QuidEst's page

Hmmm...did they get rid of the Planar Dragons from 1st edition?

Or did they just remake them?
Like, the Paradise Dragon, Infernal Dragon, Apocalypse Dragon (etc etc)?
Did they get remade or is that coming later?

Delight Dragon is the old Havoc Dragon. Diabolic and Empyreal are connected to Hell and Heaven respectively. Requiem is similar to the old Crypt.

In short, some amount of the divine dragons are tied to the planes that the planar dragons were.

I really enjoy the akashic dragon. Host dragon was what I was most looking forward to from the name, but the end result was... I guess I would say, a little too cartoony compared to what the name conjured up.

Has anyone created an official list on what new Dragon's we've received and have been announced via second edition?

There you go. The Draconic Codex table of contents has them all.

QuidEst wrote:

The hopes I had have been doused by seeing that the upper-level feats are more or less the same. They still have a feat giving them more low-level slots and they still have a feat the removes the refocus improvement's condition that only used focus points to amp. While it's possible we got slot improvements and kept that feat, I'm skeptical. And while I do expect some tweak to the refocus wording, it's still similar enough to work with the existing feat.

If you're referring to the preview images on the store page, I wonder if those are just placeholders from the original, non-remastered version. On one of those pages, they still have alignment noted for various characters. I assume those would be removed as part of the remastering of this book.

Perhaps it's just my copium for also being disappointed when I saw that the high level Psychic feats were exactly the same...

Oh, really? That's good to know. I will readjust back to my previous mild hope, since alignment being gone is a big part of what the remaster needs to do.

The hopes I had have been doused by seeing that the upper-level feats are more or less the same. They still have a feat giving them more low-level slots and they still have a feat the removes the refocus improvement's condition that only used focus points to amp. While it's possible we got slot improvements and kept that feat, I'm skeptical. And while I do expect some tweak to the refocus wording, it's still similar enough to work with the existing feat.

Tridus wrote:

And although Magus it's the worst offender, it's not the only class where Psychic Dedication itself is one of the strongest level 2 feats in the entire game. It's not quite as bas as Exemplar and basically any martial, but it's up there. If you compare Imaginary Weapon to Fire Ray for a Magus to get, Imaginary Weapon is stronger and cheaper. It really shouldn't be both of those.

If the ability to Amp was a second feat, it's...

How is Imaginary Weapon cheaper than Fire Ray? It is indeed better, but they both need two feats to learn. Psychic Dedication only grants you a standard psi cantrip, so you still need Psi Development at 6th level to learn Imaginary Weapon. Same as Oracle Dedication needing to take Domain Acumen at 4th level for Fire Ray.

Psychic Dedication doesn't require an off-stat investment that's costly for Magus, and it gives you your third focus point in those two feats. Same number of feats, though.

I would say that you are absolutely not wrong to nerf only allow a rerolled save once per affliction, As Paizo themselves errated a similar ability to do just that.

War of immortals 2025 Spring errata wrote:

Page 47: Update the One Moment till Glory transcendence of victor’s wreath to more closely match some similar abilities, to have less of a downside in certain situations, and to be less powerful at ending long-term effects outside combat.

“You rally your allies, carrying them from the brink of disaster to the verge of victory. Each ally in your aura can immediately attempt a new saving throw with a +2 status bonus against one ongoing negative effect or condition currently affecting it that required a save. Use the result of the new save to determine the outcome of the effect, unless the new save would have a worse result than the original save, in which case nothing happens. Each ally can gain this benefit against a given effect only once.”

That's an ability with no cooldown, no restrictions on what it can be used on (including things like permanent curses or urgent things like the Dominate spell), that gives a bonus on the save, and that is level 1 instead of 6. I wouldn't really consider it that similar of an ability myself.

Or, put another way, if it's limited to once-per-effect, it would be appropriate for it to affect anything, not just poisons and diseases.

QuidEst wrote:

The "point" of a Kineticist is essentially spending a whole class feat to get something like a spell as essentially a cantrip. If you go nerfing those at-will abilities so that they don't overshadow casting in the few cases where being able to do something at-will actually matters, it's a real bummer.

The ability does essentially guarantee removing a disease before it can progress, so if you need to nerf it, I would consider making its ability to treat a disease once per eight hours (matching the frequency of the Treat Disease activity, but taking a few actions instead of requiring working for eight hours straight). The ten-minute limit is longer than most poisons run, so it's just not relevant there.

Well, if kineticist was only one or primary healer I probably would not be bothered about it's ability to remove deseases with such ease, which overshadow spells. But the main reasoning here is that party has a main healer, and she has spells and invested in medicine. Granted that bard unlike witch or cleric could not swap spells in their repertoir each day, whats the point to have such spells if kineticist can do all the same but better?

Making it once per 8 hours is a good advice, I will consider that approach

I would certainly let the Bard choose to retrain Cleanse Affliction if they don't think they're getting good value out of it anymore, and I'd handwave the usual training costs and time. (Spontaneous casters can freely retrain a spell on level-up anyway, and often forget the option.)

It's worth noting that Torrent in the Blood won't remove the lingering effects of a disease or poison, so if the Bard needs a substitute spell, Restoration, Clear Mind, and Sound Body are all good choices.

However, Cleanse Affliction can guarantee improving the condition of a poison or disease right away, while heightened versions also get a counteract check to remove it entirely. Even if you don't change Torrent in the Blood, Cleanse Affliction is still pulling its weight against poison.

The "point" of a Kineticist is essentially spending a whole class feat to get something like a spell as essentially a cantrip. If you go nerfing those at-will abilities so that they don't overshadow casting in the few cases where being able to do something at-will actually matters, it's a real bummer.

The ability does essentially guarantee removing a disease before it can progress, so if you need to nerf it, I would consider making its ability to treat a disease once per eight hours (matching the frequency of the Treat Disease activity, but taking a few actions instead of requiring working for eight hours straight). The ten-minute limit is longer than most poisons run, so it's just not relevant there.

When you say "apply to critical failures" does this only work for spell attack rolls then? If so that's strong but honestly not the worst thing in the world.

It's to improve your saves against one tradition, with the appropriate setup. Spell attack rolls don't enter the picture.

My takeaway is that Psychic Dedication needs to give Timber Sentinel.

IS there any Dragon Eidolons or is Summoner just dead.

Also is there a sustained force barrage, what is it called!? What Spell Tradition is it!?

We already knew it didn't have any because Summoner isn't remastered yet, right? There's already a dragon eidolon that, when remastered, should work with all the dragons in here, same as Sorcerer, Barbarian, etc.

It's an arcane Summon Dragon for a barrage dragon, I think.

I only got glimpses from Phoebe Bane's stream, but the bog dragons being able to make bog mummies (even if unreliably) is exactly what I wanted from them. The fact that they hoard undead heroes to force them to retell tales of their lives forever? Incredible. Much better hooks than the old black dragon.

My favorite stuff will probably have to wait until I get the book myself on December 3, but it seems really cool.

Occult only having two phantoms that are... let's say, less likely to inspire characters than what the other traditions have, is a bit of a bummer. Aberration is such a natural fit that Secrets of Magic even discusses the underpinning of why occult tradition summons aberrations in the occult magic section.

I know that a remaster is unlikely to add a lot of new class options, but I'll go ahead and toss it out there anyway.

Hope you're able to get things resolved without too much more trouble!

As someone who didn't really click with the old dragons, I'm one of the folks glad that we're getting a whole bunch of new ones to explore the new space, a little farther afield for what dragons can be. The new occult dragons do a much better job than the old esoteric dragons for me, for example.

But, I also have to acknowledge my place as the person in all my game groups least likely to appreciate the "dragon-shaped dragon with a thematic coat of paint" approach that 1e had.

I just realized I am a Lizardfolk, would I be able to take the ancestry feat Tail Whip to be able to grapple with my tail?

I don't see that feat. Iruxi Armaments doesn't give the tail the grapple trait, which is what it would need to do.

Kholo get a bite with grapple with the Crunch feat, if that's not too much of a change.

Heck yeah, Outcast's Curse mentioned - my favorite horrifying spell in the game! Love the mocking dragon as a potential enemy in evil games. It's a nice break from angels and infighting, and I could see a GM slotting it in as a party nemesis in Blood Lords.

I really appreciate them underselling the total amount so people didn't think we were getting forty new dragons. This way, the reprints feel like an exciting bonus.

But whatever, none of that matters, vizier dragon? I need to see this...

If you want some shorthand, Paizo replaced some alignments with edicts and anathema.

For NPC entries, there's a one-word description instead- where it would once say "Soandso, LN Merchant", it is now "Soandso, Forthright Merchant".

And, in some cases, like for monsters, there isn't a replacement shorthand. The CE dragon with a description of what kind of CE they were is now just a dragon with a description of what kind of dragon they are.

Those seem to be the tools that Paizo is using.

Is it intended to redesign/design the dragons as "more nightmarish" and "outerworldy alien"?

Eh, I'd personally say "more varied" and "more interesting". Some of them are more nightmarish or otherworldly, because the old dragons would never stray far enough from a basic dragon to be scary or alien. But I don't think a Rune Dragon or Fortune Dragon is nightmarish nor otherworldly.

I think Brine Dragon and Coral Dragon makes for a fair comparison. They're both ocean dragons from their respective second monster books.

Brine Dragons are very standard-looking dragons, with the only distinctions being decorative fins and the blueish color. GMing, I don't think the art is going to do much to impress the players with anything about the dragon. I'm going to have to lean into the personality to make them memorable.

Coral Dragons look a lot more like they're built for swimming, with properly webbed feet. They have powerful builds and scary teeth. Their appearance ties in with what their "thing" is. GMing, I think the art is going to do a lot of heavy lifting for me. They're probably going to be memorable even if I drop the ball on their personality.

I personally think having that wider range and venturing further out is what results in some dragons looking like you described, rather than those traits being a goal for all the new designs. But, it could also be something else entirely, like a goal to have "more imposing" dragons.

is this for Starfinder 1e or 2e?

Starfinder 1e.

QuidEst wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Yeah, a dragon for the Planes of Metal and Wood, the Astral and Ethereal Planes and the First World would round up thing nicely; Umbral Dragons are already in the Netherworld and while Forest Dragons are living in the Plane of Wood, they... are Imperial Dragons, not Primal.

I would expect that imperial dragons fall under primal dragons in the new categorization. That seems to fit them better than arcane, divine, or occult.

Is... that the plan?

Is Paizo dropping dragon categories altogether?

I'm out of the loop...

Speculation on my part, and speculation that missed the fact that Imperial Dragons actually use a variety of traditions of magic.

"They are Imperial Dragons" - Probably still true.
"... not Primal Dragons" - Maybe not true?

Instead of being inherently arcane creatures like they were in PF1, dragons are all tied to one of the four types of magic. So, we have four categories of dragons. The PF1/pre-remaster categories of dragons were just groupings of five dragons. For Imperial Dragons, it happened to be the elemental cycle, something that naturally has five. But there's no reason for there to be exactly five Esoteric Dragons, and there's a solid reason there shouldn't be only five Planar Dragons. That was all because Paizo released sets of five dragons in bestiaries, with each being a category sharing a theme. For the sake of clarity, I'm going to call these "families", since that's what the wiki does.

Post-remaster, we have four permanent categories for all dragons to fall under. Instead of rolling Arcana for all dragons, you roll the appropriate category skill. Instead of getting Arcane spells for all draconic-related magic, you get the related spell list. They are functional categories with mechanical impact and design considerations (Occult Dragons have feet-wings and a compulsion, Arcane Dragons are connected to some sort of magic, etc.).

It doesn't look like we are likely to be getting new dragon families, now that we have the four traditions as categories. (I could immediately be proven wrong in the big dragon book, so we'll see.) There's no reason that the old families can't stick around, and the Imperial Dragons are probably the most lore-important family of dragons, being tied to important parts of Tian Xia and to the elemental cycle.

But, Imperial Dragons do need to fall under some tradition if used in the remaster, to answer questions like "what spell list allows turning into them" and "what skill is best to roll knowledge on them". Using their casting tradition works, and leaves them in an interesting position where they're a draconic family that falls under several different post-remaster categories. If they all need to fall under one, "Primal" because of the elemental cycle ties makes sense, or "Arcane" for its own association with the same thing.

Narratively, I would describe it as slow waves of fear washing out from the dragon. Let's suppose we have a well-hidden invisible halfling sneaking around near a dragon. Every so often, despite their best efforts, they will feel dread creep over them and horrible images of being devoured will shake them. It passes after a few moments, but it isn't long before it's back.

Yeah, a dragon for the Planes of Metal and Wood, the Astral and Ethereal Planes and the First World would round up thing nicely; Umbral Dragons are already in the Netherworld and while Forest Dragons are living in the Plane of Wood, they... are Imperial Dragons, not Primal.

I would expect that imperial dragons fall under primal dragons in the new categorization. That seems to fit them better than arcane, divine, or occult.

It would be impolite to go asking someone about the rules intention for something they wrote more than a decade ago in a different edition. At this point, it is for the GM to decide.

This seems like a great party game to have on hand for nerdy crowds, based on the preview video.

Any chance this book will be getting a remastered version?

Guaranteed, or impossible, depending on your view- this was the first rulebook to use the remastered rules, so it is already "remastered".

I think this book would be the perfect opportunity to showcase some new Devils! I've always been very interested to see Paizo's official take on Wayfinder's Hellforge Devil, Addiction Devil, Physician Devil, Rumor Devil, and Seduction Devil! ^^

Easy thing to check is if there are any shared authors between this and Wayfinder #11 from 2014, since I don't think Paizo would use somebody's fan work without involving them or crediting. It doesn't look like there are any shared authors, so probably not those specific devils.

Got my Monster Core 2 yesterday.

Does anyone know of any plans for Paizo to publish a GM Core 2 book?

No indications of that so far. Everything they needed fit into one book, so getting another GM Core would certainly be surprising.

Honestly this is where the fantasy and reality collide so much (for me) that it's hard to strike the right balance.

In our world, someone using a banner to direct their allies would pretty much be consumed doing that and only that. They wouldn't also be trying to make attacks themselves, their job is to coordinate.

The question becomes, is a Commander that is only using their banner and related abilities to provide bonuses to their allies doing enough that not making attacks makes sense?

Not making strikes yourself is probably fine, as long you are letting your teammates perform extra strikes. So, if your banner is just on your backpack, you should be going and hitting stuff yourself.

Pole on your backpack locks you out of all brandish trait actions, so it's not really an option, unless you never want to let allies strike with your tactics.

They are actively working on it! The new store will support a lot more payment types once it launches. I know PayPal is at least one of them.

My sister misheard the title of this as "Guilt of the Raveworld", and I just want to make sure Paizo has that floating around in their head for Zo!'s promotional material.

Okay, you want a nerf, but not "just run it how it's written".

I propose that it's only convincing enough to fill them up close while they're distracted. If a zombie is flanked by the illusion, you flip a coin for which way it attacks. No more leaving zombies attacking it while the party snipers safely from afar or whatever, but it's still negating half the attacks.

QuidEst wrote:

In fairness, I have zero interest in an official crossover adventure. For me, home games with their own settings are where a hybrid game shines. Since those are going to have their own blend, official conversion rules aren't actually very useful.

I question this logic; home games are where conversion guidelines would be the most useful in my opinion. Official APs are written by Paizo who know the full design assumptions behind things like exploration puzzles and encounters, whereas homebrew campaigns are written by GMs who only have the rulebooks and existing APs as secondary references. Because Pathfinder and Starfinder rely on different assumptions for many such challenges, it would be particularly useful for a GM to have a conversion guide to avoid any unforeseen snags.

Just to list a couple of examples: Starfinder ancestries can fly at level 1, Pathfinder ancestries can't. A GM who designs a low-level Pathfinder-style environmental puzzle without flight in mind in their crossover adventure would run the risk of their setpiece getting trivialized by a Barathu or a Dragonkin, as reportedly happened in a PFS scenario where the latter ancestry was enabled. This by itself is more or less covered by SF2e's GM Core and its rules for handling Speeds, but it doesn't cover things like player-sided resistances.

So, for example two: the GM designs a severe encounter of six aeon guard troopers against a level 5 party: the troopers are ruthless and tactical, using cover and focus fire to take out the party one by one... except the party has Pathfinder-grade resistance to fire, such as Nephilim Resistance or the Kineticist's elemental resistance. The 1d8 + 2 damage on their aeon rifles drops from 6.5 to just 1.5 average damage against those party members, frequently dealing no damage at all and causing a tense encounter to fall apart.

All of which is to say: PF2e...

As you mentioned, flight is already covered by the existing conversion guidelines, and I'm fine with something like example two happening in a home game. Party has an easy time, and the GM can adjust after the one easy encounter. Most tables won't run into it at all, and it's a smaller adjustment than most I see a home-game GM needing to make. Next encounter with the Azlanti forces, the enemy commander shouts, "Shock setting only!" and there you go. Or the GM gives them some cantrips next time to use the caster trait on their guns to switch the damage type.

Paizo could go put out another book with even more detailed conversion guidelines. If they do it now, I think it'll still have similar minor gaps like not addressing player resistances, since not much has changed since the GM Core. I'm fine with those gaps, but that's why I'm fine with what we got. That's also why if we do get something more in that vein, I'd rather it be some years in, when the guidelines can have the benefit of plenty of feedback from people's games.

I would be more interested in something specific, like a Numerian setting book. That's got a particular focus, rather than needing to cover all the different ways there are to blend the games, and ending up a GM Core rehash. It can provide PF2-balanced tech without needing to worry about every SF2 weapon.

For a dedicated hybrid book, I think that's better once Starfinder has reached the point where Pathfinder got mythic. That gives it some time to settle into its own, and any guidelines will have the benefit of a few years of player feedback from mixing the two.

In fairness, I have zero interest in an official crossover adventure. For me, home games with their own settings are where a hybrid game shines. Since those are going to have their own blend, official conversion rules aren't actually very useful.

While I appreciate this coming out, I wish that Tech Core was coming first. Maybe I'm in the minority on that thought.

Tech Core has classes, so it's a GenCon release. Exceptions to that are few and far between. Plenty of people would enjoy having the new class book first, but probably not at the cost of them being unchanged from their playtest version, or Starfinder floundering because it didn't hit the important release cadence.

Well, since this discussion was dragged into another thread, I'll go ahead and say my two coppers.

There's an actual shield implement now. Regardless of "it doesn't say you can't" RAW, a good number of GMs are going to point you to use that instead.

This is the advice forum, not the rules forum to pick over the exact rules. Telling players on the forum that they can use a mirror implement as a shield seems like it would be poor advice. Telling them they could ask their GM about doing that seems like much better advice. Providing specific reflective magical shields to ask the GM about using, even likelier to work.

Personally, my interpretation would be "no" on a basic steel shield being polished up, but "yes" on a magic shield that reflects things. I would still point the player to the shield implement because of the significant action economy benefits on a class already constrained in their actions.

Wait, SFS won't let you use Pathfinder classes?! Like, I forgave the limited class variety in Starfinder because I always figured, "Pathfinder has it covered," especially when a design point of Starfinder classes is not stepping on the toes of Pathfinder classes. With that design decision, it made sense if players were being assumed to bring up Pathfinder classes into Starfinder.

I saw no need for a survival class, for example, because why not just play a Druid or Ranger and give them a gun?

But if you're actively forbidding Pathfinder classes, all that will result in is, well of course, the limited selection, but second, being forbidden from making Starfinder classes that fulfill these niches because Pathfinder has them, effectively locking potential classes out of Starfinder.

SFS really should just allow Pathfinder classes. (And PFS should allow *some* Starfinder classes that fit within the fantasy-steampunk framework).

Having a design philosophy that Starfinder and Pathfinder classes should not step on each others toes is simply not compatible with keeping them entirely separate in organized play.

I'm not really sure how you're picturing it playing out, but I see some downsides to that approach.

- There are three or four times as many PF2 classes as there are SF2 classes. The result would be that people would go in interested in playing SF2, only to find that it's just PF2 2: Now Electric.

- The systems do have different balance and assumptions. Dropping a reach weapon melee Fighter with a large-size reach ancestry into a fight designed around ranged enemies is just going to be a cakewalk in a way that standard martial progression off-stat melee Soldier won't be. Investigator's relatively inoffensive Studied Strike is a lot more of a menace when you hand them a sniper rifle. Thaumaturge gets weird once you move away from a "two hands" assumption. I don't believe that Paizo has the time to pore over all those PF2 classes and handle all the edge cases that are going to be a problem. People do also play stronger things more, so the broken edge cases would be over-represented.

- It's a means a lot of system bleed. Having Swashbuckler means certain skill feats must be in SF2. Having Alchemist means all the alchemy items need to be in the system.

- I expect a lot of GMs wouldn't want to deal with two games at once, even if it's the same underlying engine.

Overall, it seems like an experience that would give new folks a poor impression of Starfinder, and I'd expect a lot of posts complaining about how they should be separated again, at least for Society.

To me, Thaumaturge is a class that has all its core elements in its features rather than needing to use it's feats to flesh them out. It's not like Fighter or Ranger where you need to get most of the class from the feats. But, you always want to come in with your own explanation, because generic Thaumaturge flavor is about as vague and bland as Wizard.

The Sorcerer multiclass got his powers from Abadar and Lamashtu, two opposed deities that he worshipped. Every class feature, implement, and feat was flavored as coming from one or the other. The archetype just provided an upgrade to the ancestry bite attack.

The Undead Master used a ritual to get his Esoteric Lore knowledge from the secrets of the stones he worked on, linking them through occult magic to his hammer. Those secrets gave him his Exploit Vulnerability and knowledge of undead rituals. Undead Master just provided better undead than the in-class rituals.

The Swarmkeeper used his ability to talk to rats to form an information network. Esoteric Lore was "rat consultation", with the rats providing secret weaknesses of enemies. Implements were various minor blessed relics he won off priests in games he cheated at. Swarmkeeper just provided more rats mechanically than the in-class familiar.

The unarchetyped one used a song of all that was in the world to glean knowledge she couldn't otherwise know, and mis-sang parts of that song to disrupt enemies and make false weaknesses real for a short time.

QuidEst wrote:

As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game.

I must be strange. Over 1/2 my SF2 characters have survival (admittedly, most of them are mystics so there is a huge incentive to take wisdom based skills). And it has been quite useful in the SFS 2 adventures I've played in so far.

Well, I could be the odd one out too, and I'm in campaigns more than Society games.

I think it'd make for a killer archetype. We had it as one of the first SF1 archetypes- emergency repairs, better untrained skill uses, etc. That's more in the skill and general feat category, but having some updated abilities for SF2 would be cool.

A full class? It's a bit like Ranger in a more space-y setting, so there's room, but I imagine it needs a combat schtick too.

SF1 launched with seven classes and didn't add any for a little over two years after launch. SF2 is splitting the difference - we will have one year with one fewer class, followed by one year with one more class.

Starfinder is operating with a smaller team, with a surprise early start due to the OGL crisis, and launching into the dual headwinds of tariffs and distributor bankruptcy. It's managing that by being able to lean on PF2, especially early on. I think it's realistic to say that more early classes would mean cutting something like starship rules from Tech Core.

It's a bit of a bummer, but my PF2 experience was "give the new system two years to really get going." In PF2's case, it was limited ancestry selection making the game a bit dry for a while. SF2 has no issues there, but the classes will take a bit to get going. Once we get the two classes after Tech Core, I think I'll be pretty happy myself.

As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game. In a science-fantasy game, I absolutely expect nobody to have such a niche skill. That's where Envoy comes in, with flexible skill feat for skill training or improvised mastery to roll it as if master in it.

Not sure how you're raising a shield with a mirror/weapon Thaumaturge, unless you're forgoing the Implement's Empowerment bonus.

I'd probably drop the shield anyway. You're spending a lot of actions on it when you're using a class that's already eating up an Exploit Vulnerability action. Or, maybe grab the new Shield Implement- then you can combine Exploit and Raise into one action, freeing yourself up some.

Weapon is kind of the "Fighter Lite" implement, and a bit... dry. Maybe consider one of the others that would fit your character better?

What I did with my Thaumaturges:
- Used Sorcerer multiclass (pre-remaster) to get a bite attack with temp HP, combined with Mirror and Amulet for somebody who oppressively outlasted enemies.
- Used Undead Master to direct meat shields around combat while causing suffering as a Kuthite scorpion whip user.
- Used Swarmkeeper to deploy a swarm of rats at problems out of reach or groups of weak enemies on a Chalice user.
- Just leaned into the roleplay side of things on a Bell user.

Even without Free Archetype, it's a class that can very easily afford to take an archetype with their class feats.

Thanks I appreciate your thoughts.

You're welcome!

QuidEst wrote:

"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.

I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.

If you actually make a deception check, that's a full round of combat. (it's not just a three-action activity for some reason) If you don't make a deception check, what are you doing?

Providing alternative options. In the same way that somebody can assume strange behavior was caused by unseen magic without spending an action or rolling anything, an unconvincing and obvious lie of a bribe is still something they might assume their ally was gullible enough to fall for.

As far as the first one (shouting at your allies as if they work for you), that's just roleplaying for an ongoing Impersonate rather than an individual Lie activity.

Is that faster than descending a balcony or ledge?

Usually, yeah. Climbing is very slow, falling prone takes an action to undo, and clearly a first-level spell doesn't allow forcing somebody to jump off a bride (even if all their friends are doing it).

Would they still be able to perform a "flashy or extravagant tumble" or would you just rule a tumble success is flashy in and of itself regardless of the intent?

I feel like with panache specifically you are trying to do something daring and flashy, but if you are fleeing and you have to tumble through someone it would just be whatever it takes... though I suppose that is what the roll is for.

From a rules perspective, absolutely. Tumble Through gains the Bravado trait, so it gives panache.

From a GMing perspective... go ahead and toss your players a bone now and then, y'know? I wouldn't necessarily let this fly as an alternative to walking past somebody who isn't actually in the way, but this sounds like tumbling is a plausible "most expedient" option- certainly, there's no obvious other winner. They player is playing a Swashbuckler; they should be able to make running away look good even under compulsion.

It's good for the enemies to not just know the player characters' sheets. The caster picking a command and circumstance that worked for the character is nice for immersion and a fun little moment.

Fleeing is "as expediently as possible", and Command says "as if it had the fleeing condition". Since tumbling through somebody's space has a chance of failure to end the movement, it's only the most expedient option if there's no better way past (like walking around).

In this case, it sounds like like tumbling through was the most expedient option, so entirely fair! If an enemy magically compels you to do something you benefit from, well, that's on them.

"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.

I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.