WWHsmackdown's page

Cool stuff. Keeping the coral dragon in the back pocket for a future naval campaign!

I just wanna know more about tech core in general......

Cutting the lists would be cool.....provided it didn't further damage a caster's ability to target all three saves. That's already a tall order on some lists, but further pruning can really hamper the one recourse casters have when going up against these large enemy save numbers.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Running with that Ring of the Ram example, imagine this:

You, a thief rogue, and your level 5 party are on the way to your next major plot point objective. While on route, you pick up a side quest to tackle a small time gang with an interesting twist: their leader is a telekine.

The gang leader, Arde Sholve, uses his powers to push carts off the precarious mountain roads so he and his cronies can pick the spoils in the ravine at their leisure.

An interesting encounter featuring combat and possible athletics checks to maintain grips and climb up cliff faces ensues. After the bandits have been dealt with, you pull a Ring of Ram off of Arde Sholve's cold dead finger: the source of his deadly party trick!

Fast forward to lvl 16 fighting some tier 4 boss and its minions. Some brute grapples the caster and starts wailing on them. Things are looking dire but you're up next! Pushing something a couple feet might not be all that impressive at lvl 16 but in this situation it would definitely help.

Your neurons begin to fire as your eyes snap to your finger. The ring! The jewelry you got from that small time gang leader 1.5 irl years ago (what was his name again? Some sort of pun...). You've used it a couple times and though it hasn't been often those few moments were pretty clutch.

You line up your fist green lantern style and make the minion throw a save against your class DC. It rolls a 20 on the die and disregards; on the caster's next turn they magic away. What you did was pointless, but you TRIED. GODS BLESS IT, YOU TRIED AND HAD A CHANCE!!! All bc of some treasure with a story from way back in tier 1 of play.

That's much, much, MUCH more satisfying to me than a constant treadmill of soon-to-be-trash.

This is an interesting scenario and I can see the desire for something like this but I think if we look at this exact scenario closely the issues with always slightly useful magic items to horde becomes more visible as well.

The difference between the two...

Then the game doesn't need a proliferance of items. I small bundle of things you can keep is better. Adjust the gold tables accordingly

Running with that Ring of the Ram example, imagine this:

You, a thief rogue, and your level 5 party are on the way to your next major plot point objective. While on route, you pick up a side quest to tackle a small time gang with an interesting twist: their leader is a telekine.

The gang leader, Arde Sholve, uses his powers to push carts off the precarious mountain roads so he and his cronies can pick the spoils in the ravine at their leisure.

An interesting encounter featuring combat and possible athletics checks to maintain grips and climb up cliff faces ensues. After the bandits have been dealt with, you pull a Ring of Ram off of Arde Sholve's cold dead finger: the source of his deadly party trick!

Fast forward to lvl 16 fighting some tier 4 boss and its minions. Some brute grapples the caster and starts wailing on them. Things are looking dire but you're up next! Pushing something a couple feet might not be all that impressive at lvl 16 but in this situation it would definitely help.

Your neurons begin to fire as your eyes snap to your finger. The ring! The jewelry you got from that small time gang leader 1.5 irl years ago (what was his name again? Some sort of pun...). You've used it a couple times and though it hasn't been often those few moments were pretty clutch.

You line up your fist green lantern style and make the minion throw a save against your class DC. It rolls a 20 on the die and disregards; on the caster's next turn they magic away. What you did was pointless, but you TRIED. GODS BLESS IT, YOU TRIED AND HAD A CHANCE!!! All bc of some treasure with a story from way back in tier 1 of play.

That's much, much, MUCH more satisfying to me than a constant treadmill of soon-to-be-trash.

Just tapping the sign...

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Or use Relics.

I'd prefer items that can stay relevant without being plot vital, uber powerful McGuffins. I ring of ram on a lvl 20 character that uses class DC and a late game relic with all its tiers of effects are NOT the same thing

A lot of static DC items are once per day activations anyway. It makes it doubly confusing why such arbitrary control is put onto what is essentially a daily power. Once per day utility activations stay relevant from lvl 1-20, but for some reason, if it makes an enemy roll a save it HAS to come packaged with planned obsolescence. Id sooner have all activations be utility effects so that loot won in the dungeon can be something you decide to keep .....you know.... a prize! As opposed to the fantasy ttrpg equivalent of junk mail: trash that someone else is giving you to throw away (I really hate spam/junk mail).

Why is finding a level 4 demon mask (worth 85gp) at level 3 worse treasure than finding an art object worth 42 gold and 5 silver? If you wear it for 2 or 3 levels and use its activation a couple of times while the DC is worth it, then sell it, you got more value out of the mask than a lump sum of treasure. Maybe somebody in the party values intimidation enough that they hold on to the mask well past level 6 or 7 where the DC falls off into irrelevancy, because it is just a +1 at that point. If casting fear regularly was this awesome thing for the character, they’ve had 4 levels to find another source for that ability and it will have only gotten worse than a multi class casting archetype in the last couple of levels.

I think the general issue is players approaching magic items as character defining game elements and that is very much against the design philosophy of PF2. Those kind of items are a part of a class kit like the exemplar. There are mandatory magic items for keeping up with numbers, but those items enable your class abilities (like weapons, shields, armor, etc). They are not character defining by themselves.

They SHOULD be character defining. No fantasy fiction that I consumed revolved around adventurers finding and mulching magical loot after a few uses. Harry Potter CONSTANTLY uses his cloak. Bilbo CONSTANTLY puts on the ring. Percy Jackson is CONSTANTLY using his pen sword. The idea that the magic ring you pryed from the cold dead corpse of the lich 3 levels ago is now defunct feels exceedingly hollow and unsatisfying. None of your items have a story, none of them matter, bc they aren't sticking around with those static DCs. They have the same value as a cheap souvenir.

Set DC items in a game where stats rise fairly linearly don't really feel like a narratively permanent addition to your character. Imagine Sam and Frodo getting eaten by Shelob and the whole adventure ending there bc the vial of starlight from Galandriel had a static DC all the way back from tier 2 of play and couldn't so much as stun a rank-and-file orc in Mordor.
That impermanence leads those items to feeling more like clutter than some permanent momento from your adventure.

At that point id rather have more consumables (which is funny bc I'm not big on them). Less gear that's more impactful is better than a flood of stuff that isn't meant to stick around.

Last night I ran a cinematic starship scene that was very well received; I'm very pleased with how the subsystem came out and really only wish I had more examples in GM core.

I used the Scanning a Dying Sun example for my lvl 6 party of 5 with the following adjustments: I changed the scanning DC from 27 to 23 bc my 2 computers players were only trained and neither were intelligence classes. I reflavored the dying sun to being an exploding reactor core in a derelict ship that they were trying to scan the last transmission of. I finally reflavored the fire elementals to being Swarm organisms for story reasons and bumped the health from 90 to 110.

It was a tense finale to the previous sessions investigation of the derelict when I left them with the cliffhanger that the ship had been scuttled by Swarm. All this to say I really enjoy the subsystem and look forward to trying to build some encounters of my own incorporating the homebrew upgrades my players give their ship in the campaign (until I can get official tactical rules).

How have cinematic starship encounters been for y'all? I'm interested to see how they've played out and what kind of scenarios other people plan on crafting. I'd also love to hear ship actions and homebrew improvements anyone has thought up while we wait for tactical rules.

Ectar wrote:

I was on board right up until "Ksedahl, the demon lord of ceaseless employment." It's about the eye-rolliest epithet I've heard in ages.

The description of the realm was cool.
Oh well.

Sounds like a Demon who loves Karoshi

Also, according to the time travel section, Zon-Shelyn will readily appear as Zon-Kuthon or Shelyn to any followers who can't accept their combination.

That kinda cheapens the narrative impact of those gods' sacrifice. Maybe Paizo got a lot of pushback from the Gorum fans during the Godsrain, idk.

I don't use it at my tables; between 5ish ancestry feats, 10ish skill feats, 5 general feats, and 10ish class feats, I think the standard game has plenty of decision points and I prefer the opportunity cost of working within 10 class feat choices as opposed to 20. Just personal preference of course; I just don't enjoy characters shoring up their class deficiencies with minimal pain. I'd rather they shore each other up than be islands of functionality. If they do wanna be an island, I want it to cost them most of their budget.

Agodeshalf wrote:

I'm about to start my psychic in seasons of ghosts. I have been wracking my brain for a way to make a psychic that could actually focus on using IW and not die horribly. The fact that probably the defining ability of the psychic amped cantrips can be poached via dedication seems wrong. You allow someone to be better at it than a psychic.

3 slots would be great, changing Unleashed really is to my mind a must, and having a way to better deal with mindless is very much needed - feat, something.

You should probably take generous advantage of your Amped Shield cantrip, alongside the Precise Discipline's Calculate Threat ability. Maybe also invest in a decent parry weapon. Anything that helps raise that AC.

Eh, I'm okay with the MC archetype as is. After all, it can only give access to 2 psi cantrips, where as a Psychic will have 5. Heck, you can't even get the surface cantrip without taking a feat separate from the dedication. This isn't like the ReMastered Oracle MC archetype.

And yeah, the whole 'Mindless' trait is one of my few gripes about how Paizo handles psychic magic. I mean, seriously, is there any other damage type besides mental that has a trait that says "This does absolutely nothing"

Precision damage on oozes

I don't think it's too ridiculous but scaling like a d8 spell (2d8 per rank with a focus point instead of 1d8) AND getting a second target is a bunch of small things. You get d8 spell slot spell attack damage...on two things ...for two actions. As it relates to the oh so squishy 6 health cloth caster chassis it's more suicidal than OP, but on any other chassis it's over budgeted. I'd rather see it be corrected if it meant more health or more gas in the class chassis

I know that I will get a ton of push back on this, but I think while buffing several of the psychic features, Paizo needs to nerf Imaginary Weapon. 2d8 damage (at Rank 1) is as good as most Rank 2 spells. Even being a spell attack roll, it is just too good.

Amped is even more broken. By Rank 3 you are dealing 6d8 Force damage to two targets.

It should probably be dropped down to 2d6 with +d6 per rank (regular and amped). Now it is more in line with Force Barrage for damage. At Rank 3, 2 action casting of Force Barrage deals 4d4+4 (Avg 14) v. 4d6 (Avg 14). Because you have to roll to hit it is weaker than FB, but it should be since it is a cantrip.

I'd be fine with that. The tangible dream psychic im playing in my buddy's season of the ghost campaign is using his feats for rogue dedication to get a naruto-style ninja type build. Honestly, the damage I can output seems a bit high and I'd rather have psychic be a 8 hit point class than be able to nuke in melee. Dropping often when I overcommit to melee seems to be the biggest issue. Imaginary weapon being 2d6 wouldn't be the end of the world if I didn't melt as easily when focused.

For my little tanuki's sake, more hp or more spell slots for defensive spells would be my ask for the class. Holding out for level 5 so I can get wooden double for my substitution jutsu.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why would you think this when the only reason to redo these books is to make substantial changes?

The remasters of existing books are being done in the place of regular reprints. That's why it's been semi-random. All the remastered non-core books are is special errata.

In addition We can look at treasure vault and guns and gears to see that anything that's going to require a lot of new or altered text is unlikely.

This happens with each book and people need to stop getting their hopes up that the reprint is going to fix whatever pain point they have, because Paizo have been pretty clear that's not what they're doing here.

Idk, the gunslinger changes weren't exactly nothing. The class got a nice bump, so wondering if the psychic would land on the gunslinger end or inventor end of the remaster spectrum doesn't seem like a baseless speculation.

What are everyone's predictions for the psychic remaster?

It could go a lot of ways, they might not even really change it all that much. However, I lean towards the refocus changes necessitating something more for psychics.

Psychic is ultimately a two slot caster with buffed cantrips, good focus spells, and two turns of psychic rage damage. Compared to how light some caster chassis are it miiiight really justify the missing 3rd spell slot. Hell, the necromancer is continuing the trend with board control and good focus spells costing that 3rd slot.

I think what the psychic offers is way more interesting than what the druid or witch have to offer, but I can't shake the feeling that something needs a bit more to justify cutting the spellcasting by one third.

Maybe psychic not being stupified after unleash. Or maybe unleash lasting a third turn. Maybe changing the cool thematic psychic feats to not be AOEs that harm allies as much as enemies.

What are y'all's thoughts?

This book was a lot of fun, jam packed with loads of goodies. Thanks for the follower rules, Linda! I've been brainstorming a sham professor thaumaturge with a medic follower as his graduate level understudy (for a Holmes and Watson vibe) but I could spend hours thinking of concepts for the rest of them!

4 slots free and clear with school spells being free learned spells would've been cool ...

Ryangwy wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I also think Spell Substitution is overrated for similar reasons. It's great when the situation aligns where there is a spell for this situation, you have it in your book but don't have it prepared, you have time to wait to get the spell, it's high enough level that its not practical to just carry a scroll, and you can't solve the problem with skills instead.

My understanding is that Spell Substitution is great for keeping the balance of your spells in place. You start with, say, two each of reflex, fortitude and will targeting spells in your top slots, maybe some general use but still not always useful things like Dispel Magic at rank-2 or an AoE incap in your 4th top rank slot. Two copies of Fly, perhaps. Then as you go through encounters and deplete them, you reshuffle to maintain the same balance, maybe to align with what appears to be the dungeon theme. Using a lot of Reflex spells against the mindless constructs? Probably time to wave goodbye to the Will spells you prepped.

You basically try to always have a generalist spell list prepped, whereas prepared casters, by design, become less generalist as they spend spell slots

That feels like a lot of effort to get what a Spontaneous caster gets out of the box. That being considered a major feature is probably a lot of why Wizard just feels so meh.

IMO Wizard would really feel better with 5e style prepared casting. PF2 missed the boat on that the first time and they probably didn't feel bold enough to try it in the remaster, but it just feels better in play. Especially on a class that doesn't have a lot else going on (compared to say Cleric who have Divine Font and IMO a better selection of focus spells).

5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared casters having the lunch of spontaneous AND having more versatility

I would rather if instead of going into the bestiary it was a simple template and like illusory creature where it uses the caster stats on the summon. The rank of the spell could define the amount of HP, damage a abilities that it have.

Exactly this. If creature stat blocks are two variable and broken to be given within relevant level ranges id rather have a template 10/10 times.

Guardian at least makes str companions more appealing. Not perfect, but I've beat that drum for 6 years so I guess I can wait for pf3e for a rebalancing of companions

Why wouldn't you? It's a strike.

your right, just the wording of if your strike hits the target it turns success into failures on the area attack save. I didn't know if that was the only benefit of that strike hit or if it functioned normally. Specific over general would probably specify that though, so yea,....I guess it's a normal ranged strike

Do you roll weapon damage on targets hit by the primary target ranged strike roll? I'm still confused on that part; idk if primary target is about focus firing or REALLY making sure that one enemy fails it's area attack save...

Well done, Gene. Communication and understanding are some of my favorite themes in sci-fi (Arrival is my favorite sci-fi movie). The piece feeling like it came straight from the tabletop is a cherry on top. Kudos!

But Unchained came 4 years before PF2e's release. It wasn't even close to be sendoff for that edition. It wasn't even the last book with classes on it.

Didn't realize. Fair enough. Well that and the SF1e equivalent being made before the OGL crisis advanced the time table makes a strong case I guess. It could work, and maybe even sell; I wouldn't be opposed to a book of class archetypes.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Only tangentially related, but I thought this was a better place for this question than a dedicated thread: how exactly does the weapon proficiency and armor proficiency work for followers from the captain archetype? I have the book in front of me but I'm struggling to find it within the relevant pages; I know the pertinent feats give the listed benefits on the follower statblock, but I cant find the words for their base proficiencies and advancements

Page 77, under Novice Followers:

"Proficiencies: Your follower is trained in their listed attacks, the armor from their kit, Perception, all saving throws, and the skills listed in their stat block."

They don't have weapon or armor proficiencies per se, just proficiencies in the thing in their statblock. So for example the Berserker is trained in their falchion strike and their armor kit. If you gave them a greatsword and full plate, they'd be Untrained in both.

Yup, there it is. Also upon closer inspections I see some advancements bumping proficiencies in strikes and such. Shame on me for skimming, lol. Guardian and berserker sounds like a fun combo!

...

Such a book sounds like it would be a pf2e sendoff, like unchained for pf1e

Only tangentially related, but I thought this was a better place for this question than a dedicated thread: how exactly does the weapon proficiency and armor proficiency work for followers from the captain archetype? I have the book in front of me but I'm struggling to find it within the relevant pages; I know the pertinent feats give the listed benefits on the follower statblock, but I cant find the words for their base proficiencies and advancements

Id sooner have the arcane classes and subclasses buffed instead of the list itself. Wizard, magus, and and the rune witch seem to be charged heavily for arcane access (at least I think it's part of their power budget). Conversely, imperial sorcerer has one of the strongest spellcasting features in the game, so it might not be a firm rule, who knows.

had an idea for a class that could be interesting

Spacemaster
where some break reality by tearing holes to new worlds, or hacking it's magical underpinnings, or finding connection to all living things, you are a living impossiblity, because you are able to violate the most basic laws of phsyics. Distance and volume are your playthings as you alter the distance between objects, enhance or reduce their capacity, and otherwise violate fundamental laws of physics.

I imagine this as a two to three slot caster who can enhance their speed by making certain spans of space just not count. can alter how much a container can hold, even batteries.

Narratively sounds similar to witchwarper

Ooo is this gonna be a console release too? I'm dragging my feet on updating my rig but this could spur me to do it.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

shroudb wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park

Don't get me wrong, I like the skirmish rules as well.

What i don't like is that they did absolutely nothing for their main campaign that has army vs army.

They could have a sidebar for conversion as an example from army to troop, and that would allow their "war campaign" to work with the new "war rules".

Instead, they ignored it.

The KM rules are third party material. So in all likelihood, as far as warfare rules are concerned for Paizo, THIS is the whole deal. The benefit of KM remake dropping first could have been seeing the response to those warfare rules and going "yeaaaa, let's not do that"

KM is not 3rd party material?

It is made and published by Paizo.

The converting KM from 1e to 2e was done by an outside contractor

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park

Don't get me wrong, I like the skirmish rules as well.

What i don't like is that they did absolutely nothing for their main campaign that has army vs army.

They could have a sidebar for conversion as an example from army to troop, and that would allow their "war campaign" to work with the new "war rules".

Instead, they ignored it.

The KM rules are third party material. So in all likelihood, as far as warfare rules are concerned for Paizo, THIS is the whole deal. The benefit of KM remake dropping first could have been seeing the response to those warfare rules and going "yeaaaa, let's not do that"

I really hope the iconic, whoever they are, is a nonstandard kind of necromancer. Nonstandard in that they aren't overly creepy or macabre, and don't see the undead as tools like villainous necromancers tend to. Really what I think is an iconic necromancer who sees the dead and undead as people first and foremost, and is maybe a bit of a dorkus who finds it easier to talk to them than with living people.

Awww c'mon now, this is our one chance for a brooding creep or a goth baddie. Sometimes playing to a type is fun too!

I was very happy with skirmish rules; a party of PCs surrounded by troop blobs opposing a similar force is a daunting encounter, both time wise and mechanic wise. It's just large enough to simulate armies clashing without completely removing the players and inserting them in a different game format for 40 mins to an hour and a half. I think they knocked it out of the park

*Shrug* I think it functions perfectly fine as a martial bard. I don't think it has to be much more than that. "I wanna be a face, I wanna be a martial, I wanna support"..... I think the class works as intended for these people

Captain archetype has me very intrigued as a dm. I make DM PCs for every arc that can slot into the party whenever we're missing a player and the group wants to continue on. The thought of making one that has a lackey or understudy has sparked some ideas.

Im also excited to make a Trex riding guardian that tanks crits for his dino and pumps out 1 action great sword power attacks as punishment.

Getting the necrologist to function and play nice on a class is a challenge I look forward to tackling at some point. A battle harbinger necrologist seems like it could make for a more martial take on the playtest necromancer; you'd just juggle action economy and make decisions on when to prioritize your horde or your auras

From the class descriptions I've seen, it seems like guardian has shaped up to be a nice bruiser tank. I'm excited for a character that can actually ride large, strength-based animal companions and not have their teeny AC values be a liability (bc they can tank the hits for them)! My caveman and trex PC idea based on Fang and Spear from Primal can finally be realized!!!

If we could prioritize new options:

New Style for Swashbuckler, new Subconscious/Conscious Minds for Psychic, and a new Way for Gunslinger.

I feel like they’re due for something. (I know Exemplar exists, but it’s barely 6 months old).

Other stuff:

A Witch class archetype that either gives a unique combat focused Specific Familiar, or lets you pick an Animal Companion and give it a few familiar functions (spell learning, spell preparation, familiar ability, limited selection of master/familiar abilities, but explicitly cannot become a specific familiar).

A “Reverse” Summoner class archetype that makes the Summoner the martial and the Eidolon the caster. (I know folks will say mechanically isn’t that the same as just reflavoring, but based on the RM Oracle discourse, not quite. Flavor-infused mechanics matter).

For Psychic, maybe a Sound-based Conscious/Subconscious mind focused on “vibing” with the frequencies in the universe, and harmonizing/dosrupting the vibes in others. Or for lols, a Psychic that relies on dealing *emotional damage*.

For Gunslinger…a cannon. I want an actual cannon. Inventor have have their fancy one, but I just want to blow a hole in the enemy in front of me.

For Swashbuckler, I really want a 2H focused one, but honestly, I’m sort of drawing a blank.

For Oracle, a new lvl. 1 Cursebound ability for a new host of related mysteries. Not sure how, but after playing FF14/FF5, I really want a Calamity Mystery Oracle. I like how some mysteries are like a twisted versions of other classes (such as a Blight Oracle is counter to a Druid), so I would like to see disastrous based mysteries.

For Wizard, a Theologian/Seminary class archetype. Could replace Arcane with Divine and instead of attending an Arcane School, they attended a Seminary which is just picking a deity they studied (doesn’t have to worship), which gives them their curriculum spells and a domain spell of their choice. Could have something fun like being able to use INT for Religion checks, or...

Class archetype for witch that turns you familiar into an animal companion would be awesome! Would eat up 5 feats to stay relevant but anyone going for that play style would be signing up for the animal companion prices anyway. Idk what kind of familiar ability restrictions would have to go into that, but I'd be down for the devs to try!

Personally I’m tentatively excited for *some* of Starfinder 2’s rules. But I would echo Quid Est’s point that SF1 pretty much operated on landing, while SF2 will absolutely not have the same spread of functionality.

The OP made a bunch of fairly salient points, however histrionic, and for *anybody* to suggest, for example, using the *Inventor* as a stand in for….anything is incredibly unfortunate.

Mostly I find threads like this useful for seeing just how far people will bend to justify away anything even approaching considered criticism. Critiques, however presented, are incredibly useful, and slavish positivity does no service to the hobby you love.

Meh, the histrionics just gets people sharpening spears for the troll hunt, so any beneficial criticism that could've been imparted by OP or similarly minded individuals gets drowned out by the ensuing online brawl. Criticism, much like judgement, is best served with cold impartiality.

I don't think the book has much for random class feats. I've only heard of archetypes and class archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

YuriP wrote:

shroudb wrote:

From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.

So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.

While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?

Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?

Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.

If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.

That's not the point, the point is, if the GM is very likely to follow the Taunt, is it worth spending feats on something that will probably (almost) never be triggered?

It's like this: having a one-action “Power Attack” against provoked enemies that try to ignore you is cool, but if the GM always Taunts (which will probably be the most common), you'll, in practice, never use the feat.

I can only see these feats as “threats” to the GM, as if to say, “Look, I have feats on my sheet that will make me hit the enemy hard if you focus this enemy on me, so don't you dare!”

Since I don't think this is the case in healthy games, it ends up feeling like a waste of feats or just a weird to punish the GM NPC/Monster that doesn't want to focus on the guardian for some reason beyond the fact that it is already unfocused due to Taunt.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like

...

Then I win the Tank Game.....there's no lose scenario here Yurip. Taking it as a zero sum game is purely a you thing. "Wasting" feats to ensure the GM plays by my tank rules means, again, that I "win" the Tank Game. Nuclear deterrents aren't wasted just bc they're never fired ....they're actively doing the thing by just existing.

I'm excited to make a two-handed guardian that can vicious swing whoever ignores me. For those that got the PDF, did any of the bruiser-like push-enemy-around feats make it to the final release?

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space.

Right, but getting those new options upfront with a new class would be much better, especially as the appropriate thematic book for them might have already been published. Having even 1.5x the book space for a new class gives a lot more room for giving a class' depth upon its release than a current model.

Fair enough, beefier class releases would be another benefit to single class books

I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space. I don't think expanding existing class options is a conscious high priority of the dev team.

However, I think the more practical reason to slow down to one class a year is to stave off edition burnout and the subsequent pf3. I'd rather the pace slow down so it takes longer to get to that critical mass of bloat that makes onboarding new players impossible.

Love the psychic (I've played two) but I agree that making some of the amp AOE ignore allies and maaybe having some of the psyche actions not require unleash would help diversify them greatly as far as making their feats more competitive. Psychic has some of the coolest class feats that unfortunately become a lot less attractive when you read the fine print.

Thaum, I have fewer opinions on bc it's pretty noisy to me (like the exemplar) so it'll probably stay more of a class to just look at from afar barring some streamlining

Glad mech is getting a slight brush up and bit more juice with mods. Really felt mostly solid and almost ready to ship. More utility and downtime modding is the only extra thing I really wanted from the class.

If you love 3.X conventions, then pf2e will not be your game, simple as. It's a system where choice and power are almost completely decoupled. Choice impacts play style but your chargen power ceiling is pretty much decided for you at lvl 1 with your class choice. Team play can boost your numbers but the measure of you specifically is mostly out of your hands. I've seen players make wacky concepts and follow their hearts in character concept without ever negatively impacting their performance on the battle grid. To me, that is the single most laudable accomplishment of the system. The ability to express your character without fear of messing up and being wholly superfluous when measured against other PCs in your party. It's a truly liberating feat. Suddenly, everyone is in it for the story, making the characters they WANT, not the the characters they NEED to compete. I honestly, hope and pray that 3.X conventions never see a revival. Let the dead lie in their repose...

I wasn't in the forums when pf2e dropped, so others could speak with authority, but I assume all that specific delineation and segregation would happen this summer when the edition actually drops.