The Great Potato's page

You get so few Expert, Master, and Legendary skill increases, that I would put it on the player to know what their skill increases give them. The grapple example also makes perfect sense: improving your strength enough to pick someone up and pin them should (in a fantasy world at least) make you better at climbing as well. Heck, maybe you got into grappling shape by climbing a mountain.

The Great Potato wrote:

Now, that Athletics example is a perfect example of an "impossible ability" like Cat Fall. I think getting all four abilities would be a worthy skill feat.

Well, it's Acrobatics that provides that. The only impossible feats Athletics seems to give is that Wall Jumping one. Cool, but not as cool as surviving any fall.

Er, I should have said your Athletics example, the one where you combined the four Climb feats. And I'd say three of those four things are both very cool and also very impossible: climbing at your full movement speed with one hand and while fighting? Easily as cool as Cat Fall and probably better in a mechanical sense.

If we were just talking about increases to climb, then I'd agree about keeping track of your own abilities. There are plenty of places in the game where its reasonable to expect players to know their stuff. But climb is a single use of one of sixteen skills. If each of them had more than one use and each use has 3-4 passive benefits due to increased skill...that's ~96 separate rules to keep track which depending solely on skill level. (16 skills * assuming an average of 2 uses per skill * 3 passive increases, assuming Trained doesn't give you anything).

I'm speaking more for the GM's benefit here, but players seem to get somewhere between 15 and 25 skill increases, so that's still a solid number niche of rules that can be easily forgotten in the heat of combat.

I think we just fundamentally disagree with what a skill increase means to us. I believe being better at a skill should make it easier to accomplish tasks using that skill and that's really it. Skill feats are where you learn to accomplish those tasks with syle. Remember, each player gets a minimum of ten skill feats, which is a lot compared to PF1.

Speaking of PF1, first edition didn't give us many of these recommendations. If you could, would you also want them added there? Are you satisfied that skill differentiation in PF1 was primarily numerical?

Assurance is another good example of a "passive" benefit, as all the player would say is "Since I'm expert, I take 15 on this check instead of rolling." and the GM doesn't have to take issue with that.

I really like this idea! If everyone got increasing levels of Assurance as they increased rank, that would be a tangible benefit that would be consistent across all skills. On top of it all, it would protect players from nat 1's on checks they know are trivial.

I would say have skill feats give either new actions (Spell Thievery is a great example of this) or impossible abilities (Cat Fall is my favourite feat in this edition!). The boring stuff like Assurance, Defensive Climber, Terrain Stalker, and Steady Balance, should be either built into the skill by applying circumstance penalties or should be part of proficiency.

...

With Trained Athletics you are no longer flat-footed while climbing. With Expert Athletics you can Climb with one hand. With Master Athletics you Climb at half speed on a success and at full speed on a critical success. At Legendary Athletics you gain a Climb speed.

I see what you're getting at (and Cat Fall is indeed a really cool skill feat), though I still don't like gating certain uses of skills like that Athletics example does.

Unlocking more uses automatically at each tier:
- Gives players abilities they may not have intended to acquire. Someone who takes Athletics to boost their Grapple may not know their skill ranks also let them climb with one hand.
- Each skill-up automatically adds new rules and content for both the GM and players to keep track of. Imagine you were GMing a combat on a cliff-face where each player had different levels of skill in Athletics AND may not know the special climbing rules due to the above point.

Now, that Athletics example is a perfect example of an "impossible ability" like Cat Fall. I think getting all four abilities would be a worthy skill feat. (Not four, like the current version of the rules)

The Great Potato wrote:

Some of that I'm not fond of myself.. but I like the idea of Alchemist Only elixers that are Fast Healing based. but keep the generic healing ones as well. For general classes ideas.

One thing about your idea is that it restricts the tool box nature of quick alchemy. If I read you right (it is 1am.. who knows) then i couldn't use quick alchemy for Tinderwigs, silversheen, sundrods, and the other stuff that'll be in the core one.

I do fully think an alchemist should be able to be a tool box sort of character.

i do fully agree there should be some specialization feats though

I totally forgot about the alchemical tools! Yeah, those should definitely be Quick Alchemy-able by default.

And agreed on the toolbox nature. Alchemists shouldn't be the best in raw power; instead, they should be the guy who has a tool for every situation.

The reason I made all Elixirs of Life into Fast Healing is because Potions of Healing are just more powerful. I'm thinking that was a conscious choice by Paizo because Elixirs of Life can be crafted. This way, common alchemical healing is still "weaker" than potions, but the overall health totals are roughly the same.

My versions of the specializations are admittedly a mess - that was also a late night post haha! What would you change?

Great idea!

Maybe the Signature Skill bubble can also be incorporated in a way that indicates it is a requirement for Master and Legendary.

Something like:

+1 +2 +3 +4
--T---E--M--L
sig.-----(____)

Hats off if you can incorporate that without taking up too much vertical real estate in the list

I kind of dislike the idea of artificially gating off uses of skills behind 'you must be X good at this to enter' signs. Trained/Untrained is fine and is about as far as I'd like it to go.

My preference is more towards the current system of using feats to unlock certain uses of skills - it gives the impression of learning new uses of a skill through some effort.

For instance: the Battle Medic feat. Anyone can use Medicine to save someone's life (aka the first aid action), but it takes proficiency AND some training to heal HP in the span of 1 action.

Personally, I feel like the lack of meaningful difference between the skill tiers is more a problem with the proficiency system than the present uses of skills.

That's just my thought on the matter.

Touch attacks miss about half the time now against equal level monsters, much worse than PF1.

Yeah. At high levels touch spells used to auto-hit, which was its own problem. Now it feels like Paizo has adjusted too far in the other direction.

My 5th level cleric has never hit with Searing Light. It was a waste of a 3rd level spell slot two days in a row.

Nobody's going to want to use rays or touches anymore.

I'm kind of glad that alchemist is sticking to potions. I was actually expecting Bard to be the item activation class, ever since Resonance and Bard=Occult were announced.

Resonance seems purpose-built for a future PF2 Occultist class/archetype.

Alchemist was one of my least favorite PF1 classes, but I really like the idea of the resonance system (even if the execution has some kinks) so I'm building the hell out of every idea that springs to mind which uses RP, alchemy, and staves.

That's a pretty intensive rework you've thought up and I totally missed it earlier!

While it is a little complicated in my opinion, I like the idea of having specific specializations. In fact, that gives me an idea for fixing Quick Alchemy in a way that could satisfy many of the concerns in this thread.

Here's my idea, with some of my favorite ideas from SnarkyChemist mixed in:

Alchemy: Infusions and poisons you create during daily prep use your class DC.

Quick Alchemy: Restricted to elixirs only (for now).

Bombs: Deal splash damage to the primary target, even on a success. (this will make sense in a second)

Bombardier (specialization feat):
- Splash damage dealt to the main target is equal to half your intelligence modifier.
- You may use Quick Alchemy to craft bombs. Spending RP to craft bombs is optional, but bombs created without spending RP deal one less die of damage (let's give this kind of bomb the "Unstable" keyword).

Elixir of Life: provides fast healing for a few rounds to set it apart from other healing sources. The healing totals should be roughly the same as the average for equivalent-level healing potions.

Apothecary (specialization feat):
- Your elixirs with the infusion trait do not cost RP for other people to consume.
- Your Elixirs of Life last for 2 more rounds.

Toxician (specialization feat):
- You may use Quick Alchemy to craft poisons. Spending RP to craft poisons is optional, but poisons created without spending RP only last for one round. (These are Unstable).
- All poisons and elixirs you create (even outside daily prep) use your class DC.

Poison Weapon: Available at level 4. Per rogue feat, but does not include the simple poison.

Additives: Can be applied to non-Unstable items as a free action when created by Quick Alchemy. Can be applied as a standard action to any alchemical item, even Unstable items and even items you did not create.

-

If something remotely resembling these changes or the ones detailed by SnarkyChymist were implemented, I think it would be a large step in the right direction. I think both changes address the possible RP issues for bombers while making non-bomb builds more viable (including a new healer option!) I did my best to keep power roughly equivalent to the other classes, but obviously this isn't perfect.

I'm not gonna get into mutagens since this is already pretty long. I don't think it should be a level 1 field, rather I think the different specializations could have extra things they can do with a mutagen: apothecaries can give weaker and short-lived mutagens to others; poisoners can poison others with the drawbacks; and bombers can do...something. idk.

The Great Potato wrote:

- Alchemists need a 10th level feat and three Rogue multiclass feats before being able to use poisons semi-effectively. And that is still the best (and really only) poisoner build available to players.

What rogue feats? Not that many lv 1 and 2 feats. and i don't think any actually apply to poison

I know some higher level ones, like POison weapon, that are nifty for it. can't take taht till lv 12 though.

That's the one. Class feats:

At this point you can use your own poisons, but they will fail often since the DC will be 1-3 below your class DC

10th: powerful alchemy (required for potent poisoner)
12th: potent poisoner

Now your poisons will work with a whole 50% success rate each turn.

...

Nice to know that by agreeing to nearly all of your points "half of my assumptions are wrong".

I respect your opinion that RP is the crippling issue here and I may come around to it as I play more. My play experience seems to have been different from yours. My opinion is simply that there are other flaws that need attention first.

RP being used for both crafting and attunement doesn't seem too limiting to me, since elixirs and mutagens give item bonuses. I view it as a trade-off between flexibility (potions) and always-on bonuses (items).

In the two games I played (one at 1, one at 5), my alchemist had a bomb or two left by the time the cleric was out of healing and the wizard was out of spells. I can definitely see table variation happening, but please consider that there other classes with limited per-day resources. In all three of the games I've played so far the party was considering resting after the 3rd non-trivial encounter.

When I do Doomesday Dawn at 9th level I'll see if Expanded Resonance helps with RP as much as I think it will.

These are my bigger fish to fry:
- Alchemists need a 10th level feat and three Rogue multiclass feats before being able to use poisons semi-effectively. And that is still the best (and really only) poisoner build available to players.
- Alchemist healing is numerically subpar to all other forms of healing.
- Double dipping RP on potions.
- DC scaling.
- The short duration on many elixirs/mutagens makes them useless in exploration mode.
- There is very little variety in Alchemist builds. The ones I've seen in person are all bomb/weapon switch hitters.

Maybe if we discuss constructively and report future play experience, we can raise awareness for both of our perspectives.

...

I built my goblin with 14 strength and used a +1 dogslicer on my off turns (at level 5). It's not as good as my bomb damage, but it seemed comparable to wizard cantrips. My mileage may have been above average, idk. \㋡/

I'll try a different build next time and see if I can find a different contingency that works. Alchemists do seem to be punished more than other classes when you don't pace yourself. It might be an issue with RP, it might be due to other gaps in the class (or in the alchemy list). I'm undecided at the moment.

I strongly agree that all alch builds have to specialize to the extreme to try and stay relevant. I also agree that bombs are the only specialization that succeeds at staying relevant.

The Great Potato wrote:

7) Sustainability: I'm not sure what you're getting at here...maybe that alchs are no longer martial-ish? The lack of cantrips does set them apart from other casters (and they are casters now imo), so I suppose. They don't need most of the gear that other classes do, though, so maybe sustain can be bought?

...Wat?

How are they casters? And why don't they need gear other classes do? And even if they somehow save money, all that cash is going to be going into their own class feature to make some back ups, so what sustain is possible to be bought? Releated question, why does a class that's supposed to be able to sustain need to fork over cash for sustain items?

I'm sorry, I'm just really hung up on this one right here.

I coulda phrased it better there.

I meant, there's no inherent option to be a melee powerhouse like in PF1. That was the "sustain" build for that edition. This version focuses entirely on bombs, buffs, and poisons, which is why I think they're more analogous to casters now. Ranged touch cantrips = bombs in a lot of ways, except cantrips are infinite.

Once they're out of RP alchemists are kind of out of luck, which is what I think shroudb was getting at.

Alchemists don't need magic weapons and use elixirs/mutagens for a lot of item bonusus, so they really don't need a lot of equipment to get going. Therefore I think a lot of alchemists are going to be spending more of their cash on backup gear so they aren't useless without their alchemy: buying sustain with gold.

I think if they do specific archetypes in the future making ones that alter abilities in addition to costing feats should be an option. I don't think anything out so far precludes that but obvioulsy it also does not acknowledge that igther.

I've been thinking about that, too.

The divine fighting style feats in PF1 are great examples of that; you can take them as a feat or in place of a certain class feature for a class that synergizes with it.

For example, if they create an archetype with a proper smite (or inquisitor-ish judgements) I could totally see swapping out a paladin's Lay on Hands power to get that dedication. For something Oath of Vengeance-y

Samuel Caldwell wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The problem with that is that the majority of class feats that modify your Alchemy only work on quick Alchemy and not on Advanced. Imagine if wizard feats applied only to spells prepared on empty slots.

You're literally better at making stuff on the spot than when you spend time on them.

IMO, the short list of Alchemist issues can be summed to:

-Not enough resources. (Say goodbye to all resonance use magic items)
-Doesn't have scaling class DC from the get-go, when he gets it, it doesn't work on the few things that actually have DCs
-3 rounds onset on their mutagens (feat tax JUST to remove that that literally does nothing else)
-Your preparation brings you over normal Bulk. Alchemical items need to be - bulk and not L, and the kit needs to be 1 bulk down from 2
-Stuff that works on quick Alchemy need to also work on advanced Alchemy (no reason I can only make debilitating bombs if I make them on the spot as an example)
-Bomb focus, and it still doesn't make bombs great, just passable
-No sustainability (passive bonuses, at will abilities, something)
-Craft (Alchemy) has exactly 0 uses for an alchemist.
-Huge "stacking" issues (no reason for any mutagen to have the specific +item bonus on saves when all and every magic armor offers a generic +item to all saves). Simply put, every other buff except Alchemist is conditional...

Valid Points. I don't agree with the following statements though:

...

...

Splitting hairs for a second: 12 of 47 alch feats only affect Quick Alchemy.

It would still suck if Wizards were saddled with that many options that could only apply to open slots. However, Alchemists get an extra 50% bonus to their RP at level 9, which can only be used for Quick Alchemy. I think there's potential for additive feats to be done right.

1) Resources: See above. In addition, studied resonance guarantees Alchemists have extremely large RP pools. Past level 1, I can see myself burning through that only when I buff before every fight AND throw a ton of bombs. Agreed that the feat is worthless for alchs, though.

2) Scaling DCs: Agreed. If I make something during my daily preps, it should have the same DCs as another class's spells.

3) Onset times: Agreed. The onsets and durations for mutagens are wierd. They should have an onset time, but last for 10 minutes across the board, not the strange ratcheting up of duration vs effect. Especially since they tend to emphasize skills now and the short duration makes them worthless in exploration mode.

4) Bulk: Agreed.

5) Quick Alchemy: I agree to an extent. I think there should at least be an option to take a regular action to apply the effect to a standard potion/bomb. Allowing players to prep additives into their bombs at the beginning of the day creates a ton more things for the new players and the GM to keep track of.

(*2 hours into the game* "wait, didn't you prep 2 sets of dazzling debilitating bottled lightning and one set of smoke alch fires?" "I think the debilitating bombs were deafening and the smoke was also bottled lightning")

6) Bombs: I think the bombs scale pretty well. You automatically get extra damage dice at the earliest availability of each tier of magic weapon. By investing a handful of feats you can keep up with the attack rate of the party's archer AND have a decent amount of aoe plus a little damage even on a miss.

7) Sustainability: I'm not sure what you're getting at here...maybe that alchs are no longer martial-ish? The lack of cantrips does set them apart from other casters (and they are casters now imo), so I suppose. They don't need most of the gear that other classes do, though, so maybe sustain can be bought?

8) Craft (Alchemy): Kind of agreed. Unless I'm stocking up extra consumables, the only real use is as a day job.

9) Stacking: I never really noticed the save thing until now. Still, most mutagens emphasize skills instead of combat abilities so many of those bonuses will go through (since item skill adds are rare and expensive.) That is a huge hit to Juggernaut mutagen, though.

I agree that the infused trait should remove the resonance cost. It's already been paid.

Thirded.

About quick alchemy: I view is as similar to wizards leaving slots unprepared - less efficient, but good for dealing with unexpected situations.

As for everything else, I wish there was a bit less of an emphasis on bombs. Alchemists are great at making poisons, but not at using them. Alchemists also seem well situated to be great single-target healers, if only they had better numbers and more delivery options.

I'm hoping it won't be long before PF2 gets a hypodermic dart-gun, personally.

Simply put, I'd like archetypes to start at level 1 because most archetypes in PF1 replaced or altered first level abilities and I'm used to that. And the class feats I miss out on by archetyping at 2 all have a "1" next to them.

To put it less bluntly:

PF1 archetypes were meant to replace class features which don't quite match your character concept with abilities that do. In PF2, what if I want a particular chassis, but the level 1 feats don't fit my concept? For instance, this afternoon I built a alchemist/rogue that specialized in potions and poisons instead of bombs. I ended up being unsatisfied with my options at levels 1 and 6.

I don't see any harm in letting players dedicate a little earlier so they can have their character concept fully represented right out the gate. That is the main reason I've always preferred archetypes to multiclasses and prestige classes. In addition, most classes have super impactful level 1 feats which, in raw numerical terms, are more powerful than the level 2 dedications.

I agree that the options at creation should be pared down for new players, but I suspect that's the reason archetypes are sequestered in the "advancement" section.

Level bonus is a great way to add a sense of progression and it's not new: in PF1 skills should be greater than your level if you want to succeed frequently. Saves and attacks, too.

Going back to dragons for a sec:
PF1 DIDN'T apply level to save DCs and AC, so some peculiarities arose. Ever notice that against an Adult Red Dragon (lvl 14), its attacks pretty much auto hit unless you pull crazy shenanigans with your AC? And that it pretty much auto-succeeds its saves except against the latest and greatest 7th level spells?

Pulling the level bonus across the board is Paizo's way of keeping the progression while making defense consistent above level 12.

Feedback time: I think PF2 has made some good steps, but they way things are at, I think we're a little overbalanced into the level add side.

My wizard's touch attack at lvl 5 is +7, which is roughly coinflip compared to the TAC I can expect of ~18. Looking at the ways I can improve those odds, I can:
- Level up and get a cool +1 each level
- Level up, get expert proficiency at 12
- Level up, give my dex another boost at 10

(notice how they are all acquired the same way?)

So at 12, those adds bring me up to a total of +16! Sweet! So what's TAC at that level? ~27-28. That's still coinflip, even though I've specialized in bad touch as much as I'm allowed to.

The epicness of the battle can come from the level bonuses, but the battle should still be won on incidental bonuses due to player choices, specialization, and preparation. There are too few of those at this stage, and they give too little to make a significant difference. The difficulty of every "High DC" encounter I've played so far has come down to how often we rolled above 10.

I used the index a lot more often than other RPG line rulebooks.

Resonance, bolstered, Flat Check, Dents, and skills (signature) are keywords I've had to look up nearly every time I use them; their position in the book feels unintuitive to me.

dying, Bulk, familiars, conditions, multiple attack penalty, and alchemical items are other keywords I can remember looking up once or twice.

signature skills is the only item I had trouble finding in the index at first, until I realized it was under "skills, signature"

The traits and glossary are super useful, but some key items I'd expect to find there (Dent and Bolstered are the two that come to mind) are missing. Others (like signature skill) are defined but could use a page number for extra clarification.

When I first read the Cleric entry, I had trouble finding domain powers because "Domains" is indexed back to the class entry and "Domain Powers" does not exist in the Glossary or Index.

Sup guys!

I finally had the chance to play through 2e for the first time today - here are my first thoughts! I know "first impressions" is kind of a thread retread, but the other ones near the top seem to have turned immediately into edition competition threads :\

First off, I'm kind of surprised there's no general feedback forum. I played through two scenarios today and I want to provide more general feedback before I head to the scenario sections.

Overall, I like the new mechanics! Even the concepts I'm not sure about have solid reasons for existence. This playtest has me optimistic about 2e.

73. An Ysoki Mercenary/Mechanic tank. The Ysoki is the tank, not the drone. The little fuzzball is a daredevil to the point of insanity (complete with maniacal laughing) and his speech patterns are suitably rapid and eccentrically murderous to match. The drone carries around heavy weapons for fire support and is named CUDLS.

Oath of the People's Council Archetype and the Martyr archetype both trade out the paladin's Smite Evil feature for the Bardic Performance feature.

Martyrs have to stab themselves to use their Bardic Performance. Paladins who swear the Oath of the People's Council do not need to mutilate themselves to use Bardic Performance.

Hence, Oath of the People's Council is objectively better than the Martyr archetype.

My, that is a lot of hate for the martyr archetype :P

Martyr is really neat, imo. It stood out to me when HA was released and I made one for PFS once it was legal. Been working out really well so far!

1 point of bleed damage per turn hasn't been anything to worry about. My character has always had more blood than rounds of bard song. Still, I see where you're coming from - I don't like the flavor of stigmata much myself. I tend to describe the effect as burning from the inside with a little too much holy power, with bleeding from the eyes as a secondary effect.

As for which archetype is better, I'd say it depends on how much you want to commit to supporting the party. The Martyr's extra 10 feet on auras makes them much more dependable, ranged lay on hands is extremely useful, and the ability to remove virtually any level-appropriate debuff in a pinch (also at range) has saved the party more than once. When necessary, I've been a successful dedicated healer with that archetype.

Oath of People's Council is great for getting party buffs without giving up the trademark paladin neigh-invulnerability. Martyr gives up some survivability for a little more versatility and some nifty panic buttons. Both are very good at what they do.

My recommendation for a support-y paladin:

Archetype: Martyr or People's Council, depending on preference.
Deity: Iomedae
Divine Bond: Get a mount to help your mobility; you're double gimped by heavy armor and bardic performance.
Feats/Mercies: Replace your 9th-level mercy with the greater version of Iomedae's Divine Fighting Technique. It's the Bee's Knees! Get Lingering Performance ofc, Mounted Combat wouldn't be a bad idea. Take whatever other combat/lay-on-hands feats you want, but keep in mind you need to land attacks with a longsword to activate your fighting style.
Strategy: Stack Good Hope (Iomedae gets all the cool toys, doesn't she?), Inspire Courage, and Inspiring Sword for hilarious effect. As long as you got an extend rod, have a mount, and can hit enemies with your sword, everything will be active on the first round. At level 10, your allies will have +6 to Attacks and +4 to Damage, Saves, and Skills! If you went Martyr, you heal a little better than an unspecialized Cleric, whereas if you went People's Council there's virtually no way to shut up your incessant singing. Your buffs still work on yourself, so you're no slouch in melee combat despite your lack of smite. Best of all, you can constantly spout sanctimonious crap about the glory of Iomedae giving the party strength and no-one will do anything about it because it works!

So I've been thinking: do these archetypes stack?

Taken together, they turn the phantom into some ultra creepy shadow-kyton...thing. No interesting combos or OP strats here, just a critical mass of Kuthite thematicness primed and ready to creep out the rest of the party.

Or sing Linkin Park covers. Who knows?

Anyways, I'm uncertain because of the following two abilities:

Shade - A shadow caller gains a special kind of phantom known as a shade. A shade functions as a phantom, except as noted below. A shade is from the Shadow Plane instead of the Ethereal Plane. A shade is not confined to the shadow caller’s consciousness, but instead inhabits her shadow.

This ability alters phantom.

Emotionless(Su) - A shadow caller’s shade lacks an emotional focus; it is cold and devoid of all emotions. The shade gains a number of ranks in Intimidate and Stealth equal to its Hit Dice. The shadow caller gains Skill Focus in each of these skills while the shade inhabits her shadow.

The shade has good Reflex and Will saves, gains Lightning Reflexes as a bonus feat, and gains the following abilities...

Endure Torment(Ex) - At 6th level, a scourge’s phantom gains immunity to pain effects and gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against effects that could cause it to become staggered or stunned.

This ability replaces devotion.

Both archetypes kinda skirt the issue of replacing abilities that don't belong to the class itself. Emotionless doesn't even get a "X replaces Y" statement and the way Scourge mentions Devotion made me look it up to make sure it belonged to the Phantom in the first place.

I'm leaning towards "no", but the ambiguity and the sheer thematic compatibility make me wonder...

Renown. Easily fluffed as getting to know the people in the community and leveraging them to your advantage. The intimidate bonus that it would give you in your vigilante identity (whcih you're virtually giving up) is really unimportant compared to the boost in diplomacy you'll get, which functions just fine in your social identity regardless.

I never thought of it that way...I'd always regarded the renown talents as something inaccessible to public vigilantes, flavor-wise. That's a good way to reconcile the two! Now I'm thinking of a lucha libre style PC that is both public and really flamboyant, so he has fans following him around even when he's fighting crime. XD

There are a lot of examples of heroes giving up a secret identity, or not havinv one

Steve rogers, tony stark, and soldier 76(imo)

I think Soldier 76 is more the other way around: he gave up his social identity. Still has the renown from it, though.

On topic: I'm constantly going back and forth with the Vigilante. The Avenger is very well designed and implemented - it's easily my favorite full-BAB "class" - but it's the only specialization that really stands out to me.

To make the Vigilante a truly outstanding non-caster, I think we need two things in the future:
1) An archetype that replaces all social identity stuff with conventional bonuses. I like Dual Identity, but I can understand why so many people are balking at it - it's a bit of enforced flavor that doesn't work with a lot of character ideas. Including some characters we'd otherwise classify as "vigilantes".
2) More archetypes that don't replace your spec! Psychometrist is a really interesting addon; I'd like to see more archetypes that give the Stalker and Avenger some love rather than more caster-alikes.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so.

Unchained Flurry doesn't work with Two-Weapon Fighting. I guess you could argue that the Core Monk's flavor of TWF does stack because it can use a single weapon, but that'd be a hard sell at best imo.

As an aside, even if you're allowed both flurry bonuses Elemental Ascetic gives up way too many class abilities. The lack of Defense Talents and Elemental Overflow are a huge limitation - especially since you already get a few of the replacement abilities from your monk level. It's probably better in the long run to go Unchained Monk 1 / Vanilla Kineticist X.

So, the Shadow Caller in UI was is one of those archetypes where I just had to put the book down and build one out. The flavor (at least, to me) is sooo cool! BUT! It's saddled with some almost-crippling drawbacks. Now that I've played it through level 1, I need to decide whether to stick with it and how to address some of the archetype's shortcomings.

The character I've been playing so far goes something like this:

Marian: Hellspawn Tiefling - female (Almost Human, Soul Seer)
STR: 8 DEX: 16 CON: 12 INT: 12 WIS: 18 CHA: 8
Traits: Two-world Magic (Touch of Fatigue), Trustworthy (Diplomacy)
Feats: Weapon Finesse, (Spell Focus: Necromancy, Piranha Strike, Spell Pen)

Hubert: Shadow Phantom - ????
STR: 12 DEX: 14 CON: 13 INT: 7 WIS: 10 CHA: 13
Feats: Weapon Finesse, (Power Attack, Cornugon Smash, Toughness)

The goal is to make something of a frontline damage/intimidator with a support/debuffer/face close behind.

Here's some things I'm not sure about:

• Two-world magic - yes or no? I could drop 1000g to pick up Touch of Fatigue with an ioun stone, freeing up the trait for other things (armor expert or perception-in-class both come to mind). Alternatively, I could forget Touch of Fatigue altogether. I kinda want it as an at-will thing to do, but I'm not sold on it.
• Defenses. My Phantom is a Dex-based Eidolon, so I'm not worried about...him?...it?...Instead, I'm a little worried about my PC. She only has light armor and moderate dex, so her AC stalls out around 24 or 25 with Shield and some cheap magic items. Playing through level 1 showed me just how often baddies take that 5ft step over to me. If I drop Two-world magic or Spell Focus, I could go for a mithral breastplate. Worth it?
• Movement. The Shadow Caller rules were written with the common 'me and my pet move at the same time' initiative shortcut in mind. They don't really work otherwise. Short of 10ft shimmies, how do I deal with movement at tables that prefer to handle pet turns by the book?
• Magic items on incorporeal Phantoms. Quick rules question: do phantoms keep their equipment on while incorporeal? A Dex build is pretty gear-dependent and it would suck to have my Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists drop to the ground every time I have Hubert peek through a door.
• Intimidating Phantom? Is there something better I could do with my Phantom? Cornugon Smash is fun, but it comes online late-ish and his Intimidate, while good, never quite reaches auto-success territory. What other fun things have you seen a Phantom/Eidolon build towards?

Great guide!

The Imp. Familiar thing with the Magical Child is good to know. I thought you'd have to wait until 9 to get your Mauler back!

Agreed on most points. The Avenger is really solid; Warlock and Mounted Fury are close behind. Psychometrist is an interesting way to make a full-BAB counterfeit mage (I wish it had good Fort for Item Mastery Feats).

Gotta weigh in on the Cabalist,though: I think it's more of a green-yellow.

Cabalist strikes me as one of those 'good on paper, bad in practice' trap archetypes. The spell list is great for save-or-suck spells and you get neat abilities to help with DCs, but...disables get weaker as the combat drags on. Every round you spend trying to apply bleed is one round the enemy could have been unconscious or asleep or whatever. You either ignore your class abilities and try to push through 6-level-spellcasting DCs, or you reduce your spells' effectiveness by walking in and poking somebody. Both options are pretty ugly.

The second major problem with the Cabalist is the spell list. The Witch spell list is downright terrible at supporting a melee caster. It doesn't even have invisibility! You know who could use all the invisibility he can get because of his core class mechanic? The Cabalist! :D

1) Investigator. Without a doubt my favorite class. It has virtually limitless versatility without feeling like a "master of none" while playing. It's been getting a ton of love from Player Companions lately, too!

2) Unchained Monk. This class was needed desperately. Streamlined without cutting it down, and made better at what Monks are supposed to do best. All it needs is more first-party archetypes.

3) Occultist. I really respect this alternate take on casting. It has fresh mechanics that aren't overly complicated, and it makes highly specialized characters without feeling narrow in scope.

Least favorite classes:
98) Alchemist. I'm not a fan of alchemy. Also, these guys always seem to break something about the game, either accidentally or on purpose.

99) Gunslinger. Fantasy firearms are cool; their rules are dumb imo.

Mariana Trench) Witch. Played this through a super dungeon. Never again. Spell list sucks, super narrow focus, hexes range from useless to flat out overpowered depending on the situation.

Fighter with skills?

Vigilante and Ranger are best at that. Ranger gets fewer feats, but has spells, a pet, and can skip a few critical feat taxes. Vigilante is a Fighter with a Rogue skillset and some really neat talents.

They both get 6 skill points per level, but Vigilante can probably spare more points on INT.

Vigilante kiiiiiind of pets you do it. Lethal Grace gives Weapon Finess for free, free retrain if you already had it, and adds half your class level to finessed weapons as long as you use STR as the base damage. The bonus damage is not halved for off hands, too.

You can't dump STR but with a 12 or 14 you get decent damage.

Love this talent!

It provides a cheap way to make Finesse viable while still keeping STR relevant. In the long run, it comes out ahead.

@KunoichiSong:
Using Lethal Grace and Fists of the Avenger, Vigilante makes a great dex-based unarmed striker. As Rosc said, it uses Dex to hit and Str for damage, but in return you get enormous static damage bonuses. My favorite part: you roll a d3 and one-shot mooks anyways.

Dex-based Unchained Monk has better to-hit and better in-combat utility, Vigilante isn't gear dependent and has better out-of-combat utility. I'd say they're equally good, it just depends on what you want to do.

Arcanist: More a variant wizard than sorcerer. Annoyingly confusing mechanics that generate a lot of questions. For example: Can an arcanist leave spell slots open to prepare as needed throughout the day? Nobody has ever answered that question and that's just the first one.

I thought that was pretty well answered by the book itself. It's an all-at-once deal like Wizards.

An arcanist must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the arcanist decides what spells to prepare and refreshes her available spell slots for the day.

Anyways: I started out pretty hyped for the ACG, but now...

Kineticists don't have a whole lot of variance. I think they could use more options for branching out.

Maybe talents that work well with more feats?
- Kinetic Feint: Level 3 Infusion. 2 Burn. Grants a single feint attempt as a swift action when attacking with the infused blast. Counts as Improved Feint for the purposes of qualifying for feats.
- Imposing Elements: Level 2 Utility Talent. 2 Burn. Add your elemental overflow bonus to Intimidate, grants Dazzling Display as a bonus feat with 'kinetic blast' as the selected weapon.
- Expanded Metakinesis: Level 3 Utility talent. 0 Burn. You can apply metamagic feats to a blast as if it were a substance infusion. The burn cost is the spell level cost of the metamagic.

Kineticist could also use some more feats to support less conventional builds:
- Form Mastery: Requires Weapon Focus (kinetic blast). Select a Form Infusion. You may reduce the burn cost of that infusion by 1. This feat may only be taken once.
- Elemental Arms Style: Requires Weapon Focus(any); fire, cold, or lightning energy blast. You may add 1d6 fire, cold, or lightning damage to the selected weapon. You may only add elements you control. Changing the elemental type is a swift action.
- Elemental Arms Infusion: Requires Elemental Arms Style. Attacks using this style count as blasts for the purposes of applying Substance Infusions, Metakinesis, and Elemental Overflow. Infusions that modify damage only modify elemental damage added using this style.
- Elemental Arms Mastery: Requires Elemental Arms Infusion. Attacks using this style add 1/2 of your basic energy blast dice instead of 1d6.
- Elemental Companion: Requires Animal Companion, Boon Companion, Kineticist level 5th. You may replace your animal companion with a Medium Elemental of the appropriate type. Treat your Kineticist levels as Druid levels -4 for the purpose of advancement.
- Elemental Knack: Add +2 to your Kineticist level, up to your max HD, for the purposes of which wild talent levels you can select.

This character concept has been rattling around in my head for a while. I'm unsure about how viable it will be in the long run, however.

The goal is to make a medium-armor pseudo monk that deals in social skills, emotional debuffs, and d3 damage dice.

Human Avenger Vigilante
STR: 14 DEX: 18(+2) CON: 12 INT: 10 WIS: 8 CHA: 14
Traits: Quain Martial Artist, ???
1: Avenger Specialization, Social Grace(Intimidate), Weapon Finesse, Two Weapon Fighting
2: Fists of the Avenger
3: Gossip Collector, Enforcer
4: Lethal Grace, Weapon Finesse -> Power Attack
5: Many Guises, Social Grace(Bluff), Weapon Focus(gauntlets)
6: Shield of Blades, Power Attack -> Double Slice
7: Quick Change, Cornugon Smash, Enforcer -> ???
8: Cunning Feint
9: Mockingbird, Improved Two-weapon Fighting
10: Signature Weapon, Weapon Focus -> ???

Unless I'm reading this wrong, there's no penalty for fighting in my social identity, which will allow me to keep Social Grace's +4 to Bluff and Intimidate. Stacked with a Cruel Amulet of Mighty Fists, my "flurry" is capable of inflicting Greater Feint, Shaken, Sickened, and anything in between depending on what misses.

At level 8 (when I have all the main parts of the build) my damage is around +11/+11/+6 1d3+18, Bluff/Intimidate +20 including a Circlet of Persuasion.

I've got 3 concerns with my build that I'd like to address with my remaining feats, trait, and gear:
1) My to-hit is alarmingly low for a full-bab at level 8. Well not low, but not amazing either. What should I invest in so I'm not useless against high-level mindless baddies?
2) Maneuverability and range are issues. I need to full-attack to get my combo off, and my 'tricks' are limited to 30 ft. What should I get (other than a bow) to help this spell-less martial not feel useless in ranged fights?
3) My fort save really sucks.

I'd appreciate any advice to help round this sucker out. Thanks!