PathMaster's page

PathMaster went overboard with his OP

Are you referring to the hyperbole?

Bar: not to rage is a choice which makes your melee suboptimal. Fighter: picking a weapon for which you are not fully proficient is a choice which makes your melee suboptimal.

Except that Fighters only suffer that in levels 5-18. Outside of those levels, a Fighter isn't considering Weapon Group (excluding planning for higher levels).

[Quote"Easl"]But I think you're reversing the burden of proof here. You're a player, making an argument about why the game should be changed. The burden is really on you to say what important, compelling or necessary reason there is for Paizo to change the game. Paizo's not going to change anything based on 'PathMaster's preferred alteration of the rules keeps game balance about the same, but PathMaster just likes it better." Nor should they. Given the number of players with different preferences, that sort of method for deciding when Pf2E should be changed would be crazy, right?

I am at a loss of words here.

Page 166: Take the sack with 5 rocks away from the fire giant’s items. The remastered creature doesn’t need them for any abilities.

I doubt Paizo considered this actually "important" or "neccesary", and nobody outside of Paizo cared before or after the change, and yet it happened, because why not?

Since I misjudged this thread let me asking a question then. What makes Fighter's one weapon group not needed or boring when you get classes like Rogue who MUST use a Agile or Finesse weapon unless you are a certain Racket? What about Gunslingers being good is only Guns, Crossbows & Combination (Gun-half) weapons?

First of all, Fighter being boring is not relevant at all to my argument.

Second, as I've already stated in my post, Fighters kind of already are limited by what weapons they choose by virtue of having to choose between Strenght or Dexterity, and besides, they can freely ignore Weapon Groups at levels 1-4 and 19-20, so why suddenly change that when you're going to flip back eventually?

As for Gunslingers, the answer is threefold: 1, their identity is of that of the gun (and crossbow) class, so they are limited by their flavour, whereas Fighter's flavour start and ends with "Fight good" (Not a bad thing in this case, mind you); 2, their mechanics only work with Reload weapons; 3, they get extra precision damage thanks to Slinger's Precision.

To be fair, the line between "higher proficiency in one weapon group" and "higher proficiency in all weapon groups" is thin for a reason, it doesn't change the class' effectiveness that much.

PathMaster wrote:

Second, I'm complaining because there's no good reason Fighters should be limited to a single weapon,

They aren't. Their fighter weapon mastery is for a weapon category.. All axes. All swords. Etc. Not just a single weapon.

Meant to write Weapon Group there, my apologies.

Second, "limited" is something of an exaggeration because a fighter can wield any simple or martial weapon with the same proficiency as other martials. Their class benefit is limited; their ability to wield a very wide range of weapons with full martial proficiency is not. This is quite normal. Bars only get their class benefit damage when raging. Rogues do their class bonus damage to off-guard targets. Etc.

It is in fact limited, and since you brought up Barbarians, I'll use them for my example: when is a Barbarian not going to Rage in combat, especially now that the Remaster allows them to do it as a Free Action and they no longer take a penalty to AC? Almost never, because the benefits rarely outweigh the drawbacks, and Rage isn't a limited resource. A Barbarian that never rages is making themselves worse for no reason.

A Fighter that uses a weapon from a different group than the one they chose isn't just as good as other Martial, they're worse because the bonus from Weapon Specialization is lessened and the other Martials have other stuff they get as their thing. Fighter's thing is their higher proficiency. Without it they're a worse Ranger, Rogue, Champion etc.
The only reason a Fighter would use a weapon whose group they don't specialize in is because their weapon is very innefective in the encounter (Flying enemies for a Melee Fighter; Enemies are immune to their weapon's Damage type[s]), and even then it'd used as a backup weapon, or their gear was stolen.

"Can't use the lance that shoots lightning." Not true. Can use it as well as any martial. Can transfer lighting rune to weapon of their choice and thus shoot lightning with their fighter weapon mastery to-hit.

The "Lance that shoots lighting" was meant to be a Specific Magic Weapon. Can't transfer their abilities out. Could have made it clearer, that is true.

"Fighter gets nothing at level 5". A bonus +2 to hit with a group of weapons is not nothing, either literally or figuratively. For this system, +2 to hit - even with just some weapons - is a substantial quantitative benefit.

Here's the relevant section for context:

Nothing. Fighters don't get anything that other Martials don't also get at that level.

In fact, you could argue they get less, since other Martials have their weapon proficiency uniformly increase, even for weapons they cant' really use. The only other thing unique to Fighter is Combat Flexibility, and that is a Level 9 Feature.

What I was trying to say here is that Fighters, other than the proficiency increase, don't get anything that would justify such a limitation being imposed on them.

"Fighter literally unplayable." You've admitted this is hyperbole for emphasis. So we'll put that aside. But your underlying point seems to be that this makes the fighter an unnecessarily weak class.

That is in fact, NOT my point. I had made a reply to the fourth comment clarifying my intentions, but for some reason it just... disappeared, somehow?

I'll restate what I said there here: Fighter, in its current state is a perfectly fine class with no significant issues, and that my complaint is about an unnecessary restriction that if removed wouldn't really impact the balance of the game.

For clarity's sake, the hyperbole follows a "formula" used elsewhere, where the post or video would be about a (very) minor issue, and the commenters would respond with "literally unplayable", in an obvious use of irony.

This seems more like a silly joke post which boils down to Fighter is a great class, why complain when the system makes switching weapons difficult? The Fighter can be the most consistent hitter in the game which is pretty alright, the class is quite ltierally consistent perhaps special strikes.

If you want something more interesting then simply do not play Fighter. Fighter is only 1 of the many Martial classes in Pathfinder Second Edition.

First of all, this is not a joke post.

Second, I'm complaining because there's no good reason Fighters should be limited to a single weapon, especially when it isn't for the first 4 levels.
Am I nitpicking? Yes. But that doesn't mean my point is invalid.

As for your second point, how interesting Fighter is as a class is irrelevant to my argument.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Money and Runes I think is the big issue with multiple weapons ro anything similar to it honestly.

Even that part of the OP I found to be hyperbolic. It may be true that you don't have the money to max-rune a whole arsenal through direct purchase, but to use OP's example, if you find that really cool lance after specializing in polearms, you can transfer the runes over for 10% the cost of buying them.

And then what? You still have what is essentially a -2 penalty to hit with your lance, which you'll want to use since you deruned your polearm.

And if you want to retrain FWM to Lances, that will be a momth of downtime spent retraining RAW.

So, Fighter.

You all know the meme of 'Human Fighter'. It's as basic you can get: no worrying about being a multi eyed paranoid horse-thingy, no getting worked up setting up sneak attack, no spell slots to worry about, you just go up to the enemy and hit them in the head until they die.
Easy, clean and simple.

Now, Pathfinder Second Edition has brought a whole slew of improvement for the Martial classes, allowing them to contribute to the team as much as their spellcaster friends.

Among these changes, Fighter was given more of an identity to call its own. In D&D, Fighter is the class that... fights good. Kind of vague, don't ya think?
In Pathfinder 2e, Fighter is the class that... fights good. OK, that hasn't actually changed, but it now actually means something, thanks to the class' unique niche of being one step ahead in weapon proficiency compared to other Martials of the same level, allowing them to hit AND crit more often (Shut up Gunslinger. You too, Rogue. Off guard is not a proficiency bump.)

And that's where the problem lies.

See, most martials have a preference for weapons due to their mechanics: Barbarians don't like Agile weapons, Rogues want to use weapons with Finesse and Thaumaturge suffer by being a martial with a Key Attribute different from Strength or Dexterity etc.

Now, you'd think that Fighter with their higher proficiency would be the most free to choose a weapon, and for the first 4 levels you'd be right, but once you hit Level 5 you can say all of that goodbye, because Fighter Weapon Mastery forces you to commit to a single Weapon Group.
Want to use that cool Lance you found that shoots lighting? Too bad, you choose Polearms for your weapon group, and Lances's weapon group is Spears, not Polearms (why are they different we may never know), so you sell it because the rest of the party is playing Thaumaturge and you don't have the time to retrain.

Now you might say this is in exchange for some class feature Fighters get at level 5.
Well, let's see:
Nothing. Fighters don't get anything that other Martials don't also get at that level.
In fact, you could argue they get less, since other Martials have their weapon proficiency uniformly increase, even for weapons they cant' really use. The only other thing unique to Fighter is Combat Flexibility, and that is a Level 9 Feature.

You could instead say that's to keep the class from becoming too strong, except that's not true, since for the first 4 levels they get free reign to pick up any weapon they like (except Advanced ones but they're another can of worms I'm not gonna get into) and swing it around with their higher proficiency. Not only that, but once a Fighter reaches Level 19, they gain the Versatile Legend feature, allowing them to once again ignore weapon groups just like in the good old days. And I haven t heard a thing about Fighters terrorizing those level ranges.

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.
Where do we go from here?

Well, for all I ranted about Fighter Weapon Mastery being a bad feature, the idea of a Fighter specializing into a single Weapon Group isn't a bad one.
It just needs some polish:

First of all, it needs to be a choice on whether you focus on a single weapon group, or none at all.
Second, the choice should be made at level 1. Such a core part of a character's build should be made immediately, to let the character invest in it ASAP without it being kind of a waste (I'm looking at you Invulnerable Rager and Harbinger's Protection).
Third, there needs to be some kind of actual benefit for the tradeoff. Thankfully, Paizo has already done my job with the Slinger's Precision class feature: bonus precision damage, either +2 or +1d4. Since Fighter is all about consistency, I'll go with the +2 damage.
If that's too strong, we can instead let Fighters use Advanced Weapons of their weapon group without incurring in the proficiency drawback, since the budget for them is only one step of the damage die higher compared to Martial weapons. Whatever the bonus is, proficiency for weapons of other groups should be reduced to Trained and remain a step behind. Also, remove Versatile Legend, it's obsolete either way.

And if a Fighter doesn't want to specialize, no problem. They'll still get to enjoy a higher proficiency with their weapons.

So TL;DR fighter should have a choice between specializing or not, all the while keeping their higher proficiency bonus.

Like the Mythic rules were something they could have playtested, but so are the rules for guns.

Didh't they playtest the rules for guns alongside Gunslinger?

Yeah TBH the one thing you want to get right is Mythic.
It's a thin line between "extremely powerful but balanced", "Gamebreakingly overpowered" and "Kinda mid".

Which destinies would you consider weak if I may ask?

The first that comes to mind is Wildspell, following RAW, requires a Mythic Point and a Focus point to do its main thing, cast Spellsurge, a spell with horrible range (10 ft emanation), which requires an action tax either every turn or on the first and a second Mythic Point to expand it to 30 ft.

And to add insult to injury Spellsurge doesn't even distinguish between allies and enemies, meaning your enemies benefit just the same from the spell.
Its feats are good, sure, but Spellsurge drags everything down.

Beast Lord is also not great, but not as directly since it relies on animal conpanions (who really should be able to get Master proficency for their strikes even in normal pf2e), but doesn't improve them at all beyond allowing you both to reroll saves against emotion effects.
Compare that to Apocalypse Rider, who hands you a free Incredible Animal Companion, or upgrades your existing companion's damagie die by one step (yes its as incredibly underwhelming as it sounds).

It also isn't compatible with multiple animal companions, which while not gamebreaking is rather odd.

I'd also like to mention that while a fun archetype, Apocalypse Rider iverlaps with both Archfiend and Beast Lord.
Now, this wouldn't be neccesarily a bad thing by itself, it's kinda weird for it to be among the starting lineup.

I don't remember the source, but didn't Paizo say there won't be more "Core books", Since they're meant to be the ones you need at a minimum to play the game?

Monster Core 2 might have been planned originally and then scrapped, and whoever wrote the reference to it wasn't aware it wasn't released.

Someone said they can use Advanced Weapons as the base for their Weapon Innovation, but don't get the initial modification.

I'd like to see Ranged Unarmed attacks granted by stiff like Sprite's Spark, Foxfire, Spiend Azarketi etc. to be buffed:
Currently there are some Ranged Unarmed attacks that have a d4 for damage die, maximum range (not range increments) or both for seemingly no gain compared to ones such as Seedpod or innate cantrips. I'd like for those Ranged Unarmed attacks to be buffed to have a d6 damage die and 20 feet range increments.

Also, it seems really strange that the independent action an animal companion can us are limited to only Stride and Strike, and other movement types get nothing.
This is especially glaring with Amimal Companions with Fly speeds, which forces their owner to spend an action every turn to keep the in the air.

Ancestries

Good news for skittermanders who want to jump rope and wield a flamethrower at the same time: you are now going to be able to perform actions and use items with your other hands, but you can only wield items (such as shields and weapons) with your active hands

Multi-Armed ancestries have made a full recovery. Thaumaturges across the nation rejoice.

Traversal

One new element we'll be introducing is the traversal trait. This new trait mostly applies to player-facing rules that reference Stride. When it applies, traversal allows the use of alternative movement types (burrow, fly, and swim) to be used in place of land Speed, akin to how Sneak works. Expect to see this greatly impact some abilities used by the envoy and solarian (to name a few).

This is going to be so nice. Could you pretty please add something like that to haste?

I guess so.

Wait, didn't Howl come out after Rage? Why nothing for the kineticist?

'Cause the errata page got reorganized, the fall errata hasn't come out yet.

One of the notable changes you’ll see is an update to the sure strike spell. The spell could be very strong, with the reroll effectively making a much larger bonus than most abilities can grant. This benefit was usually in control at low levels when characters had few spell slots, but it could become disruptive and repetitive at higher levels on characters built to gain a huge number of copies of the spell and use it constantly. We’ve added temporary immunity to the spell, with the intent that it can still be very strong to create intense moments, but that there’s little incentive to use more than a handful of spell slots on it.

Sure Strike found dead in an alley. Millions of Magi are in mourning.

With the new errata,

Oh hey, that's actually a decent point I can get behind.

I'm very excited about Necromancer.
Getting to control a bunch of minion all at once is something that is really hard to do in Pf2e, so the class is bound to be interesting.

If I wanted to have edicts and anathema I needed to follow or suffer, I'd play as a Druid, Cleric or Champion.
Why do I have them if I'm playing as a freelancing Fighter?

I am curious given the timing of these things if the battle harbinger was designed before the remaster stuff got finalized. The battle harbinger with the premaster warpriest probably looks like a much stronger comparison. Warpriests got a lot of love in the remaster and really fits the niche of fighty cleric well now.

I doubt it, since it would have been made a long time ago, possibly for either Player Core, and then not revised at all even when it was decided it was going to be in DM. Especially if it was scrapped for not being good enough.

I feel like making Imprisonment Mythic takes away from its potential as a way to "defeat" an undefeatable threat as a non-Mythic party within the framework given by the system.

It kind of feels like these rituals were made Mythic just so Mythic has some meat mechanics wise, which it is lacking IMO.

Shame about physical only.
Not being in the US means high shipping costs, and I can't really justify them.

Sweet mama that's a lot of deities.

It didn't help that in threads addressing the issue, when Paizo staff responded it was largely to mock people having issues.

I'm going to need sources to back this statement mate. That's quite the extraordinary claim there.

"Both illustrations by Josef Kucera and "

And who? Did they forget to put the other artist's name in?

So the issue with Magus is that Spellstrike is too good to not spam, and that it wants to be a Psychic?

Clearly, the solution is to remove Spellstrike and give Magus the same amount of spell slots as Psychic.

I'm only half joking.

Being serious, the way I've seen Magus being talked and how it seems to be "Spellstrike: the class" instead of the Gish class makes me think Magus plays more like, and forgive me for this sin, a 5e Paladin instead of the Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight Hexblade or "Fighter×Wizard" it seems to be advertised as.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a playstyle centered around big hits being viable, what's wrong is that there doesn't seem to be an option to mostly ignore Spellstrike.

I'll admit, I'm not an expert at the game (I've played like 5 sessions of the game, none which were as a spellcaster or Magus).

EDIT: maybe you could make Spellstrike into a Focus Spell?

Please don't be 90% human statblocks. I'm fine with statblocks that don't account for ancestry.

Lawyers work slow. Good ones, anyways. Especially when responding to a backlash, where you really don't want to have to come back a third time.

Fair enough.