OrochiFuror's page

That's why as a GM it's part of your job to translate the rules into things that are happening to bring immersion. Your character generally understands what most of the rules are via cause and effect, you can see those things happening.

It would be interesting to have some martial abilities that work with thralls and yourself. Like two action to have two thralls attack without map like double slice and three action all thralls adjacent or within 10 feet attack like whirlwind. Make it so you count as a thrall for these abilities. Lean into the gish nature of the physical thrall attacks more. We already have a RS ability, why not some more.

Blue_frog wrote:

So yeah, what does Arcane or Primal have that would be more blaster-y ? It’s not a taunt but a real question.

Chain Lightning.

There are lots of others but that is my personal favourite (partly because I actually get to see and use a Level 6 spell a lot)

Unless you win initiative this is likely your only blasting spell. If enemies aren't trying to flank or get in around your group then they should be spread out to make aoe's difficult. CL gets around all the typical blasting problems that white room never accounts for, so should always be on your list. On the other hand, hitting your rogue is usually worth it so sometimes targeting isn't a huge deal.

I think saying "act on their own" is vary ambiguous and perhaps even misleading. I think something similar to rangers pet being only able to stride toward your hunted target could be a baseline for making thrall movement simple. If you spend an action to move X thrall's instead of creating X thrall's then have them move toward the nearest enemy, could be a reasonable ability I think. Even if mechanically they teleport or self destroy by going back into the ground before popping back up elsewhere as if new. Seems like a small change to me that would help immersion a lot. Still doesn't fix potential clogging and blocking issues, but it's a start.

To conquer death, you must delve into all it's secrets.
To bring someone back you must dedicate yourself to a divine being, or delve into necromancy.
To have easy to find soldiers you just hit up a few graveyards instead of buying tons of materials and slave away crafting golems.

There's always reasons, good, poor or vile for delving into necromancy.
Necromancy is often viewed as the quick and dirty path to power. The cost to sanity and soul are often not worth the reward and risk.

The mechanics right now don't mesh with my idea of a necromancer, so I can't really answer the last question, though I do hope it improves because it is interesting.

Honestly, given how "not meta" summon spells are (for good reason), I feel like having a feat that turn them into focus spell (and thus allow you to cast them at max heigtenning without having to lose your other top level slot) would be far from broken.

Druids already have a subclass that take two spells (pest and animal form), smash them together and turn them into a focus spell (with even added upside), with the possibility of adding even more spell to the pile and adding even more upside to them through other feats, so turning normal spells into focus spell isn't broken by itself, it depend on the specific spell. And summon spells have enough restriction I feel to make them fine as focus.

Do note that I say that in the necromancer thread, but I'm not talking solely for them. Summoners, sloth wizard, and druid all deserve a way to get such upside I think, even if it cost them a couple of feats to get to it. Because right now, summon really doesn't feel worth using.

Indeed, but I don't think they would do so. Having used the create undead ritual with reanimator and having used summons with my summoner I'm sure they could figure out a way but it would likely be unsatisfying. I just don't think the desire is there, it would have to somehow shut off a large portion of your other functionality like with druid just so others don't poach it.

Considering that the thralls can also easily be used to box an enemy in and/or create major movement problems for NPCs, especially in a small room, it seems perfectly fair that the GM can turn around and use them to create problems for the PCs.

Indeed and I think that's a problem for everyone. Unlimited thralls, being able to summon 3 times a turn and having nearly no control over them afterward are all issues I think need to be changed.

Reigning in the frequency and amount but giving them more options like range or stacking on top of each other to act as full cover would make them much more interesting. Focus more on making them have options and unlocking new uses for them other then blowing them up.

I keep thinking of hallways, something rather common in APs four thralls a turn with two actions and a move means a regular enemy could never reach you, as they can only destroy 3 thralls every 2 turns. So even a ten foot wide corridor becomes simple to defend. Imagine two necromancer's in a group, easy to choke out even larger combats.
This mechanic also heavily favors ranged party members versus melee as you can completely block off space around enemies.
If they clarify that enemies can tumble through or just move through thralls somehow then they sort of just turn into clutter on the field. Just seems like a high risk of being an inconvenience to everyone instead of a fun and engaging mechanic.

A better version of the shambling horror focus spell would fix a lot of those feel problems. A focus spell that's basically summon undead except it has to target a corpse. Unlikely, even if they lowered the level of the summon to not be top tier spell, it would then fall right into the useless bin for a lot of players.

Then perhaps a dance macabre type spell that does quicken to those with void healing and slow to those without would help to feel like your interacting with void powers in a more general sense.

Things could be added to get those more general necro vibes, but might be real tough making them good.

One thing I don't like is that, since demoralize makes them immune for 10 minutes, you might demoralize two targets, focus one down, and then the other's frightened conditions wears off before you can fully capitalize.

You don't build for demoralize without a dread rune for that reason, IMO. Also many other frightening effects aren't demoralize and thus have their own separate lock out timer.

Having the enemy be able to use thralls as cover to block PCs because you can't move/remove them creates a party problem. The fewer abilities we have that can create inter party angst the better.

Think of small rooms, summoning 2 or 3 per action, meaning you can have 4-6 per round. You could quickly get I to situations that enemies could situate themselves between a hazard or wall and a thrall to prevent most avenues of melee getting to them.
How will you feel when your older thralls that were good when you summoned them are now in the way and you have no power over them.

Just needs more options for consume thrall. Some other options for getting focus points back in combat.

Like a standard or hard undead lore check when something dies as a reaction to get one back.

Yeah, a lot of monsters are just going to have an AoE option to immediately clear the thralls off the board, and then it's just an action sink for them (which is good, but not broken.) Like making Treerazer have to use Defoliate every turn is fine, since that leaves him with one action so he's not closing very fast on people attacking him from far away, but there's also going to be a range on the thralls so the first person he's going to bullseye is "the necromancer" in this situation.

The risk that there are certain creatures you could effectively keep slow2 or 3 on every turn by piling up thralls they can't easily get through is too high IMO. Especially in the mid levels.

Sadly if you can't have thralls in exploration mode, I already know some people here who are going to cry it's not a minion master/pet build real necromancer. Sad if we can't have a troop of undead that's a slow resource drain over a day, surrounded by a mjnion army (even if its more like a platoon or squad) is heavily ingrained in the necro fantasy.

Sadly I've played a reanimator and the rituals for minions are hot hot garbage. Summoning spells that cost you gold, very rough.
I wonder if necro might tempt me to try summoner archetype, wonder how that might pan out. Summoner and undead master for exploration undead fulfilment and thralls for combat focus.

Rogue can already do all that's being asked of you, but a Thaum leaning into scrolls or picking up Bard/ sorcerer casting can do that. So can a summoner with book Thaum/rogue for more skills. Summoner can get away better then any other caster with lowering dex/AC since your bringing extra frontline support.
Heavy armor is a path to fix the Dex issue. So long as you don't have any visual issues with a nerd in metal bubble suit to keep safe.
Then as summoner can go all in on con, int, cha. Be face, have arcane spells, survive, support front line, pick up knowledges with Thaum and or rogue. Give your Eidolon spells and battle medicine (so long as GM allows them to use heal kit) and you have some good martial support options. Summoner also can double dip on knowledge checks since your Eidolon has the same skills you do.

It's as rare as you make it. Difficult terrain, how ever you want to describe it, is a tool for the GM to use. I'd say most GMs likely don't bother often because it wouldn't be a positive time investment to the story, but it shouldn't be that rare. If you've ever gone hiking you likely know how often you come across stuff you'd rather just go around. If your not on a path of some sort, it should be fairly common, both as tiny spots and small to modest areas.

OrochiFuror wrote:

One action to create within 30 feet and takes up a square? That's broken, hello new bonewall/bonecage. Every turn you block off 3 sides of a boss, if you ever get more then you completely surround one enemy every turn and then can double layer thrallwall. If taking away actions is the name of the game, necro wins.

And it scales with your proficiency. At level 19 you can create 4 thralls per action!

Yeah, that has to have touch range. Otherwise it's auto win against any non aoe, flying, burrowing enemy that doesn't have 35+ range.

I hope there's different thrall trypes, since someone mentioned lots of focus feats, being able to call different thralls for different tasks would be nice. Like grapple thrall, trip thrall, physical damage thrall, blocking thrall, ranged damage/elemental damage thrall, etc.
Hope mixing this with reanimator, undead master and Lich works out well.

One action to create within 30 feet and takes up a square? That's broken, hello new bonewall/bonecage. Every turn you block off 3 sides of a boss, if you ever get more then you completely surround one enemy every turn and then can double layer thrallwall. If taking away actions is the name of the game, necro wins.

Terrain Stalker wrote:

Select one type of difficult terrain from the following list: rubble, snow, or underbrush. While undetected by all non-allies in that type of terrain, you can Sneak without attempting a Stealth check

"that type of terrain" is referring to "one type of difficult terrain" chosen earlier in the sentence. So yes, it does have to be difficult terrain.

The only other argument is that the wording is unclear and it is the non-allies that need to be in the chosen type of difficult terrain, rather than you.

But that doesn't make nearly as much sense.

Very much so. It's the hiding in deep snow, heavy bushes, stone rubble feat. There needs to be obstacles in the way that are passable but require effort to get through, you know how to put those obstacles to use by moving ever so slowly through them.

In what situation is an ambush predator noticed and in range to do it's ambush attack yet its prey is just sitting there not reacting? Are they stupid? Are they baiting an attack out? Does the predator not notice that it's been noticed?

Is this a real situation or by the very nature of how you got to this point you should know how it works out.

This is a game of rules, it has a baseline used for balance. Part of that baseline is little to no prebuffing. This also includes scouting and ambushing enemies. The rules for encounter building are for when your group clashes head on with an enemy.

Everything you do to change that default makes work for the GM. Either by having to change the encounter balance or just finding out what the players and party as a whole are looking for.

Look at it from a bit different angle.

If in your world most people react with fear and suspicion to a stranger casting a spell - sure, that's reasonable. But the player characters would know that, because they've lived in that world all your life. And you as the GM know that, because you made up this world.

But does the player know that? How could the player know that, unless you told them?

So you basically have two ways for the player to find out:
- You tell them OOC "Are you sure? Since they don't know you, they might not trust you to cast spells."
- You teach them an IC lesson by starting combat.

But if you take the second approach, you're kinda punishing the player for something that you know, their character would know, but they don't know, because they didn't read your mind.

Or maybe think about immersing your players in the world, encourage them to think first. The idea that you have a spell that will just fix the situation without any consequences is meta game thinking.

Also think about the reverse situation, what would your players do if they came across a group of nephalim, giants or serpentfolk and one of them started casting a spell? There's no right answer to the situation, because you don't have enough information, so it more comes down to who your players are and what the characters values are.
Maybe the group will be hostile no matter what you do, maybe they only get hostile if you react, maybe they get hostile if you don't. If your a good GM placing these encounters in proper places with proper setup, it should feel like a "gotcha" kind of moment, it should just feel realistic.

I do have a rules problem with this situation though, and that's once combat has started even if you cast the spell it's supposed to be near impossible to change peoples attitude toward you. I would just say it's a very hostile diplomatic exchange and let you talk your way out of your mistake. You can look like an eager impulsive problem solver who acted before thinking. In that way you can make it a learning experience so long as you keep the stakes low. The other group could explain they have had run ins with hostile casters in the area so not only do they have a reason for what they did, but you learn about potential threats in the area.
As a GM you should always be thinking of ways to let your players succeed or fail forward even if they do very questionable things, it should never feel like punishment (unless the dice hate you, that's always punishment). To do this effectively you and your group need to be on the same page about tone, expectations, etc.

Back to the OP, even if we just started up combat I would not have let you change your mind on casting the spell, or at least heavily imply it would still work out. It was a good idea just not done in the best way, the real failure was changing your mind, because then combat and death were likely the only results of the encounter and that's a far less enjoyable outcome.

I'm all for it. I did 2 APs with a restriction on not taking any multi class feats with FA and that cuts a lot of the potential power boosting out of it.
I don't understand choice paralysis because I've never had it and I think PF2 really cuts it out of the game. Let them retrain the FA feats when ever they are in a safe place.

It's crazy to me how often players presume that others know their intentions. Most places are going to have a ban on casting spells in public because the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between mind enslaving magic, light making magic and fireball. So you would likely react with fear or aggression when you see someone you don't know casting a spell.
When you live in a world where someone can take six seconds and kill a half dozen or more people with zero preparation to onlookers, your likely going to have many people that are on edge about such things.

I would have let you cast but not say anything until your initiative, so you'd likely have put yourself in hostile relations and then have a big hill to climb to get out of what you did.

But to me, this is the problem, everything else is a band-aid.

The problem is the player expectations.

In real life I expect a single (non-glancing) wound to be significant enough that most enemies would surrender or run away. But we know it doesn't work that way in game. Accommodating "real life" expectations runs counter to how the game works in a lot of cases. Players need to learn the system and what it's expectations are. Or else they're just going to keep running into spots where their expectations are so far off from the game system that it will just continue to be a problem.

Indeed, they did say the group wanted a more crunch based system however so overall one would hope this wouldn't be a recurring problem.

As a side note, it seems when ever people talk expectations around here they almost always refer to PF1, while there must be others like me who never played that. It just makes the advise seem a bit too assuming to me.

To RPG-geek, you mention Rifts, the system where you slap a character together and then never make any choices after that, I wouldn't consider that much of building and maintaining a characters identity. I would love for it to be a better system mechanically since the options and world are interesting.
Shadowrun is more social interaction and espionage focused but you can totally run a PF2 game like that, I'm sure plenty of SF2 games will lean that way.
PF2 requires accepting certain things, it's focused as a group based high fantasy heroic adventure game. To fulfill that things are balanced around always being in a group, choosing your heroic path (class) and sticking to it, having stats matter but your path sets limits on your wiggle room for them, etc. You might not like those design goals, but within that context, PF2 does a damn good job of giving choices for interesting character builds IMO.

Your player is much better off if they forget everything they know about Pathfinder (from PF1) because that's how different PF2 is. Hell, maybe they'd be better off if they just reframe the game as some other fantasy table top unrelated to Pathfinder 1.

This is generally good advice, but I think your focusing on it to much. It sounds more like the player wanted realism to beat out mechanics. Two buff guys should be able to manhandle the caster. But they didn't get the desired result with the method that seemed obvious to them. That seamed to ruin their immersion as well, since it didn't make sense to them.

Dog piling someone isn't a thing in the game because everyone has infinite stamina, you can't tire someone out and contain them. There's very specific builds to get close, but generally the game expects you to diffuse situations by diplomacy or dropping somethings HP to zero. People have given great advice on how to accommodate this player, but it's more of an advanced GM fix then something the player could do to get the immersion they were looking for. Hopefully it works, it's great we have these subsystems to plug into situations to get different results and feel from them.

If you have a slam down fighter or grapple+trip monk in your group then RS should be nearly several per round for the group. That's how my group wrecked FotRP. If your not triggering it multiple times per fight, then your group isn't built for it in some way.

It didn't sound like the player was doing what the villain did though, walk up, hook onto and fall out window.
It sounded more like move/leap out window, reaction try to grab onto the line and survive the trip. So might have an action left for being crazy, but I might have made a check for catching the line to make it dramatic, likely ending the same way you played it. So overall I would say very well done.

Everything is either common or ask your GM. An active GM will likely look over all your choices anyhow, it's best to make sure the things they want to do will work the way they want in your game.
Mythic is just things intended to work together as a whole system with more oomph.
I don't see how adding more labels helps anyone. Trying to use mythic as a secondary blockade to say no to something seems pointless.
Rituals are all under the GMs control, be they uncommon, rare or mythic, there's no difference.

Sounds like what they wanted was a narrative victory, not a crunch enabled one.
Having two people or more pile on to subdue someone is a RL thing but even still it requires a good deal of constant effort to wear the fight out of someone like that. If they refuse to stop struggling then it can be a big issue. In PF2 the only way to wear someone down is to drop their HP to zero. So if your champion was aiding and the monk grappling you can narrate that as them piling on trying to pin, AKA restrain, the mage but most of the time they just don't have the skill to really do that against a higher level opponent who thus knows how to squirm and make those attempts difficult.
If they had proper tools for nonlethal damage you could narrate those attacks as just being them holding the target to wear them down if that's the sort of victory they want, instead of pinning someone down and clubbing them unconscious as that has a lot of bad connotations to it.

I don't understand how tailwind could be a problem.
The only time I could see it ever being an issue is on wide open outdoor flat areas with no terrain, with a group consisting of all slow monsters with no burrow speed and no reactive strike.

That's a lot of things to line up, considering you can get boots that do the same thing, otherwise you need access to using a wand and that alone could lock you into an archetype you have no other use for.

While the vast majority of combats will be in smaller spaces where the speed is useless, or you back yourself into a corner or into more danger, or traps or hazardous terrain. There's so many ways as a GM to get around this problem with level design and encounter design that I can't imagine it being an issue. Like most things, it's a great tool to have against specific things.

My primary concern would be mythic feats to enhance martial strikes. You can get mythic spells but because Eidolons are their own bespoke thing they don't mix with anything else.

Other then the aforementioned jerks and wangrods, nothing. I use the rarity rules but so long as it fits with the theme of the adventure, then it's fine. When you run into combo or build issues it's usually a player issue not a rules issue. If I had a stable group I'm sure there would be no problem as everyone would be on the same page.

It can definitely be flawed, but I meant it in the sense that you will never get hit by lightning because that ideology woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It also can’t do anything without followers. Besides, let’s be real: I highly doubt the developers are going to include capitalism or dictatorship among the covenant options.

You don't ever lose your powers because of something someone else such as a god does, you lose your powers because you lose your faith. You act against your own core beliefs and that makes you lose the connection.

That sort of mindset is more I'm afraid of my GM, because otherwise I imagine gods, pantheons and covenants are going to mechanically all work the same.

As to the thread topic, I don't have the book yet, and I want to be positive as it seams a lot of great things but my favorite thing, Eidolons, don't seem to have any exceptions to work with mythic so I'm a bit bummed. As a gish, adding mythic to just one aspect of your character instead of both doesn't feel great.

You use the same values for attack and AC as you have before transforming, it's specifically called out.
It's what makes it a good feat, since normally battle form spells are weak martial that scale poorly, this replaces the two worst aspects of battle forms (attack and AC) with your maxed out values.
Couple that with a flight speed 2-5 times what any of your party members have and it's already a good feat. You miss out on some damage and weapon attack options but can build for grappling and have a bite that's better then most options for grappling characters.

Think of it as a change in fighting style, you get speed, free hands, a bite attack, reach and a breath weapon. If you can't find a way to utilize these tools, then it won't be a good feat for you.

I wouldn't consider a swash as tanky. A tank requires a few things, IMO.
At least 6AC, aka heavy armor.
Shield block with a high HP and high Hardness shield.
Legendary defense

Swash has none of these, even a 5 AC class with a +2 shield raise is still just ok, not good for defense. You can fortify a buckler for blocking but it's not going to be good at it. They also by default only get one reaction to use for blocking.

That puts them at slightly above standard martial for survivability, they aren't sacrificing a two handed weapon to do so though so the opportunity cost for it is far lower.

The only class released so far that can sit and take hits for any noticeable time is the champion. 6AC, multiple shield blocks and legendary defense progression. Even then a few good crits can wreck them.
So set your sights fairly low since no one really tanks in PF2, it's all just better survivability. You can be a lot more durable with any one of those three things, but you might not really see the difference on a per fight basis. Small increases matter, but you might not be able to feel them if you and your team don't lean into it with buffs and debuffs.

One of my big problems with PF2 is the fact there's little that just works and not a lot of setup and payoff outside of a few "must" have options, just about everything is a numbers game and you tend to be on the losing end of those numbers as a baseline. I think the overall balance and the options for characters more then make up for those issues though.

There's a lot of moving pieces and info that could all be issues compiling to your problem.
Every level matters, especially before level 10, being behind the intended level or different from the rest of your party is an issue.

Being down a player is a HUGE issue.

Age of Ashes has issues, my group got crushed by several encounters that were clearly poorly designed.

Not knowing what to prioritize for a character build and how to work with your party is an issue.

All these issues can be dealt with by a GM who sees them and knows how to compensate. Each issue alone can make things much more difficult, combining them could make it nearly unplayable.

For specifics, I don't see what swash dedication would give a rogue, it's not really doing much for you, just giving you terrible hoops to jump through for very little or no reward. Get gang up and stand next to the party front liner.
Knowing what the rest of the party is would help. Stick next to a champion if you have one. Gang up will also help your fighter or barbarian. Sorcerers are one of the better damage dealers but casters are bad at damaging bosses, they are better at buffing and debuffing in those situations. Slow is always a prime tool against bosses, taking actions away from a boss severely limits their threat. Big bosses tend to have lower reflex so can be tripped. Try to have someone in the group who can frighten(make sure someone has a dread rune) or better yet sicken. Then any buff to hit and you'll see a big difference in hitting that boss.

A +2 to +4 boss will almost always feel like you are moments away from being crushed and if the dice don't favor you then your dead. You need to find ways to even the number difference, take away actions and exploit weaknesses.

A bit of a side note, APs in general especially the first few years worth are all set to HARD difficulty. They all have some seriously difficult mini boss encounters.

I think situations matter. The general rules are for everyday use. The GM guidance is for edge cases like talking to your political rival, they might hate you but unlike many normal game situations that's not going to end in combat, you might even be able to convince them to do something though likely at a high DC and personal cost.

For standard indifferent encounter, just like Finoan said, you need to warm up to them first. Otherwise they have no interest in helping you.

All minions, AC, summons, etc are controlled by the GM. That's RAW. You tell them to do something by commanding or sustaining and they do that to the best of their ability and understanding AKA they do what the GM will allow.

The vast majority of time that's just needlessly complicated at the table. Its far easier to let players run their minions but step in and say "I think that's a bit complex for them, they would likely do X", or "The dragon knows what you want to accomplish, but its got its own ideas about how to get it done," when players try for complex things with low Int minions or for flavor when it makes sense.
It's this way to prevent player shenanigans. GMs however should be lenient in this area as it's often resource intensive to have such things. Trust going both ways makes the best of such things.

I would think it's better your character know what the thing they summoned can do, either by study or some experience with such creature. Otherwise you'll never have access to any of their special abilities or spells, and that could easily be the whole reason you would summon some creatures.

Remember, non-lethal damage only matters when the damage would reduce the target to 0 health. You can do 50 points of lethal damage to a 60 HP creature, then finish it with 10 pints of non-lethal to leave it unconscious and not dying.

On top of this you have non damaging cantrips you can use for when the fight gets to those last few HP when your martials are all taking that penalty to knock something out.

I don't think there's many options for non lethal for this reason. Burn, chop and run the enemy through just make sure to put the finishing touch as a face punch or hand chop to the back of the head to gently put them out.

Being the good guys and not a bunch of murder hobos is difficult.

Since you have cantrip on top of strike damage couldn't you go Dex/Con/Int/Wis? Likely be better off then most Dex martials and have lots of good options with spells.
Just because a lot of people hyper fixate on spell strike every round doesn't mean you should neglect your ability to be effective with slots, scrolls or wands. Building a character that's only ever good at one thing seems more like a player problem not a class problem.

While part of the design for Magus was generally spell striking every other round, now that we have easy access to 3 focus points per fight there's not much reason to do so. Most fights last roughly 4 rounds, so not much point not using those focus points.

Spell strike is what your good at, but you still have other tools.
Any class that has the ability to specialize in two action activities will have issues for some people feeling locked in or boring. Magus has it worse with needing a third action at some point but it also comes with solutions to that very problem.

I would love to have abilities that just work. Spend a reaction to avoid a hit, or at least have a bonus like +10 so it always does something. That to me is narrative power, knowing you can rely on your abilities to have an effect.

Having Mythic be a damage tag so all mythic beings have scaling damage reduction might be interesting for NPCs but doesn't work well for PCs unless it breaks the non stacking resistance rule.

I do hope to play in a FA/M/AP game sometime, sounds like the baseline I've been looking for.

I wonder how mythic will mesh with Eidolons.

Played a LS Magus in kingmaker. Use movement spell to get into combat, spell strike and teleport strike to refresh. Very aggressive and makes quick work of things.
AC could use a buff, either damage scaling with dice for non spellstrikes, or something worth while because it just doesn't fit in anywhere right now.
I didn't run into any RS, likely a big problem when it comes up. Being a melee spell caster with 8hp is rather rough.
There are other martial classes that are barely above Magus non spell strike so I don't see how those turns are bad for a Magus. You can always take an archetype to get more strikes, maneuvers or what ever to round yourself out more if that's what you want.

It's good to talk about where the line of fun and not fun to play can be when mechanics don't encourage a persons fantasy, but you really need to emphasize what the intended difficulty for the group is. You could run an all melee caster group if the GM scaled it to that group. So a lot of unplayable things are just relative issues compared to enemies or other party members.
I prefer high powered well optimized groups but I would hate for someone to think they could never play something because it's considered suboptimal. You just need the right conditions for it.

I have very strong feelings about balance and such in PF2, so the only things I'll say is casters don't survive in melee, they tend to have lower AC, have lower saves overall and lower or significantly lower HP, combining all that makes them far too squishy IMO. Generally if your a martial stick to strikes and maneuvers, if your a caster keep away from things and you'll generally be doing your thing right.

The line is too blurry for this. With the right enemies and party comp, just about anything is viable because it's a game of numbers.
Everything can be made to work if your GM is willing to help. But for APs, what I think is the baseline for anyone not doing PFS, you have a much harder time without a GM willing to change things because the difficulty is set to moderately high.

Sadly even telling someone to try it out and see how it goes can be misleading because the difference in builds can change every 5 levels.

Each of those categories would have to be broken up further into tiers, like PFS, APs and custom extreme difficulty.
For the first, nothing is unplayable I don't think, for the second if your not playing to your class's strength then you can be borderline unplayable depending on your group, for anything above that you need a certain level of system mastery to know what can work.

Sounds good, might be the power level some people are looking for. Can always scale monsters up, but hitting that flavorful level of power for players can be difficult.

All casters can do that.

That's what makes all casters balanced, they all have legendary scaling casting proficiency.

Spoiler:
The first thing you do in OoA is rob a bank.

So making that sort of thing the focus of your campaign is fully a thing you can do.
As a GM you just have to balance income from jobs with expected income by level. Maybe put a lot of hoops in that are money sinks to the players, paying off local law enforcers and buying info on jobs, losing value from fencing things, etc.
You could run a Leverage type group, that show has tons of great ideas for adventures.
It might not be as straight forward as other campaigns but I think that would be part of the appeal.

Who doesn't get untrained improv unless your fine being terrible at most things?
Otherwise, a +7 stat and +8 skill level are pretty close. Raw capability vs training, they both matter to be the best.
Attributes are what you are, a huge part of your identity.

Having the basic way most people defend themselves be ranged combat does stress some parts of the system. It means Dex is the most valuable offensive stat, especially for enemies. Class mechanics can help a lot with this issue. It also makes the problems with medium armor worse.

STR just needs more things that support it, like heavy weapons requiring or gaining bonuses from strength, just make sure they are worth it. Shields that require strength.
Easier access to heavy armor or buffs to medium armor.
Having gear that can justify the opportunity cost of having or focusing on STR is an easy fix I think. Someone must make tech to keep big or strong individuals viable in combat, especially the Vesk.

The game is made for a group of four characters. So you might want to start with 4v4 combat and go from there.
2v1 means six actions compared to three, that is a huge difference.

Expert is one tier lower then standard class martial expectation.
Master is one tier lower then standard class caster expectation.
So you can never get master martial and legendary casting on one character.

I thought this thread was going to be about how to portray PCs as thieves, which I think is much more interesting to consider. The game has legacy baggage attached to the concept which doesn't mesh with the modern day adventure expectations.

I don't understand what you mean. Adventurers are already mostly vigilantes who kill, steal and pillage. It's fairly easy to adjust to a more Robin Hood, Oceans 11, Lupon 3rd or similar type theme.