I don't know that I entirely agree with the read on "Immune: death effects," if only because it falls under the "too bad to be true." I think my Strikes gaining the death trait would still harm undead targets, but they would be immune to the actual "death effect". Like, it isn't going to be slain.
I mean, even if it is intended to work this way, it definitely falls under 99% of GMs aren't going to run it this way.
Champion cannot cast spells.
But this could easily be accomplished with multiclass dedication.
Weapon progression doesn't go above expert even for the favored weapon.
For... cleric? You could easily get what you want through a multiclass dedication.
No deity has the khakkara as it's favored weapon. (Its the weapon monk priests use, and not even monks can use it)
Oddly specific, but if the intent here is "I want a warpriest who uses the khakkara," you have a few options:
1. Make a warpriest who uses a khakkara and talk to your GM about allowing a deity who uses a staff as their favored weapon.
I would like to have a fulu dabbler for the cleric. (like the Thaumaturge has for talismans)
Again, very specific. But many of the fulu have the talisman trait, so you can just pick up the Talisman Dabbler Dedication to get access to a bunch of free ones as well as going out and learning to Craft them on your own (without the dedication).
I would like something as a Divine magus. (Hence the smite ability)
So this is very much in the realm of homebrew. People have clamored for it, but I would be dollars to doughnuts that we won't be seeing it from an official source. The Exemplar looks to be the direction that a divine martial will be taking in the future. I don't see why you couldn't just do all of this by taking the magus and giving it the divine spell list if you're homebrew friendly.
Otherwise, very simply, rather than ask for a full class to be broken into two separate classes, why not just make a champion with archetype feats?
You did just have a thread on this topic moved off of General and into the Homebrew section. I'll keep the topic to one thread and will be responding over there.
On my read, it seems like Unicore's GM is doing what all GMs I've seen do (and myself), which is to use the APs or adventures as a framework to build their story around. This is something designers and writers have come out many times to say is how they expect prewritten adventures to be handled.
Now I know that Bidi and I are both fairly avid PFS players and that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Certainly when I run PFS scenarios there's a "meta" that gets created because those stories are built with more constraints in mind. But applying this style of GMing to home games, adventures, and APs does feel a bit against the stated goals from the writers - which is to create an adventure that you group can really get their fingerprints all over and truly make their own.
Calling that playstyle "the unicorn" is a little odd while also saying "I'm not sure why so much of the game seems to allow this playstyle." I think it's somewhat the core assumption of roleplaying games with the competitive minmax charop that has grown out of it that is the abberation.
Not saying that charop is a bad way to play, mind you, but I would note that it's much more likely to be uncommon in my mind.
Some monsters are known to use good combat tactics, set up ambushes and can assess the party for optimal targets too though.
Not to speak for Calliope, but I believe they're saying that you won't see the same breadth of synergistic options in NPC stat blocks typically. That isn't to say that monsters can't or shouldn't be played tactically. There's a few reasons there.
Monsters with the same variety of player options is a lot of cognitive load for even experienced GMs and having three to four in a single encounter can make things rough. As well, large stat blocks tend to eat into page count, which makes spreading out impactful NPCs a bit more necessary than if you threw them all into one heavy encounter and left the adventure with a number of more generic feeling encounters.
And also there's just things that players can do that would be unfun on the recieving end of if you had to deal with them all of the time. I know my group sometimes gets upset when faced with certain abilities that they wouldn't bat an eye at if they possessed them. (Did you know there's an AP that allows an NPC to use a Reaction to instantly drop an opponent prone on a successful Feint? - Those sorts of abilities getting heaped on in every battle would grow tedious outside of the odd encounter, I feel)
So it's just one of these things that just goes on and on and on when it's just subjective and silly.
"Wizards feel boring," is something you can say about your experiences. I can't really disagree with your experience. "I'd like it if wizards had more interesting feats and class options." Sure! Sounds great.
"Wizards are boring," is now a statement that I can say is just wrong. I don't find them boring and their playstyle is something I enjoy. "The wizard needs more feats and features to compete." Again, I disagree - they function just fine. I mean, look at this:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think they have boring feats. Thesis are fairly boring.
An opinion, cool. Sure, those feats can be boring, I can see that.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The most obvious examples being Augment Summoning should be a free action cast while you cast the 3 action summon. Evocation focus spells should all be at range. Charm school should always debuff an enemy prior to casting a charm spell or maybe increase the number charmed, something useful for the play-style.
We started leaning into "this is how it should be played," not "this is what I'd like to see more of." It's genuinely frustrating to have conversations with other posters like this. And I've had these conversations with you since, like, the launch of the game. You've also talked about mountains of data that you've compiled and claim to be an authority on the game. Do you not see how this is just... incredibly off-putting? How you entirely undercut the point of any conversation when you interact with people this way?
Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
Can we consolidate our points on a singular thread? Like, your responding to my quote in which I said nothing about RP to sort of address a broad number of topics on the boards.
Roleplaying is often entirely apart from the mechanical aspects of the game and it's not something I've talked about. It's sort of the Stormwind Fallacy here: I'm saying that you place more emphasis on tactical elements in a turn-by-turn sense and overcoming the challenges in (by your standards) optimal ways; my groups don't tend towards caring that much about some sort of DPR or overall measure of effectiveness. I'm not saying "Ah, DF cares so much about the mechanics that he must be bad at RP."
What I am saying is that many parts of the game that I and my groups greatly enjoy are things that your groups would not enjoy. Where they crop up, you and your group have gone to great lengths to not engage with them or minimize them. It's going to skew your perspective on design when you approach the game from one mindset/one playstyle.
I love a bit of an old-school romp where the group wizard sends out a prying eye in the morning to scout out the area they'll be tackling in the days to come. They inform the group, make plans, have some downtime, and tackle the problem on a later date. I like when the group has two to three months of downtime to get ready for a massive event. I enjoy when the party requires a high-level item that they must craft because itcan't be bought anywhere. I love when they are compiling information about enemies they've heard about before they encounter, giving them an edge in the fights to come. I like research and planning and all of this work that takes place before swords and drawn and I measure everything in six-second intervals.
And I also like when all that planning goes entirely poorly and the players are forced to improvise and react.
I don't really care so much about combats getting solved "correctly," only that my groups enjoy when they do. I enjoy when they say, "Well, that didn't go as planned," or "Hey, that was a great idea, good play."
I don't think there's anyone who at all argues with "wizard could use more interesting feats," much the same as any class getting more interesting feats and options would be great. The argument always seems to come down to "wizards are lesser," when many times it feels like the detractors either...
A) Have a different vision of what a wizard should be.
B) Have a different playstyle that deemphasizes things that wizards have a natural proclivity towards.
Like, other classes can RK and even have feats and chassis that support that. I don't think wizards are currently the lords of knowledge and I'd love to see more support in that direction. They aren't even the best at crafting or Downtime, but they don't really need to invest much for their slower playstyle of preparing and planning to reward these characters. I would never say that wizards are perfect, but I wouldn't say that of any class. I certainly wouldn't say that wizards are underpowered or "a broken class" when they function just as well as every other class - which sort of seems to be the definition of balance.
To further add in, item bonuses to spell attack rolls (at the time separated into the wordy "non-weapon melee touch attack rolls" and "spell that requires a non-weapon ranged attack") were playtested back in 2019. For the reasons mentioned above, they didn't make the cut.
I grabbed out my Playtest book and snapped a quick picture for posterity.
EDIT: This was also the time that magic weapons went up to +5. As you can see the spellcasting item bonuses become available later than the bonuses typically were. Even during the playtest, the designers were bearing in mind the strengths that casters would have.
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
The more I read about the Remastered edition, the more it is sounding like Pathfinder 3.0, not even Pathfinder 2.5. There are so many changes, not just in mechanics, but in concept as well. I'm sure there must be some marketing reason why they are not changing the number, but the reality is that this is a new edition.
Wait, what mechanics are being changed? I've seen nothing beyond the occasional "Grab now requires a roll," and "we're clarifying Recall Knowledge." Could you explain this more clearly?
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
I mean that's sort of why these discussions are frustrating to me, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what makes the game enjoyable to us.
Like all of the things that I find enjoyable and worthwhile about playing a wizard are things that your group doesn't enjoy. So it's fine to just say "Oh, we don't like this class." There are those of us that do - it fits exactly the sort of playstyle that we've been looking for. I can't speak for all fans of the wizard, but I know that if it were changed in ways to cater towards a playgroup like DF's I... well, I would be disappointed.
Now, as always, more flavorful feats and interesting spells are great, but I think we're just going to go in circles about what our groups value. But again:
...I'm not going to stand here and act as an absolute authority to tell others how to play.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I mean that's sort of why these discussions are frustrating to me, I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on what makes the game enjoyable to us. Because... yes? Yes, I like to have the character who shouts out, "The books are wrong! Trolls are weak to electricity!" after he fumbles a Recall Knowledge. I like the dice taking part of the storytelling for who my character is - and getting to know them over the course of the campaign. It doesn't really matter to me that an encounter could have gone more smoothly if I used my own player knowledge. I mean, I've also been on the GM-side of things for more than 20 years - that's a lot of knowledge I could use to game the system, especially when it comes to the more common encounter types.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
This is not about metaknowledge for something interesting. This is my group after playing this game a long time no longer finding rolling to figure if the belt of strength gives a +1 athletics check or the demon was a weakness to good damage as fun. It's not fun any more. It's not interesting. It doesn't provide an interesting game experience any longer.
And the thing is, I do find those interactions still interesting after all these years. You don't, and that's fine, but it's a playstyle that I really don't think is the norm and probably shouldn't be taken into consideration when skills and abilities are discussed. I don't want to go point by point, here, but a few things to keep in mind.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
You've never played with a group that engaged in tactical team play? I find that hard to believe. That's all we do.
As I said, roleplaying draws all different types of playstyles into the hobby. I've played with groups that definitely go in harder on the tactical play, but they haven't neglected the roleplay side of things. I suspect you play along these lines as well (or else, why play a TTRPG at all?). However, I have frequently played with people who have zero interest at all in the tactical encounters. They go in harder on other aspects of their character. In a group that still wants to play PF2, they allow many of their roleplay choices to help guide them through tactical combats. Like, PF2 is heavier on the crunch, but I'd be hard pressed to say it functions better than, say, an actual tactical wargame.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I will be very direct here: I respect that you play the way you do and have no interest in telling you that you're wrong. However, that sounds like the worst, most absolute horrible use of my time. If I joined a group like that, I would quit immediately and warn friends away from them. It sounds like a group of people going out of their way to unnecessarily ruin my leisure time. If I want a challenge with a group of friends, I won't choose an activity that is as freeform and open as TTRPGs. Online gaming, wargaming, and even more intense board gaming can provide that - that's not at all something I am even the slightest bit interested in.
This is sort of the issue I have with these discussions - yes, people will always have different playstyles and approaches to the game, but sometimes they're entirely antithetical to how the game was designed. This isn't definitely a "you're playing wrong" sort of thing, but DF's playstyle is likely not the norm. I, obviously, have zero data to back this up, but every post that DF makes about his view of how the game is played just isn't one I've ever seen.
Like, I enjoy Pathfinder and roleplaying games a lot, and I think 2e has a very strong, crunchy tactical element. But it's also not the sort of game where I ever think about "beating" it. Sure, a tactical video game or even board game with end states and a variety of different approaches would have me saying "Hmm, I don't need to use this."
But like, there is a separation of player knowledge and character knowledge and we all know there's an honor system of using meta information and each group will approach that differently. What becomes tedious is hearing repeatedly that something like Recall Knowledge doesn't have value because one could just use metaknowledge to "beat" the game more efficently. I will never quite grok that playstyle. On a personal level, I simply don't want to treat my social game days as exercises in mathematical precision where I should just disregard my character and ignore the abilities that allow me to utilize or uncover metaknowledge.
I mean, a poor GM can still follow the rules to a "T" and still make a wildly unbalanced encounter by designing against their group and players. I mean, the classic "Tucker's Kobolds" is essentially this - the rules and balance of the game are still in the hands of the GM. If you come in as an antagonistic GM or even one who isn't letting the characters play as intended then balance means nothing.
Not exactly sure what point you're making here.
Why do so many people hate alternate ancestry boosts and ban them, not letting players use them to truly express their character?
That's a heck of a leading title with little room for discussion. Like, the most I can add to the conversation is... I have yet to see anyone ban alternate ancestry boosts? I run a Discord server with close to 20+ GMs and it hasn't come up once.
I probably also wouldn't put people that you've had discussions with on other sites on blast like that.
Whoop! You got me there! I'll link it here just to be safe.
You are still new to PF2, I get that - this not at all unusual. There's a big difference in how the two companies operate and how they approach the market.
[The title of this thread is just a simple attention getter. But it's probably the case that some only read the title and nothing else.]
Don't do this and be surprised when people engage with it. Not to mention that many of your follow-ups (original post included) tend to reference back to removing the class.
1. Okay, but you have to see how it's a strange statement to make. You don't make product recalls unless something is actually hazardous and you can't recall what is essentially an idea that is already out there. And - like - of all the classes, kineticist is one that is beloved and people seem to be using as the gold standard moving forward. So it does come across as a joke.
2. You may, but are you aware of the costs associated with it? Paizo can't exactly afford to reprint new books for every minor fix, especially ones that aren't bringing new people into the hobby (like the Core Rulebook).
3. This is where I go back to 1 and 2 and cast a bit of doubt. The class works and works fine and there's a level of not knowing how the process works at all if you think they're going to "pause printing books." They're already printed. They had a print run. They don't have a machine in the back churning out new Rage of Elements. Recalling is just... do you know the costs associated with that? I don't understand at all what you seem to think is the desired outcome here.
4. I mean, cool, alright - but it sounds like you may be new to the hobby in general and you should temper your expectations. This is not a billion dollar AAA game developer. This is a niche hobby WITHIN a niche hobby. That WotC is doing their own thing has little bearing on Paizo (outside of the obvious OGL stuff).
I... actually like this idea more than I care to admit. But I've also got so little time today to take a crack at this. I would say that "everything" is obviously a big ask - even for a spellcaster, but I would note a few things that this hypothetical omnipotent martial should strive for.
1. The ability to deal with flying enemies: either through ranged attacks, the ability to gain flight, or by stopping an enemy from flying. (I think this "becomes an issue" around level 7 for most parties)
3. Buff and debuff: bonus points if you can get circumstance and status bonuses/penalties.
4. Can deal with inivisibilty: efficent Seeking, negating concealment, generally being able to handle the unseen (like flight, I believe this becomes "a thing" around level 4 or so, but I want to say it doesn't become truly "you NEED to have this ready to go" until... like, 11 or so?)
5. Access to Recall Knowledge in some form: I might be in the minority, but I don't see very many combats that ignore RK - if we want to do everything, this should definitely be on the list
I'm sure there's more we could say needs to be thrown into the kitchen sink of the everything martial, but I know that when I play a caster, I tend to pick spells around these sorts of holes in the party comp.
Rolling Initiative wrote:
You can allow a player to make a case that they should use a different skill than Perception, but only if they base it on something they've established beforehand. For example, if in the prelude to the attack, Merisiel's player had said, “I'm going to dangle down off the chandelier to get the drop on them,” you could let them use Acrobatics for their initiative roll. If they just said, “Hey, I want to attack these guys. Can I use Acrobatics?” without having established a reason beforehand, you probably shouldn't allow it.
Something I leaned into more heavily towards the start of PF2's release was alternate methods of rolling initiative. However, the more I play, the more I find myself saying, "Alright, everyone roll Perception for initiative," and leaving it at that. I love the idea of the fighter bashing open a door, rolling Athletics, and chraging headlong into a number of enemies! ...it's just that those sorts of scenarios haven't really cropped up too often.
Now, obviously every table is different, so I'm looking to see if I've just allowed myself to become lazy or if everyone has sort of defaulted to the easier "just roll Perception, or at least argue for a different skill." This is, of course, leaving aside the ever obvious "Avoid Notice" activities which is one of the few things that interacts directly with initiative rolling.
I hate to say it, but conversions of gold and treasure tends to be one of the pain points of the converting process. A clean "direct conversion" or even "average conversion" tends to create some problems down the line - especially when the growth of gold tends to get a bit wild in higher levels with older editions (I haven't converted 5e material, so I'm not sure this holds with D&D 5e).
As much as it's a pain, I recommend going through the adventure and finding all sources of treasure (items included) and matching them out to expected treasure. There's definitely the school of thought that cleaving to the adventure more honestly produces a better result at the end, but if you're aiming for an adventure that you can play, you may want to err on the side of PF2 expected treasure.
I don't like to self promote (too much), but it's something I did quite recently on a stream. I have a link to the general area where I start doing this with the 3.5 Savage Tide adventure path: Right here!