PathMaster's page

The supreme court of Pathfinder has found the Animist guilty of the most heinous crime of all: being overpowered!
Thus it has been sentenced to capital punishment, to be carried post-haste!

However, its defense lawyer has proposed an alternative: nerfing the class so it is more in line with the currently existing ones, and in exchange it will be spared the death penalty.

The supreme court accepted the proposal, but the Animist's defense lawyer has no idea how to do that, so they have turned to YOU for help.

How would you nerf the class?

A couple notes:
1) We are trying to nerf it to the power level of the other classes, nerfing it into the ground is not a useful idea, but the Animist can end up a little bit more powerful than standard if the alternative would leave it too weak.
2) Try to keep the mechanics as close as you can, but if if to make the Animist more balanced you have to drastically alter it, that's fine, I just ask you to explain your reasoning.
3) If you feel that the multiclass archetype needs changes other than those resulting from changes to the main class and/or the main class is altered enough that the multiclass archetype needs changes, feel free to write them as well.

Will we be able to make custom characters in vanilla?

I hope they let Mechanic use Intelligence for its Attack Rolls, like Investigator, as currently it is a very Multiple Attribute Dependant class which is frankly at odds with the system (Key Attribute Score and the skill system for the main examples).
Having a -1 compared to other martials is fine, being made to invest in 2 stats just to end up only as strong as classes dependent on a single stat isn't great.
Yes, other classes with this problem exist. No, that does not mean it is not a problem.

As for Technomancer, Ammo Infector Virus should have been a spellshape ability and they should be able to mail themselves.

One quick question though? Will caster classes like Technomancer and Mystic have access to spell levels higher than 6th? I can understand the need to cut down on the sheer power 7th, 8th, 9th, and even 10th spell slots can give but maybe there might be a way to limit that (aka make 7th, 8th, and 9th spell slots usable only once a day and even 10th level spell slots a powerful ritual perhaps)?

...the answer is that Starfinder 2e casters have the same rank progression as a Pathfinder ones.

Most "create a weapon" guides I've seen put Reload's budget as 1 die size, when 2 handed is considered "bad" enough to be worth 2 die sizes.

I do think Reload is undervalued at its current value and should be bumped to 2 die sizes (the general sentiment seems that Reload is at least equal of a drawback compared to 2 handed).

Therefore, as a basic solution, I propose we increase the die size of all non-firearm reload weapons by 1. Simple, easy and (mostly) clean

For Firearms I propose a crazier idea: add Deadly to them.
And yes, this is meant to stack with the already present Fatal trait.
Is this balanced? Probably not! This definitely feels very powerful, but maybe I'm overstimating its power!
That's why I'll ask you to give me your thoughts on this idea.

There is no mechanical difference between slowed and stunned.

That's actually incorrect: Stunned prevents you from taking reactions, Slowed does not.

The first thing that comes to mind would be Ranged Flanking.
It would basically be just the current Flanking rules, but instead of two creatures having to be in melee, only one of them needs to be, or hell, even none at all, and instead of using reach it would use the first range increment (For attack spells and others attack roll ranged attack that just have range we treat that as the first increment.)

Another thing is that if you took cover you should at least be able to downgrade the amount of protection your cover gives to the enemy if not completely ignore it because if it doesn't you're not really benefiting from it unless some of the enemies are on the other side of the cover, which they probably won't.

I am just spitballing here, but hey, I figured it would get the ball rolling.

I feel like Paizo is trying to make rhe errata fit the books, that's why we haven't gotten stuff like "Making Kineticist more compatible with the rest of the system" or "Clarifying what an instance of damage is".
Needless to say, that's dumb.
Unless you're writing errata for a book you're remastering (which I do have a couple issues with Paizo's approach) it's frankly better to just fix what is broken and worry later if it fits the physical books.

Well... with Dragonkin from Starfinder in at Large, Dragonbloods being able to niche into medium, Kobolds being Small, I wonder if Dragonets will be Tiny to round out the size categories.

Dragonbkoods can be any size. They're a Versatile Heritage.

Well, this was not on my list today. I'm not dissapointed though

The errata is cool and all, but you kind of didn't adress Robot companions having an additional tier compared to Animal Companions while not having any rule adressing what it actually does.

The physical book ships from the US, right?

It could be because the playtest didn't manage to do that.

Or your GM didn't make long range that common.

Really, it could be any number of factors.

Focusing more on the 1-10 range is something I can understand completely, but never publishing 11+ SFS adventures is something I can't really get behind.
Especially as others have pointed out that higher starting levels might alleviate the issue entirely.
Hope that this decision will be reverted.

The Mystic and Witchwarper also come from a playtest that dealt with the system as a whole, so their balance isn't a strong argument for casters of other playtests.

So, the long awaited Tech Core Playtest is finally here, bringing with it the Mechanic and Technomancer, who are the last in a series of classes whose Key Attribute is Intelligence (Paizo really loves smart fellas, uh?).

They're both pretty neat classes, who both funnily seem in some way to improve on classes Pathfinder has already taken a shot at with Technomancer having a better implementation of "schools" and "school slots", and Mechanic filling better the idea of an Inventor capable of modifying their gear.

But this isn't the point of the post.

The point is that Mechanic's Key Attribute only covers half of the class. Allow me to explain:

-The Mechanic starts trained in Simple and Martial weapons, and increases its proficiencies at level 5 and 13, like every single Martial and Gish in the game;
-It gains Weapon Specialization at level 7 and improves it into its greater version at level 15, like every other Martial and (good) Gish;
-Its not going to use its Class DC as often as a Kineticist and Soldier or a Spellcaster with their Spell DC to warrant worse Strikes, except when selecting a Mine Exocortex, which is only one of the options available to a class.

Mechanic is a Martial, there's no doubt about that, and as a Martial it's going to want to Strike its enemies, and to do that they're going to want to have their Strength or Dexterity at +4 to hit as often as possible, but uh oh, its Key Attribute is Intelligence, which can't be used for Strikes.

This means that in order to reach the power other classes reach by having a +4 in their Key Ability Score, Mechanic is going to need to have to also get +3 in Strength or Dexterity, leaving the rest of the stats at either +1 or 0 (I have ignored Ancestries with 3 boosts and a flaw for simplicity's sake).

Needless to say, this isn't great. It doesn't ruin the class by any means, sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be better, as seen with the Cleric and Investigator remasters. (Admittedly a big buff for Cleric)

How do we fix this? The answer is surprisingly simple: just allow Int to be used for Strikes' Attack Rolls.

Ok, it's not just that.
Remember when I said that Intelligence can't be used for Strikes? That's not completely true, there is a class that can add the Intelligence modifier instead of the usual modifiers to the Attack Rolls of Strikes: Investigator.

How do they do that? Thanks to Devise a Stratagem, which allows to use Intelligence when Striking the target of the ability instead of Strength of Dexterity, so long as the weapon has the Agile or Finesse traits, is Ranged or is a Sap.

Now, we can't just slap Devise a Stratagem on the Mechanic, since that's the Investigator's thing, but we can draw inspiration from it, by tying the ability to add Intelligence to a Strike's Attack Roll to one of the Mechanics preexisting abilities.

There are two ways we could do this, in my opinion:
1) We can allow you to add your Intelligence modifier when Striking with a weapon under the effects of Modify, or
2) We tie it to the Exocortexes (for example, when a creature has taken damage from one of our Exocortexes).

What do you think?

TL;DR Mechanic should be able to add the Intelligence modifier to Strikes' attack Roll

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?

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'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.

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.

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.

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.