Schreckstoff's page

The stat distributions are generous enough that you can justify 12-14 in str and/or dex to get some archetypes alone.
Even 12 dex for a champion helps against clumsy and for non aoe reflex saves.

You can but the problem is that you're capped at 16 starting strength with the swashbuckler.
Most encounters are balanced around characters having an 18 in their primary ability score too.

I think that's good. AoOs aren't a given and figuring them out and dealing with them is a core component of 2e combat.

OgFernandes wrote:

Bump for the same reason as above. I'm really looking forward to an errata giving the Daikyu its appropriate traits (and hopefully one of them being Monk).

Given the requirments of the Monastic Archer Stance Feat, I am defiently of the opinion that the Daikyu was meant to have the Monk trait, seeing how the feat states "You are unarmed and wielding a...(insert irrelevant text here)...bow with the monk trait." As it stands, that would be a net 0 number of bows with the monk trait, unless you assume the Daikyu was meant to be said bow.

Also, I'd like to take issue with the name. Daikyu implies the existance of the Hankyu as well. So unless they intend to also add the latter, I'd say Yumi would be a better name here. Just throwing the idea out in case a dev does peek in here.

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 like free archetype.

My personal favored usage would be that at level 2 you get a dedication and then at each even level you get bonus feat usable only for feats from that archetype.

I'm not sure if I'd even allow the bonus feats to be used for chained archetypes (like the Hellknight archetypes where you can start one even if you haven't satisfied the feat tax on the others dedication yet).

In the unlikely event that a player somehow managed to take every feat their archetype offered before hitting 20 (like by being a rogue and taking an archetype with skill feats) I'd give thema free retaining, essentially moving an archetype feat into the new archetype slot and having then take a legal feat in the previous non-archetype slot freed up.

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.
OTOH you can get precisely what sort of build you want that way. Like I built a Swashbuckler to help out my players that had 3 archetypes by lvl 8 because I needed Eldritch Researcher for Shield Cantrip, Acrobat for Master Acrobatics scaling and Blessed One for Lay on Hands.

Schreckstoff wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

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

I mean it doesn't really do anything. The only thing you gain in hybrid form is a natural attack that's identical to the natural attack everyone gets for free anyways, except piercing instead of bludgeoning. Flight at 17 stands out as a feat, but it's only a little bit better than what other heritages with similar benefits can pick up anyways.

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 this archetype sound like an amazing way to build a Wulfgar son of Boernegar with his hammer Aegisfang.

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

I don't have the GMG so I was unaware of the ABP. Yeah, that will fix my problem. We are currently level 8 and the fighter had a +1 flaming katana that the party pooled their resources to get. The rogue is currently just using twin +1 daggers.

The players were excited when they found a +1 striking greatsword (no one uses 2 handed though). When they transferred the rune to one of the rogue's daggers the rogue was a little upset that now the magic rune of destructive magic only added a d4 instead of a d12. He traded that dagger to the master smith that was upgrading the katana to help pay for it.

This is why I said they don't like them flavor-wise.

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 like the idea of being able to stitch together singleton adventures and APs like these w/o the extraneous work of converting parts of a 6 part AP to work w/o the rest of it.

Malk_Content wrote:

Martial characters can do a lot of that stuff with feats. Man its like you've not even read the stuff you are complaining about.

Then why would they gain anything by targeting those saves with -2 or -3 to the save DC over just attacking that weakness with their usual full proficiency? I'm not the one saying the spells give martial characters the ability to attack different saves and I wasn't the one who said that martial characters can't apply solid debuffs when they do attack those saves. I'm just asking how offensive spells fit into things of martial classes can already fill those same offensive niches with other abilities.

athletics maneuvers are attacks though so you'd get more than a -2 on either the maneuver or the ensuing attack.

Beastkin can cover a lot of bases but I'd still like to see Jackals and similar.

Also a big fan of dragon heritages since kobolds don't quite do it for me.

There's a whole untapped market of non central European fantasy.

Kappas, Tanuki, rabbitfolk, monkey king,...

Schreckstoff wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

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.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

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.

The Hexblade from 3E is the only thing that comes to mind that would fit that mold. I vaguely remember a few third party classes that also used the debuff/hinder mechanic on a fighter frame. It would be a neat design space to explore.

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.

Schreckstoff wrote:

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.

Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

Other than that it's difficult to come up with something that couldn't be an archetype or class archetype instead.

The Ranger is at least as much the primal fighter as the monk is occult, and Barbarian gets a taste of that too. I'm not saying that there's not space for a more heavily primal-themed martial or semi-martial class, but I don't think the "occult fighter" slot is filled all that well either.

That's totally right particularly the barbarian covers the primal fighter pretty well.

Which means what's actually missing most is an occult fighter, which is kind of hard to categorise being lovecraftian and other bizarre things.

it should really be part of the rules that whenever you get a focus spell you get a focus point up to 3 to avoid all that language.

If natural ambition allowing for 2 focus points at lvl 1 is the concern then natural ambition maybe is the problem.

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.
Staying with the beastmaster for instance. If you take the druid feat for animal companion you only upgrade your druid animal companion but if you take the beastmaster animal companion you upgrade all your animal companions from any source.

It's a minor balancing gripe though as strong archetypes are great for allowing more varied build paths.
And staying in your class can be worth it when you want a high level feat of another archetype but taking another archetype would lock you out.

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.

feat taxes are much alleviated by free archetype which I would encourage everyone to try out.
If you're concerned about power creep then just use the free dedication at lvl or of the player's choice if the archetype unlocks later

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.
Also to go on a tangent natural ambition, multi talented and unconventional weaponry from the human ancestry are so powerful.

I see levels as a game mechanic for the most part, an extrapolation of power.
Just like player wealth makes very little sense in a worldwide economy and is just an abstract gamey thing.

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.
Which could be the shifter but wholly elemental themed would be nice too.

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.
Similarly I wouldn't want simple combat prowess but something that goes beyond the mortal realm and in thematic ways.

No it isn't. At the levels where trained proficiency is appropriate for PCs and monsters, it is the difference between "I have to wait several days, and in that time the heroes can attack me several times fully ealed up for free each time".

As monsters gain hit points they also gain skill proficiency levels. You never see a high level monster with a +8 modifier, for example.

But you do see monsters at every level without the skill at all. Which is precisely my point.

I fully get that the game requires you to be able to heal up between encounters, and that Paizo wanted to get rid of CLW wands. But they could have so easily implemented this in a way that doesn't assume a trained skill. They could have implemented it as a heroic ability that many monsters could gain too. I mean, if heroes can spend a single action to get a fallen ally back on their feet, it is not unrealistic to assume a Tyrannosaurus Rex would heal back up if you just leave it alone for an hour.

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.

If you are saying that your heroes can't track down and kill wounded monsters you are playing a quite different game than me...

Anyway, the game's world building isn't helped by lopsided rules.

Yes, if you treat an adventure as a roller-coaster where nothing outside the adventure is ever important, this is not a big issue.

I just wish Paizo cared more for all the players that want to use their game for something more than that...

This is an example illustrating this. Don't make free rapid healing possible and then just give it to heroes, or your game will feel videogamey and artificial as a result.

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.

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.

HammerJack wrote:

There is no reason for mystic strikes and metal strikes to not qualify.

Those abilities automatically modify your unarmed strikes, they aren't things you "use". By you logic, Powerful Fist should apply to the Katar.

If you allow it to work that makes Monastic Weaponry one of the best feats in the game by allowing you to avoid spending literally tens of thousands of gold on special materials.

monastic weaponry feels like a very lacklustre feat compared to stances does it scale well in the later levels or am I missing something?

If it isn't society ask your GM to either waive the lvl 1 requirement or if you could give up your 3rd lvl general or 5th lvl ancestry feat for it.

there's an upgrade to monastic weaponry that makes ancestral weapons into monk weapons but that's still only weapons with the ancestry trait.

Imo the ancestry feats should be adding the ancestry trait to all weapons the feat mentions to actually properly work with all of them.

I was surprised to find out that being stunned still let you make reflex saves. So even saying I won't dodge/move you'd have to make a save.

That is a bummer. I do dislike that MCD of caster classes are all pretty much identical with offering 2 cantrips and only the downsides of anathemas.

Hopefully those school feats can be full blown school archetypes so any caster can share in the love. Evoker archetype for dps minded blasters. Abjurer archetype for those who wanna be brick walls. Conjurer for any caster that wants their summons to do a little extra. That's my biggest hope from secrets of magic

if that's the case it'd be nice to have a feat for wizards that gives the archetype "for free" if it's their chosen school.

I'm hoping for either an archetype where you pick a school of spells and a tradition and get a progression that's a little better than multitasking into casters is.
There's already archetypes for a ton of things that's in martial class toolkits so it'd only figure to do the same to casters.
Alternatively archetypes like Evoker, Diviner,... that are a little more tailored would be great as well.

I know it is already covered by heritages but their feats all balanced on a different scale than class feats are and I'd love some more transformative archetypes like the Oozemorph, something like a vampire lord or werewolves.
Also allows for interesting story developments since it's something GMs can offer up to player characters throughout a game.

Instead of something that'd just be pickable at lvl 1.

If casters are fine at late levels I'm not sure how you patch the early ones without overturning the former. granted I've never seen late lvl casters so all I have firsthand experience with are ones lvls 1-10

one option would be to just give them more low level slots. They aren't worth that much anymore in the lategame so shouldn'tbreak anything

You definitely should have more than one dedicated healer.
Medicine with a 10 minute downtime to reset just has a really high amount of healing throughput that GMs would actively have start ambushing players if they didn't want the party topped up at all times.

Multi-Talented has set the precedent for exemptions to dedication feat requirements being written out is why it wouldn't work RAW.

You've learned to split your focus between multiple classes with ease. You gain a 2nd-level multiclass dedication feat, even if you normally couldn't take another dedication feat until you take more feats from your current archetype.

I think heritage comes first in building your character so I believe you'd miss out on the dedication through the rogue.

Schreckstoff wrote:

Your post got me to explore some Sorcerer builds and while the feat selection, as well as proficiencies (that one hurts particularly), definitely is much better nothing in the sorcerer kit comes close to the wildness that is the Wizard's Theses imo.

Like if you take Staff Nexus dedicate into a divine or primal spell list to pick up heal and can start using a staff of healing with 20 or more charges. Or Spell Blending with/or making, additional multiclass slots.
Also while it doesn't appeal to me much there's the bonded object spell chaining.

I find short of the Oracle with its curse mechanic that other spellcasters are a bit more vanilla compared.

An Arcane Sorcerer can just take Crossblooded evolution to pick up Heal and make it a signature spell. They can also grab a staff of healing to get similar amounts of heals without a multiclass dedication and more versatility in what level they cast them, while also having a spellbook they can swap in spells from.

If you want to play an Arcane caster that can heal then Sorcerer is by far the better option.

Probably since a sorcerer can heigthen the spell further than a wizard can but the staff nexus wizard has to use less slots to heal many more times (for less healing).

Schreckstoff wrote:

I think the Wizard has a clear design goal which they succeeded at and that's having more spell slots and do more unique things with those spell slots than anyone else.

I would 100% agree... if the arcane sorcerer didn’t exist. It simply encroaches too much and too heavily on the Wizard, without the limitations of the Wizard, to say that Paizo succeeded at making the Wizard have its own “shtick”.

Your post got me to explore some Sorcerer builds and while the feat selection, as well as proficiencies (that one hurts particularly), definitely is much better nothing in the sorcerer kit comes close to the wildness that is the Wizard's Theses imo.

Like if you take Staff Nexus dedicate into a divine or primal spell list to pick up heal and can start using a staff of healing with 20 or more charges. Or Spell Blending with/or making, additional multiclass slots.
Also while it doesn't appeal to me much there's the bonded object spell chaining.

I find short of the Oracle with its curse mechanic that other spellcasters are a bit more vanilla compared.

It all comes down to thesis imo for the Wizard. If one of those captures your imagination then the wizard is for you. There's some neat things you can do with them.

I would always multiclass the Wizard into a class that can grab you heal.

Ubertron_X wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

This is core of anyone defending the wizard. They take a situation where a wizard ability might appear to be better for that situation, then throw up some kind of defense.

The problem is that this argument is like Schrödingers cat, i.e. it is both wrong and right at the same time.

If I am not entirely mistaken the prepared Wizard is supposed to be (at least somewhat) better than other casters and the unprepared Wizard is supposed to be (at least somewhat) worse than other casters by game design.

So by design the Wizard is very dependent on scouting (magical or mundane), on GM foreshadowing and/or his ability to make the correct informed decisions while being allowed sufficient preparation time. The Wizard is a lot better when he is the active, planning part than he is when he has to deal with rapid changes.

It is therefore not astonishing that many a Wizard is faring badly if he is constantly thrown into entirely surprising situations, something however many GM's and AP's like to do.

None of the other classes need that preparation. Their abilities just work.

I've launched tempest surge that did 126 points of damage with 14 persistent electricity and Clumsy 2 rider. So the lack of a hit roll or saving throw isn't necessarily a plus with force bolt. In PF2 getting a critical failure or critical success with spells can substantially boost the damage.

What do you do when 9 out of 10 classes have abilities that just work, then you have that one class that works only equally well if you spend slightly extra time letting them prepare? If the wizard worked substantially better with preparation, then it might be worth it. But they don't. And then they have to worry about whether they have the even that right spell in their spellbook to change out.

Wizard went from a boss king in PF1 to last kid picked on the team in PF2. Pretty disappointing for those that like wizard players.

I used to have a wizard in...

woah there, there's always the alchemist that's still worse. Oracle maybe as well.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Coming from 5e where dex is the god stat (so much so that freakin barbs would do dex builds sometimes as well) it's good to see heavy armor being worthwhile. If you want higher damage and burly defenses you need to be stronk. I think it's a feature, not a bug

Actually it's the same as 5e.

Dex is god in 5e, heavy armors are god here.
Nothing really changed in terms of balance.

Shouldn't heavy armor be the largest source of ac and dr? Besides +1 is substantial (as it should be for HEAVY ARMOR) but not game breaking imo. Metal plates should protect your body more than cloth or leather

When it comes to DR, I agree, but when it comes to hit, dexterity ( or simply being less encumbered than a character who wears a full plate) could do the same if not better.

A missed attack could be the blow entirely absorbed by the armor ( heavy armor ) or the character that dodged the blow ( an agile one ).

That's why either 2e and 5e did wrong, imo, by just giving 1 possible outcome.

light armors don't have any DR.
Medium armor have 1+ DR against a specific damage
Heavy Armor have a 2+ DR against a specific damage

If you invest in dex you won't get extra damage, and your athletics checks will be not good. If you invest in str you will have worst reflexes and worse dex bases skills ( stealth, acrobatics, thievery ), and you will have to deal with a speed reduction.

The trade between the 2 stats is imo excellent.
What is one way is the AC, aka you are forced to wear heavy armors.

I find the 5ft. speed reduction to be a pretty decent tradeoff for heavy armor and also most classes have to archetype into getting proficiency in the first place.

Also while it's rarely used by DMs the don and dof times mean you could have basically no AC in an ambush situation or when escaping capture.

I would however like some more distinguishing aspects for light and medium armor

So my Druid PC asked today if he could give his proposed Animal Companion a command while in a wild shape battle form.

I responded that he could not. An animal companion has the "minion trait", which is commanded/invoked using the "command an animal" action which has the "auditory" trait.

You cannot speak while in a battle form, ergo, you can't do it. This is the generally accepted reasoning to the above question.

[Note: Please appreciate that while I am the GM, I am also a lawyer IRL.]

The player then persuades me that the above interpretation is wrong.

Player says his proposed battle form is that of a wolf. His companion will also be a wolf. Wolves communicate effectively enough as a pack to battle all the time IRL, while not "speaking".

Player also notes that while "command an animal" has the auditory trait, it does not have the linguistic trait.. It requires only noise, not language.

When we look to the auditory trait, we see:

Auditory
Source Core Rulebook pg. 629 2.0
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or ***otherwise produce the required sounds***.

Making a noise is a very different act than "speaking".

Linguistic
Source Core Rulebook pg. 633 2.0
An effect with this trait depends on language comprehension. A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target ***understands the language*** you are using.

Druid player says "Command an Animal" doesn't require linguistic recognition. Druid need only be able to growl or bark to effectively coordinate with simple commands while in wolf battle form to his wolf companion. Druid can't speak, but he doesn't need to be able to in order to invoke "command a companion". A growl or bark will be enough. Auditory trait is not language trait. Growling isn't speaking.

Honestly? I think the player's interpretation, per RAW, is correct. He has found the loophole....

I researched this as well when my druid player took the order explorer feat and considering this is a very easy combination for the class it makes sense to work.

I wouldn't even require the Druid to be in a similar form as their Animal Companion.

I think you never want a situation where a cantrip competes with or outpaces an Archer since casters get so much extra utility.
So I understand making their ranged attacks worse. Idk the numbers for it but electric arc at early levels could already be there.

I think the only thing that needs to be fixed are when martials get way ahead.

there is GM discretion towards Animal Companion behaviour but if your GM kept you in encounter mode for the chase there's really nothing to fix this imo.
Even if the companion acted on its own it's never intended to get 3 actions to do so in encounter mode.

terrible name and description for the stance for sure.

Schreckstoff wrote:

I would like some sort of point buy for weapons in a GM centric book to make it easier to award some cool magic weapons to players or even help them out if their build is underperforming.

Runes that add finesse or agile could be problematic if there's general access to it but I haven't run the numbers but someone theoretically could do such comparisons on

https://www.goblinentertainment.com/dmgcalc/

Thank you very much

TheAzirephale made it and they are taking suggestions for it / talk about it here in this thread Damage comparisons between classes

Have only been GMing 2E and for that played a bunch of classes for short bursts but have enjoyed just theorycrafting builds.

The class I keep coming back to is the wizard. I just really like the thesises and how they play with available spell slots. Staff Nexus Wizard is my latest obsession.

Yeah I used the damage calculator tool that TheAziraphale made at some point and the light pick doesn't fare all that well.

I'm a bit annoyed just how good martial artist is sometimes tbh.

it's only good in powergaming way, there doesn't need to be more downside to it.
Small also restricts your choice of ancestries considerably.

So if you want to be a party of gnomes, shoony and kobolds then have a monk carry you around all day that'd be pretty fine by me since it's a funny image.

Under the old rules with containers we've been ignoring the bulk rules same as we always did weight.
The new S/W/H system is extremely appealing however and we'll calculate and adjust bulk as a result soonish, probably when we go back to playing in person.

I don't struggle with simple calculations but the reward for tracking weight was never enough to not just handwave it.

Schreckstoff wrote:

To me it makes sense to kill a downed player in one action if that's possible and if the creature can identify that it can do so.

Wasting any more actions on a downed enemy is wasteful when there's other combatants still around that are threatening it.

There's another layer to it that as far as a creature knows, the dude that has been whacked is done for and is not an immediate threat. That's how I GM. There's no reason to believe that someone, even a "smart" enemy, would assume that after a hit landed and the enemy went down that it would need another as soon as possible, specially when there are more pressing matters at hand such as angry adventurers trying to kill you that are in a healthier shape.

When it's been established that players can pop back up after magic, then that's another matter entirely, intelligent enemies will be more inclined to finish the job, but even so this is also very debatable, since focusing on the source of healing is more productive than a threat that can come back yet again if you don't deal with the source of your trouble.

Simply put: Creatures downing them finishing off players is nothing than pure metagame from the GM's part if it's done so without any regard for circumstance or reason, just as a "general" behavior.

Agree on all counts.