Plane's page

Chat GPT is not infallible. It straight up lies sometimes. You can point it out. It will apologize. Then the next question it restates the lie.

Last week I was tracking a package that got held up at a UK city. Interested to know if the shipper had an air hub there or not (so I would understand if it was about to leave the country or not), I asked GPT who confidently explained it did indeed. It went on to tell me how important it was as a logistics hub. I was so impressed with my knowledge acquisition speed, I texted my friend about the scenario. We marveled at how well informed we were. That package ended up not making it any further and was returned to the shipper.

This week the package arrived on its second attempt. Guess which city it flew out of to my country? Not the one GPT told me had an air hub. It went to another city and flew out from there. I did some searching on my own, and sure enough GPT was wrong. There was no airport at all there.

I still use GPT. This was a good reminder, however, that before you use any knowledge it provides, you should double check it yourself.

Edicts and anathemas are written to be general so that players can have some flexibility. The point is not to follow them "correctly" in a way that ruins fun at the table. Try to use them as roleplay supports instead of limiters.

It's possible to fit everything a character can do including attacks, spells, feats, and items on a single page without resorting to tabs. The amount of wasted space on the sheet is a non-starter. The icons for the actions on this sheet indent their section which eliminates a significant vertical block of real estate in a prime location.

For my preference, a superior design is to use tabbed sections to enter feat, skill, attack, and spell choices, but then consolidate the outputs of those onto a Play tab with hover-over or drill-in information. During play, you rarely need to navigate the character sheet, because everything you need to see is on the main Play tab for you. My preference is the information. I don't care about graphics. They waste space that could be used for information.

This is not even remotely how crossbows, slings, or firearms work. You reload them as an action, but you're not holding the ammo before or afterward.

Beyond the tangent about ammunition, bows aren't valid for one extremely obvious reason: Both weapon implement and implement esoterica require a one-handed weapon. Bows are not one-handed weapons.

This is not an honest argument. That's not how holding works. Pour a beer in a mug. Hold the mug in your hand. You are holding a beer in your hand. It's in a mug, but no one will agree you aren't holding a beer because it's an object removed.

Put a bolt in a crossbow. In your hand is now a crossbow and a bolt. If the ranged weapon's ammo isn't covered as valid esoterica for the bow, it isn't covered by the crossbow. The bolt is in your hand. Saying it isn't is mental gymnastics.

As for the handedness, I quoted Michael Sayre saying that's not how the rule is intended to be read. Take it however you like at your table, but it looked clear to me.

It's clear the extra damage for the class is intended to compensate for, not add to, 2H weapon damage above d8. Bows don't do that kind of damage, so it doesn't make sense why they wouldn't be valid weapon implements.

I agree the ammo is a tangent. There are responses saying the class isn't broken in general terms or that other classes break the rules. I disagree other classes break rules. You compare the abilities of the new class against existing dynamics to get a sense of balance. I've listed specifics. They are significantly off the typical power scale in each case. It's the kind of imbalance I see on the Pathfinder 3pp channel when new classes pop up. The most egregious is Scroll Thaumaturgy, a single L1 feat that replaces 90% of the Scroll Trickster dedication and all its feats through L20. On top of that, it eliminates the need for a free hand. That's bonkers. The class is full of stuff like this, but that alone is way off.

I don’t understand your logic. As far as I understand it, when wielding a bow, the answer to the first question is “two”. The answer to the second question is also “two”. This would be different for any one-handed weapon with the ability to wield in two hands. Then it could be “one” and “one”; or “one” and “two”.

I disagree. The CRB p276 describes 1+ thusly: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+

Nowhere in the 1+ description does it say you ever wield the weapon in two hands.

If people are making the argument that the arrow is not a valid esoterica item to be holding, they are forgetting that that holds true for the hand crossbow and sling as well. Every ranged weapon also holds ammunition before firing. By that logic, no ranged weapon is valid. Since the weapon implement reaction clearly does not intend for that to be true by allowing a 10' trigger for its reaction when wielding a ranged weapon, ranged weapons, and therefore their ammunition, must be valid implements.

Plane wrote:

Ok, found Implement's Empowerment: "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon"

If a bow doesn't work, because it's "1+" and a bastard sword held in two hands can't use a shifting rune to turn into a greataxe, why would the quoted text above disqualify a bastard sword gripped with both hands? (Playing devil's advocate here to understand.)

You're trying to claim that the rules would allow you to wield a bastard sword in 2 hands and still use Implement's Empowerment?

Uh, no.

Even if you find some convoluted line of argument that could conceivably allow that no sane GM in the world would allow it. If you tried it on me I'd just laugh in your face :-) (including in PFS).

Just trying to get ahead of the players argument and understand what the consensus is. I'm new to the thaumaturge ability conversation. Thanks.

of P2, steals abilities from other classes, and adds those abilities in better forms. There are no restrictions on all its whack mechanics, and I can't understand how it was released by Paizo.

- Esoteric Lore is an uber lore, but unlike Bardic Lore or the Loremaster, it auto-scales at the minimum level. The other lores cap at expert when you've spent 4 skill increases to reach legendary at 15th. It's also Charisma based?!? What sense does that make? Why does Charisma have anything to do with knowing things? 1 feat let's you apply it to any topic at a -2, but the accelerated, free skill increases nullify and blow past that compared to Bardic/Loremaster. Further, those other lores are Int-based. Thaum's class stat is Cha, so this is pretty much assured to be maxxed. There's another thread arguing that this is required for the Exploit Vuln shtick, but that grants bonus damage even on a fail, so why does lore have to break in favor of this 1 class?
- Weapon Implement reaction also triggers on Concentrate which Reactive Strike doesn't. If you want to use a ranged weapon as the other reaction classes, you need a fighter/paladin feat to do it, and you need additional feats to expand it. Weapon Implement gives you 10' range right off the bat for free. That's 5' further than Reactive Strike![/list]
- Every other class in the game needs feats for hand action economy. At L5, Thaumaturge swaps implements as free actions?!? That includes weapons. For free. Again, no feats required. Meanwhile, rogue and ranger have to spend a feat just to draw and attack with the same action and only for weapons.
- Scrolls don't need any check to use. It's only an L1 feat, and it's automatic for every single spell. Oh, and of course you can hold them in your implement hand, so you don't need to worry about hands for much of anything. You can start battle with implements in hand and scrolls in both hands plus a third scroll in gloves of storing to cast 3 spells in combat without spending extra actions just like a spellcaster. (Classes archetyping into Thaum can also abuse this for only 2 feats. Now a dual-wielding martial can cast scrolls out of their "implement" hand.)
- Cursed Effigy doesn't require anything, not even being adjacent. Just "Strike", spend 1A, now your Exploit Vuln foe is at -2 status penalty to saves vs... that's right your spell scrolls which cast automatically at your Class DC (expert at 9th) based off your class stat (cha) so it's easier for you to land spells than a wizard.
- Intensify Vulnerability for Weapon Implement for 1 action, gives you a +2 status bonus to hit your Exploit Vuln target. I realize fighter can get heroism and buff status as well, but still this ability puts the Thaumaturge's weapon accuracy on par with the fighter at L9 with no investment. It's just part of the class.
- There is no success criteria for targeting a creature with Exploit Vulnerability. Thaumaturge abilities only state they work against the target of your Exploit Vulnerability. They don't care if you failed or crit failed the roll. If you don't think that's true, look at the Failure result. You still apply personal antithesis damage. When you spend 1A to Exploit, you successfully "targeted."
- Class DC goes to Master at 17th. This automatically raises scroll spellcasting DC to Master for free. Any other character dipping into spellcasting has to spend feats to get Expert and Master level casting.

I'm late to the game. Yes, I'm just reading the class now to help build a 10th level replacement character. Scrolls are dirt cheap at this level. Thaum has a bow in one hand along with a scroll of some debuff like Slow. In free hand is a Sure Strike scroll.
Turn 1: Exploit Vuln, Sure Strike, Strike with bow.
Turn 2: Cursed Effigy, Cast Slow on foe who now automatically has a -2 status penalty to save at the same DC as the wizard in the party.

It looks fun as heck to do some combination of the above, but it ignores and rewrites basic mechanics and feats in order to advantage the Thaumaturge more than other classes. It's on a full martial chassis that automatically grants Master spellcasting (L1 scroll feat) with no feat investment beyond that and with the class stat also being the spellcasting stat. I rarely take the time to post something this critical. I'm truly a Paizo fan and don't enjoy casting shade. Thaumaturge looks like a third party class more than a Paizo level class, what am I missing?

Thanks for chiming in, James. It's a challenging situation, and your team is making awesome sauce out of it. I can't wait to get my digital hands on the remaster.

After learning these names since 1980, I am excited to let them go in favor of something completely disconnected from that other company. Anyone who wants to keep calling things by their legacy names is welcome to. The safety of being disconnected from legacy is such a relief when I think about the future of Paizo and the best iteration of the game...

...That is about to get even better! I still can't believe how much feedback is being acted on to improve the game after just a few short years of P2's release. I've never been more excited about the game as now.

There was some news about fire actually iirc.

Communities like Absalom will stop demonizing fire as a destroyer, and fire will become a playable ancestry.

Others may think you're looking for an opportunity to spread your people at any cost by lighting them on fire, but fire does a lot of good, too. It cooks, it cleans, and it spreads warmth.

In combat, you look for opportunities to spread your people by setting things on fire.

Hasbro and WotC are fools. If they wanted a piece of the action, they should have contributed to it. Writing premium content (Critical Role) is a ton of work. They could have offered to put a team on it and then advertised the adventure for sale.

Spreading goodwill by fostering a great community is where it's at. That's always been the way. Now Paizo has the initiative and a strong enough position that people are excited to see some sacred cows removed at last.

It's turning out to be a great year for the game.

I don't want to come to the forums anymore, because there's so much remaster discussion ongoing. I heard so many awesome things coming, I'm too excited now. The best iteration of the game to date is getting better. There's way more goodness coming than I expected in my wildest dreams. It's overwhelmingly positive, and it says incredible things about Paizo recognizing its ability to change in this tumultuous moment. I just want to send my money and get my pdfs, and I want it now.

The wait for the remaster is killing me.

Also, thanks, WotC!!! None of this would have been possible without you.

Since we're back on this topic, and ignoring the 7th level premise, I think the cheaziest way would be...

Start at L1. Start young, not ridiculously young, but something with a fantasy precedent like 12. Start with assurance in your lore. Work 7 days a week for 10 years at L1 tasks. Start the game with over 11,782 gp at a respectable adventuring age of 22.

(It's late. I didn't really do the math.)

One of the reasons for this, narratively speaking...

Excellent post. I love hearing from the Paizo team like this. You all should participate more often. Thank you.

OP, I have been playing since '81, and I am a third party publisher. Your view of pricing structure and TTRPG business practice is unrealistic and frankly toxic. In the history of publishing in the industry, Paizo has a fair track record. They're not perfect (looking at you paizo.com cookie corruption), but they're a positive force for the hobby that my company tries to emulate.

You should self reflect, and if this community isn't for you, that's fine.

You get a lot of grimaces talking about the failings of the lance in regards to mounted combat. It has the Jousting and Reach traits, so not getting use out of that combo shuts down most consideration of the weapon. I've looked at it theorycrafting an L1 ranger with Horse animal companion looking to charge in for max damage. There's no point lowering your damage to d6 to get some circ dmg bonuses. You're better off with a maul.

It's a martial spear though. 2H but it has Reach. That's a plus. D8, the damage is poor for 2H, but at least it has strong crits thanks to Deadly d8. Then there's the overlooked crit spec effect. Spears inflict Clumsy 1 until the start of your next turn. That's nasty. Is this a viable weapon for your martial dungeon explorer? Absolutely.

No, this doesn't fix the mount-reach issue (sad, yes), but can you use it as your primary (reach) weapon and be effective? Absolutely.

My next ready-to-go character is based around being able to use Call of the Grave "for free" in every fight. Combined with True Strike, it will occasionally end an encounter and will almost always have a significant impact. With a Reach weapon, you can easily set this up to give you a flanking bonus to your spell attack roll. Even against an above level threat, you can give yourself a 30% crit chance.

Focus Points are a renewable resource, and True Strike is easy to get a lot of. Two actions for this Focus Spell never crossed my mind as expensive. One action to remove Sickened 1 plus a -1 to everything is good effect and action economy. When you score Sickened 2 and Slowed 1, you automatically shut down a boss' entire next turn or the next two or more if they fail any of their Sickened checks.

IMHO, Call of the Grave is Sick! ;)

I'd give AoO to my players swallowed. Why wouldn't I? They're already in a super bad position. If the swallower was dumb enough to swallow a fighter still wielding sharp stabby things instead of the cleric, I'd let the fighter use the class abilities they invested their character in. Stab away.

A top tier RPG company producing a version upgrade to a proven AP with "thousands and thousands of players" who played the 1e version should have high quality maps. There's no excuse for what went into the player's guide.

Dozens of high-end maps by amateurs can be discovered with a quick google search for "fantasy hex map." One of the stand outs near the top is The Mule Abides' map for interestingly enough Adventurer Conquerer King. Paizo could have hired one any one of these cartographers for a few hundred dollars to produce something nice to play on without rivers that flow up mountain ridges.

Overall 3/5
Concept 5/5
Mechanics 4/5
Cartography 0/5

I've been anticipating Kingmaker 2E eagerly and looking for a group to play it with, so when I got my hands on the Player's Guide, I devoured it, twice, and then some more. Here's how it looks.

Concept 5/5
First, Paizo whiffed on a great opportunity to modernize while separating the P2 version from P1: Queenmaker. Really, it's time we let gendered titles loosen up, and people would have still recognized the product lineage.

As for the concept, it's super cool. Paizo isn't the first to expand the game's ruleset into dominion management, but they hit the sweet spot for a campaign that provides rules for the play style. Carve out my own kingdom with my friends? Run it the way we want? Politics, resource management, AND monster bashing? Awesomeness!

Mechanics 4/5
I'll start upfront with why this is not a 5. It's not a dominion management system first. It's Pathfinder, a d20 tactical 5x5' RPG with the queendom mechanics tacked on. Now that said, it's a pretty darn sweet system. There is tons to do. In true Paizo fashion, it's all about options, options, options. It looks fun without being too clunky. I still expect the mechanics to require some GM handwavium to smooth them out. The system isn't as thoroughly balanced and considerate as the core P2 mechanics

- Suggested Character Options: This is a bit of a head scratcher. I get the idea: here's what will or won't work in this campaign, or put another way, here's what's easiest to run. I don't think it succeeds very well. Why is there an Alignments column if you recommend "Any" and don't recommend "-"? Why is there a Not Recommended Row if nothing isn't recommended against except Cleric of a deity that isn't specified or hinted at? The format is poor.

- Prominent Citizens: I'm torn on these. They are information on an NPC but specifically a quest NPC. The details can be deep, and then the quest is described, sometimes in detail along with motivations, triggers, and reactions. If they are presented as, "Here's what you know about these NPCs based on rumor, but it may not be true," then that's a cool angle. I like the idea of my character recognizing people and having a prejudged opinion formed about them. I don't understand why any quest information would be shared here though other than the basic hook. I can see that being offputting to GMs or wading into spoiler info for players. I'm also open to the idea of it being a bit gamier than usual in some ways, so again torn on these.

- Backgrounds: There could have been more effort put into these. It's a player's campaign guide, and there are only 7.

Cartography 0/5
I'm stunned by the poor quality of the cartography. I can't imagine playing on the included hex maps. The scale is not mentioned in the book or noted on the maps. North is not up. That's not unheard of, but it's awkward, especially on disconnected maps. The maps look like someone's first attempt at using old cartography software. Landscape elements are poorly merged together like trees with shadows mixed crudely with splotches of flattened green forest texture. Scattered rocks from the tactical dungeon artpack incongruously dot blurry plain-esque textures. The mountains are hard to make out and some of the more poorly drawn I've seen. You can kind of tell ridges and higher altitudes, but then the rivers run haphazardly up and down the slopes. Lakes and rivers are unrealistic (on a map trying to breach the artistic side of mapping with realistic textures). They are thick, clunky, and poorly drawn. Their borders merge poorly with the landscape. Looking at satellite maps, you can see how real rivers and bodies of water interact and flow. These maps show no understanding of basic water flow. You have rivers going every direction on the same map. At this scale, that's implausible. It looks awful. The road-paths are similarly crude and thick.

The maps are so bad, I had to write this review. I can't see myself playing the AP until someone in the community releases their own decent version. Paizo!? Dang, girl.

Finding above level items is incredibly fun. That's a staple in my campaigns.

Where's Ravingdork in this thread? You always start interesting threads. I want to hear more details from the questions raised. In particular, what was the negative consequence for the party, and what was their reaction?

Read thread title as you playing your first game with a table full of people who were strapped, lol. I need to go to bed!

Lol nothing like a group photo of the party packing heat around the christmas tree! /s

I love the high fantasy genre. Being separated from technology and living in a time with the old ways and magic is a fantasy for me. The arquebus made a debut in 2nd edition D&D, and I recall thinking the concept was interesting. However, I was never interested in adding guns into my fantasy genre.

When I heard about them for Pathfinder, it was still a no for me. No, I don't even want to think about what that means for the game world. I just want to stick to my high fantasy fantasy. Funny though, my campaign entered an alternate timeline where I had a bizarre goblin community (think Dragonbone Chair trilogy goblins) using them, and my players armed up. So as much as I considered myself a no-guns, high fantasy only gamer, perhaps my stance had room for openings.

Fast forward to P2 today, and I'm in a new group playing a RotR conversion. Someone rolled up a shoony gunslinger, and I'm wondering how I'll reconcile this double slap in the face to my precious genre. I'm not a fan of animal-headed ancestries. They feel low effort from a creativity standpoint: Here's a new ancestry, but instead of a human head, it's a cat's or a dog's or a bird's or a <insert your favorite pet>'s head.

Ok, whatever. I get to play instead of GM for once. I'm already stepping outside of my normal magic-using, optimized characters and playing a heavily handicapped martial for a unique roleplaying challenge. We get through session 0 and session 1, and I didn't have a problem with the guns. I was having too much fun roleplaying, and the shoony's roleplay was great, so what did it matter what ancestry he was using and that he was using guns?

Has this changed my mind? No, but it was a reminder to stay open-minded. I probably won't block guns from future campaigns, and I may or may not employ them as GM. I'm going to continue focusing on group fun and relaxing with friends.

Also, you don't have to block. You can keep casting it solely for the AC bonus.

I predict virtually no system changes other than some streamlining. Instead, it will have wild new art including homages to the Elmore and Easley works of the early years. It will be all about capturing the atmosphere of the past ages and introduce throwback magic items, npcs, monsters, and some reworked classic quests. Nostalgia and production value will rocket Anniversary Edition to fantastic commercial success, and it will be great for the TTRPG industry as a whole.

This question drives at the heart of what's fair and what's fun. It's fun to win certainly, but less so when you know your GM is pulling punches. Surviving and winning against a challenging fight is rewarding.

There's a balance GMs need to maintain. Intelligent tactics won't be appropriate in every fight. Having your super weapon stolen or getting hit repeatedly while Dying isn't a good time, but having those things possible will make your challenges feel more real.

So, sure, have your bandits play dirty this time without feeling guilty. Try to do it in a way that's not going to cause permanent harm (loss of the sword) or a TPK to give your players a taste of the kind of threat these bandits are. If your players realize they're playing for keeps, they can adjust their tactics to prepare for the worst and hopefully hedge their bets in the encounters to come.

The GM is trusted to create a world in which it's possible to win. Fighting an ancient red dragon is cool. Fighting 20 of them at once? Probably less so. Use the same litmus test for dirty tactics, and above all else find a balance that your players enjoy.

GM discretion for me, too. If the player is cheesing, no. If they invest a sliver of roleplay? Sure.

"Innate connection to stone?" This is typical P2 flavor to me. Would a dwarf raised on a sailing ship have this just for being a dwarf? Nothing in the ancestry says so. That's why it's in a selectable feat. Can your human who spent their life raised by dwarves around stone develop this? GM's discretion, a yes for me.

It's the same story for the dwarven build. You aren't necessarily born with a build. You "build" it. Sure, there are predispositions, but if my player in this example is saying their time in cramped tunnels with heavy burdens, dwarven style armor, mining, and forging gave them a shorter, stockier "dwarf-like" build? It's a yes for me.

If they're not building around this kind of a story and just want the feat? I would encourage a roleplaying solution where possible. If it's an elf they describe as tall and slender with a dancer's body and performance related profession to support dance? No, now our flavor doesn't mesh, and it's clear there's potential cheese. Is there a way to reskin this feat to work with a dancer? Sure, let's have fun with it. After all, I'm the GM. Why can't I decide to allow what's fun?

Its an age of sail world designed to have countless gods

This sounds really cool. I'm a classic setting fan, but SAO opened my eyes to more variety like this. Well done.

CRB p17: Actions
Single actions use this symbol: [one-action]. They’re the simplest, most common type of action. You can use three single actions on your turn in an encounter, in any order you see fit

CRB p10: Encounters
In the course of your adventures, there will be times when a simple skill check is not enough to resolve a challenge—when fearsome monsters stand in your character’s way and the only choice is to do battle. In Pathfinder, this is called an encounter. Encounters usually involve combat, but they can also be used in situations where timing is critical, such as during a chase or when dodging hazards.
While exploration is handled in a free-form manner, encounters are more structured...

CRB p634: Minions
Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands.... If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

The text under minions is written explicitly for encounters. We know this, because it uses "Actions" rules and terminology. We know Actions are used for Encounters. The minion encounter rules are not intended to cover situations outside of encounters like exploration mode, downtime, or roleplaying in general.

The rules for minions are well written when you consider they are for encounters only. I think they elegantly balance the benefits of having a minion with action economy to be fair to everyone at the table and also fun.

The recent wizard niche thread got me thinking about a preconception from P1 I had: Arcane casters have more spells unique to Arcane than any other tradition. I ran the numbers, and it's not true. Here's the breakdown.

Exclusive Spells P2 (exported from Nethys, "All" tab is the main sheet, totals at bottom)

Spell Tradition - Unique/Total
Arcane - 13/343
Divine - 27/185
Occult - 29/300
Primal - 42/246

What does this mean? From a quantity standpoint, Wizards have access to the most spells in their spell list. That's only 14% more than Occult casters and 85% more than Divine casters. Wizards have the least amount of spells unique to the Arcane spell list. That's less than half of Divine and less than a third of Primal.

What are their unique spells?
- Befuddle (enc), Summon Construct (con)H, Temporary Tool (con), Shrink Item (tra), Summon Dragon (con)H, Disintegrate (evo)H, Contingency (abj)H, Entrancing Eyes (enc)SU, Power Word Blind (enc)HU, Spell Turning (abj)U, Power Word Stun (enc)HU, Power Word Kill (enc)HU, Wish (div)

One of those is (S) from an adventure, and five are (U)ncommon.

What qualitative insights does this reveal?
- Where there is more than one spell of a shared theme, it can be seen there is some summoning capability unique to wizards and the Power Word line of spells. It's not enough to demonstrate a unique niche that is clearly the Arcane caster's own, not compared to Divine or Primal whose unique spells are highly thematic (Primal casters have shape change, elemental effects, and nature effects for example). The unique list is too small to draw further conclusions.

Personal Conclusions?
- Wizards have the highest quantitative variety of spells to choose from (although they lack total versatility like healing). Wizards don't have significant numbers of spells that only Arcane casters have access to. It's not a very exclusive list. Occult and Primal have significant overlap with Arcane, almost as many spells to choose from, plus healing.

Someone mentioned Occult eating Arcane's lunch in a recent thread. The numbers tend to agree. I still like Wizards. I've gone through all the stages I see repeated in the threads (denial, anger, rationalization, etc.), and I'm fine with the magic nerfs now. I do wish Wizards had more unique spells, better focus spells, and feats worth taking.

Anyway, anyone surprised by the spread?

How do I make a bat familiar?

Frequent the same places initially. Snacks, berries are easy and popular. Find out its interests over coffee. Pay attention to the little details like coloration. Give it time. It'll happen eventually.

I built a shapeshifter caster and wanted to see which forms were optimal for which level as much as you can tell from the base stats. This isn't to min/max so much as it is to see if there are any major differences by form by level. Certainly, the form options themselves play a huge role in deciding what you polymorph into. Do you need to climb on the ceiling? Fly? See in the dark? Poison, tank, use reach? Those are still individual choices...

...but if you ever wanted to see a comparison L2-5, here you go.

(not all spells heighten past 5th, and when you get to L6 Dragon Form, it's too crazy to compare)

Good research, PawnJJ. Mark Seifter seals it as pre-errata. It was a fun one though.

My eyes rolled so far at this, they came back around to cool. Right on!

I don't think this will turn into a pf1 vs pf2 two thing at all. the question is a fair question.

I think the niche is that PF2 is TTRPG that's comes the closest to capturing the tropes in how most party based high fantasy novels are actually written.

Very rarely are bosses one shoted. The difficulty of challenges seem to scale even though the heroes themselves are getting more powerful.

One of the wierd things ive always found about both pathfinder novels and D&D novels, is I always felt, the games never play out the way the novels do.

I like how you put this. It resonates with me this way, too.

For me, my first impression of P2 was wary acceptance. I had a feeling it was a better game. The action system was clearly superior, but my gut rebelled at some of the major changes. After reading it thoroughly and playing it, however, I was all in. P2 is my favorite iteration of the game ever, and I started playing 40 years ago.

OP, it's funny you came looking for 4E, because that's the system that drove me away from D&D to Pathfinder. The tactical nature was too MMOG imitating, and the game itself was unrecognizable as D&D for me. The irony of that is MMOGs were an imitation of TTRPGs, so 4E trying to compete with a shadow of itself that can run 24/7 seemed senseless.

To me, P2 feels like a recognizable and advanced evolution of the original game. If you had handed it to me in the 80s, I would have recognized it and come to the same conclusion that this was a superior way to enjoy the game the way I like it. I don't know where the game goes from here, but I love where it's at today. Actions, build choices, feat silos, and archetypes are genius, and the balance to it all is elegant.

From the consumable rules:

"Once you activate the ammunition, you must shoot it before the end of your turn. Otherwise, it deactivates (but it isn’t consumed) and you must activate it again before you can use it."

So no.

Oh, Goodberry. The more I think about situational requirement effects, the less I like them. Goodberry requires ripe berries. There are no rules in P2 on berry availability, so it's just a headache to try to deal with this. Should the spell's power be better than a Heal, because you can't cast it most of the time due to a lack of nearby growing berries? Because it's not. Should you ever even try to make situational spells like this better? What if you're in a berry-filled forest for a campaign? Then it's over-powered?

Flavor is awesome. I love fluff, but this is the kind of situational rule that arbitrarily ruins mechanics - like the Herbalist dedication. Poor thing gets half as many herbalism reagents in a city? Come on.

Plane wrote:

You have an ex-military explosives person who wants to enjoy himself hurling bombs at the table top. Encourage him to do his thing. Alchemist fire sounds right up his alley.

There are lots of ways to spruce up the class. If damage is his thing, go Beastmaster L2 and pick up a bird. For 1 Action, he can send his bird to a foe up to 60' away to Support right away. Then 2nd Action, hurl a bomb at that foe. Even on a miss, you will deal 1 splash damage triggering the bird's Support power: 1d4 Bleed + Dazzled that lasts until the Bleed persistent damage ends. You still have a 3rd Action left for more shenanigans.

That doesn't work, the splash damage on a fail triggers from the splash trait, not from the strike. It works on a success though.

It's a strike that does damage. That's the trigger listed in the bird's support description. The splash trait is on the martial weapon (bomb) you just performed the Strike with. Weapons do damage on unsuccessful strikes from other traits like Forceful. I've never read anywhere that "traits" are an entity that inflicts damage as opposed to the weapon with that trait and thus the Strike. Can you quote a rule to support your statement?

Play an alchemist yourself and see how you like it.

Just a note that the attack value given in the top level Battle Form spells does equate very closely to a barbarian or other standard martial, at the level it first appears. So there are ways of being OK.

Obviously you need to work on it a bit to make it a good tactic but it is there.

My "Civilized Shapeshifter" character focuses on this. Primal Sorcerer instead of Druid (I don't like the "uncomfortable in civilization" anathema). Max Charisma allows for Demoralize. Top level spell slots for Animal Form, Insect Form. I don't like L2, L4 Sorc feats, so not missing much to go Fighter dedication L2, Attack of Opportunity L4. What can it do?

Casts spells like a normal sorcerer. When ready to wade into battle:
Uses Battle Form spells with top spell level.
Gains same stats as a non-fighter martial.
Has Attack of Opportunity - many forms have reach (15' frog tongue?)

L6 picks up sorcerer focus feat on track
L8 can get fighter resilience for 9 extra HP (3 feats at 3 hp each)
Still able to play the civilized, charismatic role while going beast mode as needed. Secondary focus on Con boosts HP to a fair range.

Nice!

We have a lot of rules to facilitate play in P2. It's not a video game though. That's awesome, and it's why I play TTRPGs.

Can you stop mid-fight and switch to dialogue? Sure. Is it a game mechanic? Barring L15 feats and what's been mentioned above, no, not really.

I'm old. When we started playing with younger relatives and kids, this concept of rolling for social skills as "a roll" vs "a role" came up. I remember one of them saying he wanted to influence the guard to help us and wanted to roll for diplomacy. We paused the game to explain that's perfectly fine. They didn't have to be good at it or say cool things to make it work, but they did have to roleplay what they were saying. It's fun, and it gives the GM some context for how to respond. Plus if you do come up with something cool to say, it's much easier for a GM to give a favorable response, because it fits the scenario.

That's our play style. Not all tables "roll" this way, ha haha... ha... oh (had enough puns yet?).

Combat isn't a video game mechanic you're locked into. Just like players, enemies don't want to die. They might want to escape, and they might be open to dialogue. "Your witch is dead, foes! You don't have to die. In fact we have proof your leader is using you and plans to..." Feel free to shout something like this out there and let the GM decide if the scenario warrants switching from combat.

Should that just be a dice roll, because you have high diplomacy? Nah, not for us.

...[power] inequality can make gaming tables very uncomfortable as players take the spotlight. And PF1 is ripe with that. Ultra specialized characters can very much steal the spotlight and run the show and it can wreck lots of tables. Worst of all though is the well played spell caster (usually wizard but druid or cleric can also do it) that through spells can replace every other party members utility while also ending battles with 1-2 well placed control spells. At that point the rest of the party is just permanently on mop up duty. Angel summoner vs BMX bandit indeed. Not many people want to be marginalized like that. It’s not fun to spend hours every week playing a game where your actions basically don’t matter.

When I hear players say they prefer PF1, this is one of two things that immediately spring to mind. Working backwards, the second is, "The three action combat system of P2 makes tactical choices and feat options so meaningful! That's way more fun."

But the first is always, Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit. If you haven't seen this, well, straight off it's a great laugh. Then, sadly comes the realization that it's PF1 in a nutshell.

PF1 is not a well balanced game. After GMing it for decades, saying good bye to its character power disparity and inevitable break down at mid-levels was easier than I imagined. P2 will have longevity and will become a foundational inspiration for future d20 design.

I've always been suspicious of any weapon that when pointed at your enemy, also points towards you.

This is another great example of why PF1 appealed to me and why PF2 doesn't.

Because absolutely in PF1 the options you take are to specialize into something, it often doesn't do much to expand your options.

While in PF2 character builds rarely do much to allow you to specialize into something (skill feats not withstanding, I do actually really like those) but expand the options that you have available to you.

So rather than giving you more attack bonus or damage, they're going to give you an option that allows you to do something like spend two actions to make a single strike with increased damage (but less damage than if you could successfully make two strikes) which might be beneficial against an enemy with high AC or DR, but isn't an outright improvement to what you could already do.

And for me that's unrewarding.

Hi, Claxon. I appreciate your posts debating your position in a level-headed manner. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

From what I recall reading of your posts, I don't expect your preference to hinge on this alone. If you still don't like P2, that's your call. The math, however, does not support your above post.

I've done extensive testing on the damage calculator and my own spreadsheets to test the math myself. Damage options from feats are proven significant advances over straight attacking. You're referring to Power Attack in this example. A superficial comparison says you could do 2d12+4 with PA vs. 1d12+4 x2 with two simple attacks. That's an (at level) average of 17 vs. 21. That's not the math. The comparison ignores a MAP of -5 on simple attack #2 reducing your two attack average damage to 16.275.

You might say, "Well what if I want to attack two people, not just do big damage against one?" Enter the Swipe feat. Combined with a weapon with the sweep trait, your two-action attack on two foes ignores MAP and instead applies your +1 circumstance sweep bonus to both attacks. This raises your average damage to 23.1.

That's only two feats. Both offer improvement over "what you could already do" as you put it.

You also mentioned you like P1's ability to really specialize. Continuing the Power Attack example, at L6 you can take the Furious Focus feat to change your PA from counting as two attacks for MAP down to one. This means your third attack is at -5 instead of -10. You might say this is situational, and I totally agree. The feats allow you to excel far beyond straight math when you get situational. How about a maneuver to make your foe flat-footed to your next attack? That benefits PA even further over straight strikes. Damage Resistance? PA and Double Slice (and all of its 2W variants).

Continuing situationals, P1 let you get straight bonuses to specialization areas, the trip monkey for example. P2 gives you options to automatically succeed in specialization areas: free grabs, trips, shoves, trips + shoves, success shifts to critical. Circumstance and status bonuses of +2 to +4 are out there, and you can build to consistently capitalize on them.

P1 was awesome compared to the market in its day, and I was a huge fan. I still support anyone who wants to claim it as their favorite, so more power to you. I encourage you to revisit your analysis of the math though. Statistics are not always intuitive.

It's also true to say P1 let's you stack more bonuses onto a specialty to give you a +20 bonus disparity over another character in your party without the specialty. This is a rabbit hole side topic, but this makes high level games a nightmare to balance. I love P2 plugged this hole. I love the three-action system. Love the archetype dedication system, feat system, skill feats, etc. Magic balance went too far, but all of the above combine to make P1 unplayable for me and my group since the playtest.

I added the APG classes:
.
.
.

New Points (Average - 61.03):
Fighter - 77
Ranger - 77
Barbarian - 76
Monk - 76
Swashbuckler - 74
Investigator - 74
Rogue - 73.5
Champion - 70
Bard - 60
Oracle - 56.5
Cleric, Warpriest - 49
Druid - 49
Cleric, Cloistered - 48
Sorcerer - 45
Witch - 45
Wizard - 42.5

No surprises from Swashbuckler 74, Investigator 74, Oracle 56.5, and Witch 45

Wizards get relatively few skills - until you factor in that they're a primary Intelligence class and that many of their favorite skills are Intelligence based.

I've resisted pointing this out, because I find it thematically infuriating. Wizard skill is such a painful hit to the "bookish" class. I know this is the argument that lead to their low skills, they get +4 skills from Int, but that's completely unfair. That nerfs Intelligence for no reason. The equivalent would be saying a Strength martial should only get to carry base 4 Bulk, because they get so much Strength enhancement to Bulk. No! Int gives you nothing else for core mechanics (admittedly it influences spell To Hit, Dmg, DC). Why strip Wizards of skills on top of it? Meanwhile, Strength gives you To Hit, Damage, Bulk, Armor capabilities.

Ok, rant over. Back to analytics.

Not to be rude to you OP, but it was a clear sign that your analysis had no use.

No offense taken. Your points are valid. I'll say this about the exercise, and it's a saying we use at my analytics company, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

Essentially it means partial data (and this exercise is up front about being a partial view) can be useful and help you make decisions. It doesn't prove war priests are better than cloistered clerics to take your example. It means they get a few more points of common core mechanic functions. That's it. You decide whether that's more impactful than all the other factors (included or not in the analysis), and you have.

I'm doing the same analysis you just did when I look at the list. What I like about it is how it let's you compare the common categories in one view without having to skim all the level progression pages of every class. I'm not fixated on the rankings. They're just interesting pieces of data to help form an opinion.

Everyone pushing back against the analysis: Thank you, these are all great points.

"What about x feature...?"
- Yes, agreed. Focus spells, reactions, feat at 1st or not... I drew a line where things varied across the classes and tried to stick to what is mostly common core functionality. This stuff gets wildly complex, so I didn't want to step too far into this.

"Missing Perception?"
- No, Perception is included in the Saving Throws section and is noted on the spreadsheet.

"Armor is meaningless, because it all comes out to the same."
- Eh, agreed partially, but I don't think it's that simple. Heavy armor eliminates the need for Dex which allows you to have other higher stats without sacrificing armor. That's a substantial option. Heavy armor also gives you an extra point for the most part. Also, I didn't weight this category very high. I disagree that it shouldn't be included though. What do folks think about its relative weight (less than HP)?

"This analysis is meaningless."
- Cellion, your hypothetical class is meaningless, amusing but meaningless. This isn't a point system for developing classes. It's an admittedly crude basis for comparing classes quantitatively. From that you may draw your own conclusions, but I find it interesting in analyzing what you have to work with on a particular class chassis compared to others.