It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.
originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
I continue to find the analysis paralysis excuse completely unconvincing. If MY derp-ass player group can run 3.x / DS Psionics just fine with no holdups or problems, then 99% of players could handle unlimited heightening without a problem. It's not worth designing around the 1%.
I fully agree, but I was just clarifying to Blave why Data originally dedicated his argument to opposing decision paralysis instead of other balances.
As for dispelling, I think it is fine as is? I mean if dispel magic was a cantrip that scaled then anyone within 6 character levels (3 spell levels) could spam it until they succeeded at a counteract check. I feel like lvl 14 characters should not be able to auto-dispel epic level spells if given an half an hour. That being said, it being feasible through days/weeks of hard work (i.e. repeated castings from high level slots) seems decently fair.
On the dispelling note, I don't think sorcerers being able to always have the right level dispel magic is really that huge a benefit. Thanks to counteract levels you take a -5/lvl that the spell is lower than the thing is is trying to counter act. If sorcerers had a feat that gave them a +5 but only when trying to dispel an existing magical effect I am not sure how frequently that feat would be taken. Is it good? sure. Is it so good that you need to completely redesign sorcerer hightens to avoid it? not really.
The way I see it this confusion comes from the fact that medicine is used to both diagnose disease and to suture wounds. Suturing wounds is very similar to crafting and thus logically is int based (or dex based but that isn't really an option here). In the real world diagnosing diseases is int based because you have to memorize as many diseases as possible and then compare the noted symptoms to the diseases you know. In sword and fantasy adventures though, diagnosing diseases is wisdom based because you need to determine what is wrong. Sensing that their lymph nodes are inflamed, feeling that they have a high fever, listening to their breathing to see if there is fluid in the lungs, these are all wisdom based tasks. In the real world we have machines to measure and quantify most of those tasks which puts more emphasis on the int side of medicine but that isn't an option in the pathfinder setting.
Additionally in 3.5/pf1 you would treat patients over long periods of time (closer to being a nurse rather than doctor) and help them recover over the period of 8 hours or a day to help increase natural healing. That was always more of a wisdom based task. I think medicine being wis based in PF2 is more of a hold over from that than anything else.
Currently medicine doesn't have that option and with the new emphasis on immediate surgery/first aid from the new skill use/wound mechanic I feel like medicine is starting to lean more int based. That being said, thematically it is in the realm of wis based characters so I am fine with it (though I agree int needs some boosting).
Mark Seifter stated that originally they playtested sorcerers being able to heighten any spell known but that it led to decision paralysis (trying to find his original post on the subject). As such, since they have already "proven" that it doesn't work in concept I think their minds are already made up. I hope that they change it because I think sorcerers should be able to heighten any known spell but without a ton of support for that method on these forums I doubt it is a change we will see.
Quandary wrote:
People who like Arcanist would like to have it Day 1, but just because Paizo might leave it for APG isn't reason to turn Wiz or Sorc into an Arcanist. When Arcanist is released you will have what you want, that doesn't justify destroying what Wiz/Sorc are.
I disagree. The Arcanist in PF1 was designed as a hybrid between sorcerer and wizard. They did this by taking the best aspects of sorcerer (repeated casting of the spell known) and wizard (preping metamagic, changing spells prepared, learning more spells) casting and balancing it around the worst aspects of both classes (sorcerer slower spell progression and on the fly metamagic penalty and wizard lower default daily spells per slot). If you notice, PF2 doesn't have many of those downsides to balance around: metamagic doesn't work that way anymore, wizards and sorcerers get the same level of spells at the same time and get the same number of spells per day (sorcerers get +1/lvl from blood lines, but the default before class abilities is the same). In the current system it is impossible to release the arcanist as it was because it would completely overshadow the wizard. I am worried that there never will be a PF2 arcanist because what can you remove to go "sure the arcanist is better as spell prep but it is balanced because of _____"
While I do think many save-or-suck spells needed the nerf, I feel what we got in exchange is far worse. We're now in "roll the dice, if you fail then you're... slightly inconvenienced". I feel that we've lost something exciting and interesting with the nerf of all the spells and abilities that can change the course of a battle. I don't know what the middle-ground solution is, but I hope one can be found.
I agree that we went from too OP to too weak. I would prefer to see more spells with potent debuffs on normal fails and crit fails ending the encounter. So crit success means nothing happens, success means mild inconvenience, failure means hampered, and crit fail means game over. Sleep is trying to do that, but because it is meant to avoid combat it can't swing the tide of battle
Dasrak wrote:
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)
The fact that the DC is unlisted means that there's going to be huge table variation on this spell. It could really stand for some more elaboration on that perception check. The fact that coup-de-grace is gone and they don't drop prone means it's not really that bad anymore anyways.
Hmm yes there should be more guidelines for what DCs various noises require to be heard, but for people in armor for instance it is an opposed sneak vs perception roll (which is terrible for PCs since monster perception is absurdly high). From page 320 in the rulebook:
the rules wrote:
"If there is a loud noise going on around you, at the start of your turn you can attempt a Perception check as a free action with a -4 circumstance penalty against the noise's DC (or the lowest DC if there is more than one noise), waking up if you succeed. For creatures attempting to stay quiet, this is a Stealth DC.
Perhaps from a RAW point of view once asleep the PCs should make stealth checks all the time or the target can automatically wake up, but I like interpreting the "loud noises only" to give the PCs more leeway and make the spell less than useless.
That being said, a lot of sorcerer players in PF1 felt punished for wanting to play sorcerers. These rules are there to help add a little flexibility and bring sorcerers more in line with wizard versatility. They did so by making the sorcerers feel more wizardly. Does it feel a bit odd? Yes most certainly. Do I understand why they did it? Absolutely.
Wizard versatility?
As a sorcerer, I can cast any spell I know on the fly, without having prepared it beforehand. Can a wizard do that? Why would I want to have to prepare beforehand? The whole point of playing a sorcerer is that he is more versatile than a wizard!
Hmm I feel like my point was not conveyed adequately. When dropped into a situation with no previous context the sorcerer will have more spell options available and thus be a lot more flexible. That is a play style I absolutely loved which is why I always preferred sorcerers and oracles to wizards and clerics. In exchange, wizards got higher level spells 1 level early, could metamagic with the normal spell casting actions rather than full round, had the similar total number of spells available per day with school dedication, had a ton more skills, and with 10min of study could swap out spells known. Do you not feel like those punish the sorcerer? When a situation was not an immediate threat (i.e. divinations the morning of, players planning an assault/ambush, coming across a barricade) the wizard was the one with more flexibility because he had nearly unlimited spells "known" (depends on GP expenditure) and could tailor spells accordingly. If a sorcerer and a wizard come across a locked door and the sorcerer knows "knock" then the sorcerer is more likely to be able to settle the situation right then and there (immediate flexibility sorc>wiz). If the sorcerer does not know "knock" than he has to retrain a spell or gain a level where as the wizard has to look at his books for 10min (prep flexibility wiz>>>sorc). These new rules help mitigate that. The sorcerer being able to say at the start of the day that he preps x, y, and z is a very wizardly thing to do which is why it rubs PF1 players wrong, but it fixes the sorcerer's inability to solve certain challenges without MASSIVE time investment which is very much a good thing. Is it still weaker than a wizard? yes, but now for different reasons.
I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.
Alchemaic, this is another example.
This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?
Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours.
I feel like we are reading very different comments. The way you are commenting it seems like you are comparing scaling crossclass characters to non-scaling single class ones. Khatib is saying all characters should have more access to feat options and one way to do that is to remove feat taxes that slightly increase feats you have already taken. The druid who is only a druid has to pick animal companion feats over and over and feels like they are missing out on doing other druid things. PF1 druids could have scaling animal companions while dedicating their feats to either spell casting or martial proficiency. In PF2 it feels like you are giving up on other druid flavors due to limited feat options. Some people are ok with that (PF2 and PF1 are different systems, stop comparing them) some people want to fix it by having a ton of class feat selections, and some people want to fix it by having scaling feats. Each solution has different pros and cons (which is why people gravitate to different answers), but either of the two proposed changes would still reward druids staying druids by having more druidy things but would reward druid fighters by being a little less druidy in exchange for being more fighter (which appears to be your disagreement).
As for David Silver's comments, he was asking for classes to be able to branch out. Currently the only ranged ranger is a crossbow wielder. Sure you could be an elf and get bow proficiencies but if your class gives you no benefits for using a bow why would you? In PF1, the inquisitor could be an excellent ranged combatant but it felt very different from a zen archer. They did this buy applying general feats with class locked abilities. Most of the comments I have seen have argued that there are many class specific feats that should be open to all classes, but no one wants ALL of the class feats/abilities to be generalized. If you want a very specific fighter only feat you take the dedication, but if you just want some backing for using bows should you really have to crossclass? Your response seems to imply that he wants the inquisitors to have wisdom to attacks and flurry of bows from zen archer in addition to all inquisitor class abilities and feats or in PF2 to have rangers be awesome with both crossbows and normal bows. No. He just wants access to point blank shot without crossclassing and he is willing to give up a ranger feat to do so.
@Foreverjune: I get what you are saying. Personally I tend to suffer from decision paralysis in terms of character building. Building a character in PF1 for me would be a week long experience as I would put together half a dozen half formed ideas, and then refine over and over until I locked down the perfect character to fill the party niche, have a couple cool abilities I would find fun to use, and flesh out how he would go about most combats. For me the sorcerers and oracles were amazing spell casting classes because almost all of the abilities were set while leveling up. That way character building could stay as character building and game play could stay as game play. If you prefer more day to day decisions you had the choice of playing wizards or clerics. In exchange for less spell tracking per day I was fine giving up a little bit of power (despite personal preference I do believe wizards were often better than sorcerers powerwise).
That being said, a lot of sorcerer players in PF1 felt punished for wanting to play sorcerers. These rules are there to help add a little flexibility and bring sorcerers more in line with wizard versatility. They did so by making the sorcerers feel more wizardly. Does it feel a bit odd? Yes most certainly. Do I understand why they did it? Absolutely.
Leveling up is training too. some of the attribute is about training as well. you get some dex because of rogue training some dex because your background required it you gain some because you level up which...
I feel like I have poorly defined some terms so things like training can be taken multiple ways. Personally I define "working at a particular task" to be training while "learning to think on your feet by completing challenges" to be experience. Let's look at a quick example ok?
A ranger has lived his entire life in the forest hunting deer with a bow and skinning and selling their pelts. He has high dex and experience using said dex both to hunt and with skills (skinning pelts is a high finesse task). So the high level ranger who has never seen a lock in his life suddenly find's his animal companion's foot trapped in a bear trap from a rival hunter and needs to pick the lock to free his companion. Well, he has a high dex which makes it a lot easier to feel when the lock's pins go into place. That should play a huge part and it does. Not only is he naturally gifted with high dex but he has practiced using his hands both for tasks and combat (high level). Once again that should make the task easier but with the current system it maks it A LOT easier (+10). Unfortunatly he has no ideas how locks work so that is a -2. Ok now compare that to a rogue with the same level. The rogue has been practicing picking locks all his life because his livelihood depends on it (master). Compared to a similairly stated ranger he has a +2 due to training which makes his bonus +4 relative.
That +4 seems like a lot but it represents that the difference between having no idea how something works and a task you practice everyday is only 40% of the benefit you get for shooting a bow (and the ability to think on your feet from fighting in combat). Additionally half of that difference isn't from a bonus but rather from not having a penalty. So having a ton of training is really only 1/5th the worth of general experience at mid level (worse at high levels). The difference between 2 identical rogues but one picks a lock every day while one picks a lock every year is a mere +2 out of a total bonus of +17 (assuming neither has a bonus item). If level was +1/2 then focused training would be 2/12 while general learning and problem solving would be 5/12 and superhuman dex would be the last 5/12. The previous ranger would be attempting it at a +8, the general use rogue would be at a +10 and the life long lock picker would be at a +12. Despite being equal differences, it feels like a much stronger effect than the 13/15/17 in the current system. To me, 8/10/14 (with training being +2/tier) seems more representative of the situation but I do understand why people want a more bounded range.
I do believe that 1/lvl is an easier number to remember but my issue with 1/lvl isn't how it works but how it feels. As ludovicus mentioned earlier a lvl 10 character will have a +20 in his/her chosen field (10lvl, 5stat, 2 training, 3 item). As a character I feel pathetic that the effort I put into training and honing my skill makes up 1/10th of my proficiency (the smallest number added). You are great at picking locks not because of the years you spent in the thieves guild training but because A) you punched a couple dragons in the face, B) because you were always very dexterous, and C) because you found these cool gloves in a box somewhere.
With the +.5/lvl system suddenly these numbers are more rounded. +5/lvl, +5/stats, +3/items, +2/training. Every bonus has always been relevant but suddenly IT FEELS like the training plays a bigger part. General experience=natural proclivity>tools [roughly]=training. Personally I would like to see training give larger bonuses and be more available (as well as small alternative bonus to balance class features). For instance if training was +2/tier suddenly training would be about on par with level. From a narrative perception geniuses (people with high natural stats) would pull away from the crowd but with heroic hard work and training characters could catch up. I realize that boosting training means you have to balance other class features and there are a myriad of other potential issues that crop up, but these numbers can be adjusted. For instance the fighter has superior training and thus will have the highest attack bonus, but perhaps the barbarian rage gives a small bonus to hit at higher levels so that they are only a little behind and the other classes can achieve at least expert level with some weapons. You still get the high numbers=high fantasy feel, but where those numbers come from is different. I can cut that dragon in half not because I grinded killing a bunch of small mooks but because I am a high level barbarian and am ANGRY! My spells can turn the tide of battle not because I practiced wacking people with my stave but because I am a high level wizard and I AM POWER! It feels so much more statisfying to say "I AM A HIGH LEVEL ____" rather than "I AM A HIGH LEVEL"
I feel like if someone has to roll multiple times it should be the DM. There are fair systems but it can be up for interpretation. For instance, if I am rolling multiple dice and order matters, I declare that target order is based on final dice position going left to right with top to bottom breaking ties. But it can be hard to convey position order to the DM and determining whether top/bottom tie is required or if it is still an obvious left right ruling. It is fine with friends because they trust me to be unbiased in judging, but for random tables or for friends that try and slip one past occasionally it can lead to issues.
Why this applies here is because in the current system if the wizard cast fireball on 6 mooks, the DM can quickly decide a system and roll all the dice at once. Few players accuse the DM of cheating because if a DM ever feels like cheating there are far less obvious ways to do it. If we use your new system then it is the player who is rolling 6 times, has to tell the DM how they want to apply the dice to the targets and then the DM and player have to agree on the results. Alternatively the Wizard has to roll the dice one at a time after saying each target. Conversely when the party is targeted by a fireball with the current system, each player just has to roll once and announce their results which is both more satisfying for the player and faster for the table. If we use your suggestion, then the DM rolls X times and then tells each player his results. This is far less satisfying for the players because they feel like they have less agency.
EDIT: also it aids in keeping the monster's stats a mystery. The DM rolls and then tells the player how many monsters passed/failed the check. With the suggested system the player knows each result and thus has an easier time judging what the monster's reflex AC or Fortitude AC is. I feel like leaving it unknown helps prevent metagaming
You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep bouncing from point to point without bothering to understand anything.
Frozen is stating a very basic fact. If you have a single feat available to all classes that interacts with each class's abilities differently, then you have a multiplier. If you manually adjust the feat based on which class is using it, then you have something merely additive. So, if you want more variety, which method do you chose?
Merlin is stating another very simple fact. The +/- 10 crit mechanic means that there will be no modifier more important than hit frequency and anything that doesn't increase hit frequency will be discarded by most players. That being the case, which ever class/feat combo is best situated to boost hit frequency will be the class/feat combo most commonly selected.
As a way of seconding what ErichAD said with hard examples, take a look at the Druid. They have a couple set styles (wildshape, storm, animal companion, plant), and if paizo prints a new style for them then there will be +1 character style option. As for the wildshape druid, there is a magical item that is absolutely required that allows you to use your own bonuses instead of the spell's default bonuses. Pretend for a moment that that item was a feat rather than a prohibitively expensive item. If there was a class gated feat that said "use your own bonuses when transformed" then the druid would have +1 option. If the feat was not class locked than suddenly any transforming character has the option of building a melee build. +x options where x is the number of classes with access to polymorph spells/abilities. Sure there will be some that are better than others (the rogue that multiclasses wizard for spells won't get many uses out of it) but leaving those options open makes for more varied characters and more characters that can FEEL different. And think for a moment about how that could change other class aspects! Suddenly if strength is a secondary priority for the caster then melee touch spells that before would never see use suddenly become a reasonable option.
Hahaha oh man, greenbound summoner feat more than made summoning a valid choice in 3.5. Sure it was still a full round spell but all animal summons having +6str (and +2 to most other stats), dr10/magic AND slashing, and free spell like abilities was stupidly good for a feat that required no pre-req feats. PF went the opposite route and gave options to summon as standard actions with certain feats which I think made it a valid choice and superior summons has some crazy applications too.
As for PF2 I really like the way it set up summons. It is still a full (non-hasted) turn to cast but now it happens on the end of your turn instead of continuing onto the start of your next turn (and thus being interruptible). It follows the same rules as animal companions in terms of action economy (better if you get the feat to bypass concentration) which is nice because it keeps rules consistent. It is also a fair trade since it doesn't add to your multi-attack penalty (unlike spiritual weapon/guardian) and trades 1 of your actions for 2 of the summon's/companion's.
I think my only concern is how weak the summons are. Due to the +lvl scaling having your summons be cr your lvl-4 makes them feel really weak and makes their spells more likely to be crit saved against. I need to do more testing to see how they actually compare and would like to hear how you all feel on the subject.
Another good reason to have a free boost per class is the wildshape druid. Their wildshape functions #/day off STR and with a magic item you can keep your own stats so STR is important there for keeping your attack bonus and damage up. Despite STR clearly being that archetype's defining stat you can never have greater than a 16 in it at level 1.
Heck a ton of the old PF1 archetypes played off alternate stats like gish bards, morphing alchemist, charisma paladin, ect. Why mess up fun alternative class styles by predetermining stats?
I want to make a librarian character that when anger speaks more with her fist and less with words.
....
I work at a library so I thought it would be cool to make a character similar to myself.
I immediately support this thread and the anger issues it represents :-D
May I introduce you to the kirin style and it's follow up kirin strike? As a swift action you add double your int to an attack (melee or ranged). Since it only applies once you can build it into single attack builds (spring attack, vital strike, lance charging). So now you have a choice: got normal melee class (fighter/urban barb/ranger/ect) and have int as a tertiary stat (str or dex being primary, con as a secondary) or go as a int based class (magus/alchemist) and building towards melee. I could easily see an alchemist as a librarian. Double bonus on the alchemist: get a conductive amulet of mighty fists and now your punches explode (dealing your int as damage again).
We are somewhat inoculated to murder because it is a common trope in media/literary works/news/ect. It is far worse than torture or rape (hmmm perhaps less so in a world with concrete proof of an afterlife and where people can be brought back to life for money? That is a fairly interesting tangent, but we are talking about out of character reactions rather than in character reactions), but because we are used to the concept of it, it doesn't shock us like other evil acts do. For instance, which makes you shudder more: "I ripped his head off" or "I ripped his finger nails off". For me, I twitched a little at the idea of getting fingernails ripped off despite the fact that losing my head is far far more serious. Well, I realize that murder being worse is my personal opinion from a extremely privileged area of the world where I don't have to usually fear either of those things. However, logically I think that suffering extreme fear+pain and surviving emotionally and physically scarred is still usually a better alternative than not surviving. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE AWFUL. Rape is seriously hushed up in America, there is not enough immediate counseling for victims, and, worse, victims are often times made to feel like it is their fault. Slut shaming is a serious thing, which is completely illogical since you are effectively blaming the victim for the attacker's inability to control himself. This is a serious problem and society needs to take a better look at the issue, however I am not sure pathfinder is the medium to do such a discussion. If you are playing an evil character who does evil things and everyone at the table knows that these are evil things which they should not do in real life then why is the severity of evilness being called into question? So why then is it ok to play a guy that stabs a man for his mostly empty gold pouch but not one that kicks puppies (or other shock value evil acts).
THAT BEING SAID! Rule 0 is "don't be a dick." If a player like the OP or the female player said "hey, woah this is not ok. I've had real life experiences that this is too close to." the player in question should ret-con the hell out of his actions. Hell, that should always be the case. I know someone whose dad passed away with cancer and it left a huge emotional scar on her. It doesn't matter that sick parent dying is a common trope in media/stories, if that scenario comes up in a situation she is playing in, it should be changed. The point of the any game is to have fun, but a game that comes at the cost of poking someone else's emotional wound is a pretty F-ed up game. I don't think that RP-ing a messed up situation is in and of itself messed up, but turning to your fellow player and saying "I don't care about how this effects you" is a sure sign they are in need of serious counseling.
I think my new favorite archetype of all time is the bounty hunter slayer. Every sneak attack doesn't do extra damage and instead gives a dirty trick with a bonus based on # of SA dice. Now, you stack the ability to blind, entangle, ect (or more with dirty trick master) with any fear build (enforcer or cornugon smash) and shatter defenses and EVERY attack is a sneak attack (including AOOs). So lets say an enlarged slayer with the long arm spell and a reach weapon is chilling in a square. That is 3 AOOs/dirty tricks on anyone stupid enough to approach (4 if you threaten with a non-reach weapon like bite or gauntlets) so now they are attacking you blind, entangled, sickened, and shaken. But wait, lets up the fear factor! Toss in soulless gaze, thug rogue, or unchained rogue skill unlock (intimidate) and instead of shaken they are now frightened. Which mean they have to immediately turn around and try and flee INSTEAD OF ATTACKING YOU. Oh did I mention that the archetype can dirty trick on ranged sneak attacks too? Oh yes. Greater invis, obscuring mist + goz mask, or even just blinding them with the first dirty trick and suddenly you are free to effectively remove people from combat withing 30 feat. What, too close? Yeah I agree. Grab the sniper goggles and now you can dirty trick as far as the eye can see and composite bow can reach.
Wait, are you accepting archetypes? Because let me throw out an idea for the phalanx soldier. Sword and board, but, because you are a dwarf, everything is ridiculously oversized. You can wield a tower shield and a lucerne hammer effectively. Imagine for a second this squat gruff man carrying around a wooden wall while wielding a hammer attached to a pole 3 times his size. Plus if he had wanted to go paladin he probably is the kind of guy who would wand support options like giving people cover. (note, heavy shield is actually better in this build than tower shield, but it is your choice on flavor vs power)
ooooooo you want a full fighter throwing build? heck yes! may I introduce you to two handed thrower and Sliding axe throw? Two handed thrower lets you do normal 2h damage with thrown weapons while axe throw lets you get free trip attempts at range while still doing damage. I'd say it is pretty weird throwing half a dozen axes at a person, but why stop there? Lets kick it up a notch! sliding axe assumes that since throwing axes are the only throw-able axe that they would be the only axe for this feat. WRONG. Throw anything lets you...well throw anything. Since long axes are not intended to be thrown, if you try and throw them it is an improvised ranged weapon (as to be expected from an axe on a 7ft pole). Don't like that? Fine, there is an weapon enchantment that gives melee weapons a 10ft range increment. Seeing as how +2 priced weapons are too expensive to be thrown around willy nilly, you are going to need a blinkback belt (only applies to light and 1 handed weapons though). So by 6th level this fighter is going to be throwing a battleaxe 3 times (rapid shot in addition to his normal 2 attacks). Best part is this character is almost as effective in melee as he is at range (since weapon training (axes), weapon focus (battle axe), ect all apply).
Back in 3.5 I used to only care for the DPS numbers (oh thri-kreen dervish, I shall miss you and your 34 attacks per round) and if I was branching out, control could be handled by yes/no deny type spells like entangle/ black tentacles (either they are grappled or they are not). However when I moved to PF I fell in love with the wealth of tag along debuff options. From the simple metamagics like daze and rime to class features like winter oracle, Pathfinder has taught me the joy of turning my enemies into quivering balls of useless while blowing them up at the same time. So now I am curious: while still being a fairly effective character, what is the highest number of debuffs a character can deliver in one round (I left it vague because there are some pretty strong melee debuff builds as well)? Here is a couple builds I had laying around:
Crossblooded sorcerer (void touched and cold elemental) X/ winter oracle 1 (feats rime and daze): The default spells are elemental touch and snap dragon fireworks. Elemental touch gives you an extra debuff (sicken or fatigue) while snap dragon fireworks allows you to triple debuff (silence only works the round you cast) as a move action. Debuffs are: Daze, entangle, slow, silence, and fatigue. (If you level oracle instead of sorcerer, you can go spirit guide and get the crashing waves hex at lvl 16 to also add prone).
Thug unchained rogue 4/bounty hunter X (enforcer, greater dirty trick, maaaaaybe trip): Losing only 1 BAB means your CMB is surprising high for a stealthy character (and is further boosted by every SA die) and since you are using dirty tricks with your attacks I could easily see the argument for applying weapon bonuses/ weapon finesse to those checks (like with trip or sunder). Two weapon fighting for max numbers of attacks can leave a person Blind, entangled, frightened, sickened, and dibilitated (-2 to ac or attacks). At lvl 12 you qualify for dirty trick master which can nauseate or daze. Another option is shatter defenses to make them flat footed, but seeing as how they are already blind, the only thing that would boost is Sap master.
What ways do your characters have of telling people to shut up and sit down?
Hmm tossing in ideas is great, but At some point we should summarize our thoughts right? Just so we are all on the same page: so we ruled out the divine casters (oracles, clerics, warpriests, and I assume inquisitors and paladins), you've stated you don't like alchemists (maybe a beastmorph vivisectionist since it is more BDF than GOD?), and the high level of DM fiat makes you not likely to play a caster (wizards, sorcerer, witch, arcanists). Is this correct?
Assuming it is, where do we go from here? lets divvy it up by roles shall we?
physical combatant:
You suffer from lack of weapons, so that should be the first problem to solve. The way I see it you have a couple options:
1) Craft your own. As long as you are making reasonable weapons (at least at first) smashing two rocks together and making a makeshift dagger isn't that crazy. Tying said dagger to a stick and making a spear or short spear is also pretty feasible (and hey look, 1 handed piercing weapon if you want to go swashbuckler). Sure, you won't have any steel weapons to fall back on but I am sure you can figure out something. Most classes (fighters included) get craft as a class skill, so with a 12 int at level one taking 10 you get a 15 on the check. That is high enough to craft most things (and should definitely be high enough to craft stone weapons). Sure, having no tools gives a -2, but if the party aids other that should cover it. normal short spears are 1gp and daggers 2gp. 15roll X 12DC means that within the first week you can craft 9 daggers or 18 spears (unless stone weapons are cheaper in which case pump those things out like there is no tomorrow).
2) Improvised weapons: This is by far my favorite option. catch off guard not only gets rid of penalties, but makes any unarmed combatant flat footed to you. So either the DM throws unarmed combatants at you and they get slaughtered or he throws armed ones at you and suddenly your party has weapons to loot. Do you like rogues? Do you like rogues with sap master? Because pick up turkey leg and watch the DPR numbers soar (I assume beating someone with a hunk of meat is non-lethal right?). Don't think improvised weapons can do non-lethal? fine, take bludgeoner and enforcer, add in a little thug rogue (or intimidate skill unlock) and go about debuffing them while you are at it. For even more fun, may I suggest mixing in the bounty hunter slayer? Sure, sap master isn't as OMG WTF BBQ damage, but free dirty tricks is very nice. Plus since you are fighting mostly humanoids, it is unlikely that their CMD will scale exponentially like normal. And heck, with everyone wearing light armor and next to no magical items, flat footed is going to screw over so many enemies' AC. If you don't like rogues there are also improvised archtypes for monks, cavilier orders, and a couple traits that can make for decently effective builds even under normal circumstances.
3) Fight unarmed. Yes, to compete with a fighter normally the monk needs to have an AoMF, but in a world with very few weapons, having a decent weapon built in is quite nice. Monk or brawler are great picks here. You shouldn't be dealing with too much DR (maybe skeletons and zombies?) so not only are you not at a loss for not collecting a weapon of every metal material, but high number of attacks are suddenly a valid fighting style. DPR-wise, TWF and THF are pretty even, it is just when DR comes into play that TWF falls to the way side
4) natural weapons: Speaking of built in attacks, natural weapons are a decent route to go. There is more support for unarmed than natural (specially as a human), but ranger styles, beastmorph alchemists, character with eldritch heritage (draconic) and many more. You know what is fun? Taking racial heritage (goblin) and going feral gnasher barbarian. Bite attacks, nice improvised weapons, and all the smashy goodness that comes with going into a rabid fury.
5) Pet class: Ok so this isn't so much a weapon for you, but any class that focuses on fighting alongside a pet like the hunter, summoner, ranger, or caviler (Lances are pretty easy to find material with which to craft) is going to excel. Duel character classes normally suffer from having to pay to equip 2 sets of hands/paws, but when you are in a survival wasteland and everyone is under-equipped suddenly the balence is turned. Ah, reading the comments posted since I started my post, I see you are looking at the construct rider alchemist. Another fine choice. Combining with one of the methods above (crafting seems good for a partial Int class) should be a good combatant.
support:
Ok so no cleric goodness means very little in the way of healing. Alchemists with infusions, bards, and nature casters (druids/hunters/rangers) are going to be in high demand. I know infusions is a nasty feat tax, but unless someone else in the party picks one of the above classes as well you really need to take it. People suggested bard earlier and I actually think it would fit well in this campaign. If most people go unarmed or natural attacks you will be getting a high number of attacks per round so bard inspire courage will more than pay off. I had more to write in this section, but you seem to like the alchemist so I'll cut it short to get the post out in a reasonable amount of time
Ooooh actually the rabbit whole goes even deeper. Imagine you are in combat and there is a flesh golem. You are invisible and cast call lightning on it, does that break invisibility? After all, call lightning is clearly an attack spell.
Well if you are the person who built it and KNOW that electricity heals flesh golems then I don't see how that is any different from casting cure spells on a person. It shouldn't break invis.
On the other hand if your character is fighting the golem and just failed it's knowledge check to ID it then clearly it was intended as an attack and invis is broken.
New scenario: you cast call lightning while invisible as part of a bluff check (gods are angry!!). You target your lightning in an empty column: If the air is empty then nobody is saving vs it and invis should remain intact. But what if you failed your perception check and there just so happened to be a bird flying by? Well unknowingly you hurt something therefore invisibility is broken
Same spell, only difference was intentions and effects. Sure it breaks suspension of disbelief to assume that the invis spell is sentient and knows not only what you MEANT to happen but also what ACTUALLY happened but anything else gets too complicated way too fast
Edit: For even more fun, replace the bird with a stealthed rogue. Rogue sees the lightning, barrel rolls out of the way, and takes no damage. You still turn visible because he had to save.
