I *HATED* that the Arcanist tried to be the cool guy wizard who doesn't play by the rules like a loser, like all the scrub regular wizards have to.
If there is a way to break the rules of magic, it's going to be a freaking Wizard who does that. PC wizards 100% aren't the "by the book" archetype. More often than not they're the "pursue knowledge and power at any cost" archetype. No chance they'll ignore loopholes if they find them.
That's just it though, Wizards are the casters *are* the rule users. They have no innate, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants capability for magical talent (i.e. no spontaneous capabilities). Instead, they are trying to *find* the rules and work within them to the greatest extent possible.
Meanwhile, Sorcerers and their ilk run purely on innate capability, but are fully *bound* by that capability. If they can't do it naturally, through the power coursing through their veins, then they can't do it at all, no matter how many textbooks the point-hatted-ones yell and scream about. Sure, you can Levitate without having ever studied it, but you've got no idea how to summon a Fireball even though the power management basics are all fundamentally identical according to the books.
So, in comes the Arcanist, who took their innate capabilities and studied the textbooks and managed to use their spontaneous power as a fuel, directing it into the spells of their choosing through a little preparation, just like they learned at school.
But what is the fictional equivalent of a L8/Tier 2 character?
In what ways is it supposed to be weaker than a straight L10 character and in what ways is it stronger (using the absolute fiction that Paizo sold that 1 Mythic Tier was about equal to 1 character level in power)?
Those are two different things. Fluff vs crunch.
The fluff of an L8/M2 character is, in my mind, like a young Hercules. Not having yet fought the lion or cleaned the stables. Perhaps he already has the strength to carry the world for Atlas for a little while, but he hasn't realized it, so he effectively self limits. Justifiable, perhaps, because Paizo refers to these as mythic paths, reflecting your journey toward final realization of your full mythic potential. Baby Hercules killed a snake in his crib; doesn't mean he was ready to punch a river into submission.
The crunch is wholly different. Mythic in PF1 not only granted more numbers, it also represented hard tiers e.g. overcoming creatures with mythic resistance or saving vs. mythic spells. In addition, you were getting access to a second path of new abilities. Theoretically, you could simulate this by tacking on additional feats during leveling; you get granted new options and at a faster pace.
Mechanically, it means that against a similarly leveled threat:
- Your base ability to overcome it through raw numbers was improved with bigger numbers
- Your flexibility in dealing with unexpected challenges was also increased e.g. taking the "I don't need VSM for casting" mythic abilities as an archmage left you able to deal with silence, grappling, and lost pouches for your casting.
So, taking a stab at this, I would introduce a new trait, Mythic. It can be applied to a number of things. It could optionally have a number as well, indicating the Mythic rank involved. To perform a Mythic action requires meeting the indicated Mythic rank (defaults to 1). Want to cast a Mythic 2 spell, you need to be Mythic rank 2. If you are opposing an effect with the Mythic trait, you either need to meet the rank requirement or else have your degree of success reduced by one.
As for your mythic abilities, you'd gain them as you gain mythic ranks, and mythic ranks, as in PF1, could be gained independently from regular levels.
But you continue to miss the RAW argument:
Flame, Poison, Precious, Versatile are traits and are out.
Striking, Potency and all runes are magical properties and are out.
Silver, Cold Iron, Budgeoning, Piercing , Slashing are mundane properties and are not excluded so they are in.
Silver and Cold Iron are not traits because Precious exists. The Precious trait is what enables an item to apply effects relevant to the specific precious material the item consists of. If you remove Precious, that implicitly means it is no longer 'Silver' for purposes of determining special results from a weapon or item being Silver.
I did have one player get defensive and begin shouting at me when I brought up the idea of players suggesting when to reward hero points as one possible means of helping me remember to do so. I was told to "stop being a [part of the female anatomy] and that I should just do my [expletive] job as GM and remember them in the first place so they wouldn't all die again. That it's not their fault and that I shouldn't be putting the blame on them." I nearly hung up on him, but I suspected he misconstrued what I had said, and knew that disconnecting in anger would only make matters worse, so I stuck it out, let him have his three-minute vent session, then when he was calmer, continued talking to him calmly about how I intended to do what I could to make the game better, and how that would be impossible without everyone's cooperation. The subject soon changed to real world topics that made it abundantly clear that the stress caused by the pandemic and lockdowns are far more responsible for everyone's behavior than the VTT.
Why are you tolerating that person's behaviour? Whether it's related to gaming or not, that's a completely unacceptable way to behave, especially to someone who's meant to be a friend. Lots of people are stressed right now, but most of us can refrain from profanity-laden rants at our alleged friends over mechanics in roleplaying games. Life's too short to tolerate this kind of nonsense.
I wanted to respond to this because I had the exact opposite reaction... @Ravingdork, I'm impressed that you were able to do this for your friend. As you pointed out, it became clear outside factors were affecting things, you gave your friend some emotional space, and, not having allowed one attack, misconstrued or not, to define the conversation, you were able to find a positive end and work together to resolve the issue, for both the individual and the group.
That is excellent emotional intelligence and a great example of "being there" for someone. Obviously if this was the constant pattern of behavior this would have been a continuation of an unhealthy cycle, but in terms of handling the airing of concerns during a highly stressful period of time, I think it was great. Kudos from a random internet stranger.
Update Alchemical Alacrity to provide one additional action, usable only in the round Alchemical Alacrity was used, and only to use one alchemical item created that round by Alchemical Alacrity. Any unused alchemical items created by Alchemical Alacrity beyond the number of free hands become stowed (or worn or whatever they intended).
I let this blog stew in my noodle for a bit longer and I have to agree that if there is significant uncertainty about how the classes will go, it should be pushed back.
The whole "4-slot casting" paradigm is going to be a major part of the game going forward, serving as a foundation for all half-martials/half-casters from here on out. It's important to get it right.
I do believe it would be a mistake to proceed with 4-slot casting, for reason's I've espoused in the playtest forums. Martial Caster was woefully inadequate, and getting it baseline wouldn't come close to providing the right feel for the class, and would be a disservice to future classes who are going to be stuck with 4-slot casting as well.
Agreed on the 4-slot casting, specifically the Martial Caster concept. Martial Caster feels very much like a hack, a way of saying "we know the toolkit for Magus casting feels light weight, so we're going to back some spells back in that seem to be useful for a Magus". It's an inelegant solution because it creates a fixed laundry list that all Magus' taking that feat will have access to. It removes a lot of the "I'm equally a magic caster with a spellbook and preparations to make" from the class.
What happens when another 4 slot casting class comes along with a different set of spells that "seem necessary but are generally inaccessible in our new 4 slot casting arrangement"? Does that class get its own set of spells that can be added back via a feat? It feels orthogonal to the intent of the design.
Mistform Elixir has the Illusion trait but is not magical. The Illusion trait refers to the Illusion school of magic. So I'm a bit puzzled. Is it an error?
Being a trait, it allows interaction with things that affect or rely upon illusions. So, for example, True Seeing allows you to pierce illusions:
True Seeing wrote:
You see things within 60 feet as they actually are. The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area, but only for the purpose of determining whether you see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature's true form, but you don't end the polymorph spell).
As a side note, poison immune enemies are now rare. It's roughly 10% of the database.
In my opinion, a properly played Alchemist is an opportunist. As such, you can't compare their efficiency "on average" because their average is low.
Poisons cost no actions, will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice. As a side note, damage/reagent is higher with poison than bombs (equivalent at low levels, higher as soon as you get to level 8). So, a properly played Alchemist must use poison on everyone's weapon at each combat (as soon, of course, as he has sufficient reagents). And poison should come before bombs in terms of reagents allocation.
Bombs are awesome to abuse weaknesses. That's why bomb feats are not at all math fixers to me. As long as you target weaknesses, the so called math fixers account for less than 10% of your damage and become no more math fixers. The only exception is Ghost Charge, which is awesome even without abusing a weakness and benefits greatly from the math fixers.
And thanks to Valet + Independent, it's very possible to use Elixirs of Life as a single action, giving them nearly the same action efficiency than a maxed Heal. It's limited in range, but considering the amount of reagents you can get, it's very quickly not that limited compared to spell slots.
Alchemist is also a very nice tank because a big part of your efficiency is either preapplied or given to your allies before battle (when you have the chance to have Monks/Animal Barbarians and other characters with a free hand to avoid wasting actions). As such, losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal.
I won't say that the class is not buggy, I will clearly not say that the class is strong, but I really think the class has things to bring to the party, as long as you reach at least level 5. Of course, I'd put an Alchemist in a party only if it's an already big one. In a 4-man group, I will never bring an Alchemist. As a support class, it's strength is in numbers.
@SuperBidi, I am not calling you out here, but I do want to point something out... your explanation for why an Alchemist is a reasonable choice as a class includes quite a few disclaimers:
- Poisons "will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice"
- Use poisons for each combat "as soon.. as he has sufficient reagents"
- Elixirs of Life have 1 action economy *if* you take Valet + Independent
- But they are still limited in range
- They are nice tanks but only to the extent that you are providing prebuffs to other martials in the group
- Such that "losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal"
- It has things to bring to the party... if you reach level 5
- And only if it's over 4 characters in size
Again, I'm just pointing out there are a *lot* of disclaimers here for seeming to support Alchemist as a reasonably well designed class.
I think you're also misunderstanding things - just like Rogue, even though something is skill-related doesn't mean it should be a skill feat. For example, Alchemical Savant is Quick Identification at legendary, but with more features. It's like picking up a level 1 class feat that lets you fall unlimited distances, plus you can also bounce off it and Stride at the bottom if you're adjacent to a wall.
Yes, but how often do you anticipate the need to quickly identify an alchemical item? Do you think that is worthy of a class feat?
As a mutagenist, given that one of the complaints about handing out my mutagens to teammates is that they are stuck with the penalties for the entire duration, it would be nice if Revivifying Mutagen could also be used on others. This would allow you to have everyone take your Serene Mutagen while searching for traps and then at least make the attempt to cancel said mutagens when combat comes. Maybe the healing only occurs to you.
As for comparing the limited number of spell casts to the potentially higher number of items an alchemist can provide in a day... the limit only matters if you are likely to approach it in an adventuring day. I suspect that is a fairly niche event.
Question... if you allow a Spell Strike using your lower level slots, aren't you effectively giving them a big boost? If you *do* manage to crit with your weapon Strike, it automatically bumps up your result, which could change a miss (because you were casting a 1st level spell instead of a 5th level spell and rolled low by 3) into a hit, etc. It seems like part of the intent of limiting to the top two available spell levels was to avoid boosting the power of the lower spell slots through your weapon crits.
Lower level spells are effectively dealing less damage than cantrips in those slots at that level, so even if you do use them, they still aren’t creating significant changes in DPR.
For instance at level 5 (first level this new system takes effect) Shocking Grasp does 2d12 save damage for 13 avg
Chill Touch does 8 + 4 (Int at lvl 5) for 12 avg.
It comes down to being more versatile with effect choices.
But remember, losing your highest level slot on the odds is a significant drop in DPR too, and that’s what you’re buying with that drop (longer days and more versatility).
Fair point about damage, but what about save spells? Fear at level 1 would suffer from a weaker DC but the effect could then be bumped back up as a result of your weapon crit. Arguably, you could then fill your spell list with various heightened/reduced memorizations of a couple of control spells. Doing that while working to max your crit fishing would seem to pump more power than may be desired into those lower level slots.
Your mastery of alchemical secrets enables you to replicate effects most believe can be achieved only via magic. Select a number of potions equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) of 9th level or lower. You gain formulas to create these potions as alchemical items with the elixir trait. When making these alchemical elixirs, you can substitute alchemical reagents for an equal value of magical components, and you can use alchemist’s tools (for Quick Alchemy) or an alchemist’s lab (for the Craft activity) instead of any other required tool kits. Other than that, the formula does not change. Once you’ve chosen the potion formulas, they can’t be changed.
Both in the fluff and in the crunch, it appears that your new Improbable Elixir:
- is an alchemical item
- has the alchemical and elixir traits
- replaces magic with alchemy
I think it is clear that it would have the alchemical and elixir traits. I think it is heavily implied (though not explicitly stated RAW) it would *not* have magical or potion traits.
Consider if when you roll a melee crit, you have a chance of breaking your weapon. And it's based on the amount of damage you actually do. You can choose *not* to apply the additional crit damage, in which case your weapon will not break. But you crit, you risk blowing up your weapon.
Now imagine there are "Striking" weapons, a separate class of weapons for which they have reinforcement and there's a significantly reduced chance of weapon breakage on critting. They also offer some hit bonuses similar to how striking runes are apportioned.
But they can't be enchanted, having no actual rune slots. No striking runes, no property runes.
Fighters, Barbarians, and other big hitters would get weapons that would not blow up when they opt to allow a crit to happen. And those would tend to be the weapons they would use if they were more crit based, what with built in hit enhancements.
The *cool* weapons with other properties would be reserved for classes less likely to crit or less likely to depend on doing so in any case.
Note that the main change here is not so much the reapportionment of bonuses but the fact of the destructiveness toward a key piece of expensive equipment when utilizing a class's key functions, and how that significantly alters, negatively, the amount of freedom in equipment selection that such characters have. But even with the additional "crits break weapons" change for this scenario, in order to be in line with the "shield blocks break shields" system, splitting the items into "survives player using base feature" and "gives players more options" only exacerbates the problem.
It sticks out to me as the kind of thing that should have been materialized as either a property rune or even a non-magical modification that reduces the number of property rune slots (i.e. to recognize that it should compete with properties, but isn't magical... maybe the additional hardening permanently alters the shield such that the property rune slot can't be recovered).
- Alchemists don't make better use of their own toolbox; just more frequent use
- Even that more frequent use is less frequent that how often others can use their toolbox (e.g. casters get more spells per day than Alchemists get reagents; martials can use most of their abilities all day long)
- Alchemists seem the most reliant on Downtime activities i.e. to craft alchemical items so as not to have to rely solely on their infused batches
- Following onto that, other classes do not appear to be nearly as reliant on Downtime activities
- Alchemists don't get an all day variant of their toolbox until level 7 with Perpetual Infusions
- Only one research field, Bomber, feels like it meets expectations
- Mutagenists don't feel like they can really afford to go toe to toe in melee with Bestial mutagens, and they can't afford to bomb all day, so any other options become plinking away with a weapon like any other martial, though with fewer bonuses
- Chirurgeon's just don't feel like great healers, or, to the extent they are a valid healer, their attack options are even worse than the Mutagenist's if only because they can't use mutagens for buffs nearly as often
- Perpetual Infusions only gives one research field a meaningful boost, Bomber.
- Chirurgeon's Perpetual Infusion allows you to create antiplague/antivenom elixirs for free... that last 24 hours. The one version that would give you an immediate benefit to drinking it is the Major version which you never get for free
- Mutagenist's Perpetual Infusion allows you to create 2 of your selected mutagens for free; and to be fair, you don't always necessarily need your best tools to fight mooks. But, see Mutagenist's issues with being in combat (again, I'm looking at you Bestial Mutagen)
Alchemists mostly feel like the handy support guy who can dole out alchemical items and sometimes throws a bomb. It does not feel like a hero and doesn't feel like they are on equal footing with any other class.
In situations where we see "untrained vs trained" in the context of meaning "are you wholly untrained or do you have at least SOME level of training i.e. Trained or better", we always see it lower cased, excluding when it is the first word in an actual sentence.
In situations where we see "Trained", capitalized, in the context of "a specific level of training i.e. specifically Trained vs. Expert", it always appears to be capitalized, even when appearing mid-sentence.
The wording in the Chirurgeon entry does not capitalize it. Also, conceptually, it makes sense; once you have a foundation of Medical knowledge, your healing oriented Alchemical studies allow your Crafting skills to carry you going forward. I think it's intended to mean you can use your Crafting skill in place of Medicine for any use, untrained or trained i.e. Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, than to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I would agree that it is much better to let the enemy believe they have the upper hand, because you can lure them into a situation in which you substantially have the upper hand, which is why I said "until they react".
So yes, if they don't react immediately they would make a deception check against the PCs perception DCs to see if the PCs notice their pretending not to notice.
If the NPCs wanted to start combat at that time I would call for perception based init rolls from the PCs and deception based init rolls for the NPCs.
Agreed. To me, the counter-scenario, where the guards attempt to deceive the PCs but fail, is akin to novels I've read where the assaulting party notices something amiss e.g. "The guards are *supposed* to rotate every thirty minutes, and always have except for fog. It's a clear night; we should not go in."
That could be the sort of result of the PCs defeating the Deception attempt (or the NPC losing the Deception check, depending on perspective) if the guards do attempt the bluff.
There are a number of excellent comments and perspectives here. Having played on both sides of the GM screen...
I have sympathy for a GM who has gone through the effort of creating not only an adventure but an entire campaign, flavored accordingly, only to have your players either blow it up entirely because of an otherwise overpowered combination of mechanics (e.g. we teleport past the villain's maze) or to have your players not run with the expected flavor (e.g. "I honk my clown nose and tweak the demon-lord's cheek while doing a jig!").
I have sympathy for a player who has had a character concept in their mind's eye and finally gets to make it "real" in an RPG, only to have to pare it down because the GM was not on board with the same vision, and to have limited recourse for finding another game. This concept, of course, could be anywhere from "I want to be like the Hulk and literally be able to smash an entire castle on day 1!" to "I would like to be like Nightwing (not Robin, too bright), circus background, acrobatic fighting style, but with my parent's old death hoop from before they died". The first, of course, needing reigning in, but the latter... that's the scenario I hate to see a player disempowered from being able to portray.
The rarity rules potentially address both issues. For my part, I would have liked to have seen:
1) Rarity rules specifically to address power concerns - We have this already, of course, with Uncommon (or more rare) spells to be found throughout the CRB. Magic items, too. Basically, this is where I think rarity feels "right", because it is a mechanic that specifically adds a safety to what, from experience with PF1, have been shown to be potentially game-breaking options.
2) A separate set of rules to address theming concerns - This is where I think the player should have more power, or where there should at least be more rules/guidance/framework. Things like circus weapons requiring a specific background that the player could select. We already have that, to an extent, with things like Unconventional Weaponry, as well as weapon access granted by ancestry. And I think that the default assumption for *this* category should be that the *GRANTING* features are generally available, even if the *GRANTED* features are not. That is, I think that the "Circus Background" should have been listed as "Common" and the weapons so granted as "Uncommon". The player could choose to grab the "Circus Background" and could be guaranteed to have said weapons, barring a session zero GM ruling that that background was excluded. And yes, that is specifically to tilt the balance of the discussion toward the GM. As I have pointed out, I have been at tables where a GM has no problem ruling otherwise generally available features to be unavailable, so it's not like the GM has their hands tied.
But frankly, the non-mechanically-advantageous-but-interestingly-themed things are the window dressing a player gets to add to their character, the one aspect of the game fully under their control. Character creation is something that the player is most deeply involved with and has the greatest investment in; the GM has interest in the campaign as a whole but cannot care more for how a character looks and feels than the player playing said character.
There are, of course, themes that could be jarring; wanting to play an android from Numeria might be enough to dissuade a GM from going along if the advanced technology would be too bad a fit. And sure, wanting to play "Chucky the Clown" could be very disruptive. The thing is, you don't have to have the Circus Background to be a disruptive "Chucky the Clown". And if you want to play a Circus Background, spend session zero working out how you can be "Chucky the Clown" without the GM worrying you are going to mess with their tone. But taking the option off the table by default puts a lot more ground between a player and the concept for their character.
"Why not spend session zero trying to convince the GM to allow Circus Weapons rather than the GM having to talk you down?" Because the GM holds all the cards already. What they say goes or there is no game. To the extent that something impacts a player's ability to control some of the narrative surrounding their own character, I think the game system should have been permissive by default. Power concerns feel approriately addressed; but the theming for a character feels like it got pulled back from the players. Possibly because some of the most interesting themes were also tied to mechanics in PF1? I don't know.
In the end, I believe the rarity rules impacting access to mundane but thematically interesting choices disempower players too much. Rarity rules to address mechanical game disruption feel fine to me. YMMV. HAND.
Isn't the Alchemist infused reagent mechanic very much like power points? An increasing pool from which the user not only provides their class effects, but relies upon it for the majority of said utility?
If it weren't for the situations graystone pointed out in the CRB, where uncommon items, spells, feats, etc. were explicitly granted as a result of selecting certain backgrounds, I would agree that systemically PF2 is intended to rely primarily on GM discussion for access to uncommon traited elements.
Regarding The Show Must Go On, I am firmly in the camp feeling that the background material should have explicitly called out that players gain access to these uncommon elements as a result of their Circus backgrounds.
And I say that knowing someone will say "but talk to your GM". I have played with GMs that refuse to step outside of RAW for exactly the reasons mentioned above, particularly fear of feature bloat and power creep. Old ways die hard and if you have no reasonable access to GMs whose opinion matches yours, you're kinda hosed.
And even a reasonable GM can have a different opinion and at the end of the day if your session 0 still doesn't gain you that access, yes, you can not play with that GM.
But I have to say I find it a little aggressive to suggest you "find another GM". It trivializes the difficulty some may have in doing so.
I guess I'd like to see a little more sympathy for folks who want a little more certainty in what options they have access to. At the end of the day, we are all here because we enjoy the game and want very much to play and participate in the community.
- Move: In PF1, you get a Move action that, by and large, can only be used to move. In PF2, however, you have the freedom to use that action for anything you need to use it for. That is, your Move action is no longer guaranteed to be wasted in situations where it is no longer tactically advantageous to move.
You mean I can use it for skills that I simply don't have (e.g. Intimidate) or which might potentially provide wrong information (e.g. knowledge checks) or for actions that once where free, like raise a shield or sustain a spell? Yes you are right, those options are as useless as a move that I don't require.
Quintessentially Me wrote:
- Shield for AC: As was pointed out upthread, the game math is now balanced around *not* everyone having AC from a shield and requiring effort to use it for such via the Raise Shield action. So while you are correct that you could do that in PF1 and cannot do it in PF2 (i.e. AC from shield without an action), the game developers have made an effort to not make that a requirement.
I can agree to that reasoning from a design point of view, however you could have also balanced it around the shield. Also by design this makes defensive characters even more ineffective as they have to "waste" actions to raise their shield every round. Would an intelligent mob try to hit the shield raised Warrior or the Rogue in melee? Even in our party our sword and board Warrior is not using his shield anymore unless he does not need to move. Shields are only somewhat effective if every possible target has a shield up which indeed is a rare occurance.
Quintessentially Me wrote:
- Make a Knowledge Check: This is a flat outThis is a flat out decrease in capability, absolutely. It's a pity that I need to literally stop for 2 seconds in the middle of combat to rack my brains to recall a Troll's vulnerability to fire, but here we are.
Noted.
Quintessentially Me wrote:
-
...
@Ubertron_X:
I should start by agreeing that there definitely are differences between PF1 and PF2, and some things have been added and some removed in terms of capability. I don't think any character play will carry over identically from one edition to the next. My point in adding to the discussion here is to suggest that while individual contributions to your combat ability might change, the overall effectiveness hasn't, and that there may be some things that ameliorate the concerns you have.
===
Re the Move action: I may be misinterpreting you, but it appears as though you feel that that third action, aside from being used to Move, will categorically be worthless??? You mention several activities that you would either not take (Intimidate) or which you are concerned would be unreliable (Knowledge Check) or that you lament are no longer free (e.g. Raise Shield). Point of note, in PF1, sustaining a spell was not generally free. In PF1, concentration to continue a spell consumes your Standard action.
That all said, are you suggesting that, in lieu of Move, none of the following would be useful to you:
- Deception/Create a Diversion
- Deception/Feint
- Religion/Identify Magic
- Stealth/Hide
- Activate a magic item
- Consume a potion
- Use a ranged weapon
- Cast a 1 action spell
- Sustain a spell (again, not free in PF1)
These all seem like potentially valuable options. I understand you may disagree, but I believe this flexibility to be a strict upgrade over PF1.
===
Re the Shield for AC: Balancing around the shield would mean everyone in melee should have a shield. Balancing without the shield means Raise a Shield is *one* way to increase your defenses, but not the only way nor the way everyone shares and therefore everyone should use. In combat AC boosts appear to now be intended to be very short term and therefore presumably very situational. Witness the Shield cantrip, also 1 action, counts as Raise a Shield action, and grants an AC bonus for a round. You even get Shield Block reaction while it is up. The point here being that the math is now balanced around *not* having a shield, and if you *want* a shield, whether for appeal or effect, you can have one, it has use, but requires an action. Same with the Shield cantrip.
Also, don't forget that Fighters qualify for the Reactive Shield feat, letting them Raise a Shield as a reaction to an attack. Feat tax, but it is the new math. Additionally, if the Opponent wants to pass up the Fighter for the softer targets, they will have to eat an AoO.
===
Re Maintain a Spell: In PF1, Spiritual Weapon has a duration of 1 round/level. It does not require Concentration to continue, but if left unattended, will simply keep attacking the target for the duration. To switch targets, you require a Move action. In PF2, Spiritual Weapon performs the attack in the first round but requires Sustaining to persist beyond the round you cast the spell. It also uses and contributes to MAP.
I've read a number of posts about feeling dismayed at some spell changes, and it sounds like Spiritual Weapon has changed in ways you dislike. To that I would point out that Spiritual Weapon is now able to be Heightened, granting an additional 1d8 per 2 levels heightened, increase the overall damage the spell can do and making it useful into higher levels.
Still, the point I made originally still stands... PF1 sustaining a spell (i.e. via concentration) required a Move action and was not free. Specific spells might have wording to the contrary, but that's the general rule. In PF1, this means to continue a spell via concentration, you were firmly planted in place and unable to move for tactical purposes. In PF2, it requires 1 action among many. As an additional point, in PF2, if you were to cast two spells, both able to be sustained, you are now capable of not only Sustaining both, but you can also move with your third action as the cherry on top.
===
Re What to do in addition to Sustain a Spell: It appears you are specifically looking for what to do with 1 action, not the two you would normally have after you spent the first action Sustaining a Spell; I assume this goes back to your original goal, to be able to, in one round, Move, use your Shield for AC, make a Knowledge Check, Sustain a Spell, and cast a new spell. As I've mentioned above, I personally discount the concern over Shield for AC because I believe that it's a) universally an issue for all characters in PF2 and b) the math is centered around the presumption of *not* having that AC normally. I also agree that Recall Knowledge requiring an action is annoying, but mitigated by only 1 person technically needing to get it right and then sharing that information.
With all of that, to Move and Sustain a Spell in 1 round, yes, you are then limited to casting only 1 action spells. And yes, there are not many 1 action non-focus spells. But again, I'm going to point out you could not even Move and "Sustain a Spell" in PF1 because the Concentration necessary to do so eats your Move action. Aside from specific spells, situations, metamagic or the like, I don't even know how you were doing those two actions generally (again, barring specific situations), much less casting a third spell.
Looking at the focus spells, 24 of the 38 currently available domains have a Focus 1 spell requiring either 1 action, a reaction, or in any case, able to be cast even if you have used 2 of your 3 actions already. That's ignoring the Focus 4 spells. Yes, this does mean that if you pick the *wrong* domain/deity, you will simply not have any 1 action Focus 1 spell to cast. Not all options are equally attractive and having almost 2/3 coverage still leaves me feeling that the Cleric is in a good place in this regard.
Also, where you mention spamming Guidance 3x or Heal 3x, that's not even something you could even consider in PF1; the ability to cast even 2 spells in a round is pretty strictly controlled. Casting 3 spells is really very unlikely to happen. In PF2, casting 2 spells in one round is something you can do starting at level 1. I'm also not sure what the relevance of casting 3 spells in a round has to "what you can do once you have Sustained a Spell" nor to "In PF1, I could Move, Sustain, and Cast in one round (which, you actually can't); in PF2 I can't".
===
The summary:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Usually I want to move, either to provide flanking and/or to deliver a touch spell (ally or enemy), raise the shield for additional protection and cast a single spell (one-action heal/harm still possible of course, especially the harm does not lose out vs the two-action version). Thats 4 actions/turn even when not sustaining a spell or making knowledge checks. Once I cast a 2-action spell I am limited to either move or raise shield and that is the crux.
You are correct that Move, Raise a Shield, Cast a Spell (2 action) does require 4 actions per turn, disregarding Recall Knowledge. Regarding Raise a Shield, that's a tactical choice now, and it's baked into the math. In that context, you can still Move and Cast a (2 action) spell.
I also lament the change to Recall Knowledge for tactical benefit, but I would also point out that is a) likely going to be something the group only has to do once in a fight and b) it affects everyone equally, not just tankcasters.
And here is where I will just venture out into my opinion; for me, stacked against the additional flexibility of the 3 action system, the availability of a number of 1 action spells, as well as the change to Sustain a Spell (PF1 Concentration) from a strict Move action to just one of three actions, means I feel much more flexible and see these changes as a net positive. Naturally, your opinion may differ.
Spellcasters have been severely nerved by the new action economy. Last time I played my 1st edition Cleric could move, use my shield for AC, make a knowledge check, maintain a spell (e.g. Bless) and cast a new spell all in one round. Now I would need 6 actions / round to do so.
I concur with the OP that the current spellcasters dilemma is not so much about what mundane things to do when you have already cast a 2-action spell as there are plenty of simple actions for that but about what spells to cast when you already did two mundane things, e.g. after you moved and raised your shield.
All the while melees that could either move and attack or do a full attack can now do all the fancy stuff.
In PF1, your Cleric had:
- 1 Move Action
- 1 Standard Action
OR
- 1 Full Round Action
PLUS
- 1 Swift/Immediate Action
With this, and the fact that rules were different e.g. knowledge check being free in combat, yes, what you pointed out could happen (though I do feel obliged to point out that Bless, in both PF1 and PF2, simply has a duration, with PF2 offering the option of concentrating each round to increase the range; that is, it does not require concentration under ordinary circumstances).
But let's take a look at your assertions:
- Move: In PF1, you get a Move action that, by and large, can only be used to move. In PF2, however, you have the freedom to use that action for anything you need to use it for. That is, your Move action is no longer guaranteed to be wasted in situations where it is no longer tactically advantageous to move.
- Shield for AC: As was pointed out upthread, the game math is now balanced around *not* everyone having AC from a shield and requiring effort to use it for such via the Raise Shield action. So while you are correct that you could do that in PF1 and cannot do it in PF2 (i.e. AC from shield without an action), the game developers have made an effort to not make that a requirement.
- Make a Knowledge Check: This is a flat out decrease in capability, absolutely. It's a pity that I need to literally stop for 2 seconds in the middle of combat to rack my brains to recall a Troll's vulnerability to fire, but here we are.
- Maintain a spell: As I mentioned, Bless actually doesnt' require sustaining in either edition. It is optional in PF2 though, for increasing the range. That said, there are spells in PF1 that require some sort of sustaining. For example, Hypnotic Pattern has a duration of 'Concentration + 2 rounds'. In PF1, Concentration to continue a spell (i.e. PF2 Sustain) requires your Standard action. So in PF1, if you are having to concentrate to continue the first spell you cast, you will generally be unable to cast another spell. This contrasts from PF2 where Sustain is typically a single action, leaving you with two additional actions.
- Cast a Spell: In PF1, this typically requires your Standard action, meaning you won't normally be able to cast another spell nor even concentrate to continue an existing spell requiring concentration to sustain. In PF2, most spells require 2 actions, but some only require 1 action. As a result, there are several activities you can perform by default in PF2 that you cannot in PF1:
- Cast two spells: In PF1 this would require use of 1 Standard action plus something like Quicken metamagic or an Immediate action spell. In PF2, you could cast a 2 action spell plus a 1 action spell (e.g. many focus spells).
- Cast three spells: In PF1, this is even more difficult; I'd have to rely on someone else to tell me how to do it. In PF2, there are a number of 1 action spells, even non-focus spells, to choose from. As a result, you have the option to cast 3 such spells if no other actions are tactically useful.
- Sustain a spell and cast a spell: In PF1, both make use of the Standard action and therefore will not normally be available. In PF2, this just uses your 3 actions.
So, I agree that the change to Knowledge checks in combat is at least a nuisance, and the change to require an action to use the shield's AC definitely feels like a reduction. That said, and granted this is my opinion, I don't think the Knowledge check change is a significant reduction in capability and I believe the shield AC rule change has been balanced against the math for this edition. Movement and spellcasting, however, has I think actually been improved for casters in terms of tactical flexibility.
FWIW, with Revivifying Mutagen, combined with Perpetual Infusion, Mutagenists also get free unlimited (albeit tiny) healing. Create/quaff a baby mutagen, consume it for healing, repeat as needed. Slow, but gets it done.
That would leave only the Bomber research field as having no free heals. (I'm looking at the baseline Alchemist, not the houserules mentioned above)
Has anyone happened across anything that improves your ability to make use of Concealed, or which synergizes with it? And again, I'm personally curious about the Mistform Elixir's effect, and my expectation of using this in melee where I *know* I'm going to be observed. (If you don't notice my mini-me crawling over my shoulder, jamming two syringes into my neck, seeing me grow claws and fangs, and lunge at you, I'm doing it wrong.)
I'm thinking of anything that e.g. increases the DC of the flat check above 5, or that allows additional options when concealed e.g. similar to being able to use the Hide action but only if you are undetected too. So, maybe something that helps you become Undetected?
If you're wondering where I'm going with all of this...:
While I really despise the (almost) requirement of an Alchemical Familiar to address the action economy, I'm trying to make the best use of what tools are available. I *want* to make the melee Mutagenist work.
I'm expecting to use Mistform Elixir to augment defenses, essentially relying on it to compete with the higher defenses brought to bear by... well, almost everyone else. To make that work in an unexpected combat (i.e. no chance to prebuff), I'm expecting to have a Bestial Mutagen and a Mistform Elixir prepped and held by my AF and use my first action to have him apply both to me. My next two actions would be used to Stride/Strike as needed.
I'm comparing this level of defense (e.g. light armor (i.e. no fortification), -1 AC, plus Mistform Concealment) to other melee combatants in order to determine fitness. My hope is that numerically the math works out. My fear is that the numbers are going to be too swingy, meaning the hit-or-miss nature of these defenses will make the hits feel worse since this is still a d8 class with what feels like some mitigation gaps. Mitigating this is the cheaper access to reliable healing in the form of Elixirs of Life and Revivifying Mutagen.
And for what it's worth, the Mistform Elixir explicitly states that "being concealed when your position is still obvious, you can’t use this concealment to Hide or Sneak."
So from the perspective of a melee Mutagenist, relying on Bestial Mutagen and its -1 AC, it sounds like Mistform Elixir could offset some of the Alchemist squishiness while in melee.
Heavy armor comes with a padded armor undercoat included in its Price, though it loses the comfort trait when worn under heavy armor. You can wear just that padded armor undercoat to sleep in, if your heavy armor is destroyed, or when otherwise not wearing the full heavy armor. This allows you to keep the armor invested and benefit from the power of any runes on the associated heavy armor, but no one else can wear your heavy armor without the padded undercoat.
But @thenobledrake, the reading pretty much directly indicates that:
1) Heavy armor comes with padded armor
2) The padded armor can be worn separately from the heavy armor
3) The runes are still in effect
You didn't exactly disagree with what @Miy2Cents was positing, that you could just wear the padded armor separately for the same benefits. By my reading, RAW, @Miy2Cents has it correct; at present, RAW, you could doff the heavy armor, wear only the padded armor, and still gain rune benefits.
How advantageous this is is situational. Clearly for a normal frontliner, you *want* and are even *built* around the premise of wearing heavy armor. But for situations as described above (e.g. social, non-armored situations), this sounds like a great way for the heavy armor wearer to still have some protection, even if it isn't intended.
It does feel a little like a loophole. I don't know how I would word it, because this seems like a specific scenario (I'm not sure of any other such potential *double armor* situations) but I'd likely want to say that reinvesting has to happen with the armor in its "whole" state, so maybe you could go to the ball, but if you were still in just the padded undercoat when it came time for daily preparations, you would lose rune investitures until the undercoat could be reunited with the heavy armor.
Kineticists in PF1 have a more tightly bound power level than other classes. The floor is higher (i.e. hard to be too ineffective) and the ceiling is lower (i.e. hard to be too overpowering).
The theme and flavor, though, I think appealed to a lot of people.
1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.
Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.
When something is broken, the errata should fix it.
The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.
They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.
The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.
Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.
Except how you can turn off your splash damage on every bomb you throw for the entire day, allowing you to double down on tossing bombs even for single target damage.
And how you can use Craft instead of Medicine on every Medicine check all day.
Silent Spell is a 1 action activity
It negates the verbal component of the subsequent spell
The verbal component would normally have added an action of its own to the spell
The spell now has one less action
Quickened Casting is a free action activvity
It reduces the action count of the subsequent spell
The spell now has one less action
For illustration, assume a spell with verbal and somatic components, requiring 2 actions to cast:
No metamagic: 2 action spell, 2 actions, verbal components are heard
Silent Spell: 2 action spell, 2 actions (Silent Spell + somatic), verbal components are not heard, synergizes with Conceal Spell
Quickened Casting: 2 action spell, 1 action, verbal component still heard, requires spell 2 levels lower than max, no synergy with Conceal Spell
That's how I would rule it.
Silent Spell removes a specific type of component for stealth purposes, but the overall casting time is not reduced because Silent Spell itself requires an action.
Quickened Casting reduces the action count, but I read it as the components still being required. The action economy is improved but you get no stealth.
It would be nice if we could hear from anyone vaguely official what the class role for the alchemist is supposed to be. Theoretically it seems like the alchemist is a buffer class, with debuffer/ranged damage, healer, and melee damage sub-classes. In practice it seems the alchemist can't really buff for any amount of useful time, and the buffs compete resource wise with your research focus. I liked in pf1 as an alchemist at 4th level I could hand out infusions to the party to help them and then throw bombs to help out....
I suspect you will have better luck asking the devs about specific design decisions (e.g. why do the mutagens provide the negative modifiers they provide when that also negates much of the survivability a mutagenist would need in combat?) than about class roles.
It appears to me that the intent was for each class to be able to operate in almost any role depending on focus, from melee to ranged, from damage dealing to condition application.
Moreover, if the devs were to weigh in and state what they expected a character to be doing if they are a particular class or build (i.e. role), it would lend social weight to the expectations placed on anyone running such a class/build, and that flies in the face of the build freedom they appear to be striving for.
I think it comes down to social inertia... that is, what is the starting point for discussion.
It sounds like everyone in thread agrees that session zero is integral to enjoyable play, and that things should be discussed beforehand regarding rules variations that the GM or the players would like to see.
Because the system has rule 0, it slants a *lot* of power over the gameplay toward the GM. That sounds at first like it flies directly in the face of the idea of group narrative but the simple fact is that really, socially, most of the power does lie in the hands of whomever is officiating the game, since finding a GM is usually more difficult than finding players (not always, but it's certainly been my experience).
If, during session zero, a player can therefore make the argument that something is allowed RAW (and especially if they can argue RAI), it lends more strength in any discussion. But if it's just a gray area where both sides are fleshing out something not explicitly stated in the rules, of if it is an optional rule listed in the CRB, it becomes a bit harder to champion in the face of the power of rule 0.
So yeah, for me, I absolutely would prefer to see something codified if it's something I want to advocate for as a player, because at least it gives me that leg to stand on. Not in an adversarial way, just in terms of ebb and flow of ideas.
So what if your TEML in the weapon determined how much of the +X to accuracy got converted to +XdY to damage? This would reflect the idea that the expertise in the weapon allows you to take increasing advantage of its magic and turn it to your advantage.
So now that commoner picks up Graymere, a longsword +4... and gains +4 accuracy and no bonus damage because said commoner is wielding it like a pitchfork.
But Gonzo the Great, level 20 fighter with Legendary expertise in longswords, picks up said weapon... and not only gains +4 accuracy but also gains +4d8 damage.
Meanwhile, Gonzo's younger cousin, Gimpy the Good, level 10 fighter, with only Master expertise, borrows said sword and... gains +4 accuracy but only gains +3d8 damage.
Etc..
And also, I would suggest giving Fighters a Class Power (fueled by Focus) to be allowed to move potency and/or property runes to a different weapon. Or perhaps to override Resonance investiture to be able to wield the nifty new weapon just found in the dungeon.
@Gorbacz: True enough but then Paizo also made us prone to version comparisons by saying they want to be able to "tell the same stories" in the new version as in the old.
As a result, many folks are looking at several interpretations of that phrase and doing version comparisons.
For example, if "tell the same stories" means...:
..."Reuse the same narrative elements, even if you change powers, threat levels, and means of addressing specific threats", then folks are naturally going to examine their experiences in PF1 and try to determine "Could I still run this or that AP in PF2 and have it still be recognizable".
..."Tell my own story of my own PC that currently exists in PF1", then folks are going to look at their PF1 PCs and try to determine whether they can not only create a similar set of mechanical capabilities but also determine if their backstory is still supported. I think this has been the point of biggest contention, particularly as regards multiclassing and the ability to pick up new class abilities and options.
..."Be able to reproduce the same in-game stunts that give folks the zest in their games" then folks are going to be trying to determine whether they are still able to lasso a landshark and surf it into town to fight the giant menace or something equally uncovered by the RAW. Put another way, I think folks want to make sure they can still have the same kind of fun and out-there experiences that can make an adventure more specifically your group's. It ties in somewhat with the first point but has more to do with the execution than in the adventure design.
All three of these warrant direct comparison between the two versions.
As someone else pointed out, had the archetype for heavy armor proficiency been based on a class not as thematic as the Paladin no one would mind so much. If, for example, rather than Paladin we had Cavalier, with an Order that granted the various Paladin abilities in its line, and you had to multiclass into Cavalier, I doubt anyone would have cared.
But as you suggest, being a Paladin has, or should have, a meaning... and being "the way to be best in heavy armor" has never been that meaning.
But seriously, the sole reason a Cleric is broken compared to every other class is because of Channel Energy being so strong and having so much power to it. I'd consider having it be up to their Charisma modifier, flat, for starters (can't be any higher than 3). I'd also consider it costing Resonance for the Cleric to use as yet another balance point, but I'd like to see some playtesting with just the flat Charisma modifier first to see if it does enough, but then you have the whole Domain stuff too (which can bridge that gap even further with Healing domains and stuff), as well as shoring up other class options (like Bards and Sorcerers especially) so that they aren't as objectively bad. The other big thing is balancing encounters to where some of these common heal aspects between all of the classes exist.
Seriously, man, why does it seem that the first impulse of many people is always to go "Okay, this class is actually competent at something, nerf nerf nerf!!!"?
Bring the other classes up to the level of the Cleric in terms of healing. That way adventuring days can last more than ten minutes, maybe.
I for one would like to see the Cleric brought down to where the other supposed heal-capable classes are in terms of their ability to heal, solely because I want the brightest possible light to be shown on the issue of survivability, spell power levels, and lack of healing and avoidance capabilities (i.e. not enough spread around).
I do *not* want to nerf Cleric and call it a day. In fact, for those who are upset about folks saying "Nerf Cleric", consider that many folks don't want to stop there but instead want to even the (healing) power level out in order to then be able to properly bring that (healing) power level up across the board for all intended heal-capable classes.
Play Bane to your PC's Batman. (Sorry for the DC comics reference, but here we go)
In the comics, a villain, Bane, was determined to take down Batman. Bane was certainly strong enough to go toe to toe, perhaps even with Batman at his peak. But Bane wanted to *break* him.
So he unleashed chaos in Gotham City, forcing Batman to respond to problem after problem, exhausting him, trying to push him as hard as he could..
..*then* he broke Batman's back (don't worry, he got better, because Batman).
One assassin is unlikely to just walk up to a single powerful person with a group around them and try to kill them. They'd either try to weaken the group as a whole or try to split the target off or both.
And that could be the driving force behind a handful of seemingly random encounters with which you harass your PC's, pushing them to expend resources. Then a little misdirection (with appropriate chances for the PC's *not* to fall for it of course) before the assassin simply decides that now is the time.
I would still recommend having them use an indirect approach. Perhaps have them go along with them as a helpful NPC itinerant healer, which after a few ambushes, the PC's might assume is your attempt to mitigate how hard you are pushing them (yes, take advantage of their potential metagaming). Then when that last encounter ends and the target has taken damage, the helpful healer... oops... was that poison? Run!
One of my player characters died and I wasn't really expecting it so I did two things:
1) We usually played at my place around a table, but I went through a week of PBEM with the player of the dead character. In it, I had him attempt a variety of increasingly difficult simple DC based challenges. In essence, he was receiving prophecy but as the challenge increased it became increasingly difficult to receive the better defined, more clear messages. This tied in nicely with some other things I was already doing but you could easily have some extraplanar being take notice and come to the conclusion they really want the PC alive to finish the task at hand.
2) Having concluded that over the course of the week, I then followed through with where we had left off. I gave them information about a coven of witches capable of raising their friend but they needed help with a ritual. During the ritual they would be vulnerable and for a purely contrived reason their normal guardians were not available. Fill the slot, we raise your friend. Except, the forces that were working against them had *also* become aware of what was going on and wanted to attack the group while they were weakened and planned to do so at the grand finale of the ritual. However, I had the player of the dead character on the side with notes. That player's character had been given, along with the prophecy, knowledge of this ambush and the power to spread the attackers out among the various waypoints of the ritual, to make the encounters manageable. Do it right and the group has enough resources to take out all of the attackers piecemeal. Do it wrong and they will be overcome by too large a group. He was also able to add conditions to players from time to time which also helped diffuse the attackers.
During the session, the other players recognized he was doing this to them but figured he was just helping me out. When he came back to life though, the character was somewhat apologetic about having taken part in things but explained he had actually been trying to help.
Anyway, it was a fun way to handle a character death. :)
My fighter fix is here. I made sure it was still very very very simple to play since one of my players specifically used Fighter for his PC's because he didn't want to have to deal with complexity, and that it should increase the character concepts fighter without removing old flavours.
I like the redesign in general; it improves what the Fighter is good at while keeping it pretty simple. Obviously the retraining options can be complex since it's similar to having a spellbook of feats that you may wish to retrain for the day (i.e. daily memorization) so... sort of like an Arcanist I suppose.
That said, if I may, I have the following observations:
- Brutal Strike seems a little much for 6th level. You get to make the decision after knowing the result of the damage roll and while the save is Fort (recognized as one of the better saves for monsters), it is literally a save or die option. I don't know that that is very common at that level though I admit I may be wrong.
- Combat Mobility might be better stated as providing multiple 5 foot steps. It could prevent table confusion since 'five foot step' is what folks think of with regard to 'I can move this short distance without provoking' in combat.
- And in general and in keeping with the thread, it would be nice to have more long distance mobility options and methods for dealing with magic.
Regarding the question of LG vs NG, remember that your desertion was a one time event. Context matters.
According to your backstory, it may very well make sense that you were NG, got embroiled in Mendev's military efforts, found yourself second guessing your decision to enlist, and deserted at the first available opportunity.
Or you may have been LG, eagerly joined Mendev's military efforts, then were convinced, whether through simple deceit or magical effect, that staying would not only doom you but the rest of your squad, and so you left in an attempt to avoid harming your comrades. In this scenario, you would still have a price on your head and would likely be feeling conflicted, but you would ultimately have a "better" reason for your actions which may in turn allow you to get the charges dropped.
*shrug* People of all different sorts of backgrounds and impulses can wind up in the exact same circumstance, sometimes intentionally and sometimes quite the opposite. I wouldn't presume that your path to desertion necessitates a particular world view.
This sounds like a fantastic adventure or even campaign premise...
... the PCs are tasked to protect a powerful wizard from the forces of Hell who appear to be bent on capturing a powerful magic item he has forged. He convinces them to obtain the needed components to complete his ritual which will stave off their attacks. All goes well until the PCs begin to realize just what this ritual is for...
Or just run a campaign where they are heroes and can kill indiscriminately. Assault the Gates of the Abyss or something. Let them enjoy running the characters it appears they want to run.
The 2 skill points per level is also horribly crippling in a skill-based system.
.
If the fighter could.. well.. fight, it would at least be fullfilling its core function.
It really doesn't though. When you go to make your character do what you want your character to do out of all the options out there something else probably does it better or just takes a fighter dip.
One handed fighter? Swashbuckler
Unarmed fighter? Monk/brawler
Sword and board? Sword and board ranger
Two weapon fighting? two weapon fighting ranger
Mounted combat? Cavalier
Archer? Ranger archery style
Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.
Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.
Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.
Except that the things that allow a Fighter to specialize enough to match one of his martial peers at what they do (i.e. be as good an archer as a Ranger using Archery style) requires spending most of the Fighter's resources a la feat selection in order to match that peer. Once you've done that, you don't have much left over on the Fighter chassis for "freedom". Yes, you were free to lock in your choice. Choosing Ranger at the outset just moved that decision one point back, from "Choose Fighter->Choose Fighter feats to become an archer" to "Choose Ranger". Plus, that Ranger *does* have other options that make *them* more flexible (e.g. animal companion, more skills, 1/2 caster).
I feel like the flexibility argument for Fighter is a false choice in that molding a Fighter to compete with another martial still locks you out of options.
That said, I understand your point: if you're going to be a martial and if a Fighter could be as good as any other martial at that martial's fighting style (e.g. 1h vs. 2h vs. S&B vs. Ranged vs. UAS vs...), then why be that martial?
My point would be... don't make it about the fighting style. Put another way, frankly, let the Fighter be capable of being as good as any other martial at their form of fighting. I would do this by improving Weapon Training so that the max bonus applies to all selected weapon groups. For giggles I would also alter the Weapon Mastery capstone to apply to all weapons in selected weapon groups. For a Fighter who sticks with their one weapon it would have literally zero impact, good or bad. For a Fighter wanting to be able to switch tactics on the fly, it puts them on par with their martial peers who don't have to rely on specific weapon selections to gain their bonuses (i.e. rage powers affect the Barbarian regardless of the wielded weapon as do Paladin smite bonuses, etc).
I would also change crafting so that weapon and armor crafting actually become easier for martials and in fact more advantageous for them to perform than for spellcasters. Maybe through feats, maybe through class abilities, but something that would be a sizable improvement over Master Craftsman.
And then I would like to introduce a set of abilities that do begin to give a Fighter more narrative power, whether it's through per-day abilities, through a point pool, or through something like the Item Mastery system, give Fighters something beyond simple hired-gun tactics. Yes, you may feel like I just splashed wuxia into your bowl of Fighter Puffs.
If people's point buy characters are any indication, the average charisma on Golarion is less than 10.
Maybe that's just adventurers... after all if you just can't seem to socialize properly you may only be able to find your place out wandering in the world with the rest of the murder hobosmalcontents.
