fanatic66's page

fanatic66 wrote:

The treadmill issue is well known and predates Pathfinder 2E. However, I think this a flaw with the adventure design more so than the system. One of the pitfalls of a system that adds your level (or half level for D&D 4E), is that it can lead to immersive breaking situations like "20th level characters are facing 20th level guards for no reason other than to create a balanced encounter". However, this is just bad and lazy adventure design. High level heroes should only be facing threats worthy of their time. Or if they face weaker threats, such as 20th level party vs city guards, then it should be more of a "see how powerful you've become that you can mop the floor with the same people that gave you trouble X levels ago...". Instead of fighting starving thieves at 10th level, you should be facing devil assassins. Instead of facing city guards at 20th level, you should probably be facing the Eternal Sentries that guard the City of the Gods.

If you want a system where you can throw low level threats at the party for most of the campaign, then Pathfinder 2e doesn't work great for that. You can make troops out of low level threats, but ultimately, I think Pathfinder 2e shines when telling "0 to hero" stories where by the end, the heroes are truly epic individuals that can take on elder dragons, mythic beasts, demon lords, demigods, etc. If you want a more grounded story, then either cap the level your players can reach (campaign ends at 5th/10th level), use no proficiency bonus variant rules, or play a different system. I haven't run or read Agents of Edgewatch, but judging from this thread, perhaps it should have been a level 1-10 AP like some of the newer ones if the AP's story is very grounded.

If you want to keep the player more as heroes than superheroes, and to be threatened by a large number of lower level opponents even at high level, then you need to look at the optional rules:

Proficiency without level and/or Stamina

That will enable that type of game.

Yeah I mentioned that at the end of my post but I misremembered the variant name. The proficiency without level variant will help with some of those issues but I also think depending on how grounded a story you want, ending the campaign at an earlier level works well too either by itself or in conjunction with the variant rule. Not every campaign needs to go to 20

The treadmill issue is well known and predates Pathfinder 2E. However, I think this a flaw with the adventure design more so than the system. One of the pitfalls of a system that adds your level (or half level for D&D 4E), is that it can lead to immersive breaking situations like "20th level characters are facing 20th level guards for no reason other than to create a balanced encounter". However, this is just bad and lazy adventure design. High level heroes should only be facing threats worthy of their time. Or if they face weaker threats, such as 20th level party vs city guards, then it should be more of a "see how powerful you've become that you can mop the floor with the same people that gave you trouble X levels ago...". Instead of fighting starving thieves at 10th level, you should be facing devil assassins. Instead of facing city guards at 20th level, you should probably be facing the Eternal Sentries that guard the City of the Gods.

If you want a system where you can throw low level threats at the party for most of the campaign, then Pathfinder 2e doesn't work great for that. You can make troops out of low level threats, but ultimately, I think Pathfinder 2e shines when telling "0 to hero" stories where by the end, the heroes are truly epic individuals that can take on elder dragons, mythic beasts, demon lords, demigods, etc. If you want a more grounded story, then either cap the level your players can reach (campaign ends at 5th/10th level), use no proficiency bonus variant rules, or play a different system. I haven't run or read Agents of Edgewatch, but judging from this thread, perhaps it should have been a level 1-10 AP like some of the newer ones if the AP's story is very grounded.

I started a campaign using ABP and like it so far. No need having to worry about making sure everyone is getting the expected +1s. Instead I can worry about rewarding the party with more interesting magic items.

Gaulin wrote:

The design of some monsters really bug me. I like being the sort of player that's prepared for as much as possible, but some monsters match up against some classes in such a way that there's very little counterplay. Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death (and yes I know those are extreme examples but there are some similar lower level things that do similar). All of those situations where the game is like, oh don't worry, your weapons can't be targeted, you don't have to worry about them breaking. Or you don't have to worry about AoOs anymore. Until you do, and then you're out of luck.

This is a criticism I can get down with. I cut out 90% of fights against monsters who are immune to precision damage because they make things so unfun for the rogue in my game.

This is a good call. With some martial classes be highly dependent on precision damage, it seems unfair for a Rogue's effectiveness to dip significantly against certain monsters.

I don't mind alignment in general, but I don't really like... say, champion reactions being alignment driven. The subtle coding that you can't have a CG hero meting out divine vengeance or a LG champion offering glimpses of redemption feels unnecessary and pigeonholing to me.

And imo alignment damage would be better served as just... another damage type. Juggling the weirdness with neutral deities is annoying and I don't like the cosmic gaminess of, say, a neutral follower of a good deity being better equipped to fight denizens of the lower planes than a good follower of that same deity... because an LN follower of Torag can deal Good damage without being susceptible to Evil damage themselves.

100% agree. I’m not sure why dealing divine punishment is only the purview of LG champions.

I would have also prefer 5e’s radiant/necrotic damage as opposed to alignment damage mess that we have, but I understand not everyone wants more streamlined mechanics. At the very least, we could keep the 4 alignment damages but let them hurt anyone (unless you have resistances or immunities), and rename them, so good to radiant and your evil to necrotic. That way you can keep 4 damage types but remove the alignment connotations and restrictions. Radiant/good damage harms everyone but maybe celestials have resistance and immunity to radiant.

My biggest gripe is alignment. It’s given too much mechanical weight. I prefer alignment, if it stays in the game, to be purely narrative. Because of my gripe with alignment, I really dislike the Champion class and how most divine casting works in regards to alignment damage.

Champion class seems overly restrictive compared to d&d 5e’s Paladin. Evil champions are cartoon villains while we still don’t have neutral champions. Even once we get neutral champions, the design space for the champion class is filled up because all the alignments will be covered, and Paizo designed the champion subclasses around alignment. Seems overly restrictive from a design perspective in addition to overly limiting as a player option.

Alignment damage makes for weird use cases and breaks my immersion. Why are divine casters of neutral deities screwed out of so many divine spells? Is it because neutral characters are immune to alignment damage? Why not just remove alignment damage and avoid this weird use case? For immersion breaking, divine lance is a pseudo detect opposite alignment spell that deals damage. Why wouldn’t important figures hire a priest to blast everyone with good divine lance to determine if they’re evil or not. Seems like a good way for a monarch to check visitors being meeting with them. Alignment damage also screws over certain character types. What if I want to play a character like Teen Titans Raven (demonic sorcerer) that uses my dark magic for good? Doesn’t work well in this system because in a traditional campaign, my enemies will be evil and therefore immune to my evil damage spells I gain from my demonic bloodline.

I also wish clerics were more individualistic. The deity granted spells are nice but not enough. I would love 5e style gods that grant a whole slew of thematic spells to really make a cleric of one god feel different from a cleric of another god.

I tend to love playing divine characters so these stuff bugs me more than probably most people to be fair.

Sauce987654321 wrote:

I like reading descriptions and lore of monsters. It's good to have some context and an idea of how to gauge them from one to another.

Beyond that, I was never interested in Golarion and its history. I personally preferred it more when they didn't talk about it and kept it to APs and such. It's fine that the game has its own primary setting, but I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of PF2 games played have nothing to do with Golarion.

Don't bet too much, you may well lose ;)

Their APs are a huge part of Paizos sales and are intrinsically linked to Golarion, that's a large part of why they're so popular, so no, most PF2 probably is played in Golarion.

I would be curious to see the numbers. Paizo has a good reputation for their APs, and certain online tools like Foundry making running an AP really easy. At the same time, creating and running your own adventures/worlds has been a staple of the hobby for a long time. Of my friend group that plays PF2e, everyone else is running APs and I'm the outlier running homebrew.

As someone that only runs campaigns in my own world, I much prefer books with a heavy focus on rules. But that's just me. I know there are plenty using Golarion for either homebrewed campaigns or AP, so more lore is probably appreciated for them.

Everyone does not need to abide by PFS standard though. Only those who play PFS do.

Exactly, and if PFS play is a niche part of the player base, I wouldn't worry too much about PFS standards.

fanatic66 wrote:

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

"What % of players play PFS" is one important question.

"What % of players had a PFS game as their first PF2 game" is another.

Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of answer either of those. I'm just noting that when you're in a position where you're considering the first, it's also worth considering the second.

The second question is interesting, but also beckons a follow up question, "How many people that started with FPS and keep playing PF2e, stick with PFS or move on to home games?" My guess is that the % of people (first timers or not) playing PFS is not the majority (similar to AL for 5E) of PF2e players, and is more of a niche player base. But I could be wrong.

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?

Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.

I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.

I think some have already made RAW suggestions to play a divine smiter, but if you're willing to try homebrew, I have some options for a divine smiter character as a big fan of the concept:

• Templar Archetype: A cleric class archetype to turn the cleric into a Magus like class with less spellcasting for better martial prowess.
  
• Eldritch Scion Archetype: Inspired by the 1E archetype of the same name, this class archetype turns the Magus into a Charisma spontaneous caster that can pick a sorcerer bloodline to determine their spell list. Want to play an angelic holy warrior? This has got you covered.
  
• Avenger class: Inspired by the D&D 4E class of the same name, the Avenger is the offensive version of the champion: a mobile skirmisher that brings divine wrath against their foes. This class has gone through a lot of updates and play testing to get this IMO a balanced version. If the champion is too defensive for you, then I would try out the Avenger.
  

The Raven Black wrote:

You realize that 3.5/PF1 has 17 years worth of content vs PF2's 2 years, right ?

Yes, I also realize that Pazo is releasing content at a glacial pace by comparison to those years. 3.0, the fairest comparable we can make, had 16 rulebooks (they didn't really do PF2 style adventure guides), 56 companion magazines, and 11 adventures. This is compared to PF2 which has 8 rules-heavy books and 11 rules-light adventure guides alongside 37 adventures or adventure paths. It's fair to say that even an apples to apples comparison has PF2 behind D&D 3.0 on the actual rules content.

I'd also argue that D&D 3.0 was more experimental in what it tried to cover with its Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Stronghold Builder's Guidebook releasing early into its lifecycle alongside proto Savage Species content published in Dragon. With Savage Species itself only missing our cutoff date by a mere 2 months.

Glacial pace?!? Be glad you never played 5E. I played 5E for years and the pace of content release for that system is terribly slow. Paizo's release pace is honestly almost too fast for me. I love all the new classes but I don't nearly have the time to play every new thing or get excited about it, because there's always something new around the corner.

With that said, the 3E/PF1E era had so much content at such a fast pace, but that contributed to the edition(s)'s lack of balance over time. PF2e is a tightly balanced system, and I imagine it takes longer than the 3E/PF1E era to release content while also ensuring it won't break the game. PF2e hasn't even been out for 3 years yet and we already have 20 classes (5E has only gotten one new class in its almost 8 year life!). Give Paizo some time, as they are making new stuff really fast. Plus there is a growing number of quality homebrew and 3PP starting to create content too.

I say axe alignment altogether so that judgements of moral character and worth are judged solely by the reader weighed against the actions and beliefs of the thing they're reading about. You'll avoid half (but not all) of the issues.

Might be because I come from 5E but how I wish alignment in this system was treated more like 5e alignment: narrative tool with little to no mechanical implications. I started playing with the old Baldur’s Gate games and 3E, and I have a fondness for alignment, but I really dislike how mechanically intensive it is in PF2e.

kryone wrote:

I was wondering, what is your favorite or most efficient eidolon in your opinion ?

Devotion - occult is the best list and it pairs well with champion archetype.

Dragon is a decent generalist.

If you go champion archetype, can you use champion reaction with your eidolon?

breithauptclan wrote:

Which 10 HP martial class can cast any number of on-level spell slot spells? Because that is the class that Summoner would be best compared to.

To answer my own question: I think the class that would compare most similarly for martial/casting role like this would be Warpriest Cleric and maybe Wild Shape Druid. Neither of them are 10 HP martials, but they do have some martial tendencies while being casting classes.

So how does the Eidolon compare to Warpriest?

Wouldn’t the obvious comparison be the Magus, the only other bound caster class? Magus has less HP but Summoner effectively splits its HP between two characters.

Elevate kobolds to the glory they deserve!

One can like PF2e and not like the APs, as they are separate. I personally really like the system for its mechanics and character options, but I prefer my own world and homebrew campaigns over Golarion and APs.

But to the OP’s question, I’m not sure if unionization will help you like the APs more, but the more recent APs have gotten better reception from fans. In general, I would stick with Pathfinder 2E if you and your group enjoy the system, not because of the APs. 5e is a fine system, but if you want the crunch and options of Pathfinder, without the bloat and imbalance of Pathfinder 1E, stick with 2E.

You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.

It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.

My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.

My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.

My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.

Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.

I just have little to no interest in a familiar outside of having a cute buddy. I really getting magic from a patron and exploring they relationship but the witch class’s being the familiar class dampers my interest in it.

Temperans wrote:

Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spells based on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from school

So... Witch.

Without the familiar baggage. I want to like the witch (I love the 5e warlock's themes), but I'm not into familiars, and not a fan of some of the class's power budget being devoted to having a better than average familiar.

I figure dungeon inhabitants would probably react as they would to the sounds of combat (metal against metal, magical explosions, etc.).

I would love a focus on updating older classes with new class feats or “subclasses”.

Not official but for 5e converts, you can use my Dragonborn ancestry, which I've had people use before. Might satisfy that draconic humanoid itch for some

Hey, I love Critical Role stuff. If you want to take a look, I have done some 5e conversions in the past, including Dragonborn and Dunamany (including Chronurgist, Graviturgist, Echo Knight, and Dunamancy spells).

When I GM, I prefer homebrew campaigns as a big part of the fun for me is world building and coming up with storylines. Modules are a good source of inspiration though!

As a player, I don't mind modules but I do tend to find they lean too heavily on combat. I'm personally not a big fan of dungeons, but they are fine in moderation, but sometimes modules have too many dungeons for my liking. But a GM can definitely cut down the amount of combats (my group uses milestone leveling so missing XP isn't a problem).

People may be more prone to try system they were thinking about now that it is known there will be newer version of D&D in 3 years. Maybe not huge amounts but sone may make the switch to PF2.

Possibly but this new version of D&D doesn’t sound like it will be that different. They want it backwards compatible and 5e is too successful to deviate too far from. But I could be wrong

To defend the 4e Realms’s honor somewhat: there’s a nation perched on the land around (and into) a massive rift into the Underdark, populated by an alliance of dwarves, renegade drow, and the largest remnant of the god of invention’s faith.

They’re just to the south of an ancient artificer empire recently returned to the surface, a belligerent empire of undead, a merchant republic of geniekin, and a militant outpost of alien dragonfolk.

It ruled.

4E realms had some interesting tidbits, but overall I hated it. The time skip killed of many ongoing novel storylines and felt very forced and unnecessary. Also killing off many of gods simply sucked IMO. The drow, a personal favorite of mine, had any nuance stripped away and reduced to just evil Lolth worshippers. This decision by WotC would ironically come to bite them in the butt years later when people got tired of always evil drow.

If it wasn’t for the fun gameplay of 4E, I probably would had skipped it entirely out of spite for killing the Realms. I’m guess I’m more bitter about it than I realized lol.

fanatic66 wrote:

FowlJ wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them.

I mean, the Critical Role cast was playing Pathfinder, the first season of the show was them converting their long running PF1 home campaign to 5e because they felt it would stream better.

I otherwise agree though that they've pretty strongly associated themselves with D&D and WotC as a brand in a way I don't especially see them going back on.

The first season was entirely 5e. Only their home game before was Pathfinder and they played very infrequently back then. I think some of the cast would have a hard time adjusting at this point to a crunchier system. They still get tripped up by 5e mechanics after playing it for years. This isn’t a jab at the CR crew because I love their campaigns. I just think PF2e is more mechanically intensive then they need.

No, it was Pathfinder. That's why Percival was a gunslinger and the party had a bunch of PF1-converted magic items, among other things. The entire part of the campaign they streamed was 5e, but the stream started at 9th level in the middle of an ongoing adventure, not at the beginning of the campaign.

I think we are saying the same thing. I know their home game was Pathfinder but they switched to 5e for the stream and have been only doing 5e or narrative lite systems (one shots) for the last 6 years or so. And just judging how some of the crew still stumble over 5e which is a simpler game than PF2e, I think it would be a hard adjustment to streaming PF2e.

fanatic66 wrote:

And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them.

I mean, the Critical Role cast was playing Pathfinder, the first season of the show was them converting their long running PF1 home campaign to 5e because they felt it would stream better.

I otherwise agree though that they've pretty strongly associated themselves with D&D and WotC as a brand in a way I don't especially see them going back on.

The first season was entirely 5e. Only their home game before was Pathfinder and they played very infrequently back then. I think some of the cast would have a hard time adjusting at this point to a crunchier system. They still get tripped up by 5e mechanics after playing it for years. This isn’t a jab at the CR crew because I love their campaigns. I just think PF2e is more mechanically intensive then they need.

I really can't see Critical Role playing Pathfinder 2e for a long term campaign. They've tied themselves so much to the D&D brand (and DNDBeyond) at this point. And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them. Sometimes I think the crew would be happier with a more narrative system, but certainly not a more crunchy one.

And that's not me saying Pathfinder 2E is bad, as I like the system a lot (hence why I'm posting here), but I don't think its a good system for Critical Role. With that said though, I would love for them to do a one shot or side campaign to your point, Dave2, using PF2E. I'm doubtful because of their connection to D&D and WotC, but it would be cool.

On the topic of 5E "Evolution" (as WotC calls it), I don't think it will change much in terms of who's playing what game. There's a very small, but growing subset of 5E players who want a more crunchy game with more options and better rules for DMing, and some of them have jumped ship to Pathfinder 2E (like one of my groups). If 5E Evolution/5.5 borrows some ideas from PF2e and makes the core game more crunchy, I could see some people flocking back to 5E. Otherwise, if 5.5 does some minor updates but the core system foundation remains the same, then I don't think much will change. People that want a more crunchy system will flock to PF2E. Those that want something more narrative and rules lite, will flock to other systems. 5E will be the popular middle ground as it is now.

A correction but Critical Role started with Pathfinder 1e in their home game, then switched to 5e when they started streaming. I think Matt Mercer said it was because of how simpler 5e is to run. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, as 5e is still simpler than Pathfinder 2E. I love the show but the players would have a tough time with more crunchy ruleset of Pathfinder IMO.

Charisma is one of my favorite stats. I love having options in social encounters and this edition made charisma skills so strong (demoralize, bon mot, feint). I don’t think it’s mechanically weak at all.

A dhampir (or potentially full vampire with the options in Book of the Dead) with the chalice implement seems like an obvious choice. Casually sipping blood in the heat of battle.

You can also come pretty close to making Thresh from League of Legends with the lantern and weapon implements. There's nothing quite like his scythe in the game yet, probably a reflavored scorpion whip would be the closest. And the Thaumaturge mechanic of discovering and creating weaknesses works well with him always wanting to inflict pain and misery.

As a big fan of LoL and especially Thresh, that sounds super cool. I would probably go scorpion whip for his hook as it seems most appropriate.

Yep dual class Magus plus a regular full caster. Also has a better starting array of stats. He has insane mental stats and is a powerful warrior as well. He’s really a final boss type character

How does spell strike work with Blinking Charge? You teleport and get two attacks?

Yeah, healing is terrible in 5e until very high level spells like Heal or Mass Heal. But for most play, being a dedicated healer is a bad strategy in 5e. The meta is to only heal once someone goes unconscious which leads to whack a mole gameplay. PF2e circumvents this through the wounded condition, healing actually heals a lot, but also access to healing is abundant. Every tradition except arcane can heal, and everyone can grab medicine.

Arcane does have way more spells than Primal though. The updated list from Old Man Robot is:

Arcane: 489
Occult: 441
Primal: 357
Divine: 282

See this thread.

The more egregious issue to me is that Occult has nearly as many spells as Arcane while also getting Heal "lite" (soothe)

I would also prefer if Occult had less spells (probably closer to Primal), so that Arcane's niche can be "everything under the sun, except healing). Right now its hard to claim that title as well when Occult is close in total # of spells, plus gets Soothe.

I think people just don't "get" the class design idea of PF2. The core classes (with the exception of Alchemist) are supposed to be the most powerful. The expanded classes from other books are there to fill a character concept for role playing reasons. Generally these non-core classes are slightly less powerful than the core classes overall, and are much trickier to build optimally.

Has Paizo ever stated that? That seems like a big assumption on your part. Why not keep all classes the same power level?

My gut feeling is that you are sacrificing offensive prowess for more buff and healing spells. The Divine List lacks good offensive options especially for cantrips, which is the Magus’s bread and butter for spell strike. A divine Magus probably plays as an off healer with a slot or two for a big heal, and the other slots for buffs.

Honestly I wish alignment damage wasn’t a thing to prevent the awkwardness of neutral divine casters but that ship has sailed.

A good bandaid solution as proposed earlier is to let clerics of neutral gods pick an alignment or perhaps either positive or negative.

I'm surprised we are getting a 1st level teleport spell since Paizo has been avoiding that for a while. But I'm super pumped to convert my playtest Magus into a Laughing Shadow Magus, to BAMF all over the place!

I would love to see expanded feats and subclasses for existing classes, whether that’s for casters in a SoM2 or an advanced players options book. For example, the Summoner is ripe for more eidolon types than what we are getting. I would also love more magic centric archetypes whether it’s archetypes for magical warriors or more caster centric archetypes such as a Metamagic Manipulator (gets access to universal metamagic for any class) or magic school archetypes.

I've made a smaller update to my Warlord class to boost Helpful Word and give some quality of life buffs. As always, you can see all the changes in the change log on the last page of the PDF.

Here's the updated PDF for the Warlord v4.5

I wouldn’t mind seeing more AOE stuff for martials. Part of me wishes all classes had a focus pool for big flashy abilities, but not necessarily magical. Let Fighters or Rogues for example can some badass abilities they can only do once an encounter like focus spells for other classes.

fanatic66 wrote:

...

The problem is Order and Chaos are means to ends. Few follow order for the sake of order and few who do remain LN for long as they dehumanize those within the society which degrades to evil. It also doesn't make for a compelling PC. Someone who protects the law simply because it's the law doesn't think about their actions. They are a passive actor letting the established powers dictate how the world should be.

And zealous Chaos is hard to remain neutral. Acting to create anarchy and undermining non-evil lawful structures quickly descends to violence. Or they go the other direction and reject violent means which quickly turns them towards CG. People always expect something from chaos. If the champion just wanders around overthrowing countries with no greater goal than they're CE. If they have some idealistic view of how life could be when sentients are no longer blinded by society they probably start out CG at least. Chaos is inherently destructive and that makes it hard to maintain zealous CN.

I disagree that order/chaos can't be ends just like evil and good. One could argue that evil acts are just a means to a greater good end (classic anti-hero trope).

I think you are getting too caught up with law / chaos, and making these alignments far too simplistic. A LN champion is a defender of civilization as civilization and order are means to an end: peace and security in a scary world filled with ancient terrors, wandering monsters, and antagonistic people. If you ever read or heard of Hobbes's Leviathan, then the idea is that an authoritarian ruler with absolute power is more preferable to anarchy, and that's in our regular human world, not a far scarier fantasy world of Pathfinder.

A LN Champion can make a compelling PC as they aren't just about law, but about promoting civilization and order above all else, and proactively stopping threats to civilization. A LN champion will jump at the chance to clear out a dangerous dungeon as it removes dangers to the nearby village. They'll gladly stop a growing army threatening the peace of the land. Really a LN champion isn't so different from LG except their means and end goals differ slightly. A LN Champion believes in order above all else even if that order isn't always tolerant or "nice", because it's far better than the alternative. Their means differ from LG because they aren't held back by pesky morals of LG champions.

For CN, they aren't just about chaos as again that's too simplistic. I would instead reframe them more as agents that safeguard the world against the tyranny of law and order. Unlike CG Liberators, CN Champions have a hard time trusting any form of government or order. They know that order eventually leads to the authoritarian Hobbesian dictator, no matter the ruler's good intentions. At the most extreme, CN champions are anarchists, and the least extreme, aggressive libertarians. A CN champion adventurer will gladly help to fight an evil warlord bent on domination or stop a dragon threatening to take over the land. I'm playing in a Ruins of Azlant campaign at the moment, and a CN champion would be perfect against the mind controlling enemy of that campaign.

A LN champion and CN champion are ultimately adversaries of each other, and their beliefs are directly opposed. One thinks a well ordered civilization brings peace and security, while the other warns any substantial form of order leads to Hobbesian tyranny.

Will they work well in every campaign? No, but neither do LG/LE or CE/CG champions either.

fanatic66 wrote:

Starocious wrote:

As i mentioned earlier, at least you'll have dragon synthesist summoners to fill your "being a dragon" needs.

I’m never going to say no to o more draconic options, but that’s not the same IMO. Dragon Form shouldn’t have awkward heightening and it’s something I hope gets addressed in an errata

I think its amazing that they're introducing a way of becoming a dragon in early levels at all, given that dragons are supposed to be magical, near-deific apex creatures.

But anyway, the scaling issues at higher levels aren't limited to dragon form (as discussed for animal and aerial forms being pretty much unusable past 12th level). I agree with this as a design principle, as it encourages learning new spells, but in practice it feels awful for people that dont want to abandon their forms and hopefully they'll introduce some support feats that allow all the forms to scale better past their intended levels. Including such changes without requiring feat investment would make the later forms less appealing and probably undermine their design intent.

Dragon summoner is really cool, I agree, no argument from me there.

On Dragon Form, if fireball scales at every level, I don't see why Dragon Form (or any form spell for that matter) can't as well. I understand the possible design intent might be to force spell variety, but I disagree that its a fun design philosophy. I rather have all Form spells scale consistently, so if someone (like me) just wants to transform into a dragon, then they can do that. If you want more variety with more forms (probably better from an optimized point of view), then you can pick up other form spells.

At the end of the day, Form spells aren't a deal breaker and not the hill I'll die on, but just a minor grievance with the system. It might be that the new form spells in SoM have more consistent scaling which I'll love. Playing an angel summoner that then uses Angel Form to become an angel alongside my angel eidolon sounds sweet.

As i mentioned earlier, at least you'll have dragon synthesist summoners to fill your "being a dragon" needs.

I’m never going to say no to o more draconic options, but that’s not the same IMO. Dragon Form shouldn’t have awkward heightening and it’s something I hope gets addressed in an errata

fanatic66 wrote:

I just wish the form spells heightened every level. I love Dragon Form but it bums me out that I can’t reliably use it at all levels at a consistent power level.

It sucks but I guess it forces variety....

For sure but not everyone wants variety, you know? If I want to play. Dragon themed caster, which isn’t hard given there are two sorcerer bloodlines for it and an archetype, I just want to transform into a dragon. It seems odd the spell doesn’t auto heighten. If someone wants a variety of battle forms, then they can pick up a number of different form spells.

I’m really shocked people can’t imagine at least Lawful tenets. The idea of order is just as powerful as evil and good in my opinion. Someone devoted to enforcing order is an easy concept to get behind. Bastions of civilization, hierarchy, and control, LN champions will support order whenever possible. Without order, civilization crumbles to the dangers of anarchy and monsters that lie beyond the walls. Judge Dredd is a popular fictional representative of this fantasy. Hobbes Leviathan is another good source of inspiration: anarchy is the most dangerous state for people to be in, which justifies an all powerful ruler to maintain order. In fantasy where actual monsters exist, this is even more true. LN champions believe any form of order and law is safer and more peaceful than it’s absence, and they will fight to preserve order at all costs.

Chaotic neutral is a bit harder but still doable IMO. CN Champions see the dangers that lie behind the temptation of order. It offers peace and security but at the cost of one’s freedom and liberty. But the offered peace and security is a lie. Often enough, order leads to tyrannical rulers that impose their rules on others, while openly acting above everyone. A modern example are politicians that espouse one idea but are hypocrites in private, not doing what they says others should. For a CN champion, this is abhorrent, and they rightfully are skeptical of authority and are well aware of the slippery road from order to cruel authoritarian despots. CN champions are the check and balance against the “natural” progression of order into tyranny. Unlike CG champions, CN champions have no moral qualms holding them back. I’m imagining a League of Shadows like organization of CN champions that proactively remove authority figures before they become too powerful or help collapse powerful regimes. Their methods are not heroic as they are not above using anything in their fight against order. A CN champion would view a CG champion as well intentioned by held back by silly notions of morality.

That went kind of long, but CN requires more explanation than LN. either way, alignment in Pathfinder has cosmic importance. If we extraplanar beings imposing order or chaos, why not mortal champions? Law vs chaos, or order vs liberty is a dichotomy as old as time and still very relevant in modern politics.