Quentin Coldwater's page

I don't think a dragon (or any creature with Frightful Presence) is actively giving off waves of fear, it's just that their reputation precedes them. You've heard tales of dragons absolutely wrecking settlements and devouring dozens of people that just the very thought of one sends you spiraling, let alone being close to one.

In First Edition, they could turn that ability off, implying it's more of an active choice (like more of a creature employing their natural charisma), but I can't find that in Second Edition.

First of all, APs are written with a party of four in mind. Either have a fourth character (shared by the players, or perhaps the GM), or ask the GM to tone the adventure down a little.

This very much sounds like Season of Ghosts. Adjust my advice accordingly if it isn't, but Season of Ghosts should have no big time crunch. There's a bit of a narrative disconnect when people are potentially in danger and you need to rest for 10 minutes at a time, but there shouldn't be consequences for taking your time to rest. As said before, encounter math presumes nearly full HP for players. If there's a time crunch or you're going into encounters partially depleted, encounters should be taking that into account. If your GM insists on the time crunch, they should be tuning down the encounters (or dropping more healing items).

IIRC, there was a feat chain that said if one attack crit in your full attack, your entire full attack critted. Or something to that effect. It got nerfed at some point, in any case.

Anyway, before that nerf, a friend made a Druid/Monk multiclass with that feat chain and then turned into a giant octopus, with a beak attack and 8 tentacle attacks. He managed to crit. Can't remember the final damage total, but it was filthy.

Not in PFS, but entirely PFS legal: a friend built a character built on AC. At level 20, he had over a 100 AC, and four stats to AC.

(I'm a player, and slowly prepping to GM as well, but I don't have the entire background knowledge, so take with a grain of salt.)

Technically, I believe the players are spirits, but they function as if they're normal living creatures. Everyone and everything in the demiplane/pocket dimension still functions just as they did before the loop started.

Having the animist player immediately feel something's off feels like a big spoiler, but I have no idea how you could subtly hint without giving something away immediately. Maybe because they've been living in this loop for over a hundred years, they've sort of gotten used to it, kind of like how you don't feel the clothing you're wearing It's just become part of them now, even across multiple loops. It's kind of a cop-out answer, but I personally think immediately revealing something's off about the PCs (and everyone else) ruins a bit of the surprise.

If anyone that did not play PF1 wants to see why PF2 should avoid weapon size, looking up the 3E/PF1 rules for increasing weapon size. You'll see why they just didn't bother. It's too hard to balance.

I used weapon size rules to my advantage all the time in 3E/PF1. They were especially good with multi-dice weapons or natural weapons. Monks really had fun with increased size for their fists.

About the only fighting styles that didn't benefit from increased weapon size were ranged attackers from what I recall because weapons resized back to normal size as soon as they left your grasp. Maybe I'm wrong on that as it has been a long while since I used that PF1/3E weapon size exploit to make my weapon die larger and do more damage.

Weapons indeed resize to original size when they leave the wielder's grasp. That's why ironically, ranged attackers wanted to shrink. Enlarged characters got a +2 to Strength, but that was offset by their -1 to hit from size penalty (your targets are smaller than usual now, so thry're harder to hit). Shrunk characters got +2 to Dexterity, as well as a +1 bonus to hit from size bonuses (your targets have become bigger, so they're easier to hit). But you take a -2 to Strength. Okay, that mattered for composite bows. But, as said before, weapons and projectiles resize to original size when they leave the wielder's possession. So you get a +2 to hit in exchange for a -1 on damage with ranged weapons, compared to a die bump and a +1 to damage for melee. And ranged characters don't even need to move, so they can full attack much more than a melee character, even when they have increased reach.

Even though I have no statistical data on the topic, I'd just like to acknowledge the absolute balls on OP for saying that THE BIGGEST ISSUE for PF1 stans preventing them from trying PF2 is weapon size. As others have mentioned, there can be plenty of issues, all perfectly legitimate, but no, issue #1 that needs to be addressed is getting that additional 1d6 on my extra-large weapon.

Also, on a different note: technically, NPCs can also use the dying rules, but are usually ignored to not have to deal with "is this enemy dead or not?" The players could have fought it normally, then when the Balor drops to 0 HP, run like hell as it goes through Dying 1 to 4 and explodes 3 rounds later. In that case, you could stay in initiative (especially if there's still other enemies present) and ask, "the enemy is down, what do you do?" and if they don't immediately scatter, have the Balor go boom anyways.

Counterpoint to my own argument: the Reefclaw, probably the most famous low-level enemy with a similar ability, has the reaction "when it reaches 0 HP," so there's a difference.

Counter-counterpoint: sometimes monsters are written by different authors, who use different wording for similar abilities. Back in First Edition, both the Reefclaw and the Balor had the same ability specifically on dying, so in that sense Second Edition is the odd one out.

Counter-counter-counterpoint: while a lot carries over between 1e and 2e, you don't necessarily have to assume everything carries over 100% between editions, even on the same creatures/items/etc.

Not fully RAW, but I would say that nonlethal damage would also count for its death throes ability. It's flavoured as a "revenge blow" kind of ability that does not exactly keep corner cases like this in mind.

My first instinct was to rephrase it to "when a balor falls unconscious...", but that would mean a Sleep spell would also work. Though now I have the mental image of a balor randomly flailing about whenever they go to bed :P
Point is, even in PF1 this was a weird issue. Orc Ferocity wouldn't work (among others), for instance, and I've had several fights absolutely ruined because fights ended much earlier or anticlimactically because a little love tap shut down their entire shtick. Such a creature's whole thing is that they can go on for longer than they're supposed to, and because of one little poorly-worded rules interaction, they don't. I don't consider myself a "mean" GM, but I would've absolutely let it do its death throes ability after going KO by nonlethal damage.

Like other people have said, it sounds like players are either a) unoptimised, b) used to bruteforcing things, or c) just not using the right mindset/tactics, or a combination thereof. Several of the party's gripes (resistances/immunities, bosses saving a lot, lots of debuffs, etc) are just inherent in the system, and players need to adapt to it, not the other way around.

Of course, you could "dumb down" the combats and remove the problematic elements. You're the one who runs the game, you get to say which enemies appear. Party doesn't like constructs? Don't have them! There's enough monster variety that you can probably find (or create) a replacement easily enough. Same with high mobility: just move them less or less far.

But, most of all, have a talk with your players! Sounds like you know what they like and don't like. Discuss with them what they'd like instead, and tell what you're willing to change (maybe you get your enjoyment out of throwing status conditions around, and you're not willing to compromise on that, that's fine!), and try to meet each other in the middle. It's not solely a "player problem" or a "GM problem," I think both parties need to compromise somewhat.

I agree with Hmm. And depending on how strictly you want to stick your narrative to your numbers, the mechanical background is only a minor part of your identity. Especially in PFS, where you sort of have to make your own story, your literal background is rarely, if ever, referenced. In my opinion, you can RP a reborn soul perfectly fine without having the tag that specifically says so. If you want the Academy Dropout background purely for Dubious Knowledge but have never been to school once, that's fine with me.

Sure, mechanics that support your flavour is nice validation of your character, but it shouldn't be a constraining factor (within reason, you can't say you're a ratfolk while you have the stats of a human, for example). Since nothing ever checks for your background, I say you're fine roleplaying a reborn character without having that exact background.

All within reason, of course. Don't go claiming impossible stuff, like claiming you're the king of Taldor. But it's a big weird world, I bet there's several reincarnated/reborn people walking around somewhere. Why not you?

Holy thread necro Batman!

Haven't read the entire thread, just the necro part, but I can certainly see some parts of D&D4e in PF2e (mainly the focus points essentially mimicking encounter powers). But they are parts of the system worth salvaging IMHO. 2e isn't a clone, but inspired by, just like all systems and ideas are inspired by a collection of different ideas. Shoulders of giants, and so on.

As Castilliano mentioned, I guess you feel betrayed by Paizo heading in a different direction, and that's a valid feeling. It sucks that the system you love is no longer actively supported, but no one is taking away your old books. You might not like the new system, but you can still play the system you know and love.

Just so I can understand you better, why revive a 6-year old thread?

Hey, golems are big and stupid. If the players found a way to deal with it, that's a win for them. If they remain within line of sight, you can still use Splinter attacks on them, but if they use cover or break line of sight, that's smart. That's the advantage of being able to come back for a second round. They took a beating, had to retreat, and probably bruised their ego. This is them getting the upper hand on the dungeon for once. Just describe how cool the players are for exploiting its lack of intelligence and give them the win. It's not a big deal.

Books 5 and 6 have a handful of casters each. Not super many, but you'll have a few opportunities to counterspell. Don't know how they compare to the earlier books.

Most of them are enemies that do spells in addition to melee, so no pure "mages." Depending on how your GM (you, I presume?) judges, they might not even fire off a single spell.

I mean, it depends on what your Wizard player judges it to be "worth it." If they're okay with counterspelling a single spell each level, then go for it. But if that doesn't sound worth it, I can completely understand.

The aesthetics thing is a good one, BNW. Not sure if that's the reason why they're doing this, but it's certainly a good point to make. But yeah, I vastly prefer usability over (conventional) legibility.

Spell Core sounds awesome. A compendium of all the spells compiled into one tome. A spellbook, if you will. The only downside is that each hardcover releases new spells, so it'll never be truly comprehensive. The Spell Cards are a good substitute. The remastered ones have all the spells from PC1 and PC2, that's a lot. The downside of those, though, is that it's not as easy to leaf through than an actual book.

In a sense, my local PFS lodge is lucky in that a fair few of us managed to snag a wide range of PFS adventures to start with, then got enough Paizo support to keep it running afterwards. Without people being generous and the store having wifi, we would have struggled without the stats line being in the scenario. We even struggle sometimes if there's a spell caster enemy because we need to know what X rank cantrip or spell does.

To a point, I think if enemy stats are included, the spells that enemy uses should be included as well because it helps GMs have this kind of stuff to hand. Even if say people can look up a spell on pathbuilder, actually having the enemy stats/spell to hand in a book can save time

Yeah, that's been a bugbear of mine as well. While I know several common cantrips off the top of my head, it'd be nice if they were included. And this is just copy-pasting off Nethys, it shouldn't need an editor to look it over. But this would increase pdf size even more, and leadership has been pretty vocal about that. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but there must be a reason why they do.

I think AP-specific class options rarely get rewarded by chronicle. Archetypes yes, but definitely not subclasses or options like that. I guess they don't want people to feel foced to buy/play an AP to get access to character options.

So no, Calamity is off limits.

If you want to heighten rank 1 spells:
- Biting Words has a lot of oomph for a single spell. It's linguistic, so only useful against enemies you share a language with, but it's a good use for a third action.
- Dizzying Colours (/Colour Spray) is good to heighten. Always cool to impact a combat with a spell you originally got at rank 1.
- Phantom Pain is 4d4 damage and a potential debuff, and it's basically guaranteed damage unless the enemy crit succeeds. It's not a super lot of damage, but I think it's worth it.

People flock to the Resentment patron because that's the most powerful one out of the gate. While I do agree that it's certainly stronger than the Inscribed patron mentioned earlier, it isn't like a Witch becomes worthless if you choose a different patron. To me, the initial patron choice is impactful, but not the all-or-nothing some people make it out to be, whereas with the Animist I do agree that there is only one "good" choice.

TL;DR: If you want power, there's an optimal pick. But flavour picks don't ruin the character.

Familiar still feels squishy and underutilised. It's again a fun flavour, but doesn't add much to the class's power budget. In general, most of the fun of the Witch is in their flavour and vibes, not their actual mechanics (though several hexes are really good).

IMHO, there's a few reasons to pick Witch over Wizard if you want an INT caster:
- You like the flavour more.
- You want a pet.
- You want a non-Arcane spell list.
- You want more one-action options.

Do NOT pick a Witch if:
- You want a battle pet. Take Druid, Inventor, or Summoner instead.
- You want more or more powerful spells.
- You want an "easy" class. Not that it's hard, but like people above said, you have to work against the class's design sometimes (patron picks, familiar options).

@ Watery Soup: Thank you for the in-depth reply. Makes me understand the situation much more.

Also, Driftbourne made a good point that popped into my head as well. Shorter scenarios means less time spent on reading the scenario itself, which can then be put into looking up the creatures yourself. While I don't like it, I do admit it's a fair argument to make.

I mean, can't cost-cutting be a valid enough reason on its own? As much as I hate the decision, I understand that several pairs of eyes poring over statblocks to look for mistakes isn't the most efficient way of spending one's time. It may not be a lot, but I bet it adds up over time. Just copy-pasting a Monster Core entry is much more efficient.

I just want to reiterate what PirateRob said: the GM has to do more work now. Granted, it's not a lot of work, but with the workload already present for a GM, that adds up. Whether you use paper and print the statblocks out, use Monster Core, or use a device to look it up, no matter which way you slice it, it adds time/effort for the GM. Time and effort that could have been avoided if Paizo had stuck to the old model.
I get their argument of "it saves money on our end, so why not let the players do it," but I've viewed this as a service Paizo provided. And now that service has been taken away. I don't know the amount of money this saves Paizo, but I do feel the money they save doesn't weigh up against the loss of goodwill.

I've commented on this in the main thread, but one of these is going to affect players far more than the other two. The 3-hour scenario change is mildly positive IMO, and the statblock change is pretty neutral.

The 2-level bands is really the only thing worth complaining about. It's pretty strongly negative for low- and medium-volume players, and will require players to have far more characters in their stable than the 4-level bands, or everyone just has to play pregens, which sucks.

Interesting to see, I have pretty much exactly the opposite opinion. Not meant to argue, just showing there's different opinions:

A few more examples of what I mean:

And since were talking about classes, let’s talk about the difference in character building. First off, while they are the same 6 catagories, instead of ability scores, you have attribute modifiers, which simply means we don’t bother with the big number and only concern ourselves with the modifier. And these modifiers get built as you build your character. You will get attribute boosts from your ancestry, from your back ground, and from your class, as well as 4 boosts just for building your character. Now the limit here is boosts from the same source cannot over lap. So if you get a strength and dexterity and free boost from your ancestry, both your strength and dexterity go up by 1, and then you can increase one of the four others by 1.

Both bolded parts do not add anything. Sure, it's a feature, but it doesn't change anything. The second part is overly technical and you might lose people.

Then there are weapon GROUPS. For instance you may have a Katana, and a scimitar, and a long sword, and they all work very differently, but they are all in the same weapon GROUP. And when weapons of that group critically hit, they do an extra thing if you have certain class feature (kind of like 5e’s new weapon traits)

Bolded part is technically true, but it's much easier if you omit that. Then the core message becomes "clubs are different from axes," rather than "you need a feat to do thing X."

Spontaneous casters, you aren’t getting off scott-free either. When you learn a spell, you learn it at a SPECIFIC spell rank. You can’t just learn fire-ball when you turn level 5 and then be able to automatically up cast it when you get bigger spell slots. You have to learn it at those higher spell ranks. That said prepared casters do, USUALLY, have a feature that lets them choose one spell from each spell rank to be able to upcast without re-learning it. but that just makes the spells you choose that much more important.

Basically, same goes here. It's good to highlight the differences between spontaneous and prepared casters, but mentioning signature spells right away just adds to the cognitive load.

Also, for the skills section, I would like to add how skills can advance at different rates. You've explained Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary, but what I like in PF2 is that skills can actually differ from each other, pfoficiency-wise. Whereas if you advance in proficiency in 5e, that goes for EVERYTHING. Specialising in a certain skill actually feels like focusing on one skill in particular (one Dex skill can be at +6 and a different Dex-based skill at +10, for example. That wouldn't be possible in 5e).

---

All IMHO of course. Feel free to disagree.

I'd personally avoid too many details. You're presumably talking to people who are interested in PF2e, but might not know anything about it. Giving very specific examples will only go over their heads. For example:

Now when I talk about the basic mechanical differences, I’m talking about the rules you’ll encounter while rolling dice. First of all, you should know that there are more results just succeed and fail. Almost every effort in game will yield different results depending on critical failure, failure, success, or critical success. The one major exception is attacking (usually) doesn’t have an effect for a critical failure. That’s because Critical Failures and Critical success are no longer just based on Nat 1 and 20. If you beat a DC by 10 or more, that’s a CRITICAL success. And if you fail by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure. So if you are fighting a little bitty goblin with an armor class of about 13, and you manage to roll 24 on an 18, that’s a critical hit. (Also, critical hits just double ALL damage, not just the dice)

That "on an 18" is superfluous. You're throwing a lot of numbers at your audience, so you should cut out any numbers that don't add to your story. Just emphasise the critting on a non-natural 20 part and you're good.

Martials, you will keep up better with your spell casters because of how weapons work. Specifically the RUNE system. You can place runes on weapons and armor (very common magic items). For weapons the fundamental runes are Potency (adding to your item bonus to hit) and striking (adding extra damage die). For armor Potency adds to the armors item bonus for armor class, and Resiliency, which adds item bonuses to your saving throws. Both can then add exta runes that give special effects like adding some elemental damage, or making people you hit with it afraid.

Again, you're throwing out a lot of information here. Just say that there are runes that increase the effectiveness of your weapons/armour, and things you can add on top of them. They don't need to learn the exact terminology here.

There's a few more examples in your text, but I think this gets my point across.

---

Also, you've added a lot of parentheses in your speech. It works fine on paper, but you need to speak it out loud, and then your quick asides might come across as unnatural or distracting. Either work them in your speech naturally, or leave them out if they're not super important to your story.

Also note that those "professions" are indications for roleplaying. I've seen [adorable child] as a description. It's to give you a quick indication of their character, should anyone want to interact with them. It saves the author word count while still injecting character. Cthulhu could be [Unknowable entity, horror from beyond the stars], for example.

The number is indeed their level. While NPCs don't have stats like PCs do, a level is still a good indication of their ballpark power level. I don't know the adventure, but Architect 3 says to me a more experienced commoner, but not necessarily amazing at their job.
Say someone wants to cast Charm on Derrol. I assume they don't have a statblock. You can grab a level 3 NPC and have a rough idea of what their Will save would be.

I don't have a character ready yet, but I like to fill gaps in the party. I don't want to necessarily make the "optimal" party, but I do want ot make sure we've got our bases covered. I see a Barbarian, an Alchemist, and a Thaumaturge. Given the theme, a divine character seems appropriate. I think I'll whip up a Cleric of some kind, maybe an Animist, to fill the Wisdom-part of the party.

I like to go mechanics first, flavour later, so I'll come up with a backstory when I have a feel for what the character does.

---

The setup of the adventure seems really cool! Interested to see how things develop. :)

Chiming in to say I'm honestly not a fan of the PFS-side changes. Many times, a scenario feels too short and rushed as it is, with players leaving scratching their heads over what happened and whodunnit. Cutting out a quarter of the time not only means authors (and players) can invest less time in building a proper scene and story, but also players who like roleplaying and developing their characters have less time to do so.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but if a four-hour adventure becomes a three-hour adventure, wouldn't that leave more time for RP? (Assuming you'll still play for four hours.)

---

I'd like to voice my discontent about in-adventure statblocks as well. It might be easier for the editing team, but this was a huge quality of life improvement for GMs. No more statblocks spread across multiple pages or having to look up and print out additional statblocks, everything you needed was just in one place. Could very well be that I'm underestimating the load on the editors, but I believe in this case the end user should profit the most, not the makers of the product.

Also, as someone else mentioned, I'm not a fan of shortening adventures mid-season, and hell, even mid-edition. It's sort of fine if you only sign up for the newest adventures, but if you sign up far in advance for a "to be determined" slot, you don't know how much of a time investment it'll be. Some people might not be willing to travel for a 3-hour adventure, but a 4+-hour adventure might be worth the commute. If I sign up for an adventure and hear much later it'll be a "short" one, I might decide it's not worth my time and sign out, which is a shame.
(I'm not sure how much of an issue this is, but at least around here we use "to be determined" a lot, but maybe I'm just the aberration.)
But with the change mid-edition and even mid-season, less enfranchised players don't know what they're gonna sign up for. If someone new joins a few sessions of the shorter adventures, they might assume all adventures are 3 hours. If they then join a pre-season 7 adventure without knowing these are longer, they might run into time issues.
I just like the clarity of "one edition, one standard." You can change standards in between editions, but at least maintain consistency within the same edition.

Also, very very minor gripe: this messes up the "one hour of play = one experience" system. >_>

Post for later. I'd like participate, but don't have a character ready. Might use an existing PFS character for inspiration. Feel free to ignore me if I don't have a character posted soon.

I'm also interested. What pregens are available?

Elf Monk with Crane Stance

Most of the pregens aren't super optimal, and have some weird choices, but work well. But obviously aren't as fine-tuned as full PCs. Will spoiler them to not sour the mood.

Actually... heh, time to check the math.

Vandy's, hm, canonically a level 5 cleric. She's level 5 and is listed with a Will DC of 22... so, calculating backwards, her WIS should be +3 -- +3 from WIS, +9 from Expert. Regardless of her doctrine, she should be 'Trained' in Spell DC rather than Expert, so she should be getting a +10 on her Counteract check. The DC of Chafkhem's Mummy Rot is 24 and its counteract rank would be 4, since he's a Creature 8.

NPCs don't work like PCs. You can't derive stats from other stats. Their stats are made to challenge players, not to make mechanical sense. If you want a Counteract number, find a random fifth-level spellcaster NPC and use their statblock. Pretty sure a level 5's spell attack is +14; I'd use that number for their counteract check as well. Yes, that's higher than a player character's number, but you're throwing money at the problem. Money should solve problems.

You can choose which faction to represent at the start of each adventure. There are no penalties for switching factions often or halfway through a character's career.

Factions are mostly flavour and don't contribute much to the adventure as a whole, but you can get some goodies out of them if you gather enough reputation with them.

Fair. I just like the live interactions, but I can certainly see invested PCs riffing off each other. I can really enjoy a well-written post, but it just doesn't have that "in the moment" feel as IRL games to me.

The important part is that players really engage with the scenario, and not just post when asked for a check.

Is anyone interested in a GameDay GM trade?

I am looking to play any one of four non-repeatable scenarios from Seasons 3 & 4 that I haven't played: #3-11 (3-6), #3-14 (5-8), #4-03 (5-8), and #4-08 (3-6). The Season 3 ones are preferred because I already got the scenarios as part of a Humble Bundle (I prefer to play before I run).

I'm willing to run any of the following as a trade:
#1-02 (1-4), #1-19 (3-6), #1-25 (5-8), #2-01 (1-4), #2-03 (1-4), #2-04 (3-6), #2-07 (5-8), #2-08 (5-8), #2-10 (5-8), #2-12 (3-6), #2-21 (1-4), and anything in Seasons 3-4 that aren't part of a multi-scenario series (including informal series, like the Dacilane Academy "series").

Yes, I'd be happy to run any of those 4. I've played 3-11 No Time for Treason and 4-03 Linnorm's Legacy, the other two I'll have to read up on, but no preference for any of them.

Linnorm's Legacy is low on combat, so it's important to have players who are willing to engage with the NPCs. This scenario really thrives on interaction between players and NPCs. Ideally you'd play it IRL, so you can riff off each other (at least, that's what I enjoy most).

My assumption is giving the wielder the resistance.

Like Castilliano said, either could work. Lots of pre-remaster dragons and a lot of elementally themed monsters deal a certain damage type and resist it as well. Would be weird if a fire dragon couldn't survive in a volcano, for instance. With that reasoning, an elementally-charged weapon could also "insulate" you against that same element: you're wielding a flaming hammer, so you're used to heat. The desert heat would affect you less.

The other way around could also work, like how the new Zelda games do it: you're wielding a flaming weapon that's keeping you hot, so it counteracts the freezing cold of the arctic.

I could also imagine being extra vulnerable to either: the flaming weapon intensifies any heat that's coming your way, or the cold cooling you down more rapidly (bigger difference in temperature).

A random combination of elemental damage and resistance could work, depending on how you flavour it. Using the skull of a hellhound as the base of a mace could give it flaming properties, and because it's so used to howling so often, it grants some sonic resistance.

TL;DR: Flavour is incredibly flexible. There is no wrong answer here.

Agree that an archetype would fit best, I think. But if it had to be a class:

The more I think about it, it might be an Alchemist research field, though the Alchemist name would be a bit weird. It could be a weird combination of all other Alchemist research fields, but instead of recoverable Versatile Vials, they'd turn money directly into whatever they need: healing potions, bombs, and so on. Yes, it makes them way stronger than any specific research field in that they have access to all the goodies, but they wouldn't get the respective field benefits and discoveries, as well as the fact that they actually have to pay for it.

Octopath Traveler for the Switch has the Merchant class. IIRC they didn't do anything too unique, but they were good supporters. They could hire followers in town or use a combat skill to summon help, depending on how much money you throw at the problem. In Pathfinder terms, they might function as summons or minions, though them appearing from thin air might break believability a bit.

If you want to go that route, a Summoner subclass/reflavour would work. Obviously not with the extraplanar flavour, but a humanoid companion might be a decent solution. You could do like a Warrior/Mage/Healer thing, where the main class is a skill monkey (though less than a Rogue), and the follower essentially your subclass selection. Or if you want the Merchant to be a spellcaster, you can let your companion be of a different tradition (obviously following 2e's design on companions, not the Leadership problems of 1e/3.5).
I believe PF2 allows you to have multiple companions, right? And you can switch them out after some refocusing, yes? That'd be a cool niche that isn't occupied yet. Perhaps as you level up, you can have a larger retinue of followers (but still 1 out on the field at a time).

Other things Octopath does is giving allies extra actions (sort of covered by the Commander) or SP (essentially giving your party members your spell slots or focus points). Not sure exactly that is good design space, but I'm sure the designers could riff off that.

And, of course, the Octopath Merchant gains extra money. But a single-player computer game has to worry less about economy than a tabletop game, so I don't wanna mess with the economy directly. But maybe a mechanic where they could gather resources that fuel something else. Maybe a Versatile Vials-like thing, but more limited. Your first instinct would be a Charisma-based class, but I could see an Intelligence-based Merchant work as well. More the cunning, shrewd merchant who knows the value of their merchandise, rather than the haggling persuasive type. Like how Crafting fuels Inventors, Mercantile Lore could power up their abilities. Make an X amount of checks during combat to size up the enemy, then know where to strike, sort of like a combination of Rogue and Swashbuckler: "Oh, I see you bought your armour at Dave's Discount Warehouse. Terrible idea, really, they use inferior metal for chain mail," essentially giving them Clumsy as you expose literal holes in their armour, or everyone can poke said hole for minor additional damage. "And oh, you haven't been using my patented Sword Wax to keep your weapon in pristine shape! I can see the spots of rust from over here," leading to penalties on attack or damage. Basically, this would turn the Merchant into more of a saboteur class than a damage-dealer.

Thanks for the in depth replies, everyone! I really don't understand the Alchemist's playstyle and this helps a lot.

Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.

I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.

But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?

Assuming both are available, I do think it's odd that a base sturdy shield is more expensive than a reinforcing rune. I think it should be the other way around: you pay a discount for a specific magic item, rather than a general-use one. As Dragonchess Player above me said: with the sturdy shield you're locked to a steel shield. The reinforcing rune would fit on any type of shield, possibly onto another specific shield.

By the way, can you upgrade specific shields with different effects? In PF1, if you found a Lion's Shield for instance, it couldn't get an additional +1 enhancement on it (at least, that's how I understood it), but I can't findy anything about that in this edition. Can I make a reinforced Lion's Shield now?

Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.

If it's an attention span issue, maybe ask them to do something that takes a little focus, but not enough to absorb them completely? I have several friends who doodle or draw (maybe the scene they're playing in right now, or the creature they're fighting), or who do crafts like knitting or crochet. That takes up enough brainspace that they're not bored, while not as absorbing as being on a phone is.

As for decision paralysis, can't help you there. That's a personal thing, and you said you've addressed it before. The players know it's a thing and pressuring them even more might lead to guilt. Maybe ask them what they need help with, but don't offer unsollicited advice. That way, if they say, "I don't know whether to use spell A or spell B," you know what the problem is, and you can discuss it.
A player in my game suffers from this as well, and they've organised their spell list in "support," "offense," and "situational." That way they can easily select from the menu that's appropriate, rather than look over a giant list of spells.
What I've found also helps is that there's no perfect action in this game. There's too many variables and unknowns to plan out the perfect turn. Some people feel inadequate if they don't contribute as much as they can to a game, but they need to realise this and know that "good enough" is completely fine.

I get that slow play is frustrating, but being understanding and supportive really does foster a healthier atmosphere at the table. Most likely, the "indecisive" players don't do it on purpose, and urging them to speed up only leaves both sides of the table unhappy.

I still do everything on paper. Character sheets, chronicles, and so on. (I do use a form-fillable PDF for character sheets, but I don't like playing from a tablet or phone). Filling in gold and EXP and such is two minutes, max. Hell, sometimes I'm lazy and don't fill it in right away, and I have to update a level's worth of chronicles and that's not that much more work.

I don't plan my characters. I look ahead and see what juicy bits are available, but nothing's set in stone. Leveling up takes 15-20 minutes, since my autocalc does most of the math. I just have to add the feats and the text in the relevant text boxes and I'm done.

Shopping for equipment varies. I don't count that as "updating" as I usually don't actively search for stuff. I'm a lazy shopper and rarely spend money beyond the mandatory runes and +1 items (I can't be bothered to go through all the items on AoN and see what niche item would fit my characters), so unless I stumble upon something interesting or build-defining (usually through chronicle sheet rewards), they're just vanilla characters. And if I do know what to look for, it's just a few minutes of incorporating that into the character sheet.

I think Necromancer should be either Arcane or Divine and find the Necromancer class to be Occult odd. It doesn't scream Undeath to me in any way which is very confusing to me. I then realized I do not understand Occult magic, like why is it a thing? Shouldn't Arcane, Divine and Primal be more then enough and most Occult Casters can be just Arcane?

Like NorrKnekten said, Occult magic is the "creepy" magic. Arcane magic makes sense. You trace a few runes, you say the words, magic happens. Occult magic is when things don't make sense anymore. Partially the nursery rhymes and superstition Bluemagetim mentioned, but also things that break the laws of physics (even more than regular magic does). Aliens, the Dark Tapestry, and so on are occult. We just can't wrap our heads around their existence or motivation.

There is a part of me that wondered if certain spells should have had a lesser membership in certain traditions. What such a lesser membership would mean might require some work, but could range from not being available to you in your highest rank spells. Or taking a proficiency penalty to DC or attack rolls, or as costly as requiring a rank slot higher than you cast it, which was my first idea, but started thinking it too costly.

It could potentially easily affect cantrips by dropping the automatic scaling by one. Could say the same for focus spells, but those are normally only gotten by direct feats that represent a specialty, so doesn’t make sense in this edge knowledge sense.

It has been discussed how the arcane had lots of spells that didn’t really belong. If some had been pulled out of the core arcane and others fell into a more edge arcane scope.

Things like sorcerers and witches pulling spells into their tradition would get to treat them as core arcane (or other traditions).

It might also give wizard schools the ability to consider their curriculum spells as core arcane even if normally edge arcane.

I like the idea, but I don't think it's realistic. Magic the Gathering has a colour pie, where every effect belongs to select colours. One colour can't do everything. But early Magic shows that by making some effects be overcosted in certain colours: Green deals with creatures with its own creatures. To show that it's bad at direct destruction effects, a spell that's normally 3 or 4 mana now costs 6. But now, 30 years later, those cards are still "in the environment" and people point towards it and say "see, green can do this," while it was explicitly an examply of what green can't do. And even if it's bad, people will still use it if it's their only option.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to...

But then you encounter an issue of table variance: the fireball may or may not set the library on fire. To the GM, that’s fine. But as a player, if you try to use the fireball to burn the books so a villain can’t read them, the GM might rule that you can’t. At that point, you can’t rely on the rules to back you up anymore.

Also, the phrase "grind to a halt" feels so weird. Isn’t this a turn-based strategy game—the type that’s meant to be slow and deliberate? Aren’t critical successes and failures supposed to be the climactic moments where you slow down and focus?

Are turn-based games supposed to be fast and furious, like one of those timed chess matches where you get only 10 seconds to think? I just feel so disconnected and lost—I can’t understand the vision or direction of the game anymore.

Table variance is mainly between tables. One GM might rule one way, another a different way. The most important part is that you should ask your GM beforehand, "hey, if I cast Fireball, will that affect the books," instead of firing the Fireball and seeing afterwards what the GM rules. But I agree, a built-in "level of destruction" would be good to have.

The "grind to a halt" problem is mainly that other players want to see what happens as well. In my experience, Player B and C have an opinion as well and go search on their devices to see if they can help find the ruling. Then everyone is furiously tapping on their devices and play will only continue when all the attention is back to the combat. Indeed, ideally Player A gets affected, but turn order continues while Player A looks up what happens to them, but I've rarely seen that happen.

The suggestions Alex Speidel made are excellent. The Free RPG Day adventures are great fun. If there are lots of players unfamiliar with Second Edition, I might recommend the Pathfinder Trials. It's very newbie-friendly, though you might want to skip one combat if time is tight.

The Quests are also great recommendations!

Perses13 wrote:

Also players tend to get upset when the enemy mage melts all their cool magic items.

I understand it I really do. As a game completionist, nobody hates losing rare drops more than me. But again, I have to disagree because the risk of burning down the library or destroying items is precisely what causes players to start considering less destructive spells, such as those that attack the mind, or to use indirect methods like stealth. They begin employing strategy, and that is exactly what you want. That is what creates a world that feels real.

Suddenly, it’s not just about getting healed. If you mindlessly take damage, your gear breaks. The party then has a very good reason to scout ahead with familiars or rogue-like classes and to use strategy instead of brute forcing their way through. With each of these "annoying" mechanics that is lost, the game becomes more cartoonish and more shallow.

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to consult another table to see how much hardness and hit points your armour had, only to realise it's only a fraction of its total HP, and play continued. The game ground to a halt to see what would happen, and it's only in 5% of the cases. PF2 did away with that just to streamline things.
I think a game like what you're describing is possible, and I'm sure it exists, it's just an element of realism that Pathfinder doesn't want to bother with. (I'm recalling a different argument where someone said Pathfinder's combat and damage wasn't realistic enough, this could slot in there as well). Paizo made the decision that they didn't want to bother with armour maintenance after every single fight (and in a way, shields are a simplified version of it). Would it add to the enjoyment of the game if it was added? Maybe, for some. Would it be worth the extra rules? Definitely not.

I still remember the discussion from a while back about whether a boomerang returns or not. The "flavor text" seemed to contradict the rules text and people swore you could have your cake and eat it too.

I understand the appeal for reverting Religion and Nature back to INT, but coming from 1E, I like that A) the Wizard doesn't know everything and B) that the Druid and Cleric are actually good at their respective fields.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

I still feel like a +1 skill increase is too little to feel like an actual increase. Unless there's more ranks of proficiency so you could still climb that ladder faster. But at that point, you're back to 1e's skill points.

I do miss skill points, though. Felt much more rewarding than 2e's "which singular skill will I get better at?" every two levels.

That framing feels odd to me. You don't choose a singular skill to get better at every two levels, you get better at ALL your trained skills and choose a skill every two levels to get even better at than those other skills. And at the alternating levels you get to choose a skill to get better at via a skill feat. And that's assuming you don't gain anything else from your general feats, class, or archetype.

Skill ranks were just never going to survive in the tight math of PF2 anymore than feats like weapon focus and greater weapon focus would.

Yes, going from Untrained to Trained means that skill will forever scale with you, but with level-based DCs scaling faster than that (DCs seem to go up by 4 every 3 levels), eventually that Trained proficiency will not swing it anymore (meaning that if you have to roll a 10 at level 1 for a success, you'd need to roll a 12 by level 6, a 14 by level 12, and so on). Boosting that one skill means keeping up with the DC, instead of getting ahead of the curve. Meaning you steadily get worse at the skills you don't invest in. +1 items and stat boosts help catch up, but they feel more mandatory than optional.

My personal bugbear is that a high Charisma score is described as having high willpower, while the actual Will save goes off Wisdom.

(I'm not advocating for changing Will to be Charisma-based, just stating my own dissonance.)

I still feel like a +1 skill increase is too little to feel like an actual increase. Unless there's more ranks of proficiency so you could still climb that ladder faster.

With the caveats of course that there's still caps at certain levels. It's just that it's such a difficult line to walk between the tight math of 2e and the absolute bonkers way you could boost skills in 1e. Like, now I believe the bandwith of a skill check is 2 (so if the standard DC for level 1 is 15, an average check could be between 14-16). If that band increases to 4 (with the expectation that focused PCs will be around average), you could give players more bonuses without that absolute numbers madness 1e had.

Alternatively, some kind of diminishing returns, like partial boosts past your first investment. At level 1 you could be Trained for a +2, at level 2 you could be Trained+ for a +3 (one partial boost per proficiency level). And same for Expert, Master, and so on. a character maxing Diplomacy at every opportunity would in the end be +4 better than in the current system, but that'd still feel like a proper investment, as well as a decent sacrifice. That +4 came at the expense of 4 boosts in other skills. Would be hell to track, though.