Lightning Raven's page

This is completely understandable when you're thinking of world-building. But, the RPG rules are a interface with us, earthlings. Therefore, it makes sense that some basic underlying assumptions about our language and culture will remain.

Outlier: I loathe to say it, but I think at this point, after the Remaster Summoner and Magus' spell slot changes, the Psychic Class has been left into a place where it's a clear outlier in terms of power level. Doubly so when you consider the introduction of the Necromancer class.
The class was already hit by the Focus Points recovery and ended up with a Remaster Psychic with incredibly minor changes that did not addressed the class' perceived weakness and lack of meaningful features.
After Impossible Magic, it has become a glaring issue that a class that is designed to be a more dedicated spellcaster compared to Magus and Summoner has the same number of spell slots with a far weaker chassis, impactful features and a distinct like of strong mechanical identity that satisfies the class' fantasy as it was originally presented to us all.

The Amped Cantrips do not compensate for the Class' lack of power and Unleash Psyche does not provide strong enough power up to justify its restrictions, penalties and limited duration. It feels restraining and constraining, rather than a true ramp up in power.

I once again have come to as for a Bunny/Hare Ancestry.
We have several plant-based ones, but we do not have any bunnies whatsoever.
It's even better because it would be a PF2e thing, not something inherited from PF1e.

Outlier: The Rogue's ability to have enhanced saving throws on all of its saves as a feature of the class. This makes the class unique and already even stronger than it already was, not to mention that other more defensive-oriented classes like Guardians, Champions and Monks DO NOT have any such benefits, despite being their niche.

P.S.: No doubt there will be people jumping to defend the situation. Honestly, the discussion is moot. It's obviously bonkers that Rogues have this. It's no wonder most people thought this was a mistake for ages.

The time for complaining about patrons was probably during the Witch playtest.

Which we did. A lot. It was largely useless as well.

Thankfully, Patrons got a once over in the Remaster and they're in a much, much, much better state now (even if they're still not exactly where I think they should, and could, be).

I think it's genuinely kind of an accomplishment to manage to turn even a thread arguing about the benefits of adventuring with your coochie out into a back and forth rules minutia debate.

The PF2e player stereotype didn't spawn from nowhere, LMAO.

I always try to buy character-appropriated clothes for my characters. Mostly it means the main outfit and something for winter, but I fancy outfits for noble characters either at the start or later on.

moosher12 wrote:

After the daredevil was jokingly described as having skates, it makes me want to make a punk skateboarder Starfinder side.

Sounds like a new candidate for BMX Bandit, too.

Can't believe you sold me the class I was skeptical on first hearing about it without even trying.

Tridus wrote:

Slam Down is good

It's not though?

Say you have a 60% chance to hit on a Strike and 60% chance to succeed on a trip.

So if you Slam Down you have a 60% chance to hit, and of the 60% of the time you hit you have a 60% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.36 trips per use.

Now say you Strike and then Trip. That's 60% chance to hit and then a 35% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.35 trips per use...practically identical.

How about 80% for each? 0.8 hits and 0.64 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.8 hits and 0.55 trips otherwise, so slightly better.

How about 40% for each? 0.4 hits and 0.16 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.4 hits and 0.15 trips otherwise.

So it's only marginally better vs enemies you have a very high success rate against already. Having to commit both actions even if the Strike misses hurts a lot. This is simplifying the math slightly but it gets at the main point.

I'm happy to run the numbers in other scenarios, but like ScooterScoots said it's not substantially better if you have a trip weapon, the main purpose is allowing trips with a non-trip weapon.

Crashing Slam is when you were supposed to get a major upgrade (especially with Kip Up becoming a lot more common at that level) and your class feats overall are a lot more powerful.

That's the problem with White Room math.

Slam Down is useful if you're in a position where you have bigger bonuses on a single strike, fortune effects, if a teammate used Aid, Guidance, you used Feint, etc. Not to mention that your +X runes will apply to Slam Down, while it might not if the weapon you're using doesn't have the trip trait.

As a 4th level feat, it's a nice benefit. But the "hidden" advantage is grabbing any 2h weapon and being able to use Trip without a hassle.

Different contexts between classes. It's simple as that.

Fighters are shock full of offensive capabilities, have a stacked chassis and a myriad of weapon options to build. Crashing Slam might be used with any weapon (that fills its requirements), including reaching options.
Wolf Drag not only is a chain feat, but it's also a Monk Feat. It's a different design context compared to Fighters with their +2 to hit and the level difference between feats also matters, also because the Monk's core gameplay surrounds itself Flurry of Blows, which means that Monks needs REALLY good attack options to compete with FoB otherwise you're spending more actions for less than FOB.

Page 446: The first paragraph of Gaining and Losing actions has been updated to make stunned with a value play better. Previously, it could be much stronger to stun a creature on its turn than on your own.

”Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions. The rules for how this works appear on page 415. All these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn. Gaining quickened or slowed on your turn doesn’t adjust your actions that turn. If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of. If the stunned condition has a value, lose remaining actions to reduce your stunned value rather than waiting until your next turn.”

I feel vindicated. I also like this change. The punishment is instant, rather than "non-existent" like some people ruled before.

Since I know people will start the new discussion of "Stunned 3", I think we all can be sensible and assume the penalty just carries over to your next turn.

The Mist Spell (and several similar spells) do not have any effect if you and the target are on opposite sides of the area.

"All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it."

That seems counter-intuitive. A area of mist should affect attacks going through as well.

Isn't that implied? Because it's pretty obvious from the get go. The text in the spell just states what happens when you're inside it attacking targets within and without the area.

This is a situation where you must remember you're a human person not a computer reading code.

I know it's an unpopular opinion and that probably very few people will agree with me:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

We can pretty much trace back most of caster issues to the same source. The Vancian System.

Number of spellslots being a problem? Vancian. Spells not feeling impactful because they have to compete with others in the same tier? Vancian. Bad early game because late game they get to be strong? You guessed it, Vancian.

I still like a ton of Spellcasters in this game and is not like the Vancian system is bad. I particularly know how to use it quite well. But I can acknowledge that it brings more problems to Casters than it solves. And I mean on a foundational design level.

Anyone can guess which casters are highly regarded while others are not? Animists. Bards. Druids. Sorcerers. Kineticists (yeah, I'm calling a spade a spade). All of them to some extent to another.

What do they all have in common? They have a ton of flavorful and interesting CLASS options baked into them. From feats to subclasses. Which are completely tangential to the Vancian Spellcasting System.

We will remain trapped in this cycle as long as the root of the issue isn't dealt with. To me, the Vancian system SHOULD remain in the future of PF2e. But as a class-specific thing. Why not the Wizard? Make them THE vancian caster and redesign the whole thing around that, Wizards as the root and the old schools of magic become subclasses (with different names and concepts to avoid meddling from WOTC).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I guess we get lost in the weeds dealing with the tall grass, but I would like to remind everyone to look at the roots, even if you don't agree with me at all.

Seeing yet again something like the new Psychic and Thaumaturge happening again, it just makes me feel a sense of déjà vu. Strong classes getting buffed, weaker classes getting nerfed or changed for the worse.

I'm honestly thinking that there is a MAJOR disconnect between how players evaluate classes, and power in general when it comes to PF2e, and how the designers perceive it.

On one side we have Rogues having "Evasion" on all three saves, Fighters getting improvements, Barbarians gaining Free Action Rage but still having a feat tax for Intimidation on one side, and in another side we have Wizards getting changed and nerfed in the process, classes that needed actual improvements were either only slightly improved (Swashbucklers, Investigators, spellcasters) or largely ignored (Monks, Inventors, Rangers and Druids).

Something isn't adding up, because it is starting to feel like these changes have been a sequence of missed opportunities, questionable buffs and very, very, debatable nerfs. It's getting frustrating because it doesn't feel consistent, nor particularly well thought out.

The thing I've noticed that many of these hazards are placed with the old design paradigm in mind.

In PF1e and earlier editions of DND, traps and hazards in doors served as small challenges that penalized the party for carelessness with resource expenditure. Now, there's no need to spend resources to recover HP because Treat Wounds exists and there are no built-in time-gated mechanics that leverage these traps the vast majority of the time. There are no "if the PCs trigger the trap, X happens".

Most of the time, I did it myself. But, honestly, not every DM will think of that and the effort in adventure writing would be minimal if, for example, it's said that if the trap is triggered another encounter changes or joins the battle.

Also... These hazards have way too powerful numbered bonuses. I rather them be more complex to run, but have fairer bonuses than behaving like PL+4 creatures (which are notoriously the most problematic kinds of encounters in PF2e).

To me, their dynamic of "Tandem Actions" is in a very good spot, so I think this aspect of the class should largely remain the same.

IMO, what I think the class needs more is Eidolons with more interesting abilities. They are an integral part of the character, yet very few them have actual interesting abilities. Also, the feats need to add more of those and less Strike modifiers.

Oh, and I think the class should receive a Class Archetype that enables them to realize the concept that Meld Eidolon was supposed to do, but clearly doesn't. The archetype could enable two playstyles that the base class can't, which is Melding into the Eidolon and fighting alongside it in melee. I would sacrifice spells as a whole (assuming the class gains more feats granting spell abilities like Kineticists do and more interesting Eidolons) in favor of a better martial chassis.

Honestly, my preferred outcome would be maintaining the flavorful and complex Mysteries from before, but reworked, along with the new feats.

I like that older Mysteries had a lot of moving parts and a ton of flavor baked into them. However, most of them were, by far, a huge wastes of opportunity with passives that could've offered more interesting things.

The fact that each tier just increased debuff numbers or added extra penalties was a missed opportunity. In a perfect world, each Curse tier would bring the penalties, but also offer an ability that made sense with its theme.

Personally, I think Oracles should be entirely redesigned whenever we get PF3e. Along with Wizards, Alchemists (they're in a good spot, but far from fully realized potential), Psychics and Inventors.

Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.

However, the more disruptive the restriction the more optional it must be.

As long as you know what you're getting into, I think any player won't have a reason to complain about having them.

I think the design intent is to make sure you eventually move on to new items as the old ones fade. That way, you'll actually care about new treasure, instead of going "yeah but all my investment slots are already taken".

Telling people to like it doesn't mean they end up liking it though.

I would really like a solid formula for "how much gold do I need to pay to upgrade this item's DC to the DC appropriate for my current level?"

I fully understand the design intent, but in practice, you do want those upgraded items anyways, because they do get much better. The issue is the in-between levels and when the item "line" stops at earlier levels.

In my opinion, DC of higher level items is important, BUT, the effects of higher level items already justify themselves without the DC increase. Lots of items go from 1/day to 1/hour or offer improved versions of their effects, which makes them still competitive, even if the increased DC is not relevant.

In short:

Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).

I think Paizo did a great job improving the class. Lots of good changes and addressing one of the most problematic issues present in the playtest: lack of proactive actions.

Unfortunately, even with the positive changes, this class still isn't for me, even though I like playing tanks. It severely needed subclasses, IMO, to improve variety. As it currently is, the Guardian is comfortably sitting below Alchemists in the character-making tier I have for PF2e. It's probably going to be a one and done just to complete having at least one character for every class.

Good thing is that those already on board with The Guardian can be happy, since the changes were genuinely good, given the context.

Absolutely. The uncertainty about the Blessed Armament was mainly because the language shift was apparently intentional and removed the text language from the previous feature that also appeared in the Battle Harbinger's feat. It seemed much more intentional than the Rogue's 3 "Evasion" Saving Throws.

Most combats are like 2-4 rounds and you can repair your shield to full after combat so 2-3 uses doesn't even really seem that bad tbh.

And in practice, you won't even use Shield Block every round.

With my champion, I only broke my shield when I was fighting a boss that ended up landing many critical hits during the fight.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.

Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

Well, kinda.

But by the same logic that would mean that Minions are supposed to not have a defined length of time that they follow directions for when not in combat. And I refuse to believe that. It causes too much variation in how useful (or how much of a liability) Animal Companions and Familiars are during exploration mode.

The difference is that the minion thing is a grey area that only rule sticklers will create problems. Table variance will always, always be a thing. I do get where you're coming from, though.

The Rogue thing is outright egregious. So much so that everyone's first thought is "this must be wrong", because it breaks all the rules of character design PF2e so far, it goes against the overall design niche of the Rogue and it outright makes it even more of a favorite child than it was before the remaster.

To me, whether it's a mistake or intentional, Rogues simply shouldn't have this kind of buff. Some people might disagree, that's fine. However, this change will NEVER fly on my table.

Something that is grinding my gears and only further cements my opinion that Thrown Weapon builds aren't treated equally:

Despite being introduced as "Thrown Weapon Build" support, the new feat introduced in the Swashbuckler remaster, Twirling Throw does not synergize with the feat that is the backbone of the playstyle, Flying Blade.

Flying blade restricts the Precision Damage to its first range increment, while Twirling Throw is a Finisher with the main benefit being increasing the range of the weapon (by ignoring the penalties for its second and third increments).

This is, no doubt, by design. But I think introducing a Finisher Move that won't deal Finisher damage on the situations where you WANT to use it is not synergistic at all, specially since most thrown weapons (with agile and/or finesse) have range of only 20ft at best (and most of them are 10ft).

Flying Blade is already a feat tax, I really don't think Thrown Builds should have so many hoops to jump.

Gortle wrote:

Well you have time now to state the problem as you see it.

Well, it's simple: Is the Frightened condition applied by Dirge of Doom an ongoing effect or not?

Lots of players consider that the Frightened Condition is always an ongoing effect, without anything that state it in the rules and some spells that would be weird if it was the case (like Fear, which is rather basic for a spell that applies the Frightened condition). It's clearly a big change in behaviour as the end of the spell duration can either remove the Frightened condition on all affected enemy or not.

On the area thing, there's a definite ruling and no reason to play it otherwise (and as such you can't "tag" people with Dirge of Doom, no question on that). But on the ongoing effect issue, there's a rather general feeling and RAW that seems to disagree. But the sentence about ongoing effects is unclear as hell and doesn't help to make an undisputed ruling.

It's simple:

To me, it's quite simple, my and Deriven's reading makes running Dirge of Doom and other Compositions really easy to run, to the point of me (and probably him as well) not even realizing that it was supposed to be contentious.

Everyone else's "static" emanation readings are causing a s&$! ton of problems with rules interactions and making complicated to run and rule it.

Guess what I'm choosing?

I don't care about the Aura trait or if the Emanation trait specifies that it moves with the target clearly or not (even though the implication is there). My Dirge of Doom moves with my Bards and Frightened 1 is always applied and only ticks down once enemies end their turns outside of the the emanation AOE (as it's usual for Frightened). Easy. Effortless. It just works.

Have fun with meaningless minutia, folks, peace!

There's nothing in the Emanation that says such a thing.

As far as we know, Compositions are Emanations that have a duration and "An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions.", which means that for 1 round, the AOE emanation will move with the Bard. Which makes sense both mechanically (from the Emanation Rules) and narratively (the Bard singing/playing a tune).

The thing with areas of effect that stay in one place have a name. They're called Bursts.

You all are overcomplicating things and making the features worse for no reason whatsoever.

Aside from a few generalities and basic assumptions, I don't think the game should focus on publishing elements that greatly guide players towards a specific playstyle.

Maybe presenting some direction towards successfully creating the campaign with the flavor a table might want, for example.
Such as:
1. Casual fun game night, featuring low encounters as bread and butter, moderate as mini-bosses and severe as major bosses, with higher focus on puzzles and social encounters as challenges.
2. Ragtag party (usually the type you see in DnD5e), with encounters mostly remaining on the moderate side, with battles designed to allow for mistakes and selfish play without a lot of consequences. Focusing on the usual dungeon crawls with heavy combat and avoiding higher-level enemies even in higher difficulties. Little to no focus on social encounters.
3. The intended experience, featuring the whole range of encounters, including higher level enemies that demand more teamwork and dish out more concentrated damage. Basically what you get on the average AP, but closer to Age of Ashes in terms of difficulty.
4. Hardcore, the old school meat-grinder with encounters mostly being severe and even Extreme+ in certain circumstances. High chance of encounters blending together and amplifying the difficulty. Time is always used as a constraint. And other tactics that requires the party to be on their A game in play AND build their characters with party optimization in mind.

I think the above, more than anything, is the best way to create a good first impression of PF2e and retain more players.

What mostly happens is people, even the ones who bother reading the books, coming to PF2e with other games' assumptions in mind and having a different experience than they expected. Specially DnD5e's newcomers, where encounters are mostly easy and just a slow, but certain, progress towards victory no matter what players do, what they built or how little teamwork they used. Then they come to PF2e, where a Moderate encounter is described exactly the same as a "Deadly" encounter in DND5e and they think the game must be played at that level, is too hard or too punishing.

Guiding new GMs into creating campaigns with the overall energy they're looking for is bound to be more effective than merely teaching players how to play, which something a couple minutes on google can give you an answer.

It also does sound like those rooting for Runesmith subclasses are in for disappointment.

Which is, as always, a huge mistake on every single class without strong chassis like Fighters and Monks.

I hope we're wrong and we end up having Runesmith subclasses.

Lightning Raven wrote:

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Player Core directly says you can make untrained RK checks with Lore skills, so this is incorrect.

There's also already an existing thread to discuss this topic where people are considering these very issues, there's no sense trying to re-litigate it in a thread that's not meant for discussion in the first place.

Well, Nethys isn't updated then, check it out:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=41&Redirected=1

The clause "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge." is only present on the Legacy version. Unless this bit of info changed to another rule, I don't think you can roll lore when you're untrained in it.

Source: Player Core

Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the maximum cap of runes.

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

The change in text implies the latter. Specially when you consider the Battle Harbinger feat that has other language that is much more clear:

Your deity grants you extra power that you have learned to channel into your weapons. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. While in your hands it gains the effect of one property rune. Choose either fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. This rune does not count toward your maximum rune count, and this choice lasts 24 hours or until you make your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

If you can see, it's basically the Champion's class feature rewritten as a feat.

Tridus wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

Doesn't at least one other class (one of the newer unreleased ones I think) also follow this trend?

No. No other class have these on all saves. Not even The Guardian (the pure defense class), even for them the benefit is only given when they become Master.

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

Looking forward to see the revised Guardian. Hopefully, the class turns my opinion around, because the playtest version did not make a good impression on me. At all.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

Class: Barbarian

Issue: Animal Instinct Frog has a d4 secondary agile attack (Tongue) when all other animals like it get a d6. It should be corrected to match.

Background: The Frog Animal Instinct Barbarian needs their secondary agile attack (Tongue) to be a d6 like all the others like it such as Cat, Bear, and Tyrannosaurus. It was only a d4 before because it got Reach in the premaster, by with that gone it’s just randomly worse than every other attack like it among the Animal options.

Better yet, keep the low damage and return the reach.

Even better: Give them all a minor rework.

I'll just say one thing, if you're doing any damage at all, you're doing it wrong.

/s

The Reinforced Rune benefit will scale as you level, so keep an eye on that.

The shield rune is designed to improve other shields but never surpass Sturdy Shields, which are designed to be the best at blocking. With other shields, you trade off a bit of hardness and HP for their utility.

"If it is genuinely what your character would do, and it's still disruptive or not beneficial to you... create a better character."

No matter what it is that a character would do, the character is still entirely up to the player to devise, so there isn't actually any "it's not within my control" element like the claim is implying to be the case.

It is circular reasoning of this being what you have chosen because it is what you have chosen being presented as if it were some kind of point of integrity.

Yeah, this doesn't even feel like a character choice that a player makes because it would make sense for their character. It's just mistaking good roleplay with being bad at the game.

Making a choice that will harm your character but that is more in line with something they would do is different than just doing random stuff mid combat out of misguided sense that you're not being a good roleplayer because you're not defaulting to inhabit 100% of your character like an actor.

Online tables are very performative, specially the most famous ones like Critical Role, but even them don't do this kind of stuff. They're mechanically bad players (amazing roleplayers), but they still play to win and use the tools at their disposal to the best of their ability.

Another example is with the crew from Dimension20. They're amazing roleplayers and rule of cool dominate a lot of their character choices, but the show to anyone how busted, complicated and convoluted DnD5e really is, despite the fans trying to pretend that it is "rules-light". They don't mess around in combat either, even though their characters also inform their choices.

Something that gives me pause with interpreting Blessed Armament as a feature that takes a Rune Slot is because Runic Impression (Conflux Spell) goes out of its way to say that the Focus Spell takes a rune slot and suppresses existing runes.

That's a difficult situation indeed.

Often times, some players have this tendency of thinking that good roleplay means that they need to ignore everything about the RPG aspect and think like a movie character, often times thinking that their characters are more incompetent than they should be based on what they think is common knowledge and what information is available.

To me, what the Rogue did in this situation was trying to feint someone with their back turned to them, which is roughly what Off-guard is meant to represent. Even in game, that would be silly, besides being a tactical mistake.

Personally, I think that depending on the character I'm playing, and if they're not meant be more instinctual and savage like Barbarians), it's a valid assumption that my superior vision of the battlefield and the ability to coldly calculate my movements is a rough translation of my Character's combat expertise.

There are sometimes that Roleplay should take precedence over, specially with Reactions, but other things are harder to justify not doing.

Teridax wrote:

if it is preferential treatment to have something other classes don't, then we should just remove the Fighter's legendary weapon proficiency, the Barbarian's 12 Hit Points per level, and the Summoner's eidolon.

Do you really believe a rogue's fort save improvements are on the same level of essential class identity as a summoner's eidolon?

This is me not chiming in on this discussion at all, but I would like to point out that the story here is not Rogues getting good Fortitude Saves (Ruffians should totally get it).

The Story here is a Skill Monkey Class that gets really solid combat prowess, now they're the only class that get improved saves on everything and they were always considered to be on a great spot pre-remaster, and were substantially buffed on the transition.

Straw. Camel's back. Something, something, something. Look at all those other classeschildren in need, good sir Paizo!

Gorgo Primus wrote:

Whereas before it was an extra benefit any Champion could add onto their weapon regardless of what kind, now it is just saving them a bit of gold and taking up an actual Rune slot - with all the restrictions and caveats that that implies.

Or hidden option #3: Run it the way that Magus: Runic Impression works. You can use the Champion's Blessed Armament ability to give your weapon a property rune if it is full of runes, but you have to suppress one of the existing ones.

It is a middle ground between 'the ability is unusable if the weapon is already full on property runes' and 'the ability gives an additional rune above the normal maximum'.

Would be nice to know which option the devs intended to run the game with.

Anything but pre-Remaster effect is bad, to be honest. If that is the case. At least with Blessed Shield gaining Reinforced Rune, you actually get more options of shield, while Armament occupying a Rune Slot pretty much forces you into mostly niche runes that feel nice when they're added on top of normal runes, but feel like dead weight if they occupy rune space.

I'm kind of baffled so many people are up in arms about this. It's odd/unusual but not everything has to cleanly fit in the lines. This doesn't even register in my list of things I'd want fixed.

If other classes were getting half as much love as Rogues got in this Remaster process, when they never really needed, then I wouldn't be so annoyed.

But seeing Wizard get left behind, pretty much made worse by the new Schools even, while Monks were completely ignored (the small changes made are meaningless) despite actually needing some adjustments, QoL improvements and much needed support for stance-switch, just grind my gears.

It's seeing the already incredibly privileged classes getting even more buffs, while every other class didn't get anything or nowhere near enough. In context, this makes the improvements to the Swashbucklers and Investigators insanely meager compared to Rogues, a class that was already performing better pre-Remaster, with lower floors and higher ceilings.

Hello everyone, I'm new here. I have a question about errata. Are they incorporated into books purchased digitally (PDF)?

Eventually, yes. On the physical books as well, when there's a new print version.

Archives of Nethys often has updates on a timely fashion. So is the Pathbuilder2e app you can use on the web browser or your phone.

Someone posted this on Reddit.

I guess everyone can pack their bags now.

Some of these recent changes I've really not cared for. I'll keep saying it but to me PF2E shouldn't be balanced like a mmo with nerfs to classes and it should be left to the GMs to ban/homebrew things they feel are too powerful like sure strike, electric arc, monk dedication flurry of blows etc at their tables and if Paizo feels it's an issue for society play have it adjusted for those in a separate rules page alongside the society restrictions they already have.

We live in the age of the internet. TTRPGs can do very well in understanding that and taking advantage accordingly.

Balance is a selling point of PF2e. Not taking care of it would allow it to devolve into unwieldiness over time with rarely/unaddressed things.

I rather have devs making changes that they feel are needed, even if they don't please me, than to have them treat the game as if it's before the internet became prevalent and things remained in that murky state for a long time relying on house rules.

Having official changes happen is much more reliable and healthy for the game and I'm immensely glad Paizo takes the time to do it. Even if we PF2e players can get insufferably annoying (Guilty as charged).