Narxiso's page

So one of the archetypes I was most looking forward to was the dual-weapon warrior because I generally like playing characters that wield two weapons. I am, unfortunately, a little dissatisfied with the early level feats. While the dedication feat is especially potent, I find the two fourth level feats only useful for two particular playstyles, which if not useful, can result in some dead feats for that level, slowing progression if another archetype is desired. My question is why is there not a more universal feat for dual wielding at fourth level, one that can solve a problem I saw with the system from its public announcement with the playtest: a feat that allows two weapons to be drawn as a single action. Every other martial style only needs a single action to ready all the weapons they need, whether drawing a two-handed weapon, a single melee weapon, or a ranged weapon. Early level feats just feel sort of sparse for an archetype dedicated to dual wielding when compared to archetypes like the marshal.

Tldr: The dual-weapon warrior should have a fourth level feat that allows it to draw two weapons, or at least something that is more generally useful than a two-weapon throwing and ranged/melee dual wielding.

For one, I am extremely excited to have the automatic bonus progression (ABP). In fact, this variant is what I truly wanted out of Pathfinder 2e to make it a more perfect (and almost truly balanced game). One other point I had an issue with was the seemingly arbitrary limitation of dexterity to increase armor class on things like bracers of armor or explorer's clothing (though I completely understand that it is necessary to preserve that balance that I so desired).

The ABP variant in combination makes it so that wearing these item enhancers becomes unnecessary, as explorer's clothing is only necessary to keep armor class on target for level, at least for my character. While initially elated finding this defense enhancer for late levels, I'm also not really into breaking the rules or finding loopholes in RPGs, as playing within the intended rules (for the most part) is what I find enjoyable.

With the ABP variant and not not being restricted to wearing armor, a dex-based monk could beat out a paladin in AC, while a crane-style monk with a shield could go full turtle (an extreme example possibly), but on a less extreme note, a rogue could beat out a full-plate fighter in AC, though two behind a full plate champion. I do enjoy the idea of having a rogue dodge as well as someone takes and deflects hits with armor, I have the feeling that this may have been an oversight in the rules and, therefore, not something to be used at my DM's table.

What does everyone else think? And are there any other possible unintended effects of ABP?

After these four and a half months of release, I think some of us have had the opportunity to experience the game’s features enough to have a vague idea for what each class excels at. I think we’ve all had enough of the debates about caster and martial disparity, so I’d like to open up what each class can contribute generally to a group, as this is a group game, where each member should be able to contribute, and I think this is the strongest point of Pathfinder Second Edition. But, I’d ask that all of the spell/caster/fighter/martial disparity/lack of action interaction be left to the other seven or eight threads on that group of topics.

These are my thoughts so far on the strengths of each class:

Alchemist: Best in-combat versatility with concoctions to adapt to varying situations (Mr. Quick Trick)
Barbarian: Best damage on hit, health, and melee AOE options (Sir Smash and Bash)
Bard: Best class support with sustained buffs and debuffs with the possibility of a skill monkey and knowledge support (The Battle Bro)
Cleric: Best heals and undead slaying (Saint Savior)
Champion: Best armor and reactions to reduce damage (Melee Mitigation)
Druid: Best balanced spell list with heals and damage as well as the possibility for shape changing and one PC party (Wild Were)
Fighter: Best in attacking and, well, fighting by living up to its name (Boom Headshot with a spoon )
Monk: Best our-the-gate action economy, speed, and poor person’s armor and weapon even though they be rolling in dough (Zippy Can’t Hit Me)
Ranger: Best action economy with weapons single-target fixation (When Hunter Crosses the Line into Stalker Territory)
Rogue: Best all-around through skills, above average possible damage, and eventual debuffs (I’m Biased But They Be the Best even if they don’t have any good dual wielding feats)
Sorcerer: Best face with charisma casting and best flexible spell use having four slots of each level as well as possible best AOE damage and magical choice (Pretty and Powerful)
Wizard: Best weakness spell exploitation, preparation versatility with crafting and scrolls, and show that knowledge is power (Razmir’s Really Right there’s no difference between a god and man if you know your enemies’ weaknesses)

Please feel free to add in more to what you think makes each class really good at what it does.

Looking at these two feats, they both have in their texts that they are strikes against hunted prey, but neither of them have hunted prey as requirements. Also, they both are worded in a way to suggest that each attack can be used against a different creature, but only one creature can be the target of hunt prey. Does this mean that hunt prey is not needed for these two feats?

So, I was reading the rogue's Minor Magic Feat, and I am not finding where it says which attribute to use for casting. Does anyone know what the spellcasting modifiers are for rogues?

After playing the playtest for a bit, I have found that not being able to draw two weapons with a dual wielding specialized character (Rogue) really hampers the first round (and often the second). Did I miss something about drawing two weapons, or is it possible to add in a feat for drawing two weapons?

I first to start off by saying that I love how the game currently works, for the most part, but the two things that are really problematic for me are the influence of magic items over characters and the inflated stats of monsters. I think these issues go hand-in-hand, but this is probably due to a personal philosophy about how these two things work. For me, magic items (specifically weapons and armor) should be there to push against higher level enemies. As such, I will be making the following changes to my game:

1. Instead of magic weapons increasing damage, the increased damage will come from the characters themselves (as many have proposed before) with martial characters increasing a die of damage at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Spellcasters would increase damage at 6, 12, and 18 with multiclassing into an archetype giving another die bump at 4 and a possible feat for the final die at 20.

2. Potency runes will be gotten rid of, while expert, master, and legendary crafted weapons will increase the damage of the weapon by +1d4, +1d6, and +1d12, respectively, as I think a piddly +1 per quality bump is too little and makes legendary weapons feel legendary without necessarily being magical.

3. Monster stats would either be changed to reflect an appropriate level without magic items (or the same with appropriate ones), or they would just have a changed CR to match their current stats.

These changes are because I hate the idea of requiring magical items against equal leveled creatures who do not have any magic themselves, and I like to think of characters as the powerful ones, not their items.

One thing that has always bothered me in tabletop games, including this edition of PF, is how crafting is handled. It never made sense to me that characters get better at trade skills because they killed some goblins or a dragon. Of course, I can see how fighting those creatures inspire characters, but it never sat right for me. In addition, it seems to limit NPCs who only focus on their crafts. For these reasons, I think crafting should be under a different system of experience to become better. I think this can be achieved by giving each piece of equipment, their quality levels, and materials a set DC, which can then be given a level of difficulty for experience, using the current system for experience for leveling up.

For example, an iron dagger could be given a DC of 10 with a level of 1; therefore, a level 1 blacksmith (different from the class) would gain 40 experience for crafting an iron dagger (and maybe something for a failed attempt as well), and a level 4 blacksmith would gain 15 experience for crafting an iron dagger.

Also, I think that the check should be divorced from ability scores, at most requiring an prerequisite for a score. As a separate system, crafting level could also start at 0, requiring some experience to become trained (at level 1), which would allow the creation of normal quality items (with the possible addition of crude items); level 5 and every 5 levels thereafter would allow for the next tier of item (expertise at 5, masterwork at 10, legendary at 15). Having comparatively low DCs (when compared to DCs per level for characters) would allow characters to rely more on their level of craftmanship than stats, allowing average people to be great at their professions (or at least work toward it) without being outclassed by PCs with their inflated attributes.

Has anyone run/played in a game where there were a mass of enemies (level-4 or so) that was survivable for a party of four? How many creatures do you think a party is capable of? I just want to know as a stress test whether it is more profitable to fight a bunch of lower level creature or one strong high level creature and whether fighting that mass number of creatures really make PCs seem heroic.

First off, I would just like to say that I can empathize with some feel negatively about the direction the new game is heading; however, I have the opposite feelings toward it (for the most part, barring magical weapon potency, the need for magic items to fight against creatures of equal level, and my perceived weakening of the offensive strength of rogues, especially since there is no feat line within rogue to dual wield, which was my favorite style despite being feat-heavy or less effective in most games, and the drastic decrease in sneak attack dice).

1e did not really make my visions of characters really stand out, at least without a guide. More often than not, I made characters that sounded cool to me but turned out to be joke characters when I got to the table. My first interactions with the 1e system left me wholly ineffective in combat, being a rogue before Unchained came out, who did not land a single hit until level 3 and did not get a single kill until level 5, and that really turned me away from the system, especially with D&D 5e came out

Yet D&D 5e did not really scratch the itch I want in a game, as the character customization is not great at all despite me liking some implementations to the system, like backgrounds (I really like the addition of backgrounds instead of traits in the playtest). 2e, so far, has me very intrigued in how it will work based on the playtest. I mean, I love that characters get feats every level and that class features change how characters will be played; it makes every character feel like fighter in 3.X/PF1e with the customization of characters, at least to me, without having to actually dip into fighter. I also really like the how multiclassing/prestiging are done through archetypes, maintaining a base class but exchanging some class features for those of another, while requiring a certain amount of "training" to access the good parts. (Also, I really like bards now; they really make great buffers/debuffers, which I had not seen in other games. Bards become so useful in large groups so that they become as important as clerics in military campaigns, while also being very useful to small parties, especially up against higher level enemies.)

Other little systems that I like include bulk, rarity, and the economic change from gold to silver. Bulk, for me, though it does not completely accurately encompass how things work, makes tracking things easier without worrying about the minutiae so much. Rarity, while I think it should and will be ironed out in 2e, makes things more rare and gives DMs a guideline for what might be game breaking (whether for setting or combat). And the economic change makes currency worth something. In earlier editions, silver and copper were all but worthless, measuring everything in gold.

Anyways, I just want to thank the Pathfinder 2e Staff at Paizo for continuing to improve the game. And I look forward to purchasing it (I would even if nothing but the weapon potency damage is given to the characters instead of weapons is changed.)