levels of the mech.

2) How long can a colossiborn stay in living mech form? Mechs require fuel to function, as per any vehicle, but since it's living, can it stay indefinitely? I assume "no", but it would kinda dumb that it can transform... only to be immobilized by having its tanks empty ^^;

3) What happens to a colossiborn's regular gear and even abilities? That's probably more on the mech side of things, but can a colossiborn use its own class abilities in living mech form?

Any help would be appreciated, thank you ^_^

I legit do not understand that decision about Fleshwarps...

In P1E, it led to different species based on the victim's heritage, but in P2E, they became homogenous???

Then again, now they need to find another creator ancestry to replace dark elves...

I would say that the Cyclopes really do seem to be an option for players, unlike the Jotuns. Since the Cyclopes have been in the setting since the beginning, we know of at least three large populations of Cyclopes in the setting, with different cultures, traditions, etc. And in addition, the Cyclopes have their own magic, which can be implemented in the game, in the form of their natural ability to divination.

That's why I retracted my "suggestion" for Jotunborns to receive heritages based on Golarion's own giant species ^^;

Well, yeah, I agree, it's not gonna be a "one size fits all" ancestry, but... the basics will be established well enough to lead to other giant-esque ancestries. It's like how minotaurs led to other Large playable characters.

It's not just true giants and cyclops that need an entry, because ogres and trolls could also use some stuff. If anything, I could see general ancestry feats with the "giant" trait, meaning that any giant ancestry could access.

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

FormerFiend wrote:

Alas, I am returned, to request a cyclops ancestry once more, to fill the niche of a giantkin ancestry in the mold of D&D's goliaths.

Also, munavri. Any news on munavri? Shabti?

We're getting a rough goliath equivalent in Battlecry in the form of jotunborn!

This pleases me.

I would still like cyclops for narrative reasons in the setting but the fact that the niche is being addressed at all is a net positive.

Pretty sure that the Jotunborn will work as a chassis for regular giant heritages.

keftiu wrote:

Oh, Deer Lord wrote:

A hyper-specific wish that I don't expect to see come true: a snake ancestry. Basically humanoid, human-sized snakes with arms and tails instead of legs. A few different heritages that paint different types of snakes in broad strokes: desert, jungle, aquatic, venomous, etc. Feats that do things like let you climb a tree or constrict a foe you have grappled. There's a great homebrew version, but something official would be wonderful. :3

Nagaji have had a Heritage for this since they were introduced, I believe!

Sacred Nagaji- replaces your fangs unarmed attack you get a Tail attack (d6 B, finesse) and you get a +2 circumstance bonus to resist grapple and trip.

No problem with taking this heritage on any Nagaji, but as with all heritages you run into the issue of "you can't be this and also be a Nephilim, Dhampir, etc."

Then again, what you're asking for is a "Late Awakening" or "Awakened [ancestry] Heritage" feat for other ancestries :p

That... would be much easier to add XD

I think at this moment the obvious gaps in coverage are fey ancestries and aquatic ancestries, so those are what I'd like to see more of (possibly at the same time). For fey we have all kinds of classics. Dryad, nymph, satyr, I guess nixie, leprechaun, satyr... Maybe redcap, or satyr... Uh... Satyr... Anyways, aquatic creatures have more room as well, off the top of my head tritons are an obvious pick, aquatic elves are an established thing (could be a heritage), and playable alghollthu is a good potential curveball (besides, we need more playable aberrations). That said my true number one most wanted ancestry is an Ooze. I love oozes and the closest we've gotten is the Oozemorph archetype which I would say is somehow worse than literally nothing.

IMO...

- Aquatic heritages may be a hard sell, because, well... 90% of adventures are happening on land. Right now, the ONLY thing that would favor aquatic heriatges would be a book about the Shackles... which I think Paizo already did back in P1E's debuts.

- Oozefolks would be cool, but again, we need a lore reason. If the Age of Lost Omens somehow awakened clusters of oozes, jellies and slimes, which they rapidly reproduced, then I could see this happening.

D&D 4E...

P1E was "D&D 3.75E", which was easier to get into.

Fair enough :)

At first, the castes (thanks for the word) felt like heritages, until species were more appropriated. But yeah, Solitary, Mason, Carpenter, Honey, Bumble, Wasp, Yellowjacket and Hornet would work nicely as heritages.

The "yellowjackets/paper wasps/bumblebees/honeybees" heritages are what we went with, too.

Interesting

What did you guys do for the classes? Can any thriae be a worker or a soldier, for instance? Are these "local terms" for the game's classes (Fighter to Soldier)?

JiCi wrote:

Ok, time out...

What's so special about "solitary bee" to warrant a Thriae heritage again? Isn't a "solitary bee" a worker or a soldier that just... struck on its own?

No, solitary bees are bees that aren't eusocial at all - no hives or workers for the entire species! That's actually the overwhelming majority of all bees on earth. As for a niche as a heritage, there's a few options - solitary bees include basically all the novel nest-making bees, like mason bees, carpenter bees, and leafcutter bees, so giving a solitary heritage a crafting focus could work. Alternatively, as solitary bees with stings don't die from stinging (no queen to keep carrying on the hive's genes), a sting-based natural attack would also be an option.

Oh... I see now... It's a type of bee, not a class :p

Thriaes already can sting and don't die from it. They also have merope consumption, which effects depend on their classes.

In this case, thriae heritages would be based on bee species, including solitary bees, but the "classes" could be level 1 feats, like "do you want to start your adventuring career as a worker, a soldier or none at all"? Merope would then affect you accordingly.

Also, other similar insects could be added as heritages, like wasps and yellowjackets.

Ok, time out...

What's so special about "solitary bee" to warrant a Thriae heritage again? Isn't a "solitary bee" a worker or a soldier that just... struck on its own?

Worker - good at manual tasks

Soldier - good at combat

Seer - good with divine and primal spells, based on the Thriae Seer

Dancer - good with arcane and occult spells, as well as rallying troops Thriae Dancer

Constructor - Large, but NOT mindless, as I said, based on the Thriae Constructor

Queen/embassador - good at Diplomacy and other social skills

Solitary - ???

I wouldn't say bees are loyal, actually - if a queen bee sucks at her job the hive will raise a replacement and kill her. For IRL bees, the queen isn't actually in charge, she's just the gonads. Having some opportunities for intra-hive scheming would make thriae a lot more distinct from generic fantasy/sci-fi hive insectoids - adding politics certainly made Starfinder Formorians more interesting!

I'd also like to see a solitary bee heritage - most real-life bee species are actually solitary, so it'd be a fun little nod.

I just read about how both ants and bees can overthrow their queens O_o Yikes! For bees specifically, it's more about the queen gradually losing pheromones, as you stated.

I'd say that a "solitary thriae" would simply be "someone not living in a hive". The heritages I've mentioned would be physical adjustments, but being solitary is more of a morale choice.

I've been fiddling with a thriae-like ancestry for a while now, it's gonna be embarrassing if Paizo gets to it before I do.

The Thriaes themselves have yet to return in P2E.

Still, before complaining about them being female-exclusive...
1) Changelings were reworked into multiple genders.

2) Real-life bees have males (d'uh).

3) The Age of Lost Omens could have signaled the arrival of male larvae.

4) Thriaes have been known to compel male humanoids to reproduce... and to eat them in their sleep when they're about to die of old age, be natural or accelerated. Male thriaes would essentially allow them to stop their practices.

5) Male thriaes could still be important in hives as generals, but I would keep the matriarchy. Bees are loyal, so I wouldn't imagine coups d'etat and such betrayal within their ranks.

6) Heritages could follow the same classes as P1E and bees: worker, soldier, seer, dancer, constructor (Large, but NOT mindless) and queen/embassador.

After some winded debates, the best option is to bestow a -2 penalty on saving throws on a Spellstrike critical hit.

The reason is that... some critical failures are insanely OP, and critical hits are no longer about "rolling 18, 19 or 20", but 10 points above AC.

I will say if you roll a natural 20, then you should apply either a -4 penalty, with a feat that makes it an automatic failure, with the opponent rolling to avoid turning it into a critical failure.

Thank you. I had trouble looking for feats.

Seriously, AoN is free and well organised, do you like... not read the free open archive before insisting things don't exist.

The feat charts have one glaring flaw: it doesn't list requirements. It lists any prerequisite, but not requirements. That makes it a bit harder to look. Also, the description is often all fluff instead of "straight to the point". That doesn't help either.

Dual Handed Assault, as already mentioned multiple times to you, allows you to... increase the damage of a weapon by using it in two hands.

Guess you forgot to mention that it's a Flourish (1/round), not a regular thing you can do normally.

Dazing Blows let you deal bludgeoning with any weapon (there are like... 10 total creatures weak to piercing)

Provided that the creature is grabbed...

You have Point Blank Stance to remove volley already, live with it. There is no identity-based reason why you need to stack multiple stances

I don't see any gameplay reason to have that trait either...

While ranged fighters will have to tragically (lol) live with not having a reaction, Lunging Stance lets you apply Lunge's effect to your Reactive Strike.

Back in P1E, there was the Snap Shot feat, which allowed you to threaten squares within 5 feet of you and make attacks of opportunities.

So, yo be clear, the fighter can already do, like, a ton of these via feats, and you even specifically name Point Blank Stance here - you just... want the current feats to be more powerful, despite everyone in this thread trying to explain to you that the fighter is, already, powerful!

Really? What feats? Show me.

Like, at least the discussion on Versatile Legend has an actual meaningful difference with a clearly stated goal, you just keep asking for the fighter to get feats that do a thing, and when you get told they already have that, insist it doesn't count because your ideal feat would stack with the existing feat. Which, come on, you're not asking for identity here, you're asking for the fighter to have vertical power increases in their feat trees beyond what they already get.

Prove it... and not by number crunching please...

You seem to want the fighter to do everything with any weapon at will without any limitation even though every single other class you listed has a limitation.

The other classes do indeed have limitations, but they have unique class features instead.

A Sorcerer has spontaneous spellcasting and bloodlines, while the Wizard has prepared spells and schools, and the Magus can spellstrike, but all 3 can access the Arcane spell list.

An Oracle, a Summoner and a Witch can select spell lists according to , mysteries, eidolons and patrons, respectively.

By this logic, A Barbarian has rage, a Ranger has edges, a Gunslinger has ways, and the Fighter can "adapt".

There is nothing more boring to me than just going through a checklist of most optimal choices. The whole point is to adapt to circumstances. The fighter has a great chassis for adapting to circumstances.

If adaptability is praised this much, then why can't I "adapt" my favorite weapon to multiple situations instead of changing it to something I don't like?

Yes, the fighter has an entire pool of feats that are 'what they can do with the sword that others can't'. They just... don't restrict you specifically to the sword, because why would you need to? Do you really need three different ways to write 'gain +1 circumstance bonus to AC' tagged to different weapons, instead of one good Parry feat?

Besides, you then ask for ways to remove that restriction, so that's just extra hoop-jumping.

Really? Where are the feats with "Expert in the Sword/Axe/Hammer weapon group" as prerequisites?

All in all though, if we imagine the fighter did not have any weapon group restrictions, and someone suggested to introduce them, the question "what problem are you trying to solve here?" would be a tough one to answer. I see it more as giving a nod to the PF1 fighter legacy than actually serving a gameplay design goal.

I'm trying to solve the problem of "not getting caught off-guard in an encounter where my weapon is useless".

"Oh no! My shield broke! I can't fix it yet! All I have is my longsword. If only I could grab it in two hands and get extra damage."

"Oh no! My bastard sword doesn't do much slashing damage! If only I could stab with it and get piercing damage instead."

"I'm super good with my bow, but it would be nice if I didn't need to enter a stance to remove that annoying volley trait. I would use other stances instead."

"I'm super good with my bow, but it would be nice if I could snipe people with Reactive Strike within half of my weapon's range increment."

You'd think that the Fighter would be much better at this than other classes.

At least you admit it. If you played one you'll hae noticed they are ridiculously strong.

A +2 to attack doesn't seem like a lot, but I remember fighters critting like 5 times in a row or something ridiculous like that. Even if you were to argue this is copium or exaggeration, I substract enemy HP the ol' way of taking notes on my cellphone and the fighters are always dealing the most damage in their respective encounters.

I already have trouble making a Fighter that isn't a braindead meathead that always "kicks in the door" OR that isn't "Wuxia".

Do I really need to take in that all it can do is "dealing more damage"?

Wait so do you want the fighter to be flexible or not? One minute you're lamenting that fighter doesn't have access to a wider array of options and the next you're asking for feats that would by nature force a fighter down a narrower path.

And again, for what I'm going to make the last time:
The fighter DOES have the ability to specalise in a type of weapon. That's what the feats do. That's why combat flexability exists, to give fighter versatile access to more feats. It's weaker because fighter derives incredible power from its feats, much more so than other classes.

I want to be specialized in one specific weapon group, but to also be flexible with it.

Everyone can wield a sword, but the Fighter should have 5 extra features they only can do with Sword weapons, similar to what a Gunslinger obtain.

Seriously, do you even play the fighter?

The more we talk about it, the less I'm not too keen on it...

I found this floating around:

I want to play a Fighter that...

- can be shoot stuff -> Here's the Gunslinger
- can attack furiously -> Here's the Barbarian
- can hunt and track prey -> Here's the Ranger
- can fight with my fists -> Here's the Monk
- can focus on light weapons -> Here's the Swashbuckler
- can command -> Here's the Commander
- can focus on defense -> Here's the Guardian
- can fight for the Church -> Here's the Champion
- can cast spells -> Here's the Magus, Warpriest Cleric and Battle Oracle
- can use magic items -> Here's the Thaumatheurge
- can make my own weapons -> Here's the Inventor
- can fight for the Gods -> Here's the Examplar

This isn't like picking the sorcerer over the wizard, it's literally "trading generic features" for something unique.

Rage, Hunter's Edges, Ways, Epithets, Styles and other similar abilities are not feats or "bonuses"; they're class features. If those are supposed to be as good as Combat Flexibility, there's a problem, because it doesn't match.

I would rather be LESS flexible and insteat be MORE specialized in one weapon group and have this "flexibility" be 4 or 5 special abilities per weapon groups that only the Fighter can access, exactly like Advanced Weapon Training.