Malkyn's page

Figured this is a good place to bring this up.

Putting an acronym in the title is not good from an accessibility standpoint. Should probably be "Gamemastery Core" or "Game Master Core". I presume there's no way to change this now before this goes to print. Figured the name was just an abbreviation before I saw the final product page.

Also, do we know if this or the Monster Core 1 will have anything on what monster abilities are appropriate for what minimum levels? The numbers guidance provided is solid enough, but what would be nice is something like what action-compressions are acceptable at what levels? Like what level does one go from Grab to Improved Grab, at least roughly? Draconic Momentum, Double Slice, the Amalgam's Too Many Limbs, the Doprillu's Whirling Strike and Whirlwind Throw, what levels are any of these okay at? What condition numbers are okay at what levels. For example, if you go up levels you'll note that monsters start capping the drained they inflict at 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, but there is no indication in the monster creation guides about when this is fine. What is acceptable scaling for poisons and the conditions attached? Things like that make creating homebrew monsters much harder.

Quote:

Could the martial firearms gain something similar to propulsive but for dex? (Pf1 tradition)

That sounds like a great idea tbh.

Absolutely won't happen. Paizo has decided anything to damage except Strength threatens to be toxic to the system, even though it's present on a Rogue racket.

...What's that? Inventors get Int to damage in addition to Strength? Wouldn't that let them dump Strength if they're using a Dex weapon anyway? Almost as though dumping Strength isn't a problem in this system like it was in PF1?

Facetiousness aside, I've asked about things like a level 3 general feat for Dex to Damage before and been roundly called min-maxing garbage (even though I'm one of those eternal GMs who just wants the system to function when I present it to my players). Paizo is apparently traumatized from PF1 when classes would dump Str, go Dex-based, and then make use of a class feature adding level to damage to not care anyway, because then everyone would blame the dex-based part of that and not... I dunno, the level to damage.

Sorry, side rant. To bring it back to topic, no, Paizo won't do dex to damage with firearms. It actually would cause people to question propulsive, which is a whole other analytical can of worms.

So my PCs have been impressed with persistent damage whenever it is dealt to them after running them through Fall of Plaguestone. We're converting a PF1 Adventure Path to PF2 and they're making 8th level characters to get a feel for some mid-level play before making their final 12th level characters. My players were looking to make use of persistent damage, and a question came up that I couldn't find an answer to no matter how I trawled the forums. I'm hoping I'm just not seeing where this has been addressed and there's already a solid answer. If that's the case, please provide a link. If there's been no solid answer from Paizo, I'd like to hear how others work it and/or compare the solution I've thought of. Anyway, here's the question.

If a creature takes 2d4 persistent fire damage, the rules say you'll reroll that amount each time they take damage (averaging 5). What if a creature takes rolled persistent damage, but then also proceeds to take a flat value? Say another person then inflicted 4 persistent fire damage. Does the creature treat these as two separate conditions since they're the same damage type but are different potential values? Like rolling a save versus the 2d4 and then another save vs the 4 and taking each as individual damage values? Or are you supposed to treat the average on dice values as being the higher amount?

Has there been any official word on this? My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it, but I want to make sure nothing else has been officially clarified.

Yes, that is fine. Thank you much. Game Mastery Guide is out in February?

Prepping an NPC with Channel Smite and the harm font.

Does Channel Smite allow a save against the harm spell to reduce that damage, or is the "save" considered part of the attack roll? Like say your harm spell would do 3d10 negative energy damage. You usually get a basic Fort save to resist.

With Channel Smite, is it just a flat 3d10, no resist roll? If I miss, I obviously deal neither weapon nor harm damage, but if I crit the weapon attack roll, is the 3d10 doubled as though the player got the corresponding crit fail result? Is it a flat 3d10 and the crit has no effect?

Or am I overthinking this and they just always roll the Fort save regardless of the results of the base attack? Seems clunky is all. Since the regular spell makes no attack roll, feel like for the same actions you could just swing your weapon then cast the 1-action harm spell for the rough same effect. Only reason Channel Smite seems useful is maybe that it doesn't trigger Attack of Opportunity since you expend the spell, not cast it (per Channel Smite wording). Am I on the right track there?

Since the Game Mastery Guide should ship next month and activate a fifth subscription, please cancel my Maps subscription going forward unless it would cause me to not have 4 next month. The Game Mastery Guide is being described as "in my sidecart", which is not a meaning I'm confident I understand. Does that mean it's set up to ship when it releases next month?

Should have posted the 1e version. Can do either divine or arcane casting.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/hellknigh t-signifer/

And this seems sufficiently poorly thought out that I'm just going to let my wizard qualify with Medium armor, on account of not having known the pre-reqs from the word go. It be a one-time houserule, before anyone flips on me ^_^

Got a player trying to play a hellknight signifier alongside another player, a fighter. They're going through Age of Ashes, level 3 now. The wizard started looking into the signifier route. Turns out Signifier needs Armiger, which would be fine and sensical except that Armiger needs heavy armor proficiency, which is a steep path for an elven wizard.

Now we were prepared to write this off as signifiers normally being clerics and wizard being a hard path to take into it. But then several descriptions in Hellknight Hill describe signifiers as wearing robes. Robes implies no armor.

Am I missing something? Are signifiers supposed to be exempt from the heavy armor requirement and not mentioning that is an oversight in the book, or are the Hellknight Hill descriptions inaccurate?

My group is about to hit this book. Either I missed it or it was never clarified. What counts as an encounter that cannot be missed? Book makes reference to such encounters, but I've been unable to find any indicators in the book about which of these qualify.

Now that I may be able to use. Similar to the way I described it to him, but better worded. Thank you much. I guess wizards with their spellbook take the time to work the spell out and therefore just copy it without destroying it?

On the off chance it doesn't satisfy this player, anyone else got a different headcanon/explanation they might be able to provide?

Okay, so divine and arcane are literally just the examples that came up in play. Made sense the scribe was an arcane caster since they were probably a Signifier, and my typical understanding is that Signifiers are arcane casters. But that's besides the point. Replace divine with occult and arcane with primal and the issue still exists. Replace any of them with any other of them and the problem still exists. Has nothing to do with whether or not a thing comes from their god specifically. Missing the forest for the trees there.

Here's another way to think of the problem. Let's say the scribe can only cast Message in morse code. They create a scroll that casts a Message in morse code, because that's how they know to cast the spell. Let's say someone who can cast spells in psychic brain waves picks up the scroll. They know absolutely nothing about morse code, but the scroll only describes the morse code methodology of casting Message. How does this brain wave caster who knows nothing about morse code deduce the method of casting the scroll with naught but a simple glance represented by a Recall Knowledge check?

I made no ruling on what type of scroll it was, we're currently just running the RAW. This is a system-wide issue, changing the titles in my example does not fix the explanation/issue.

If what's on the scroll is just magical ink with an incantation, how can a spellcaster learn a spell from a scroll written by someone not their Tradition if it has nothing else present and they are not Trained in the scribe's Tradition?

To clarify, player is fine with being able to cast a scroll prepared by a scribe of a Tradition not their own if they're at least Trained in the scribe's Tradition's Skill. It's where there is no crossover in Knowledge skills that creates a break in the logic train for them.

I do not want to just house rule that in order to use a scroll prepared by a different Tradition the caster must be Trained in both Traditions because you're suddenly mandating being Trained in 4 different skills for the more common spells if a player wants to ensure they'd be able to use any looted scrolls they come across.

What I seek are explanations that may satisfy the player, in other words, without reducing the usability of found scrolls.

Age of Ashes - Hellknight Hill, Area A13, pg 24, has scrolls of fear and alarm.

Now, the core rulebook mentions that anyone can cast a spell from a scroll as long as it is on their tradition's spell list with a simple Recall Knowledge check of their own Tradition due to shared commonality.

But one of my players is experiencing a pain point on this particular matter. The exact contents of a scroll are kept a bit vague, but the general idea is that they contain a spell that has been cast into the paper and the scroll contains instructions on how to finish casting that spell. The stumbling block comes in where my player, a divine caster, wants to know the Tradition used by the scroll's scribe, because it's strange that an arcane caster can write the instructions to an arcane spell and a divine caster can pick it up, have no knowledge of arcane spells (not be trained in Arcana), and still follow the instructions to finish casting the spell perfectly. Did the arcane spellcaster just also write the instructions for divine casting despite possibly having no knowledge of it themselves? The rules as written just kind of hand-wave it, and that's fine for convenience purposes, but as somebody big on descriptions and IC understanding, the player is having a hard time just letting it go because they are not able to make it an associated (vs disassociated, or OoC) mechanic for their character.

Now, after discussion with one player in my game who frequently GMs 5e, we did come up with one possible solution, but checking the rulebook makes this one fall a bit apart too. The way this other player put it, a scroll could be thought of as a spell that has been sealed into a piece of paper, and the scroll itself just has a simple incantation that unlocks the spell and causes it to be cast. Your particular Tradition gives you the training to put your magic into the spell, so that's why it gains the descriptor of your Tradition and why a Recall Knowledge check based on your own Tradition does the job.

To support this, the 5e GM player pointed out that to add a scroll to their spellbook, the scroll is destroyed as an arcane caster takes the spell in the scroll apart to learn it and write it into their spellbook. But then I checked the rulebook. In PF2e, copying a scroll into a spellbook does not harm the scroll. This implies a scroll is largely instructions on how to cast a spell, and then we're back to "Is a scroll just automatically written for all the Traditions it can be associated with, even if the scribe doesn't know anything about the Traditions not their own?"

Which is the question I'm here to farm out an answer to.

TL;DR: Player having a hard time parsing scrolls being able to be used by anyone not trained in the Tradition the scribe used, even if they have a separate Tradition technically shared by the spell itself. How does the "commonality" there work?

Is there much (if any) incentive for a heavy armor user to increase Dex above 12 outside of Reflex save or skills?

Some few points here are valid, some I will be answering by literally just quoting bits of my first post back at them because the replies sound like they read only the first sentence they laid eyes on. Concerns on this topic deserve a longer explanation I will not find much time for until the weekend, but it is coming. Wanted to say that now so people know I am going to reply.

I'm bringing Dex to Damage back up because I agreed to see what the Swashbuckler looked like before I voiced my thoughts further on this matter. Can't help but notice something: It does not have Dex to Damage... But the Rogue Thief racket does.

So which is it? Is Dex to Damage so overpowered that you can't give it to the other class that begs for it, or is it magically fine for the Rogue? It can't be that the Swash has a source of bonus damage; the rogue has sneak attack. It seems like an elegant solution to do one of four things: either make dex to damage something that applies to all finesse weapons, make it a level 3 general feat, give it to the Swash, or replace it with something else on the Rogue entirely if you want to stick with claims it breaks the game (math has shown it doesn't, and I assume from the fact it's in the game at all that designers at Paizo would agree).

I like the first or second options because they don't hose the other dex-inclined classes like Investigator or Ranger, whereas the third option does. I don't like the fourth option, but I'd take it over limiting it to be class-specific, considering this system is supposed to be very modular and open and limiting this seems weird.

Serious replies only, please. I'm not a power gamer, I'm the GM for my groups a solid 90% of the time it feels like, I'd like more than a single option to present to my players when they say they want a dex-based melee character that wouldn't have an asterisk saying they'd actually be better off going Strength-based.

This order has been handled, for those wondering. Turns out bumping the post sets it back. Whoops! Thankee, Paizo.

Please ship a proper physical copy with my November products. I do not want to pay shipping on this twice.

So this was officially sent out a month ago. The tracking shows it is just sitting in a post office somewhere. Any chance this could just be nudged along? Alternatively, recalled while sending me another? I just received my package of October subscription items, feel like shipping it with those was a missed opportunity. That said, I would not mind if it waited until the November shipment if need be, I just want some word I'm going to get what I paid for, which is not unreasonable.

Still have not received.

Hello?

Bump.

Order 8082343, Ambush Sites Multi-Pack, was never received. My delivery address did not change and I have received other mailers before. The tracking number included has it somewhere nowhere near me and not moving. Is a new one able to sent, are you able to send word for the mailing of the current package, what?

Ah, gotcha. Alrighty, thankee!

Ah. I thought it was going to ship with the new releases, which it ultimately did not do (I have received those).

I'll just trust they'll get to it when they can, then. Thankee.

This order for the Condition Cards has been pending for over two weeks.

Also, am I supposed to have received the Pathfinder Society scenarios in my downloads? Don't see them. Did I miss something regarding selecting them or something?

Are these on backorder or something? Ordered them two weeks ago, showing as pending. That a known problem with this site?

Know at least one of my players who would love this. They were playable as a low-RP option in PF1, bring them to PF2!

(Seriously, I support bringing in Hobgoblins, but I was surprised to learn we'd get them before gnolls.)

Ah. Too late to the party to be seen. Oh well. Someone link her to the above post next time she brings this up somewhere else (which she probably will, have noticed she'll reference past threads she considers to have gone unanswered).

Bumping.

So I know you don't want anything related to PF1, Colette, but read these articles. They're relevant, promise.

Part 1

Part 2

The lessons in those articles apply to PF2 on an almost 1:1 basis. See the core rulebook for 2e on encounter design using xp (pg 489).

Treat Trivial as CR+0 or lower. So weak it typically won't eat a party's resources unless you're looking at probably 6-8+ encounters of such a difficulty and your party gets wasteful.

Low is CR+1, effectively. Uses 20-25% of the party's resources. These are your rough "4-5/day of these" you're looking for.

Moderate is CR+2. 40-50% of party resources equivalent. A solid boss monster, but if it's going to be the only fight of the day, likely to still get dropped without much issue.

Severe is CR+3. 60-75% of party resources equivalent. Running several of these back to back will be dangerous for an average party, but they may be okay if they get to heal up.

Extreme is CR+4. 80-100% of party resources equivalent. This or Severe is about right for a 1/day fight, though some judging versus your party is required, because as stated, it could be deadly if the PCs also lack an action economy advantage.

You typically aim for something totaling up to CR+4 in a given day. Spacing them out means the PCs are less likely to get overwhelmed in one go from being outclassed, but still strikes a balance between the martials making use of longevity and spellcasters getting to be big and flashy with spells.

This is clearly not going to apply to every party even close to evenly. But there's your guidelines.

Found the pregens. Was a last-minute addition to the list anyway.

Planning on running an open table Fall of Plaguestone game at my local game shop to let people try the system. Was making an Alchemist when I ran into some oddities. Feel free to link me to other threads where these have already been answered.

1. I found that the Alchemist kit does not line up with the breakdown of items. Has there been an official correction on the matter? Pretty sure otherwise the Alchemist I made for people to use is going to be permanently over-Bulked (though I'm planning to compensate for that by making the excess into a bag). Alternatively, are the kits supposed to be under-Bulked as a result of good packaging or something? I know the PF1 kits were similarly wonky in terms of not matching up to their breakdown.

2. Does the Basic Crafter's Book give an Alchemist the level 1 alchemical items in that chapter? The book says "any common item in this chapter". Literally two pages later it lists some of the more common level 1 alchemical items, and the distinction seems to be an odd case of stepping on the alchemist's toes. It either grants the level 1 alchemical items mentioned there, or it's basically worthless to alchemists because there are no level 0 alchemical items that I noticed.

3. Where do I find the pre-gen character stat-blocks? I'd been planning on making a character for each class for people to pick up, but it'll save me a lot of trouble if I can just crib the pre-gens.

Excelsior. Thankee again, folks!

Gotcha. Thankee all.

And then finally, how many mini booster packs come in the case subscription? I know the brick is 8, but I cannot seem to find a number on a case.

Derp. Found it with slightly different wording. To make sure I'm right, a case is typically four bricks, yes?

So I put in for four subscriptions, but only one of several future releases show a discount. Do those typically just take a bit to update accordingly?

Going to take a look at the links when I get home. Still at work. Thankee to both of you, though. One more question, if I may. If you decide you don't want a product, and you cancel the subscription to dodge, are you able to sign back up once the offer has passed?

Apologies in advance if this isn't quite the right category for this topic, but I figure it is somewhat relevant since subscriptions are being changed a little.

When it comes to the subscriptions, is buying every release required if you are subscribed? Asking because my understanding is that having the right/enough subscriptions can get you discounts, but how does that work versus actually buying the product? Are you just billed and sent everything automatically? Are you alerted that the thing has been released and can elect to buy/not-buy at your leisure? How, in essence, does a subscription work? And while most of my games are online on Roll20, I have been thinking of running some games at my local game shop. So a follow-up question is whether or not any discounts apply to pdfs and the like too?

TL;DR Please explain subscriptions and discount interactions. Maybe also how that interacts with regards to physical vs digital media. Will also accept a link if all this is definitely explained somewhere and I'm being dumb and missing it.

Hm. Then I look forward to the implementation. Dex to damage isn't what made Swashbucklers so good in PF1, it was adding level to damage. Hopefully they'll see their way clear to not overcorrect.

I think that Dex fighters are still viable, even without getting Dex to damage. The fighter has +2 to hit over a rogue just from proficiency, and has better options for things like dual-wielding finesse weapons. Double Slice is better than Twin Feint.

I hadn't considered dual-wielding. Fair, I'd like to see it in action, though I get the sinking feeling going Strength based on a Fighter is going to be the superior option in basically all respects, especially since they increased motive to be Strength-based by making heavy armor less terrible - a change I like, I should add. It also doesn't address the concept of the singleton swashbuckler or duelist. So, valid, but not quite satisfying in terms of covering all character concepts, and having mechanics that don't sync with narrative can be jarring.

1) some people have been trying to compile the changes but there are way too many to list and they are probably missing many things. Check out general discussion for more information.

2) you mean besides the multiclass archetype? That's it.

1) Gotcha. Will do and thankee.

2) Actually, the rogue multiclass archetype doesn't do it, unless I'm misreading it badly. I'd be satisfied with that solution, otherwise.

First: has any official changelog as far as rules at large goes been compiled yet? I don't mean specific player options, but more grand scale changes? Asking as the usual GM of my group. Planning to do a full read-through, naturally, but is there a cliffnotes on the noteworthy differences from the playtest?

Second - and serious answers only, thanks: has there been any word on why the design team decided to limit an entire - and rather vast in terms of examples - heroic archetype (the dex fighter) behind one subclass of Rogue? I could see the limitation if the idea is to release future subclasses that grant it for the sake of controlling what has access to it in the name of balance, but I'm otherwise a bit stumped why they didn't release a version of it that's a general feat requiring level 3 and... I dunno, 12 Strength if they're worried about a single ability boost's difference which doesn't make up the damage die size loss anyway. It can't be too powerful or they wouldn't have let the Rogue keep it. And you can't dump Strength to drive up Dex with the way character creation works in PF2. Not that Paizo has any issue with stat dumps evidentally, since my understanding is that they let Charisma go back to being one. Point being, have they said they might playtest it in the Advanced Player's Guide or given an official reasoning for the limitation that holds up under examination?

TL;DR: is there a changelog from the playtest, and what's the word regarding making the Rogue (Thief) ability more generically available?

Aha! Much thanks, friendly neighborhood T-Rex!

As per the title. As a xenomorph fan, I'm immensely curious if we know what the thing on the cover of Planar Adventures is? Haven't seen anyone else ask, and I've searched. I'm prepared to feel stupid when someone enlightens me.

I think it was one debating if d4 weapons could be useful when we have d12 weapons.

Based on my results, I can answer that handily: a d8 Finesse Striker deals less damage than a d12 with no ability modifier. The potency dice are a little too crazy.

But huh. With two people claiming that's a thing elsewhere, maybe it really does follow through, in which case I have to ask why they'd knee-cap Strength's biggest non-damage strength. I didn't want Dex to be on equal footing there, I just didn't want agile character archetypes to be down five ability boosts just for their concept.

Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Lost my taste for it when I learned the extent to which the playtest is a playtest. The final product could see my concern here moot, or it could finalize that an entire class of character concepts are just going to be dead.

For the record, what they did to Monk was abysmal. I'm in favor of all concepts being viable, especially when the system we've seen looks like it could work toward that fairly well. The decision to remove Wisdom (or at least any secondary attribute) from AC is yet another example of way too many systems going out of their way to treat unarmed combatants as red-headed step children. Interesting potential balance point with them and allowing Dex to Damage: what if Monks got to add Strength to AC? Blocking with one's body is a thing, after all. I'd have to run numbers to suggest an actual balance point, but I'm not going to because it's clear all of my work here is meaningless. Though I consider your point about anachronism bizarre and misguided when we consider this to be a setting with pirates, robots, and aliens, in addition to standard western fantasy fare.

Popping in to say that Athletics can be Dex-based when used with a Finesse weapon in a combat maneuver. Thus a Dex fighter can be just as good as a Str fighter at combat maneuver. This was said in the FB group early on, I believe it was Settner.

And if that's the case, that really needed to make it into the book or an errata, as it weighs in on this quite a bit. As it stands, without a link, I'm not unsure you're not accidentally referring to PF1's Unchained skill rules.

Spoiler:

I still don't want to see dex to damage (except for specific class features like the rogue or maybe a swashbuckler character later on) and overall the math of the weapon damage fails to really convince me that making str a bigger dump stat isn't a problem.

An issue I had with the math overall is that the damage comparison between Rapier and other weapons are all on the to-hit percentage that benefits the rapier the least at first level, but you did give deadly an extra boost by doubling the deadly dice on crits (it doesn't double). At first level the damage output of d8 over a rapier is 97,1% to 123,6% based on the to-hit.

Not including any property runes makes the difference in percentage seem larger at level 20 than it ought to be, so I think that would be a more fair comparison. However rapiers does fall quite behind d8 weapons due to damage dice and how deadly works. One changes that could help the rapier even the damage output a bit at level 20 would be to let deadly scale with potency instead of weapon quality (why doesn't it do that?). If deadly is changed and 3 properties with d6 dmg is added to the weapons, the damage difference scales from 90,3 to 113,8 % for the d8 over the rapier.
Elven Curve Blade seems to be a pretty bad weapon unless you are using Forceful with Certain Strike to get some bigger benefits from it, but it's one of the only finesse two-handed weapon which lets it be useful to certain classes (+elf being able to make it a simple weapon for proficiency purposes allowing non...

The issue with throwing properties and class feats into the mix is that none of them are a guarantee, and the above math is made with only factors that can be strictly guaranteed. If you start allowing situational factors your math gets really complicated really fast.

As for the accuracy point chosen, I'm not sure it will make a huge difference, especially since it turns out I was factoring Deadly wrong (which makes sense in retrospect, since it only activates on a crit). But I'll do an analysis of level 1 and 20 in which a hit is achieved on a 5 (50%) and a crit on a 15 (30%). Playtesting had that degree of hit chance be fairly rare even on primary attacks, but for the sake of the argument I'll allow it. Assuming Finesse Striker is in play we get...

d6 Finesse Striker vs d8 Str (Level 1):

d6 Finesse Striker vs d8 Str (Level 20):

My "improves on" ratios are almost certainly off due to learning all my math on the deadly was benefiting from doubling it when it shouldn't be getting that. Which is alarming, because even taking the crit chance to a very nice place for the rapier, it still doesn't make up the difference in die size. This is without factoring that going the other way - only a 15+ hits - probably skews things against Speedchunk, or that a strict RAW reading makes it clear Finesse Striker doesn't work with two-handed Finesse weapons. The actual median measurement for comparison is probably the d6 vs the d10. But I digress. I ran some more math, and I think a real issue now to be addressed has to be potency. I appreciate the idea of making damage dice have as much/more impact than solid modifiers, but they have gone a smidge too far, methinks. I ran a Finesse Striking d8 vs a d12 with no damage modifier, just a +5 potency and got...

Dex d8 Finesse Striker

vs.

A d12, no attr mod

42.75/37.95 = 12.65% more damage for an attribute-less d12 late-game weapon than a Finesse Striker using a weapon of dubious RAI legality. While this does further illustrate that Finesse Striker for all wouldn't be a problem, it does highlight a further issue: potency right now is so... potent... that it completely overrides any other choice regarding weaponry damage.

Posters: *complain endlessly about +level to things and resonance*
Paizo: *changes them*
Posters: *the Pikachu meme*

Jokes aside, though, feel like if +level to untrained is being taken away, there should be some way to boost numbers, maybe with a hero point? Otherwise you're getting back into PF1 levels of "don't bother" at the upper end. Someone mentioned a character with high proficiency being able to make others temporarily count as trained, and I like that kind of idea. If the untrained proficiency change was made in regards to increasing possible design space, great. If it was made in regards to a vocal group complaining, I'm less sure I applaud it.

For resonance, I have mixed feelings. I like what they were trying to do, but understand if they ultimately felt there was little point in limiting magic item use once they made Treat Wounds a thing. Nonetheless, it'd be nice to see something in the system that prevents Charisma from being the dump stat of choice.

For potency and damage, yeah... I ran some numbers after my most recent post in my Finesse Striker for All thread, and potency becomes so overbearingly powerful by end game that a Finesse-Striking character full attacking with an Elven Curve Blade (including Forceful) will still deal less damage than the raw dice (no attribute mod) on a full attack from a +5 Greatsword (37.95 vs 42.75, for those curious). So if some decoupling or increased relevance in attribute is forthcoming, I'm eager for details, because as it stands d8 one-handers and d12 two-handers overshadow everything else for basically any purpose.

I'm still going to see what the final system result looks like, but I'd say I'm in the same relative boat as Edge93 and Captain Morgan in terms of being concerned but hopeful that Paizo will do things right. I have a reasonable degree of faith that things will be functional after some analysis of the final product.