Lightning Raven's page

Lost flavor on its Mysteries (that weren't heavy on Oracle flavor) and mechanical complexity, and gained power and a new feats more in line with oracular abilities.

So far, most people who loved/liked the old Oracle didn't like the change. Most people who didn't, enjoyed. No one is complaining about the increase in power, though.

Particularly, I would've loved if the old Mysteries to have been refined and reworked (the ones that only offer boring passives). Then added in the new feats, maybe a few more mechanics that enabled the Oracle to manipulate their Curse level in combat (reduce and suppress) and regain Focus Points.

I would say giving the class an extra Focus Point at level 1 and letting them Refocus to full from the get-go, without any restrictions on which focus spells to cast, would probably solve a lot of their current pain points. Unleash Psyche having a downside is fine, and I don't think the class needs to be brought to the level of the Oracle when the Oracle IMO is an outlier that ought to be avoided. If the Psychic is meant to be a class that makes great use of Focus Points, then let them be better at using Focus Points than anyone else.

If Psychics are supposed to be the Focus Point class, then it might as well gain more mechanics that recharge it mid combat. And not 1/day stuff or highly situation stuff that only come up once in a blue moon either.

Seeing the Gatewalkers AP being played at the Glass Cannon Podcast and featuring a Psychic. I think the class needs a rework on the Unleash Psyche and feats with the "Psyche trait".

In practice, it feels very cumbersome and doesn't offer an interesting dynamic for the character. Not to mention how tame the effects are. Specially when you compare it to Animists and Exemplars.

It features all the design ideas behind old Barbarian's Rage and its drawback, while being more short lived (like the old, old, Barbarian Rage from the playtest that only lasted 3 rounds and was quickly abandoned). The difference being that Rage can be accessed at Round 1 and is far more powerful.

If it's to remain short and with a gated trigger (casting spell), then it needs to do far more than access to some fairly tame actions and "extra" focus points (which is basically just two, in practice).

Undertuned that I can think of is Summoner. Which is weird, since some archetypes give A LOT of the other class (Exemplar, which is the issue), while Summoners give basically nothing of it. Zero access to Tandem actions and a weaker Summon.

Fighter, for sure. It needs to give something else, since it's been nerfed since the Wizard+Fighter combo of the playtest and never looked back since. It should give Shield Block along with weapon proficiency.

Overall, I think all multiclasses could give Expert on their skills. They're require qualification for and could warrant a smallish buff, while better archetypes require basically nothing.

How on Golarion did a single grappled caster survive 5+ rounds when surrounded by beatstick martials? Seems highly sus to me.

What in the nine hells was everyone else doing during that time???

Or did yet another 1e GM get the encounter system wrong and pit low level characters against an extreme+ encounter? That's an altogether too common occurrence with game vets coming from PF 1e or D&D 5e. It frequently leads to new PF2e players with feelsbad emotions and a skewed perspective of the game complaining on these boards.

The answer is always the same: Bad luck.

Sometimes, the dice just don't help, even when you're stacking things in your favor. I have been there.

"If you have a clothie caster surrounded by 3 beefy dudes all grabbing him, it feels unreasonable to say 'oh well rules say you can't do anything further but mildly inconvenience him. Under no circumstances can you do more than grab his shoulders or waist no matter how big, strong, or trained you are - unless of course if you get your 5% lucky roll.'"

I remember Pathfinder 1 characters able to grapple and tie up basically anything in one round and I know this player doesn't want to go that far (and PF2 doesn't want that result), but he's feeling like grapple is unimpactful and that his supporting monk character concept doesn't feel very good as a result.

Any thoughts on this topic?

In the situation you described above, it can be handled by the system if the GM consider giving players circumstance bonuses since they are all doing the same task. For instance, the first player who tries gain no bonuses, if they fail, the second might gain a +1 circumstance bonus, if they succeed they give the next +2 Circumstance instead. Or, if the caster is Grabbed already, you can give the next attempt by another character a +4 Circumstance Bonus, assuming the target is a medium and fragile spellcaster.

PF2e avoids having "feast or famine" mechanics, because it enables a more balanced tactical combat and fosters teamwork. If it were in PF1e, you would have the single-character shutting down the encounter by themselves because they have an absurdly high CMB bonus and the caster would have an abysmally low CMD, making it a trivial task that can basically boils down to the player doing the obvious: charging forward and using their guaranteed ability that they designed for well before the campaign even began.

This is one of the reasons why I think ABP is better to use in higher level campaigns, or at least use it as a baseline for the stuff players should have and give them for free even if they wouldn't be able to afford it.

Came here to say that. Adopt ABP, the players won't feel the delayed difference when leveling, and give them the full lump sum for magic stuff. Win, Win, Win.

Only on the builds I make for fun. Because they're largely concept-dependent. But when I pick one of them to play, I always adapt. Both skill upgrades and skill feats are largely campaign and party dependent stuff so I don't fret over.

My current Champion, for example, has had very different feats from what I planned out from before. The white room auto-pick "Toughness" has been exchanged for Canny Acumen (Reflex) at 3rd level and for Fleet at 7th level. Two things that are shoring up weakness that the extra HP didn't feel like a priority like when I was conceptualizing the character.

So has been my focus on Intimidation rather than Diplomacy. My champion became much more angry and relentless than the original motherly figure I envisioned for my 50 year old Aasimar.

You know how you fix all design issues and flavor problems of the Wizard?
Them being Expert in Spellcasting and advancing it faster than other casters. Just make it the Fighter of Spellcasters.

I'm just half-way being sarcastic about it.

I'm currently okay with the death systems found in PF2e.

They're disrupting enough to feel punishing, but not deadly enough to come down to a single stroke of luck. Unless a GM is going out of their way to attack downed characters, odds are, most characters will survive one or more KO's in a fight.

As a GM, I always strive to play monsters as competently as they can be and think about them as characters, rather than party killers. By that I mean that once a threat is knocked out of the fight, there are far more dangerous enemies standing up that take precedence for any combatant, thus, to me, it makes sense that most enemies (specially smart ones) wouldn't prioritize being whacked by the Barbarian just to land a killing blow on characters that are already dead as far as they know (which as GM, I know they aren't). Unless there are very compelling reasons to go for the finishing move, a personal grudge and a very malicious enemy with time to do so, or an instance of pop-up healing.

As long as you're not going out of your way (A.K.A. using metagame knowledge to kill players), PF2e's current system creates most scenarios where players won't feel cheated when their characters die. Even then, an appropriate death scene or final words might lessen the sting a little bit.

The "avoiding death but paying with enemies advancing their plots" mechanic is quite interesting, though.

Oh man, it's been a while since we've seen some class archetypes.

I hope these are beautifully implemented because I love the nuance they bring to the table!

StarlingSweeter wrote:

I believe this allows you to hit the check using assurance most of the time (which may beg the question why is it still there).

For characters that don't have the space in their build for taking Assurance in Diplomacy and/or Intimidation.

I'm not sure what else I would be using Assurance for with those two skills, so it seems like a feat taken just for the benefit of auto-success at the ability's skill check.

My Champion, for example, has Dread Marshal, but I don't plan on picking Assurance in anything. At least not yet (currently level 7).

The Ronyon wrote:

I might be crazy, but I could swear I heard of this in one of the slew of new content videos.

A "boulder throwing" ability that applied handwrap runes to the boulders,in a way that implied that it was normal for thrown attacks

I think it was giant related, but I dont think we have any giant stuff forPCs, except for the barbarians.

You might be thinking about the Weapon Improviser archetype: with handwraps of mighty blows, you use it's bonus, number of damage dice and property runes with improvised weapon.

And even then, it's more of a catch-up mechanic to make the concept work rather than something to exploit and cook up an OP build.

I might be crazy, but I could swear I heard of this in one of the slew of new content videos.

A "boulder throwing" ability that applied handwrap runes to the boulders,in a way that implied that it was normal for thrown attacks

I think it was giant related, but I dont think we have any giant stuff forPCs, except for the barbarians.

Given that Paizo's taxman is merciless when it comes to thrown builds, I highly doubt Handwraps would work for anything but a specific "Ranged Unarmed Attack", like Foxfire.

I'm trying to think, what makes the Bard worth keeping as a 3-slot class, balance wise?

They're already the strongest caster and class in the game.

From PF1e to PF2e, Bards went from being 6th slot casters to 10th slots "full casters". Without losing pretty much anything from their old concept of versatile skills and special compositions (which are all crazy good).

Definitely satisfied with the direction of the class.This new version actually looks enticing now. Specially Mutagenists and their superior use of Mutagens that make them actually stand out.

The same goes for Chirurgeon. From something boring and mechanically weak, to something actually useful and fun from the get go. I couldn't ask for more.

Ferious Thune wrote:

I’m guessing it was a misguided attempt to maintain the “you must keep attacking” flavor of the old curse. But that was to get a bonus and avoid a penalty, not for basic knowledge about how to use your chosen weapon.

You know what, THAT would have been cool, if the spell gave you a souped up attack. Give it the old bonus damage you'd have gotten from the APG curse. That might be worth the "land a hit or burn and suction sustaining" thing.

Edit: Dang it, I just went and looked at the animist spell. It's so much better it makes me sad. It even has interesting downsides a la the original oracle curse. I have some serious copium for day 1 errata.

EMBODIMENT OF BATTLE [one-action] FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON ANIMIST
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
Your apparition guides your attacks and imparts its skill to your movements. For the duration, your proficiency with martial weapons is equal to your proficiency with simple weapons, you gain a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls made with weapons or unarmed attacks, you gain the Reactive Strike reaction (Player Core 138), and you gain the critical specialization effect for any weapon you are wielding
when you Cast or Sustain this Spell. The instincts of an
apparition of battle run contrary to the use of magic; for the duration of this spell, you take a –2 status penalty to your spell attack modifier and your spell DCs.
Heightened (4th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +2.
Heightened (7th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +3.

I forgot about this. So did Paizo apparently.

Anyone else in the mood for asking for a day 1 errata?

Because, to me, the Animist spell seems perfectly reasonable for the Battle Oracle. Even if they have to use ranged weapons until they can buy back the armor proficiency they lost.

Anyone else think that even though Oracles are meant to be spellcasters and that the new Battle Oracle needed to lose some stuff to compensate for the benefits the redesign gave, it still doesn't make how anyone thought it was a good idea to have a Focus Spell that gives you proficiency with martial weapons as an action tax that only sustains itself IF you hit your attack with caster accuracy no less?

Am I insane? Or Weapon Trance is the most obviously badly designed Spell that even appeared in Pathfinder? Not only it's obviously egregiously awful, but it's outright NOT FUN.

Honestly, some character and design issues can be understandably missed in the myriad of changes that a system goes through during its development, but on this one, that's just too obviously bad to give a pass.

I know I'm being incredibly harsh, but this one needs ZERO context to be evaluated. Did nobody ask "Is this going to be fun to play with? Will the players few excited to play with once they read this spell?" while designing this thing?. I know the answer with 100% confidence for those questions: No player will ever think this spell is either interesting or good, no matter how new to PF2e or TTRPG they are.

Just watched that new BadLuckGamer video on the Oracle. (Haven't read myself, but it will be the first thing I dive into when I get my book)

If people like the new oracle, I'm happy for them. But tbh, I'm kinda heart broken that the thing I loved about this class is completely gone. It seems like they made it stronger as a caster class, but at the same time got rid of all the weird n janky unique bits. Every oracle subclass felt wildly different and really creative. For example, I was excited to see how they would improve the Ancestors oracle. The solution was to make it just like all the other oracles (with a feat that is similar but worse than the original Ancestors oracle).

This went from maybe my favorite class to something I don't want to play. Can't say that about any of the other remastered classes :/

Honestly, I'm not sure I would call the new oracle a remaster of the old oracle. It's more of a replacement than a remaster.

I'm ambivalent on the old Oracle Mystery/Curse dynamic. On one hand, I thought they were flavorful as hell. On the other, I always thought their design was too conservative given how much of your character it impacted, not to mention how weak they were for the penalties received.

Take Cosmos for example... Why does it focus on becoming near intangible? When there are Supernovas, Blackholes, Worm holes, Gravity and even Space-Time to explore as concept for powers. But no, you gain the power to become a Ghost. And the benefit? Damage resistance on a caster class that will be DESTROYED by critical hits.

Overall, I think the old design had a lot of interesting ideas behind it, but the execution fell short for most Mysteries and Curses. If the current Oracle succeeds mechanically but offers less flavor, I'm okay with that. Because flavor and roleplay I can readily provide, well designed and interesting mechanics I cannot.

I really don't want to see all legendary tactics be once-per-day tactics. I get that they could be made stronger, but it removes the element of choice from the option. In the playtest you could choose between a 1/day save or consistent encounter offence. With this change all the legendary tactics would become something you try to save for as long as possible each day. Plus, I feel offensive tactics are easy to justify not using in a dire situation if you are planning to save it for the boss.

The trade off of high level Tactics being 1/day is that they don't make early tactics obsolete. Allowing them to do stuff that basic tactics can't, even if limited, has more design freedom than having to cook up stuff that won't make old stuff meaningless and the new one not too niche (nothing worse than picking something important for your class and not being able to use it at least 1 per session).

I would be down for limited use Master and Legendary Tactics, if they go balls to the wall with their possibilities. There are a lot of famous large scale tactics and strategies that Paizo can draw inspiration from to make some battlefield-altering stuff.

Here's me hoping that the Guardian can meaningfully satisfy more concepts other than the "beefy meatshield" tank.

Being too narrow was one of the reasons why many PF1e classes became Archetypes in PF2e (or were simply ignored), wasn't it? Like Cavaliers and Vigilantes.

Lightning Raven wrote:

The Wizard is designed to be the "Best Casting Class", since they are Prepared Casters (considered mechanically better) and have many ways of gaining spellslots (pretty strong)

In the end, Wizards share some large design directions with Rogue and Fighter, but they don't have something straightforward that puts them above.

What I mean is that the Fighter's "niche" is being "Best at combat", that's very generic (and outright problematic in my opinion), while Rogues are designed to be "Best at Skills". ...

I disagree. A major goal of Pathfinder 2nd Edition design is that the power of a character is predictable by level alone. A party with a 5th-level ranger is supposed to be as powerful if the ranger was swapped out for a fighter. A party with a 5th-level sorcerer is supposed to be as powerful if the sorcerer was swapped out for a wizard. Etc.

The "Best of" feature of each class is style. The wizard is best at preparing arcane spells. A magus or arcane witch also prepares arcane spells, but they have fewer spells and need other abilities to be equally powerful as a same-level wizard. On the other hand, an arcane sorcerer has roughly the same number of arcane spell slots, but those are spontaneously cast rather than prepared, so the style is different.

Lightning Raven wrote:

All of the above is just to say that if Wizards had increased proficiency scaling on Class DC and Spell Attacks (similar to Fighters), nobody would complain. The discourse might be the other way around, even, calling out them for being "too strong".

I would be one of the people complaining about too strong, because as a GM I appreciate the balance of PF2.

However, power predictiblity is not perfect because the players can increase the party's effectiveness through teamwork and tactics. The style of a class matters significantly for teamwork. A rogue as "Best at Skills" reserves some skills to enable their combat, such as Deception for Feint or Intimidation for Demoralize, but...

I don't like these core principles behind these classes either, since they engage with mechanical aspects of the game directly rather than than having strong themes and flavor that engage with mechanics indirectly. Granted, the Wizard received a significant improvement on the flavor aspect with their new Schools, but this doesn't permeate the class as a whole.

I don't like the idea that the Fighters are the "Best at combat", Rogues are "Best at skills" and Wizards are "Best at spells" either, but that's pretty much the core idea behind these classes. I was just pointing out that a lot of people ignore this inherent lack of flavor and problematic "niche" in Fighters and Rogues precisely because they get special treatment that makes them a cut above other classes, while the Wizard doesn't.

If Wizards had faster Spell proficiency progression or started out at Expert like Fighters, then people wouldn't complain half as much about the class. Maybe even just a blanket "+1 to Spell DCs and Spell Attacks" would silence a whole bunch of people.

My comment was more pointing out something I observed, rather than advocating for Wizards to gain better proficiency.

If anything, I think the class should gain buffs in the form of more flavorful feats that enhance the academic and studied angle to their spellcasting. Even bringing back the good old day of empty spell slots to be prepared during the day would open the class up quite a lot, which is a perfect Thesis design space, when you think about it.

The Wizard is designed to be the "Best Casting Class", since they are Prepared Casters (considered mechanically better) and have many ways of gaining spellslots (pretty strong)

In the end, Wizards share some large design directions with Rogue and Fighter, but they don't have something straightforward that puts them above.

What I mean is that the Fighter's "niche" is being "Best at combat", that's very generic (and outright problematic in my opinion), while Rogues are designed to be "Best at Skills". The reason why these two are not criticized like the Wizard is because they have have stacked chassis with stuff other classes simply don't get at all, like the Fighter's +2 accuracy, many strong feats and lots of class features that grant even more class feats while the Rogue's double skill feat, skill increases and high amount of basic skills make them the best skill monkey (even if not in all skills at once, the class can be the best in any direction they choose) without really sacrificing much combat prowess.

Wizards don't really have that. Their chassis are roughly similar to other casters (which means very barebones) and their feat selection isn't larger either (while Rogues and Fighters have a lot to choose from, and good stuff), all of that and they don't have a straight up upgrade to their class DC/Spell Attack like the Fighter.

All of the above is just to say that if Wizards had increased proficiency scaling on Class DC and Spell Attacks (similar to Fighters), nobody would complain. The discourse might be the other way around, even, calling out them for being "too strong".

How does “The Dead Walk” work with MAP? Does this imply that they are effectively separate entities with separate MAP counters? “Two ghostly warriors manifest within a 30-foot emanation of you and each attempt a Strike against an adjacent enemy”

Probably separate entities that do not engage with MAP. I think having to roll each separate attack is already in line with other spells that demand attack rolls (Like Blazing Bolt and its three attacks). Also, having MAP would make the 3 and 4 soldiers basically useless, specially with the danger of being Cursebound 2~3 (Assuming it's like Conditions such as a more limited Sickened, then it's a hefty debuff).

Not to mention that expectation power level and design depth were very different way back then.

We only had the Core Classes to go off from and all of those classes, except the Alchemists, had much better base chassis that compensated for the more tame feats. Which was definitely no the case for the APG classes, who mostly relied on passing skill checks for their core mechanic.

In the end, class design was far more conservative way back then and that heavily impacted the APG classes, even though a lot of people asked for more power (as it's usual. Except with Animists).

If we compare the most recent playtests with the APG, the difference is night and day. Even the poorly received Guardian had some powerhouse feats (Tough Cookie and Hampering Sweeps), something that not even the Swashbuckler had during the playtest.

In hindsight, I think I would've focus a lot more on the Finishers themselves. I'm personally not okay with their design, specially at higher levels. I feel like the class has very little of "Superhuman/Demigod" at higher levels and more "math enhancers" that are as mechanically decent as they are awfully boring.

I'm 30 years old, know nothing about the Dying Earth series beyond its impact on DND mechanics, and missed the train on DND4E bc I wasn't playing ttrpgs yet. As far as I'm concerned, spell slots can burn on the pyre with other outmoded sacred cows.

I'm particularly partial to The Dresden Files' magic system. It's an Urban Fantasy series with an well designed and rich magic system, that would fit like a glove on an RPG with a few tweaks and more constraints.

There's already an RPG for the system (FATE system), but I think it's one that is closest to in flavor to what we already have on Pathfinder, with actual spells, staves, wands, blasting, utility spells, rituals and magical items. Unlike system from Brandon Sanderson, for example, which are definitely magic systems, but they are very narrow in scope, even though he has many types with varying degrees of versatility.

Here's what I think it should be done, although this is for a far in the future 3rd Edition:

*Kill the Vancian System. For good. No neo-vancian. No work around. Just dead.

*Take a page out of Gygax and borrow ideas from famous magic systems from fantasy novels. There are a myriad of great options. We're basically living in a "Hard Magic System" age, not only with Brando Sando, but a lot of other writers.

*I think the core design philosophy of players having many spells to chose and being able to learn/change them is interesting. However, each individual choice needs to do more. This means less Spells and more versatility with each one, maybe even deciding how much it does based on the character's magical capabilities (you spend more juice and get stronger effects, as if you're "heightening" the spell)

*Keep wands, scrolls, staves and other similar items in the game, they're great aggregates to a magic system (even if their functionality changes a bit).

*To avoid annoying threads about class names and their familiar implementations (like it was with Paladin->Champion), change up the name of the classes. Golarion has a lot of interesting cultures, they could offer great sources for names.

That's pretty much it. The whole issue of this thread and the complaints Casters (and the Martial/Caster disparity) stem from the same source: Vestigial issues of the Vancian Spellcasting System inherited from DnD3.0/3.5/PF1e.
Given Paizo's remarkable success with changing up major elements from PF1e, I wouldn't be surprised if they could pull off a major magic overhaul in the next edition.

That's my take at least, from someone who only plays prepared casters and has no trouble fiddling with the Vancian system and taking advantage of it (ever since PF1e).

Hello everyone.

I've been quite a fan of Pathfinder since the first edition, I tried DD5, but I honestly don't like it, I much prefer Pathfinder 2e.

But I also like games with horizontal progression, so understand that I find that the HP goes up way too quickly.

I would like to know if there are rules solving this problem to stay at a "human" level of power.

Thank you all.

Proficiency without level, staying at levels 1-5 and using ABP will keep the party on the low-range of encounter types that are more mundane.

However, you should consider giving other systems a chance, since they can offer the experience you're looking for with less effort, even if they don't offer the tactical depth of PF2e.

The Witcher RPG, for example, might offer a good blend of sword and sorcery, with a deep combat system. Shadowdark is a good blend of old and new, that offers that old school experience while not forgetting the benefits of newer design.

Fun fact: since the class always makes sure you are trained in Acrobatics at 1st level, if you have a +7 Dex at 20th level and make no other effort to increase your Acrobatics score in any way, you will still only crit fail - and thus, fail to acquire panache - an Acrobatics check against a level 20 DC (that is, DC 40) on a natural 1.

No, you really don't need auto-scaling Acrobatics on this class.

EDIT: to be clear, I would love to see auto-scaling, I just disagree that it's necessary for builds that want to do something else with their skill-ups.

You do realize that the problem isn't on-level DCs, right? It's for situations when you're facing stronger threats... You know, the entire reason why we have Bravado in the first place?

Critically failing in this situations isn't that unlikely.

Personally, I think the class could use at least auto-scaling on its Style skill, and acrobatics stays as an optional choice for the player. More out of build variety than as a question of power. No player will ever, ever, risk keeping their main avenues to gain panache at minimum in favor of some character flavor.

I feel the fail outcome on Bravado feats is an unnecessary complication and tracking.

- Means tracking what gave you Panache and when to little benefit
- Most Swashbucklers aren't going to want to hold off on Finishers more than a round so why bother with the extra tracking? What does it add?

I would rather see ways of expanding weapons that can be used with Panache, I feel Swashbuckler could have made a great anime style samurai with light armour and flashy combat but it is unusable with so many weapons. I would rather it got the ruffian rogue treatment.

Here's hoping that the revised class has feats that support maintaining Panache instead of spending it as soon as possible. I think such a thing could expand the class quite a lot.

I told my player that their character would be worshipping a different aspect of Erastil that favored falchions and necksplitters. I'm considering writing a new stat block for Erastil Belkzenia, would I need to do this or just change a couple things from the standard one in the Player Core? Perhaps changing one of the domains to Might.

The feat "Splinter Faith" is an interesting way of handling this mechanically. Here: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1173

But, as I said, the player can use any weapon they want as a Champion. It doesn't have to be their Deity's whatsoever. The only mechanic that interacts with it somehow is with Deific Weapon for the purpose of enhancing Simple Weapons.

Basically, there is no need to change a thing. And if the player wants a domain different from what their chosen deity offers, aside from considering another deity altogether, you can just have the player pick Splinter Faith and go from there.

It might even be a good option to give Splinter Faith as a free feat (since it gives nothing but opening options) and the player can pick Deity's Domain as their 1st feat with the interesting domain they want.

Champions do not need to worry about using only their deity's favored weapon. Only Warpriest Clerics do. The only thing that would matter is if you want to use a simple weapon, which gains the Deific Weapon upgrade.

As for domain, yes, Champions currently have access to their deity's domains through the 1st level feat [Deity's Domain]: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=214

Since the Orc Necksplitter is an Advanced weapon (treated as martial because of Orc Familiarity), they don't have any trouble choosing it and they don't gain any benefit from Deific Weapon.

Also, since you're the GM, nothing prevents you from changing or adding a weapon as the Deity's favored weapon to accommodate a player, this is very far from game-breaking or worrying.

Lightning Raven wrote:

The act of trying to throw a weapon in Pathfinder Second Edition makes it so that the weapon in question is treated as a ranged weapon for all its intents and purposes, and as such, you are no longer holding melee weapons, thus you are breaking the requirements for Twin Takedown (and Double Slice).

Ah I see now! So when you throw a Dagger with an Extending rune, the Extending rune falls off, right? I mean, the moment you throw the Dagger, it is no longer a melee weapon, and thus breaks the necessary requirement for having an Extended rune etched on it. So the rune falls off mid-flight.

Will I get a refund for the rune, then?

The rune won't fall off. It just won't work when you throw it, which makes sense, since the rune is supposed to give Reach to a Melee Attack.

Your mistake is in thinking that you can't inscribe useless runes into weapons. You can. It's just dumb.

Lightning Raven wrote:

I already did. When you are throwing a weapon, you are holding Ranged Weapons. Not melee weapons.

All you do is say that is now a ranged weapons, which nobody disputes.

But then you immediately go into a fictitious world of binary states "melee vs ranged", for which you cite no evidence whatsoever.

The rules say it's a melee weapon. And unless you can cite another rule that says it is no longer a melee weapon, it remains a melee weapon.

It doesn't matter if you cite rules that the weapon is now ranged, invested, thrown, catapulted, blue, sparkling, or declaring independence from Gorum.

All that matters is a rule that removes the melee weapon status that it already has.

No inferential guessed intentions of what someone could have meant without stating it. "The way that rules work is to explain what things do" (as you said), so let them speak now (on no longer being a melee weapon) or forever hold their peace.

That's because I'm showing and quoting the rule and you're not understanding it. When you Throw the weapon, it is treated by the rules as a Ranged Weapon so that you make a Ranged Strike with it. That's why the Dual-Weapon Warrior Archetype has both Double Slice and Dual Thrower feats in its options, because Double Slice (which has the same requirements and similar Strike wording of TT, by the way) does not inherently work with Thrown weapons.

So, to make things it very clear:

The act of trying to throw a weapon in Pathfinder Second Edition makes it so that the weapon in question is treated as a ranged weapon for all its intents and purposes, and as such, you are no longer holding melee weapons, thus you are breaking the requirements for Twin Takedown (and Double Slice). Therefore, your daggers are Melee weapons when you're attacking with them upclose and they ARE Ranged (and only ranged) weapons when thrown.

The system does that precisely to create a hard division between melee, ranged and unarmed attacks. You'll find throughout the PF2e's rules that thrown weapons need to be explicitly written in features in order for things work with them and they have exclusive features as well.

If I approach the "is the weapon ranged vs melee categorization intended to be an either or binary" from a rules-archeologist perspective, I am afraid that I do end up agreeing with Lighting Raven.

All the surrounding context of melee versus ranged attacks, weapons, ect, is enough to convince me that it was intended for the categories to exclude one another.

While the Remaster was a huge missed opportunity to fix up and clarify the wording on on Feats like Twin Takedown, failing to do so is not really evidence in that direction.

IMO, it's just dumb that Rangers have no option for throwing weapons. I would be happy to let a player homebrew a Feat that explicitly enables a double-throw a la Hunted Shot (even w/ a single 1-H thrown weapon), with the tradeoff being that it is exclusive to thrown attacks.

Especially with the Propulsive trait being a thing, there really is not much of a balance concern. The lack of throwing support is just an absurd thing for the Ranger to deal with. Forcing the class to use bows for ranged as it does is just not cool.

I may be on the side of "Twin Takedown doesn't enable thrown weapons RAW" of this discussion. But I definitely would enable throwing weapons to work with it at my table for any player.

I like thrown weapon builds and I like the mid-level feats PF2e have for them, but I don't like how it's a playstyle that has to jump a bunch of hoops. Maybe Paizo is hellbent on protecting actual Ranged weapons, but I don't think they need it.

A cavern elf doesn't lose their elven low-light vision just because they gained darkvision from their heritage. This is much the same.

I'm not convinced of the binary claims. For a melee weapon to no longer be a melee weapon, a rule would need to explicitly state as such.

The issue here is that we have another entire feature that is designed to enable exactly what you want.

Double Slice is equal to Twin Takedown in terms of requirements and Strike wording. Both requirements are Melee Weapons in hand and call for a Strike (nor ranged or melee), although Double Slice expands upon that a little bit more.

So, with Double Slice in mind, we have the dual thrower feat:

You know how to throw two weapons as easily as strike with them. Whenever a dual-weapon warrior feat allows you to make a melee Strike, you can instead make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon or a one-handed ranged weapon you are wielding. Any effects from these feats that apply to one-handed melee weapons or melee Strikes also apply to one-handed ranged weapons and ranged Strikes.

This feat's existences kinda lay down the discussion to rest, even if it exists to make Dual-Weapon Warrior's Double Slice work with thrown weapons, instead of Twin Takedown. But both TT and DS have the same requirements, which is what spawned the discussion on this thread.

I think, however, you should just house-rule that you can throw weapons and call it a day. I don't really know why Paizo has such a problem with thrown weapons in the first place. They really should have added "Melee or Thrown Weapons" from the get go, because right now, Thrown Weapon builds have a lot of hoops to jump through to even get off the ground.

thenobledrake wrote:

Since the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't

Exactly.

And the rules say it's a melee weapon.

All I'm asking is for you to show me a rule that says that this melee weapon suddenly is no longer a melee weapon.

I already did. When you are throwing a weapon, you are holding Ranged Weapons. Not melee weapons.

The Thrown trait explicitly has that clause precisely because of that. So much so, that Thrown Weapon feats say "Ranged Strike" such as Rebounding Toss, Ricochet Stance and Flinging Charge, for example.

Again, here's the thrown trait: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=711&Redirected=1

Quote:

That's RAI

Yes, no doubt about that.

Quote:

as I've demonstrated, RAW

You didn't.

You would have to demonstrate that it is not a melee weapon.
You merely demonstrated that it is (also) a ranged weapon.
Again, there's no binary rule.

Quote:

The thing is that part of the trait is there to curb exactly this type of reading.

How do you know what this trait is there to curb? Where can I read that up?

You just did. If you intend to throw the weapons, you automatically isn't wielding melee weapons, therefore, you do not meet the prerequisites of Twin Takedown. Again, as a said, it is weird to think about things because this is purely a mechanic thing and not a "logic" thing.

You can infer that I am correct by the existence of Dual Thrower, which works with Double Slice, a feat that has the exact same requirement and the same reference to Strikes in its text.

Paizo's taxman is unreasonably merciless when it comes to thrown weapon builds.

Lightning Raven wrote:

it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

Being a ranged weapon does not change the fact that it is also a melee weapon. There's no binary either-melee-or-ranged rule anywhere in the books.

The thing is that part of the trait is there to curb exactly this type of reading.

Twin Takedown is meant for melee only. That's RAI and, as I've demonstrated, RAW.

It is weird to wrap your head around? Yes. Do I wish it were different? Also yes. But the Thrown trait precludes that usage and your best bet is to use Dual Thrower or just house rule that Twin Takedown can be used with thrown weapons, which, IMO, should've been like that in the first place.

The feat has the requirement "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand."

However, the main body says "Make two Strikes against your hunted prey, one with each of the required weapons." Note that it doesn't specify that they must be melee Strikes.

Therefore, can I use thrown melee weapons to make ranged Strikes with this feat?

You might be thinking that, once you throw one weapon, you no longer meet the requirements. What if I put the returning rune on each weapon (or make use of some similar item or ability)? By the time I make that second ranged Strike, the first has already returned to my hand and I again meet the requirements in time for the second Strike.

The feat for reference: Twin Takedown

From the [Thrown] trait: "You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack;it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

This bit here contradicts this notion. That's why the Dual-Weapon warrior has the feat "Dual Thrower". The feat is designed to work with Double Slice, however the requirements for Takedown and Double Slice is the same.

Or, to be more succinct, Paizo hates thrown-weapon builds with all their might.

Don't think anyone should be complaining about Fighters. Specially not after they have been unnecessarily buffed.

Their main shtick is "Being best at Fighting", which to my chagrin, they are. They're doing what they supposed to do and being what they're supposed to be. A Mechanically Flavorless Class that is designed to be good at mechanics (which is my problem with it, but I digress). The same goes for Rogues. Which were also buffed.

The "cost" the Fighter pays at higher level is having mechanically good, but largely flavorless, feats.

Using the examples highlighted. Savage Critical is good for MAP attacks and high AC monsters that would only allow criticals on nat20 even for the fighter (buffs, cover, debuffs, etc).

Other feats behave the same, they smooth the grinding gears of the mechanics.The difference now is that the Fighter Engine hits the ground running at level 1 while other classes are running but are a bit clunky and fiddly early game. But late game, the Fighter's engine is running smoothly and strongly, while everyone else have they smooth engines that also fly and do other things, which makes the Fighter's not look as shiny anymore even if it's still good.

That's your trade off. If everyone is running on the Fighter's lane, they win every time, any time. But PF2e is, thankfully, a game of many roads.

Lightning Raven wrote:

It's one of the main reasons why I think the Guardian can never truly succeed as a class in PF2e without offering multiple subclasses.

they have subclasses.

Not useful ones, but they exist.

Calling them subclasses is incredibly generous. Monk's Stances offer far more meaningful varied playstyles and they are just 1st level class feats.

This seems like an interesting feature for a Martyr-type of Defender/Tank that the Guardian class should be covering.

It's one of the main reasons why I think the Guardian can never truly succeed as a class in PF2e without offering multiple subclasses. There are just too many tanking styles that vary a lot from each other for the Guardian to just cover a narrow slice of the playstyle as they are right now.

Tanks that focus on receiving damage without mitigation and having good/great self-healing offer an entire different character archetype for players.

It's like Dr. Mundo (League of Legends) and the Flagellant (Darkest Dungeon) versus Leona (League of Legends) and the Man-At-Arms (Darkest Dungeon). All tanker-type characters that occupy two different niches with their own playstyle.

Taunt not being a subclass choice or a choice for multiple classes is just a bad play.

There are so many different thematic and mechanical flavors of a Guardian that it is begging for a subclass. I agree with Lightning Raven on everything except making Taunt magical, because currently it doesn’t do anything that couldn’t be described as non-magic. It doesn’t force the enemy to do anything.

But it does suck to use.

Also the points of Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue all seem like classes that would want to use it. Especially Swashbuckler who has it’s own (mechanically and thematically superior) version of Taunt in Antagonize.

My angle about making Taunt magical is not to remain as it is or similar. But simply unlock the possibilities for the feature to compel enemies if necessary. So instead of fiddling around with bonuses that reliant on metagaming and finding a sweet spot for that, we just get something that is mandatory out of the enemy by magically compelling them to do so.

There really is no reason whatsoever that the Guardian, or the Commander, to be a class without any hint of magic. Golarion is a high fantasy world and magic is a part of warfare, it stands to reason that there are pure practitioners (Wizards and spellcasters in general), hybrids (Magus and similar) and dabbles (just a few magic limited tools).

Jason Keeley wrote:

So far, only one person has guessed correctly about ONE of the iconics!

Hmmm I'm wondering if it's merfolk commander or minotaur guardian

Minotaur Guardian? I would bet on that.

New beefy ancestry that fits the only character concept that the Guardian is covering? Seems like it's spot on.

Hopefully the issues with Sanctification get ironed out, because the change to spirit damage and Holy/Unholy was quite the nerf to Champions, instead of the buffs that such abilities and spells from other classes received with the conversion.

The Beast of Caerbannog from Monthy Python and the Holy Grail.

It's a tiny bunny Animal Barbarian focused on jumping in order to kill pesky Arthurian knights with its point teeth, here:

https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=769415

Lightning Raven wrote:

My concern with the Commander compared to other buffers is simply the benefit they grant, which is out of turn action economy advantage. A +1 AOE buff or the temp HP of the banner, I'm fine with being really good at larger parties, but the tactics can get out of hand power-wise, if you start to consider the number of actions the party gains. It's hard to gauge its power, but it's damn good.

Is it really any stronger than a multitarget spell?

Depends on the spell. Also, it's more of a reliability. Spells, the most impactful ones at least, cost resources.

My main concern with the potential to scale out of control with larger parties is to curb that in favor for more power on normal-sized parties that can be fairly predicted.

Broader tactics that can affect more types actions will be stronger than the fairly niche ones that were released, but the tradeoff would be a more limited number of affected targets.

Spell-like Tactics for higher level ones could be pretty cool. For example, something mimicking Solid Fog (obscuring mist+difficult terrain), hidden pits and similar spells, working under the framework of Prescient Planner could be really interesting and unique.

My concern with the Commander compared to other buffers is simply the benefit they grant, which is out of turn action economy advantage. A +1 AOE buff or the temp HP of the banner, I'm fine with being really good at larger parties, but the tactics can get out of hand power-wise, if you start to consider the number of actions the party gains. It's hard to gauge its power, but it's damn good.

Unsure one can avoid the Commander being best when built around the party/team being as the class is centered on teamwork. And it's more profound than just one's Tactics, going into one's armaments & feats too. Maybe that's since Commander isn't filling a niche so much as multiplying the roles of (some types of) others.

It also strikes me as awkward how they operate best in squads, but yeah, not too big or they get too powerful. Meanwhile the imagery of the name "Commander" speaks of armies, especially in fantasy. Which I suppose again supports the "Tactician" option.

The issue in this case is mainly because the Commander is giving a lot of action economy advantage, which can get out of hand with larger parties, which includes Animal Companions.

However, I do think the Commander should have, even if at higher levels, abilities that work on the realm of "predicting the weather" or "choosing the best terrain" that great commanders are supposed to have. Whether it's through magical means or by having meta-narrative feats like "Prescient Planner" and "Prescient Consumable".

They could even Tactics that mimic some spell effects later on, that have limited use. Not to mention the fact that they simply could have some tactics that require set up (not every adventure has the party exploring dungeons and facing unknown enemies/situations).