Taçin's page

siegfriedliner wrote:

The warlock is probably one of the most well balanced classes in 5e it has a very reliable power level that fluctuates a lot less than most of the other classes depending on longer or shorter days. Now there are imbalanced with multiclassing in 5e but those are issues with the multiclassing system in 5e not the warlock class.

I mean... I wouldn't say you're exactly WRONG here but I think you have the issue turned on its head.

The Warlock is the best-DESIGNED Class in the system, but it's so wildly off-beat with the basic realities of the whole of 5e rules and other Classes that it may as well have been written for an entirely different game.

It is in no way balanced against other Classes, the CR system, or even the narrative RP "power level" assumptions of the game, but that's more a consequence of the fact that it may as well have been delivered to the WotC offices by way of a time-travel paradox incident by the postal service who somehow delivered a manuscript 10 years into the past.

Well said, the warlock works well on its own but their design is so unique to the rest of the system it can break things very easily, and it's no wonder it spawns the most egregious examples of multiclassing brokenness with the other CHA casters (Mixing sorcery points with pact slots for Sorlock/Coffeelock exploits, Adding more high-level slots for Divine Smite or even just giving the Bard the high-damage autoscaling cantrip they miss so much from the base class).

Back to the kineticist, they can probably work something out, the Psychic playtest already showed a solid skeleton of how a cantrip-reliant class could work (and they had actual spells to worry about on that one), even if the limited amps were undertuned and poorly balanced between themselves; the kineticist as a concept is also much simpler to get right (As long as the blast's damage/accuracy/amp is in the right spot, most of the class should fall into place) than the much more flavor-aligned Psychic and their occulty weirdness.

Baseline free archetype falls into the same trap of the "Free Feat at level 1" popular variant of 5E, archetypes aren't as neatly balanced between themselves, and the person with a planned build and Champion dedication is just getting much more out of the deal than the thematically appropriate Pirate archetype in a sea-based campaign; it's a fine rule for the groups that run it, but it turns the complexity knob one step too far for some newer players and can provide a significant boost to some feat-starved builds, it also does work very well in 3-player or lower parties to fill in missing roles

The undershooting paradigm seems to be what holds the encounter balance math so tight and working even a few years into the edition (the strongest options are still in core, so the supplementary material doesn't invalidate the rules established early on), so I'm glad it's in place, although just a few adjustments bringing the outliers closer to the top of the bellcurve could make the whole thing feel more concise.

I think a lot of the common issues players find could be smoothed out with a more granular (+1) proficiency system, even if that's still a whole edition away or contained in some late-edition optional rules compendium.

I find most GMs aren't actually that interested in running crazy high-powered games, all the bookkeeping, contentions and concerns with verisimilitude quickly take more time off the table than most are comfortable with, yet the game is firmly within superhuman territory for over half of the level progression (Arguably somewhere between levels 5~10); this is what leads to the conflicting schools of thought that still wants the world to feel deadly and scale with their grandeur (aka "an arch-mage could be killed by a sneak stab to the back, just as anyone else") or the heroic fantasy crowd that's more content with rising above the common folk and only be challenged by equal opposition; most game systems, for the sake of keeping options open opt for the first one, although a sizeable contingent (mostly players, in my experience) feels a heavy disconnect that their idealized "big damn hero" has to work hard to fend off some rowdy highwaymen; it's always felt more like a problem of narrative framing than anything to me.

Talk with your players first and see where they stand, are they fine with being vulnerable to common threats and a more deadly game? Sure, just adjust those common banditry to the adequate level's stats, the one's they're fighting are simply old foxes of their craft with years of lawbreaking experience and a few unaware adventurers' heads in their scorecard

Do they prefer the high-powered feel? Use those same stats and find a narrative justification for the power boost, maybe a shady mage has been supplying the criminal underworld with a physically-enhancing potion that has terrible side effects, and that's the reason the bandits are hulking out like behemoths

I don't mean to derail the discussion but outside of his (natural) far sight Legolas is much more fighter-y if anything; he doesn't dabble in the tracking and herbalism nearly as much as Aragorn (the archetypical ranger), nor is he specifically tied to dealing with one type of enemy, Legolas was mostly just really good with his bow and long dagger/shortsword, and his more exoteric connection to nature (leaving no footprints, taming horses with a few words) was more from being an elf than any sort of formal training/skill ranks. In my view he's the DEX Fighter to Gimli's STR Fighter, both extremely skilled and deadly in their own way. Aragorn (the literal Ranger) is the survivalist from the wastelands that knows tracking and terrain like the palm of his hand while still being an exceptional combatant.

Back to the topic of the thread though, I'd also like to second the archery/ranged options for Rogues, and some more feat support for other classes that allow them to use guns without tanking their DPS and action ecoonomy, let the Gunslinger be the best with them, but an entire weapon group shouldn't be practically locked behind a first level class choice.

And for the Monk, I think that a Stance Master path (maybe a class archetype of some sort) that incentivizes changing stances in combat would be wonderfully flavorful, a martial artist that changes between stances for Movement/Traits/AC maybe with a circumstance bonus to your next attack/maneuver after switching stances (wouldn't work wihile first entering a stance), and at higher levels having a quickened action that can only be used to switch stances, I first thought of this concept as a series of Monk/Martial Artist feats, but seen as you already need feats to get these stances this could get a bit too feat-intensive if that was the case.

Taçin wrote:

By the situation described here, you cannot let this PC live without shattering the imersion of the game with a sledgehammer.

I think these actually a bit more nuance here--or at least maybe immersion is maybe not the right word. For many players, immersion depends on investment in their character, so whatever damage is done by saving their character from near certain death (and there have been several good examples here of reasonable ways for this character to barely survive), it pales in comparison to having their character killed off due to a random tactical blunder.

It would depend on the group which is more prized, the tactical verisimilitude or the narrative cohesiveness. One is more damage by a character surviving no-win scenario, while the other is more damaged by random and meaningless character death. As always it's a talk it out with the group kind of question.

I agree, but with some caveats. Sure sometimes the mechanics can get in the way of storytelling, but the players chose to face this challenge as a game, to the point of wanting to see how the gears were turning (the GM's dicerolls), and one of the gears (although in a very unlikely manner) flew out and hit them in the face; it's hardly an extrapolation to "see this through" to its logic conclusion; with that said, OP seems reluctant to proceed because they didn't plan this to be a deadly encounter, but how many great plothooks didn't start from a sidequest? Amp up this Druid to be a bigger figure in the campaign's narrative, build up from this one blunder into a full-fledged rivalry, this is a fantasy game, death isn't the be-all end-all it is in the real world.

As for the narrative cohesineveness, accidents happen every day, great heroes have fallen in nameless battles (and a vile attack from a Druidic chieftain is hardly being killed by a goblin goon), but I know firsthand how attached players can get to their characters, so just leaving them for dead in the mud isn't a pretty solution, as always consulting with them before taking any further steps into places players could be possibly uncomfortable with (I imagine from the post's wording this campaign hasn't had a death yet) is advised. So yes, talking with the players is vital to see how they envision this game (maybe they just want to blow off some steam after a long week of work, then having their character die instantly to a lucky shot might be just piling on more stress) and how to proceed forward to align with this vision for both players and GM.

By the situation described here, you cannot let this PC live without shattering the imersion of the game with a sledgehammer; with that said if your players are more interested in being Big Damn Heroes™ and aren't the type to worry much about verissimilitude maybe ask them before the game if they wouldn't take this badly (You literally rolled in front of their eyes, so they can't accuse you of bad intent, really).

If you DO end up finishing this PC off and the player still had plans for them make it the subject of a sidequest to bring them back to life, maybe getting the favor of a local bishop, or in exchange for a hefty donation, turn tragedy into (storytelling) opportunity. In the meantime the PC's player could take control of one of their associates or maybe even a surviving NPC that was in awe at the sorcerer's courage and now feels they owe them this much.

I'm also of the opinion that the Samurai and Ninja don't have enough mechanical meat on their bones for standalone classes, and are replicated easily enough with flavor more so than mechanics.

The Ninja easily fits as a racket for the Rogue, they're sneaky spies and assassins that fight through subterfuge and tricks instead of head-on, you don't get any roguier than that, designing a racket around ki-based focus spells to simulate some classical ninjutsu moves with smoke bombs, running over water/up walls and substitution techniques gets them very close to the mark with minimal adjustment, if any (also, just let Rogues in general have martial weapons like someone mentioned above, the Investigator has it and it's far from gamebreaking).

The kicker about the Samurai is because a lot of what one assigns to them in a TTRG environment is not really... unique? At least not so much for a whole class, a lot of their tropes are close to the western equivalent of the Knight (Bravery, masters of combat in and out of horseback, retainers, followers of an alleged honor code), so much so that the 1e version of them is rolled into the Cavalier, and even that wider grouping was relegated to an archetype in 2e. On the mechanical implementation side of things it gets even dicier, temp hp? Not a very exciting mechanic; standing after an attack? Fine i guess, more of a once-a-day trick than anythting, still not a very solid foundation to build a class over; Iaijutsu? Reductive enough to be a feat chain, and too restricting to be the main option for the entire class. Even if we dwelve deep into the warrior poet or sword saint territory I still don't see anything that's outside the reach of an appropriate Fighter or Monk Class Archetype.

Since the topic of the thread is new classes, I'm also on the "Let's expand on what we have/finish porting the fan favorites before expanding" camp; as long as the Cleric still has 2 doctrines and classes from the APG/SoM/GnG are mostly restricted in feat support to their original publication we're leaving a lot of design space behind chasing classes that might be better explored after we've developped more of the earlier classes' potential.

In addition to all that's been said before (DEX bringing very solid defense/saves, a wider variety of skills, STR being historically relegated to athletics/packmule potential, the logic of STR being what makes hits hurt), 2e is also one of the most generous systems out there with stat increases, to the point that bumping STR as a secondary stat for a bit of extra oomph (or added damage to propulsive weapons) isn't really that unfeasible unless you're also going for TWO high mental stats alongside your main DEX for accuracy and CON for survivability.

Alongside "damage equalizers" such as Sneak Attack, Finishers and Devise a Stratagem, it's hard to argue that the stats aren't mostly balanced between themselves, although WIS may be just a single step above the rest in sheer usefulness.

Futureproofing for the Athlete archetype: demoralize using Athletics to dribble, knock them prone by breaking their ankles.

Can't answer for the others, but Orichalcum/Aurichalcum (aka "Mountain Copper"/"Gold Copper") is the name of a lost metal/alloy mentioned in ancient historical writings and supposedly present in Atlantis, it gained a quasi-mythical status because we're still not sure what it was exactly; so it's very likely a portmanteau of Orichalcum + "Hora" for "Hour", because of its time-bending nature.

Sicatite might have etymological relation to the Sicarii armed zealots/assassins from roman-occupied Judea (and their name comes from a thracian weapon, the Sica)

Captain Morgan wrote:

What are you saying right now? Blave's statement reads perfectly clear to me and makes perfect sense.

Blave wrote:

Tagging weapons for rogues seems needlessly complicated, would require an overhaul of all books and is prone to future mistakes. Forgetting to add that trait would definitely happen in some book at some point.

Tagging weapons for Rogues would be no different to tagging weapons for Monks (which is already done); And even if a mistake is made, its very easy to fix with an errata, just like it would be done with Monks.

I don't think anyone argued it couldn't be done, simply that it would be very cumbersome to reprint every single book that include weapons with this new errata, when a more ellegant solution would be to bring the divergent cases in line with the precedent set by the other classes; the Monk trait is a flawed point of comparison since its been present from the beginning, thus it has been implemented and accounted for in supplementary material. Also, there's an argument to avoid the overuse of tags when unnecessary (for ease of reference/bookkeeping, not everyone plays on VTTs or use online tools).

While I personally find the idea of these booksmart superscholars struggling hard to use a sword (different types of intelligence/aptitude/hand-eye coordination, etc.) quite a funny/amusing mental image, it doesn't really fit the tiered system of proficiency that the rest of 2e embraces and should be normalized. This sets a solid foundation of The least martially adept classes start here for the rest of the system and hardly impacts balance beyond flavor. This won't move the Wizards suck at using weapons needle much in the opposite direction, if at all.

For Rogues the "upgrade" is not as expansive as it might seem at first, seeing as they already have built-in flavor/power limitations (Sneak Attack requirements); the argument for keeping the funky proficiencies also became weaker when the closest class to it (Investigator) has access to the full martial list but is still limited to certain weapons to use their main damage-enhancing feature (as this hypothetical "buffed" Rogue would function).

The tagging solution suggested above seems like an adequate middle ground since there's some flavor value for Rogues to have less formal training than other martial classes and instead excel in straightforward weaponry fitter for those that rely on dirtier tactics to "get the job done" (like Monastic Weaponry involves a certain group of weapons thematically aligned with the class), but this solution involves a much wider reprinting effort of all weapons wherever they appeared to include these tags (while the martial upgrade would be a single change in the CRB), and still wouldn't solve issues such as thematically appropriate weapons (bombs or sword-canes) wether existent or yet-to-be-printed possibly not being included under the tag (since this classification is so subjective), but I digress.

The Bard is also tricky; with their reputation for versatility downgrading them to simple weapons wouldn't be a good option, and a full upgrade to martial would make the already middle-of-the-road Warrior Muse redundant while also pushing ahead of the other casters; for them specially the tagging solution seems like the most sensible choice.

tl;dr: I believe upgrading Wizard to Simple and Rogue to Martial would be fine and increase consistency while barely changing much in the balance end; but the Bard is a weirdo is making me consider another solution.

Language - Out of all the deterministic baggage of ancestries - always seemed like the easiest to fix, very few in their right mind would argue that elves are born with an inherent knowledge of Elven and would still know it even if they were abandoned as an infant in a gnomish village. "Tendency towards XYZ behavior" and inherent mental boosts/penalties were always the trickier side of the equation; considering A. The social and moral implication of these mental conditions and B. There's a very narrow mechanical benefit to knowing X language instead of Y and it may never come into effect in a game either way.

But then again, I've never been in a table with a hardline legal positivist fervorous enough to argue in favor of what's written in the book above any and all logic or author's intentions.

5e would need rebuilding from the ground up to end with a cohesive system, and I'm not sure WOTC is willing to flip their golden goose upside down even if it resulted in a better game for casual and experienced fans alike; through my experience with the system (two campaigns and a few oneshots as a player, one larger campaign as a DM) it's just gotten more clear to me that what someone calls "playing 5e" is just adopting the familiar framework and name of D&D to entice players and then adding dozens of houserules to solve any shortcomings the GM considers egregious, all while tiptoeing around broken supplemental material that feels completely disconnected from the core line; I've never seen pure RAW 5e being played, and the moment one of my former GMs chose to do so significantly decreased the group's enthusiasm, although the campaign was ending a short while after regardless.

All I've got to say is that in my time GMing 2e (certainly less time than I've done it for 5e, with the pandemic and all) I've never felt the need to modify written material beyond very simple on-the-fly changes like allowing a creature to die with 2 hp left if it fits the narrative and pacing better. Simply following the encounter guidelines saved me hours of planing because I knew I could trust them, items have level and price recomendations, risky material is tagged as rare and needs GM approval, proficiencies and tasks scale naturally, etc.

In my time playing 2e I learned very early on to trust the system, while running 5e felt like having to weave my personal touch at every corner, but at that point I wasn't really playing 5e. Playing 5e was never a problem, as long as I could figure something out, it was fair game to try it, but being a DM for 5e quickly opens one's eyes to what's behind the veil

Every single DM tool in 5e is dysfuntional:

Encounter balance? CR does not work, it's that simple; while 2e gates abilities like invisibily and flight under level restrictions and tries to make them comparable to players, 5e just throws stuff at the wall and sees what sticks. A werewolf duel in 5e is bound to end in an eternal draw because neither can be harmed by non-magical means, and it just gets sloppier the further you dive into it. If the usulessness of the numbers wasn't enough most monsters are just meatbags with sharp teeth and at most a single ability, boring to the core. Boss encounters adding lair actions and legendary actions simply feel like cheating the economy because the system was unable to translate the "boss" feel to its natural flow of combat.

Loot tables? May as well handpick it instead, seeing as gamebreaking items lurk even in low-level tables and regardless of rolls your players will be Bezos rich by the time they clear their third dungeon, although they can't spend any of that money in magic items, because supposedly they're beyond rare and magic shops are next to nonexistent (a tidbit ignored by 95% of groups).

Exploration Pillar? I'll leave this session empty, reflecting the effort WOTC put on this one

Magic weaponry? Technically an "option", but it feels like half of the creatures above CR 5 are immune to mundane harm. Ignoring them will only skyrocket your spellcasters above and beyong martial players, but then again this would just accelarate what would happen regardless.

Class balance? No 5e class is made equal, there are Bards, Wizards and Paladins living in the Elysian fields, then there's an abyss where the rangers and monks dwell. The "hit people with a stick real good" purgatory has most fighters and barbarians in there, and some are satisfied with having no class features, options or cool abilities because this way their friend that's on the phone for half the session can still enjoy themselves. The highs just get higher and the lows just get lower with each subclass released, either forcing DMs to limit players using the broken new shiny class or having to bump up the undesirable ones because the job of balancing wasn't done properly.

Action Economy? "Can I use my bonus action to do X" is the 1º most asked question from new 5e players for a reason, the entire thing is inconsistent, and weaponizing one's bonus action is the easiest way to break the existent power curve. A worthy revision would need to define the worth of a BA in a clear manner and offer a way for every class to fill theirs with something useful if its meant to be a part of the regular Action Econ.

Does that mean 5e is a bad game? No, a bad game can't earn the praise that this edition received, but it is poorly planned, inconsistent and incompatible with anyone that likes predictability or organization in their home games; as a natural improviser running 5e never felt hard, but it was taxing, there is no such thing as a confident 5e DM simply because of how easily things in that system can get volatile. And considering the content Wizards has been putting out I'm not sure I'll return to run that system with any priority in the near future, but I'm certaintly open to being impressed.

Striking runes are a vestigial mark of feedback from those back in the playtest who preferred upgrades to come from items over innate scaling (Automatic Bonus Progression), they're not "overpowered" because the math the game is built around assumes you'll have them at the appropriate levels, but yes compared to other items of similar level they are blatantly overturned.

As I personally run my home game utilizing the ABP optional rule from the GMG (and adjust loot accordingly), they don't stand out to me because I just have them apply automatically (as the game assumes). On a regular game of PF2 however getting striking runes is far and away the No.1 priority of a martial character around level 5, and a inevitable goldsink if you don't want to fall way behind the growing HP of monsters.

Fighting game tier lists are very dependent on realities such as matchup spreads (the reason grapplers/true zoners tend to be stuck in the mid tiers unless they're visibly overturned is because players get frustrated in polarized matchups) and ease of execution (some powerful characters don't get as much play because it's too hard for an actual human to use all of their tools), as an example Ryu in SFV was just as popular when he was at the lower tiers of play as he is now after substantial buffs, people play Ryu for the familiarity and mostly balanced matchups, not simply for power levels.

In the context of a TTRPG "Party Role" is a much more important aspect, because this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one. Unless you're running a meatgrinder with competitive players and a savvy GM, you're usually having the experience tailored to your group's level of expertise. So let's say you make a list with a list of Competences, such as "(Single Target) Striker, Bombardier/Area Damage Dealer, Healer, Skill Monkey, Buffer/Debuffer, Defender, etc." and then classify the existing classes as "Premier, Strong, Unorthodox or Unsupported", then you can have a useful degree of reference for newer players that are simply looking to close a gap in their party composition "oh, we need a face? Let me see what that looks like", and then this hypothetical list could offer options such as Bards and Scoundrel Rogues as "Premier" for their plethora of useful skill synergies, Sorcerers and Swashbucklers as classes with strong incentive to invest in CHA and some face feats would fit the "Strong" threshold, while classes with interesting tools but harsher stat restrictions such as the Investigator or a Cleric favoring their divine font over WIS fit well in the Unorthodox category, the last "Unsupported" category would encompass classes that have no supporting features for the niche at hand (A Wizard face, or a Barbarian Skillmonkey for example), and would need help from archetyping or other such means to fulfill their role.

Having encounters in adventures that underestimate the power of Lvl+1/+2 creatures may just be one of those early edition hurdles where the designers still aren't completely familiar with the system (AoA is a prime example), but as a general rule it feels very liberating to be able to whip out a miniboss/boss level encounter simply by choosing a creature of appropriate level instead of digging the monster books for pre-written bosses and then still needing to beef them up with legendary/lair actions or resistances (that are a band-aid fix to the gamebreaking power of save-or-suck abilities, that 2e heavily limits with the incapacitation trait); having viable solo bosses that feel strong by their overwhelming presence instead of literal cheaters (as legendary res./actions can sometimes feel) that play by a different set of rules is a huge boon.

Flourishes are meant to emulate these "strenuous, but not draining to the point they couldn't do it again next turn" abilities such as FoB/Maneuvers and Power Attack, mostly because it doesn't make much sense that someone that specializes in advanced maneuvers doesn't have the stamina to use them whenever when they can swing their sword an unlimited amount of times, it doesn't map as neatly to a game as magic resource expenditure does.

Another issue with the approach of "Martial Focus" is that as it stands Focus abilities are way too connected to magic, and that it wouldn't make sense if the resource for "Exertion Feats" - as it were - was the same as the one used to fuel magical abilities on other classes (not counting dedications, and classes that could conceptually get both such as Ranger and Champion). The other option outside of "low calorie magic" that I can see sharing the current Focus system would be a sudden surge of superhuman strength for a single special action, but that's more on the Barbarian's wheelhouse and is already implemented in the game as a cooldown ability such as Quaking Stomp instead of a focus resource, while the surges of divine inspiration/inner strength match the Champion's/Monk's focus spells.

It seems that the system is place is roughly as follows:

"minor Exertion" (Triangle Shot, Knockdown, Whirlwind Strike) = Flourish
"major Exertion" (Quaking Stomp, Mountain Quake) = Cooldown
"Magic, but not that kind" (Wind Jump, Hunter's Luck) = Focus spell

Only a few feats such as Fighter's "Overwhelming Blow" seem to not abide to these rules and instead debuff the user to simulate the exhaustion from using the move. Could more feats of the sort appear in the future? Maybe, but as it stands it seems that it won't be tied to a resource pool but either a cooldown or some other form of limitation.

PCs function in response to the world around them, they could have a guaranteed max damage crit per rest and it wouldn't matter if the GM never introduced a single combat encounter the entire campaign; any reasonable Game Master adjusts specifics of encounters to accommodate their group and let players shine (extra traps if the group has an expert at disarming, a religious puzzle involving the cleric's knowledge, etc.), even if they have to do so on the fly.

This entire topic seems to be fixed on "PCs don't have enough ways to nullify the importance of dice rolls on demand X times per Y timeframe", which is a bitter part of the deal on a system built on the high-variance d20, but isn't improv based on the unpredictable results the point of the whole thing? Resource expenditure for big effects isn't the be-all end-all, and actually incentivizes less risk-taking by rewarding shorter adventuring days. Also, from the viewpoint of a player, big moments that come from dicerolls are much more memorable than "That time I used my button" to overcome an obstacle, so the "big push, but not outright win" nature of hero points align with the level of efficiency I think they should have, with a single caveat that I would allow the PC to use the higher result instead of risking a downgrade to a crit fail after expending a resource.

On the topic of smart enemies things such as master strategist pixie guerilla squads and 16 INT skeletons with battle formations do nothing but frustrate players and bog the game down, if you want players to roleplay their flaws and act in a manner their character would in combat then you should abide by the same rules when controlling their enemies, every humanoid that doesn't have a deathwish/ heavy dose of fanaticism/ isn't being forced will attempt to flee before being reduced below 10% HP and unintelligent enemies will attack the closest target unless some sort of provocation or order is given. If you want to pit your players against specialized, smart enemies (bounty hunters, war parties, assassins, mercenaries), then by all means do so, but don't go around turning every single mook into a trained soldier with no explanation.

The world's most pigeonholed blaster-caster ever stills has access to their tradition's entire spell list through scrolls and wands, and is only limited to the boundaries of their imagination in how they can use them to impact the field, not counting all the out-of-combat utility they present, even if some will just fixate on rolling however many d6 instead; so it isn't fair to tag them as a sickly archer that gets gassed after a few big shots, because on a fundamental level they're applying this limitation themselves.

The problem with the blasting paradigm is that it feels terrible for the Caster to hold back their daily "Flaming Phoenix Arrow of Doom" the entire dungeon just to have it be resisted by the Big Bad (because statistically, it will, that's how Bosses work), but the other members of the party also aren't interested in fending off threats all day while Mr. Phoenix Arrow sits back throwing rocks just to gets his chance to shoot the big one at the dragon when (and if) the time comes, and possibly miss. So you eventually move back to the current situation where effects don't simply shut down an encounter on a success (which as a GM is greatly appreciated) but aren't completely nullified on a regular save either, as that's what frustrates many about spell-attacks at the moment (No potency runes and completely wasted on a miss) because let's be honest humans hate risks, specially if the payoff isn't inordinate.

As it stands runes already offer a decent degree of customization that doesn't turn the balance of weapons on its head, but the value of turning traits into a piecemeal "build-a-beatstick" system doesn't seem in line with most of the things we've seen thus far, and would probably incentivize a direction where players would simply look for the best raw numbers combined with the most valuable traits instead of a thematic weapon for each build; this style of power-driven choice already exists but at least it incentivizes the use of varied weapons for each function and trait for each different build (2H builds will look for big damage dice, Athletics builds for maneuver traits or ways to get a free hand+shield, etc.), and switching weapons as your preparation provides a different feel than simply slotting different runes on whichever premium weapon stands above the rest when the numbers hit the table.

On a shared imagination level an enchantment that makes a weapon return to your hand or deal increased damage of a certain type is also a bit easier to envision than making it expand out of thin air or somehow make a greatsword limber enough to be considered agile or finesse (it's not just about the weight, the dimension of the weapon itself makes it cumbersome even if it was light as a feather), but this is not saying this style of weapon customization isn't completely out of the realm of possibility, but if it does appear it'll probably be balanced around the possibilities of a class (so that a Fighter or Gunslinger couldn't simply add fatal runes to weapons not balanced around the trait or Flurry Rangers couldn't easily get Agile into high damage dice/STR/Forceful weapons) and will probably be the design space explored by the Weapon Inventor whenever GnG rolls around or a possible Weapon Tinker/Blacksmith Archetype in the future.

What's an "Infiltrator"?

By the stats provided, a Mastermind Racket Rogue, but since this is an NPC it's possible they might not line up perfectly with a Rogue Kobold PC of the same level.

It's hard to pass a judgement when we haven't had a glimpse (outside of Synthesist Summoner, really) of what would classify as a Class Archetype; a Tower Shield specialist Fighter with Legendary Armor/Master Weapons? An urban Ranger/Barbarian that trades all of the naturey stuff for other thematic options? A Shifter Druid that sacrifices some casting to go full Wildshape? Qingong Monk with Legendary DC ki spells, specialized focus features and Master Unarmored def./Two Paths to Perfection? A Champion with no alignment restriction? It's hard to tell, and honestly simply shuffling proficiencies around sounds like the least interesting option, and something I hope they'll steer clear of. Some feat lines also show the groundwork for these alterations, such as "Analyze Weakness" having 2d6 Sneak Attack dice as a prereq, suggesting the possibility of a Rogue with slower S.A. progression or no Sneak Attack at all, but that could also simply be gating the feat for characters taking the Rogue dedication.

The implementation itself also sounds clunky as described on the CRB; some archetypes modify classes so drastically they can be taken at 1st level (in a way choosing a "variant class", almost) but you still need to lock your second level class feat to that archetype? If they're fundamental changes in line with the system's balance, then why tax it behind the archetype system anyway? Wouldn't that make them more inflexible than the core class since you'd need to invest in two more of the CA's feats before diving into a dedication? By which logic should a Tower Shield user be locked out of the Bastion dedication until level 8, when the regular fighter would already be 3 feats deep and ready to move into another and return for Shield Salvation at 12?

The problem with CA's as it stands is that the Archetype system we have is already functional and outside of some very specific scenarios, finely balanced to the point of Free Archetype being a widely accepted variant, and not a powergaming horror show; when such versatility is available and in line with the other options, it gets fuzzy to find where a CA would be ideal instead of a regular archetype that would offer choices to more classes and thus be useful to a wider audience/more character concepts.

The Fighter and Rogue are very near and dear to my heart, and I love their implementation in 2e; something about being the absolute best at a field (or multiple fields, for the Rogue) speaks to me.

For Fighters, Combat Versatility has to be the standout feature, while you're amazing at one weapon group, you can quickly adapt to situations with a bit of prep time because every other weapon in the game is still deadly in your hands; a skilled warrior that isn't pigeonholed into their choice of specialization and can utilize tactics, preparation and battlefield control (because maneuvers and teamwork are just that good) to gain an edge is exactly the strategic approach that the fighter class should embody.

The Rogue is just a doozy, so many skill increases and feats make them an undisputed specialist and the answer to any "I know a guy/gal" questions your party might have; changing sneak attack to a slower progression that can be proc'd multiple times is also an interesting change that incentivizes creative thinking and setup from the team to get the Rogue the upper hand for devastating turns and possibly crits.

The honorable mention from the APG is the good'ol Swasbuckler, that I initially thought would be redundant but ended up a very flavorful class with significant differentiation from the core options, hopefully the same sort of care and creativity spills to the release Gunslinger, that IMO didn't do nearly as much to find its niche and differentiate itself from "Fighter with a firearm" in the playtest incarnation; for another positive example, the Investigator is similarly a "familiar face" with significant differentiation from the Rogue that makes both classes feel distinct and deserving of being separate, and I'm hoping for an "adding Devise a Stratagem" level breakthrough in design for the 'Slinger from playtest to release.

The Alchemist has to put in the biggest amount of effort for the payback of being "on par", which makes the class extremely beginner unfriendly and also drives away experienced players that aren't keen on putting all that work to barely keep up.

In terms of complexity it does feel a lot more like an APG class than a CRB one, requiring a high degree of system mastery and finesse to compete, all the while juggling through a list of items and formulas for contingency, requiring some real bookkeeping; 2e has shown that it values flexibility and discourages overspecialization (by making bonus-stacking much harder and baking direct power mostly in class features), but the Alch goes too far in the opposite direction, to the point that the sheer breadth of their options assumes a pilot that is constantly aware of all their possible outcomes and acts on them deliberately; but that makes the Bomber (built for consistency more than "explosiveness", ironically), Mutagenist (A dip into the Jekyll/Hyde territory that doesn't go all the way) and Chirurgeon (An elixir of life dispenser with an initial feature that essentially reads "+2/3 to Medicine checks" since you still need to rank both it and Crafting to be of any use) feel quite underwhelming in their chosen fields, even if the core class itself allows for every single Alchemist to provide bombs, elixirs, mutagens, lamp oil etc. for their allies regardless of specialization. The poisoner at least feels like a solid foundation that could be raised with the introduction of newer interesting options for toxins or a higher weapon proficiency to have them apply more consistently.

There is the argument that the Alchemist is a class that gets stronger as new options for alchemical items are printed, but that doesn't bode too well for it when other options with alchemical backgrounds (Alchemical S. Investigator, classes with Alch dedication) would still benefit from those options AND have strong features to complement them.

Having strength be a viable secondary stat is fine, the Swashbuckler (a DEX key stat class) has an entire style dedicated to Athletics (a STR skill), but still values DEX highly (For AC and to-hit with finesse weapons); A class path that incentivized STR wouldn't be that out of the ordinary, but having it as a primary score sounds like too much when the class as a whole is defined by Crafting (an INT skill), no matter if you're building tiny gizmos or large siege engines.

Besides, on the class with the most flexible key stat allocation (Rogue) it's very rare for a mental key stat to be valued over Str (Ruffian Racket) or Dex (for Thief and pretty much any other non-ruffian rogue not pursuing a spellcasting dedication) as we're dealing with a primarily martial character here.

All those skills are still "gated" by Craftsmanship/Int and not other factors; you won't become a better smith because you can hit the hot iron harder.

If Intelligence isn't the most desirable stat for the Inventor at the moment then it needs more class features that promote it, not sidelining it to a secondary/tertiary priority.

When the identity of Fighters in 2e is "the best at using weapons" and a class comes along with "the best at a specific weapon type" as their schtick the line that separates them ought to get very muddled; honestly for the Gunslinger to feel unique they should lean fully into supporting reload weapons (Dual-Weapon Reload as a baseline, different Running Reload style feats to alleviate action economy, options to reload without incurring AoOs, potent options in their first range increment such as flanking from a distance, maybe additional precision damage to pick up the slack from needing to reload if the proficiency is bumped down to Master) and trick shots alongside more class features (Grit&Tenacity and True Grit would make for fantastic class-fantasy aligned defensive boosts).

And that's not getting into the guns themselves that at the moment are extremely pigeonholed into the crit-fishing territory that can swing from being devastating encounter destroyers to feeling like you're shooting pebbles if the crits decide they aren't showing up that day; they're also extremely unattractive to 90% of the other classes instead of interesting but niche picks balanced with the other options. Within the playtest rules the Gunslinger isn't just the best at using firearms, it's one of the few that can do so without dumping their DPR and action economy for the sake of flavor.

As the class stands right now it doesn't do enough to support reload-based weapons and the heavy action and DPR penalty associated with them, leading to options such as adopting Archer/Mauler/M.A. archetypes to transfer one of their biggest strengths (cream of the crop proficiency) to less-finicky weapon types such as bows, and that just feels like a very roundabout way of playing a Fighter with a cowboy hat and a straw grass in their mouth.

Now if you're talking about giving the Alchemist the regular martial progression for simple weapons/alchemical items/bombs, homogenizing caster progression to be a bit less strict or solving the Wizard weapon proficiency charlie foxtrot now that's a whole 'nother can of worms that could see tweaks here and there if the changes coming in the 2nd printing CRB errata are seen as insufficient.

The option of being legendary in a single group is deceptively strong given that legendary proficiency with a single weapon group is functionally very close to having it with them all once you're probably using only your strongest magical weapons because of the way runes work, or at most you're using a larger damage dice weapon + agile weapon of the same group for dual wielding; also archetypes such as Mauler will scale other weapons to match your highest proficiency.

With that said, it's not going to happen, Martial classes and their features are balanced around having Master prof., and upgrading it would imply stripping class features (as the language for the playtest 'slinger indicates) if the power curve is to be maintained.

Besides, how is upgrading everyone to Legendary an "oddity" when the only case of a class going to Legendary in weapons up to this point was the Fighter? They're an exception, not the rule, the same way only Monks can reach legendary in any save and Champions get legendary heavy armor; just because everyone wants a piece of that pie doesn't make it an "oddity" that others don't have it.

Weapon design

So, weapons first. While I somewhat enjoy how guns currently feel, I doubt this will last much longer. I certainly felt pretty useless in the last encounters (i.e. those that actually mattered), at least as far as my gun was concerned. The basic design makes them unique, but also really swingy on damage and functionally useless to anyone without fighter proficiency progression, as you pointed out.

Originally, my survey feedback was that we could have the distinction between guns and crossbow be the following: guns get moderate die sizes plus high fatal, while crossbows get high die sizes plus high deadly. I no longer think that is a viable solution, guns simply feel too disappointing on regular hits. Doing the same damage as a bow, but paying two or three actions for each attack just feels bad. That is even without accounting for hunted shot or other class feats, which create even further imbalance favouring the bow.

Reload weapons need to hit significantly harder on every hit and crit. That is just not the case for hits. And as long as that is the state of affairs, reload weapons will always play second fiddle. They feel like simple weapons, not martial weapons. Reload alone is such a significant drawback in both theory and actual-play experience, but it is currently not even remotely compensated for.

To that end I propose the idea to o away form the crit-focus of guns.

Legendary Proficiency

As guns currently operate, this is indeed mandatory.

The "Fighters outshine Monks with unarmed attacks, Rangers with bows and Champions with their deific weapon" (and completely ignoring every class feature in the aforementioned martial classes) talk is a constant in any class discussion, and at this point no amount of demonstration, graphs or math will change people's minds about it; Initially I was interested in the idea of having another legendary weapon proficiency class, but as OP put it, the class presented to us does feel like a Fighter with a few bells and whistles (and at that point you may as well play a Fighter and specialize in firearms, just as an unarmed Fighter offers a viable alternative with a more brawlery feel without invalidating the Monk).

I've also come to the conclusion (and have answered as such in the survey) that the playstest Gunslinger is stale and one-note, far too dependent on criticals and riding that proficiency train, and would rather have more interesting class features (different interactions with reload, trick shots, support for dual-weapon reloading) and capping at Master like the other martials (with a revision to firearms to make them more interesting choices across the board) if it's meant to feel like a class and not a glorified class archetype.

The argument for parity with on-level monsters is lost on me, player characters and monsters are fundamentally different, PCs are meant to be played, monsters (mechanically) are nothing but roadblocks in a fancy suit, they exist for the challenge they impose (they can be elevated to greatness through roleplay, but by statistics alone monsters are meant to be simpler, scarier foes).

PF2e is built from the ground up with teamwork in mind, not single player monster combat. The system assumes that PCs are heroes that work in parties, so much so that running adventures for a single player often presumes downgrading the difficulty by upwards of two levels and being generous with consumables, and that's not only because of action disparity, but also because players are supposed to win the overwhelming majority of the time; no player is having fun by constantly facing 50/50 (more-than-extreme) odds unless that's specifically what they signed up for.

While it's true that a level 6 Rogue can't compete with a Babau in combat prowess alone, why would they have to? Monsters are shmucks that live for 4 to 5 rounds if they're lucky, they need to be tough and scary, but just enough to pack a punch and maybe use an unique ability or two that's hopefully memorable, they'll regularly get action economy cheats simply to have a chance at doing something before being blasted off the face of Golarion; the Rogue is cunning, agile and resourceful, they can stack the deck by planning ahead, researching the enemy, buying a cold iron weapon and most importantly relying on their allies to set the stage by rendering the enemy flat-footed and exposed.

This whole discussion about a monster-pc head-on clash is a complete mismatch with the game's expectations (and personally among my players the sentiment of being outmatched by monsters never came up, it's simply another indicator that they're going against a tough customer/punching above their weight class, you don't become a hero by beating people the same standing or lower than you).

The problem is when the high level enemies look like the lower level enemies just scaled up and everything feels the same.

PF1 and the older D&D played very different from the low levels to the high levels. Some classes play very much the same as you go up level. If all you do is as a fighter is hit hit hit, or if as a cleric all you do is buff then heal, then any game can get a bit stale. Build a character mix things up. Use the options. Follow the hints the GM drops.

I find 2e better than most at making creatures feel unique even at low levels, if the monsters are using their unique quirks it doesn't matter that they're scaled up to match the player's strength (which is a question of taste, some people like challenges, others like the power fantasy, neither is wrong) because the flashier gimmicks get the point across that these are fearsome foes of a grander scale.

If your players are feeling weak or wish they could stomp an encounter every once in a while the solution to build an encounter a level or two lower than the recommended for the party is simple and works surprisingly well withing the boundaries of the system, they'll feel powerful and hit/crit more often but won't be bulldozing everything in their wake.

As for the second point there isn't really something the system can do for the player if they're not looking to diversify their approaches, as long as they have the options to do it, the system has done its job. In 2e a high level spellcaster will have exponentially more options to tackle any single obstacle (even if the on-level enemies are just as likely to resist the save) while the martials have had plenty of chances to take interesting maneuvers and skill feats to break out of the full-attack routine; also magic items are a thing.

The swinginess of the weapon type as a whole can't be understated, after replaying a mock-up scenario several times the difference between one where a crit ocurred and one where it didn't is night-and-day, and that difference becomes even more of a nuisance if you try using a gun with a different class (because of lower prof.). Ideally they'll find a way to flatten the damage curve a bit towards the middle while still pushing the notion of GS's being the best at using them (higher base die + deadly instead of fatal?), because at the moment it makes a world of difference if those opening crits come out or not (that becomes even worse at mid levels when the powerful crit spec becomes a thing).

With that said I'm not sure if bleed on hit is the solution, that seems more in line with a serrated weapon of some sort (think the Bloodborne Saw Cleaver/Spear).

Putting your brains into strikes isn't what's missing (or should be expected) from an inventor, and certaintly shouldn't come baseline in a system that has been very conservative with using different stats for to-hit/damage (requiring extra actions, sacrificing damage or both). It also doesn't make nearly as much narrative sense as Investigator's Devise a Stratagem - which derives from their expertise in analyzing foes and finding their weakness through logic -, Inventors are masters at tinkering with machinery/equipment, not scrutinizing enemies for precise/harmful attacks.

Honestly the image of an Inventor in my head doesn't line up as being equally matched with a ranger in regular weapon combat (outside of Weapon Innovation); so sacrificing a bit of that prowess (which they already do with 8 HP and worse perception) should be rewarded with extra skill usage and out-of-combat utility, since the deadliest inventor is the one that has time to prepare, they should be extremely comfortable with downtime (which is supported with the fast feat retraining and Complete Reconfiguration, but those are more about flexibility than boosts to their crafting identity). Leaning into crafting just a bit more with minor single-use gadgets that could be mass produced/distributed to allies would add a nice dynamic where the inventor contributes all over the battlefield through their creations, even if they're not physically there to offer support because they're on the other side of the mat whacking an isolated enemy with their robo-tiger trying to gain access to the enemy's energy core.

Whichever solution Paizo comes up with should reflect the Inventor actually fighting smarter and not just being bruteforced into viability with something as uninspired as unconditional Int to hit/damage.

The Raven Black wrote:

Yes. I too was disappointed that characters such as Zorro (uses sword and also pistol) and RL Musketeers (guess where they get the name from) can not be built with the Swashbuckler class.

Guns weren't even in the APG so how would that even have worked to begin with? You couldn't "build" those with any class.

People seem to be completely writing off the possibility of options before the book is even finalized, let alone released.

While understandably this might seem like "jumping the gun" (pardon the pun), it's still a fact that the Swashbuckler as presented in the APG is anchored as a frontline melee combatant to the point of negating one of the quintessential swashbuckling archetypes of the "duelist that's equally skilled in blade and gun" (that lines up with the playtest Drifter, but that Way follows a Gun>Blade paradigm and is meant to evoke different themes), with class features like Precise Strike and Opportune Riposte being unusable with (non-throwable) ranged weapons, even if you're standing right next to the foe; thus for a system that is so elegant and futureproofed otherwise, it stands out as a glaring oversight.

I'm looking forward to the options introduced in Guns and Gears and understand that options will only increase with time as 2e is still a system in it's youth, but I'm also of the belief that bringing these issues to light prior to the book's release could spark some healthy discussion. As a sidenote, I can't wait to see what class archetypes have in store for the subsequent releases, the myriad of options that could derive from switching around proficiencies and clashing class features is one of the only standing "hard blocks" to a few concepts that could really be taken to the next level with that level of customization (which sounds insane considering just how extremely customizable 2e as a baseline, but that just increases the excitement further).

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Just to add in here, musket balls traveled slowly enough that when they hit bone, they bounced, rather than went through, so it you got shot in the gut, the ball would bounce around in your ribcage until it ran out of energy (imo, the fatal trait is an AMAZING way to replicate this)

It's certainly true that bows did have some advantages over muskets and the like (they were quieter, weren't as finicky about rain and muck, and could be loaded and shot faster), but a nastier wound channel was not one of them

I think fatal is doing the opposite. Deadly and fatal as traits represent getting more from a weapon by being more accurate. There's lots of ways to get hit by arrows and on average survive well enough. Musket balls and similar nearly always did lethal damage when hit, even in extremedies.

Bows required more skill to use well, while anyone can be deadly with a gun.

I chose to rationalize the current firearm rules (with the base weapon having a low die size and compensating with powerful criticals) as a result of the inaccuracy of early firearms, so "regular hits" (that go as low as 1d4 for Flintlocks) are simply glancing blows that still hurt because of their unparalleled stopping power and the fatal criticals are the actual direct hits, this also aligns in my mind with the only ones being able to take full advantage of these imprecise engines of destruction being those whose uncanny mastery and aim with the thing is legendary in itself (Gunslingers and Gun-toting fighters).

If memory serves a cutlass should be close to a shorter Falchion, and that weapon is described in the CRB as a "heavier, two-handed version of the curved-bladed scimitar", so a Scimitar would be quite close to the mark. Given their use and dimension you're also correct that a machete would also be a reasonable substitute.

The character you're trying to build with the Swashbuckler chassis is actually a Pistolero Gunslinger.

Huh, I completely missed that despite reading the playtest just earlier that day, well that's just the beauty of 2e isn't it, you can bring the same concept to life in so many different ways!

But even though I can see the argument (and the Pistolero does "borrow" some Swashbuckler flair with the ranged retort and charisma skills) I'm still not 100% sold. Mechanically speaking I'm sure it's the best option (can't compete with Fighter's legendary prof. + Ranger's crossbow feats in a single neat package) and the Marshal archetype would take care of the battlefield control facet, but the fluff just feels completely out of place, and that's even disregarding the whole "Gunslinger without a gun" issue.

My point is that every martial class has a way to fight adequately at range, specially if we're talking dex builds for switch hitting even without heavy feat investment: Fighters have unparallaled (until recently) proficiency for more frequent Deadly crits and extensive feat options, Paladin Champions can use their AoO reaction with a ranged weapon as early as level 1 with Ranged Reprisal, Monks have the Monastic Archer feat line, Rogues and Investigators can apply their precision damage at a distance at no additional cost (besides flat-footed being harder to set up), Rangers go without saying and even the Barbarian gets meatier support for a thrown weapon build (even if it's not quite in line with the other options yet).

Outside Flying Knives (which is limited to the first range increment), the ol' swash is just clueless at a range superior to 5ft./1.5m. But should a class be limited to this extent? The same way I'm not a fan of how the Gunslinger ends up being "play this if you want to use a firearm/xbow: the class" (and even then they have the means to get a secondary melee weapon to Master and combine it with the class' ranged focus) it also rubs me the wrong way the fact that the Swashbuckler class reads "Want to use a ranged weapon? Look elsewhere, you can't be daring and dashing by shooting someone from 30ft away, you coward". Surprisingly enough this doesn't seem to bother other players nearly as much as I was unable to find any online discussion showing discontent with this limitation of the class, but maybe the fantasy of a charismatic/flashy combatant and a sharpshooter just don't mix in most people's fantasies outside of westerns, who knows.

With that said, I appreciate the input and will try the build out with the playtest parameters to see how it plays out, if anything adjusting the fluff so it falls closer to the initial vision.

Yep. Swashbucklers this time around are more like Zorro, Wesley, Inigo Montoya, etc. Gunslinger with the Swashbuckler archetype might get you there though.

That's understandable, but truth be told if archetypical swashbucklers like Inigo Montoya, El Zorro, Jack Sparrow and D'Artagnan are outside the scope of a Swashbuckler class there might be a disconnect between what the class currently does and what it should be able to accomodate, as over the years the vision of a swashbuckler has expanded a bit outside the sword-and-cape axiom.

Earlier this week I attempted to recreate a character concept from a different system into 2e, and it was going relatively well until I met a wall, the complete inability to focus on a ranged weapon as a Swashbuckler, I'm asking to be sure I'm not missing anything or if (outside of thrown knives) there is truly no way to make ranged weaponry work with the class as written.

The character in question is a Crossbowman (and yes, I am aware of the limitations of the weapon, but this isn't meant to be an optimized build) and originally a 5e Bard, a broke human son of a disgraced low-noble house that learned archery and debauchery alike before dropping from a respected military academy; in combat, his focus was in archery and buffing teammates/battlefield support, whoever I've never been a fan of the necessity of magic to realize that concept in 5e, so during the transition to Pathfinder I also decided to move away from the Bard chassis (which is usable with the Archer archetype, but once again, magic) into a class that could fit the Dex/Cha paradigm closer to what I had envisioned, and the Swashbuckler seemed like a perfect fit.

For the first few choices everything fell into place marvelously, the Wit style captured the charismatic combatant idea to a T, and by taking One for All at first level both the ability to aid allies (and generate panache doing it!) and be a competent sharpshooter were taken care of, except for the fact that Precise Strike specifies a melee weapon attack for the precision damage to be applicable, and the same limitation applies to finishers, the core damage enhancers of the class.

My question is, with many swashbuckling heroes such as Musketeers and Pirates being not only flashy and charming but also equally skilled with sword and firearm alike, why is there no option to accommodate ranged weapon use with the Swashbuckler? This is not coming from a build help perspective, as I believe the core concept can still be reasonably translated into PF2e with a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Bard with the relevant archetypes (Marshal for the first three and Archer on the Bard), but I believe there is a niche that could be filled by allowing the use of select ranged weaponry on the SB; maybe the use of high-damage finishers alongside the safety of ranged combat is the no-no in this situation? If this is the case I hope new finishers designed around the use of ranged weapons/firearms in GaG could solve this issue, even if a Class Archetype is necessary to solve the inability to use their only finisher at first level, as well as class features dependant on melee combat such as Opportune Riposte.