Secret Wizard's page

5,837 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,837 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry to derail, but my own errata wish:

Just get rid of anathemas.

I waited basically the entirety of PF1E to have a historical Kensei-type warrior – unarmored master of katana, because I'm a chanbara film nerd.

The Warrior Poet archetype was perfection.
Sadly it was never allowed for PFS play...

I'd love to see a version for PF2E! Either based off the Swashbuckler or the Monk, at least a version at all...

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "what does each spellcasting tradition do well" is an important follow up too.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like more "esoteric" Skill Feats that allow you to mix magic and other Skills for neat things.

Like, Occultism/Religion + Medicine for some sort of spiritual first aid, Nature/Arcana + Survival for magical tracking...

And I'd love some Monk content!

I liked the Sensate archetype for Fighters in Psychic Adventures in 1E, so I'd love a Sensate archetype for any class to boost blind-sense and things like that.

A Harrow archetype would be fun too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see Corruption as a system, and I really loved it in PF1E.

For example, if a player got killed by an Aboleth, I'd give them an Aboleth Corruption if they were resurrected, and the corruption would progress every time you were resurrected.

I can’t recall any way to make the Inquisitor a powerful caster either. Even focusing solely in casting was tough on bards and they had better casting tools than inquisitors.

Unicore wrote:
But with wave casting, building into being a powerful caster is going to majorly feel like a trap because you have so few spells per day, making Wis a problematic key stat.

I think you don't have to assume no accuracy changes baseline, the Investigator, for example, interacts with accuracy directly.

Either WIS-based with an accuracy boost to weapon attacks reliant on a conditionality (for example, hitting with a spell).

Or STR/DEX-based with a spell accuracy boost reliant on a conditionality (for example, hitting with an attack).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalderaan wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Territory Master

Ssalarn, what stats would you use for this build? I assume 18 STR to start.

Also, if you can't use Orc, what race(s) would you recommend out of Core?

I'd say 18 STR, 16 DEX, 12 CON is standard for Monks, and you have a +12 to go around.

Orc is not particularly necessary for that build, and you can really go Half-Orc if you really like those feats, or otherwise just go Human to get the same survivability from picking up Toughness and such.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
- Bounded, Prepared, Divine Spellcasting.

I am going to live up to the hysterical "burn it with fire!" approach if this happens.

No more Prepared Casters for some time please, unless you want them to be CHA-based.

pixierose wrote:
If the inquiistor can get master weapon proficency at the rate of most martials I think it will be fine with wisdom is its main stat, Inventors, can only get a 16 and they do fine, and the Thaumaturge for the most part works.

Investigators do get INT-to-hit for Stratagem though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

I wish more things were supported like that, rather than sticking to the options we have right now...

But I also don't know if the idea is that we should only expect that type of support with Archetypes going forward.

There are definitely some things missing in general feats that could be added to that. The most notable that I hear about a lot are weapon and armor proficiency beyond trained level.

Archetypes are great and wonderful. But it is nice to be able to get general abilities from general feats. Rather than locking a character into taking an archetype in order to get high-level armor proficiency (for example).

Conversely, easy access to higher proficiency provided by dedications like Sentinel creates another type of General Feat that may be needed: incentives to stick to, say, Medium Armor.

If a STR-based Barbarian or Ranger could get Heavy Armor proficiency easily, why wouldn't they? It's a +1 AC, allows you to keep DEX low and get good Reflex saves anyway, all at the cheap cost of a 5-feet penalty.

It would be nice to have, say, a General Feat that allows you to bump the DEX Cap of Medium Armor by +1 as long as you meet the STR Requirement.

Sure, it's a +1 AC bonus to all Medium Armor users, but then again, so is giving them Expert Proficiency with Heavy Armor, and that's already a reality... and this one comes at the cost of investing more in DEX.

This would also imply you'd need to toss a bone to Light Armor users, but we can all agree that Investigators, Swashbucklers and Rogues could use a bit of love to help them stay alive.
A similar feat for Light Armor could be the way to go, so they don't transition to Explorer's Clothing later in the game perhaps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
at this time I feel they are pulled into different directions without being particularly effective into any niche for a character.
That sounds about right to me. They are general feats - feats that may apply to any character. So they aren't locked behind any particular class or ancestry or skill choice.

I will correct my previous statement:

I feel some things are very well supported through General Feats - like stapling a Shield into any character, allowing for lower CON (12?) characters to go into the frontline with Toughness, or helping characters without a good Initiative skill to get further up the totem pole with Incredible Initiative.

I wish more things were supported like that, rather than sticking to the options we have right now...

But I also don't know if the idea is that we should only expect that type of support with Archetypes going forward.

Wisdom vs STR/DEX as main stat may be a topic of contention.

If Wisdom is their core stat, they need an alternative means to hit as to stay sufficiently distinct from the "I hit less but I cast spells great" Warpriest, while still maintaining passable accuracy.

An interesting mechanic could be tied to having Wisdom to hit only against enemies who fail a saving throw/are hit by a spell attack by the Inquisitor. Maybe they could have a Focus Cantrip that allows them to make melee/ranged spell attacks against enemies with a fixed damage dice, and upon hit they get to make Wisdom-powered melee/ranged attacks against that target.

Maybe they could get some situations in which they don't need this condition – some Inquisitors could always get Wisdom-to-attack on strikes against enemies if they are flat-footed, some of them could get Wisdom-to-attack against enemies who performed an offensive action, some of them could get Wisdom-to-attack against enemies who have other types of conditions like frightened, etc.

If STR/DEX is their core stats, I believe there's more margin for creativity, as the class doesn't need to focus on solving the accuracy problem. Personally I'd prefer this approach, but the Investigator proves that the previous approach can also work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
no good scallywag wrote:
As I've leveled characters up to 20, the options for skill feats and general feats become incredibly sparse. So much so that every character of every class ends up getting nearly identical skill and general feats. While I do appreciate the silo-ing of feats into classes and archetypes, I am going to open up dedication feats to all players regardless of class because there aren't enough options. Not sure if this is a result of the game still being young or the closing off of options is hurting. I agree that the game needs some more quality skill and general feats that unlock outright new abilities rather than just improving proficiency.

I made a thread about this, would love your 2c there!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I do wish Barbarian had been renamed. “Berserker” is right there.
I could have sworn there was some type of legal reason they couldn't use the name/term.

Seems unlikely, we had plenty Berserkers in PF1E.

I COULD see an etymological issue though: "berserker" is widely* assumed to stem from bare-shirted, that is, people who launched to battle without armor.
Having the class be based on medium armor could be a dissonance, I suppose.

*Alternatively, it means "bear-coated" but I don't see how "bjorn" could have transformed into "ber", whereas bare (berr) into ber makes much more sense.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Conan the Barbarian rarely if ever rages. Berserkers always rage!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
If a big part of what makes a paladin a paladin is the inherent struggle of a code to follow, Lawful Good simply fulfills that theme best. You're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by mine. :)

With respect, and without saying “you’re wrong” (as mine is merely a different but not more valid crow point), I disagree. I believe it comes down to how I see Lawful versus Chaotic characters. That’s off topic for this thread, but suffice that my view is wide enough to imagine a CE character holding up an Oath.

My push ahead of the playtest was to simply allow any alignment to try to live up to any code they pleased, and if their alignment conflicted with their oath, like a LE Paladin champion, then that’s on the player to figure out. I suppose that is one of my criticisms of PF2. I think the champion class should have abandoned limiting paths to certain alignments. Let those oaths be inspired by alignments, sure. Perhaps even explicitly say “paladins tend to be LG, Redeemers NG” and so forth. But they could add paths a heck of a lot tighter in theme but wider in the kind of characters that pick them up if explicit alignment *restrictions* were dropped.

I hold some hope for future editions for the CRB for Champions and Barbarians to lose the RP part of their character building altogether, and have Anathemas be reflavored as fluff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If this thread is about justifying Inquisitor as a class now...

1. There's a power niche for it, in that we have a have a Legendary AC/Master Weapons non-caster, and a Master AC/Master Weapons full-caster, so a Master AC/Master Weapons wave-caster fits neatly, with wave-casting construed as one step below full-caster.

2. There's plenty of special mechanics you could build into its chassis.

3. It has a ton of popularity from 1E.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Paladins being Lawful Good means something pretty fundamental to me, and it's not about nostalgia. If a big part of what makes a paladin a paladin is the inherent struggle of a code to follow, Lawful Good simply fulfills that theme best. You're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by mine. :)

That's the core of the matter though – as more and more people entered the hobby throughout the years, mandating a single view point in the CRB seems like an artifact to me.

I feel like embodying an ideal should always be a struggle – though I believe the way Paizo handled it was worse than D&D 5Es in which Paladins were tied to Ideals instead of Alignment Quadrants.

Struggling to embody "Freedom", "Corruption" or "Balance" is also an interesting RP challenge for Champions of different alignments.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Aside from the whole "overemphasized gods" issue, I honestly don't think non-LG paladins need to exist. That said, I also recognize that making LG paladins the only kind of paladin kind of implies that Lawful Good is the "best" Good, and that's a good assumption to discourse in new players. I also get that some people just want the class abilities.

The problem is, intrinsic to the paladin as a class is the same thing that causes so many debate threads: the struggle to reconcile an unyielding Code of Conduct with the question of "what's the right thing to do?" The exact same thing people hate most about the class is what makes it interesting. I find that really interesting and valuable, even if it's hard to pull off, and I'd honestly rather the paladin be split into two classes:

1. A default "warpriest"/"champion" who's, you know, just a generic godly knight-type. Any alignment is allowed. No need for Chaotic Good/Neutral Good distinctions or codes of conduct beyond the deity's Anathema--the whole idea of a Chaotic Good champion being defined by adherence to a code is silly anyways, because the code is basically just "do what I want to do anyways because I think I know what's right". That's to say nothing of evil champions following an "evil code" like cartoon villains. So what's the point? This change also tidies up the weird god/alignment issue. Warpriests only care about their god. Alignment is secondary. Any especially god- or alignment-specific options can just be, you know, class feats or whatever.

So, you know. Inquisitors.

2. A "paladin" who's the stock Lawful Good paladin. Attach a sidebar that basically says, "Hey, this type of champion should only be played when the GM and player feel able to communicate clearly and healthily." Treat it like a variant rule.

I think this is a bit of a legacy-type of thought.

1. Divine Warriors are a typical fantasy, for any type of deity. So no need to alignment-restrict these.

2. Paragons of virtues/vices are also a typical fantasy, that can be effectively decoupled from deities. Some so XXXX that they get magic powers out of that is a typical fantasy, and only attaching it to LG Paladins is indeed an artifact. Someone who loves Chaos so much they are granted powers out of it seems thematic. I feel like the mistake Paizo did on the Champion was attach these to Alignment Quadrants, and not Alignment POLES (Good, Evil, Chaos and Law). But I still really really like the current Champions and I think they are miles more functional than 1E's Paladins.

3. Aaaand I also believe that Barbarian anathema were a mistake.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi forum!

I am writing because I am very curious as to what is the design vision for General Feats have for character building, as at this time I feel they are pulled into different directions without being particularly effective into any niche for a character.

There are not that many General Feats to start off, so I expect we may see more support for them in the future.

That being said, I am not sure what to expect. I see them being used for different things to varying levels of effectiveness at their role, so I'd like to hear your experience with them, but I'd love to hear from designers what is the plan for the future.

Let me preface this topic with a statement: I think General Feats failed to find their niche into character building, because they have an identity crisis.

Here is my categorization of current General Feats:

This type of General Feats are able to increase certain innate attributes of a character without any conditionality. They are good at any point of the game.
- Ancestral Paragon
- Fleet
- Incredible Initiative
- Incredible Investiture
- Toughness
- Untrained Improvisation

These General Feats are focused in enabling playstyles outside of the regular Class-enabled choices.
- Shield Block
- Ride

These are oriented towards utility in combat - providing niche bonuses that are too narrow for a full Class Feat, but could be still good to have around contextually.
- Breath Control
- Diehard
- Feather Step
- Skitter

These General Feats are basically skill feats in term of power level, but since Perception is not technically a skill, they need to be picked up via General Feats.
- Thorough Search
- Expeditious Search
- Supertaster
- Incredible Scout
- True Perception

These General Feats are "quasi" skill feats but not tied to a skill itself, and provide non-combat utility.
- A Home in Every Port
- Fast Recovery
- Improved Repair
- Hireling Manager
- Keen Follower
- Pick Up the Pace
- Prescient Consumable
- Prescient Planner

These types of General Feats grant a bonus to your character that becomes relatively weak/obsolete as you level up.
These are:
- Armor Proficiency: After level 13, it becomes an aesthetic choice.
- Canny Acumen: In a power troth between level 9 and 17 where it provides no bonus.
- Weapon Proficiency: Obsolete by level 11 at the very latest.

My own personal considerations for each of these:

  • Absolute Bonuses: These are always good to have around and patch up certain parts of your character. Beginner-friendly and helps you round up characters.
  • Playstyle Enablers: PLEASE SIR CAN I HAVE SOME MORE. I feel like current design wants these as archetype feats, but Shield Block is a great example of how they can be successful without being tied to class feats. Maybe you are playing a Ranger and you want an excuse to go 1H + free hand without dipping into archetypes. Maybe you want to go unarmed - is a 1d6 weapon that strong of a boost you should archetype for it? I'd love to see feats here that improve otherwise-weak things like dueling capes and such.
  • Combat Utility: These are all over in terms of power level, but there can certainly be room here for more. For example, this could be a great place to have Boarding Assault type of things for Pirate campaigns without needing to foster free archetype or going down on class feats. Stuff to fight ghosts for haunt campaigns, etc. I'd also like to see more sense-related things here, like Blind-Fight - certainly powerful but could be a good high-level option if there's more General Feats for the 10th level mark.
  • Perception Skill Feats: I think marking these as general feats is a relic - I don't see why these couldn't be skill feats. Surely, True Perception is quite powerful, but is it any more powerful than other Legendary Skill Feats?
  • Non-Skill Utility: These are good, particularly if you have a well-rounded character that wants to contribute more to storytelling than combat. I feel the current choices are too niche and I'd like to see catering to more things.
  • Disposable Bonuses: I feel like we should stop seeing these at all, or see "retweaked" versions that improve the way they scale. For example, Canny Acumen feels like it should provide a different bonus after 9th level when everyone has full Expert saves, rather than promise a bonus for 17th level and ask you to rough it out with effectively -1 General Feat. I guess Retraining is a choice, but it also feels like these were afterthoughts.

Thank you for reading, and I hope to hear from all of you too!

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Magus means wizard and has absolutely no martial connotations, you just gotta fake it til you make it.

Find a nice word, use it enough until everyone associates it with this specific thing.

It happened to "rogue" and it happened to "sorcerer/wizard".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Go with Seneschal, a term used in so many different ways it could mean anything really.

"Seneschal of Pharasma", "Seneschal of Norgorber", "Seneschal of Ng", all sound pretty badass.

Except seneschals are tied to households, not faiths. You'd by saying your PC oversees Pharasma's domestic affairs. LOL.

It's more a master butler than an advocate of divinity.

Yes but also no? In England they were also church officials. I like the idea of a "hand of the deities", kind of like a royal butler as you mention.

For Norgorber? This guy comes in and cleans up everyone spilling secrets.

For Pharasma? Makes sure rites are being followed.

For Gorum? Ensures they are properly armed and constantly ready for battle.

For Cayden? Tops them up.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Go with Seneschal, a term used in so many different ways it could mean anything really.

"Seneschal of Pharasma", "Seneschal of Norgorber", "Seneschal of Ng", all sound pretty badass.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

- Wave casting.

- Allow them to combine casting and striding as a unique ability. This gives them a unique niche in being a very mobile caster, and it can be used to Move+Buff, Move+Debuff, Move+Heal, to give them a feel as the caster who is on the move.

- Judgement would be a reaction you can choose daily – one offensive (retributive strike when hit), one defensive (grant bonus to saves and AC), and one for mobility (allows to Stride given certain conditions). You can spend actions to switch between these reactions. Eventually you get the ability to have two of them up.

- Subclasses divide between: subterfuge, tracking, social, sabotage, etc.

- Bane was actually a very bad mechanic in 1E - gave a ton of damage but it was nothing more than a damage boost.

Got my 4) More ways for Monks to get circumstance bonuses to AC to bring an alternative to shield use.

If Nimble Dodge, Dueling Parry, Dodge Away were Monk feats, I'd take any of them 100% of the time even if it could be suboptimal or if they were toned down versions, just so I can say "oh, this feat is why I don't want a shield."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

What Lore errata?

Are you taking the stated opinion of A Single Dwarf in a particular Setting of the World's Most Popular Role Playing Game as official, infallible canon?

If you are, then that gives you a really good idea why it was removed.

I suppose I shouldn't have been so vague. An article. Someone on reddit went to the effort of consolidating the removed text.

I don't have any particular objections to it, being that WotC and Paizo can do whatever they want with their IP.

Wizards of the Coast can probably do these sort of things because they publish relatively few books in comparison to Paizo, who have traditionally reserved errata for mechanical things or outright typographical errors.

My point was that the removed sections are opinions from Volo about the monsters, made as generalizations of their entire race.

They were problematic in the sense that they were giving readers the impression either:

A) There's such things as racial absolutes, or
B) Volo himself believed so, which made him kind of villainous?

So the lore itself has not been errata'd, what's been taken out are Volo's comments, which were unreliable since the get go – that was the framing device of the book!

Taking them as lore that should have been respected in game was actually to the detriment of setting.

Taking it as "oh, Volo's a quack!" would have been ideal, but we are not in an ideal world.

But ultimately... the whole point of WotC was for us to talk about it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Temperans wrote:

1. The 3 action economy is a great idea, but sadly I think it is currently being underused and overly restricted. The new classes and casters are too tied up into using 2-3 action activities/routines just to keep up.

Same idea here – restricting casters is what makes martials be more powerful in 2E.

I believe there's certainly more room for feats to use actions for casters, but having martials get an economy edge vs. casters having a versatility edge is what makes the game so balanced.

* This is not me trying to start a debate but another point of criticism I have.

I think that the whole martials have better action economy thing makes the game worse.

Not only does it encourage bad game design from the devs, as seen with non-core classes all being very clunky. But it also creates an unneeded shackle that prevents more interesting feats from being created. Not to mention that as far as the new classes are concerned (including the new martials) they all have worse action economy than the core.

Overall, the whole thing just feels bad as a player when you want to do something cool but the action economy actively stops you. It feels bad as a theory crafter when your cool idea doesn't work because of the action limit. It feels bad as a game dev when the cool feat/spell/ability is impossible because its action economy is "too good" compared to current feats.

There's obviously tension, but isn't that inherent to all game design? And wouldn't it be applicable to all economies (even non-game ones), not just the 3 action economies?

And we've seen the Design team play with the economy to make unique classes, like the Summoner having effective 4 actions, Magus clumping actions into Spellstrikes, and both of them are non-Core.

Sometimes it feels bad (Thaumaturge coff coff), sometimes it just clicks (Monk <3)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Lore errata?

Are you taking the stated opinion of A Single Dwarf in a particular Setting of the World's Most Popular Role Playing Game as official, infallible canon?

If you are, then that gives you a really good idea why it was removed.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm down for having slavery in games when people as a baseline read more history books, we're not there yet.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I got my one pet peeve:

I hate that Monks don't have an incentive to avoid Shields.

I always go out of my way to find a way to avoid needing a shield for Monks I build - a parry weapon, archetypes to get a Rogue's Nimble Dodge or Acrobat's Dodge Away.

I'd love an in-class solution for that?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:
One thing I don't like: The up-and-down nature of combat (unconscious, conscious, unconscious again) does not play nice with the action economy.

I think it all does play well – it doesn't play well for your own benefit, but it makes sense. You should very much avoid dying! Having attached weapons gives you a benefit! Kip Up is a good feat! Etc.

Having a low floor is how you get things to have more value later on.

Temperans wrote:

1. The 3 action economy is a great idea, but sadly I think it is currently being underused and overly restricted. The new classes and casters are too tied up into using 2-3 action activities/routines just to keep up.

Same idea here – restricting casters is what makes martials be more powerful in 2E.

I believe there's certainly more room for feats to use actions for casters, but having martials get an economy edge vs. casters having a versatility edge is what makes the game so balanced.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

My respectful criticism:

I think all the weapon/armor proficiency feats were mishandled.

1. Lumping armor proficiencies into MC Archetypes as icing removes the roleplaying incentive to invite metagaming. Lots of people are Champions just to have quick heavy armor. I think they should have been decoupled.

2. Ancestral weapons are not exciting to pick up for martial classes and the fact that classes that want to dip into them need to go over hoops to be proficient in them seems extremely convoluted.

3. Archetypes being the way to pick up armor proficiency also doesn't sit right to me in general. The armor proficiency feats become extremely lackluster.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

2. Pantheon worship was brought in with Gods & Magic. Ideal worship is more of an oracle thing rather than cleric thing. Shaman is actually pretty handily covered by druid and oracle imo, heck even witch works well thanks to patrons being intentionally vague.

I think there's enough space for Shaman as a Primal Wave Caster, mixing in the Shifter into its chassis. Subclasses could be Shifter (wildshapey), Invoker (summoney), Cursebreaker (utility), and Augur (diviney).

And I also think there's space for Inquisitor as a Divine Wave Caster, but probably named something like "Templar" to invite more concepts. Subclasses could be named like "Sanctifier" (utility), "Watcher" (stealthy), "Protector" (tough), "Eradicator" (aggressive) and focus of the different aspects of Inquisitors.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of really liked Warpriest??????

Didn't play it beyond a one-shot, but I loved shield tanking and buffing the party.

I also really liked how Monks fared with simply having higher unarmored proficiency.

The Exploration system was great too.

This is the exact scenario where DW Swashbucklers really shine as they don't need to make a choice. They get limited access to Parrying feats but even then, I enjoy Swashbucklers more when they aren't fully focused on defence.

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Whether unionization improves the lives of customers should not be a concern. It's about whether it improves the lives of employees.

It's absolutely impossible to determine if that will trickle down to higher product quality because the standards to measure that are arbitrary, and even if the product improves, there could be many other factors that come into play, and singling out unionization as the main contributor for an improvement or a decrease in quality is not likely scientifically sound.

So I'd decouple both topics from your mind entirely.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
For a lot of builds, it is a feat tax. There's absolutely no way you can be competitive without it on a Mutagenist, Strength Magus, Strength Warpriest or Intimidating Barbarian, for example. So it's above "so good it must be taken", it's "so good you take it".

What makes those classes so different? All of them have medium armor and can take Dex 12 with a Breastplate to be at exactly the same AC as a Dex build with leather armor. Okay, the barbarian is lower off because barbarians are supposed to have lower AC.

I really think you're stuck in a mindset where nothing except totally maxed out defenses is considered even viable. I think that's vastly exaggerated. Maybe it's more a symptom of an arms race style of adventure writing/character optimization.

I don't go nearly that far with my characters and do okay.

Paizo's AP design really really really really stresses the need to max out AC if you are frontlining.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I only got 3:

1. I wish Lores scaled automatically. Skill proficiencies are needed for some Class Feats and archetypes, and you don't have any incentive to scale up a Lore similarly.

2. More Class Feats, in general.

3. More spontaneous caster options. I just hate prepared casting, flexible or not, and I'd love to be a Spontaneous Magus/Witch/etc. Spontaneous archetypes were my lifeblood in PF2E.

Clearly Dwarf. No penalty to movement with armor, greater darkvision to drop darkness and maul people, all great.

Onkonk wrote:

A bit out of scope for PF2 and would be a quite radical change but I wonder at times if it wouldn't be better if stats didn't exist.

Attack proficiency, HP and saves would merely be determined by your class getting you all the essentials and your skills would be good based on what you choose for them.


My biggest problem is Constitution... because it has the most boring narrative power for an RPG: are you alive or dead? I wish they had rolled into the base class.

I don't have a problem with the "narrative" ability scores: STR, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA say something about your character. I just think they should not be tied to accuracy.

I do think those stats can be connected with game artefacts, like STR should allow you to access weapons/armor options, DEX should allow you to be stealthy and nimble, etc.
And I do think it's good that each class has subsystems that motivate you to pick some of them up (Wizards learning spells faster with higher INT, Sorcerers getting bonuses to social interaction with bloodline-related creatures, Barbarians getting more uses to STR).

But the accuracy part feels so much like a given that it removes a bit of the need for them.

I'd love to have a Sensate archetype.

I don't want a numerical bonus to Perception, but just having it fully oriented towards things like Blind Fight, Greater Darkvision, and so forth would be great.

Gortle wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.
Maybe it would be a more balanced game. I don't see that as a good thing. But attributes need to mean something else we are we playing a totally different game.

My point is, if you are changing INT/CHA/STR to be applied to saves, then the attribute-to-save system is the problem.

I also believe that the need to maximize an attribute makes attribute progression a bit predictable too.

It all ends up being a little bit boring in the end.

Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.

I think an overlooked aspect of this is efficiency and durability of each attribute.

Some Classes have existing ways to support these functions but are inefficient (i.e. takes a lot of actions/turns to set up), whereas some have them but are low in durability (cannot make them happen often enough.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
But yeah, my main thing here is that I don't really see why we don't have one or two classes with legendary light/medium profiencies.

Champions have Legendary Light and Medium!

I think you are trying your way into this by justifying against the Monk's identity, but I don't see you doing the same vis-a-vis the identity of the class you are portending.

None of the existing classes fit to be legendary in light/medium.

- Swashbucklers have way too many active defences. Offensively they may need a boost but defensively they do well.
- Barbarians are the closest class I could see getting Legendary Light/Medium and not breaking balance, but I think thee class would be better served by losing the AC penalty instead...
- Rangers are too offensively geared to be balanced in having Legendary Light/Medium proficiency.
- Magus got way too much utility and damage to need any baseline defensive boost.

So none of the existing classes are a good fit.

If a good niche could be found for it... I don't see why not!

Temperans wrote:

Slayer Study Target does resemble the PF2 Ranger Hunt Target. Wont deny that, but the comparison stops at the basic bonus (+perception, +track, +bonus to hit).

The overall mechanics are closer to how DnD handles rangers.

The proof against your argument is that PF2E's Rangers are fun.

Idea: Talespinner
The Look: Plainclothes traveler
Concept: Pathological liar and teller of tall tales, spending all combat ragging on enemies, boasting on how this one fight will surely be the end of their story, and jabbing enemies when they are most riled up.
The Class: Stumbling Stance Monk with Folklorist archetype.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:

Honestly I think doctrines were something of a mistake in the first place. Cloistered should have been the default, then add a couple class feats if you want to be the tankier kind of cleric. Would have left room for Warpriest to be it's own thing, and better fill the expectations we have from that name after it's 1E incarnation.

Given what we have now with bounded spellcasting that may have worked well as a sort of divine alternative to the magus.

Agree with this a lot.

I think that most classes should have gotten a Class Feat to up armor proficiency.

Having to resort to Sentinel archetype seems like an inelegant solution.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
While they could have a different stat for the to-hit, it kinda goes against the game design when it comes to magic attacks. Also, as it has been pointed out, it causes a class to be MAD at its base, which I'd prefer were not the case.

MAD is not a problem if you can invest in many stats, which I believe the game does well.

If your class gets Evasion, then critically succeeding every DEX save is less important.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadamReshi wrote:

Might be off-topic, but it is it a bad idea to not boost all three of CON, WIS and DEX when leveling up, or is it okay to have one weaker save?

If it is a bad idea, that does reinforce in my head that perhaps Pathfinder 2e should have used the 4e save system to consolidate how saves work.

Depends on your base save proficiency and base hp.

Play a Ruffian Rogue? You get mad Reflex saves so don’t invest in Dex.

Play a Ranger? You can do with lower CON given high Fort and good HP pool.

Play a low WIS Monk? No worries as long as you use Path to Perfection on Will Saves.

1 to 50 of 5,837 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>