Tremaine's page

Tremaine wrote:

Are there systems to play into Xianxia style characters? (Cultivation, enlightened martial arts etc?).

For a quick definition Xianxia is Immortal Hero to Wuxia Martial Hero, in media Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Forbidden Kingdom are arguably lower end Xianxia.

That would all be Character Guide stuff, out in a few more months.

Thanks. Here's hoping then.

Are there systems to play into Xianxia style characters? (Cultivation, enlightened martial arts etc?).

For a quick definition Xianxia is Immortal Hero to Wuxia Martial Hero, in media Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Forbidden Kingdom are arguably lower end Xianxia.

A big good dying off would 'balance' the Redeemer Queen turning good.

Power attack is one of the better tuned feats in the game. It does exactly what it is supposed to do without being too strong or weak.

There is no point in arguing that it does less damage than attacking twice, that is the point. It is a sidegrade.
Also I wish to point out that you can power attack and then attack again just fine with furious focus if you want to go full out damage in a turn.

so all feats should be straight downgrade traps?

My goblin cleric coordinated an international freedom fighting network across 2 continents with dream messages in our Age of Ashes campaign. Non-detection is absolutely vital for narrative adventure writing purposes and is a very well-written version of this spell for PF2. I enjoy getting it for free with my magic warrior wizard in PFS.

Have you even read ooze form? It feels like that is a list of spells you haven’t even fully read, you just dONT LIKe the sound of what they do.

Which Is great, the type of caster you wanted to play is supported, a lot of people's isn't,.or not very well.

You don't actually want to sit there just yelling encouraging things when you're fighting a fire elemental, I imagine.

ah yes the buffer/debuffer playstyle :p

Well, you will have to choose what you want from a blaster:

- Staying power
- Damage potential

The Kineticist is was designed, way back in 1st edition as the "all-day blaster". That has always been its nature. In your 30th combat of the day, the kineticist can keep pace with all the martials who don't have resources to track, while the Wizard and cleric ran out of spells 20 fights ago.

What the kineticist cannot do is "reach into the toolbox and grab anything off-theme"(if you're a pure geokineticist and a problem can't be solved with rocks, it can't be solved by you) and it probably can't hit the same peaks for damage as a slot casting blaster in the 2-3 fights where the slot casting blaster decides to go all out.

This is a reasonable way to differentiate these classes and was, in fact, the same way they were distinguished in PF1. Back in PF1 the Blood Arcanist with Spell Perfection on Delayed Blast Fireball did more damage than the Kineticist did, but it could only cast Empowered Intensified Maximized Fireball with 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots and you only got so many of those.

It's not a bad idea to have two classes have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to doing the same thing. Like a fighter with a greataxe and a barbarian with a greataxe play differently. A monk with a bow and a ranger with a bow play differently. This is, in fact, a good thing.

What the kineticist shows is if you're going to get a themed specialist then the difference between "that thing" and "a wizard" is that the wizard is a toolbox character which has options that the themed specialist doesn't have. This is by design and not wanting to use those options is like a fighter not wanting to use the best weapons.

Except the Wizards 'best weapons' are the utterly boring debuffs, that turn them into a sidekick to the main characters...It's even worse for elemental/dragon themed sorcerers, who don't get to do the one thing they were born to do very well.

But for all of these damage cantrips, they are mostly just damage. How often do you remember that Ray of Frost could potentially impose a speed penalty? Or that Produce Flame might add persistent fire damage?

What percentage of the time would your choice of damage cantrip actually make a beneficial difference in the outcome of a combat? What is the percentage if we omit the scenario where an enemy has a weakness to the damage type?

Now consider: If we had a new version of Ray of Frost that was on the 2d4, heightened +1d4 scale, but added a one-round clumsy 1 on a successful attack roll and clumsy 1, -10 speeds on a critical - would that be a trade that you are...

Nope, I wouldn't.

The tradeoff is supposed to be that spellcasters, who are casting spells to do damage, can attack any of a target's defenses (Armor, Reflex, Will, or Fortitude). The Kineticist gets the gate attenuator primarily because it doesn't get that- some impulses attack reflex, a couple attack fort, none attack will.

. Unless I am really misunderstanding something and wizards can memorise the same spell multiple times, that arguement works once, with the only spell the caster has that targets that save, at highest level and heaven forbid you want to play a single element caster....

I don't think I agree with the notion of partial boosts being bad design. The way the system stands, it keeps players from being hosed if they don't absolutely min/max their scores from the get-go. That's especially beneficial to new players, which I appreciate.

There are pros and cons, but partial boosts solve some problems without requiring a whole lot of new words to explain the rules, and I don't see that they will be much of a problem moving forward.

My played experience is that the maths hoses you if you don't min max straight out the gate (I can't remember a crit against a foe that mattered on for instance, most fights are whiff fests already etc). Well unless you build a party as 'main character who does the fun stuff and his minions who debuff the enemy'

The Raven Black wrote:

I wonder who the consultant with expertise in matters of DEIB is. With all the name-dropping, it feels weird to me that their name was not mentioned.

They've already gotten into enough trouble doxxing customers, I don't think they have any interest in doing this to a legal professional they've hired.

We've already seen how nasty twitter warriors can be in all of this and I am confident that if Paizo started releasing the names of individuals who will be doing this work at the firm with X or Y specialty that they'd instantly have 5-20 activist twitter stans spending hours if not days aggressively researching anything and everything that named individual has ever done in order to try to pick at each and every seam, thread, and post they've very personally shared publicly or in some cases privately. That is not "accountability" at all, it's encouraging harassment and pointless dirt-digging.

we have seen how dishonest, untrustworthy and evasive Paizo management are. Only deeds will help now.

Eye witness accounts are evidence, but not very reliable. I can't speak to the reliability of victim statements, but I think generally they should be accepted at least until investigation verifies them... or doesn't.

Hence 'evidence' rather than 'proof'.

keftiu wrote:

I don’t feel comfortable monetarily supporting Paizo until the specific allegations about the treatment of trans employees are addressed.

The allegations are meritless, have no evidence, and fundamentally cannot ever be disproven by way of the nature they are presented... you might as well just stop posting here because this is a nothing-burger and if you expect concrete info on it you're going to be left waiting just like the USA waiting for news of WMDs in Iraq.

.

So you don't regard witness/victim statements as evidence?

Maybe someone should put together a list of gaming companies they won't give money to. They could even color code it with the companies being either red or green based on whether they're woke or unwoke.

It's called voting with your wallets, something conservatives have claimed for years we should do in the market..then they scream and cry about cancel culture when we do.

Generally speaking, a union is not going to stop something like the firing of Sara Marie. Most union/contractor relationships are completely discretionary. Meaning the worker can walk off the job for any or no reason and the union can put them right back to work the next day with another contractor. No questions asked. OTOH, the contractor can send a worker away for zero cause and have the union send someone else in their stead.

Of course if this happens to any meaningful degree, one side or the other is going to cry foul. The contractor could just not renew their contract with the union. And the union could strike or "conveniently" not have any workers available for the contractor when needed.

The primary role of the union is simply to create a framework by which the workers, represented by a few elected officials can bargain on equal ground for benefit and conditions with the company who also appoints a few officials to speak for them. Both sides have to negotiate in good faith or both sides will suffer. Maybe not immediately, but in the long run.

I suppose both sides could agree to a no-separation without cause clause, but those can often hurt the employee as much as the company so few agree to such things.

This is all just from the perspective of the US. I have not studied nor participated in any European, African, or Asian unions so I don't know how closely (or different) the US model matches the others. I strongly support unions, but its hard to discuss them because there is so much misinformation and unsubstantiated bias on both sides that it usually devolves into a street fight.

That sounds like an employment agency rather than a Union, interesting.

Tremaine wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

just like the time Jeff doxxed a poster for complaining.

wait what?? This needs more explanation/

Look for my post up thread. It is all laid out.

Oh wow, that is not good.

just like the time Jeff doxxed a poster for complaining.

wait what?? This needs more explanation/

The 1e and 2e Warpriests really aren't comparable, 2e Warpriest is pretty much 1e Cleric, and 1e Warpriest isn't in the game, the hybrid classes require a lot of work to bring across, if it is possible at all.

Philosophical question: Why does there need to be a Finesse version of literally every concept/class?

I really don't understand it, we already have two whole classes essentially dedicated to this as part of their specialization/role... why does it make sense to poach that for literally everything else?

Is it just that people REALLY want to optimize their to-hit and AC at the same time?

Because Elven Blade Dancer way back in ADnD was the first Magus type class (well technically kit for elf Fighter/Mages), and the archetype stuck, fast, lightly Armoured melee combatants mixing sword and spell to decimate their opponents. Their are ofc other visions, but that concept has been around for a long time.

I'm going to point out that if you really took PF1's design decisions to be the be-all and end-all, then you'd hate the design of the Bard and Sorcerer, even if we put aside all the major changes to the other classes.

. I really dislike Bards, and that..thing that claims to be a War Priest, the limited slot Magus and Summoner however are..interesting, the concept seems solid, but needs some tuning, it could turn out to be a passable replacement for the old 1-6 casters.

The spells setup is a decent way of invoking the old 1-6 casting, may need tweaking but looks viable, hopefully gets carried forward to Inquisitor and a proper War Priest further down the road.

Temperans wrote:

They really need to fix the Magus or change the name if they plan to release him as is. As it stands this is far from a Magus.

Forgive me but why? What would you call this then?

And why is Magus not an appropriate name? The name isn’t really codified into fantasy.

And if we are using 1E basis then we have someone who casts and uses weapons at the same time (sometimes delivering a spell through a weapon). So where does this fall down in that regard ?

by it being a flat better option to stand off and cast than to spell strike, basically by being a bad fighter/wizard dedication, a lot of 2e classes suffered from this in the playtest having abilities that sound like they work but actually don't. This magus is and Eldritch Knight with way less spells right now. with the proviso that this is theory crafting, but the numbers, especially having to make a melee attack and spell attack role, don't look good.

Having it feel anything like the 1e Warpriest would be great, so far it's just a cleric by another name. So Focus abilities working like Fervour and Boons, feats for weapon skills, and limited casting mainly useful minor healing and self buffs.

Tremaine wrote:

Given we are getting multiple redemption arcs for deities, are we going to get any falls?

That's a lot tougher to do, since a redemption arc for an evil deity is MUCH less likely to impact existing PCs, since there are far fewer evil PCs out there.

If we DID do an AP where a deity fell from grace, it'd either have to be an obscure one or a new one, or would have to sync to an edition change or something like that. Even then... that's akin to telling all the fighters out there that "Pathfinder no longer has longswords" or wizards that "We're removing the evocation school."

A deity's death or change in alignment is a HUGE deal, and since it fundamentally alters the way their worshipers worship, taking that away from established play is a lot more complicated for non-evil deities.

That said, there's been several examples of this happening in the setting's history. Asmodeus is the classic example, but there's several others.

If I had to choose a divinity to tell this story about in an Adventure Path, I'd probably pick Ragathael and have him become a demon lord or something like that.

. I have some of those rare evil PC's :p, but yes Ragathiel falling makes sense, as how he hadn't already was a headscratcher (or at least becoming CN like an angrier Callistria)

One thing to keep in mind is that Arazni is a goddess in transition from one thing to another. Her current presentation in Gods and Magic is meant to be somewhat confusing and contradictory, since she's not quite where she wants to be but also not quite where she was. I suspect this confusion is bleeding into her religion and faithful as well, with a fair amount of infighting and bickering and cross-purpose goals. As time goes on, her story will continue to be told, and assuming we keep telling Golarion stories we'll get to her ultimate fate.

For Nocticula, her transition from version 1 to version 2 happened mostly "off screen." We're trying to put Arazni's "on screen," with it beginning in the Tyrant's Grasp adventure path. I suspect/hope we'll have more to say about her some day, but we didn't want to magically have her immediately go from one to two because that cheapens the process of healing and the lasting effects of trauma.

Her goals are in a nutshell, though, to regain her own agency and to escape "life" as a pawn or slave or minion of other forces, to regain her dignity, and to help others find their own similar escape from enslavement as well, PARTICULARLY those who have been enslaved by being turned undead against their will.

But she's not pursuing these goals in a friendly, forgiving way at this point.

. Given we are getting multiple redemption arcs for deities, are we going to get any falls?

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Naw, the scorpion whip is a normal whip with razor blades set along it's length as far as I can tell.

A purely metal whip wouldn't be Light in bulk. I'd guess it to be similar in weight to a Great Sword.

What you have there isn't a functional weapon, it's a piece of chain that has some sharp bits attached at the end. You can't wield it, as much as throw it at someone and hope it cuts open their foot.

. It's not spiked, just smaller gauge chain, basically a cool way to demonstrate a scientific phenomenon (bull whips also do it, but lots of chain is cooler).

Now stats for an Urumi would be interesting, as that is a real weapon

For them to be 1-6 casters with a limited array of spells, but lots of abilities again, same as I want for Warpriest, when we get something worthy of that name, or Inquisitors, when they put in an appearance. So an option to not be a full caster, and not interact with the horrendous archetype system.

Stay safe, and best of luck to all.

I'm also confused about why you need four feats, even if the base competence isn't enough for you, wouldn't you just take a fighter dedication for Double Slice and call it a day?

Like, I'd probably take attack of opportunity as well, but it's not something I would view as a tax, just part of a melee heavy cleric build that might as well since it wanted double slice anyway.

Because a Dedication requires you to spend feats to 'complete it' before you can leave that Dedication, for, for example a faction dedication, later on. (Big example would be a Caster going for Hellknight.)

Thing is I'm having trouble finding it an apt criticism against building specific concepts versus fishing for powerful mechanics. Either that or the concepts have been trying to achieve more than an equivalent level character.

Then I am not making my point, or 2e characters are so terrible, they have to be pathetic at everything, because being forced to spend 4 feats for a single feat weapon style is a massive, crippling tax.

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

and get nothing for it, sure you HOLD two weapons, you may even swing both of them during a turn, but you don't WIELD two, their is no difference between holding a weapon in each hand and holding one, without class gated feats. Without the rules to make it meaningful, an action is utterly meaningless, and a waste of time.

vaguely following along. Can we improve our discourse and permanently kill the term feat tax? Any , I mean any, wait for the hyperbole any game design that involves meaningful choices will involve tradeoffs. And inevitably a dedicated human is going to be able to interpret that limiting choice as a ______ tax. It is pointlessly pejorative. Why are my spells hidden behind a level tax!!!!! I demand to be able to cast wish at first level it is critical to my concept!!!

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to pick the class that has the least bad TWF (pays your money, take your choice), then spend one feat on a dedication to that class, for abilities he doesn't want, to get access to ones he does, then if he wants to later prestige into a prestige archetype, he has to buy 2 more dedication feats that he doesn't want, to break free of that initial dedication, that was bought just for twf...what else would you call those 3 feats he had to spend on abilities he doesn't actually want?

Tremaine wrote:

As to 'how is that different from 1e feat taxes' they don't lock you in for further buys, if you want Improved Disarm, you have to get Combat Expertise... You don't then also have to get Swordplay Style and Improved Feint before you can get, say, Stealthy (if you wanted a WP of Kelinahat who's schtik was disarming and subduing like Pathfinder Batman for instance), again 1e was not perfect, it did have broken feats, and feat taxes, and getting rid of those taxes was promised in the run up to the playtest.... Except now the new taxes are worse.

Except none of that is actually required.

This is like complaining you have to have levels of Fighter to have one of the Advanced Weapon Training options.

Really, it's more complaining that you can't have things like dipping for Divine Grace + Sidestep Secret on a Sorcerer.

Yes they are required, and no I am not complaining about a weirdly specific combo, but thank you for dismissing my issues with the system without offering any counter evidence. .

Well this is now more the fact that they nerfed omni characters who could be good at everything and not need other players.

As for the needing a feat to get the feat you actually want, how is that any different than the prequisite trees of old?

. Omni character? No, not really they can be OK at things with a run up, but an actual specialist will leave them in the dust, but 'ok' is better than nothing, and again part of the attraction, they are really 'broad' characters, but not 'deep' at least not for long, they can, for a while, fake it til they make it, be an OK healer, or an OK face or.. Etc, without stealing the thunder of the actual specialists, unlike full casters who can do the omni character gig.

As to 'how is that different from 1e feat taxes' they don't lock you in for further buys, if you want Improved Disarm, you have to get Combat Expertise... You don't then also have to get Swordplay Style and Improved Feint before you can get, say, Stealthy (if you wanted a WP of Kelinahat who's schtik was disarming and subduing like Pathfinder Batman for instance), again 1e was not perfect, it did have broken feats, and feat taxes, and getting rid of those taxes was promised in the run up to the playtest.... Except now the new taxes are worse.

Tremaine wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

. (if this was replying to me) so you can have enough to go from buffing, to curing/healing, to investigation, to social engineering, all at the same time? (summoning and direct spell damage/debuff where never a WP/ Inquisitors strong suit, so get a pass). Less game experience with Magus, so not 100% sure how versatile they can be if needed to be adequate at an off spec role.

I don't remember a lot of Paladins doing all that.

But we're only going to get more as time goes on.

again they would be fixed, you can't change them out as needed. . (oh for the record go to for being a face-a-din for the ball: Aspect of the Nightingale, Build Trust, Honeyed Words and Detect Charm, take as appropriate, and if you have the levels Carry Companion and They Know are great, as is Detect Anxieties and Discern Lies, I am probably forgetting some)

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

. (if this was replying to me) so you can have enough to go from buffing, to curing/healing, to investigation, to social engineering, all at the same time? (summoning and direct spell damage/debuff where never a WP/ Inquisitors strong suit, so get a pass). Less game experience with Magus, so not 100% sure how versatile they can be if needed to be adequate at an off spec role.

Wait so the problem with dedications is that you can't do multiple dedications without investing a certain amount in each one, so you'll swear off the whole system and never touch it? Even when 1 dedication is what is needed to play your character concept and thus that restriction never matters?

. More completly: I have to buy a dedication to get access to what I actually want (which may be only one feat locked behind that wall) and then, if to round things out in this ersatz class build, I need something from another tree, or I want to prestige because it fits the story and I fulfil the prerequisites, I can't, not until I take 2 more feats off the dedication, which due to how self contained feats are now (another double edged issue) won't be something that generally improves the character, but an option I don't actually want, so that can be 4 feats total to get the one I needed.

I mean, the thing about Focus spells is that they actually do effectively replace things like "4th level spellcasting" In PF1, a 12th level 4th level caster gets like 5 spells per day. A PF2 equivalent can easily have a focus pool of 2-3 and the "double refocus" feat at that level, so you can equal the number of spells with one or two ten minute rests.

On the full casters the focus spells are there to replace things like "3/day domain powers" and they are there to supplement 10th level spellcasting, not compete with it.

What we haven't seen yet is a class that's a turbo focus caster- someone for whom this is a primary part of their kit. Since right now all the people with focus spells either have considerable spellcasting (Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Druid, Sorc) or considerable martial prowess (Monk, Paladin), so focus spells are a secondary or tertiary class feature for all these classes. There's design space for a class where this is the primary focus of those classes; we just don't know what it will look like yet.

My guess for the first "primary focus caster" will be something like the Occultist which can use their implements to have a multiplicative effect on their spells. Say, you have 3 focus points, but if you invest one of them in your evocation implement you gain 2-5 points of evocation focus. If you refocus, all of the focus in your implements goes away, but you can reinvest it.

. I missed the part where you can switch out focus spells as the situation demands, given enough warning. They do replace LoH, or Domain or bloodline powers, they don't replace a prepared spell list, less spells per day, but spells you can, with preparation, tailor for the parties needs that day.

Tremaine wrote:

Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round...

Well, not playing PF (or, at least, PF2) is a totally viable decision.

Though: You can only say something is poorly designed in the context of its design goals. Old feats weren't just messy. They were wildly inconsistent with one another. They "forced" you to take chains of feats you maybe didn't want to get to the thing you cared about. That isn't *bad* but it clearly wasn't what the designers wanted.

I think Dedications, as a system, are fine. Some are better than others. That is also fine and, honestly, inevitable.

Not liking something doesn't make it a bad design and we could all do without hyperbolic ranting like saying you are being "chained" in some way or ascribing ill intent to the designers.

it's not ill intent, they had specific goals in mind (niche protection, and stop people taking Mc for the front loading or edge case interactions, to name 2) and AFAIK they achieved that, but to do it requires restrictions, and the other side of niche protection is role enforcement, so we get a very talent tree like system, that has a very clear idea of what it means to be a class, and how to make it punitive to try to leave that vision. It's a crpg type vision, and I don't like it because of that (when I want a crpg/mmo experience, I can have that, on my pc, solo or with friends) I want TT to be freer than that, it's what I didn't like about 4e, and it's entered the DNA of this edition, that is the problem, PF started because of a rejection of what they now embrace. Sorry for formatting, posting from phone.

Tremaine wrote:

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

I'll confess I get confused by this kind of complaint.

It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that focus spells were never intended to replace Ranger or Paladin spell casting. The old-school Ranger and Paladin are Ranger/Druid and Paladin/Cleric multiclasses.

But by setting up the base class as spell-less, they now give players the option of effectively trading away Ranger/Paladin spell-casting for addition class feats. Even better, you can make these trades incrementally, allowing you to decide just how much of the spell-casting you want to trade away. (And with full investment, you get a lot *more* spell-casting than the old Ranger and Paladin had, so there are further options there too.)

This strikes me as a win-win: the previous options are all there, but now you have further options as well.

Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round anyone daring to use it, is it class features? Or feats? Or Multi-classing? Because it's not working at being all 3, and frankly it is so terrible as a system, I will not interact with Dedications any more, tried it during the playtest, absolutely and totally hated it, would rather not play PF than interact with that system in any way shape or form.

Tremaine wrote:

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

While I like Focus Spells quite a bit, I have to agree here. I frequently see people acting like Focus Spells can somehow fulfill wide swathes of design problems, despite them being really insufficient in many ways. They weren't even sufficient (in my opinion) to cover Witch Hexes, yet somehow they're going to replace 6th level casting?

It's almost like people are speculating with an idealized version of Focus Spells, where they don't have the various limitations that they have.

They would work as a replacement for Fervor/Altered Domain slots, actually thinking about it, and on Champions could take up the Smite/LoH/Channel space, but using them in place of actual casting, especially prepared casting doesn't work, simply in terms of versatility, a Cult Leader WP (using that example as I am playing one right now) can with fair warning, go from self buff set up, to doing a decent investigation load out, or social engineering. Never going to be as good as a full blown specialist, and should not be, but that ability to cover a gap in party coverage, or provide back up to a specialist, is what makes the 1-6 casters in general so much fun, they aren't the greatest at anything, especially after they nova their big buffs, but they can be decent to good at the thing they pick that day.

Tremaine wrote:

that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.

Deadly simplicity, standard domains, and focus spells instead of casting, with a cleric MC giving the limited casting back if you want it.

Make some of those focus spells focus cantrips that self buff, and you've got the beginnings of a PF1 warpriest in the PF2 system.

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting, the versatility of a selected spell list out weighs the benefits of a really small number of spells that are spam-able, at least for me, the thematic of sacrificing top level spells and spell progression for more martial power is also core to the identity of the WP. Also having domains changed to reflect a different role in the faith is part of that identity. War Priests are not some Dedication riddled mess, they are a separate strain of the clergy.

I'm not sure if Sacred Weapon is necessary to bring back beyond things we already have like "deadly simplicity", since post-WMH the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain who picked up a good weapon was sort of *the* default warpriest.

Never played an Arsenal Chaplain, have played straight War Priest, Cult Leader, Divine Commander and a Champion of the Faith. ( really like war Priests, almost as much as I like Paladins/Tyrant Anti-Paladins. )

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Rysky wrote:

The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.

I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.

An archetype that has a bunch of self-only buffs that cost 1 action to perform could do the trick. That or 2-action buffs combined with a 1-action stride & strike ability.

that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.

I'm willing to bet that APG will offer at least one option to allow a Full Caster who is willing to invest Class Feats + General Feats to remain Fairly Incentivized in their Martial Weapons compared to their Base Proficiencies.

Any takers?

. Would have the 'to much casting' problem... And the Dedication system being horrible (just my opinion, I know, but I prefer either totally classless, or full classes for a concept, the current Dedication system, tying you into a 3 feat commitment is worse of both worlds IMHO)

we will get another magus eventually.

. I hope it is feels more like a Magus than the current 'war priest' feels like a real war priest.

Just purely on the mechanic side, I’ve been considering for a little while that playtest antipaladin had a “hit back when people crit you” reaction and it felt a bit awkward, so instead I’m thinking they could have a “trigger: an ally of yours crits an enemy” reaction.

That way paladins are good at protecting their allies, while antipaladins are good at crushing those who are already suffering.

or don't give them a reaction, take the expected DPR or debuff per round from that, and apply it to active abilities, makes them better at being 'champions' in the kind of trial by combat/klingon promotion activities you would expect in most chaotic evil orders.(I'd actually like that for all champions. But my dislike of the reaction tanking aspects of the class is fairly well documented)

For an LE order, take inspiration from both Hell Knight orders and the DnD Dragonlance settings Knights of Takhisis/Knights of Neraka.

NE orders are probably nihilistic or narcissistic cults centered on the planar power being bargained with, that gets a lot trickier. But corruption, subversion and personal gratification would probably be strong themes.

My impression is that 2e is doing above expectations. I don't like 2e, but as far as I can tell, more than enough people do for it to be successful. (this is from the number of people trying to convince me to like it, reviews and social media activity. So not scientific, but seems solid enough) Maybe enough changes so I do like it on balance, maybe the success it seems to be having is illusionary, we shall see.

I believe most game stores are hostile to paizo due to pdf policy (and potentially other factors). So sadly I don’t think there are going to be many game store clerks helping with that

As an example the Forbidden Planet in Southampton U.K. does not stock a single pathfinder item. There was a brief spell when it had war for the crown and return of the Runelords books but I guess they didn’t sell well. And apparently that was driven by a particular manager (who might be gone now)

I remember that shop, used to have Hidden Fortress a few doors down, that place still a thing?

Cool, there's plenty of games where Paladin is the Destructor and Vanquisher. PF2 isn't one of them. Accept it, move on and let's maybe try to keep this thread on topic instead of trying (and laughably failing) to engage a class tribalist?

since my choices will soon be PF2 or nothing, that isn't a choice I have. (the move on to different game, not the derail thing)

Tremaine wrote:

Which is exactly the opposite of what a champion should be. They should be inflicting terrible judgement on the enemies of god, not being MMO tanks. To bring them to what they actually should be, using the rules we have, you have to leverage human shields etc, because the reactions are so totally anathema to that actual role. Champions stride out and do huge, maiming damage to evil outsiders, etc, they don't 'tank' that is for extreme niche prestige classes like dwarven defenders etc.

Just wondering... in your vision, what advantage does the fighter have over the offense-focused champion?

I mean, in PF2 there's a clear distinction between the offensive fighter and the defensive champion (or possibly a spectrum from the offensive barbarian through the balanced fighter to the defensive champion). But in your world, where is that distinction?

Huh. Come to think of it, I think I know what would fit your vision better than trying to rewrite the Champion class: a Zealot barbarian instinct. You could probably get one with some minor changes to the Spirit instinct, such as replacing negative/positive damage with aligned damage.

Fighters would be good all the time, with any weapon, and could specialise to be great with a group of weapons, you want an archer? Fighter can do that, someone to hold the line with sword and shield? Fighters got you, a pikeman, yup covered, zweihander soldier? Again fighters got you.

Barbarian: you want primal rage and a wall of meat crushing all with sheer rage and pain resistance? That's your guy.

Ranger: you want a wilderness scout? Or a beastmaster? Or a sniper? then you want a ranger.

Champion: you want to destroy the infernal, or the undead or those corrupted by Evil? (Not being a selfish a-hole, capital E Evil) That's what the champion does.