Thaliak's page

A Reddit user named Valdicue listed ancestry changes in Player Core 2. The kobold section mentions a new heritage and some new feats, as well as renamed options. I don't know if the list is comprehensive, but it should be helpful.

While it doesn't address the strength concerns that some players have with prepared casters in general or Wizards in particular, I've enjoyed both Wizards I've played in part because they allowed me to explore the spell lists. As a spontaneous caster, I would have felt obligated to pick spells that looked strong. With prepared casting, I could try spells that seemed weak or situational, then drop them the next day if my theory proved correct.

Sometimes spells I thought would be strong, such as Mud Pit, Confusion and the Level 8 version of Phantom Prison, proved unimpressive or inappropriate for the party. In other cases, spells I thought would be unremarkable, such as Phantasmal Calamity, ended up being fun and powerful. Phantasmal Calamity may do less damage and have less flexibility than Chain Lightning, but it targets a different save and has a brutal critical failure effect. I thought the critical failure effect would never come up, but since the spell only makes sense against swarms of low-level enemies, it occurred frequently enough to be satisfying.

Wizards do have to spend gold learning spells to experiment, but I don't think that's a huge concern beyond low levels because of how quickly wealth scales. The 70 gold required to learn a fifth-rank spell may be significant at Level 9, but by level 11 or 13, it's nothing. And Wizards who want to focus on experimenting can take Magical Shorthand to reduce the cost.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Wizards or other prepared casters are stronger than spontaneous casters. However, I enjoyed playing them even in campaigns that rarely involved scouting because they let me try spells I'd otherwise ignore. At tables where optimization is unnecessary, that's a welcome benefit. Turning into a phoenix to burn a troll or heightening Hallucination to send little Cupids after embodiments of hatred may not have been optimal moves, but they still make me chuckle.

I imagine the idea behind Martial Performance is to add an extra benefit to the turns where the bard uses Courageous Assault or Courage Advance. It's for the turns where letting the Magus move into position to Spellstrike or enabling the Barbarian, Rogue or Fighter to attack an already-weakened enemy is more useful than casting a spell. On those turns, the Bard only has one action left, and it might make sense to use that action on a strike.

Wizards have at least two feats that can affect saves: Irresistible Magic, which reduces the status bonus to saving throws that some enemies have, and Knowledge is Power, which can impose a -1 Circumstance penalty to the next saving throw an enemy makes if you critically succeed on a knowledge check about that creature. I haven't had the chance to try the latter, but the former comes up occasionally.

Having said that, I'll reiterate the advice Dubious Scholar has given to focus on spells that have a meaningful effect even on a successful save (e.g., Laughing Fit, Revealing Light, Roaring Applause, Slow and Synesthesia) or that target multiple enemies (e.g., the Level 5 version of Command and the Level 6 versions of Roaring Applause and Slow). Critical failures and failures will come up, and sometimes they can decide a fight on their own, but enemies succeed on saves frequently enough that it's best not to gamble on failures unless you know the enemies are a lower level than you.

A bomb-focused Thaumaturge could multiclass into Gunslinger for Munitions Crafter, Munitions Machinist and Quick Draw. They'd spend an extra feet and get the two-dice bombs at Level 12 instead of Level 6 (ouch!), but they wouldn't need to invest in Intelligence and could throw boomerangs on turns where enemies aren't in range.

Only push and pull effects can trigger an AoO, other forced movement does not. While water does have three impulses that include push a possible outcome, the water junction 5' move is not one of them.

I thought no forced movement could trigger reactions. From Archives of Nethys' Forced Movement page:

When an effect forces you to move, or if you start falling, the distance you move is defined by the effect that moved you, not by your Speed. Because you’re not acting to move, this doesn’t trigger reactions that are triggered by movement.

Nethys hasn't updated to the Remaster yet, but I doubt this rule changed. The text goes on to say, "If you’re pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can’t put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise." I suspect that's the distinction between push and pull that prompted the idea pushes and pulls can trigger AoO.

I'm curious how much use other players have gotten out of moving enemies five feet. I can see the value in a party with melee characters who use reach weapons and have Reactive Strike, as a push can force melee enemies without reach to step toward their target. A push might also enable an allied spellcaster or archer to move without provoking a Reactive Strike.

If the Kineticist's melee allies don't use reach weapons, I imagine Water's push will be more situational and sometimes counterproductive. Fortunately, it's optional.

Thaliak wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Is there someone that takes skilled though?

Of the 12 characters I've played, eight have been humans with the Skilled heritage. The exceptions were a Druid who wanted the Gnome ancestry feats that allow talking to animals, an Elven Rogue in a campaign where elves played a central role in the story, a Duskwalker in a hack and slash campaign about fighting undead, and an Ancient Elf Monk who wanted to combine might and magic from Level 1 and didn't have access to the Magus.

In one case, the Skilled heritage allowed the character to take a feat he otherwise wouldn't qualify for. For the other characters, I took it because I like skill increases. If I don't need to use free archetype feats to realize a character's concept or patch weaknesses, I'll spend them on archetypes that boost skills. I doubt I'm the only one who enjoys versatile characters.

Incidentally, half of my characters have had Intelligence as a primary or secondary stat. "A sharp mind can overcome anything" is a big part of the fantasy I'm looking for when I play tabletop RPGs. I'd still consider Intelligence weaker than every other attribute and would love to see it buffed in a future edition.

But be wary of granting too many skill increases for Intelligence. Go too far, and it'll be too easy for characters to step on each other's toes, especially in large groups that use the free archetype variant.

As GM I've never really seen the toe-stepping thing come up all the often in any group I've run for. Usually what happens is the group all roll for their most relevant skill for any checks where the entire party can see it and I treat any non-high roll that's high enough to work as an aid check. For more specialized skills or checks where only one character is making a check (the rogue up ahead picking a lock for example) they'll often bring in the team if they find the task difficult. More skills just means everybody gets to roll dice for tasks and it keeps the table engaged.

I might be exaggerating the risk based on my experience with 3.5 and Pathfinder 1E, where my friends would occasionally chastise me for rolling dice at every opportunity instead of waiting for others to step forward. I haven't had as much trouble with that in 2E. I'd like to say that's because I'm older and wiser, but I suspect it's at least in part from playing on virtual tabletops, where everyone rolling a knowledge or identification check is less disruptive. It's quicker to click a button than to roll physical dice, and it's faster for the GM to scan a list of rolls than to ask each player what their result was.

As you point out, the Aid system also helps. If a party has two people who invest in Diplomacy, one can support the other.

Having said that, I still dislike the idea of skill increases becoming too common. If several people have invested in a skill that generally uses table time, such as Diplomacy or Deception, and a scene where it's relevant comes up, the spotlight usually goes to the quickest or most assertive player. As someone who is far more deliberate and who enjoys seeing shy players talk, I like some degree of niche protection. It's much easier for me to talk if the rest of the party says, "Thal, you've got the best Deception. Start fibbing."

Is there someone that takes skilled though?

Of the 12 characters I've played, eight have been humans with the Skilled heritage. The exceptions were a Druid who wanted the Gnome ancestry feats that allow talking to animals, an Elven Rogue in a campaign where elves played a central role in the story, a Duskwalker in a hack and slash campaign about fighting undead, and an Ancient Elf Monk who wanted to combine might and magic from Level 1 and didn't have access to the Magus.

In one case, the Skilled heritage allowed the character to take a feat he otherwise wouldn't qualify for. For the other characters, I took it because I like skill increases. If I don't need to use free archetype feats to realize a character's concept or patch weaknesses, I'll spend them on archetypes that boost skills. I doubt I'm the only one who enjoys versatile characters.

Incidentally, half of my characters have had Intelligence as a primary or secondary stat. "A sharp mind can overcome anything" is a big part of the fantasy I'm looking for when I play tabletop RPGs. I'd still consider Intelligence weaker than every other attribute and would love to see it buffed in a future edition.

But be wary of granting too many skill increases for Intelligence. Go too far, and it'll be too easy for characters to step on each other's toes, especially in large groups that use the free archetype variant.

I'd add Girzanje's March, a buff spell that provides bonuses to attack rolls, Fortitude saves and most Will saves. I had trouble justifying it before getting Effortless Concentration as a Bard, but once Effortless Concentration comes into play, it's like casting Inspire Courage and Inspire Defense at once without needing a Performance check to get a bonus beyond +1.

Reddit user AquelePedro is working on a list of changes. Right now, it includes ancestries, skills, skill feats, general feats and some classes. The roadmap suggests AqueloPedro eventually plans to do spells.

YouTuber BadLuckGamer has published several videos on YouTube about the changes the remaster makes to classes and spells. While he misses some details, the videos are thorough and concise, especially if you increase the playback speed.

So, just checking my reading, but now a ruffian rogue can sneak attack with bombs as long as the damage die is d6, correct? What if its 2d6? Seems like it should as the die size is still d6... My ruffian was looking at multi-classing to fighter or something to be able to throw dread ampules if needed.

To my understanding, any Rogue can sneak attack with bombs, regardless of die size. Sneak attack states:

When your enemy can’t properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition (page 445) with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

Throwing a bomb is a ranged weapon attack, so it qualifies for sneak attack regardless of how much damage the bomb deals. The limit on damage die sizes in the Ruffian racket is irrelevant, because it only applies to weapons that don't qualify for sneak attack using the criteria in the base feature.

Incidentally, shooting a Barricade Buster is also a ranged weapon attack. If you dream of rolling D10s, master the art of Unconventional Weaponry and recruit a friendly Monk, Barbarian or Fighter to grapple enemies, then strike them precisely from 20-40 feet away. This bad boy may only hold 8 rounds, but if an enemy isn't dead after eight shots, you've got bigger problems.

These posts have been extremely helpful. Thanks.

In the Player Core, the short description for Telekinetic Maneuver, which appears on pages 305 and 310, says it can "Disarm, Reposition, Shove, or Trip a creature telekinetically." The spell description on page 363 omits Reposition.

When I played a Wizard in Outlaws of Alkenstar, I ended up spending most of my feats on the Loremaster, Alchemist and Rogue archetypes so I could excel at knowledge checks or throw bombs as a third action. I no longer have access to the character sheet, but if I remember correctly, the only Wizard feats I took were Reach Spell, Widen Spell (which came from the Metamagic thesis and only saw use once or twice), Nonlethal Spell and Quicken Spell (which I enjoyed).

When I theorycraft Wizards, the other feats that stand out to me are Conceal Spell; Convincing Illusion, which encourages Wizards to invest in a non-save stat and requires them to be within 30 feet of the target; Spell Penetration, one of the few ways I'm aware of to increase the chance enemies fail saving throws without an action; Advanced School Spell, though only for illusionists and diviners; Clever Counterspell, which will rarely come up but should be amazing when it does; Shift Spell, because watching enemies move out of a zone only to find themselves back in it is hilarious; Effortless Concentration, which is available to many casters; Second Chance Spell, though only if I'm playing an enchanter; and two of the Level 20 feats: Metamagic Mastery and Spell Combination. All of these feats say "I truly understand magic" or "I cast this particular type of spell especially well."

At low levels, I also like Cantrip Expansion. With the right campaign and GM, a flying familiar might be fun. However, if my real world goal for the character is to explore familiars, I'll likely play a Witch.

In general, I find the low-level Wizard feats less exciting than the ones available to many classes. Are the low-level feats the main issue for others as well? If so, do you have any ideas for feats that would fill the gap?

Personally, I'd love to see Wizards gain a way to sustain spells that is similar to Cackle. I'd also love early ways to specialize in particular types of spells, but I'm having trouble thinking of ways to do that at Level 2 or 4. Perhaps ward-focused Wizards could get a low-level reaction that weakens enemy magic. Think something like:

Disruptive Gestures
You gain the Recognize Spell skill feat, and at Level 7, the Quick Recognition skill feat. When you use Recognize Spell, treat a success as a Critical Success. If you critically succeed, apply the bonus to all allies affected by the spell.

The system is balanced enough that I can build what I want without worrying about overshadowing someone or feeling useless. There's no need to hold back in a group of newbies or reject my favorite ideas because they won't keep up with experienced players' favorite builds. I can have fun whether I'm building the ultimate combat monster or the singer who spends two ancestry feats. five skill feats, and two class feats learning languages because I like the cover artists who translate songs from anime into English.

A session zero still matters. I've had games where I felt redundant because I brought an Athletics-focused Summoner to a table that also included an Improved Knockdown Fighter and a Wildshape Druid who took Assurance (Athletics) to trip as his third action. I've had my investment in Blessed One lose its charm when a Champion joined the party in the middle of a campaign. And I've stepped on a player's toes by playing a Bard in a group that included a Cleric who also wanted to buff.

But relative to 1E, I'm far less worried that I'll make the game less fun for someone else or feel frustrated because I misread the group. And when I do discover that I made a mistake, it's usually easy to fix with retraining or a conversation with the GM.

Thaliak wrote:

For me, building characters feels less satisfying. Because 2E is so tightly balanced, the characters rarely look powerful on paper. It's hard to see how strong a Fighter is if I focus on its attack bonus, which is just two points higher than a typical martial character's. And the Rogue? Before feats come into play, almost any character can match it in Stealth or Thievery as long as they're willing to invest in Dexterity and dedicate skill increases and items to those skills.

I still enjoy brainstorming characters, but only if I approach it in a different way. When new rules dropped in 1E, I'd ask myself, "How can I use these new toys to create a character who feels busted?" In 2E, it's more, "Does this character sound fun to play?"

Personally, I find that to be absolutely liberating.

I don't have to go looking for feats and character build options that create a broken powered character in order to keep up with the others at the table. I can instead build to a concept and know that the character that I create will be fun and playable.

It also means that I have more freedom of choice in class. If I want to build a stealthy character, I don't have to play a Rogue or Ranger. I can play a stealth Thamuaturge or lockpicking Witch.

Most days, I find it liberating as well. However, this thread is about changes that took a while to get used to. When I first started playing 2E, it frustrated me that no matter how many options I poured over or how much research I did, I couldn't find any options that felt above the curve. The few times I thought I had, I'd missed a rule prohibiting whatever combo had me excited.

I'm glad the game doesn't require optimization, because although I enjoy it, I like spending time with people who don't. The promise of balance was part of what got me interested in 2E. But even so, it took me a while to understand and accept some of the implications.

Have you played a Fighter ?

+2 to hit (and thus to crit) and AoO for free from the start make it a beast of a class.

I have! I only played a Fighter for a few levels, but I've seen five others in play. You're right that Fighters can be beasts, particularly once Disruptive Stance, Combat Reflexes and other high-level feats come into play.

But none of that mattered to me when I started playing. I'd build a Fighter, a Rogue and a Wizard, then compare their numbers and walk away disappointed. If I built a master of weapons, a seasoned diplomat, or a walking textbook in 1E, they'd be leagues ahead of other characters in their areas of expertise. That isn't the case in 2E.

For what it's worth, I play 2E more than I did 1E. My post wasn't meant as a criticism but more as an observation that for people who enjoyed character building in 1E, 2E might take some getting used to.

For me, building characters feels less satisfying. Because 2E is so tightly balanced, the characters rarely look powerful on paper. It's hard to see how strong a Fighter is if I focus on its attack bonus, which is just two points higher than a typical martial character's. And the Rogue? Before feats come into play, almost any character can match it in Stealth or Thievery as long as they're willing to invest in Dexterity and dedicate skill increases and items to those skills.

I still enjoy brainstorming characters, but only if I approach it in a different way. When new rules dropped in 1E, I'd ask myself, "How can I use these new toys to create a character who feels busted?" In 2E, it's more, "Does this character sound fun to play?" or "Can I use this class to represent a character from a show I like?"

The tight balance also means that even characters who invest as much as they can in something will occasionally fail. That helps keep the game fun over time, but it can be frustrating in the moment.

As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:

1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilities

Without one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.

Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.

I'd love it if players could tie Innate spells to Intelligence (for Arcane or Occult) or Wisdom (for Divine and Primal) rather than Charisma. It feels odd to me that an elf who takes Otherworldly Magic to represent time studying the basics of magic uses Charisma rather than Intelligence to cast.

Like the new Unique Patron ability for the Familiars.

What do you think some of those will be?

I don't know how likely this is, but I'd love the ability to use the familiar to position other players. I'm picturing an imp moving next to an enemy, then swapping places with an ally to set up Whirlwind Strike or ensure a Champion reaction can trigger.

If moving the familiar becomes an important part of the Witch's kit, I hope the Witch gets ways to boost the familiar's durability or evasiveness, such as a familiar power or feat that prevents familiars from triggering Attacks of Opportunity.

I'd like the Druid feat list to include Cantrip Expansion. I'd love to be able to play a monster hunter druid who has enough cantrips to trigger any weakness he identifies.

Part of me wishes Clerics had access to Effortless Concentration. I think I would have enjoyed the divine list far more if my 1-20 Cleric eventually got the power to sustain Spiritual Weapon, Girzanje's March or Forbidding Ward without giving up his third action. However, the fact that Clerics lack the feat does give me a reason to try the divine list with a Sorcerer or Summoner.

I enjoyed taking this survey. I was worried that it would be overwhelming, but dividing the changes into categories helped keep them digestable.

This issue isn't unique to that AP. I had a similar experience in another adventure path:

Apparently, high-level parties should look for ways to deal chaotic damage in case the self-proclaimed protectors of reality decide they don't like the shenanigans NPCs get up to. I assume it's wise to look for other damage types as well, but chaotic damage is the one I've seen stump reasonable parties (a Fighter, Magus, Gunslinger, Beast Summoner and Cleric in one case, and a Fighter, Magus, Druid, Bard and Ranger in the other).

So, if I'm understanding correctly, it would be best to:

1. Attempt a trip with the Bo Staff
2. Flurry of Blows with the Bo Staff
3. Parry/Step/Stride/Environment Interaction

If you intend to Trip without Assurance, it's better to do that before Flurry because critically failing a Trip attempt would cause you to Fall prone, but there's no consequence for critically failing an attack roll. However, it's often better not to Trip at all unless the party includes characters who can spend a reaction to attack an enemy as they stand. At Level 1, the only characters with that capability are Fighters or Thaumaturges with the Weapon Implement who has used Exploit Vulnerability on the Prone creature.

If you do have a Fighter in the party, tripping with the Monk trades an attack for an attack that is more accurate (because Fighters start with Expert proficiency in all weapons) and might do more damage (if the Fighter is using a two-handed weapon that deals 1d10 or 1d12 damage).

Do you have a suggestion for something to replace Assurance (Athletics) at level 2 for a BB game?

Quick Jump is a solid suggestion.

If you know you're going to fight a specific type of creature, consider Additional Lore for that type of creature so you can Recall Knowledge about it. It's possible to do so during combat, but if you have signs that a specific creature is ahead, try to make the check before you need to count actions.

If you expect a specific type of terrain, Terrain Stalker might be helpful.

Even though I've read through the Beginner Box to prepare running it, I had trouble thinking of skill feats that would have a huge impact. In general, character development is about building a toolbox rather than becoming amazing at one routine. I've had feats that I only used a few times across a 20-level campaign because the situation where they applied only came up occasionally.

Also, assuming this character was being built for a longer campaign, what would be a good level to take Assurance (Athletics) at, if at all?

I think taking Assurance (Athletics) at 2 or 4 is fine. How valuable it is depends on how often you fight lower-level creatures. If the GM only likes throwing one or two enemies at the party, it'll rarely be useful even if you're prioritizing Athletics. However, if the GM varies combats, as the game recommends, you'll often find yourself fighting several low-level enemies or a few enemies with an obvious lack of Reflex.

By the way, when you have mechanical questions about interactions with monsters, it's sometimes fun to look at the monster-building rules, such as the guidelines for saving throws. A Level 2 character with Assurance (Athletics) and Trained proficiency could reliably Trip a Level 1 enemy if that enemy's Reflex save is Low or Terrible but could only use Assurance on an enemy with Moderate Reflex if that enemy is three levels lower and its Reflex save has been reduced (possibly by Demoralize).

The situation where Assurance (Athletics) works happens a decent amount. I've gotten plenty of use out of it in a conversion of Hell's Rebels.

Would it better to drop the Bo Staff to grapple and pick it up again later, or release one hand, grapple, and then reestablish grip later?

There's no reason to drop the weapon unless you need to Grapple two enemies at once, which should rarely happen. If you're grabbing a creature with one hand and holding the Bo Staff in the other, you can still make unarmed attacks.

Whether you drop a weapon and pick it up or release your grip and regrip it, the second action uses the rules for Interact, which has the Manipulate trait and therefore provokes Attacks of Opportunity. Fortunately, only some creatures have Attack of Opportunity or an equivalent, so that isn't a huge concern. The advantage of releasing your grip is that you'll still have the weapon available to regrip if you decide to move.

Trip is on the Bo Staff. Would it be a separate action to use, or would it count as part of a successful strike with the Bo Staff?

The Bo Staff's Trip trait primarily allows you to use the Trip action with the weapon. Normally, you need a free hand to perform the four Athletics-based debuffs: Trip, Grapple, Shove or Disarm.

All four of these actions require the character to make an Athletics roll against the opponent's Reflex DC (for Trip and Disarm) or their Fortitude DC (for Grapple and Shove). The actions have the Attack trait, so they contribute to and suffer from Multiple Attack Penalty.

Of the four Athletics-based actions, Trip is the most universally useful. Knocking enemies Prone makes them flat-footed to all attacks, including ranged strikes from archers and spell attack rolls from casters. It also forces them to either spend an action standing up or take a -2 penalty on all their attack rolls.

If they stand up, a friendly Level 1 Fighter can whack them with Attack of Opportunity. Most melee-oriented classes get similar reactions at higher levels. For example, Monks get Stand Still at Level 4, and Barbarians, Champions, Magi and Swashbucklers can replicate the Fighter's Attack of Opportunity through feats at Level 6.

Because reactions to standing up become more common as characters level, Trip become more impactful. At Level 1, it may often be better to Strike unless you know several allies will be attacking the enemy, you have a Fighter nearby to punish standing up, you're trying to slow the enemy down, or you think the enemy has an unusually low Reflex save.

Grapple is the next most useful because Grabbed can lock enemies in place and force casters to make a DC 5 flat check or lose spells with Somatic components (which is most two-action spells). Shove is situational, but I've occasionally seen it used to push enemies into a line for spellcasters, force enemies away from choke points or push them off cliffs. Disarm rarely gets used because it requires a Critical Success to have a meaningful effect.

If you're interested in area control, consider Stand Still, Flurry of Maneuvers and Tangled Forest Stance. Because Tangled Forest Stance's lock-in-place effect is based on reach, Bo Staff can enhance it.

Whirling Throw is a fun feat, but it's better for Monks who fight unarmed because Grapple requires characters to have a hand free. You can drop a hand from your Bo Staff as a free action to Grapple, but once you've done that, you'll need to spend an action to regrip the Bo Staff before you can use it.

What to focus on depends on the party. Let's take area control as an example. If you're playing alongside a Champion, a Shield Fighter, and a caster that gets eight hit points a level (such as a Bard, Druid or Cleric), it's less useful. But if the only other front line character is a Rogue and the back line consists of a Wizard and a Sorcerer, two classes with the game's worst hit point and save progression, it can come in handy.

Monks have strong enough feats that I'd only look at archetypes if you really need them or the game is using the Free Archetype variant rule, which gives characters an extra feat that can only be spent on archetypes at every even level. If you do decide to look at archetypes, others to consider include Acrobat, which provides three free skill increases, and Wrestler, which focuses on Grappling.

Because you took Monastic Weaponry, you can use the Bo Staff with Flurry of Blows. As Lucerious pointed out, the damage for the Bo Staff would be 1d8+4, not 1d6+4.

When you Flurry as your first attack on a turn, your first Strike has no penalty but the second Strike has a Multiple Attack Penalty of -5. If you want to reduce that penalty and the enemy is adjacent to you, consider making the second attack with your unarmed attack. It has the Agile trait, so the penalty would only be -4.

In Pathfinder 2E, Monks' biggest strength is their ability to attack twice with Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows has the Flourish trait, so you can only use it once a round. However, even if you could use it more often, it'd usually be better to find other ways to spend your actions because the Multiple Attack Penalty is -10 for post-Flurry attacks. Using Agile weapons reduces that to -8, but that's still high enough to make post-Flurry attacks extremely unreliable.

With a Bo Staff, you've already got a good post-Flurry action in Parry. You could also Step or Stride away from enemies so they have to re-engage you if they want to attack.

But it can be useful to have other options. One of the most widely applicable is Demoralize, which can inflict Frightened 1 or Frightened 2 on enemies. Frightened is nice because it reduces enemies' "checks and DCs," including their attack rolls, armor class and saving throws.

If you successfully Demoralize someone before using Flurry of Blows, you'll be more likely to hit them. If your allies happen to act before that enemy reduces its Frightened value at the end of its next turn, their spells and attacks will also be more likely to succeed.

To use Demoralize, you need training in Intimidate. You could get that by swapping one of your trained skills or changing your heritage to Battle-Ready Orc.

But don't feel obligated to do this. All of the skills you have can be useful in the Beginner Box, and Demoralize, though a nice option when you don't need to move, isn't earth-shattering. Each hero can only attempt to Demoralize each enemy once, and the enemies reduce their Frightened value by 1 at the end of their turns.

My main point is that as a Monk, you should be looking for things to do other than attack. That could mean slamming doors in enemies' faces, grabbing an object they want before they can get to it, or whatever else the environment suggests to you.

I think the issue is that high level versions of mage armor aren't a boost. They just get you to where you would be for buying runes. So all they are is saving a bit of gold for a top level spell slot, which is pretty bad trade.

1st level mage armor gets you AHEAD of the curve, as you don't get a +1 armor rune till around level 5.

You're probably correct (and you've made me aware of how many times I wrote "boost" in my previous post; my Elementary English teacher would give me no stars for variety). I suppose Mage Armor's role changing past Level 5 doesn't bother me the way that it seems to bother Demonskunk. I like that many low-level spells become more situational as the game progresses because that helps higher-level play feel different than early adventures.

In Mage Armor's case specifically, the role change seems helpful to me. At higher levels, the consequences of failing saving throws become more severe. I don't feel a need to cast it every day at first level, but if Mage Armor stayed ahead of the curve, it might push me and other risk-averse players to stick with Old Reliable instead of experimenting with their newer, much flashier toys.

In Outlaws of Alkenstar, I played a Wizard who sometimes preferred learning new spells and buying items that boosted skills to immediately grabbing armor runes. When the healer or tank couldn't make it to a session and I expected to receive more attacks, I'd prepare Mage Armor. Otherwise, I'd use the slot for something else.

A spell doesn't have to be better than options unlocked by gold to justify its existence. It merely needs to have a use case. Mage Armor has several, as others have pointed out in this thread.

Mage Armor only gets characters to the baseline the system expects because one slot, even a high-level slot, is a minor cost for an all-day boost. If you're interested in using magic to boost a caster's defenses, look at other options, such as Shield, Shattering Gem, Blur, Mirror Image, Resist Energy, Heroism, the Level 4 version of Invisibility, Stoneskin, Chromatic Armor, Prismatic Armor, Energy Aegis, Disappearance and Indestructibility.

If you like the narrative of conjuring armor, you might be interested in Soul Forger. I wish Soul Forger has easier prerequisites, a broader theme and more impactful tricks, but it's a neat concept.

CaffeinatedNinja, that's true. The scaling on ancestry proficiency feats is strange. In this case, the campaign was starting at a high enough level that I wasn't too worried. If it started at 1, I would have been less interested in trying a dwarf.

I'd love it if rogues got martial proficiency by default or through a Level 1 feat, but I think I understand Sanityfaerie's concern. I play a monk in one of my games who occasionally has no way to use his last action. Since he fights with his fists and feet, it's always bugged me that he should be carrying a shield. I've resisted the temptation to do so because it looks ridiculous to me, but only barely.

On the other hand, I'm glad it's possible to build a sword and shield monk to represent a gladiator or a fighter so skilled he doesn't need armor. I'm not sure I have a way to address optimization pulling characters in directions I find unpleasant without barring concepts others find exciting.

As an aside, it's possible rogues have a bespoke list of martial weapons as a signpost for new players. The list includes the rapier, shortsword and shortbow, options that are strong and compatible with Sneak Attack.

The limited list also makes ancestry feats that grant proficiency more interesting. I've considered playing a dwarf, an ancestry I usually dislike, almost entirely for Explosive Expert, a feat that provides access to bombs and guns.

Thaliak wrote:

I find optimizing and theorycrafting in 2E far less satisfying than it was in 1E or D&D 3.5. As Sanityfaerie mentioned and you've discovered, the payoff for optimization in 2E is much lower than it is in other systems. I miss coming up with characters who can base every skill they care about off one stat and one-shot enemies, but I enjoy my time at the table more. It's satisfying to overcome tough opponents and a streak of low dice rolls through cooperation and tactics.

Just want to note here that I rather enjoy it myself. Sure, it's not 4e or 3.5, and it won't let you do the crazy things that those would let you do, but It's a lot better than trying to optimize in 5e, where they decided to severely choke your options so that you wouldn't have anything to optimize with.

Like I said, you can still play the game. You just have to accept that in PF2, the optimization game is played with significantly lower stakes... and, yes, that a lot of the bigger gains require working with other folks, rather than just going it alone.

To be clear, I still enjoy optimization in 2E as well. But it's fun for a different reason. When new material would come out for 1E, I'd often ask, "How can this help build characters that will be amazing at the areas I like to excel in?" With 2E, I don't enjoy trying to push the power ceiling, but I can have fun building characters to represent concepts (e.g., an inventor who fights to hawk his wares), to answer questions ("Can I build reasonable approximations of every archetype in the video game Chroma Squad?"), or to explore the possibilities for a set of parameters (e.g., "a Free Archetype game that starts at Level 11 and focuses on a martial arts tournament").

It took me a while to find character building in 2E fun, though. When I first started, I felt disappointed because I couldn't find any ways to go beyond the system's expectations.

So it is not considered rude to ask about the other characters skills and abilities? I have found that in the past asking about another character is like asking to see someone naked. Done very delicately.

I've only played PF2E extensively in two groups, but in both, the campaigns start with a conversation about the party that includes what class and role everyone wants to play and what skills they plan to invest in. The goal is to make sure the party has as many bases covered as possible and to minimize the chance of people stepping on each other's toes by making redundant investments.

In some cases, people will ask more specific questions. For example, the Rogue in one of my groups asked if I planned to take Dirge of Doom, a song that frightens nearby enemies, with my Bard. He wanted to know because Rogues have a Level 4 class feat that makes frightened enemies flat-footed. If I didn't plan to take Dirge of Doom, he would have selected a different feat.

Even during the game, questions might come up. When the group's primary out-of-combat healer had to leave, we discussed who would take over that role. As the game progressed, we encountered several haunts that could be banished with the Occultism skill, so the resident Ranger asked if anyone planned to invest in it. When everyone said no, he started increasing his Occultism.

As others have stressed, PF2E is a teamwork-focused game. It promotes cooperative play in several ways:
1. The dice always matter. Even a Fighter, the most accurate martial in the game, will appreciate the -2 penalty to an enemy's AC from flanking. Against a strong opponent, it might boost the chance of a successful hit from 55% to 65%. Against a boss, it's even more important.
2. Characters have abilities that are primarily useful to other people. For example, one of the games I play in has a Ranger who can identify monsters when he marks them with Hunt Prey. He can trigger some of the weaknesses he learns about, but the Druid and Magus are the only ones with the tools to trigger others.
3. Many characters have abilities that are significantly stronger when used on others. The Cleric could cast Heroism on himself to boost his accuracy, but since Heroism takes two actions to cast, he'll generally only benefit from it once that round. If he buffs the Fighter instead, the Fighter might be able to make two attacks with it on his turn and one more through an Attack of Opportunity.
4. Abilities often have riders that benefit the party. For example, one of my games has a polearm-wielding Fighter with Improved Knockdown, a feat that allows a hit to deal damage and knock someone prone. Since the enemy will provoke an Attack of Opportunity when it stands up, Improved Knockdown is often worthwhile even if the Fighter is the only one who benefits. But in our party, it has the side effect of allowing the Magus and the Summoner's Eidolon to get an Attack of Opportunity as well while flat-footing the enemy for the archer Ranger and the Rogue.
5. Some beneficial abilities don't compete with other actions. For example, a Gunslinger with Fake Out and no other reactions can use it every turn as long as at least one gun is loaded to give allies a circumstance bonus on attacks. That circumstance bonus starts at +1 but eventually reaches +4.
6. Recovering from getting knocked out can be costly. When someone gets knocked unconscious, they fall prone, drop any items they're carrying, and lose any stances they've entered. For a character with a single weapon, getting back into combat can take two actions: one to stand up and one to retrieve the weapon. For a character with a second weapon, a shield or an important stance, the action cost goes up to three. This gives the party an incentive to prevent damage through defensive buffs and battlefield control or to remove it with healing.
7. In-combat healing is strong. This is especially true of the two-action version of the Heal spell, which heals 1d8+8 per spell level by default, enough that it frequently negates an entire round of damage. Soothe, Battle Medicine and the various healing focus spells aren't as strong, but I can tell you from experience that they're still powerful.
8. As Pixierose pointed out, martials and casters both need to come up with useful third actions. A Fighter could spend all three actions on attacks, but since the third attack will be at -10, it often makes more sense to flank with the Rogue, Demoralize the enemy to debuff it, Recall Knowledge to help the Wizard, or Raise a Shield so the Cleric will need to spend fewer actions healing. A Sorcerer could spam the one-action spell Shield after a standard two-action spell, but if they're unlikely to be attacked, it might make more sense to Demoralize an enemy or boost an ally's attack with the one-action spell Guidance.

I find optimizing and theorycrafting in 2E far less satisfying than it was in 1E or D&D 3.5. As Sanityfaerie mentioned and you've discovered, the payoff for optimization in 2E is much lower than it is in other systems. I miss coming up with characters who can base every skill they care about off one stat and one-shot enemies, but I enjoy my time at the table more. It's satisfying to overcome tough opponents and a streak of low dice rolls through cooperation and tactics.

Certain ancestries have feats that improve saving throws. For example, Halflings have Halfling Luck, which lets a character reroll a failed save or skill check once a day. A Halfling with the Gutsy heritage can upgrade successful saves against emotion effects to critical successes, and with Irrepressible, critical failures to failures.

Orcs have Orc Superstition, which provides a +1 circumstance bonus to saves against magic. By default, it requires a Reaction, which a Fighter will often want to spend on Attack of Opportunity. However, the Level 9 follow-up Pervasive Superstition makes the effect constant.

Some classes have feats that grant bonuses to saves. For example, Sorcerers can take the Level 8 feat Bloodline Resistance to get a +1 status bonus to saves against magical effects. Other characters can access this feat at Level 16 through the Sorcerer multiclass archetype, but at that point, you'll likely have far more enticing options from your class.

Swashbucklers have Charmed Life, but that requires a Reaction.

Even with significant investment, you'll occasionally fail saves. That can be frustrating, but it can also make combats more memorable. I had a lot of fun roleplaying a character who was charmed by a ghost as he tried to convince the party to walk into the ghost's trap, and I loved seeing a fellow party member cast Wall of Stone to contain a Fighter that got confused before he could knock us all out.

From earlier comments in this thread, I get the sense the Investigator is only decent even when the player can use Devise a Stratagem as a free action. If that's true, would it be unbalanced to make the non-multiclass version of Devise a free action against all targets?

My gut reaction is yes, because that could turn the Investigator into a Rogue who no longer requires set up and has two shots at a MAP-free attack. But:
1. Getting flat-footed is trivial for Rogues if they invest feats into making it easier or have a cooperative party.
2. Most characters try to get flat-footed even without Sneak Attack because it increases the chance of getting a hit or a critical hit.
3. Sneak Attack, unlike Strategic Strike, can trigger two or three times a round.
4. At higher levels, Sneak Attack also delivers debuffs.

Of course, Devise offers several benefits that Sneak Attack doesn't. For example, it makes Investigators much better at using consumables, such as Potency Crystals and Fear Gems, as well as weapons that are much stronger on a crit, such as guns and Tanglefoot Bags. It also conserves actions; a melee investigator who rolls low doesn't need to engage a target.

Making Devise free would also remove most of the incentive for Investigators to identify leads before combat. For me, that would be a plus. I love the idea of playing a character who survives through wits and skill but am worried that the Investigator's out-of-combat mechanics would amount to hogging the spotlight and require more GM prodding than I'm comfortable with. When I tried an Investigator, I never got leads and rarely felt useful in combat despite using the Wizard dedication and Aid to compensate for low Devise a Stratagem rolls.

Anyway, what do folks who are better at getting leads think of making Devise free? Would it turn the class into an overpowered skill monkey or take too much fun out of its out-of-combat mechanics?

According to a Reddit thread titled Paizo interview means that Arcane Cascade cannot be used at the start of a Magus' turn?, lead designer Logan Bonner has clarified that the actions enabling abilities must occur on the same turn. The thread cites a YouTube video from How Its Played, "Ask a Paizo Designer #16: Can Effects That Say "If Your Next Action Is..." Be Used Across Turns?, in which Logan states, "Anything that says 'if your last action was...' isn't going to track actions you took on previous turns. It's this turn."

As long as the monk has the Monastic Weaponry class feat, they can use Flurry of Blows with melee monk weapons.

By default, Flurry of Blows only allows monks to make two unarmed strikes. However, Monastic Weaponry allows monks to "use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks." Flurry of Blows is a monk ability, so if a monk has Monastic Weaponry, they can flurry with a Bo Staff or any other melee weapon with the monk trait, regardless of how many hands it takes to wield.

Cool. I'm glad it's possible for Thaumaturges to trigger both a normal weakness and a personal one. My interpretation would have given them little incentive to carry weapons or learn spells that target weaknesses, an odd situation for a class that is all about knowing what specific monsters fear.

Thanks for writing the guide. It was an enjoyable read, and I appreciated the frequent pictures.

The current guide reads:

Double-Dipping Weaknesses

It is possible to double dip a weakness, sort of. If your attack already trigger’s a monster’s weakness, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis instead. So, if fighting a Troll and you have a flaming weapon already, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis, and trigger both its fire weakness and it’s ‘you’ weakness.

I don't think this is correct. Personal Antithesis "imposes a custom weakness" on a creature, and the rules for calculating damage say, "If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value."

A good addition for a Thaum Guide would be what kinda scrolls and Talismans are good to get for the tome and talisman feats.

Potency Crystal is useful, even if you get a +1 weapon soon at this point the extra damage is very nice.

Owlbear claw is also great below level 5 especially if you go with a flickmace. In case you DONT go for weapon implement it is useful even longer since in that case you dont gain crit spec at level 5

Beyond that other good ones are jade cat, snapleaf, Fear gem, though those seem more situational then the early ones.

If you're willing to pay for the formula, a Retrieval Prism might be worth using to draw a combat-relevant scroll, such as See Invisibility. If the party includes a Gunslinger, an Energized Cartridge would let them capitalize on any weaknesses Esoteric Lore uncovers.

The Mind Smith was spoiled during PaizoCon. You can find the text here and a discussion about it on Reddit.

A half-elf focused on maneuvers (e.g., an Inventor with a weapon innovation) can use Multitalented to become a Gymnast Swashbuckler and gain a circumstance bonus to Athletics checks.

On a caster without reactions, I might be tempted by Swashbuckler's Charmed Life, even at high level. Many of the combats I've been in that came close to killing a character involved failed saves.

The only arcane witch is the Rune patron. Their Hex Cantrip is to discern secrets which the witch casts on themselves to get a bonus to recall knowledge, sense motive or seek. This lends itself to a recall Knowledge build.

Consider rewording this to emphasize that Discern Secrets can be cast on whichever party member has the highest bonus in the relevant skill. For example, if the enemy is undead, the witch could cast it on the party's cleric to enable them to immediately roll Recall Knowledge with Religion.

The only divine witch is the Fervor patron with Stoke the Heart. It's a broadly useful damage buff that works best on things that attack often like two weapon Fighters or Rangers. I’ve gone for a weapon here as this witch could do with another option.

It might be worth pointing out that Stoke the Heart's damage bonus also applies to spells that hit multiple targets, such as Electric Arc and Fireball.

Of the five classes I've played, my ranking would be:
Monk
Fighter
Cleric
Druid
Investigator

Monk is my favorite class because I love unarmored combatants, maneuvers and action economy hacks. I enjoyed playing a Fighter in Malevolence, because Fighters hit hard and can take feats that combine damage with debuffs that help the rest of the party.

Cleric has been mixed for me. On the bright side:
1. Heal is extremely powerful and reliable.
2. I've enjoyed removing conditions with Channeled Succor, Restore Senses and Remove Poison.
3. The alignment-based damage spells occasionally let me blast without worrying about allies' positioning.
4. With decent hit points, the ability to upgrade successes on Will saves to Critical Successes, and access to healing, Clerics feel surprisingly durable.
5. As someone new to the game, I'm grateful that prepared casting and Clerics' spell access lets me experiment.

However, the Divine list rarely excites me. At Level 15, I've yet a cast a non-heightened spell higher than 5th level, and it took several levels for me to get to fifth with Blessing of Defiance. The Divine list has several ways to boost peoples' numbers, but that often feels redundant with Inspire Courage, comes through spells that require the Cleric to be close to the front lines and spend an action sustaining them, or requires foresight. I enjoy a few of the list's battlefield control spells, but some (e.g., Wall of Flesh) come with narratives I find repulsive and others (e.g., Command) only work on a failed save. I might be willing to play a Divine caster again with a character who has fewer thematic constraints, but I'm in no rush.

Playing a Druid was fine. I have trouble relating to the theme, but the Primal list is versatile and Druids seem sturdy. I like Charisma-based casters more than Wisdom-based ones, but Wisdom-based characters are rare, and Druids are more compelling to me than Sorcerers because Druids have to seek and earn their power rather than being born with it.

I should love Investigators because I enjoy skill monkeys and appreciate Devise a Stratagem's link between theme and mechanics, but because Devise a Stratagem requires an action every turn, my character felt sluggish. Pursuing leads would have mitigated that, but I rarely remembered to do it.

Of the classes I've seen played but haven't played, the three I'm most interested in are Rogue, because I enjoy skill monkeys; Summoner, because it gets four actions every turn; and Magus, because I love the theme and the versatility spells provide. The only other classes I've played with are Champion, Gunslinger and Sorcerer. None are thematic or mechanical home runs for me, but I've enjoyed seeing how much they help the party and would play them.

I've enjoyed playing alongside a Summoner who uses Trip and Grapple to generate free attacks and occasionally negate an enemy caster's spell. With Wall of Stone and Slow, she can provide battlefield control when we're likely to be overwhelmed. Her summons support that role, for they absorb hits that would have otherwise gone to player characters and occasionally pick up and drag melee-focused combatants away from the party. The party is a small, so that's often enough to reduce the enemy's effectiveness by a third or a fourth.

I'm thinking about playing a Summoner in the group's next campaign, but since I've already seen a strength-based, maneuver-focused Eidolon in play, I'd like to do something else. Have people had good experiences with Dex-based eidolons, especially ones who take the line of feats that give Eidolons casting?

I've been wondering if Druids lack Cantrip Expansion because they have access to solid focus spells and animal companions. Perhaps the designers thought, "Druids don't need Cantrip Expansion because they have plenty of other ways to spend a turn (or contribute outside combat) that don't require spell slots."

Thanks to a post Gisher made in another thread, I now know that druids are the only full casters without Cantrip Expansion. That's disappointing! I'm assuming they lack the feat because of space constraints, not thematic concerns, but I suppose it's possible druids believe two extra cantrips would unbalance nature and refuse to engage in such savagery.

Because so many casters have the feat, I assumed druids did as well and gave it to the cleric/druid I'm playing in Strength of Thousands so I'd have a higher chance of exploiting weaknesses. With Cantrip Expansion gone, my slots will generally go to Electric Arc and Ray of Frost. That isn't a concern from a power standpoint, but I enjoyed occasionally casting a cantrip other than Electric Arc.

The Magus I'm playing with often opens with Mirror Image into Arcane Cascade. As the group's Cleric, I love that the player takes time to cast a defensive buff, because:
1. It lets the tankier characters form the initial frontline, which means they're more likely to be attacked; and
2. Once the Magus draws attention, it reduces the chance I'll need to heal her at the same time I'd like to heal someone else.

If the Magus falls, I'll likely need to spend two actions to heal her. Thanks to Kip Up, she only needs one action to get back into the fight now, but at lower levels, it'd take two: one to pick up her weapon and one to stand, which would often provoke attacks of opportunity. I haven't done any math, but starting slow to prevent that seems reasonable to me. It's also satisfying to see Mirror Image take attacks that would have otherwise been crits.

Having said that, we've rarely had enemies start so close to the party that we need to kill them immediately. We have been outnubmered and overwhelmed, but in those situations, battlefield control and area damage seem more useful than a Spellstrike. I suspect more aggressive tactics might work for a different party with higher damage output than a Cleric, a Summoner, a Magus and the most-likely-departed Monk and Champion can produce.

I wish there were more General Feats. I suspect almost all my characters will end up with Toughness, Fleet, Canny Acumen, Incredible Initiative or Untrained Improvisation. These feats are strong, and I'm glad they exist, but I'd love to see other options at high levels, when I'd otherwise be picking the least appealing option from that list.

Of course, General feats can always become Skill feats. That's helpful, especially for characters who want multiple skill feats that are gated by proficiency. It can also be useful for realizing character concepts at low levels. For example, I've had fun theorycrafting translators who take Multilingual several times and hunters who take Additional Lore for their most frequent adversaries.

Additional Lore might help. It grants a new Lore skill rather than upgrading an existing one, but the new skill is automatically increased to Expert, Master or Legendary as soon as the character hits the minimum level for those increases. As a Skill Feat, Additional Lore can be taken in place of a General feat.

1. An adventure path that uses automatic bonus progression, because I'd like to see the rule in play but would rather not create extra work for my GMs, who both run adventure paths (including one I think ABP would be a poor thematic fit for).
2. A Wisdom-based caster or martial who has a different flavor than the Cleric or Druid, because I want more options when the party already has someone strong, quick, smart and charismatic;
3. More Sorcerer bloodlines and Eidolon types, especially ones that provide access to the Occult spell list, my favorite;
4. A gish that incentivizes self-buffing or battlefield control rather than striking; and
5. An equivalent to Sentinel for Unarmored Defense, because it's hard for me to imagine people walking around in armor in tropical climates or cities, and as much as I love the Monk and Soul Forger, I'd like to experiment with other concepts.