Leotamer's page

I would really want the wand to be a good primary source of damage, because at least then if the thaumaturge remains as MAD is it, having a good ranged charisma weapon/pseudo-cantrip, it would give you room to have higher int/wis over dex/con. And I think using a wand is pretty thematic for a more mental-focused thaumaturge.

I like the idea of implements, but I think there are a few problems with the rules as they are currently written:

Why is possible that you can permanently lose several class features from losing your class feature? There is a feat that helps mitigate it, but even after taking it, there is an explicit way to lose your implement.

A more minor note, but since the thaumaturge doesn't have a way to recover implements and second/third implement doesn't explicitly state that you obtain those implements, then by pure rules as written, those two features do nothing. The only reason is that this is minor is that I don't think anyone would reasonable play it like that.

Also, apparently all shop-keepers are meta-gamers. Implements can't typically be sold, but they are also mundane items. How would most shop-keepers know the difference between an ornate antique incense burner and the lantern implement of a thaumaturge?

If implements are irreplaceable, than they should be glued to their thaumaturge's hip with how many features they have that depend on them. Otherwise, I would just suggest that a thaumaturge be able to turn any mundane item into the appropriate implement they have. If it is a problem that would let thaumaturges with weapon's implements change what weapon they are using, then just state that they have choose the appropriate weapon when they gain the implement choice, but considering the focus on retraining, I don't see why that would be a big deal. Other than that, you would just need a caveat that when you make a new implement of a certain type, your previous implement of that type returns to just being a mundane item.

"Convincing the universe" seems like such a weak explanation for the class to be Charisma-based. Furthermore, why would the universe care about sophistry and rhetoric? Communing with the fundamental forces of reality seems more fitting of wisdom, the stat of perception and intuition, rather how personable you are.

It seems like the only benefit of Charisma is that you can invest more items. Considering how little focus the class gives investment, and that it must forgo having a base stat that would increase its accuracy, wisdom seems more than reasonable with giving the class several useful benefits.

55) While exploring the sewers, I had noticed acidic corrosion scarred the floor and walls. When we encountered the filthy ooze, I had prepared myself with special incense, imbued with aromatic herbs and limestone dust.

23) By painting the imagine of a vampire on to a mirror, I give the vampire a reflection and in turn steal a fundamental aspect from them.

I couldn't find the really semantic definition of stride, but from what I understand, can't you just stride 0ft? The only rule I could find is that you can only move up to your speed. So with threatening approach, if you are already adjacent, you are already adjacent and move 0ft, and then you make the demoralize check.

Everything written as a game mechanic is not an observable, in-universe rule. It is a game mechanic, with its own design concerns, and is merely a representation of lore.

This is only a problem if you take all mechanics hyper-literally, which has a host of problems.

Unannounced races I would like Vanara (Monkey-People, Some Cool Racials, Sun-Wukong), Kitsune, and Genie-kin.

The chaotic neutral champions remain secretive, despite their chaotic good brethren entering the spot-light. They are still doing the god's work, in pranking all wizards and alchemists of Golaran by continuously befuddling them and distorting the true nature of their divine power.

My two-cents is that classes are like many other mechanics. They are abstractions of the lore for the sake of gameplay.

A studied in-game person would know what arcane magic is. They would know some people are born with it, while others go through intensive training. They would also know that a person could have both arcane and martial training. They could tell roughly how skilled a person is in each. But they probably couldn't tell the difference in a wizard/fighter, eldritch knight, and a magus (besides performance).

They would know what a Magic Warrior is, but in the same way, we would know who the knights of the roundtable are.

Is it a bad thing that when an adventure is set in a specific place, people play races that are common to the region?

Human-Ranger, Unconventional Weaponry, Dual Wield Clan-Daggers. Bounty Hunter background for maximum edge.

Semantics is the philosophical/linguistic understanding of the meaning of words. Whenever you are discussing linguistics, you are likely going to be discussing it, unless you want to talk about syntax.

The GM always determines what is allowed and what isn't. The rarity system is just guidelines. If you think your GM would use the rarity rules to screw with you, I suggest finding a new one.

Clearly one would be little h-hunter, and the other would be big H-Hunter. And if you are a noble, no matter how many times you went out into the woods to hunt with your fancy falcon, if you decided to be a ranger, then you will never be a hunter/Hunter.

Archetypes and multi-classing seem to be working as intended. If you want to do something outside of your class, you need to become less like your class to do it.

I think that current multi-classing might be too weak, but I feel like that is a different argument.

"If you want to invest in something that is not related to your main class, pick an archetype" is the entire point of archetypes.

The importance of the Kineticist is that it is a middle-ground between martial classes and spellcasting classes. It allows people to play a magical character, with some of the flexibility of spell-casters, without getting bogged down with spell-lists.

Martials have one or two weapons, and they typically do one, maybe two, things.

Spellcasters have a whole list of spells which do wildly different things and consumes a daily resource. They also have cantrips, but they are often quite limited.

Kineticists have kinetic blasts and a manageable amount of infusions, which are straightforward but flexible.

If the Kineticist or Kineticist Stand-in ever have a spell-list, it would immediately remove most of the appeal for me.

The reason why I believe Kinetic Blast can be one action is they are competing against weapons, not cantrips. The bulk of the spellcasters power budget is their spell-list, where with martials, it is their weapon use. Kinetic Blast is where Kineticist put most of their power budget.

You play your flute, and suddenly "duunnn dunnn... duuuunnnn duun... duuunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn dunnnn"

Based on the advanced player guide announcement, I think it is safe to assume we are getting very specialized archetypes, considering we are getting 60 of them in one book. (4 will presumably be for multi-classing)

What I want a swashbuckler class:
The ability to step and attack as a single action, in either order, preferably multiple times a turn*.
A step speed of 60ft.

I think there is room for a gish class which has rogue weapon/armor proficiencies (trained in unarmed, simple and a select few weapons + trained in light armor, with options to invest into medium and possibly heavy), lesser casting proficiencies, fewer slots but full-spell list, and ability to cast while wielding weapons.

Spell-strike can be incorporated, and they should be able to something to blend magic and martial training, but there are other interesting concepts beyond that. Bladebound is the standout, with its fancy sentient sword pseudo-familiar.

New archetypes may alleviate the need for a magus class, but you shouldn't need to wait until level 4 or 6 to play the character you want. And right now, I believe it is around level 11 to play a gish with a gimmick.

Nethys anathema is choosing mundane means over magical ones, but you are whacking people with a stick in a very magical way.

A vertical jump has a DC of 30. With Versatile Human/General Training, you can Assurance(Athletics), and Martial Disciple for Quick Jump. Crane Stance reduces the DC by 5.

Your Assurance of 12 critically fails your DC 25 vertical jump check but does let you jump 15 feet vertically.

At level 2, you take the alchemist dedication.

You spend your skill increases in athletics and crafting.

You can craft greater leaper's potions at level 12.

You can get cloud jump at level 15, which is the same time you can start auto-high jumping.

I am honestly not sure how to calculate your jump height with this build, but I believe the answer is "Way more than you will ever realistically need."

With Flying Kick, I believe you can effectively attack anyone, anywhere.

I think the most generic way to define feat tax is, "a feat chosen out of necessity to build a particular character, without being enjoyable by itself."

No. You don't get your shield cantrip and an attack cantrip until level 2. You don't get spells until level 4. You don't get spell-strike until either level 6 or 8. You aren't any worse than every other martial, because until around level 12, you are just a martial with some magic.

I don't think the magical warrior will dimish the need for a gish class, no more than red mantis assassin would for the rogue. We can create a gish with CRB archetypes. What will another one realistically do?

Archetypes can not solve the fundamental problems that a class would: balanced martial/spell progression, being able to play your concept at level 1 as opposed to 4-6-8-12, and more player customization.

A gish class could take a gish-based archetype.

Reasons why multiclassing is not an ideal solution to create a gish:
-An archetype solution would delay your gish specialization until level 4 at best, level 8 at worse. For example, having your Bladebound feat, your Sigilus feat, etc. They would also need to compete with other gish feats, such as spell-strike.
-Because they are more specific, these specializations will likely be cut-down or glossed over.
-An archetype solution would prevent from taking another archetype until level 8.
-There is no way to have an even split between spellcasting and martial weaponry with the archetype solution.
-If you decide to be a fighter and multiclass into spellcasting, then you do not get basic spell-casting until level 4.
-Having a gish class does not prevent people from a wizard/fighter multiclass, not having a gish class prevents people from choosing that as a choice.

One, it is harder to redesign a class than reflavor one. So I would argue that being able to create a character mechanically should take precedence over flavor because it allows for more character diversity.

Two, once you create the mechanic groundwork for a class, then you can explore thematic areas easier than if you did the inverse. You can have the baseline of a character with even martial and spell progression and abilities that allow them to weave spells together with their attacks. You can then have a gish subclass which is a Bladebound and has an intelligent sword as a pseudo-familiar, and a gish subclass which is a Spellblade and can conjure weapons. If you started from the thematic groundwork of a Bladebound, then it would be harder to have the Spellblade be apart of that class. So once again, mechanics should trump flavor because it ultimately allows for more room for both.

And so to answer your question "What is the thematic difference between a Magus and any other gish." it doesn't matter. By being a simple concept, it has more room to support different character concepts, mechanically and flavor-wise.

Pf2 modular design allows for classes to be condensed, but also expanded. I think it should be judged case-by-case. Yes, "guy with spells and a martial weapon" is generic. It should be. If gishes were something specific, it could be an archetype. But because gishes are very diverse, a class is better suited.

For example, we could adapt the Bladebound arcana as a subclass. At level 1, you have a sentient sword as a pseudo-familiar, that scales as you level.

We can further explore different combinations of magic and specific martial weapons. In particular, I would like a bow-mage and shield-mage, but there are other fun options. Bow-mages could have seeker arrow, and expand spell ranges. Shield-mages could use spells reactively when they shield-block or create force fields.

We could explore the Sigilus, and inscribe weapons and armor with sin runes. The card caster could have a deeper connection with the harrow deck. You can explore more esoteric weapon users like the Bladed Scarf Dancer, which has fun abilities like gaining reach, stealing from the enemy, and teleporting. Or we could give attention to gishes which conjure weapon.

In no way is this an exhaustive list, this is just emphasizing the design space a gish could have.

I would dislike any class archetype which messes with non-archetype features. It would just be a massive headache. And it would defeat the point of having streamlined features.

Also, once again, by making it a wizard archetype you are either removing or limiting Bladebound, Sigilus, etc. Or you are creating so many subclasses you might as well make a new class.

Level 4 is still a significant level requirement to play your basic concept before specializing.

Not only that, but dedication rules would require you to wait till level 8 before you could take a second archetype. (Unless this archetype doesn't require dedication, which seems like it would be inconsistent with the rest of the game, but time will tell.)

And either this is going to be a massive archetype, at which point, why not just make a class. It is going to a lot of different archetypes, at which point, why not just make a class. Or you are going to lose a lot of potential builds in the shuffle.

Squiggit beat me to expanding how investing that many feats would take a long time to come online and would leave you with little room for further customization.

But you also lose Bladebound, Mindblade, Sigilus, Soul forger, card caster, etc. That is just looking at some of the unique magus archetypes. You can expand some of the more limited magus archetypes or pull from other classes. And that is before we start creating new content for the class.

I believe a character should choose their backstory, not the game.

Magic warrior is going to be an archetype. And I presume all references to specific factions will be archetypes.

I don't think classes should be rooted in the lore beyond "there are people in Golaran who can do these things." People who care about the lore can decide how their characters fit in, and people who don't shouldn't be shackled to it.

There are people in the setting who can cast spells and swing swords. Some of those people can blend the two seamlessly, as opposed to focusing on one and dabbling in the other.

I would leave the "gish" class as open-ended as possible. There is still a mechanical reason to have a gish class. (To have even spell and martial progression)

The thematic reason would be that there is a myriad of people in the world that combine martial and magic. Gishes are a thing in the world, and I think it makes sense to have a class to represent that.

A bard takes two seconds to think about something, and suddenly math equations are floating in front of him, and he flashes back to an early part of the story and connecting it to something else.

I think my ideal solution is to have a gish class that would have an evener mix of martial and spell progression (as opposed to multiclassing). I would have it so that you can choose spell-list and martial tradition. (I thought variable spell-lists might be problematic, but then I remember how easy it is to multiclass for a separate spell-list)

My emphasis would be on spell-strike but also using focus to enhance weapons.

I mostly want my arcane archer, but I also think this would be the cleanest way to implement the idea, instead of 50 different archetypes and multiclass for gishes.

While I think ravager is a better name, I think my problem is I don't image CE champions as wanton evil. I see their evil as deliberate and ideological.

I don't see champions as people who only embody their alignment, but people who are advocates for them.

I don't think a person who goes around and commits widespread evil and unlawful acts would be out of flavor for the chaotic evil champion. I think the concept also includes people who are more insidious and work to undermine law and good less directly.

Destroyer is generic, and I don't think it captures the flavor of the chaotic evil champion. Considering it is opposite of the paladin, I think it should have a unique name.

As for lawful evil, I like Tyrant. Corrupter is fine, but not great.

Magic Warrior has been separated from the magus. My prediction is that we are either going to have the gish class that encompasses all potential spell-list/martial combinations, or the magus is going to be an archetype.

I don't see why guns couldn't involve new rules. We already have crossbows, do we need reskinned crossbows?

I think the argument of dodging bullets being unrealistic is bordering on dishonesty. You mention how it is not realistic, while also saying how Golaran is a fantasy setting. You also neglect to mention that Golaran guns would be less accurate than modern firearms.

As of the playtest, fireball used the same basic reflex saving throw as the proposed gun one. If you can dodge an explosion, you can sidestep a bullet. Adventurers and most monsters you will fight are leagues above normal humans.

I am not 100% for this idea, but I do think guns should be unique. If we need to bring back the gunslinger to justify it, sure, but I don't think it is necessary.

I tried looking up ADnD druids for a different reason, and I believe they had a no metal weapons restrictions.

Though, it doesn't particularly bother me that much. It makes as much sense as any other anathema. (Though Storm Druid's play-test anathema annoys me because it feels like one of the few that gets in the way of actually playing that character)

If you need a logical reason why armor is banned, by weapons are not, then it could just be a matter of scale. Plate requires more mining and so more disruption than a dagger or a sword. It is also possibly just a principle thing, the whole "nature protects, so I don't need a metal exoskeleton."

I don't see what is stopping the tiefling heritage to say, "As you select this feat, choose your infernal parentage: demon, daemon, or devil, this effects which feats are available to you."

I believe the further separation between potions and spells is to better, separate the alchemist and wizard.

I think it should be possible to reload both of your pistols in a single turn, potentially locked behind an appropriate feat.

Something else I would like to add, I heard from someone else on this forum that guns may be more alchemical. If that is true, we may see a gunsmith alchemist path. I think that could work, as instead of just being flatly better with a gun, you could bullets that deals ice damage.

I do think the most important of a new class would be an interesting twist in the mechanics. In all seriousness, what would the level one features look like for this proposed Maverick class? I think that is a better starting point than potential feats that could have.

Since we are discussing how we would want this proposed class to look, I might as well throw my hat in the ring.

I would call this class the duelist and have its primary mechanic be risk-management. Its primary stats would be dex and cha. It would incorporate the "flare pool" idea, only being able to restore flare through a full-night rest or on a critical hit. They would also be highly mobile.

One idea is that they could have a posture ability, and at the start of each their turns, as a free action, they can choose between getting an untyped +1 to hit but -1 to AC, or the reverse. And this could expand to other postures with their bonuses and penalties. You could expand this power to do more; this is just the baseline idea.

It could also have more effects based on critical hits and fails, like what Temperans suggested for the parry feat.

I am the devil's advocate, so I am not the best person to address the second point, but I don't believe anyone is saying, "Keep it the same but less." The argument I have been seeing is, "Take these general ideas, and combine and expand them."

As for the third point, before we see non-multiclass archetypes, we can't say how they differ from them. If they are more on par with on-level feats, then it will be a concern. But even then, I would argue this wouldn't be an issue if it is a fully-fleshed out class.

Your arguments only work if the guile class is terrible. I think everyone who wants it, would want it to be good.

I think you are overselling these consequences. There is some cost, and these are concerns, I believe you are overstating them.

It would require stats that you would need for the playstyle anyways.

You can't print skill feats associated with the multi-class, but you can print them as regular skill feats.

Could you meaningful distinguish having half-level class feats, and archetype feats? You can only know they are half-power if you have the class to compare it too.

This obsession with needing to spend 15+ hours to have basic competence with a game comes off as gatekeeping.

And yes, some people aren't invested the moment that they pick up a book. Some people need to play the game and have good memories with it before they start to invest in it.

And it isn't like there isn't a lot of optimization you can do in the new system, they just brought the ceiling and floor closer.

People who know the mechanics are also now more free to pick options for lore or flavor.

Turns are an abstraction of battle, not simulations. Pets still give flanking bonuses, meaning they aren't just sitting there. You can narrate that pets are attacking nearby foes, it is just they don't get to change the game state without interacting the game mechanics.