Red Griffyn's page

Aside from the reactive strike problem and making arcane cascade a free action to use (or letting you do something as you enter the stance, I think the two biggest things I'd change on Magus are

1) You can't spellstrike with focus spells. This removes the pressure to multiclass out for a spell attack focus spell, and directly ties into point 2,
2) Your initial Conflux spells are changed to be 2 actions and have significantly more power. This means you still have fun, high impact things to do on non spellstrike turns. Leave Force Fang as is to let people who want to spam Spellstrike (maybe give it a range and allow for sword beams) continue to do so, though. A movement tech conflux spell would also help.

The bounded caster chassis doesn't provide enough spell slots to spell strike across an adventuring day. That is massive gap focus points have filled so people can spell strike a couple times a combat with more than a cantrip and save there slots for fun spells, defensive spells, or utility.

I think it would be a mistake to penalize people for wanting that kind of gameplay. Unless you have some really amazing conflux spell, but you're talking about a change that is beyond the scope of what they've done to date in the remaster editions.

The biggest issue is the Paizo really hasn't served up a good non-spell striking gish. 1e was littered with 3/4 BAB 1/2 casters that were martial forward. Right now we have the magus and the really poorly designed battle harbinger (summonern is fun but very different from the typical gish fantasy). So lots of people are forced to use a magus who really don't want to spell strike at all but it's the best in system attempt at the gish they want to play. There are third party materials that provide that, but until Paizo publishes a well designed gish we're stuck with the magus and folks trying to make the most out of spell strike. You'd be really killing some builds this way. So personally adding a magus exclusive focus point for spell strike achieves a better solution and promotes in class feat expenditure vs. archetyping.

Magus:

The fixes the class needs aren't really achievable in a remaster because it is too action constrained/really static game-play. However some ideas could be:

- Arcane Cascade should be made to be a free action like rage at start of combat or after casting the spell or otherwise improved as it is rarely ever worth the action tax.

- More incentives should be given on non spell strike turns to push people away from static gameplay loops. It could be as simple as using a similar feat design as the runesmith tracing trance (build it into arcane cascade that they can be quickened and get a free stride on turns they don't spell strike).

- Just give expansive spell strike as a class feature. Its not worth a feat.

- To incentivize diversity of builds, a focus spell that is similair in damage to a cleric's fire ray should be provided as a low level feat in the class. This is good enough to mitigate the need to MC into psychic for imaginary weapon (since damage adder is good enough) and hopefully push people to making more unique builds/archetype selections.

Summoner:

- A good faith attempt at a Synthesist feat chain or class archetype.

Psychic:

- The 2 rounds of unleash needs to be boosted to 4 rounds

- The stupefied condition post unleash is needlessly punitive and should be removed.

- This is 'the focus spell class'. It needs a second pool of focus points, just like the oracle, so it really can go without casting spells.

Thaumaturge:

- Just let 1H+ weapons work. Its so dumb because boomerangs exist (which are just better than comp shortbows).

- Remove the L1 ammunition feat tax

- The wand implement should interact with exploit weakness and/or implement empowerment to add damage.

- Modify the wording to allow more free exchange/swaping of passive implements.

- Add a class feat to exploit weakness as a reaction to improve action economy of the class to support using the intensify vulnerability at L9+/

- Remove a good chunk of the 'target of your exploit weakness' wording on implement/feats/features. This is needlessly limiting.

Good to see the strawman come out as I did not say "Starlit Span" did great damage so everything is fine or anything of the kind.

Shifting the goal post.

Every single class in this game requires teamwork to work well. No one single class in PF2 will do anything but die without teamwork. Some people hate this, some people like it. It is the way it is.

Martials die if they don't get healing. Melee rogues need a flanker. Casters need martials in front of them or they get ripped apart. So claiming that archers are in some unusual position is not how it is at all.

Red Herrings and non-sequiturs.

I've seen Ranger Archers do great damage. Fighters with Debilitating Shot own bosses while doing damage. I played a rogue archer that did great damage at higher level.

Hasty Generalization (i.e., anecdotal evidence).

We do not make Starlit Span archers over and over again. In fact, many in my group don't even enjoy Starlit Span more than once because it's boring.

Ah so you agree that the 'best damage dealing ranged martial' is boring. So somewhere for at least one kind of ranged combatant you AGREE that they are boring/non-engaging. Welcome to finally realizing the main point of this post.

Fighter archers are the most popular archer in my group followed by ranger archers. I've seen Fighter archers crush bosses with damage and effects. Ranger archers with flurry at higher level have some really insane rounds blasting off damage while adding in effects like Distracting Shot to offguard things and applying support against bosses to give the flurry bonuses to other martials.

Hasty Generalization (i.e., anecdotal evidence). Also just completely missing the point of this thread. Stop using your personal experience as some kind of bastion of evidence. It isn't a meaningful comment.

The complaints I'm seeing on this thread seem like complaints from players that have played archers to level 4 or 5. High level archers do a lot of stuff.

Ad hominem (even if it wasn't you've now agreed that low level ranged PCs struggle so you admit again that it is a problem in some parts of the game).

For some reason, I come to these threads using real examples versus these complaints that don't even discuss what each ranged martial does.

Yeah, antecdotal experience isn't super relevant. Why you ask? I have equally 'relevant' antectodal experience that negates your antectodal experience. Its a pointless statement that 'you've seen high level characters have good turns' because people have all see high level characters have bad turns. So much missing context to even remotely make your experiences relevant (at which point they'd be contextually relevant but still meaningless to the overall discussion in this thread).

How do you not know how a ranger off-guards enemies at range? How do you not know a fighter archer has a feat that allows them to flank with a bow? How do you not know about Debilitating shot? How have you not seen a flurry archer do crazy damage while off-guarding a target by hitting it a few times and applying Marked Prey to give flurry to other members of the party?

Turns out there are more than rangers/fighters/starlit span martials that attempt to use ranged combat. Just because there are options to burn additional feats doesn't mean there is sufficient base system support for ranged combatants. If the only way to do these things is through specific feats gated behind specific classes/archetypes all you're doing is further limiting ranged build diversity to pick these options. That is EVIDENCE that the game is poorly designed with base level options for engagement from ranged PCs (not evidence against it).

Most people that post with me know I'm an optimizer. If I saw a problem with ranged strikers over the course of levels, I'd say something.

Appeal to authority, although really you aren't some optimizing guru. You're not understanding the point regardless of self proclaimed status.

Sure, Starlit Span can do some crazy damage. I've seen it and played it. But it's super boring. It consists of Shoot, recharge, shoot. Maybe incorporate an AoE spell or something. You can't give the Starlit Span anymore than they have or you turn an already ridiculous damage class into something far too powerful compared to every other martial. Starlit Span is overpowered and I think it will get nerfed at some point. It's clearly way above the expected damage for a ranged combatant. If it weren't so boring, I'm sure my players would play it more.

Red herring.

Giving things to martials (like many of the suggestions in this thread) wouldn't buff a martial turret because its about giving them a meaningful 3rd actions (which a starlit span is using to recharge and fire). We all agree the one outlier is broken, so why not discuss what you'd do if that outlier was properly balanced and ignore it you can stop shifting the goal posts.

I don't see melee martials as clearly better than them except maybe the first few levels before you get a striking rune.

So why don't you start there and try to have a constructive discussion. By your own admission the game is bad for L1-L4 ranged combatants. What would you do to fix it?

Some ideas that could help:

- Add a once per round ranged modify type action. This could as a free action let you use any non flourish 1 or 2 action option within the first range increment of your ranged weapon or ranged unarmed strike. Using this free action adds the flourish trait to whatever you're doing. I could see an expanded option that if it has the flourish trait it also costs you your reaction but there might be some options there that are too powerful (since the flourish traits tie to action compressions). This would open up a lot of mid power options like intimidating strike and add a bevy of tactical options for people to invest and build towards.

- High ground bonus like in PF2e - this gives the enemy the flatfooted condition but the penalty is reduced to -1 from -2.

- Ranged flatfooted at range with melee PC behind them for the full bonus.

- Use the starfinder low cover rule to incentivize moving and cover.

- Add a momentum trait to the game that lets you buy back the loss of static damage on ranged weapons with movement. Something like adding +1 damage per weapon damage dice if you move at least 20 ft towards the enemy your attacking.

- Add some cinematic options like rolling between cover spots but letting it keep your stealth or give some bonus to hit or damage. A koolaif man covered surprise could be fun -> you kick down the cover your behind and surprise the enemy ("heres jhonny") causing them to be flatfooted, etc. (Incenticizing moving to and between cover).

- Make a bunch of the ammunition free actions to activate (or add the flourish trait to their activations). Make them actually fun and base of scaling class dc and not just about adding damage.

- I didn't playtest SF2e, but they have a suppression trait. I think that could be fun. I'm not sure what the implemtation was but reducing enemy AC for all allies if they move on their turn or increasing damage of allied strikes (assuming you fire off a shot to distract them or your allies hit opens something up) to add your minimum ranged damage as a reaction to their damage roll, or subtracting a -1 from the enemies attacks against allies. It could be in a 30ft cone or 10ft burst area within your first range increment. Maybe your first enemy is free but second enemy requires your reaction and you only have to use it when/if necessary based on enemy actions).

- Otherwise open up arbitrary restrictions on existing feat taxes (e.g., flying blades and raging throwers could be any ranged weapon for a cool dex based barbarian or archer swashbuckler).

At the end of the day just ask what is a cool option you can do with melee? Why can't we do it at range, either with a free action flourish tax or a reaction burn? In some cses itll be to powerful, especially ones with move based action compression that would allow too kuch kiting, but I bet -50%of the melee only class feats out there right now would be balanced to allow to work this way. If you require a whole action you've gone too far and it'll be so bad no-one will pick it up unless they can buy back compression (think runesmith ranged options). obviously what is decided on needs some playtesting, but the above additions would certainly give you options to improve your accuracy or damage, improve an allies accuracy or damage or defenses, debuff enemies, and incentivize mobility and more dynamic combats.

It's not just that ranged combat lacks in options, it's that the entire 2e system baselines it's design around melee; frequently forcing ranged options to lose class features or buy back partial options with feats for class features that are inherently handed over to melee martials for no cost. That includes obvious things like:

- Magus -> arcane cascade is useless and only 1 subclass can use ranged spell strikes.

- Barbarian -> rage only works with thrown weapons (not anything else) if you take a feat. That leaves subclasses like the animal instinct unable to even use seedpods or fox fire options, let alone the plethora of options like bows.

- Inventor -> you must be a weapon inventor to get the 1d6 ranged damage boost at L7-L9. Why couldn't a stealth infiltrator armor inventor that actually has dexterity get it with a ranged weapon to do some fun stealth shoot type play?

- Justice champion has to pay a feat tax to use their reaction strike with a ranged weapon.

- Rogues don't have a good way to get flatfooted at range without dread striker and building into CHA. Like parting shot is right there at L4 in fighter.

- Swashbuckler has to use throw weapons only after paying a flying blade feat tax.

- Thamaturge has to pay a L1 feat tax and according to many people it still won't open up 1H+ weapons (only action intensive reload weapons on and already action taxed class).

- Monk can only flurry of blows with a stance they have to pay a feat for that is seperate from melee weapons so you couldn't even switch hit without burning more feats since there are no rune sharing items between unarmed strikes and weapons (spirit warrior 6th level feat being the one exception).

- Generally many feats not working with ranged (e.g., sudden charge, intimidating stike, swipe or a similair type option, etc.), or the feats that do work are strangely allocated (parting shot not being i the rogues kit or the i ly ranged power attack option being in inventor), or items are severely limited (throwers bandoleer effectively needs you to spend a feat on quickdraw or to pay a rune slot tax for a returning rune which also gives weid dead levels at L1 and L2 and blazons of shared power dont work on ranged weapons like thrown ones that leave your hand as part of the attack, gunners bandoleer wont include repeating orncapacity weapons, magicsl and alchemical ammunition requires to much action economy to effectively use jn most circumstances, etc.

This bias in game design is what you're seeing manifest in other parts of the game (e.g., loss of interesting and strategically relevant combat options). Especially when PCs often have to burn low level feat taxed to even make ranged work because the baseline design excludes ranged options (a bad design choice IMO).

The game would have been better served by baseline incenticizing melee, not punishing ranged (e.g., rage works on ranged weapons, but the bonus is higher for melee). At this point they aren't going to do anything to fix the legacy bad design choice that fundementally limits ranged build diversity. I wish they had a ranged combat advocate or at least a checklist to consult to ensure they check for new options whether they have excluded ranged options for no real good reason.

I think there are some legitimate counterpoints to many of your arguments (spoken as someone for which the thaumaturge is his favourite class). I'm not sure I've heard that caster archetypes are 'bad' for thaumaturge, but I certainly wouldn't take them for the same reason I do on other martials and IMO they only make sense if your there for a specific reason such as:

- Action economy compression (e.g., haste, amped guidance/blood vendetta reaction spells/focus spells, etc.)

- Specific out of combat buffs with longer duration so you don't waste actions in combat (e.g., heroism)

- Specific contingency/weakness coverage (e.g., see invisible, fly spell, etc.), however most of these can be addressed via items earlier than a caster MC.

- Some specific weird class synergy (e.g., cleric dreams domain spell gives scaling status bonus to CHA skills for even more skill monkeying).

However, I don't think there being 'things' to pull out of a caster archetype makes them 'good' necessarily or better than other options out there on an action tax heavy class. I don't think you've convincingly answered the issue of action economy on the class in your above post, and I don't think the other arguments hold a lot of weight for me so I'll post my rebuttal to your 10 points below:

1.) It's Not an Issue for Other Martials: The reasons I provided above are the same reasons I might take a caster archetype on another martial. However, there are more reasons I might take it on other classes with good action economy/compression vs. the thaumaturge. That includes:

- Classes that will be going into magus/spellshot/eldritch archer and need spell cannon fodder for spell striking (largely cantrips/focus spells).

- Classes that need more spell slots to round out their bounded caster chassis (i.e., magus/summoner have action compressions for casting spells but don't get many).

- There is a focus spell/spell who's benefit outweighs the significant early combat action tax of casting it BECAUSE the class has good action economy/compression (e.g., putting the new dragon domain spell on a ranged martial/one that has a flurry of blows type feature even from spirtual warrior/has a +2 to hit to make back the DPR lost from spending Actions 1/2 on combat casting a self buff spell). That certainly doesn't describe a thaumaturge.

- I'm building a counter class optimized build that will end up ignoring the majority of the classes design for funsies/because there is a niche manifestation that I think makes it funny/still good (e.g., pre-remaster magus using dragon claw from sorcerer/dragon disciple to never spell strike CAN work but it won't do more damage than the meta for the class).

- The class already gets accelerated caster DC progression (e.g., monk/ranger) and is well ahead of the progression vs. archetype (e.g., expert at L9 and master at L17 without investing any skill proficiency boosts and class feats vs. expert at L12 and L18). Combined with an action compression class like the monk you can routinely cast electric arc from a jolt coil + attacking twice (getting the extra damage boost on your attacks). The Thaumaturge doesn't have that action compression built into its class and has to go outside for it (e.g., spirit warrior).

So I would say your #1 is simply summarized as there are a lot less reasons why I would go caster on a thaumaturge vs. other martials who can do more with it.

2.) You're Built for Spellcasting: I get what you're saying with respect to the free skill boosts and they even come online at the right times to support the caster MCs, but I disagree holistically. Despite CHA being its key ability score, unless you're going to use a Class DC implement the thaumaturge never actually needs to boost CHA past 18. Starting 16 and ending 18 ensures that you get personal antithesis on all but a 1 on the dice for the entire game and last time I checked there was <20% of CR equivalent enemies that ever had a named weakness > your personal antithesis ability. Frankly this is the #1 misunderstood thing about this class. Martials want STR/DEX for attack/damage and DEX/CON/WIS for saves. So distributing a point into CHA will actively hurt your other ability scores progression, especially when you grab an apex item (its likely going to your attack stat, not CHA). The class has a delayed reflex save as well, so IMO a finesse/ranged thaumaturge going into a non-caster class like rogue/monk for a L12 reflex boost to master is also patching significant downsides to the class vs. going after spells from a caster.

3.) The Wand Implement:I don't know what to tell you but I thought the general opinion was that the wand was generally the worst or close to the worst option and can often be a trap option. It has the benefit over cantrips from a caster class in that it uses your Class DC vs. spell casting DC which as noted above progresses faster if you're taking class DC items and boosting it with APEX items than other options. IMO wand implement is at best a back-up ranged option for a STR melee martial or a toss out on a repeating weapon ranged thaumaturge that leaves STR at 0 and is using it for flatfooted at adept+ levels. But there are so many other implements that are significantly better (e.g., tome, regalia, mirror) that I can't ever fit it on a build unless I'm going out of my way to try as the parameters of the build (e.g., multiclassing into an alchemist so I can toss a debuff bomb that will drop their reflex save as 1 action to then BOOST my wand damage). But in that case I'm not taking a MC caster option. Honestly, I'm hoping the remaster brings the wand in line with other implements by making it compatible with exploit weakness or implement empowerment. As it stands it is often not a great option for the same reason spells aren't -> they don't really interact with your exploit weakness/implement empowerment class features so they end up being very anti-synergistic.

4.) Spells are a Good Alternative Offense: For all the 'are casters weak' threads posted throughout the life of this system, I don't think the average person is going to jump to signup to have even worse Spell DC than a caster to cast an under-leveled spell slot spell as some kind of 'holy grail' of thaumaturging. I know how good a jolt coil electric arc + 2 attacks can be on a monk, but that includes action compression and accuracy/damage boost riders from ki strike. On a class that hits so hard with no action compression, simply getting 2 attacks per turn with an agile weapon and maybe a bonus to hit will up your DPR more than casting a spell with a DC that is likely sporting a -2 DC, or worse, and that is 2 spell slots behind. Realistically what blaster caster guide out there is considering spell level - 2 slots as 'part of your daily endurance in blasting (none that I've seen). You'd have to put up some math and show me what situations you're talking about to be honest, and if it is just to clear out cannon fodder, I don't think that is a good expenditure of a spell slot vs. putting heroism on yourself or similair.

5. The Quickened Condition: Obviously I agree grabbing action compression is good from haste. However, your last sentence is very wrong. The class is only behind for 1/2 the levels AND that is why agile or similar attack boosting options are hyper important to the classes DPR. You have a massive static damage modifier (made even better with regalia or circumstance damage bonuses from other build options) so all you need to do it hit. That is why something like marshal's inspiring stance + and agile weapon is way better for you than tossing out a fireball willy nilly. You WANT action compression to reliably get off 2 attacks per turn, which is often why people don't recommend a caster (they don't provide that to a thaumaturge in any reliable/repeatable means).

6.) Stop Overusing Exploit Vulnerability: I generally agree it isn't always better to use exploit vulnerability vs. other options in every situation AND that sympathetic vulnerabilities is a basically must take feat. But this is again where the critique comes in that people don't generally like anti-synergistic options with classes. In some cases people can easily understand (e.g., arcane cascade is often worse than not using arcane cascade on a magus). However, in many instances exploit vulnerability can be better than that so what is 'the most optimized' in the moment isn't as clear. When in doubt most people will want to use their class feature instead of ignore it.

7.) Intensify Vulnerability is Useful...Sometimes: Don't have much here. I don't usually use IV because it is too action intensive IMO in a lot of instances.

8.) Most Spells are Reliable Regardless of Your Competency: So its -2 for many levels and can be worse if you aren't boosting CHA at every opportunity (which you don't need to do). The issue is that significantly increases monsters ability to crit succeed, which happens a lot in this game for the real threats you want to kill (i.e., CR = PL or higher). Obviously buffs are great, but usually you're waiting until at least L8 before you get a L3 slot and there is a buff worth casting like heroism. Even still I'd argue going bard is best so you can also pick up war drums or another CODA that has heroism on it to cast from your staff charges. Or something like psychic so you can have a reaction focus spell option ontop of heroism.

9.) Scroll Esoterica Isn't Always Enough: Again, this is a class DC vs. delayed spell DC kind of issue as well that you didn't highlight. But yeah, spells for utility/buffing aren't the real issue. Its whether spells as an offensive option are really worth it.

10. Your Party Will Appreciate it: I mostly agree, but of all the classes that has a PR Optics issue of eating other people's lunch, thaumaturge is basically at the top. So letting your casters do their thing might actually strategically better from a table/social etiquette point of view.

Overall: The thaumaturge has a number of weak points that need to be patched in a build, such as:

- Improved Action Economy via action compression/ranged attacks/reactions.
- Improved Attack Bonus via buffs/MAP augments/debuffs on enemies, etc.
- Improved MAD score allocation through leaving CHA at 18.
- Bad Reflex save scaling.
- Finding reliable ways to attack twice per round (basically action compression again).

It is often the case that a caster MC is not the BEST at providing those options. When it does provide those options it is often limited (e.g., low # of spell slots or up to 3 times a combat with focus points). When average people are not sure of the optimal maneuver they will lean into class features and shun anti-synergies that outright ignore class features like offensive spell casting vs. exploit vulnerability + attack twice.

For that reason, while spell caster MCs are not 'bad' they are often not the 'best' option for a thaumaturge at any given moment (in real terms and in terms of 'optics of what the best thing to do are for the average person'). When done by someone with low system mastery/knowledge it can turn into a trap option IMO, which is perhaps where you're seeing the sentiment crop up? In a free archetype game, L8+ caster archetypes can be decent pick-ups once you've patched some of the other weaknesses of the class. Otherwise a lot of ancestries have options to already pick up a CHA innate cantrip like electric arc, unless you think a 1/day L1 or L2 spell slot will be better than spirit guardian overwhelming combination, you're definitely better waiting IMO.

Other: Your guide needs some updating. Here are a few suggestions I think are worth calling out/updating:

- Ancestries: There is a lot to say here from picking a INT dumped ancestry to get more stat boosts to picking ancestries with unarmed RANGED attacks along with finesse options like leshy/ghoran/kitsune/sprite/automotons so you can switch hit without ever having implements leave your hands. Caustic Nectar is a significant improvement here since it can apply to any plant type ancestry and eventually you can get the Deadly Slashing Claws graft at L7 for a 1D6 finesse deadly d8. As well there are options like tengu's feather fan at L5 to make their innate spells key of Class DC vs. spell DC (so if all you want is a electric arc back-up its right there from L5 on-wards). As well getting finesse/agile/thrown weapons (i.e., the tamchkal chakram) can be very good off of human.

- Spirit Warrior for action compression and MAP bonus to hit. The L6 feat to share runes from handwarps to a weapon also means a ranged unarmed attack ancestry will have switch hitting options.

- Ostilli Host for what effectively becomes a 1 action damage versatile class DC electric arc option. Really only good on a free archetype game since its very feat hungry. But its one of the ways I tried to build into a wand CHA heavy thaumaturge that ignored exploit vulnerability/implement empowerment (not sure it performed that well TBH, but let me pick off lots of CHA/Class DC implements).

- Starlit Sentinel - basically adds a 1d4 ranged strike option to every melee weapon and can use STR to attack vs. DEX.

- Rivethune Emissary has an amazing dedication focus point spell to give you a +1/2/3 status bonus to a specific skill check (great for skill monkeys). It also has basically familiar feats and access to advanced domain spells at L10 if there was something there worth your while prior to L16 on a cleric MC.

- Cleric should mention some of the domain spells like dreams/knowledge which can make your skill monkey nature go even further.

- Rogue is SOLID for dread striker at L8 to facilitate demoralize at ranged to get both a -1 status penalty and flatfooted (and also another 1d6 from sneak attack). With the L5 reincarnated ridiculer feat you can keep doing this at to the same enemy and effectively have a better divine disharmony.

- Exemplar is amazing for shadow sheath since it adds more damage and removes the returning rune tax and has a MAP fix transcendence ability. Obviously the wreath that just gives a pass +1 status to hit is great.

- Psychic - you mentioned glimpse weakness, but didn't mention amped guidance from the same conscious mind which can give you a great reaction (especially if you've build a thaumaturge with no reaction implements).

- Ranged/thrown Thaumaturge option -> seems to be not well covered in your guide, but shadow sheath/returning rune from champion blade ally/quick draw via duelist (retrain to rogue/quickdraw at L4 with rogue) with a thrower's bandolier is the cheapest #1 way to get get action compression by removing the need to 'move').

- pre-remaster monk once you get flurry of blows should be blue. Attacking twice is more improving your chances of hitting once than triggering a weakness twice. With regalia, impelement empowerment, and potential circumstance bonus damage this is still good. Not great with the debuff now, but still worth considering if you're pre-remaster.

Page 89 (Clarification): The rune granted by a champion’s blessed armament doesn’t count toward the weapon’s number of property runes. Unlike many similar abilities, it can be used even if the weapon already has its maximum number of property runes.

Excellent. Thank you!

A strange corner case interaction came up today in a reddit thread concerning the Hand of the Apprentice focus spell. It relates to spells with spell attack rolls that attack using objects not specifically designed to be weapons (e.g., magnetic acceleration or TK projectile).

The improvised weapon rules state that you take a -2 penalty to "attack rolls" with objects not specifically designed to be used as weapons. Since spell attack rolls are attack rolls I think the handful of spells that fling objects would be covered by the broad wording.

Reccomendation: revise the language in improvised weapons from attack rolls to melee and ranged attack rolls so it provides a cutout for spell attack rolls to be unaffected (which is the intended RAI IMO since these spells seem to imply that they should work with random crap you decide to throw from around the room without a weirdly specific rule causing a -2 to to your spell attack roll).

Yes it works. You have a spell that does fire damage (+1 to +10 damage) and a feature that adds +1 to +5 status damage to spells that deal fire damage.

In general the only other kind of bonus that adds onto status is circumstance, which you can get through some means (e.g., L13 Telluric Power dwarf feat, fighter L10 feat, spirit warrior as a tiny PC, some weapon traits like forceful, etc.)

Except this disingenuous example doesn't work at all for this situation because your example is a clear communication. "X will be late" and "you get an extension to Y" are direct statements with clear meaning.

"We want it to feel similar to X" is not. That doesn't tell us which part of Alch Sci that we got is out of line with their intent or what the actual mechanics were intended to be, and is resulting in the cherry picking folks are doing here where it should get recharging vials but not get the limited duration that go with the recharging vials because reasons.

If that video actually said "Alch Sci will have renewing alchemical resources all day", THEN it would mean that and RAI would be clear. But it says nothing of the sort and requires people to read things into it and then divine the intent. That's a lot of assumptions for one line in a video to try and hold up and people then only cherry picking certain parts of how Alchemist works while conveniently leaving out the disadvantages absolutely doesn't help at all and has no basis in the...

It is hardly a disingenuous example when trying to describe a legal concept that most people haven't heard of by giving a common application example that people here would grasp immediately. You should write for your audience to make communication clear. Your claim that it is disingenuous is a needless dispersion.

You're also confused about the point I made. There is no claim here that the original RAW that people are confused about substantiates any part of 'clear communication' required for equitable estopple. The key item is the DESIGNER CLARIFIED INTENT that changes the 'contract wording' for whatever reason (in this case clarification of intent instead of a date extension). Clarifying ambiguous wording in a contract 'as my example' would also work under equitable estopple (despite that not being the example I gave). Thus the concept still applies.

Lets remember what I was replying to:

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ. [YOU GRANTING THE RAI IN QUESTION IS TRUE]

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now.[YOU SAYING I DONT CARE WHAT DESIGNER CLARIFIED RAI IS UNLESS RAW IS REVISED] You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.[YOU FURTHER SAYING THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME]

Your argument in this post is:

The clear communication IS the designer clarifying their intent (which you granted) followed by the application of equitable estopple (a player reasonably using designer clarified RAI to play that way despite RAW/the contract being ambiguous/the rulebook not explicitly saying that). Stop obfuscating the point because YOU granted that RAI was clarified.

My reply to you is as simple as pointing out that you were using a really bad argument, nothing more than that. If you'd like to admit that you erroneously posted that and clarify that if the designer did clarify intent you would use it then we can be done with this specific discussion.

Otherwise, I already said I agree, after watching the video, that the statements don't clarify RAI since the quoted text are from two separate points of the video (one about Topic A, the investigator, one about Topic B, the alchemist). So there is no need here to defend that stance beyond you admitting that in the post I replied to that you made an error in granting that RAI was clarified.

If you were using it 'just as a thought device' which seems to be the backtrack your on, that is fine. My point still stands that if we grant the RAI was clarified by the lead designer (as a thought experiment) that your statement about ignoring it until RAW is fixed is a really bad argument. So bad an argument that the community as a whole should revival and reject that position. For me, people taking that position (i.e., Logan just said how something works, but I'm going to ignore him because he didn't write it in my approved centralized database of official FAQ/errata) is why I as a designer would stop engaging with a community and only put content into said places.

As for holding water for the design teams lack of engagement. I reject the assertion. The designers are adults. If they said something stupid or not intended they can easily come back out and re-clarify the intent again. It is actually easier to do that if you're constantly engaged with the community instead of only talking in formal promo panels/one sided erratas. They are generating more problems by stoically being silent on everything rather than:
1.) Creating a systematic process for how they identify issues to be addressed and how they plan to address them.
2.) Over-communicating about the process in terms of how/when they will address these things.
3.) Clarifying RAI on an interim basis until RAW can be fixed for whatever top prioritized list they generate show to the community.
4.) Execute the process as communicated.
5.) Communicate any delays/deviations from the process in a timely manner.
6.) rinsing/repeating.

The dumb thing is they are already probably doing this behind the scenes and just not communicating it.

Imagine a 'simple world' where after Logan found out about people misquoting his words (e.g., someone escalated the issue to Maya and they brought it to his attention). Then Logan takes his ~30 minutes per week of dedicated 'community engagement time' to come to the specific threads teed up by Maya and make 1-2 posts. This week its this thread, so he drops in and spends 15 minutes reading, 1 minute posting "the two sentences being quoted in the video are not connected". Then getting ~14 more minutes to do the next thread Maya teed up. That 'imagined world' isn't impossible. The dude doesn't even have to stick around to hear generic community members complain that it sucks and they'll homebrew it the way they want despite what he said. Other creators do similar kinds of communication. As a publishing company Paizo's main product is literally human communication in a written format! Designers being expected to 'engage/communicate' about their product is not a 'bar to high' IMO.

People don't like using RaI arguments because of how it incentivizes dishonesty for the sake of gaining power. It's also incredibly unbound and arbitrary. Goooood luck getting even unmotivated parties who have no stake in the ruling to agree on what the RaI was.

Like this exact thread.

Flat out wrong. People don't like using RAI arguements when it is some pleb on the internet making them because no matter what you say you can't ever 'know what someone was actually thinking or intended' without asking them. For that simple fact the arguments are inherently fallacious no matter what topic of debate you have. This is why there are truisms like 'if you assume you make an ass out of you me'.

It is entirely different when the person (whose intention your trying to probe) says it! They are the only free agent in existence that can ever know their true intention. Saying they are Trip H's belief of what RAI is vs. the game designer's RAI are equal is a false equivalency.

A designer, even the lead designer, opinion doesn't reflect the work of an entire design team that write and review the rules. We already saw different designers pointing different RAI to same rule in different moments specially in other RPGs where they are more active in social networks. So a designer opinion is different from an errata or a FAQ clarification.

That doesn't matter. Its a hierarchy:

- Designer of the specific text/section
x These guys wrote the text and know what was intended because... they wrote it. However, since the Lead designer can tweak/change what they wrote for various reasons they are only 2nd tier.

- Designer
x These guys are in constant meetings and discussing stuff with other design team members. Even if they didn't make the final descision they were likely in a room hearing the real RAI arguements. If they weren't you wouldn't find them sticking their neck out for chopping.

- Editing Team / Paizo Staff Point of Contact for Design Team (like Maya)
x Same as designer in many ways, but likely to have gotten directions from the lead designer to tweak things and could know.

- Rest of Paizo and the Community
x This thread of people who actually have no idea what the RAI is making up arguments about RAI that are fundamentally flawed.

If anyone in that hierarchy (above the bottom rung) says what RAI is. That is what RAI is. Those higher up the rungs supersede a lower rung. You only consult the highest rung for any specific RAI. If you have conflicting RAI from two entities on the same rung then they cancel out and you're left with no RAI. If you have a overwhelming amount of RAI from entities on the highest rung (despite conflicts) on one side of a RAI then that is the RAI (feel free to set the % requirement there, maybe 75%+).

Not every once participate in these forums, or follow Paizo designers on twitter X or saw some particular interview in youtube. These people will be excluded from these pontual clarifications if they aren't put into the FAQ in a organized way.

Irrelevant point. Ignorance is not an argument. Guaranteed that those kinds of things will be cited by those in the know. If you didn't know, but someone else did, you wouldn't suddenly be 'right' because of your ignorance. It doesn't have to be centralized although that would be 'convenient'.

Blessed armament rant.

Pre-remaster it gave the 'effect' of a rune without giving the rune allowing you to get one more. That wasn't even in question. The issue is that remaster changed it to give an actual rune which changes the RAW to now potentially interact with rune limitations on your weapons. I don't accept your historical revisionism so any of the things you wrote are flat out wrong or nonsensical. If you want to debate blade ally text go to one of the aforementioned threads.

There is also the point that this is less clarified RAI and more of a single sentence from a video that doesn't clarify what logan was talking about when they wanted the alc Sci to be like the new alchemist

Literally the only argument that matters to disprove the RAI. I actually agree with you. They are statements made at different parts of the video unrelated to each other (one about the investigator, one about the alchemist mechanics). The timing of it wouldn't matter in this case since the books would have already been sent to the printer months before the video for printing by the time they gave this talk (so this isn't a design goal discussion but a what is designed discussion even if the books hadn't been released to the public).

My actual point was that people keep making their own RAI arguments but they are irrelevant if a designer clarified intent. That is simply moving the goal posts from Tridus. As a community we shouldn't be taking this stance:

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as sub classes go because of that, but it is what it is.

If we have designer clarified RAI (like Tridus was granting in this specific post I responded to and now is arguing that isn't the case/granted) then we HAVE all we need. The only thing left is for RAW to catch up in the next errata cycle. If people aren't going to do that then they're the ones who are acting irrational.

There is a common kind of legal term called equitable estopple that gets used in tort law that has a lot of similarities here. Pretend the RAW text is a legal contract. If one of the parties to the document comes and says something that alters the intent of the document the courts will keep that as binding. Its often used in cases where a company says 'x deliverable will be late' and the client says 'that is fine, you have an extension to date Y'. They can't then sue them for breach of contract for providing a late deliverable because they have agreed to the extension (even if you didn't actually write it into the legal contract -> although you should do a contract change to realign as soon as possible like a bi-annual errata to up centralized RAW to RAI). Turns out recorded verbal, informal written email, etc. all work so you don't need a centralized formal method of communication (i.e., the contract) to change the contracts meaning.

This really is no different. When a designer clarifies intent it becomes the new RAW. Just because it is in a discord post, email, reddit thread, etc. doesn't matter. Its less convenient, less practical, and less efficient, but it still is designer clarified RAI. People arguing that it must be an official FAQ/errata centralized page are just shifting the goal posts and/or subtly practicing in pointless gatekeeping. These are living documents and at any moment they can change at the whims of the designers.

To the broader point in the thread, just take the fireworks technician archetype and run with your insight coffee, warblood mutagen, camouflage dye, or w/e combo VV elixir/alchemical tool buffs you want. The subclass goes from to bad to be true to fun overnight.

Okay, I got a chuckle out of that one. And granting access to the clockwork macuahuitl? How kind! I left that one out on the account of rarity.

If I'm going to hoist myself by my own petard and validate how easy it is to mess up errata (thus reinforcing how hard Paizo designers have it sometimes)... Then I'm going to do it in style lol.

Thank you for keeping me honest :P.

Well allow me to get my $0.05 in freelance editorial fees for this consultation:

You did not completely read the assignment. You forgot to include the clause that if the stats are for a Level 1 weapon, you have to pay the weapon's price. You also uncapped the limit, unintentionally enabling the exquisite swordcane, as yes, there are basic weapons beyond Level 1.

ALL RAI/RAW!

Free Level 1 items for all inventors... Take that 3 sessions of WBL. You'll never be relatively that rich EVER AGAIN!

See Paizo.. its not hard to clarify RAI in a timely manner.

Yes.. have a Clockwork Macuahuitl as well.

Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?

and you'll like it!

Yeah, really, the Level 1 inhibition is pointless. Even on advanced weapons. It won't be PFS legal, but in home games I'd let you pick any weapon without the limitation.

...

All of these things can literally be solved by better communication. The void of communication is what allows these kinds of discussions to even start. Paizo needs to establish a process, communicate the process, execute the process, communicate deviations from the process in a timely manner, and ignore the noise of anyone who doesn't like it.

Right now its a black box grab bag of what gets put into errata, leaving key issues out in the cold while other minor issues get resolved. There is no rhyme or reason to it from an outside perspective. All we have is a generic commitment to 2 erratas a year and that clearly isn't really resolving the communities issues. What could a process look like?

Since you are fixated on someone being specific in the approach, let me give you an outline that Paizo is free to use/adjust based on their resource availability:

Establish criteria for what kinds of questions could be answered, timelines for responses, and process for prioritization. Establish what kinds of questions will not be answered. Announce this and post/pin this thread to the top of the rules forum and deactivate comments so this is a short/sweet post with no community verbal sparing. This manages expectations immediately by being transparent about the process and cuts off a good chunk "I wants" that were never going to be answered anyways. This also allows the community to self police itself to a reasonable extent. Here is an example of what I would establish:

- 2 Annual Scheduled Erratas that provide RAW changes (Spring/Fall)
- 3 Month RAI clarifications window after a new product. Only to clarify high priority items as established by the RAI/RAW criteria. RAW to follow in one of the next two annual scheduled erratas.
- Establish high, medium, and low priority for answering RAI/RAW criteria based solely on the specific design issue, extent of condition, and extent of rewrite needed.
- Establish a community engagement method of identifying a rolling top 100+ items (Paizo can pick a number) that the community wants clarified that are medium or low priority items. Open those up to community voting a week after the issuance of an errata to re-prioritize based on continual community feedback. Include a subset of those items for RAW fixing in the next errata. Provide this rolling list in some live read only format for constant reference and turn off comments (e.g., a restricted author google sheet). This way people know what are next to be fixed and whether it is their pet issue or not.
- Provide 2 annual scheduled RAI batch updates (opposite the erratas so you're getting a quarterly update) that communicate the RAI of the upcoming next errata (no RAW provided). Changes that are purely RAW don't have to be included.
- Workdown the list year after year.

Prioritization Example:

- High -> Fundamental Rule issue with a wide extent of condition (e.g., death and dying rules) or which prevent reasonable play (e.g., oracle spell casting slot count)

- Medium -> Ambiguity in rules that can significantly change play, clarification of a rule/design element that doesn't follow baseline design

- Low -> Typos or things that can be deduced via induction methods despite not having explicit statements supporting them.

You can flesh that out more, create flow charts for the process, and develop the tools/locations/etc. necessary to execute it.

Again, no matter the process you have to:
1.) Create a process
2.) Communicate the process
3.) Execute the process
4.) Communicate deviations from the process in a timely manner
5.) Ignore the community noise

If you want a concrete example of someone that does great communication I typically point to the author Brandon Sanderson. On his website are constantly updated progress bars on the next 4-5 books he is working on (an at the glance dashboard for his many series). He does weekly updates (like a youtube video or similar) to provide writing progress updates, project updates, and otherwise highlight other things. He does other kickoff/periodic updates as necessary. Sure it isn't the exact same as a game developer, but I'm never 'unsure' of what the guy is doing. He over communicates the crap out of everything. It doesn't mean he gets no critique on his writing, or negative community feedback, but it doesn't mean he doesn't continue to communicate.

Its a false equivalency to compare engagement vs. no engagement.

They made a product. People can't use the product effectively/consistently without clarification and help. Would you feel the same way about a video game that brought out an expansion that is buggy and crashes all the time? Would you feel the same way about an ikea desk with 400 parts that is missing 2 pages of assembly instructions (or worse those instructions are wrong)? Would you feel the same way about a board game that has a whole deck of cards with no clear instructions of how to ever draw them in game? Would you feel the same way about a traffic light that added a new 4th colour to it that no one on the road understands the meaning of?

User guides/customer service/FAQs are intended to fill the gap for what is inherently going to be a imperfect product produced by imperfect humans.

A 'bury your head in the sand approach' isn't really defensible customer service approach. It is devoid of any kind of 'managing expectations' that lets people and the community spin out over things.

It feels like a pretty easy take to provide RAI without RAW and leave RAW to periodic errata cycles:
- Identify who authored/reviewed a section in question.
- Invite them with an appropriate number of design leads to meet quorum into a 30-60 min meeting.
- Decide by committee RAI going forward to communicate.
- Spend 10 minutes writing up that email for Maya.
- Tell Maya to come copy paste it into the relevant forum thread OR do it yourself.

They're already DOING these things, except they just aren't communicating them. They have a list of errata items that they have already 'decided the RAI' and will later decide the RAW that provides that for an errata. All we're asking if for a subset of those things to be communicated earlier (especially ones upvoted by the community, that really are unusable, or in the case of this thread change the intent without the errata/remaster providing any justification for the change or forewarning in the many previews of remaster classes where they had the opportunity to say something).

Hyper niche design element RAI clarification with no extent of condition impact are easy to communicate about.
- YES/NO rogue save progression is intended.
- YES/NO blade ally/blessed armaments can give you one additional rune.

Lets not pretend we're asking for something dramatic here by implying that any community engagement is a slippery slope to the community sharpening pitch forks, lighting torches, and dragging designers out into the streets.

I think we can also acknowledge that there are a variety of kinds of questions. From the following options, I'd expect #1/#3 are easy and quick to do, #2/#4 would be less easy but something we could expect, and the other options are unlikely to be answered:

1.) Questions that ask for intent clarification on a focused niche design element that resolves ambiguity with minimal or no text change.
- Was this save progression for rogues intended (YES/NO)
- Is blessed armament/blade ally in addition to base rune count or part of it (A/B).
- Was +3 Int modifier for the inventor archetype dedication meant to be +2 like other archetypes or +3 as written in remaster (A/B).

2.) Number 1.) issues that require more extensive language rewrites.
- Are 1H+ weapons intended to be forbidden to thaumaturges when 1H thrown weapons that are better exist (e.g., boomerang vs. comp. shortbow).

3.) Questions that ask for intent clarification on a design element that has a broadly impactful extent of condition on other design elements (but with minimal or no word changes).
- Is the term 'fist' always interchangeable with any non-specified unarmed strike with any limb (i.e., lots of things refer to fists so clarifying it is harder without playing whack a mole with some other part of the game).

4.) Number 3.) issues that require more extensive language rewrites.
- The original remaster death and dying rules that were reverted back to a less harsh version after people's backlash.

5.) Questions of under/overturned design/flavour options that exist currently that the community or individuals do not like.
- Why did you change my oracle to this new more powerful caster chasis.
- Why did you not change Inventor unstable actions to focus power type resource management like cursebound.

6.) Iterations of number 6 based on extent of condition of rewrites needed.

7.)Questions about designs that do not exist
- Why don't we have or when will we have wave caster druids/shifter class gishes to play with.

Most of what people want is RAI clarification regardless of whether it accompanies a RAW rule change immediately or even the next errata. People comparing this to video game known issues are missing the point that with those 'known issues' that the intent is clarified/known/shared even if it takes months for a patch. In a TTRPG there isn't any 'need to patch' software, so clarifying intent is super easy. Its very bizarre to me that someone couldn't spare 5 minutes to enter a forum/thread and say "rogue save progression in remaster is intended" or "blessed armament/blade ally is intended to give you an extra rune slot above and beyond the base ones provided by potency runes."

If its causing Paizo staff stress and anxiety then just drop the info and run back away to the office. You don't need to engage/justify your clarification with anyone. No matter what change you make someone will complain, so just tell us and let the community sort it out.

Guns and Gears (Remastered):

- Gunslinger: Slinger's Precision -> Should apply to attachments (bayonet, reinforced stock, etc.) now that the melee weapon part of combination weapons are at the highest proficiency.

- Gunslinger: Quickdraw -> Should include the same wording as quick bomber as it relates to bombs to enable the use of Versatile Vials that are now available in class from the L6 Munitions Machinist

- Inventor: Offensive Boost -> The feature, for armor inventors, is limited to melee weapons despite being given cutouts to pick one weapon during daily. This should be expanded to the one option so it can apply to armor inventor's weapons even if it is ranged.

- Inventor: Megaton Strike -> The feature, for armor inventors, is limited to melee weapons despite being given cutouts to pick one weapon during daily preparation. This should be expanded to the one option so it can apply to armor inventor's weapons even if it is ranged.

- Inventor: MC Archetype has an Intelligence +3 requirement instead of +2 requirement like all other MC archetypes. Is this on purpose or a typo?

- Demolitionist/Alchemist -> Multiple feats reference calculated splash which wasn't reprinted in remaster. The archetype also includes expanded splash which no longer clearly interacts with calculated splash. The Alchemist feat/demolitionist feat for expanded splash needs to clarify its interaction with the calculated splash feat.

ottdmk wrote:

My big question is: Does Munitions Crafter have a larger batch size for Level 0 Black Powder rounds?

If not, making 4 pieces of ammo at first, ramping up to 14 at twentieth... it's in an odd place.

Yes, the same OP in the original reddit thread clarified that you can make Level 0 Black Powder rounds in batches of 4.

"When crafting alchemical ammunition, including black powder in doses or rounds, using advanced alchemy, you create ammunition in batches of 4 (meaning that if you were 4th level and used all of your advanced alchemy consumables to create alchemical ammunition, you could create a maximum of 24 rounds). You cannot use advanced alchemy to Craft horns or kegs of black powder."

What's interesting to me specifically about Munitions Crafter is how it interacts with other Archetypes (Poisoner/Herbalist/Alchemist) that give you Advanced Alchemy benefits.

Since, RAW, it'd mean you use the highest number of them but can now use them for anything you could do with either feat.

So if you're a Gunslinger with Munitions Crafter and you take Alchemist Dedication, and then take Advanced Alchemy, you can craft 4+Half Level or any kind of Alchemical Consumeable. Which means you cap out at 14, vs an Alchemist's 17, which seems...very weird.

And for those saying Gunslingers don't get Quick Alchemy: they do, that's what Munitions Machinist was changed to, and IIRC it gives you 4 versatile vials for munitions/bombs.

Is it limited to 0th level or can you also do it with cooler higher level ammunition?

I hadn't seen the versatile vials option (I assume that is the L6 feat now?). That makes me wonder if the gunslinger quickdraw will be rewritten more like the quick bomber feat to allow its use with VVs.

We'll know more in a few days either way. The venn diagram of people with time/the right specific knowledge/desire to post changes/received a physical early copy is pretty low.

Now the inventor! Well that was a miss for me. If they did the following it would be in a good spot:

- Overdrive outcomes should shift down one success category so it's more like a thaumaturge (they only get nothing on a crit failure). I thought this was highly likely since they made the same kind of change to swashbuckler to get panache even on failures for bravado trained actions or marshal stances to going against easy DCs so they become assurance capable. Big miss IMO to keep the 'play skill mini-game for basic class feature aspect'

- Make overdrive a free action at the start of combat like rage instead of needing the action cost. Not done.

- Change the unstable action to a focus point type system or level scaling system like the oracle's cursebound uses. Not done (marginal flat DC reduction still effectively means you're left only doing unstable actions 1 per combat.

- Allow advanced weapons as the base weapon for modification (they did but with limitations and dual weapon form sort of overrides it, but is competing with other mandatory feats like megaton strike at L4)

- Allow armour inventors to select ranged weapons for benefits of their class features and feats (like megaton strike, the L9 damage boost, etc.). Not sure if they did this or not.

The inventor got very minor tweaks from what was shared so far that didn't go far enough IMO. So much of the 'fun stuff'/class power is in your feats that have unstable actions and they really needed a way to let people do up to 3 of those per combat (like focus spells) so you don't feel so 'one and done'.

However...By L6 though, you can have a megaton strike/dual weapon form for L1 advanced weapons (if the reddit post is to be believed as a way around the L0 advanced weapon clause for your initial innovation) for move + megaton strike turns on your barricade buster (which will have extra flat damage from overdrive). That all sounds like a quake BFG fun time build IMO, but I get why it isn't everyone's fantasy for the class.

There is also a reddit post from 3ish days ago:

Link

The biggest news IMO is that gunslinger get max attack proficiency on combination weapons now. So melee switch hitters are going to have another solid option.

The alchemical bomb feat on gunslinger was also updated to 4+half level of advanced alchemy of at level bombs or ammunition.

I can finally can make my swasbuckling bomb pirate concept work without extraneous hoops.

The inventor didn't get the fixes they needed but at least there are ways to select advanced weapons now.

As a person that does and shares DPR calculations for various things including new content, playtests, validation of homebrew to show it isn't pushing meta, etc. I don't think OPs take on how the community responds is wrong. But I would like to qualify that there is a huge range of 'quality' when it comes to doing DPR calculations that leads to different results. On the spectrum of bad to good I see things like:

A.) assuming I hit or Crit I can do up to a MAX of A DPR at Level 20.
B.) assuming I hit or Crit I can do up to an average of B DPR at Level 20.
C.) on average (considering hit/crits) I can do an average of C DPR at Level 20.
D.) on average (considering hit/crits) I can do an average of D DPR at Levels 1 to Levels 20.
E.) on average (considering crit miss/miss/hit/crits) I can do an average of E DPR at Levels 1 to Levels 20.
F.) E but with some feats/items included.
G.) F but with some range of moderate to high AC/saves, flatfooted, etc.
H.) G but with comparisons to other meta builds to show relative power
I.) H but with multi-round effects built in (DPR across 1-2 rounds for misfires, assuming x action costs for moving, etc.).
J.) I but with full standardized combat sequences (DPR across 4-6 rounds, maybe has an environmental effect, includes multiple monsters, etc.)
K.) J but with Time to Kill brought in to discount 'overkill' damage on damage spikes that skew results.
L.) K but with multiple party members now included.

In my experience, the DND5e community (unless you're in an optimization sub-community) will often use A/B quality analysis. Its frustratingly useless information IMO because I have never played a game where I always hit something or crit so often it should be heavily weighted in my average performance.

In the Pathfinder 2e community I tend to find the baseline for DPR calcs tend to be higher and you often get C to E with some a la carte stuff from higher quality analysis (yes runes but no feats, or yes comparison to other meta but no inclusion of optimization feats especially at L10+). So as a baseline, I think as a community we're already doing better than in other TTRPG spaces.

I think where some of the community response comes from is born from a few issues:

1.) You have people who do higher quality analysis dumping on lower quality analysis without really understanding the purpose of the calculation. It can always 'get better' but is it 'fit for purpose' for proving the point? I set my bar pretty high for analysis I'll consider useful, but I'm generally willing to bite the bullet to do the step-up and show how they've arrived at an incorrect conclusion because of how they set up their analysis. Just in general, not everyone is capable of doing higher quality analysis, so you have to accept that you won't ever get exactly what you want (for free on the internet at least) without some of your own time/investment. Usually I'll reference folks to the community calculator tool which is effectively a math free analysis tool that nearly anyone can use.

2.) You have people who actively like engaging in rational thinking, but don't have the training/tools to do it well (and are not self aware of that). That is where you get a lot of anecdotes about how this one PC in a campaign was amazing/awful being used as counterpoints to any analysis that is shown (despite it really not being that useful). There are wide ranges of things that change from table to table, game to game, so part of the value of good analysis is to benchmark and compare against the benchmark that is not subject to variability. Short of a well constructed poll about peoples subjective opinions, there isn't a great way to bottle this kind of information up into a useful analysis so it tends to generate a lot of tension between people. I try to just point out that it is anecdotal and try to clearly frame the analysis's purpose (it won't invalidate your experience and your experience may not be typical, so even if you don't get anything out of this analysis others might).

3.) You have have a relatively large subset of people in category #2 who don't like being told they are wrong and will deflect/get defensive. Realistically, people don't always want to talk about things or are open to having their minds changed. Think about how often you've changed your families political beliefs at holiday events. This is where the 'you've never played a real game' nonsense comes out and I think its much more of a human nature deflection technique than an honest attempt at saying you never really play the game.

4.) You have trolls and trolls with bots that revel in the erosion of society. What can you really do here lol. Its up to moderation teams with their own bots/tools to combat this and the quality of those tools/mods will vary wildly between different websites/applications.

5.) Sometimes you as the person who did the analysis just has bad assumptions and doesn't want to redo your work and publish your 10th edit on the reddit post. Again, is it fit for purpose, or are the critiques fair? I've definitely seen some analysis that assumes you spent ~2-4 actions in set-up, hit a below average CR monster with low AC that is flatfooted with a bard +1 to hit, while hasted, using all 4 actions to strike. That is clearly a huge corner case list of assumptions so its important to try and gauge what happens at an 'average' table and get as close to that with your baseline/benchmark to mitigate the 'plot holes' of your analysis.

6.) You have some people that have a philosophical disagreement with DPR as a useful metric. Some people like making sub-optimal PCs and feel threatened (as if you're saying their builds aren't doing enough), some people play at tables where combats are generally easier and don't value it (which is fine), etc. DPR calculations are not the end all be all, so as long as you aren't presenting them as such, I think you've done everything you need to do address these kinds of complaints. You doing analysis tells us 'something' and you have positively contributed. Their dismissal of it tells us nothing.

7.) Analysis posts tend to get long to capture data, analysis, assumptions, conclusions, etc. Most people don't want to read it even if it is presented in a clear/concise manner with pictures. It takes real skill to condense/present information and people often stop reading after they find one thing they don't like (or don't respond to all of the points made, just the 1 or 2 they think they can one-up you one). The best way to combat this is to re-read your posts a few times and try to trim it. Lol...this is not a skill I'm very good at (looks at this post... obviously).

I think the best thing as a community that can be done is to encourage contextually relevant DPR calculations. Someone that does a DPR calc is someone that is engaging with the content/community in a positive manner and should be taught or engaged with in a thoughtful way. For some that might be to improve the quality of the analysis, for others to push them to other kinds of meta-analysis that they find more interesting (or perhaps with a different central metric). As long as you are 'critiquing/engaging' with the analysis and not attacking the person then things go fairly well.

Hoping for:

1.) Skald (but done way better as a baseline chassis that follows wavecaster/magus baseline design than the battle harbinger). I think we'll be missing that 'shifter' druid wave caster for a while yet as many of the primal focused books just sort of passed us by.

2.) Filling out mechanical pain point holes in the current weapons/unarmed strikes list including:

- 1d6/1d8 damage dice size finesse thrown weapons for switch hitters (there is something with less traits between a starknive and tamchal chakram).

- 1d6/1d8 + ability mod damage unarmed ranged strikes (right now they are criminally under balanced at 1d4 with no mod.

- Patch to combination weapons to allow max proficiency on both sides of the weapon (a fair turnaround on the action tax for both sides)

- New weapon traits (e.g., penetrating which goes 5 ft beyond an enemy for possible 2 for 1s) or new rehashes (e.g., versatile flaming/cold/acid/electricity/sonic).

- Modification of monk thrown stance to include the spear (now another thrown monk weapon) and future proofed for more options.

- 20 more advanced weapons (ALL of which are good enough to warrant feats to take them).

- Variant Deity Favoured Weapons rules so you aren't so stuck with the extremely limiting current bespoke list. Maybe just any weapon from the same weapon 'group' as the deities favoured weapon.

- One martial and advanced weapon for every ancestry that has the L1/L5 weapon familiarity feats.

- Brawling weapon group items with larger weapon damage dice that 1d4

- at least one 1d6 free hand weapon option

- A finesse version of the wish blade (maybe like a shortsword or rapier equivalent).

- no more new 1d4 weapons (there are too many of these).

- more jousting/mount back weapons or weapon traits

3.) That both the new classes have built in support for ranged/thrown weapon concepts (PLEASE!)

4.) More 'war mount' animal companion items.

Just a bump for visibility now that Maya is back from vacation. This got asked a few places, but was in the original blogpost response Maya quoted about getting answers for the rogue saves as well as the champion blade ally feature.

It's not at all something that we should look at and treat as a reason why when Blessed Armament doesn't stipulate that the weapon you choose have a potency rune and space for another property rune that isn't proof that Blessed Armament is making an exemption.

Basically, the way the rules are meant to be read and understood is that we read the thing we are actually trying to figure out - in this case Blessed Armament - and we read any specifically referenced rules - in this case there are none - and we read any general rules for that aspect of the game - in this case, that is actually the rune limiting rules.

Where some people are failing this process is that we only apply the parts of whatever general rules are relevant that aren't contradicted by the thing we are actually trying to figure out. Which is why the context of not stating limitations counts not as "so those limits apply" but as an exception to those limits - because if this feature requires a weapon to have a potency rune and it doesn't say so then it isn't just "using the normal rules" it is [i]non-functional and misleading[/b].

The feature says, to put it simply, "you get a rune." If the general rules then elaborate upon that as "you don't get a rune" that's clearly a contradiction and thus proof of exception being necessary. And that's just obvious when you ask "what happens if you pick a weapon with no potency rune?" that the answer isn't "you can't do that." because the feature says you can.

This logic is flawed and completely backwards from the explicit specific vs. general rule language quoted earlier in the thread. Giving a rune does not in any way make any explicit statement about the number of runes a weapon can have. That is wishful thinking. You're literally arguing that by not stating something it somehow is implicitly making explicit statements. It doesn't logically follow.

The example of the weapon needing a potency rune to get a rune as 'specific proof' that it implicitly is explicitly providing a work around is not a logical statement. What it actually says is that that the feature is even more broken than we all are originally thinking because if you tried to apply it to a weapon without a potency rune it just wouldn't work BECAUSE the general rune limit will now kick in preventing you from benefiting (since without any explicit statement you can't have a property rune on a weapon with no fundamental potency runes). You're concluding the exact opposite thing (which is an error) then further incorrectly extending that logic to all levels and for situations where you have fundamental runes.

The reading should be:

- L3 - Apply 'rune' to weapon with no fundamental potency rune -> feature breaks and no rune is applied.

Instead of:

- L3 - Apply 'rune' to weapon with no fundamental potency rune -> feature now explicitly opens the door to stacking infinite runes from infinite sources so long as it doesn't talk about 'etching runes'.

The reason why that doesn't come up in discussion more often is because the game all but assumes you have a +1 fundamental property rune at L2 (so a L3 feature giving you a rune would never raise the red flags for anyone). As well, before remaster you got the 'effect' of a rune and not an actual rune (thus bypassing all language related to rune counts). So the remaster language change has actually made this feature even worse to interpret as this was never an issue before now.

Again, to make the argument you're making you have to effectively sell the whole inherited trait system underpinning the game down the river. That may sound like a slippery slope argument, but that is what you're doing by arguing that the rune you apply from a specific clause doesn't inherit the general rules of rune count limits because it doesn't explicitly say it does or doesn't. That just opens up a million rules loopholes and is blatantly inefficient (since to cover all your bases you'd have to republish large swaths of rules in each feature to ensure it is properly bounded by the otherwise inherited rules system we employ now).

Red Griffyn wrote:

As to why the change leads folks to thinking we lost an extra property rune. Its the difference between getting a rune (which would follow rules for runes on weapons) and gaining the 'effect' of a rune which doesn't actually give a rune but only the benefit of it.

The explanation for the thinking doesn't make any actual sense as a result of being inconsistent, though.

You state that people were able to parse the difference between gaining "effect of a rune" and having the actual rune, which implies a degree of ability to understand how things can be implied by the words chosen rather than needing to be explicitly stated because what actually is the effect of a rune is not a fully defined parameter the book provides to us. Then that ability is entirely absent when instead parsing what the text which says both "Select one weapon or handwrap..." without a limit that the selected weapon must have a potency rune (thus making it an explicit statement which disagrees with the rules that would limit how many runes a weapon can have, so a "specific trumps general" case) and "...you grant the armament a property rune..." which is just as much of a distinction as "it says "effect" not the actual rune" because it says you not the weapon.

So I persist in my belief that it is not the current wording itself which is cause for the belief that the rule is any different than it was, it is a comparison of the current text to the previous text matched with presumption the reason for altered wording has to be altered meaning. Synonymous phrases are allowed to exist in the game, though, so that need not be the case.

I think the explanation makes sense. Do you get a thing or do you get the emergent properties of the thing from 'some other source'. That is a very philosophical logic based distinction that gets used all the time. A unit square and a 2x0.5 rectangle can have the same 'area' as an emergent property and even follow many of the same rules of quadrilaterals, but clearly are different objects.

The game is intended to be read in plain English. So getting a thing vs. getting the effect of a thing can be readily interpreted to mean getting the 'Pros/Cons' without any of the inherited traits/hierarchy limitations. The effect of a rune is not the actual rune so the inherited limitation of rune count doesn't get smuggled in when you only get the effect. If the rule was limiting the # of rune like effects you could have then the argument wouldn't work. But I think that the count of objects is not an 'emergent property' of the object. It may be an emergent property of 'sets' of objects but the limitation is on the count of objects in a set, not anything else that could give a similar effect as something in the set of objects. Its a definition that comes out of just basic understanding of logic/language usage.

I'm honestly not sure what argument you're trying to make with the second half of that paragraph. The class feature says pick a weapon and grant it a rune. I fail to see how that is anything other then giving a rune to the weapon. How is that somehow specifically different than etching a rune to a weapon, casting a spell that gives a rune to a weapon, etc.? Its the item itself and rules for runes that carve out the limitation for how many runes can be on an object. There is no explicit statement one way or the other about it counting for or against the item's rune count limitation, which means we have to fall back to the general limitations for rune counts on weapons.

The reason why rules have to be explicitly enabling makes perfect sense if we take your argument for any other property of the weapon. Would it make sense to claim that because the feature says 'pick a weapon' that what defines a weapon no longer exists in rule space beyond what the next few sentences of the class ability state? If so then its a broken feature because I don't have any foundational (i.e., general/not specific) rules for how weapons work. That includes how to attack with weapons from class features, what weapon traits a weapon from class features would have, what kind of modifiers apply to attack roles with weapons from class features, etc. It is special pleading to argue that a weapon (which has clear rules for rune count) suddenly loses that limitation because you found a non-etching way to add runes) despite never mentioning rune count in the class feature.

Not sure why the 'source/subject of how you got a rune' adds anything to the discussion. I don't care if its a ghost, my god, an etched rune from a crafstman, etc. the actual subject doesn't change the underlying general rune limitation count. Or are you trying to suggest that as long as it isn't etched I can stack as many runes from spells, items, class features, etc. as possible? I think that is clearly not RAW and RAI.

The change altered the RAW reading of the class feature. The 'presumption' that they changed the rules for a 'reason' is obviously a good position to take. The question is whether that reason was related to rules, related to simplifying language, or related to something else innocuous (e.g., word/page count). The predominant causes of wording changes is to change a ruling or simplify/describe more correctly how the rule works. I plead Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for why they changed a rule was because they wanted it changed (not that they made a mistake).

Red Griffyn wrote:

The rules state:

Quote:

"The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune"

We know this is different from only being sourced from 'etched runes' because of things like:

- runic impression (spell - texts limits count)
- runic mind smithing (spell - text limits count)
- singing to the steel (feat - text limits count)
- disrupting strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- iruxi spirit strikes (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost blade (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost hunter (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- sacred armarments (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost wrangler (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- blade of the heart (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- Spiritual strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- radiant prism (spell heart - gain rune no limiting language)

So the argument that it is etching a rune that only leads to the rest of the rules regarding runes is incorrect. There are clearly specific ways to get runes that are different than etching and there are many examples where that path does and does not limit count.

Thank you for putting together that list. To be clear my argument was if your getting a rune from some other source, that source needs to apply limitations if it intends for limitations. I think you unintentionally strawmaned my argument.

Property rune limits are for etched property runes and for any ability that says to apply those same limits. Not for abilities that do not say to apply those limits.

That is where your argument falls apart. The rules for the number of property runes are not limited to etched runes. The rules that limit rune count are actually stated under a very general 'runes' rules section. Its a collection of rules all collected and in a completely different paragraph unrelated to etching. That general runes section even admits there are other ways to get runes by saying 'most' vs. 'all':

"Most magic weapons and armor gain their enhancements from potent eldritch runes etched into them"

I also addressed your position by including the full quote of specific vs. general and bolded the relevant clause that shows why you would default to there being a limit even when not explicitly stated. The absence of a limiting rule in a specific case does not allow you to ignore a more general limit that would otherwise apply to the category/class of rules/feats/items/etc.

The way the game is set up is with a hierarchy of traits/inherited properties. Weapons have an inherited property and ruleset that limits the number of property runes. You can't talk about adding runes to a weapon without inheriting the limitation, which is why an explicit cutout for the limit needs to be stated (not the other way around). There are some spells that add the effects of runes to a spell attack and I would agree that those do not inherit the limitations (even though they use the magic word effect).

The rules state:

"The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune"

We know this is different from only being sourced from 'etched runes' because of things like:

So the argument that it is etching a rune that only leads to the rest of the rules regarding runes is incorrect. There are clearly specific ways to get runes that are different than etching and there are many examples where that path does and does not limit count.

The logic behind why granting a rune is different than granting the effect of a rune is a purely plain English/logic based argument. There is a distinct difference between getting a thing vs. getting the pseudo effect of a thing. You can take a shower (the effect of which is you get clean) and that comes along with all of the limitations of a shower (need drainage, have to dry off, etc.). However, you can otherwise be clean or get clean without a shower through some other effect that may not share the same limitations of a shower (e.g., use dry shampoo on your hair).

So blessed armament says (remaster text):

Blessed Armament: Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows. You gain that armament's critical specialization effect, and you grant the armament a property rune of your choice from the following list: fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. During your daily preparations, you can change the spirit to inhabit a different armament, grant a different rune, or both.

Whereas the pre-remaster text for blade ally says:

Blade Ally: A spirit of battle dwells within your armaments. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. In your hands, the item gains the effect of a property rune and you also gain the weapon's critical specialization effect. For a champion following the tenets of good, choose disrupting, ghost touch, returning, or shifting. For a champion following the tenets of evil, choose fearsome, returning, or shifting.

There is clearly a difference between getting the rune and getting the effect of a rune but 'not the actual rune'. The former, without enabling language, doesn't allow you to discount the rules regarding rune count on your weapon (i.e., equivalent to the fundamental +1/+2/+3 rune).

Everyone keeps citing specific overrides general but they leave out a crucial sentence that flips the script:

Specific Overrides General

A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use. For example, the rules state that when attacking a concealed creature, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check to determine if you hit. Flat checks don't benefit from modifiers, bonuses, or penalties, but an ability that's specifically designed to overcome concealment might override and alter this. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the general rules presented in this chapter, even if effects don't specifically say to.

Thus the specific of the class feature gives you a rune but it doesn't take away the limitations of getting too many runes (which we all understand to be a game balancing issue). The absence of stating that it does or doesn't count against your rune limit count does not imply that you get to ignore it. You only can do what the rules enable/say. The class feature would have to explicitly state that getting this rune does NOT count against your property rune limit OR go back to stating 'effect' where we could then apply a plain English/logic based argument.

THAT is why we need clarification. I want the 'effect of a rune' language to come back or at least the same outcome to be clarified regardless of what the 'text' actually says. Given that they specifically changed the language from 'effect of rune' to 'give rune' I think the most reasonable position to take is that it was intentional until otherwise clarified (i.e., RAW vs. RAI). I'd love for them to say 'well we just wanted less words on the page to fit it in the book', but that is wishful thinking at its finest.

"I refuse to believe in Power Creep, I do, I do! If I believe hard enough it will go away!"

But i feel power creep has taken hold of PF-2E lately for better ro for worse. The biggest complaints about this is Spirit Warrior Archetype somehow allowing you to Flurry of Blows with your fist, which came months after Monk Multiclass got nerfed in PC2 to having Flurry of Blows being on a 1d4 cool down. Monk should really be unnerfed because 2 feats for Tiger Stance D8 stance is barely any different then Elven Curved Blade d8 + d6 Fist.

Or Animist class or the Exemplar MC Dedication. Look at the Playtest classes this time around, Necromancer & Runesmith both are great. Even the Archetypes in Divine Mysteries seem...crazy strong, Temp HP equal to your level for you entire team, Enter a spiritual rage for +1 Spirit damage and temp hp equal to your level? Get Expert in 2 skills at level 2 as well!?

Battle Harbinger being decisive topic and them getting potentially the more powerful feats in the game. Strike to auto sustain an aura, Critically hit to increase the bonus, free rune, so forth.

"If this isn't Power Creep, then what is?"

Did you post to the wrong thread? This had nothing to do with blade ally and a potential nerf.

If you want to chat Power creep make a separate thread please.

I mean Maya said to make a new thread for this and the rogue save question. So we did that so we wouldnt have to just live with it. We'll just have to be patient while Paizo works out this new process. I'm sure we'll get an update from Maya soon and we'll all know for better or for worse.

We'll just have to wait for Maya to weigh in with the designer's voice. First with RAI, then wait for it to be polished up formally in the next errata cycle of spring 2025.

Again. This is clearly settled 2 years ago by Logan and explained in the rationale very clearly. People are making a meal out of this for no reason and without any basis. The errata ADDED options to the archetype dedication text and explained that it is EXPANDING the 'bespoke list' to anything that requires 'Cast a Spell' to activate.

TheFinish wrote:

My Starlit Span made plenty of use of Sure Strike to make sure her Amped Imaginary Weapons landed as hard as possible. All her Studious Spell slots were Sure Strike, and tbh they probably still will be. Plus a retreival belt full of sure strike scrolls.

The spell is still basically unbeatable for those slots anyway, unless I need to prepare water breathing (as a Pixie Sprite, gecko grip was of dubious use thanks to my wings).

This is the strongest argument in favor of this nerf I've yet seen.

You're wrong. The issue is MC into psychic for an amped imaginary weapon. Not true strike. The spell should be a psychic exclusive AND the magus should have a tuned down version of a similar focus spell spell strike option to spell strike with. Then the opportunity cost of going outside the class for focus spells will be higher (since you can get a similair option in class AND not lock yourself out of other archetypes) and mitigate the 'one true MC Psychic IA builds'.

The fact is that even an starlit span magus can realistically only cast true strike once per combat AND that comes at the expense of a potential move action leaving you with a non-spell strike turn. You can game it with halfling luck, hero points, etc. But you need 3 actions to recharge/spell strike. The only round you have to true strike is round 1 since you start with spell strike charged. The issue isn't spending that action on true strike. The issue is this focus spell punches too hard for non-psychics.

Finoan wrote:

It is only considered a nerf if you were thinking that the ruling was that the dedication alone was sufficient.

Well, that's what I was thinking because Logan Bonner said so.

(This might be the thing that Red Griffyn was referring to.)

Thanks lol.... digging reddit posts from 5-6 months ago is not as fast or as straight forward as desired.

Another Question:

Kineticist Blasts don't interact with many things. However, can the goblin burn-it feat be applied to fire blasts?Is this just a lack of a bespoke list or is it intended to not work.

Another question:

The spiritual warrior archetype requires the use of a fist and a 1H weapon. However the wording implies that a 2H finesse weapon can also be used. However, you can't use a fist if you're holding a 2H weapon since fists are treated as freehand weapons and you can't use a freehand weapon if you are holding anything in it. This means the dedication overwhelming combination activity cannot be used with both a fist and 2H finesse weapon (you can strike with the weapon, but there is no way to insert a free action 'drop a hand' to punch with the fist). Can the team clarify if the use of the term fist is meant to be unarmed strikes (which can be non-fist unarmed strikes) or confirm that the intent is to limit the dedication activity to just 1H weapons.

@Maya

I would love designer input on the post remaster champion blade ally feature.

Pre-remaster you gained the effect of a rune, letting people have a bonus rune on their weapons from a bespoke list. Post remaster, you gained the rune which counts against your total rune count (i.e., no bonus rune).

The pre-remaster version was build enabling by giving free returning runes for thrown builds.

Could you reach out to designers to clarify intent?

Current discussions have identified that the damage of the rune smith may be too high and overshadows other single target damage dealers in the game. There wasn't much evidence provided so I wanted to provide some evaluation for consideration.

Conclusion Up Front: The rune smith can match the 2 round single target damage of the fighter, but in most circumstances the fighter is ahead. This level of performance requires risk vs. reward that balances it. There isn't a huge amount of fine tuning on damage needed. Realistically the limit should be placed on # of runes able to be stacked (no more than 3 will keep things in line with fighters, no more than 2 will push people to using diacritic runes more).

Assumptions:
1.) Runesmiths don't have any means to boost their effective damage from outside the class (true for all Save DC casters).

2.) PCs need to spend at least 1 move action to get into melee to execute these turn sequences. The fighter will use sudden charge.

3.) Time To Kill is being evaluated as 25% of a creatures HP. HP selected is the highest value of a moderate HP creature. Enemies with more HP are likely to have higher fortitude saves and possibly lower AC (favouring weapon martials anyways). Enemies with lower HP just lead to increased overkill damage that otherwise drops 'effective DPR'. Realistically, 25% is a reasonable handwaive as other PCs damage may come direct single target or AOE or indirect buff/debuffs.

4.) No Reactions are credited (this should drive the fighter DPR higher given the usefulness and availability of reactive strike in combats).

5.) No specific turn sequence for the runesmith is analyzed because there are 101 ways to end up at the same result of DPR which is driven by the number of runes an enemies saves against. This is limited to ~4 total over the course of 2 rounds, which requires two invokes as only 3 runes can stack damage at this point on a single enemy.

6.) Typical analysis uses High AC and Moderate Saves. However, both moderate AC and high saves will also be evaluated due to lake of save flexibility targeting and to show how relatively balanced the options are in the largest effective bands of expected play.

7.) Enemies are assumed to by CR=PL (the trends from #6 can show you how different options would fare against continued AC or saves drops/increases.

8.) A baseline 1D12 Great-sword Fighter using sudden charge/strike + Strike/exacting strike/certain strike has been used. A more optimized version has also been presented to show a range of expected DPR values from fighter builds. You can achieve similar levels of DPR with other martials like barbarian, dual slice rogues, etc. and I'll leave that statement otherwise unproven.

Results
A.)Moderate Saves, Moderate AC

B.)Moderate Saves, High AC

C.)High Saves, Moderate AC

D.)High Saves, High AC

E.)Moderate Saves, High AC (Flatfooted)

Analysis:
The runesmith can match the single target 2 round DPR of a fighter with 4 runes if saves are moderate (or lower), and AC is high. However, across a larger range of variables where saves are high or AC is moderate the fighter is typically ahead of even a 4 rune runesmith (baseline and optimized versions).

In both cases of the fighter and rune smith they are both blowing past the 25% hp of a PL=CR equivalent creature (i.e., 'your portion of a monster in a fight if it is equally distributed'). The 4 rune runesmith being just under a fighter means you can count on doing up to 50% of an enemies hit point pool in damage every 2 rounds with all 6 actions. Realistically that means that both PCs are wasting damage if they can't divert their attacks/runes to secondary enemies. I think the runesmith is fairly railroaded into placing 3 of its 4 runes on one enemy, meaning they are likely losing 25% of their damage to white room analysis issues (i.e., the enemy isn't even standing their alive anymore). Fighters with sudden charge can realistically recover at least a -5MAP Certain strike attack if enemies go down to their first action in round 2 (i.e., vs. a runesmith's first action being to invoke) OR an additional 0MAP strike if they die between rounds.

IMO that puts the fighter still ahead if this analysis was expanded to include more rounds, more enemies, and more PCs.

Risk Reward Balance:
- Runesmiths have less HP.
- Runesmiths do not have heavy armour.
- Runesmiths melee tracing triggers reactions (not a huge deal IMO but can force you into ranged mode for a small % of combats). This also puts them at higher risks around grabbing enemies, swallow whole enemies, etc. that can ruin their day.
- Runesmiths have no way to boost their damage (just like kineticists, but at least they get gate attenuators).
- Runesmiths do not currently have a means to target non-fortitude saves leading to decreased efficacy against a large subset of the bestiary.
- Runesmiths are limited in weapon damage (due to needing a freehand), which minimizes their plan B options.
- Many turn rotations lead to 3 runes being on one enemy. Its harder to redistribute runes if enemies die prior to invoking the runes leading to sensitivity to party tactical prowess. You can transpose runes with a L4 feat, but it comes at an action cost.
- Runesmith rune tracing doesn't have access to easy self driven buffs like 'flatfooted'. The number of ways to impose drained isn't plentiful, but it will benefit from frightened/sickened as well as anyone else.

Recommendations:
- I think it is fine to leave the runesmith's rune damage as it is. However, Paizo shouldn't add more damage runes. Personally I think having a 'elemental rune', a 'physical damage rune', and a 'defensive burst rune' would be better than endless repeats of damage x/y/z runes and create that hard limit that prevents getting 5 damage runes which would outpace a fighter/other martials. That opens up more runes for fun/utility option runes.

- If people still think that its too much damage, then limit it to two stacking (physical/elemental runes) and that would drive runesmiths to engage with more diacritic runes like expanding to become a less single target and more AOE damage class. If they did this I think the 10 minute cooldown on the 'retrace the rune' diacritic should be removed. As well, consider bringing expanding down to L1 and scaling its AOE burst size at L9/L17 (or the other levels you get runes if that changes).

Other:
Obviously this is not a comprehensive analysis and you can pull many levers to make any one side look better or worse. Hopefully though this will help steer the conversation.

Red Griffyn wrote:

I think a thread on how the runes are boring should throw out more cool ideas for effects you'd want to see for the design team to implement and balance around.

That one's easy.

- Rune for Cold damage
- Rune for Acid damage
- Rune for Poison damage
- Rune for Sonic damage
- Rune for Mental damage
- Rune for Void damage
- Rune for Spirit damage
- Rune for Piercing damage
- Rune for Bludgeoning damage

Lol...Well OP clearly wanted non-combat runes. But I think just copy pasta of the same old underlying damage rune with a minor flavour based difference (e.g., cold reduces speed) is the wrong way to go because you'll end up having multiple stacking runes, boosting the existing burst damage of the class. I'd much rather a elemental rune (fire/cold/acid/electric/sonic) and physical rune (bludgeoning, slashing, piercing) that gives versatility but doesn't eat up rune count. That provides a hard cap to damage rune stacking (since only two could stack) and prevents you feeling 'required' to spend all your runes on damage. It will take less page count to even add those flavour boosters based on damage type as well if desired. Everyone can spare 2 runes which opens up people to take a weird corner case rune or diacritic modifying rune.

Just pondering again, but think there could be a reasonable desire to specialize in one kind or damage or another. Maybe there could be a higher level feat to specialize a versatile rune like that for one damage type. Like a L8 feat that boosts the fire to add persistent fire damage, the cold status penalty to speed to require a check to move (similar to being on ice), sonic causing a creature to be unable to perform actions/spells that have the auditory trait, etc.

I think the other really cool thing that is missing is the scaling ability to improve the complexity of your runes. Its there in some of the later feats where you're causing effects based on the rune magic type in combination, but I mean more a later level feat or feature to add two diacritic runes to modify so those baseline runes can get increasingly more complicated. Maybe you could even let you double dip on the diacritic rune (increase the AOE radius on expansion, double the INT damage, etc.).

Or maybe runes that really play into the idea of language. You can trace a rune on your tongue that translates all of your speech to anyone listening to the universal ancient language, or do the same on your ears. Start a plot hook where a podunk farmer accidentally created a cattle brand that exactly recreates the Rune Of Speech- and now the cows are speaking up and speaking out in revolt.

I love this. Maybe it could provide a passive bonus to one CHA skill of your choice as its scaling effect (great for your party face) and maybe you could invoke it to give a reroll on a failed CHA check? That would be a really fun utility rune that could also be used in combat for demoralize/bon mot.

Other Utility Rune Ideas:
- Immovable Rod Rune that adds a huge mass to and object.

- Levitation Rune that decreases your mass and lets you hover.

- Binding rune that binds two objects (or later PCs?) to each other and requires a DC to escape. Sort of like a sovereign glue/everlasting adhesive.

- Repulsion runes that prevent two objects (or later PCs?) form approaching each other without a save.

- Elemental Control Rune(s) similar to the kineticist kinesis

- Runes you can place in space and walk/climb like a versatile floating disk spell. This could enable a higher level version where you can 'create' larger structures like a bridge or w/e.

- Runes to transmute things from one thing to another (either temporarily or permanently if reapplied a lot). Think of Brandon Sanderson's emperor's soul type imprints (things that coax a crappy thing to be better by rewriting its 'history'). Imagine if you could transmute your possessions into any item of the same item (weapon, handheld, alchemical bomb, etc.) type after ~7 days of imprinting that is of a level equal to or lower than the item's level. Then you add in a really cool 1-4 scaling items that are up to your PC level but those require daily reapplies (so you can't up cycle and break the economy). That would be a really cool versatile option opener AND it would have some really cool narrative options to describing how exactly you changed a part of the item history (was it they were taken care of better, were they crafted with higher skill from a master crafstman, was there a locksmith of your dungeon cell who predominantly used a specifically 'worse' kind of lock making it easier to escape the dungeon, etc.). For items of the item level it could be as simple as 7 days to change a random key into an exact replica of the vault key you stole from the banker to improve your heist abilities. TONS of fun gameplay here. It also reinforces the INT/Crafting angle of the runesmith.

- LOTR style runic magic doors (only opens on certain days, in the moonlight, or with passphrases, etc.)

Red Griffyn wrote:

The design intent is a once per combat ability. There are many ways to design that into the game. Focus points is not the way in which you do that because you can repeatedly cast the same focus spell. These abilities aren't meant for invoking your etched rune 3 times in a round or similair.

I think a focus point runesmith would be bad and poorly supported. I don't think your idea gives any specific benefit and somehow increases the meta Nova ability of the class by removing any action taxing to setup the Nova rounds.

the existence of once per 10 minute ability had no value to begin with

it should only exist when forced to

not when obvious better option exist

But it isn't obviously better. How do focus points prevent you from doing a focus point ability 3 times per combat and only enable the ability to happen once per combat?

Its an easy answer. They don't. The current design is a 'cooldown' mechanic, not a 'mana point' mechanic. You're conflating the two. Some abilities have both like focus points having a 3 mana pool count limit AND 10 minute cooldown timer. In this case the designers picked the cooldown mechanic only. You can say you disagree with design intent to select that kind of mechanic, but you can't say that focus points are actually better at achieving a cooldown only mechanic because by definition they aren't.

Again I don't agree that it is better. Some of the 10 minute abilies are quite powerful, like the repeating diacritic rune. If I could do that 3 times per combat I could really up my damage. Think of the slashing rune. I could raise a shield to trace the rune, trace the diacretic modifier, invoke. Next turn I raise my shield to reapply just the diacritic rune, invoke, and invoke again. You're getting 3 seperate invoke instances of the same AOE rune and raising your shield with the two AC booster runes and you don't have to invoke it on the same enemy who probably died from your previous invokes. That prevents the number one issue with the class's burst damage by preventing an overkill and effective loss of DPR. Most other traces and invoke combos put multiple runes on one enemy or only allows for one invoke which prevents similair rune stacking on the dame invoke (another potential loss of DPR and eating into your rune count versatility as you need multiple damage types tk maximize burst damage). So I get why designers limit that runaway train.

The last thing PF2 needs is another interesting class that ends up a chore to play due to poor action efficiency. I'd rather see a drop in burst damage than a crippled class stuck with a fixed two round action loop.

1000x this. Please leave all the action compressions in. Those ARE the interesting and complex tactical options that are so much fun to mix and match. This is why monks are so much fun (and arguably they don't get too many action compression feats, just one REALLY good one with a few other focus spells or the L10 winding flow feat).

Any class that requires an active feature, and by extension actions, to do its main thing need help removing those action taxes with immediate exchanges. The runesmith has a trace and invoke action tax to do its main thing so it needs a lot of action compression to be playable. The kineticist is a great example of it being built in. Gathering power comes with a free aura stance or kinetic blast so that you're never really stuck with just 3 actions to do your main thing (it's more like you have 4 effective actions). That is for a 1 action tax playstyle. By comparison the rune smith needs an effective 5 action turn to return to parity with other classes with passive features like barbarians or fighters. That effectively means a free trace and free invoke each turn or two free tracing actions to be paired with other things you would normally do like strike, stride, or raise shield. You can't put flourish on them all because you end up only giving a 4 effective action turn.

If you got a third action compression in a round then that is when you start matching the passive martials like a monk, barbarian, and fighter who use an action compression feats like sudden charge, flurry of blows, predators pounce, etc. Indeed you can manage 3 action compressions per turn, especially with trance trace.

That's is why the over abundance of action compression options gives me high hopes for this class. The designers at paizo aren't asleep at the wheel. The class functions really well out the gate. You may dislike the tuning on their burst damage but killing action economy is not the dial to turn. That dial is set perfectly right now.

Playtests should have some options that are purely promotional cool things to get folks excited for the final format. But they aren't necessarily there to be "playtested" but to paint an overall story about what the final class could look like.

I'm surprised there aren't runes that straight up are copy or advance common runes (e.g., getting a pre-remaster blade ally bonus rune on your weapon or maybe armour). Imagine being able to trace that to get any of the skill boosting utility runes you'd never add to your normal weapons and Armour.

When I think about some of the cool options from other classes I think of the mirror implement short distance teleport, a stealth rune to hide you and your party, the ability to trace runes that only certain people can see for secret communications, some movements options like a rocket jump to get short distance pseudo fly, a super speedy rune that could give you a free or no action 60ft dash to close distance, an alarm rune for ensuring you are attacked in the night, all the power word x spells, etc.

Then what new things could you do with the power of the written word? I think it'd be cool to summon little rune monsters that out of combat could be unseen servants or in combat could personify the runes intention (you animate the 'protect rune' and it jumps to take hits and tank, you animate the 'revenge rune' and it will always attack the creature who last attacked an ally, you animate the help rune and it will aid another). That opens up so many flavourful options for a poorly worded 1 word program that does something you want but never in the most optimal way unless you highly coordinate with your team. It's like true naming a quality/concept vs. A creature.

I think a thread on how the runes are boring should throw out more cool ideas for effects you'd want to see for the design team to implement and balance around.

The vote system is a necessity in filtering out all the haters.

I post in both under the same username. The vote feature is the biggest downside to reddit. Populism tends to lead to an echo chamber that prevents meaningful engagement. I've had posts where I quote a rule with a link (nothing more than a link to the rule that answers the OPs question with no added opinions) and get a tonne of negative votes. I've provided in depth build advice to hundreds (thousands?) of posts and get anywhere between -50 votes to +200 votes with an average of 2 votes and is seen by the OP but no one else. Often those negative numbers come from some person taking umbridge with a rule interpretation representing 1 sentence or 1% the post.

The vote feature rewards first posters, short quippy posts, vote inertia (your first few votes drives whether your at the top of the thread or bottom), and people with bots. The best actual comprehensive and researched posts that help are often just above the bottom negative posts (only slightly more favoured than the jerk responses). The top responses are nearly always 3 sentence concise hand wavy platitudes (that is or is not raw/rai, that would be balanced or unbalanced, remember to ask your gm). I can almost always skip/skim the top 3-5 responses without missing anything.

What reddit is good for is getting a different cross section of the community. As well there is a much larger versatility of top posters. These forums have the same 200-500ish names making most of the content (or at least that is what it feels like). On Reddit I find it is more likely to get new names, new players, and actually help a more average ttrpg person. That also minmizes people holding and executing on grudges. It also has a way better text editor and doesn't prevent post changes after 30 mins or other QOL improvements.

Not sure what the answer is but they are both far from perfect.

ANYWAYS: Welcome Maya! I think more engagement with the wider design team to get some RAI interpretations would be an awesome value added. Having it come through a known point of contact actually makes life much easier as we can search for your posts directly. I also assume it helps to buffer any toxicity from hitting the design team (unfortunately at the expense of your sanity so hopefully it doesn't happen too much). I look forward to your posts!

Guys the shield bow is where it is at. Then add a bladed gauntlet in blunt mode with the splash damage rune for fun and blazons of shared power. Now you have a Dex forward build with a shield, a 1H+ ranged option, and a rune upgraded 1d6 finesse free hand option.

Take all of the action compression feats in L1 to L2 and have fun tracing runes on your shield raises, on your strikes, or having and increased invocation ranged strike.

Get a familiar with the tattooed ability for artist's attendance 100% gusrantee for free runes while striding. Then grab transpose and trace trance at L6 and L8.

You basically can't help but get extra runes and move them around at will from range.

Iruxi with the L9 terrain advantage feat plus the 20 ft aura of difficult terrain rune will also make nearly everyone flat footed. Tien xia irixi can even get a familiar and early ghost touch. Get adopted by humans for the extra L1 class feat by L5. Perfection.

The design intent is a once per combat ability. There are many ways to design that into the game. Focus points is not the way in which you do that because you can repeatedly cast the same focus spell. These abilities aren't meant for invoking your etched rune 3 times in a round or similair.

I think a focus point runesmith would be bad and poorly supported. I don't think your idea gives any specific benefit and somehow increases the meta Nova ability of the class by removing any action taxing to setup the Nova rounds.

The “return once used” diacritic can only be used once every ten minutes. Can’t apply multiple times per combat.

Transpose runs into duration problems on traced runes. It’s for moving etched ones around the party.

Fair enough, I didn't see the 10 minute cool down. Still, it is an easy free rune action compression that you can load up once combat.

Tracing lasts to the end of the round of your next turn, so transposing a rune the next turn to invoke is perfectly fine and gives you that 3rd action 'trace' that can let you break up ranged tracing or diacritic ranged tracing across multiple rounds.

Nearly all of the L1-L6 feats are geared towards action compression:
- Strike to invoke
- Strike to trace
- Stride/Stride Trace
- once per combat free action
- quickened but to trace (no invocation)
- Demoralize to Invoke
- Raise a Shield and Trace

That is why transpose is so good. You can easily pick up 1-3 free runes a turn with the right feats and turn planning. That gives you flexibility to toss that extra rune or a diacritic altered rune onto an enemy.

Just think about tossing the fire rune onto your shield as a freebie when you raise your shield. Then raise it next turn, adding the expanding rune, transpose your little nuke, and the invoke it.

Hell use a shield bow with a bladed gauntlet + blazon's of shared power (drop STR and focus on maximizing damage with with your damage runes). Human it up and you can grab all L1/L1/L2 action compression feats to be a switch hitter extraordinaire by just constantly tossing out runes for transposing and later invoking.

I hope there is a boon to worship a dead deity (maybe its another deity pretending but the PC doesn't know).

Mark Seifter discussed it on one the the roll for combat live streams. My understanding of his position was that having proficiency lags/boosts that are different between classes adds a 'textural element' to the game that motivates players to change up their approaches and avoid falling into routines that ultimately become boring. For example the battleform spells are all reasonably decent on odd levels when they first become available or scale, but not on even levels (which makes sense from the AC table posted where most of the +2 jumps are on even levels). That gives you some 'global' incentives to do more wildshaping on odd levels with 'change up' to that strategy on even levels preventing you from constantly doing the 'same thing' every level until you want a new PC.

Are the L5/L6 hell levels part of that? I'm not sure. But the game does have these scaling proficiency hiccups. If not on purpose, it isn't a design goal to smooth everything to the same progression so everyone feels samey (one of the criticisms of DND4e).

But knowing that they do this means we can meaningfully complain about it, but we should set our expectations fairly low for them to 'do anything about it." as the 'flattening' of the 'texture' has it own system wide downsides.

Easl wrote:

Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6. Even then, the Summoner pays a high 'spell opportunity cost' to play that way, while a BH doesn't.

I'm very tempted to make a Warpriest with the Magus archetype, which I believe is absolutely the superior divine gish.

I'd recommend just going with Cleric+. They have 1-2 really good class archetypes for wave caster clerics. The team+ content also has foundry/pathbuilder support so its seemless IMO to ignore the battle harbinger since it requires too many fixes to bring it back into spec (Paizo doesn't have a good track record of actually fixing things in errata and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't think it needs fixing).

Not a PFS2e legal options, but c'est la vie.

lol

What was dishonest about my answers.

Let me point you to your dishonest quote so you remember what you said:

10% less damage but offers 5% more Accuracy for the whole party.

Still is ahead.

...

The only sure thing is regardless who is closer, the fact remains that for all those people asking for better weapon progression on a warpriest, for which there were a ton, this archetype fullfils that void perfectly.

Its just 10% less. There is nothing unique about the harbinger casting bless to add a +1 status bonus. Marshals can do it automatically at L4 for 1 action, exemplars/exemplar MCs can do it passively with the right ikon, bards can do it for 1 action/focus point for 3 rounds over a larger area, and literally anyone can cast bless for 2 actions (L1 wands are pretty cheap or pick an ancestry with the ability to cast bless from a feat, etc.).

Pretending that the state of the game's design is different is dishonest.

1. There are no design benchmarks for hybrids. We have at least 3 different hybrid benchmarks in magus-summoner/warpriest/alchemist

2.No they aren't

3. I disagree on the premise that pf2 in general has strict "rotations". You apply the aura, and the amount of auras, as needed for each encounter.

4. different specs like different feats?

5. I do somewhat agree that there are too many good feats on harbinger that could have been features

1.) There are clearly design benchmarks if you're being more honest (it isn't +2/+3 damage). Here are the ones they missed that you're pretending they didn't:

2.) See comments above. There are clearly MANY better or equivalent options to 'cast bless'.

3.) Don't be dishonest in your interpretation. I didn't say 'strict rotations'. I said 'rotations/action compression' to do what the class design wants them to. to do what they want to do'. The class wants them to cast multiple overlapping auras. This takes a minimum of 4 actions in your first two rounds, but doesn't leave you enough actions to strike more than one time in the first two rounds. The class needs REAL action compression on strides/strikes/casting spells. Casting the 4 aura spells as 1 action is okay, casting 1/striding for 2 actions is okay, casting+striking is okay, etc. There are many ways to achieve the end result where you can at least strike once per turn and still cast two auras. Otherwise you're going to spend the first 25-50% of combats being an aura bot, which is pretty lame.

4.) This is why it is a 'malicious compliance'. I want a bard/cleric/druid wave caster chassis that gets access to those classes feats at the levels they are available. I don't want zero 1st/2nd level feats so I can't even start the emblazon armament/raise symbol/emblazon energy feat line or domain initiate/alternate domain/advanced domain feat lines until L4. Even if I do, I have to give up ANY of the things the subclass pretends it wants me to do because nearly every level is feat taxed:
- L1 is not provided
- L2 is a L1 general feat
- L4 is either getting access to the other two aura spells (feat tax) or the ability to sustain an aura on your first hit.
- L6 is the feat you didn't take at L4.
- L8 is either 'studious spells' feat that should have been a feature or the 'blade ally' feat that should have been a feature for a non attack stat KAS.
- L10 is the option you didn't pick at L8 even though you want replenishment of war
- L12 is the poorly designed boost a number reaction that only happens once every two combats.
- L14 is actually a free feat.
- L16 is a necessary free sustain to put on malediction since enemies have a good chance of actually just 'saving' against it and this is the only reliable way to land it (since you've spent so many actions just casting malediction/bless/moving).
- L18/L20 are actually free.

5.) Read #1. Most of those things are class features that they forced to be feats because they refused to design to the established class design benchmarks. Some of them, like having to buy the bless/malediction or bane/benediction synergy for a L4 feat is is just an egregious feat tax. Bad design.

Is the class so weak as to be broken/unusable? No. But it is heavily under-tuned. It just keeps strumming the chord of 'but why?' instead of making me excited. Kineticist design makes me excited. Exemplar makes me excited. Those both enable new play styles. Casting non-scaling L1 spells for 2+ rounds from L1-L20 and barely doing anything else is not a 'play style'.