JiCi's page

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.

Seriously, why are you obsessed with getting a critical effect from another weapon group? This can't eb a PF1e thing (because they don't exist in PF1e).

Because "Legendary Proficiency" is NOT the Fighter's main feature. If that mindset doesn't apply for the Gunslinger, who also gets Legendary Proficiency with Firearms, it shouldn't apply to the Fighter, plain and simple. It's just a bonus, NOT a class feature.

Reactive Strike doesn't increase to TWO reactions on its own unless you manually pick Tactical Reflexes, nor is there a feat for THREE reactions at Level 19 OR that Reactive Strike could be used with Ranged Attacks.

Bravery? It doesn't increase your Will saves to Master AND reduce frightened condition's value by 2.

Versatile Legend DOESN'T apply to that one weapon group you've picked at Level 13 for Weapon Legend, barring Legendary Proficiency with any Advanced Weapon from that group.

Combat Flexibility? It's just "a few extra feats" and not something like "pick 1, 2 or even 3 Fighetr feats which you DON'T have the requirements. Now you do with one weapon of your selected group for a day". THAT's flexibility for you, because you can use weapons in ways that they weren't intended.

All of that missing stuff... forces me to rely on critical hits. While you can apply different effects to them, their feats are so specific that it's kinda underwhelming.

You're selecting a weapon group, why can't you apply that critical effect to other weapons? It's one thing to deal more damage and add one effect on every Strike, it's another to have a little extra, because you're a Fighter.

Also, in P1E, there were Critical Feats and at high level, there was a feat that allowed you stack 2 effects, so there.

Like, it's unfortunate that Spear Dancer doesn't work with long clubs, sure, but there is a limit to which a weapon cannot emulate another weapon. To answer your "5 weapons in a session" strawman with my own, at what point do you just want Fighter to use an ordinary staff to fire arrows?

There's the Bow Staff, but still...

The idea of carrying a "golf bag", with 5 or 6 weapons is ridiculous, especially when factoring Bulk, Cost and even feats.

Fighter can still be extremely flexible within its own weapon choice if it wants to be. need I go on?

Not every Fighter feat work with every weapon, and like I keep telling you, the Figther doesn't have a feat or feature that let them treat "ONE signature weapon" as special to bypass certain requirements.

Where is the feat that allows you to treat any weapon as Two-Hand, similar to how the Apocalypse Rider can treat every two-handed weapon as Jousting?

Where is the feat that allows you to use another critical effect from another weapon group?

Where is the feat that allows you to increase one signature weapon's damage by one die?

THAT's versatility.

Fighter's feats already turn weapons you have into weapons they aren't quite in ways that no other class gets access to in this quantity, that you can either take or ignore at-will. You won't find a Rogue wielding the same weapons as a Fighter that's able to do the same things without archetyping. And there are plenty of weapons in the game that can support a wide array of combinations of these feats.

Guess right now, all I can do is wait until Paizo release archetypes like Warrior of Legends, but for the remaining weapon groups then...

How, in any world, is that not an embodiment of its flexibility?

There's a difference between "being flexible with multiple weapons" and "being flexible with ONE weapon".

When in one session are you gonna use 5 different weapons?

Many Fighter feats have requirements for specific weapons. You want flexibility? Have the Fighter remove those requirements.

I don't think I can combine Haft Striker Dance with Two-Weapon Flurry, because I'm not wielding 2 separate weapons. Spear Dancer with staves? Dream on too...

The idea that fighter is alone in getting functionally nothing from is dedication is not true.

Also the fighter does have "fighting styles" - that's what its feats are for, and it get more than any other comparable class thanks to combat verstality.

Then where are the feats that have "expert / master / legendary proficiency in [this weapon group]" as a prerequisite?

Please note that I'm not trying to disparage you, JiCi. I understand that the Fighter doesn't seem to have any sort of flair or oomph that you enjoy that makes it fulfill the fantasy you have, and that's something that - while I disagree - is a fair opinion to have.

However, I do think that arguing that Fighter doesn't have anything that fulfills a "weapon master" niche isn't a fair take given that most of its class feature and feat budget go into allowing you to effectively make a Build-a-Bear War Machine.

Ok... In P1E, I was thrilled to get the Weapon master Handbook and how they FINALLY gave Fighters more content, mostly to trade weapon/armor training for some really cool features. In P2E however, I feel like this aspect is missing.

I'll gladly take the Soldier's fighting styles from Starfinder and give and adapt them to the Fighter and only the Fighter.

Dude, even the Fighter archetype is a joke. Every other class gives you a class feature, but that one give you the equivalent of Weapon Proficiency one level later.

The net outcome is the same: changing how the weapon works in some way.

... for the Fighter only.

How come Gunslingers are heavily specialized in Firearms and Crossbows, but Fighters cannot fill blanks with other Weapon groups again?

It literally already does. Where do you think that proficiency bump is coming from?

That it doesn't do it in the hyper-specific way that you think it should doesn't matter.

An extra +2 to attack rolls is not the same as Rage, Sneak Attack and Spells getting more powerful with levels.

If you give Legendary Proficiency to every class, what does the Fighter have left?

If you remove Legendary Proficiency from every class, what does the Fighter have left?

Dude, Mythic Proficiency can be access by anyone.

Literally anyone can craft their own weapons if they take Crafting. That's not an Inventor thing. Modifying weapons with additional traits IS an Inventor thing. That's the whole schtick of the weapon innovation.

Fighter doesn't need that and there's no particular reason to give it to them.

Really? Where are the rules to craft custom weapons? There's none... A regular blacksmith cannot craft a longsword with extra traits, for instance. The Fighter should be able to be "the only one" to wield weapons in creative ways.

1. It actually can get rid of the Volley trait on all bow weapons. There's a stance for that.

2. So what? Nothing intrinsically says that Fighter should be able to do these things.

3. As was pointed out, this is already an Inventor thing. Why would it make sense to give Fighter a thing to make it more unique by taking it from another class?

Fighter is one of the best designed classes in the game at doing what it's intended to do. It doesn't need these kind of changes. Maybe it's just not the class for you, and that's fine.

1) I'm not talking about a stance, I'm talking about treating weapon swith extra traits.

2) So the Fighter, often considered a "weapon master", shouldn't be able to treat weapons "better" than other classes?

3) The Inventor can craft its own weapons. The Fighter should wield weapons in better ways than other classes.

JiCi wrote:

Except that a Fighter who picked the Sword group cannot apply the Versatile trait on all associated weapons... or getting rid of the Volley trait on all Bow weapons... or adding the Jousting trait to all Spear weapons.

... You're describing the Inventor now, you realise? Why would the a weapon master add more traits to weapons, instead of having feats that key off the existing traits on weapons like, IDK, the Fighter?

It's not about "adding more traits" to an existing weapon, it's about the Fighter treating a selected weapon with extra traits.

A bastard sword won't gain Versatile P on its own, but a Fighter could deal Piercing damage with it, just like you could wield a longsword with 2 hands, grating it the Two-Hand 1d10 trait.

Also, they can already get rid of volley, it's called Point Blank Stance. Do you actually read the Fighter before you make such weird complaints?

and then there's this part:

When using a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks against targets within the weapon’s first range increment.

If it was coupled with a feat that removed the Volley trait from any Bow weapon, you could benefit from the extra +2 with a composite longbow, because you would treat it without the problematic trait.

RPG-Geek wrote:

One thing that PF2 could steal from D&D is weapons having secondary effects, with fighters being the masters of using those secondary effects. I know that PF2 has critical effects and that Fighters are the best at scoring critical hits. Still, a system where every attack has a minor effect attached to it would make "just" swinging a weapon each round feel more engaging without adding a lot of extra overhead or decision-making to the game.

Plenty of weapons do have special effects, though, tied to traits. Razing weapons cut through shields like butter, weapons with "maneuver" traits (Shove, Trip, etc.) let you use that maneuver with that weapon's item bonus. Hampering lets you use an action to slow the target by 10 feet after scoring a hit. Parry weapons let you get a buckler-like bonus to your AC when you Raise them.

Plus, a good chunk of Fighter's feats are allocated to secondary effects on Strikes already. They already sorta *do* this. Oh, you hit with this Strike? That guy's Grabbed now. You hit a Strike on a Fightened foe? They're Off-Guard now. You hit someone with your ranged weapon? Your next ally gets a +1/+2 to hit them. Oh, you missed with this Strike? No MAP penalty because you can follow-through properly.

Except that a Fighter who picked the Sword group cannot apply the Versatile trait on all associated weapons... or getting rid of the Volley trait on all Bow weapons... or adding the Jousting trait to all Spear weapons.

The best with weapons is a very clear identity. Fighters have one of the clearest, simplest, most effective identities in PF2.

You make it sound like the Fighter must carry one weapon per damage type, weapon group and/or material... because specializing in one weapon is a trap option...

That's not an answer, and the fighter being more generic than its specific alternatives is the point, not a problem.

It's not generic if it's supposed to be a weapon master.

Sure, it can often way more often than other martials, but... since when "quantity is better than quality"? It should go like this:

A cleric uses Sword A to get Effect B.
A rogue uses Sword A to get Effect C.
A wizard uses Sword A to get Effect D.

A fighter uses Sword A to get Effects B, C and/or D, because he's the weapon master, not the cleric, rogue or wizard.

A "weapon master" should select different critical effects, apply various traits and so on... and right now, it's not.

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

Because the Fighter lacks an identity, that's why.

The other martial classes have a pre-determined path with their features and proficiencies that allow better characterisation. This is something missing from the Fighter.

For instance, if you're a barbarian and ranger, you're close to nature, just like if you're a magus or thaumatheurge, you're well-versed into magic.

If you're a Fighter, you're... someone... that's it. When your whole class resolves around being a mercenary, a freed gladiator or a retired soldier, you're limited. Even with classes like the Guardian and Commander, being a "soldier" sounds way better with those...

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fighter's "main gimmick" is to crit like crazy. That's not the stated goal of Fighter's design - it's a knock-on effect of their actual main gimmick (the 960 gp worth of accuracy they start with) being tied (intentionally) to the same system that governs hits and crits.

One issue I keep seeing is how "being good with every weapon" doesn't bring you more advantages.

Like I said, if the Fighter could swap crit effects from one group to another, without having to carry multiple weapons or a Shifting Rune, that would be welcomed. Dude, imagine if the Fighter could ADD weapon traits to weapons with feats. That would also be a good thing.

Essentially, "spear training" should reflect on "polearm training", "sword training" should reflect on "knife training", "hammer training" should reflect on "club training", and so on. THAT's what the Fighter is currently missing. THAT's the "weapon versatility" that should be added.

Most characters carry a melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a small back-up weapon. Carrying more seems pointless. You guys argue that a "golf bag" is required. There's the problem: a Fighter's "one signature weapon" should equal to many.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to deal Piercing damage with every Sword weapon, as not all of them have "Versatile P".

If the Fighter's main gimmick is to crit like crazy, then the critical hits should be more appealing.

If a barbarian uses a greataxe to crit, he can strike another target within reach.

If a fighter uses a greataxe to crit, he can strike another target within reach OR make the initial target off-balance (like a Sword) OR knock it prone (like a Hammer) OR combine 2 or even 3 effects at once, making the initial target prone, off-balance AND striking a secondary target.

Basically, when a Martial crits, the target is cripple, but when the Fighter crits, the target should struggle to keep its limbs from falling off.

Art: Insert Swordmaster Ganhil here] Abhaya the Returner and Swordmaster Ganhil. Art by Renan Maurilio.

You guys might want to fix that :p

Posted this on another topic:

I would like for Paizo to do the following:
- Take the Gunslinger class
- Strip EVERYTHING related to Firearms.
- Replace it with another weapon group.
- Offer THIS "new class" for the Fighter as one class archetype/group.
- Essentially, replace some of the more "generic" Fighter features in exchange of the equivalent of the Gunslinger's Ways, like "Way of the Spear", "Way of the Knife", "Way of the Sword", etc.

In other words, adapt all Ways (Slinger's Reload, all 3 Deeds) for different weapon groups, which would grant the Fighter unique features.

My idea is that the Fighter is supposed to be the "Ultimate Weapon Master"... but right now, the class is so generic that you will lose focus.

I'd be down to replace the Fighter's proficiencies for those new archetypes as follow:
Expert in all Simple and Martial weapons from the chosen group
Trained in all Advanced weapons from the chosen group
Trained in simple weapons
Trained in unarmed attacks

Basically, "Warrior of Legend" but for the other weapon groups.

So, basically, you’d like for them to trade Shield block, the general proficiency upgrades (leaving only single weapon group upgrades), and probably the flexible feats for what are essentially Ways?

I could see that happening, yeah.

Pretty much :p

Without dragging it for too long, I would like for Paizo to do the following:
- Take the Gunslinger class
- Strip EVERYTHING related to Firearms.
- Replace it with another weapon group.
- Offer THIS "new class" for the Fighter as one class archetype/group.
- Essentially, replace some of the more "generic" Fighter features in exchange of the equivalent of the Gunslinger's Ways, like "Way of the Spear", "Way of the Knife", "Way of the Sword", etc.

In other words, adapt all Ways (Slinger's Reload, all 3 Deeds) for different weapon groups, which would grant the Fighter unique features.

My idea is that the Fighter is supposed to be the "Ultimate Weapon Master"... but right now, the class is so generic that you will lose focus.

I'd be down to replace the Fighter's proficiencies for those new archetypes as follow:
Expert in all Simple and Martial weapons from the chosen group
Trained in all Advanced weapons from the chosen group
Trained in simple weapons
Trained in unarmed attacks

With class archetypes being a thing, I'd love something for Fighters...

Give me archetypes that do the following:
- rework their weapon proficiencies
- replace Shield Block with an exclusive ability
- replace Combat Flexibility and Improved Flexibility with again, new exclusive abilities

Basically, check out Starfinder's Soldier, take that class's fighting styles and apply those to the Fighter, but for Pathfidner's weapon groups.

Right now, it goes like this:
"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, Battle Oracle and Runesmith
- 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

and some even overlap...

For goodness sake, have Fighter archetypes that lock them into ONE weapon group, but in return they get exclusive class features that not even similar class can afford.

ACTUAL OFFICIAL DRAGON BOOKS

Not a big book, but a booklet would be nice :)

A new version of SoM, with updated magic lore, many new spells, new subclasses/class archetypes for casters and maybe a new caster class.

Given the upcoming Necromancer and Runesmith classes, that could be useful :)

moosher12 wrote:

Leshies were actually Character Guide, not Ancestry Guide. Ancestry Guide was just an expansion pack on the leshies.

Either way, I second Ancestry Guide Remaster. I want the up-to date kitsune, and would love to see whether or not they'll combine the geniekin into one heritage like with the nephilim.

And get Shoony in there!

Only if they are reworked as the Rougarou... or that Shoonies can be something else than pugs...

Expanded Ancestry Book, like take all non-common ancestries published to this point and double the number of feats

Some of the recent classes could use Expansions as well (looking at you, Kineticist)