Secret Wizard's page

I wound love for developers to have a sit down and figure out what's the acceptable power budget for classes and feats.

It makes no sense to me that Flurry of Blows gets a cooldown and Twin Weapon Flurry doesn't.

It's really weird that Shield Block exists as a General Feat but no other General Feats allowing for different defensive styles (one handed dueling, etc.) exist.

The game has a very very solid foundation but class options have never received a common sense pass to determine what they mean and what they should do.

Biggest errata would be renaming the game to Bathminder 2E

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Better feats, proficiencies, scaling, and flavor compared to those classes.

See? FLAVORING is a huge problem for the Fighter, because the "adventuring" aspect doesn't mesh well unless you're a sellsword or a freed gladiator, which are probably the most boring backgrounds you can get.

I certainly subscribe to this train of thought, and "Fighter = Knight" creates a lot of issues with the power budget in general.

I think Starfinder delivers the Soldier much better with its flavored subclasses.

I think we can agree that weapon groups are bad for class fantasy.

It was a bad decision to tie them to a single type of item, ("SWORDS!!!!") instead being associated with a holistic martial style ("I'm a desert nomad, so I'm good with the sword, spear, and the bow; this is my friend the sea raider with proficiency in the axe, shield, and polearm").

Trying different stuff is the fun in RPGs, and siloing players so much is a minus.

Ok, this is going to be a long rant, but I think this speaks to the overall lack design direction on Class Feats in general.

"We want to make Class Feats the most appealing option" is a design choice, but then you have classes with absolutely heinous options – from one-offs, like a Fighter's Bladed Break, to Investigators having pretty boring Class Feats in general.

I think the problem lies on this: Multiclass Archetypes proposition PCs to develop a character concept, but Class Feats themselves are built to be tiny mechanical knobs.

E.g.: "I want my Wizard to have the training of a master-at-arms" competes for the same slot as "my Wizard's got some extra Cantrips."

I think Paizo failed to deliver with the Class Feat/Multiclass Archetype angle because while it's really fun to have options like Nimble Dodge or Stunning Fist, they occupy a completely different mental space and required powerlevel to deliver the same fantasy as Stumbling Stance, Crossbow Expert, or any Multiclass Archetype in the first place.

What about the speed loss in heavy armor?

The additional bulk?
the str req wouldn't be a problem for a guardian since its key stat at least.

I bring these up mainly because I am watching my players deal with the encounters I throw at them and speed matters a lot, bulk is coming into play as well. These are not negligible costs to heavy armor even for a str 18 character.

Bulk is rarely an issue in any games I've played for STR characters, it's very binary.

Speed is notable but I don't think it's an issue comparable with being -1 AC.

Hi Paizo community and team!

I know we are way past the playtest and the Guardian is likely heavily in development, but I have what may seem like a weird ask:

Please, give some thought to class options (an archetype or feats) that improve how the Guardian plays out with medium armor or unarmored.

The reason I'm asking this is simple: heavy armor is massively more powerful than any of the other options.

+1 AC over the rest of the armors, which cap at +5 vs +6 for Heavy, is a huge incentive to go that route.

Right now, there is only ONE class that gets a major defensive benefit to not using Heavy armor: the Monk.

Before, the Barbarian used to be an option too, but with Armored Rager being a class choice, there's few incentives to remain with Medium Armor.

For this reason, rather than keep centralizing all defensive characters around Heavy Armor, I'd love to see maybe some class archetypes that trade features to make the Guardian function better without Heavy Armor, or perhaps less features/Class Feats that increase in effectiveness with heavier armors.

It seems like we keep getting more and more incentives towards it when the game already rewards using it baseline.

Thoughts?

This is out there a tiny bit, but I'd really like a Swashbuckler... archetype? Style? Something... that gave you a Str KAS and modified/toned down precise strike but available with more weapon types.

Stylish character with a big weapon is kind of a fun design space and I've had a few players approach me with characters that are like almost swashbucklers but they don't use finesse weapons and I feel like it would be a fun way to expand the class chassis.

Plus like... we have rogues who can sneak attack with greataxes now anyways.

This is literally my longsword/katana duelist ask!

Secret Wizard wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I know it's not up on AoN yet, but I think you may be happy with the Spirit Warrior archetype from the Tian Xia Character Guide. Its dedication gives you that combo-like attack that monks get, but open up the weapons you can use with it to include stuff like katanas and longswords.

I wanna like this, I really do, but there's one problem... it doesn't have a baseline class that goes with it well.

It'd work great with Swash or Rogue if I could get +2 to Strength to use a longsword or a katana effectively, but no dice.

I actually think that the new Fighter archetype would also be pretty viable if it allowed the use of swords.

Ruffian and (as of War of Immortals) Avenger Rogues can get Strength as their KAS, and both can Sneak Attack with Katanas. Only Avengers can SA with Longswords though.

Swashes and Dex Rogues would have to go for the Dueling Sword (which has always been depicted as a weird katana) to get the same "feel".

You are a genius, didn't realize the new Ruffian wording on what constituted an able weapon.

I know it's not up on AoN yet, but I think you may be happy with the Spirit Warrior archetype from the Tian Xia Character Guide. Its dedication gives you that combo-like attack that monks get, but open up the weapons you can use with it to include stuff like katanas and longswords.

I wanna like this, I really do, but there's one problem... it doesn't have a baseline class that goes with it well.

It'd work great with Swash or Rogue if I could get +2 to Strength to use a longsword or a katana effectively, but no dice.

I actually think that the new Fighter archetype would also be pretty viable if it allowed the use of swords.

As I've previously said, more Unconscious and Conscious Minds for Psychics.

Also, a Wizard Character Archetype based around crafting Magic items.

Secret Wizard wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

I just want something similar to Warrior Poet from 1E:

• Unarmored, no shield
  
• Strength + Dex
  
• Wields a 1H weapon
  
• Focused on mobility + defence (I really liked adding Combat Expertise / Defensive Fighting feats to it)

An Unarmored + No Shield archetype for a Guardian would be sick (depending on how the class turns out).

At a glance, this 1e Archetype just kinda looks like a 2e Monk or Swashbuckler. What aren't you getting from those?

Katanas, baby, Katanas.

...So, you want to be a Champion?

Also, just use a wakizashi.

It's a whole different feeling to use a larger blade than a short blade.

I'm a huge chanbara nerd, and I'd love to make a kensei-style swordmaster. All alternatives nowadays are either heavily armored, use smaller weapons, or don't really deliver the fantasy (stuff around parrying, mobility, legendary defence...)

Again, it's a niche, just like every other ask here. But nothing captures a properly built Warrior Poet.

I'd like to invite everyone to watch Samurai Rebellion or the Sword of Doom and not come out really hyped to build something like that.

Secret Wizard wrote:

I just want something similar to Warrior Poet from 1E:

• Unarmored, no shield
  
• Strength + Dex
  
• Wields a 1H weapon
  
• Focused on mobility + defence (I really liked adding Combat Expertise / Defensive Fighting feats to it)

An Unarmored + No Shield archetype for a Guardian would be sick (depending on how the class turns out).

At a glance, this 1e Archetype just kinda looks like a 2e Monk or Swashbuckler. What aren't you getting from those?

Katanas, baby, Katanas.

I just want something similar to Warrior Poet from 1E:

• Unarmored, no shield
  
• Strength + Dex
  
• Wields a 1H weapon
  
• Focused on mobility + defence (I really liked adding Combat Expertise / Defensive Fighting feats to it)

An Unarmored + No Shield archetype for a Guardian would be sick (depending on how the class turns out).

None of which is, to me the most important thing: that, to me, the Guardian needed serious attention before the playtest period was over, so that we could then, you know, playtest the revision.

But the whole purpose of playtesting is to aid the designers/developers, and not the testers.

And the service is really useful! You are solving internal debates. You have no way of knowing what these look like, the context, the research, etc. that motivated them...

But [be]we have to assume that what is tested stems from these controversies.[/b] Otherwise, what's there to test? If the design was fully polished, we'd be doing editing/errata hunting instead.

I hope you get that your spontaneous gut feeling, unguided, is much more powerful to solve these dilemmas than any conversation you could have with Paizo's team. When the product is out on the shelves, that's mostly how it's going to feel.

Secret Wizard wrote:

@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.

Scars of Steel is so awesome !!!!!

** spoiler omitted **

OK, just checked it out and it's not even trash, it's literally useless with Raging Resistance.

Quote:

Look, you have a perfectly good forum thread, right here under your nose, about people talking about how -AC on Rage fails to deliver on its premise by creating several "bad beat" games in which the Barb gets blown like a piñata.

Perhaps I'm just harboring older design sensibilities, but the risk of getting blown like a piñata is an important part of the fun of playing a character with Rage. Losing it is sad.

I can see why PF2E would remove it. The game has continuously sanded off things that trade risk for greater reward, in my estimation, to keep performance ceilings in check; and the game probably doesn't actually have the room to give a damage reward for the AC penalty that feels fun and appropriate in the moment while also maintaining said performance ceiling. It's a little disappointing to see it go, since I feel like that risk/reward was one of the most defining aspects of Barbarian. But I've kind of accepted PF2E is a very... streamlined and managed experience.

I understand where you are coming from, but, also, what's the reward?

Both the Fighter and the Barb lived for the same amount of turns, dealt basically the same amount of damage...

...but the Fighter dealt a little bit more damage, and the Barbarian had swingy turns where it'd be critted consecutively and die.

If there was some real incentive to take the risk, sure... but just to stay at parity with the Fighter? Doesn't make sense to me.

exequiel759 wrote:

when I turn to see the barbarian that absolutely didn't need any changes whatsoever but received one of the most sizeable buffs in the whole book

Yes it is hard to understand.

Paizo have listened to the Fighter is just flat out better than the Barbarian argument - which I always thought was over done - by buffing what was already a strong class. No one else got +1AC and an extra action to start every combat. Fighter Barbarian and Rogue are a clear step up from the other martial classes. I still haven't seen the details of the new Investigator or Swashbuckler but I doubt it is going to be good enough.

[...]

They touched Fury but really didn't fix anything. That is a frustrating miss.

Look, you have a perfectly good forum thread, right here under your nose, about people talking about how -AC on Rage fails to deliver on its premise by creating several "bad beat" games in which the Barb gets blown like a piñata.

@On Fury: they actually gave them new feats, don't knock it until you try it.

@On Investigators and Swashbucklers: I think knocking them before you try them.

And if they suck... just like the Ranger came back a little bit lacking... I think it's more about pushing for the changes that you want to see rather than advocating AGAINST buffs to other classes. It's not a zero sum game.

As for the proliferation of Free Archetype, I'd avoid to deduce anything out of an increase in character power. From my experience, any such increase is always welcome by players, moar power = moar fun.

I disagree, otherwise, it'd be Gestalt everywhere. Engaging challenge is a non-trivial issue. I believe games are right-sized for their ability to deliver the core fantasy.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.

What's that supposed to mean? Undertuned compared to what?

Compared to player expectations.

This is, of course, as subjective as the next thing, but I think that the competitive edge of PF2E over DnD is players who want more decision points per turn and encounter.

The proliferation of Free Archetype games is a display of people wanting to get more out of class chasses / feat loadouts and really exacerbate that difference.

I think most classes in PF2E are just shy of delivering the depth that players want, and anything that powers them up is welcome.

Classes in PF2E, are, in general, undertuned.

That the Barb is getting closer to the ideal power-level is a good thing.

Rangers should get there too.

Here's the thing: I personally don't think I mind Guardians having (by default) weak attacks, but they absolutely need better action options. So many of their abilities currently are passive, reactive. If you aren't multiclassed, it's genuinely hard to know what to do on a turn, which makes the lack of strong Strikes feel kind of weak.

I kind of like the idea of Guardian normally having weaker weapon scaling, but getting an ability/feat that brings their math up to that of a traditional frontliner--if Taunted enemies ignore them to focus on allies.

Since they have more reactions to protect folks, I think an elegant solution is more Reactive Strikes!

Other classes use their actions for offense... you use them for defense, and you can spend your excess reactions for Strikes if you didn't use them defensively.

@Jason: Really like the changes proposed to the Guardian, but I do hope that -

(A) Offensive capabilities of the Guardian are looekd at. I think Guardians should have some ability to provide forward-progress as needed...

(B) Less importantly, I hope some thought is given to whether we want to tie Guardian features to Heavy Armor... I think Medium Armor is such a niche choice that it shouldn't be penalized...

I was not expecting that but it looks like my Barbarian may retire after the remaster hit the shelves.

You may be interested to hear that Superstition is getting streamlined, SuperBidi.

Thank you Paizo!

Removing the AC penalty from Rage is massive. A lot of character concepts I wanted to build are now enabled.

Better Fury is great. I really like the new feats too. I know it's not as good as other Instincts, but it's got a solid niche.

Monks had small changes, didn’t need too much, expert strikes give you crit spec now. Ki becomes Qi. Monastic weaponry now applies to ancestry feat weapons. New stuff like fuse stance at 16, you combine them into a new stance you name yourself and benefit from both, make your own unique style!

Seems pretty unambitious...

I don't get it.

All Heavy Armor is +1 AC more effective than all Medium Armor. That's a huge bonus right off bat.

Do features need to give a bonus based on whether the user is using heavy vs medium armor?

I just don't get what this type of differentiated bonus is adding to the class experience.

For those of you saying that "the Champion class fulfills the Guardian's role of tank better," just wait until Player Core 2 drops.

Paizo has been known to reduce the power and capability of existing content in order to increase sales of new content once on a while.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if something like that happened between these two classes.

This is probably the dumbest ending out there.

People are tacking on Free Archetype / Ancestral Paragon to all their games because they are dissatisfied with current power budgets, and you are proposing we end up with lower power levels?

When the Fighter got even stronger?

If I were to suggest a good example of an offensive tank that I think a Guardian should be is Leona from League of Legends. Lots of CC, high defenses, damage passives that depend on the team and mobility only when engaging the enemy.

Leona's passive is literally more damage, no questions asked:

Sunlight: This passive skill lets Leona's abilities mark enemy units hit with Sunlight for 1.5 seconds, and subsequent applications of Sunlight refresh its duration. Damage inflicted to marked enemy units by allied champions will consume Sunlight, dealing 25 to 144 bonus magic damage.

I think your suggestions are good – I don't necessarily feel like "more damage" is the only solution...

...but when you look into Leona's design, there's clearly an element in there to pack more offensive potential.

But the Guardian has offensive power. Compared to a Champion, you deal precisely 12.7% less damage averaged on your whole career. That's way less than the Champion/Fighter difference and I've never seen anyone complaining about the Champion because of that.

Anything is less than the X/Fighter difference.

The Champion is the worst of the martials in terms of damage, so being below them isn't good.

And I'm sure you are probably (a) not comparing for the scaling, (b) probably not including the big damage boosts in the kit like Litany of Righteousness, Radiant Blade Ally, and ofc Divine Smite.

I think an improved reactive strike would be better than a taunt, for this reason.

More reactive strikes on different situations is great. You need to:

(a) deal more damage/disrupt enemies somehow when not focused,
(b) have tools to do something when focused that is different from (a) but still fun, so it doesn't feel like your class only works when they are hitting your allies

Reactive Strikes can be a good, fun tool for both cases.

I mean what you're fundamentally describing is that the utility the guardian brings doesn't compensate for its offensive deficiencies. Giving the class damage steroids is one way to solve that but not necessarily the only one.

But give it so much defensive utility and you either (a) trivialize encounters, or (b) risk becoming unidimensional and useless in any situation that doesn't adapt to your specific niche (AC tanking).

Offensive power IS versatility.

And considering how combats are violent in PF2, I think there's space for a more dedicated tank than the Champion. And it's not a problem by itself as a tank should definitely find a place in a PF2 party without being a liability.

I don't agree. I think tanks need offensive capability to be a realistic threat to enemies, so as to concentrate their focus.

Also, even the most defensive/utility casters have offensive options... the Fireball of an utility Wizard usually hurts as much as an offensive one. The Heals of the support Cleric can bring down hordes of Undead.

Guardians should have their situational damage options too.

A guardian could absolutely work with a complete lack of offensive power.

Imagine a theoretical Guardian who could take every single attack instead of their allies. That would effectively be equipping every team member with legendary scaling heavy armor and a raised shield, which I think would be well worth the party slot. Drop it to them only forcing two or three full MAP enemy attacks a round onto them and their AC, sprinkle in Trips and Grapples, add better mobility, and make sure their damage reduction is more reliable and you could easily have a super valuable tank that does zero damage.

The thing is you don't need a Taunt ability to achieve any of that.

I think this is the most flawed thinking when thinking of this class.

"Oh, we can just make a pure support martial class! There's pure support casters, so this should work, right?"

And the answer is... absolutely not, because a pure support caster is still levelling up their offensive capability by levelling up their support skills.

By picking Reach Spells with your Cleric to be better at long distance healing, you are still also improving your ability to go offensive when needed.
Even Healing Hands helps you kill undead.

And this is the flaw in the Guardian design: the class NEEDS forward progress to be baked in somehow.

Maybe Taunt is taking up budget that should be used for a "Challenge" style feature that forces enemies to focus you out of SHEER THREAT of damaging them.

Something like:

[i]Taunt - 1 action
Challenge an enemy within X feet (usual auditory and visual clauses here) intensely focusing on them.
You get a -1 AC penalty against all attacks made by any other creature except the target of your challenge. If the target of your challenge takes any action that doesn't target you, they provoke a Reactive Strike from you if they are within your reach.

Why not make this simpler?

When you Taunt, allow you to make a melee strike for free, no MAP, if the Taunted enemy attacked someone who wasn't you last turn. This would be BAKED IN on the Taunt action

This way:

1. You deal more damage to enemies who don't focus you.

2. You have an incentive to be close to enemies, not far.

3. You kinda want to Taunt every turn and enemies start reconsidering not attacking you.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Seems kinda backwards but how else do you "Taunt" in a TTRPG without it becoming magical?

I think a more core question would be.

How can Taunt make the enemy want to attack the Guardian, while also making the Guardian want to be attacked?

The class needs a baseline "Revenge" feature to hit Taunted enemies.

Maybe a Flurry against Taunted enemies or a Reaction attack against Taunted enemies.

By giving the enemy +attack, and giving yourself some offensive boost from being attacked, you are getting your game plan in order: hit and be hit.

The missing piece is Furious Vengeance. You NEED a failsafe so that enemies can't go "lol I'd rather not hit you."

The whole set up of the class provides very little in helping bring fights to a close, and from my party's quick arena death match yesterday, I kinda wished we had a Fighter or Monk instead to draw the fight to a close faster.

So Ferocious Vengeance is very nice, a very good damned-if-you-don't...

...but we are missing the damned-if-you-do! The class is missing a "you hit me, now I get to put some extra hurt" somehow.

Namely, it would make a lot of sense to have a "Come Get Me" reaction from Taunt -- it's not easy to get off, so some way to punish those who actually hit you would be great.

This all being said, it's hard for me not to want to see both Threat Techniques as necessary for the class.

I do think the Guardian is missing an Action/bonus that defines their turns radically.

Intercept and Taunt are cute but they are sometimes foods.

Barbarians Rage, Rangers Hunt, Monks Flurry... the Guardian cannot be entirely reactive, and if it is, it needs to be a little bit sexier, I think.

The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...

Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.

Kelseus wrote:

I am firmly in the remove FoB from multiclass camp. it allows to too much cheese at mid levels and if feels like it lets other classes step on the Monk's toes a bit too much.

Im in the other Camp, i rather they add more things to other classes Archetypes. it always felt archetypes was to limited and only forced some specific feature of the class on you while keeping most things out of reach.

i agree that FoB is hands down one of the most powerful archetype ability's, but i rather see they add more to all archetypes then nerf the good once.

I'm on the other other camp.

I think unarmed is weak enough without FoB (or Follow-up Strike for that matter).

I'd like to see Monks get a unique FoB boost at level 11 to make them strictly better than the multiclass archetype, without making unarmed worse for everyone else.

I would prefer some feat or defensive style that gave the +2 circumstance bonus even without the shield block ability. It would look cooler in the mind's eye.

Oh yeah, Acrobat archetype is a fix for me to get faster proficiency + Dodge Away for a reaction.

Secret Wizard wrote:

All I want is a reason not to use a shield.

I hear this thing about Monks and Shields and yet none of my monks have used them to date and their AC was best at table.

Am I missing something?

In addition to the other things folks mentioned, you have no native Reactions and ways to get this circumstance bonus to AC.

I kinda wish class chassises were juicier and Monks had Crane Style in-built and you basically got to pick your "offensive" Style to go with it, which would make Stance Dancing less onerous in the feats too.

I understand a Cleric of Gorum, for example, will not be granted any spells from a dead god after a rest.

What happens, though, with any spells you haven't expended?

If you used one after August 1st, would it still take effect? Or would it not work at all even though you still have that particular spell prepared?

I ask because let's say I still wanted to play a Cleric of Gorum even after Gorum's death. I'm thinking I'd have to be VERY judicious with spell-use because I know I'm never going to get them back after he dies.

Casting a Heal spell becomes a HUGE deal for my character and it had better be for a DAMNED GOOD REASON!!

Baller idea, mad respect.

All I want is a reason not to use a shield.

You know what would be cool and maybe balanced for low level play? A reaction strike that triggers when the barbarian gets crit. Soaking that big to risk one of your own, or getting one last swing before you drop, feels very barbarian.

Storm druids can do do that with Tempest Surge at level 6, but I think it could work as a level 1 barbarian feature. Doesn't seem likely, though, since ranger and rogue didn't get built in reactions.

Everyone should have built-in reactions to devalue how powerful Shield Block as a general feat is.

Not just Barbs but Monks, Rangers too.

-1 Ac represents an overly aggressive approach to battle when raging.

This is the wrong way to go about it if you ask me. The way to represent they are more aggressive than defensive is getting them stuck on Master proficiency of Medium Armor and not give them any means to increase AC, which already happens everywhere else in the chassis.

Compare with Rangers who get options like Outwit, Skirmish Strike, Twin Parry/Riposte...

I feel the -AC is an artifact of a bygone era where you couldn't shape an experience with class feats.

SuperBidi wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And for Superstition Instinct, I would remove the "even from your allies" part. So that Superstition Barbarian would be the only one unable to cast spells, but they would be able to benefit from their allies' spells

That would make the Instinct pretty imbalanced. The Anathema would not really be one but the benefits would still be here.

Also, as of now the Superstition Instinct can technically cast spells so certain builds would have to be reviewed if you make that change, which is always a bad thing for these players.

The only thing I'd remove is the unclear limitation on "continuing to travel with an ally (who) insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness" and just keep the fact that you can't be a willing target for spells.

Anathemas are pretty much inconsequential for barbarians, with the only exception being superstition. Most instincts have anathemas that 99% of barbarians aren't going to break anyway (a dragon instinct barbarian likely wasn't going to be disrespectful towards dragons, otherwise why would the player choose to play as that instinct) so if the anathema becomes meaningless for the superstition instinct it would make it in line with the others.

Yeah so why don't we get rid of the thing altogether.

If the anathema/edict system is fun on its own, it doesn't need to be pushed onto players.

I've said my piece before, to some controversy:

- I hate the -AC penalty in Rage. I don't think it serves any real purpose and you become an HP piñata early on. Very counter-intuitive for new players. I get it that very experienced folks rage when lower in HP, but I want to allow my players to play intuitively out of the box... this was the same problem that +CON had with the 1E Chained Barb.

- I think they should smoothen Fury Instinct to be comparable to the others. No reason why roleplaying railroads should give you power. I think we've left that design principle by the wayside.

- I honestly believe the class / playerbase is disserviced by forcing Edicts on them as Barbarians. Less roleplaying railroads, please.

- I think that things like Cleave should be General Feats, and Class Feats saved for things that really really tie to your class. Why can't any class Cleave? I want my Barbarian feats to be very unique to what my class does.

I don't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye with me, but I do think these changes would be closer to the PF2E ethos than what we have right now.

Awesome Wizard wrote:

I also kind of like Zyphus and I wouldn't mind him getting to chill and have a beer with me. Comparing Zyphus to Naderi who is also very attractive

Cool Rhodiani wrote:

Zyphus would be interesting

Scarablob wrote:

he could always get expanded bc he is already very swole and strong

thx dudes preciate the support. don't forget to like and subscribe

SIGH FINE I'LL WORSHIP YOU, if that makes you ha-- *dies, accidentally*

Secret Wizard wrote:

I also kind of like Zyphus but I wouldn't mind him getting merc'd in lieu of a deeper, more interesting, souls-ferrying deity.

Zyphus would be interesting. My character is built on hunting down cultists of Zyphus - they'd be thrilled at the development, but "mission accomplished" ends the character's concept. Still, Zyphus is a niche tool that allows for places filled with traps that aren't otherwise justified in having them, so I don't see him leaving.

That's the issue, it kinda feels one-note. Aren't deities more fun when they have a couple of twists to them?

Comparing Zyphus to Naderi...

why would anyone kill Hanspur??? He's just a tiny rat dude????

If anything, they should off Charon (who is lame and not IP protected) and ascend Hanspur to ferrying souls.

I also kind of like Zyphus but I wouldn't mind him getting merc'd in lieu of a deeper, more interesting, souls-ferrying deity.

I also have a soft spot for Feronia because my favorite Cleric worshipped her, but even in Rage of the Elements, she didn't get much prime time.

Jacob Jett wrote:

Riddlyn wrote:

The only person who said sword and board is the "correct" build is you. No one else has. It's there for those who want to use it. Almost every class has something like this (druid, wizard, Magus....). Now I could sort of see this being an issue if you cost you something, but it doesn't. And for a fighter it absolutely makes sense that they would learn to use a shield as a part of their basic training.

Ah, but it did cost the player something. It cost them a choice (of which they have been deprived).

No, it actually doesn't.

The Fighter class design and balance doesn't have room for freely or even limitedly choosing a level 1 General Feat.

"Lose Shield Block and pick a different level 1 Feat" isn't really something that is on the design table. So it was never a choice for the player in the first place. Taking away Shield Block from the Fighter chassis it still wouldn't have design space for a choice of a General Feat.

You seem to be working under the assumption that Shield Block that Fighter gets is a General Feat. It isn't. It is a class feature. The level 1 General Feat gives the Shield Block reaction also, but the two are not equivalent.

The problem here is that Shield Block is unique as a General Feat in terms of power, and there's no comparable feat to it.

If you give me Dueling Parry and Nimble Dodge as General Feats, then it's really IS basically a free General Feat.

But no equivalent options are there for other types of characters to pick up.

I'd love for the main options to be:

- Wanna use a Shield? Here's Shield Block, you get +X AC and the ability to absorb damage with a reaction.

- Wanna use a 1H weapon and an empty offhand? You get to turn on Parry for a blanket +2 AC and a reaction to riposte on critical failures.

- Wanna use a 2H weapon, TWF, or be ranged? Here's Nimble Dodge... you don't get to activate for a blanket +AC, but you still get a defensive reaction if you need it.

I think people here are interpreting this the wrong way.

A Reaction is a must for every character as it is a massive boost in action economy.

The fact that you get an unusable one as a Fighter is a "feels-bad moment" that should be avoided.

Fighters should have been allowed to pick up a thematic reaction, whether it is a Dueling Parry, a 2H Block, or a Shield Block.

Same goes for Paladins, and hell, why not Monks, Rogues and Rangers?