Ryangwy's page

If they kill focus spell spellstrikes and don’t seriously buff magus on the level on an entire spellstrike font or higher, the class is pretty much dead. Probably worse than inventor which is already in a terrible state.

This is a huge exaggeration - Magus with Gouging Claw/Ignite/Live Wire that alternates that with arcane cascade + conflux spell recharge is not just perfectly on par, it's the intended play experience of the class. Slightly better than premaster, actually, because attack cantrips have been buffed for low Int. Inventor is screwed because it can completely fail to activate its damage booster or its unstable activities and waste actions every turn trying to do so. Magus cannot fail to activate Spellstrike or Arcane Cascade short of catastrophic player issues. Focus spell spellstrike is fundementally an issue of players fearing running out of resources, not an issue with the magus chassis in delivering attack spells.

Players with Kip Up are relevant to the critical failure effect of the Trip maneuver.

Ah, got it. Personally I find the autosuccess (meaning you can stop investing in Athletics) more interesting because it means the FIghter can leave Expert Athletics and invest somewhere else. And the added die of damage isn't nothing, either.

But the broader point was that martial-like NPCs can often have Kip Up at level 12+, especially in homebrew campaigns where GMs may design NPCs similar to PCs (though probably with a few key class feats rather than trying to create an entire PC).

I mean, given how no NPCs I can think of have Kip Up naturally, that's not 'often', that's a GM writings 'screw Trip' into their encounter design. You're also allowed to give every NPC save upgrades or put Freedom of Movement as an innate spell on everyone, this doesn't make save spells or grapple inherently bad. Some things are meant to only or majorly go on PCs.

Isn't how often PCs take Kip Up irrelevant to the utility of Crashing Slam which is the topic of this thread? No monster has Kip Up; some monsters are immune to trip/prone but most of those need specialist tricks to deal with anyway, so having spent your 10th level on Crashing Slam instead of another 10th level feat probably doesn't matter (we're mostly talking swarms and incorporeals here so Disruptive Stance and Tactical Reflexes aren't that helpful either)

reload for gunslinger always feel terrible

with sf2e sniper operative that can reload for free once per turn at level 9

it make gunslinger feel much worse

Gunslingers get risky reload at 4th if they want to use it (Snipers often don't because single shot per turn on a big chonky 2 or 3 action shot is their gimmick) so I'm really doubtful this is in any way an issue for people who actually play gunslinger past 3rd level.

Gunslingers get +2 to hit and damage with fatal weapons, even if they can only make 1 attack per turn they'll always be competitive. And they buffed combination weapons to be good in both forms, so if you for some godawful reason can't make ranged attacks just hit people with your d6 one handed/ d8 two-handed weapon with critical fusion.

Ryangwy wrote:

The smooth flow of gunslinger reloads into gun Strikes is something bow builds don't do naturally, though. And if you do so anyway, you're giving up a die size and more for the privilege of occasionally being able to make a third shot at MAP -10. I'm not really sure where the comparison point is.

I could not care less about reload weapons on a bow build outside of a gauntlet bow to facilitate archetype fake outs. And no, I'm not giving up a die size for a -10 attack. I'm giving up a die size for better access to self buffs (items, point blank stance, misc spells, monk inner upheaval, etc), conditions (bola shot item, debilitating shot feat, etc), better resilience against the slow and stun conditions, and any other use you can imagine for open actions and a free hand. Occasionally you can attack at -10 if you have nothing better to do which is still more than you can say for the gunslinger.

Yeah but you're... not talking about the gunslinger anymore? What you're actually saying is 'the good archer builds can't be replicated by gunslingers', which is fine because that means there is a difference between the weapon groups, but there's plenty of mechanical reasons to play a gunslinger, you just don't want to play one. Maybe, IDK, think of reload as Panache for the Swashbuckler, that's how a gunslinger gets around level 6.

The smooth flow of gunslinger reloads into gun Strikes is something bow builds don't do naturally, though. And if you do so anyway, you're giving up a die size and more for the privilege of occasionally being able to make a third shot at MAP -10. I'm not really sure where the comparison point is.

You don't need to change the Gunslingers feats just give them access to revolvers and lever action rifles at levels 12+.

This sounds like the Inventor class, actually.

... I really don't know why we're complaining about the gunslinger, which has some really impressive subclasses and got most of its subpar subclasses hugely buffed (spellshot, drifter, triggerbrand) in remaster. Short of poor Vanguard, all its subclasses do the thing they ask you to do well and get pretty swell payoffs for doing so. Yo can freely use martial crossbows which have also been buffed if every enemy has AC that's only a crit on a nat 20. Reload weapons may suck for other classes but they're very competitive in any gunslinger built with, you know, class feats. So long as you remember they're the reload class and don't fantasise about not ever having to spend actions on reloading, they all do their fantasy quite workably.

Meanwhile, Inventor.

My point is that as you level up, the action economy should DEcrease, making tedious actions faster.

The fact that at level 16 and up, a Gunslinger can't Reload their weapons as a free action is ridiculous.

Same with Spellstrike...

But this is basically untrue of almost every martial class except the Ranger? Most classes get their iconic action compression upfront or at least early on (like Risky Reload for the Gunslinger) and later levels are more about giving increasingly splashy riders for action compression the class already gets or 1/battle free actions (which, again, risky reload). I want to know what 16 level feat you think is equivalent to making Reload as a free action (presumably not as a flourish, because again, Risky Reload is right there)

Yeah there's a ton of ways to make 3 attacks with guns at level 18 as a Gunslinger. It's incredibly dumb to do so - even Flurry Ranger is better off taking an action for buffing or whatnot - but you can do so.

Why you would do that when PF2e martials are usually far better off using weighty 2-action feat-based Strikes or 1-action setups into Strikes is beyond me, but you can.

I agree with this, and I'd have likely preferred a Gunslinger that made just one big attack each turn; the issue there is more that the Gunslinger's features push them into this shoot-reload-shoot loop more than they significantly buff their hit damage, and the expectation is more for them to get a lucky crit in order for the fatal trait on their guns to kick in. Making just one attack every other turn and having it deal piddly damage, let alone miss, isn't a great feeling, yet it happens often enough to be a fixture of the class in my opinion.

I think this is why Sniper and postmaster Spellshot are the best Ways (with some credit to the postmaster Triggerbrand) - they start off every encounter with a damage buff get their very potent 2 action big hitter that doesn't care about crits from 6th onwards, and can safely use crossbows or beast guns if they find themselves up against high AC enemies. Unfortunately, like casters, they need to hit 6th first.

Says who? Jealous players who watched Gunsligners steal their thunder?

I don't see people complaining about Gunslingers using Advanced Repeating Crossbows. Why should it be an issue with firearms?

I have no idea what you're talking about - guns are really swanky weapons because reload 1 gives them sweet budget, most of the Ways (stares at Vanguard) absolutely play into that identity by turning reload into a pseudo-buff or setting up 2/3 action big boom turns to leverage the absurd ranges guns get. Capacity is a shit trait, but you might notice capacity also does nothing for weapon budget. Meanwhile, the repeating crossbow has an embarrassing weapon dice for an advanced weapon with only one trait for a reason. If you want a repeating gun so bad you're willing to take a d6 advanced weapon, the air repeater is there, it even gets Agile.

*good reload feats*

That's a laugh...

Where's the reload feat that allows me to reload as a free action upon scoring a Critical Hit? or a feat that allows me to "reload" a Capacity weapon right after Striking as a free action?

Dude, the Gunslinger CANNOT strikes 3 times in a round unless it has a Repeating weapon, which for some reason are rare.

The point of a gunslinger is to make one or two big hits per turn, not 'unload' three shots off black powder weapons, though... People keep seeming to think gun technology in Golarion is more advanced than it actually is...

(Sniper is actually a really good subclass, to be clear. Very boring, but very good. And yes, Legendary Sneak breaks it right open and turn it into a beam of destruction. Very good for the player who wants to do One Thing every turn without thinking.)

I think what's worrying me is we're seeing more and more 'breaks' in some fairly fundamental things in non-AP content that, frankly, also aren't big and splashy and thus worth thinking about breaking. Things like Rogue Resilience or Exemplar Dedication or the whole keruffle with Oracle spells or Animist getting infinite free sustains. This is what I feel about balance - that there's some fairly obvious structure that even a casual GM can get and post-remaster we're seeing it get broken for things that aren't even important flavour - whoever is designing things now have lost the old notes. And on the flipside, underperforming stuff is often as, or even more, underperforming than before - I swear someone at Paizo must have a grudge about Int KAS, because there's one remastered Int KAS class that actually had thought put into it and that's the Alchemist. It gives a feel that they're increasingly sloppy about the things that make PF2e classes good and balanced.

The tricky thing with the psychic, I feel, is that all their subclasses are actually fairly good? We're not talking remaster Wizard where their focus spells and granted spell list are clearly subpar. The real issue lies with their base chassis and unleash. The only thing purely additive that would be able to raise the power level of the class without creating a blatantly OP spell or recreating Imaginary Weapon Magus would be a strong low-level psyche feat.

The Cunning is a class ability that literally has a function to support melee attacks, but not only can't support any attack the class gives you but for HALF the melee weapon ikons the feint is worse when you use your weapon Transcendence because the follow-up attack that can get the feint will be at maximum MAP.

I absolutely will not look at that and say "well not every epithet is optimal for every ikon".

It is objectively weird that a feature that supports melee attacks can't support the melee special attacks from your class and is counterintuitive with half the melee weapon ikons.

"York the Cunning" cannot dashingly feint as he goes in for the signature strike of his legendary gleaming blade. He can only be canny on regular jabs and things he picked up elsewhere. Actually his blade's signature ability gets in the way of him jabbing with cunning.

That is objectively weird conceptually.

It does, however, work with non-weapon ikons, including Fetching Bangles, Gaze as Sharp as Steel and to a lesser extent Thouand League Sandals and Skybearer's Belt, when you switch into your melee ikons

You could also Create A Diversion then Sneak.

I think the fact several epithets are more powerful off sparking a non-weapon into a weapon is fairly interesting, actually.

Personally, "this monster is abnormally susceptible to toxins" seems like a perfectly valid justification for a weakness to poison damage (after all, we're already operating at the level of abstraction where all toxins deal the same 'poison' damage) but at the same time, I don't think weakness to poison would ever be a broad enough category to excite poison users. It strikes me as a much more niche thing that would have to be on a case-by-case basis rather than 'these types of monster burn more easily, these general traits make you weak being frozen'.

Traditionally, divine beings were quite weak to poison (probably as a metaphor for human treachery) though that's definitely still going to run into the issue that they're going to be relatively few in a traditional campaign, even if we include things like 'mythological godspawn that aren't holy-coded in D&D' like centaurs in the list.

I don't think strong in un-synergized parties is the bar we should be setting for nerfs.

Eh, I'd argue that's the most dangerous place, because it leads to the most feelsbad. If you're doing well because you're in a well-synchronised party, the only person feeling bad is the GM. If you're doing well in an un-synchrosied party, you're liable to steal the spotlight and that's the main issue with power level difference, isn't it?

I don't think amps should be barred entirely but I think it should be treated like every other caster dedication and you have to take a separate feat to get the amp. Yes, yes, Blessed One, but Blessed One gives a single focus spell. Psychic dedication gives you choice from close to a dozen, and they definitely aren't stinkers like Wizard focus spells can be.

siegfriedliner wrote:

It's not the strongest dedication feat compared to spirit warrior and exemplar it's weaker, compared to two weapon fighter (double slice), paladin (scaling armour proficiency, skill access to a strong focus spell and reaction), rogue (light armour proficiency, skill feat and two proficiencies), blessed one (powerful focus spell) it's on par.

I am not declaring it as weak it's a top tier dedication but given it's I'm the middle of the best dedication feats it's not an outlier.

You're forgetting with all of these comparisons that the Psychic dedication gives more than just a focus point and a focus spell. You get to choose from a strong list of focus spell options, which comes with your choice of improved psi cantrips (for example the ability to cast Shield on your allies instead of yourself, or cast melee Ignition with 10ft reach), and you get to choose whether you cast it with Intelligence or Charisma. The dedication also gives you access to the entire Occult spell list via item activations (scrolls and wands).

In my opinion if you think gaining all of these things is not objectively stronger than just gaining a 1st level Fighter feat, you don't have much imagination.

Also, specialised archetypes are allowed to offer more because they don't give unbounded access to any number of other things. Multiclass dedications offer every class feat up to 10th level, potentially. It's a lot of potential combinations.

At the risk of going even further off topic, I don't think wands are good for the game at all. They end up being horribly overpriced for casters* to balance out people poaching them with trick magic item/dedications. As a result, they become trap options for casters. If a magical effect is so desperately needed that it's make or break for a casterless party, then the effect should be available in a non-spell format. Making wands into permanent spell catalysts would be much more interesting.

You... do know that wands are priced simply because that's what a infinite source of a consumable is worth, right? There's a rule for making wands of any kind of consumable, called Gardens. It has nothing to do with trick magic items, except inasmuch as people with 2nd rank slots like 3rd rank scrolls more relatively than people with 4th rank slots, but that's not a problem with wands

I think I'd rather buff the dedications to give third cantrip (and cantrip expansion to give IDK four) than hand out focus spells like candy. Focus spells are good! A two feat commitment that also gets you some useful things is like... just good manners.

What is Fighter and Ranger Dedication doing? There's an archetype that does everything archery related, it's called Archer.

Also, why Wolf Stance? You will never want to spend essentially 3 actions to make a slightly better melee strike than powerful blows, because you never want to be out of Monastic Archer Stance. Same for why you have Mobile Shot Stance there, unless you're trying to do Fuse Stance memes which you're a few levels short for. Guarded Movement does 90% of what you want it to do.

Remember, Monastic Archer Stance qualifies you for any feat that makes unarmed attack, like one-inch punch and disrupt qi. Still, absolutely grab more qi spells like harmonise qi (giving you infinite out of combat healing and pinch healing in combat)

Your current issue is that you're blowing a lot of feats on things you can't use. You're perpetually in Monastic Archer Stance so look through feats that way. Lightning Swap is useless, bows always have a free hand. Both your other stances are useless. Reactive Striker is useless. Replacing all that with a noncombat archetype would be more useful, I'm guessing you're screwing yourself over swapping stances for mediocre benefits.

Ryangwy wrote:

What are your teammates? Str fighters have heavy armour and thus can flex either Int or Cha; whichever one is underserved currently. I've GM'd for a fighter than was the brains of the party at +2 Int and that went fine, and in general Int and Cha have too many skills for one person to support comfortably anyway.

If your party is lacking in skills, use your free archetype to pick up skill improving ones like Dandy. If your party is fine there, you have more room to use it for combat. Do you think you will be encountering enemies weak to holy? Try getting ways to add that damage type. Is the rest of your party very squishy? There are many defensive archetypes that let you protect allies. Do you need more killing power? OK, that's harder to get.

We have a Champion, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger and Wizard.

Thanks for the advice.

You are definitely not lacking in killing power, defensiveness or skills, here! Assuming the Champion or Rogue isn't doing it already, consider Marshal - in a group this big with this many people looking to clobber, handing out group buffs/debuffs will be very welcome. You'd want to deconflict which ones, since buffs don't stack - Inspiring Marshal might be awkward if your cleric opens every fight with Bless, and Dread Marshal will be a bit less useful if people are doing status bonus to damage like with Bard dedication.

There's two more interesting ones; Derivin's Cunning stance is unfortunately uncommon and Firebrands, a notoriously badly thought out product many GMs are hesitant on, but it leverages Deception to give +skills and more interestingly prevents reactions if someone hits the enemy while flat footed - the rogue will be happy. Strategist Stance is the sole Int-based one, granting +Reflex and as its interesting effect turning a successful Recall Knowledge into off guard for an ally. This goes well with Combat Assessment.

It'll take until level 4 to pay that off, but that's fairly normal for dedications.

I mean, you could also just bump up the numbers on Gaze As Sharp As Steel. I think it's fine as it is but my player would be overjoyed.

But really I think the Exemplar has a lot of ways to be built none of which are distinctly better than each other. If you judge every ikon by how well they are gleaming blade, then you'll be sad, because gleaming blade is designed to not be gleaming blade every other turn, that's why it looks so nice. And there's enough ikons most people can find two good ones.

The Wizard schools fundamentally don't even have a unified thesis of operation. They don't have the same number of spells per rank. They don't have the same breadth of concept. There are common schools with uncommon spells on them and nobody can tell me what that's supposed to mean for spell access.

I rag a lot on remastered Oracle but at least all the curses are unified (which makes some of them really good and others really bad, but w.e., at least you can tell what they're getting at) Wizards can't even figure out what portion of their power budget is from schools. Admittedly, they can't figure out which portion are from thesis either; the thesis remains as unbalanced and wildly differing in purpose as premaster.

There are also other problems with remaster wizards but if you want to narrow it down to schools I have to say they're the most incoherent thing that's been printed as a subclass feature in a PF2e book

What are your teammates? Str fighters have heavy armour and thus can flex either Int or Cha; whichever one is underserved currently. I've GM'd for a fighter than was the brains of the party at +2 Int and that went fine, and in general Int and Cha have too many skills for one person to support comfortably anyway.

If your party is lacking in skills, use your free archetype to pick up skill improving ones like Dandy. If your party is fine there, you have more room to use it for combat. Do you think you will be encountering enemies weak to holy? Try getting ways to add that damage type. Is the rest of your party very squishy? There are many defensive archetypes that let you protect allies. Do you need more killing power? OK, that's harder to get.

It's one of the reason I suggested moving the unique psi cantrip to the Dedication and the ability to Amp to a later feat instead - the unique cantrip is interesting but not supremely out of line for a regular cantrip (unlike Bard focus cantrips) and so can safely be granted at 2, amps are a focus spells and should be treated like every other dedication-granted focus spell ever.

GMing for a Swashbuckler now, and them ending the turn with Panache does make the next turn awkward especially when stuck with an opponent who doesn't move. I think the idea has legs

To be fair, the pre-Remaster oracle had absolutely horrible balance between the mysteries. Much worse than the Remaster oracle; there were literally mysteries that you did not ever want to take because they were so bad.

Ugh, no way. Because the old mysteries had unique benefits as well, even the jankiest mystery (premaster Ancestors) had people willing to try it. Now, though? Nothing except the granted spells and focus spells are unique, and the divine list hardly needs most of them. The bad ones are theoretically less bad but they also are almost strictly worse than just running Cosmos, whereas before they were at least entertainingly bad in a unique way.

I'd rather they staple the 4 slots and the granted spells onto premaster Oracle if they were that rushed.

Exemplar is extremely forgiving to people who select the 'suboptimal' (which I don't really find Gaze to be but w.e. if you get three PF2e groups to discuss internal balance you get five different answers) ikons and get into 'suboptimal' patterns. It's possible to switch off your bonuses at the wrong time but it's fairly obvious what happened and a learnable moment which, you know, those are good? It's lenticular design. And you have three (more with feats) ikons to tinker with.

Honestly I find suggestions about always having the weapon ikon active to be more harmful, not less, for ease of learning and design space of ikons.

If you want to use 2 weapon ikons you can just use them? The Exemplar in my game uses Gaze because he uses Barrow's Blade, an ikon you want to sit in for a bit before shifting out of. He originally used Scar of the Survivor, but due to party composition issues that ended up a nonbo, because Barrow's tended to heal him enough that Scar is a waste, or he's damaged enough he needs Heal right now and not fiddling with ikons on his turn.

Gleaming Blade is kinda pointless to discuss because the weapon he's using isn't eligible, and since we're starting from level 1 so is Horn. Bands is his third ikon but with the chaos of battle he tend to not know when he needs the extra move. Gaze emerges quite naturally as his preferred second ikon.

I mean, if we're looking for a unique benefit Psychic Dedication can grant, why not shuffle the unique psi cantrip to the Dedication?

If you think the current class is fine then that's great, but I think we can agree you are in the minority here when most of the users in the thread seem to agree exemplars tend to rotate between the same two ikons most of the time.

I mean, I think that that's a perfectly fine rotation and I'm not sure what's wrong with that? Sure, if the Exemplar had every ikon active all the time and could Transedence whenever (a bit of a simplification of your idea but still) and they were otherwise unchanged they would be stronger but I don't think they need to be stronger than they are currently... and also yeah, rogue is currently a bit too good because they QOLd every possible sticking point until they don't have a single moment they can't do their thing. A little bit if friction is good! The Exemplar already has a lot of flexibility built in, having to wait one turn isn't the end of the world, especially since the turn you're waiting isn't a dead turn by any standard.

I also know you could probably take another weapon ikon as your third ikon as well, but why not...

The Exemplar I run for uses Barrow's Edge, which both deviates from +2 damage and provides an alternative source of healing. They also don't Spark Transedence every round, content to stay on Barrow's Edge if there's other things to do with their action like moving twice their speed or opening doors.

The Exemplar isn't the Inventor who can completely fail to get their damage bonus for an entire fight, it's fine that you have to Make Choices and that those choices effect what you are. And if your choices mean you don't get 90% uptime on a weapon ikon, I should point out Champion gets nothing and is one of the best class in the game and the support options Exemplar get are pretty good.

When you get into 'Gaze is bad because you could instead blow 3+ feats on taking rogue archetype, archetype sneak attack and some other bespoke action' which ignores what Gaze does in the context of an Exemplar rotation I think you're getting too tunnel visioned into some arbitrary optimised DPS bar for your own good.

In the example I mentioned of a Gleaming Blade / Scar of the Survivor / Gaze Sharp as Steel exemplar, the most likely action rotation is going to be trascend with Gleaming Blade at the end of turn a) and shift immanence to Scar of the Survivor, and then trascend with Scar of the Survivor at the beggining of turn b) to shift immanence to Gleaming Blade to benefit from its damage boost and to repeat this routine again on the next turn. A +1 bonus to Perception checks and a +2 to AC against ranged attacks is IMO a situational bonus that, if you were to shift into it, would also mean you'll...

You could replace Scar of the Survivor with Gaze as Sharp as Steel in that rotation? And yes, Exemplars are baseline expected to have two main ikons they bounce between to keep all Strikes done by weapon ikons, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's a fairly clear picture, and you can choose to deviate when you need to without shooting yourself in the foot if weapon icons were permanent. Right now your third ikon could be a different weapon, or a situational ikon like Bands of Imprisonment, that's good!

(Also, Implement Empowerment exists because Thaumaturges have one hand and it compensates for that. Exemplars can just... use a 2 handed weapon or a shield)

It's inefficient. It's lack of synergy. It's waste. It's the extra hoops that hold back the swashbuckler, the witch hexes, the inventor, and many other classes.

Have you considered that maybe it's intentional that you can't just pile on everything into boosting one thing and that by doing so individual effects can be more powerful and splasher and also your character doesn't roll into a ball and cry because you got hit by Slow.

Gaze as Sharp as Steel is your off turn weapon ikon, really. Does make you vulnerable to precision immunity but you're still better off than rogues and swashbucklers

The only obvious thing you're missing is a tanky front liner, and of course you only have one tradition of magic (though it's easy for the Thaumaturge to be able to use every scroll in the game).

You don't really need a tanky frontliner if everyone in the party is decently defensive, though; Druid is tanky for a caster with zero investment needed, and all the martials are melee and so don't fold into a ball and cry if a reactive strike enemy comes around, so there's not much need for a tanky 'frontliner' when you have three melee users happy to divide the aggro between them and a cloistered cleric and leaf order druid to pick up the slack if anyone accrues too much damage.

If anything, the party is missing a glass cannon attacker who can do big damage.

If you want to know about differing cultural beliefs, read the Lost Omens for the region your campaign is set in, the gazeteer at the back of the AP if you're running an AP or in the same region as one, or in the worst case scenario Player/Monster Core. Paizo has plenty to say about differing cultural beliefs in their world, but none of that can be summarised in a statblock in a way that isn't a pain for anyone running the bits of the game the statblock is important for. That's why the Lost Omens and backmatters exist!

My gutsense is that an action that doesn't require you going out of the way or taking advantage of the environment in a cinematic fashion should be a hard DC, and 'Tumble Through on a straight line' seems apt. You need to put in a bit more effort to sell it to me, either description-wise or in difficulty.

Seen one Exemplar so far - you'll be surprised how far Gaze as Sharp as Steel + any melee ikon + Hurl at the horizon (with a returning rune) can take you. Hi, yes, I would like a thrown d12 weapon please. Vow of Mortal Defiance is also a bizarrely good undead chewer because almost all undead are unholy but most aren't weak to holy; if that player starts their turn 'next' (within 10ft, because thrown) to some chonking zombie brute (yes, we are playing Blood Lords, how did you guess) that is a lot of dice to throw.

I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.

IMO the issues with Animist balance is the same as Remaster Rogue - a chassis that's just a little too good at everything tied to a class concept that has ridiculous flexibility already. It's one of those 'but why is giving this guy so much incidental durability core to their class concept' things when there's also the other class with less core flexibility over there who is somehow less durable as well.

Elf Step Liturgist mostly just points out they have the ceiling to match fragile Sorcerers at peak whatever - the core problem is the Animist has the concept of being able to be a blasty sorcerer, a shapeshifting druid, a healer and more all in the same day, and also it's a 8HP Wis medium armour 3 slot caster with 4 floating Lore skills.

Ryangwy wrote:

The fact the animist can so easy cross-list is a big deal, yeah. My Animist player complained about the lack of Reflex targeting spells, then I just pointed them at the vessel they forgot existed. Done. Which caster can just do that?

At the risk of being taken too seriously... A wizard with prep time :)

Not really - even a spell substitution wizard with infinite money (the only wizard who can specifically do this) has no access to healing and poor access to condition removal, for instance, and they definitely can't change out their focus spells.

I'll also bring up how this is one example of spells at the Animist's disposal that target Reflex saves: as we all know, being able to target all three saves is quite a big plus, and this is something the Animist can do far more easily than any other divine caster thanks to their apparition and vessel spells. The divine list naturally targets Fortitude and Will quite well, but isn't quite so good with Reflex saves for the most part. Having access to many more Reflex save spells rounds this out nicely, and once more adds to the class's adaptability. By contrast, one of the Elemental Sorcerer's weaknesses that doesn't get brought up much in these discussions is that they're overly reliant on Reflex saves for blasting, and struggle quite significantly against enemies strong in those saves. Thus, whether the Animist is blasting or debuffing, they can adapt their spells to an enemy's saves far better than most other classes.

The fact the animist can so easy cross-list is a big deal, yeah. My Animist player complained about the lack of Reflex targeting spells, then I just pointed them at the vessel they forgot existed. Done. Which caster can just do that?

Yeah, like, arguing about 9th level Liturgist Elf Steps is just getting lost in the weeds. The Animist is the only class that gets to switch between multiple good subclasses at zero cost. The same Animist gets Earth Bile, Darkened Forest Form, Garden of Healing and Trickster's Mirror at no cost, and also changes half their spells to match while they're at it. The druid pays two feats to get one more focus spell and gets no additional spells out of it. The witch gets one spell known, has to prep it, and the focus spell is not nearly as strong (and also competes with their cantrip due to the hex trait).

And that Animist may not be the ceiling of power of those niches, but it starts a lot closer to that ceiling with no feat expenditure than most classes.

I dont see it as a systemic problem if we as players can dream up specific scenarios in which one class shines. Those are certainly out there (for many classes!). What matters for balance is class capabilities across a wide range of encounters, a wide range of builds, a wide range of levels, etc..

I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about max-DPR Animist here (that's Teridax and Deriven's particular combination and the Animist I'm GMing for is no where near there). I'm talking about how the Animist by default gets access to multiple good DPR builds and support casting on the same chassis with no build cost. Earth Bile Animist is up there with primal witch and elemental sorcerer, because they get a truncated blasting spell list handed to them for free. Using any of the melee options put you roughly at an unsupported martial who needs an action to enable their gimmick, except you're also the support. And aside from choosing whether to invest in Str at all, you can pivot from one to another to e.g. healer with a snap of a finger. It is in fact what you're talking about here: a class who is always capable of functioning at a wide range of encounters and who can pivot in 10min though a wide range of builds.

And Liturgist+Elf Step isn't some 1000IQ combo that requires paging through the alchemical items list and measuring average DPR of persistent damage to enable. It's a free action you want bundled with Step and an ancestry feat from a core ancestry that lets you Step twice.

As for Starshot vs Unfailing Bow... Starshot's splash damage is inconvenient, but the AoE is very nice (Save+Strike has always been solid). Unfailing Bow's critical damage is nice, but the transcend is very, very hard to use consistently unless you are able to spam fortune effects. And being unable to consistently transcend makes for a very unhappy exemplar.

The tricky thing is that while you do get the free reload with every transcendence, both ranged ikons then immediately uses it for the transendance, which forces you to commit to looping transcendence (at least Gaze as Sharp as Steel gives you one more attack, though you feel sad if you face precision immune enemies).

Starshot uses your base Strike damage, which makes things like Fatal, Deadly and Scatter dead weight, unfortunately. I think the best choices are d10 kickback weapons, who do apply their damage bonus to starshot; harmona gun being standard, but the best might be the gun-sword, who gives you a backup melee weapon for when endlessly looping AOEs gets difficult.

Of course, you also have to deal with being kinda useless until you hit level 3...

I should point out that balance matters most in semi-optimised groups, not maximally-optimised groups. Paizo isn't going to outthink a dozen Derivens who play more games of PF2e in a month than the entire company can afford to do in a year, but they can (and need to) present a balanced case for the average 'I finished an AP in 1 year' group. That's why it's good that the alchemist went from having 100 daily preps to 20 daily preps and 10 encounter preps, why the wizard is still such a contentious point compared to every other caster.

It's why 'the Animist is as good as a martial who doesn't have a dedicated buffbot, while still being able to cast half the spells of said buffbot' is a big problem, especially if, you know, the players replace the cleric with an animist. While also having good damage. And good utility effects. And they can change it all up every 10min. Do you know how much the inventor pays to be able to rejigger their kit every day? The animist pays almost nothing (split spontaneous and prepared is kinda a worst of both worlds thing, since you have insufficient slots to really make use of the flexibility either has, but you get cross-list spells instead) for it, and said flexibility comes with very good 1-action focus spells.

Sure, if you know exactly what you're coming up against because your group tends to run similar combat/noncombat types, you can probably make a list of four classes whose interlocking effect is better than replacing any one with an Animist. But it's a big problem that the average role-filling party of four can have every role filled near-optimally with the same Animist after a 10min break.

Realistically, all the telemetry (that's the technical term) that Baldur's Gate 3 generated on D&D 5e, a game with a far larger budget, manpower and audience than PF2e, wasn't enough to keep BG3 bug free (or even bug-low, especially in later acts), let alone have meaningful impact on D&D5.5. It definitely hasn't made for faster errata, or the errata coming out being more of use.

Converting data into meaningful action is, as a person who has that as a job, not at all an easy process, but it wouldn't be a gamer forum if people didn't insist [idea from another game/industry/field] would fix all the problems here despite them not fixing said problems in their home field where they have institutional and structural advantages.

Ryangwy wrote:

Honestly I think this is a great idea and also avoids the issues with divine simplicity, [ancestry] weapon familiarity and such. Every weapon group gets one or two simple weapon profiles (for one or two handed). Martial weapons are described as one or two additional traits (some traits are worth more than others) added to a simple weapon, plus another tier of one to two traits you can add on to become an advanced weapon (so most weapon names cover both a martial and advanced version and technically a simple version). Maybe some weapon groups have no simple versions if it's important that there are no e.g. simple bows. [Ancestry] weapon familiarity can just add a new set of advanced traits you can slap onto certain weapon types.

Honestly, this does sound appealing, having proficiency unlocking additional traits, or improvements on the weapon.

This way technically, wielding a sword may be much like wielding a club for someone not particularly skilled at the sword, but by having more acute proficiency with it might unlock greater damage die, and the versatile P.

Some weapons might actually have some traits even with simple proficiency, but greater proficiency would be able to unlock additional traits. In some cases honestly, it might make some weapons that are different in simple form, share a lot of the same traits by they time they get to martial proficiency but that still leaves the value and flavor as becomes meaningful for those whom aren't a proficient in the world.

I'd almost say the biggest impact would be it would complicate the weapon tables more.

The way I imagine it, the table would list the base (usually simple) weapon, indent, upgraded weapon (martial), upgraded weapon (advanced). Which I believe Starfinder 2e already does, so it probably isn't a great issue.

Another fun side effect is that it'll make abilities that grant you temporary or reduced martial proficiency with all weapons a lot more useful, as you are significantly more likely to have a simple weapon (that you have proficiency with) which also has a martial form, than the current status of needing to somehow find a martial weapon that you had never used before.

I'm partial to a mastery system, myself. Let everyone use all the weapons, but weapons will have very simple profiles with minimal traits unless you are a martial class or otherwise have some special training. Then you have one, maybe two tiers of improvements a weapon can have to its traits or other statistics.

Honestly I think this is a great idea and also avoids the issues with divine simplicity, [ancestry] weapon familiarity and such. Every weapon group gets one or two simple weapon profiles (for one or two handed). Martial weapons are described as one or two additional traits (some traits are worth more than others) added to a simple weapon, plus another tier of one to two traits you can add on to become an advanced weapon (so most weapon names cover both a martial and advanced version and technically a simple version). Maybe some weapon groups have no simple versions if it's important that there are no e.g. simple bows. [Ancestry] weapon familiarity can just add a new set of advanced traits you can slap onto certain weapon types.

If they cannot get a 2nd human to read submitted content before publishing it, that's not acceptable in my book.

If ttrpg development industry-wide is a joke, then it's still a joke. The quality doesn't magically improve because it's surrounded by worse.

The entire point is that TTRPGs genuinely have a harder time finding a second (or third, or fourth) person to double check things than video games, because you can't do things like 'run the program until it crashes' or 'boot up a dummy 3hr play session microfocused on this one issue for every possible issue' because TTRPGs are run by people and not machines.

If this is a problem for you, stop playing TTRPGs. It's not a issue fixable by the genre. You're doing the equivalent of barging into a homemade cookie shop and asking them why their cookies are of unequal weight when mass-market brands manage to have them all identical.

(This is not saying there are things Paizo can't fix, and they damn well should fix Oracle and make all the PFS guidance actual rules or otherwise revise them, but your original request of making sure every printable option is balanced down to the last feat and spell is not possible)