The Raven Black wrote:
that item is amazing thank you, it's so hard to find out the good items for classes.
Pixel Popper wrote:
oh really? it says dexterity based AC so I thought overshooting would work.
You raised Medicine because Battle Medicine doesn't work with Natural Medicine and you still need master proficiency to improve treat wounds healing, I think.
Blessed One dedication would be a great increase to your healing output per combat if your GM allows it.
If you're raising athletics I'd consider going for a Gnome Hooked Hammer since it's an arguably better weapon group (Hammer=Flail) and offers trip in exchange for only being a d6, two-hand d10 weapon.
Yeah, that's why I don't play monks. All classes need CON and WIS, monks need both STR and DEX, which leaves INT and CHA out.
Don't need str and dex if you don't care about dealing low damage in the early levels.
With the extra action economy and extreme speed there's a ton of skills you could focus on that need either int or cha. or you could multiclass into a divine or occult sorcerer, witch or bard to make use of the amazing spellcasting scaling monks get.
And similarly mountain stance monks don't need high dex.
The staff acrobat archetype was from the Extinction Curse AP and is pretty strong and your group really could use another martial so that'd get my vote.
Gymnast Swashbuckler would work well with the tripping but the filcher's fork is the only finesse weapon that works with staff acrobat. This would mean playing a Halfling or grabbing unconventional weaponry as a human. And since the weapon is 1handed you'd be able to hold a shield and tank like that. Being a 1d4 weapon is rough however damage wise and swashbucklers don't get as much out of agile.
Maybe a ruffian rogue with a regular Staff. It's a Two-Hand D8 simple weapon so you get to sneak attack with it, weapon doesn't have reach tho.
Champions always like reach weapons and Fighter is the easy fallback when you just want something that's good at hitting things.
In a couple weeks the Magus should come out which would be a very different kind of martial too.
even if the Daikyu had the Bow trait it wouldn't work well with monastic archer stance.
Monastic Weaponry doesn't work like Weapon Familiarity feats lowering advanced to martial proficiency scaling. You'd still need to get the scaling in some other way.
I'm doing this with my players mostly because leveling up already is a lot for their first campaing and staying in the same archetype makes it a lot simpler.
Free Archetype from a character story perspective can quickly get silly because you can dip, get what you want and dip into something else shortly thereafter.
permanent on/off switchable enlarge, the senses and flight/climb/swim or speed increase stood out for me going over it.
but yeah the hybrid form by itself does nothing but be a sweet character choice which I was fine with as a tradeoff.
It's a running theme in Pathfinder 2. For everything I like about the game, the overzealous attitudes to nerfing any chance of using things like shape changes is a serious problem. Check the Hybrid form of Beastkin.
wait what's wrong with the beastkin hybrid form? For a heritage it's pretty weak but I thought the feats more than make up for that
oh that's a lot of possible true strikes then.
Human ancestry is one of the strongest ancestries in 2e.
An ancestry feat equalling a class feat is very strong and Humans get 2 of those depending on whether you count multitalented.
I love multi talented to grab the lvl 10+ feats only from a dedication. Flurry of Blows, expert heavy armor, uncanny dodge,... as an half elf you don't even need to meet the requirements.
If it is you can delay your turn to be exactly where you want it to be in the turn order at the cost of your reaction for the turn.
It's also not a bad idea to have access to a ranged attack. Be it bow and arrow a cantrip from your ancestry or an archetype.
For a spellcaster with AoE attacks it's particularly important to go first.
I'd talk about this with the GM it should be easy enough to at the very least categorize bludgeoning and electricity damage as nonlethal for a spellcaster.
And if you feel dejected about your characters having died that is totally valid and you should bring that up with the other players and GM imo.
That sounds like a very deadly campaign and as though a player should pick up stabilize as a cantrip.
A spellcaster is a good idea with that group as nobody covers that niche rn. Even with the archetypes.
Since the investigator covers intelligence a charisma primary or wisdom caster would fit particularly well depending on whether you already have people invested in either.
So oracle/bard/sorcerer or druid/cleric. Warpriest got a bad rep due to their proficiencies being worse in the long run but a bow is a decent 3rd action as long as you didn't do a spell attack roll that turn.
Beastmaster would also work well with that group and is fantastic with free archetype.
Tumbling strike mentions ending up specifically on the other side of the creature you tumbled through.
You move through the enemy's space to an unoccupied space on the other side of the enemy from your starting position.
So I'd expect the same wording on tumble through if you had to go straight through the enemy
The Tage wrote:
there is also the doubling ring for dual wielding that mirrors the fundamental runes from one weapon to the other one you're wielding at the same time. So you don't need to buy two +1 striking daggers just one and a ring for 50 gold
I would sixth sense that.
"You know you're in danger but you don't know from what or from where."
They now have the option to delay their turn or look for clues in the surroundings raise their shield, buff someone, ready an action,...
For 2) Athletics vs Fortitude DC sounds right to move grabbed characters. Don't know about appropriate distances.
athletics maneuvers are attacks though so you'd get more than a -2 on either the maneuver or the ensuing attack.
I saw the ethnicity requirements primarily as being a "choose one" kinda deal.
You could pick more but at that point you kinda have to have a justifying backstory.
I was thinking of the 5e hexblade but demonic pacts would be divine in nature.
Given Bards are the quintessential occult spellcasters so an occult melee hybrid could just as well be a dancer class of sorts. Something like a areliguous dervish.
That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.And the monk picking a tradition is just windowdressing since the abilities from it are mostly monk themed instead of borrowing from a tradition.
Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.
For versatility free archetype is amazing.
For my players they've been simply picking 1 archetype/class and stuck with that progression.
Eldritch researcher to provide occultism recall knowledge checks and the shield cantrip
The character doesn't outshine my players either since they picked their niche and slightly improved them via archetypes.
Odd you picked Cavalier when Beastmaster is the one that's strictly better. Though it's also even better on a Ranger or Druid so there's that.
Hahah that was my thought exactly
There are a few archetypes that are just poorly balanced.
It's a minor balancing gripe though as strong archetypes are great for allowing more varied build paths.
I am also a big proponent of free archetype though.
I am sort of irritated that the archer monk can't negate the volley penalty with a longbow (short of a level 20 feat which lets you have two stances at once) when the PF1 ZAM was literally the best at "standing adjacent to someone and shooting them with arrows."
same it bothers me to no end that the ancestral weaponry feat only applies to melee weapons and only to weapons with the actual ancestry trait. Instead of all the weapons that your ancestry makes you proficient with.
I was obsessed with advanced weapons for a bit but I ended up disappointed with most of them.
They are either so good but specific that unconventional weaponry felt cheesy to get access to them or kinda underwhelming for the feat investment.
I see levels as a game mechanic for the most part, an extrapolation of power.
Villagers vs a giant w/o players to observe/participate wouldn't happen in encounter mode either. If we presume that villages don't just lose to a giant but are very weak then we gotta presume that they have tactics to defend or some other form of protection.
If for instance my players decided to start acting against villagers and other lvl 0-1 people I'd take away their level bonuses but keep proficiency, ability scores, etc.
With the Magus there's an Arcane Fighter now and the monk and paladin are occult/divine fighters leaving a hole that is a primal fighter.
Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.
I would prefer it to be more open ended that being a class/archetype/etc. Maybe have some feat chains but I would prefer the history of the character to inform the choices more than just what is powerful.
If you don't invest further into medicine you'll be healing on average 18 life per hour per character once you always crit. That is not a lot of healing a couple levels into the game. If you let the party game it completely then that's fine if you don't like it you could let the animal attack them while they are healing, flee, get reinforcements,... If you want dynamic then add dynamic to your games.
Ok let's take the Caustic Wolf from Plaguestone's first fight with a +8 to survival so that's a DC 18 to track.Even trained at lvl 1 with a wisdom caster (+7) their chances to track the Wolf would be exactly 50/50.
Survival is very niche as a skill imo since it doesn't fall into the medicine, spell casting, combat or stealth category. It's a thing the GM actively has to include because stranding characters that can't subsist themselves somewhere w/o resources is going to be a struggle. Which mostly just leaves the scout archetype and tracking. Tracking can be pretty important to be fair but most other skills offer much more than that.
With a simple skill investment in medicine you'll heal 2d8 or 4d8 per hour per character. It's going to be inadequate quite quickly.
Also in my experience people don't invest too much into skills to actually find monster of which a lot of animals at least have high survival modifiers to cover their tracks.
That's their way of gaining time to heal back up imo in lore.
I started with removing 1-2 combatants but I didn't like how few enemies there usually were doing that and weak adjustment for every enemy is a ton of work.