Porridge's page

I was hoping for the crazy, game-breaking shenanigans from 1st edition...

The biggest virtue of PF2, for me, is that it provides an accurate and reliable challenge rating for encounters, which allows it to provide a consistent and enjoyable experience for players and GMs. So I might be an outlier here, but I definitely don't want mythic rules to introduce "game-breaking" anything. (I went through the pain of trying to run a 1st edition mythic game, and it's an experience I never want to repeat.)

What I'd like mythic rules to do is introduce changes in the way the game is set-up that don't tinker with the fundamental math, but do allow players to engage in combat in non-standard ways, and to have greater narrative and world-shaping abilities.

So turning this into constructive feedback: I liked mythic feats like Unbelievable Interception or Eyes that See Eternity; mythic destinies like Godling and Prophesied Monarch; mythic rituals like City of Sin, Void Harvest, and World in Shadow. Stuff that allowed players to do cool new things, or really change the narrative, without breaking encounter math. Whereas I did not like the new mythic monster rules. They make monsters substantially tougher, but don't do so in a way that engages with the system’s use of level to represent how challenging threats are.

"On basic enviromental protections:

Some armors do this through an environmental field (a minor force field specially tuned to protect from a vacuum that doesn’t reduce damage from attacks), while others can be closed with helmets and airtight seals. While using your armor’s environmental protections, your armor can protect you from the dangerous environmental effects of a vacuum and can facilitate self-contained breathing. This allows you to survive and breathe while within a vacuum or a submerged area of non-damaging liquid. This protection doesn’t protect you from smoke inhalation, inhaled poisons, thick or thin atmospheres, toxic atmospheres, or corrosive atmospheres."

Thin atmospheres... you know what a vacuum is.. airtight.. if a O2 molecule can't slip through then how is a complete chemical poison compound. Self contained breathing... you mean like fire fighters wear to not die from smoke inhalation.

Corrosive is the only one that makes sense at least for a physical protection as it would attack said airtight seals.

One of the most disappointing features of SF1 for me was how difficult the default environmental protections made it to make "struggle against the environment" adventures. Especially since this is a common trope in sci-fi.

So you can add me to the list of people hoping to see the default environmental protections minimized/cut down. I'd much prefer these show up as (1) additional equipment that has an opportunity cost, and so isn't ubiquitous, and (2) things that are relatively specialized (perhaps one upgrade protects from extreme heat, a different one protects from extreme cold, a third protects against extreme pressure, etc). This would make adventures with "struggle against the environment" features much more do-able.

EDIT: And to the extent to which default environmental protections are kept, I hope they shorten the duration. E.g., if armor comes with (lvl minutes) of environmental protections, then it's something you generally keep off and only turn on during emergencies. But if all armor comes with multiple hours or days of environmental protections, then it's effectively removed as a plot point for GMs.

Mark Seifter did a recent poll of people's favorite PF2 class, and the Kineticist was very popular (third favorite class overall):

Favorite Class Poll

It's unlikely that Paizo is going to remove one of their most popular classes.

Let's get this out of the way. While I can certainly see some legends being intimately associated with a worn or wielded object, I find it thematically limiting, uncomfortably similar to the Thaumaturges, and running counter to the idea of being essentially a godling.

The first idea that came to mind when I heard of this class was to play a Dragon Exemplar, and I always play dragons to have as little dependence on gear of any kind as possible. The second idea, after hearing about Fishing from the Fall's Edge, was to play as an Awakened Bear, with the similar goal of being a paragon of it's kind which naturally lends itself toward reduced thematic dependence on items.

Should there perhaps be an option to allow you to choose 3 Body icons to switch your power between, or something along those lines?

Thoughts?

FWIW, I had the same reaction. Although there are plenty of mechanical differences, it's uncomfortable similar to the Thaumaturge thematically-speaking. And a lot of the Exemplar ideas that I want to try out don't fit well with the idea that they're item-dependent.

I like your suggestion though, of having something like body-part-options. Or perhaps each ikon might itself be associated with both an item and a body part, and you can choose which one gets imbued with your power?

Something like this would be nice to have thematically. And since it doesn't really make many *mechanical* demands on what the class is like, it seems like a relatively easy change to make.

Here's hoping something like this makes it into the final version!

Nice guide!

One typo: Tremor requires a basic Fortitude save, not a basic Reflex save.

This is actually one of the nice features of it - most impulses target Reflex saves, so Tremor offers you the option of targeting Fort saves when something has lower Fort saves than Reflex saves.

I'd like the Lore skill you get from your background to automatically scale like the skill from the Additional Lore skill feat.

On alchemists:

I think a lot of people fixate on the power curve; which is fair; but my biggest gripes with the class (having played it since the game released in a long term campaign 1-15 so far) are:

...

So, what I can conclude is that:
-Early game alchemists need zero cost or renewable resources to do cool things. The difference was night and day before and after perpetual alchemy.
-Due to distributing item bonuses, the alchemists main buffing outlet feels like a treadmill that has no progression through the game. When my table switched over to ABP, alchemical elixirs and the like got homebrewed into becoming status bonuses, which gave an immediate sense of progression; and my allies were a lot more happy to take the mutagens.
-All mutagens should have a built in "off switch"; even if it's just being dismissable; but preferably more like the drakeheart mutagen. Serene Mutagen having something like a "if your roll perception for initiative, roll twice, take the better result" and Cognative Mutagen being like a free action recall knowledge would make these mutagens a lot more useful since you're no longer risking making yourself terrible in combat by taking them.
-The alchemist needs more items that have a wow factor. Right now, they don't have much in the vein of "make your table cheer because you impacted the course of battle in a very dramatic and cool way"
-late game alchemists stuggle with accuracy; with the before mentioned houserule making my quicksilver mutagens status bonuses, my accuracy actually feels pretty good, but I know I would definately be stuggling under the normal rules. Alchemical Alacrity just doesn't work as it stands; and imo should either be turned into making Quick Alchemy a free action or just giving the people what they want and making it master weapon proficiency

I think this is probably the clearest and most level-headed assessment of the State of the Alchemist that I've seen. Kudos!

Really hoping they add optional 3-action economy rules. One of the best in the PF1 Unchained book. Bring it to Starfinder too!

For those of us who already supported the KS for Ultimate Kingdoms, is this the same version? That is, you have not (yet) revised Ultimate Kingdoms for 2nd edition of the Kingmaker campaign, have you?

Thanks, and good luck!
Franklin

It looks like the book called "Ultimate Kingdoms" book is the same PF1/5e book as before.

But one of the add ons is the "Ultimate Rulership" book, which is described as the book that expands upon the PF2 kingdom/mass combat rules.

I think one of things that makes combination weapons feel bad in a lot of games (like mine) is the popularity of the ABP optional rules. Since that essentially removes the rune cost for having multiple weapons, it eliminates the big thing combination weapons have going for them.

@Michael Sayre: For people using ABP, do you have any thoughts about what a good house rule might be to make combination weapons more attractive? (Perhaps making the switch between ranged and melee modes a free action that doesn't have the manipulate trait?)

I'd recommend you use color coding to rank various options like many guides do. Makes it easier to read. Love the effort put into this.

I'll second this request. It makes guides much easier to read!

Tier 1

Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.

According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.

I’m hoping for some extra Gadgets. It would be great to get an expansion of the Inventor options.

It’s also my understanding that 2e doesn’t have any adventure paths widely regarded to be straight-up D-tier the same way 1e did with things like Second Darkness, Serpent’s Skull, or Council of Thieves.

Though the first book of Serpent's Skull was really good - probably my favorite first book of any AP.

The party needs another martial (to flank with the thief), and a tank of some kind. So a Champion would be the natural choice. (As well as an excellent class to pick for this AP.)

Top 3:

Gunslinger
Swashbuckler
Magus

Bottom 3:

Alchemist
Witch
Oracle

I tend to like classes that require you to cleverly juggle your action economy, and which feel really effective when you do.

I tend dislike classes which seem to have brute drawbacks you can't cleverly work around, or classes which tend to seem like strict downgrades compared of other classes.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

It works with a Jezail even in 2handed mode because it is technically a 1handed firearm.

That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands used to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"

Very helpful clarification!

By the way, should we read this as clarifying whether a pistolero can draw a Jezail when they roll initiative (Ten Paces), and be ready to use it 2-handed? (A) The minimum number of hands you need is 1, and (B) the number of hands you’re using when you activate Ten Paces is 0… which would suggest you can?

Or perhaps the two clauses you mentioned don’t settle this case, since the question isn’t whether you can *draw* it (you can, since it’s a 0/1 handed weapon according to the above confitions), but whether you can choose to come to be holding it in its 2-handed stance…

Will there be any changes/revisions to the AP? (Like in the Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne compilations?)

My five favorite depictions were:

The Devourer
Oras
Nyarlathotep
Pharasma
Triune

With Eloritu getting an honorable mention.

There weren't any depictions that I hated, though the art for Iomedae and Sarenrae looked a little funny to my eye.

Yeah, I love the cantrips in Galactic Magic - Adhere, Misfire, and Stumble (and maaaaybe Psychokinetic Shove?) do a lot to make a non-weapon focused spellcaster a viable option.

Does Spell Sergeant or any of the other methods of improving spell damage not work with scaling cantrips?

That's a good question. If you *did* allow the Spell Sergeant bonus to stack with the scaling cantrip damage, though it looks like a Spell Sergeant's cantrip damage would be almost exactly the same as a Longarms weapon of the same level. (Running some quick numbers against Laser Rifles, the cantrip would be 1 point ahead at L6, 1 point ahead at L9, 1.5 points behind at L13, and 0 points ahead at L17.)

So that looks pretty balanced, actually.

Here's another way to assess the scaling cantrip option, comparing them directly to pistols. Using the standard line of laser pistols as our point of comparison for EAC cantrips, we find that:

Level 1-5: Pistol (Azimuth) is ahead by 1 point (on average).
Level 6: Pistol (Corona) is ahead by 3.5 points (on average).
Level 7-8: Pistol (Corona) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 9: Pistol (Aphelion) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 10-11: Pistol (Aphelion) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 12: Pistol (Perihelion) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 13: Pistol (Perihelion) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 14: Pistol (Parallax) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 15-16: Pistol (Parallax) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 17-18: Pistol (Zenith) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 19-20: Pistol (Zenith) is ahead by -2.5 points (on average).

So the scaling cantrip is around 0-2.5 points of damage behind the corresponding laser pistol for pretty much one's entire career. Given that laser pistols are expensive and cantrips are free, this seems like pretty good scaling to me.

Xenocrat wrote:

I thought the downside to accessing the scaling cantrips was that they're still not good enough to replace a pistol?

That's unfortunate.

Two thoughts about the cantrip option.

1. Unlike on-level pistols, they're free. So if you stick to cantrips, you get a huge chunk of change you can spend on other things.

2. The damage is pretty comparable to that of a Vanguard taking the Entropic Shot alternate class feature (which makes the entropic strike ranged). Focusing on EAC-targeting cantrips, their damage compares as follows:

Levels 1-4: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 0 points
Level 5: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 1 point (on average)
Level 6: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 4.5 points (on average)
Levels 7-8: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 2 points (on average)
Level 9: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 5.5 points (on average)
Level 10-11: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 3 points (on average)
Level 12: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 6.5 points (on average)

So it's only a smidge behind the Vanguard's Entropic Shot, and the Entropic Shot is one of the Vanguard's major class features. All in all, it looks like a viable option to me.

Here are the chapters:

Table of Contents
Preface
1 Prayers for the Living
2 Hymns for the Dead
3 The Grim Crypt
4 Lands of the Dead
5 March of the Dead
Appendix

I'll show an image of the ToC in Paizo LIVE in late February as motivation to subscribe. :)

"March of the Dead".

That's not ominous at all...

StarlingSweeter wrote:

Are equipment loadouts/character build examples useful to you? Do you like it when guides go through all published character options (like ancestries and backgrounds) or do you prefer they give some generalizations to keep it readable?

Only include the ones that are noteworthy. Equipment/Ancestry/etc that has a specific synergy (or non-synergy) with the class. Especially ones that may not be obvious. For example pointing out that Barbarian doesn't do well with mounted combat (Rage + Command an animal don't mesh well), or that Monk Monastic Weaponry, Bo Staff, and Tangled Forest Stance make a useful combination.

I'll echo Castilliano and breithauptclan here, and say that guides are definitely one place where "less is more" can apply. If a guide spends a couple pages focusing on ancestries that mesh well with the class I'll skim through the section for interesting suggestions; if it spends 40 pages covering every ancestry I'll skip it entirely.

Congratulations Mark!

And as sad as I am that Mark is leaving Paizo, this sort of thing is good for people working in the industry. The more talent poaching via salary increases goes on, the higher the expected pay for the people who work there.

My apologies. I didn't realize how long that ended up being.

As a side, I just had a thought. Would anyone else be interested in seeing this sort of book continued, but about specific groups of monsters? They could do a book themed around say Dragons or undead, and give detailed information on a number of the most well known examples alongside heavy lore. And I don't mean simply your run of the mill examples, but incredibly unique or powerful creatures, or those bearing names or heavy ties to Golarions lore.

Some examples could be Daughters of Urgathoa in an undead book, or Daralathxl, Sixth King of the Five Kings Mountains in a dragon book. And the dragon book wouldn't be restricted to just true Dragons, but draconic creatures in general.

Sort of a spiritual successor to books like Undead Revisited or Dragons Unleashed.

I would!

This book was fantastic. I'll just repeat what I said in the product thread:

Wow. I was not expecting to like this book as nearly as much as I did. I thought this might be a mini-bestiary, or something. I didn't expect 20 sketches for homebrew APs! Mix that with amazing, evocative descriptions, juicy stat blocks, and some interesting player options, and you get an amazing book. My favorite "short" Lost Omens books so far.

Kudos to the authors, developers, editors, and everyone else involved!

Wow. I was not expecting to like this book as nearly as much as I did. I thought this might be a mini-bestiary, or something. I didn't expect 20 sketches for homebrew APs! Mix that with amazing, evocative descriptions, juicy stat blocks, and some interesting player options, and you get an amazing book. My favorite "short" Lost Omens books so far.

I really like the Mechfinder rules. A real Battletech feel to it. And I really like how it gives a lot more weight to the size of mechs — it seems like this should be a huge deal, power-level wise, but in the Tech Revolution rules buying a larger mech doesn’t change much. (In fact, it generally seems like a downgrade, power-level-wise.)

Recent discussions have made it clear how little Paizo's staff/freelancers make, and how difficult it is to increase how much they're paid given the current pricing of products. So I, for one, am very happy to hear about the price increase!

I want to thank to KC for her great post here.

This is a really careful, thoughtful, and genuinely helpful response to a really tricky and hard to answer question (at least one that I'd struggle to offer an informative answer to). I think having something like this spelled out in the forum guidelines would be fantastic. But in the meantime, I've added it to my list of "to remember" posts, so I can link to it next time this question comes up!

This is a Hong Kong-style 2-weapon “gun” monk build, constructed around the idea of punishing anyone who targets them. Leap and Fire allows free attacks at anyone who makes ranged attacks against them, and Jellyfish Stance and Opportunist allows free attacks against anyone who tries to engage them in melee combat.

Build 16: Unapproachable

Porridge wrote:

The big outlier here seems to be [2]. [2] hasn't been addressed at all. I realize there are confidentiality issues here, but there hasn't even been a statement of the form "we can't talk about this publicly, but the circumstances of some recent employee departures are being investigated, and corrective action will be taken".

I'll just leave this here as looks like it only appeared a few days ago and not everyone might be aware of it:

https://ko-fi.com/charmedneedle

I think every post in this thread and every unionize hashtag on twitter should cost a donation to Sara's Ko-Fi.

Thanks for sharing this!

To help me sort out my feelings about all of this, it's been helpful for me to go back to the list of demands offered by #PAIZOACCOUNTABILITY:

[1] * Paizo needs to hire a whistleblower/arbitration company.
[2] * Said company must investigate Sara Marie's wrongful termination.
[3] * Executives need to be held accountable and investigated
[4] * Executives need to enter good faith negotiations with their employees
[5] * Salaries need to be posted and raised; some employees live below the median living wage in Seattle

So here's how things currently seem to stand with respect to these demands:

[1]: This announcement seems to meet demand [1].

[2]: This doesn't seem to have been addressed in this announcement or any other.

[3]: This announcement seems to meet the first half of this demand - the "investigated" part. The other half - the "held accountable" - is pending investigation, and so falls in the "we'll have to wait and see" category.

[4]: The voluntary recognition of the union seems to meet demand [4].

[5]: This issue is going to depend on how things go with negotiations with the union. So this also falls in the "we'll have to wait and see" category.

So Paizo has met 2.5 of the 5 demands, and 1.5 of the demands are in the "we'll have to wait and see" category - demands which they would need more time to meet, and might meet, but haven't met yet. So with respect to [1] and [3]-[5], Paizo's actions make me cautiously optimistic.

The big outlier here seems to be [2]. [2] hasn't been addressed at all. I realize there are confidentiality issues here, but there hasn't even been a statement of the form "we can't talk about this publicly, but the circumstances of some recent employee departures are being investigated, and corrective action will be taken".

So for the most part I guess I'm feeling cautiously optimistic. (Which is not to say other people should feel the same - I'm speaking only for myself here.) But the glaring omission on *anything* about [2] is disappointing.

I *think*(?) the Brawling Focus feat granted to the Bullet Dancer was probably intended to grant critical specialization effects for bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms? (Or, alternatively, that the Bullet Dancer Dedication feat was supposed to allow you to treat bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms as Monk weapons, which would yield the same result.)

As is, the Brawling Focus feat doesn't seem to do anything for someone in the Bullet Dancer Stance (which requires you to only make strikes with one of those three weapons).

★ What do you think is the best way to use a gun sword or other combination weapons, as they are? What rulings/edits would you make for their use, if any?

Interesting question. Here's my 2 cents.

The gun part of the Gun Sword is pretty good -- it's basically a Harmona Gun (which is roughly tied with the Arquebus for the highest expected damage firearm) with one less die-size of damage (d8 instead of d10). That's just 1-4 points of expected damage (depending on the Striking Runes), which is a pretty small decrease.

The sword part of the Gun Sword is more "meh". If the gun part of the Gun Sword is one step down from the best 2-handed firearms, the sword part of the Gun Sword is two steps down. It's a decent fallback melee option for a character with high strength (or for someone with special abilities pertaining to combination weapons) but it's definitely a fallback option.

Putting that together, I think the Gun Sword is going to be best used by:

(1) a ranged weapon specialist (since that's the best part of the Gun Sword)

(2) who is going to be near enough to their targets to make melee engagement a possibility,

(3) who also has a reason to invest in Strength as their second-highest stat,

(4) and who has the ability to take advantage of special combination weapon properties.

The Vanguard Gunslinger satisfies (1)-(4) -- they're a gun specialist, they want to stay close to the action to use their melee-range special abilities, they want a high Str to do Athletics maneuvers, and they have access to Stab and Blast, which is pretty good. So they're one optimal user.

The Fighter can also satisfy (1)-(4) -- they can specialize in guns, pick up some of the sweet melee abilities to keep melee an attractive option, and still want a high Str to use some of these nice melee abilities. They can also use the critical fusion ability of the sword without having to take an archetype or anything.

So it looks to me like those are the two prime contenders for best Gun Sword users.

Now, whether a Gun Sword is a better option than (say) a Harmona Gun with a bayonet is harder question. The latter is a slightly better ranged weapon, but (arguably) a slightly worse melee option (d4 instead of d8). That said, it's not clear the Gun Sword's melee advantage is that big - the Bayonet is finesse, which will give you a bit of a to-hit boost for half of your career, and the Bayonet allows you to switch from ranged to melee options without having to spend actions, or potentially triggering AOOs. All-things-considered, I'd probably favor the Harmona Gun+Bayonet option, but it's not an obvious call.

As far as alterations go, I'd be tempted to allow combination weapons to switch between melee and ranged uses as a free action instead of an Interact action. This would make the Gun Sword a firmly better melee option relative to the Harmona Gun+Bayonet, to balance off the fact that the Harmona Gun+Bayonet is a firmly better ranged option. But that's not to say it's clearly imbalanced as is.

★ What exactly is the default/expected stat build and playstyle of Vanguard? Did I hit the mark that it's Strength for Clear a Path/Blast Tackle, but mostly Dexterity for shooting, and getting into the thick of things just to stand, shoot, and push people around when they get close?

Regarding expected builds, here's a Vanguard Gun Sword build posted by the developer:

Orc Lawbringer

And here's another Vanguard build by the developer (wielding a different weapon):

Dwarven Gun Tank

So my hunch is this is the sort of thing they had in mind.

This drifter build mixes melee and ranged combat, using reach weapons to use Reloading Strike without provoking Attacks of Opportunity. Out of combat, she’s an expert at finding and disabling traps, haunts, and other hazards, and is capable of swimming, climbing, and leaping through almost any obstacle. (At level 20 she has a Climb and a Swim speed, and can Fly 1/day.)

Build 14: Tomb Raider

Build 12: Smoke Out** spoiler omitted **...

Correction: I just realized that Fake Out has the visual trait, and so won't work when you're hidden (which, for this build, is hopefully most of the time).

A better approach is to replace Fake Out with Quickdraw at L2 (allowing you to do the Smokestick routine starting from L2), take Alchemical Shot at L4, and retrain Quickdraw into Rogue dedication at L9. This frees up an extra class feat later which I've used to add in Flesh Wound, which should replace any basic Strikes in the L12+ routines.

Revised progression:

Build 12: Smoke Out

Basic Tactics by Level Range
The tactics from lower level ranges are still viable at higher levels since feats are additive and this build doesn't require retraining, so I won't be repeating tactics from earlier levels in the higher level entries, just noting what new kinds of routines have opened up.

1st - 5th: Pretty straightforward at this point.

Round 1: Ten Paces (draw 1st pistol), Strike, Raconteur's Reload (Demoralize), Quick Draw (2nd pistol; Strike demoralized target)

Round 2: Dual-Weapon Reload, Strike (demoralized target if standing), Dual-Weapon Reload

Round 3: Paired Shots, Dual-Weapon Reload

***

6th - 11th: We've got a lot more options now, so I'm going to stick with a pretty simple routine that lets you use more of your new abilities.

Round 1: Ten Paces (draw 1st pistol), Pistolero's Challenge, Strike, Raconteur's Reload (demoralize challenged target)

Round 2: Quick Draw (2nd pistol, Strike challenged and demoralized target), Dual-Weapon Reload, Pistolero's Challenge (assuming 1st target is dead by now, which they generally should be) - End turn with loaded weapons for Leap and Fire or Pistolero's Retort

Round 3: Trick Shot (grouped enemies or visible objective) + Dual-Weapon Reload (if AoE damage or objective manipulation is most useful) or Dual-Weapon Reload (if reaction was triggered) + Paired Shots

***

These combinations are going to keep expanding with possibilities as you go up, so the main trick from here on out is just watching how you're deploying your actions to stack the most damage on each target and try to end on a reload so you can use your reactions. You've got multiple defensive reactions to use with your Slinger's Reflexes capstone to stay up and fighting longer, and you might consider swapping out your coat/dagger pistol for an air repeater if you want a less potent option for your off-hand weapon that'll be a bit more reliable for Leap and Fire and Pistolero's Retort, trading the bigger punch for more Strikes.

Just wanted to say I really appreciate these action economy breakdowns. This is the trickiest thing for me to get a feel for with action economy juggling classes like the Gunslinger, Magus, and Summoner. And this kind of concrete breakdown, with some guidance about how to think about things, is super helpful.

EDIT: For similar reasons, I found Karmagator’s Tactics breakdown really helpful. Kudos!

This is great news!

Interesting is one word for it.

They've released some tidbits.
Standouts are, a set of feats for each race including some mutually exclusive ones at first level (the word "Heritage" was actually used), and "a pool of options for each class at every level to customize your class".

Yeah. Now all they need to do is to mention a 3 action economy.

Any chance you can post some links to where they’ve mentioned those details (for those of us out of the loop)?

I don't usually hear much feedback on stuff I write

I *loved* your article on Gluttondark in Assault on Hunting Lodge Seven. Really imaginative and evocative and alien, with lots of juicy adventure hooks.

Item Six: Blind Hiring

I want Paizo to go back and guarantee, publicly, that they will continue using a version of Jessica Price's and Wes Schneider's blind test for new hires. If that's the system that gave us employees like Amanda and Crystal, it's the system I want to know they're using.

Just to help keep clear on what Paizo has/has not been doing: I believe Paizo has, in fact, continued to use the blind hiring process Jessica and Wes advocated for. (See the 6th paragraph of this statement.)

So I think you can remove this, at least, from the list!

This strikes me as an inspired idea. Perhaps worth cross-posting or linking to in the Playtest forum to make sure one of the devs (James Case or Mark Seifter) sees it?

For me the main issue with it being charisma based is that it soft-locks against playing thaumaturges who are scholarly in their background and flavour.

Playing occult-y antiquarians, historians, and archvivist type characters are the main media archetypes I'd want to run with a class like this. But I just can't afford to play a scholarly thaumaturge when my class wants martial stats & charisma as their highest ability scores.

You can't really afford to have a character who is high at (Str or Dex) + Con + Int + Cha, so the most straightforward archetypes for this class from my mindset is sort of incompatible with the class, so it's hard for me to actually write up a character with it.

Yeah, this is how I feel too.

EDIT: One further thing that rubs me the wrong way here is that the class actually punishes you for putting anything into Int. The main use of Int - boosting Recall Knowledge checks - is something they don't need, given the Cha-stat replacement. And the extra trained skills Int gives you doesn't really help them, since what they're starved for are skill *increases* (to keep their Arcana/Nature/Occult/etc skills up), and a high Int doesn't give them that.

So, as is, it looks like it's a really bad idea to do anything but dump Int. And running around with an 8/10 Int really clashes with most of the character concepts I have for this class (which I otherwise love!).

Hi Jeff

Will there be any investigation/evaluation of the events leading up to Sara leaving the company? (Private, obviously but beyond the usual “we’re always looking at what we do and striving to do better”).

This is what I’d like to know as well.