kaid's page

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

...Has anyone else wondered aloud if Cobyslarni was ever in a relationship with the Oliphaunt of Jandelay?

It probably couldn't last, if it happened.

Well, I have now shipped them as Olislarni. Someone needs to start writing the fanfic!

Where the junk in the trunk may just be a castle picked up and offered as a bouquet.

Archives of nethys has pure rules no lore and is kept up to date with errata.

So I'm pretty sure it's a given that the Mechanic will have both an augmentation subclass and a drone subclass. I hope they get a subclass that emphasizes boosting armor, shields, and weapons.

I suspect the armor/shield/weapon boost class will be inventors which honestly fits pretty well when you take inventors up into starfinder setting.

TheTownsend wrote:

The convergence of a tribal diaspora, relearning their ancient faith in conjured beasts.

Wanderers of other realms astride a colossal beast of impenetrable wisdom and resource.
Theater Kids.
"I dunno man, I think we're in a little in over our heads here."
"Nonsense, we are the lorebearers of the greatest empire to ever--"
"That is a mile-long elephant! From another dimension! That kid just summoned a rabbit-snake, and everybody worshiped it! We write poetry!"

Tbf they are also like, training to be spys and s@*#, so like, not totally out of depth, also like, the bard-ier ones are gonna love the campfire story guys, 100%

I am pretty sure magical theater kids seeing a miles long elephant/headmaster are going to swoon.

A lot of things in the remaster were renamed due to the OGL situation. The Horsemen of Apocalypse are clearly figures from mythology meaning that there isn't a legal reason to change the name. But the rename happened at around the same time as a lot of other renames. Why the rename?

Well probably chose that because the riders are may not be men nor are they necessarily riding horses. This way it opens up options without really changing the motif that much.

Hmm, tox didn't lose out. Being able to affect those who were previously immune to poison looks like a huge buff.

I'm no alchemist expert so I can't comment on anything else, but the toxicologist in our group was moved to tears by this change.

That was my thought too. The fact that tox now can affect basically every thing with their stuff is a huge buff compared to before when there were wide swaths of common enemy types you could not use any of your normal tools on.

Update to Dragon Summoner.

Yes with the changes to dragons the dragon summoner needs a lot of change and or remaster as does a lot from the secrets of magic book due to the changes from the remaster.

Martial Necromancer Class Archetype - Graveknight. If the Battle Harbinger can do it Necvromancer can also you trade spells for martial capabilities and become bonded, not so bad.

The necro class really does seem like it could benefit from some kind of war priest/battle harbinger class archetype for a death knight sort of thing but also one for a undead companion type build along the lines of druids with their pet option.

I think a lot of necros would love an option to gain a undead companion either so they have one main pet to go along with all the random thrall summoning.

I think the war priest model should work pretty fine. Fighty enough to justify being in melee give them better armor probably medium at the cost of some casting potency. Honestly be neat if they had access to a skeletal horse companion so you could be a necro night on a skeleton mount. Your spell casting is going to be less powerful but between your melee and your mount it likely would be fine without being OP. With probably capping out at master spell casting they gain thrall generation at a slower rate and capping out with less per cast than a normal necro.

I think the consensus is the second option, you need to pop two thralls.

That would be my read. Burning up a thrall is a component of each of those actions.

Archer skeleton thralls scratches a certain itch for me, that's for sure.

This is probably the lowest hanging fruit to fix it. After the level where flying becomes more common be able to summon one of your thralls per summon has some basic ranged attack move that lets you do your basic thrall attack at some reasonable range.

yeah in general these kinds of feats seem pointless

Not useless it is nice if you are in a hurry but necros with their ability to eat thralls makes it less desirable than other classes versions.

Yeah the dirge feels a lot like "we want you to have a spellbook but we don't want to call it a spellbook."

I think it'd be simpler for everyone to just call it a spellbook, since it basically works like one anyway.

I am going to theme mine as my necromancer etching the spells on my own bones. Best way to hide it from people who would not accept a necromancer.

Squiggit wrote:

First turns are important, but having to spend part or all of the first round setting up isn't uncommon either. Activating stances, drawing weapons, casting important buff spells, moving into range. It's not that strange.

The problem is that the Necromancer is looking at double or triple the setup of other casters.

I think this is offset at least a bit by the fact that the setup is also basically an attack. Having a move and a couple attacks is a pretty normal first round for a lot of classes and this is also setting up a couple thralls to work with. Now if the cantrip only summoned thralls with no other effect it would be problematic for sure.

It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. I am guessing a lot of thralls are going to get smacked down by third attacks but every thrall getting smacked down is one attack that is not potentially hitting a party member of literally anything else more useful. I think it will be interesting to see in play how it is on paper I think it should work but it is weird enough I will need to see how it plays out.

Being able to start the cone from any square within 30 feet and aim it however you like solves a lot of the fundamental problems with cone spells.

That and one of the spells if it hits another thrall with that cone can make friendlies safe from the cone. This allows for a lot of bank shots to either maximize enemies without worrying about wrecking your own team. Very curious to see these in play they seem good.

Shall we say Necromancers aren't Necromancers but Soulmancers/Spiritmancer then?

I prefer flesh magician.

I think the play test should be interesting to shake out how far they can lean into the focus spells. I think they are adding so many to figure out what works and what does not and what people like or don't like.

I think once they shake out how that plays they can figure out if necros remain 2 slot casters or maybe get bumped to 3. Right now it is in a position to really force necros to use necro toys to really shake those out adding more spells is a known thing and easy enough change to make for release.

as for permenant undead interactions, I would also throw in an undead familiar, like the elemental familiar the Kineticist gets.

The skulking around graveyards and stuff seems... like it would put a huge burden on the player to get even one minion/thrall.

As for the occult spell list... have you read that? Just looking through the cantrips and first level spells you have Void warp, grim tendrils, command, Enfeeble, SUMMON UNDEAD, spirit link, Bane, and Phantom Pain. You can't make a necromantic spell list with that?

Undead familiars are already available in the undead book and I suspect that will be an option for live just a matter of no reason to test it right now as the stuff is already in game. I also sort of expect one of the grim fascinations to be an undead animal companion. Given their thrall deployment plus attack being one action it seems like an animal companion type pet would work pretty well with the necromancer power set.

I personally would like a few more Grave Cantrips, gated behind feats of course. Maybe something like "Ghoulish Dismissal" You dismiss a thrall, which then wails or violently tears itself apart, or otherwise destroys itself in a disturbing way, allowing you to make an intimidation check against an adjacent enemy, without the -4 penalty for not sharing a language and you may chose, when you cast the cantrip, if it has the auditory or visual or both traits.

I agree that their default non-moving state is best.

I also was hoping there would be some more grave cantrips. Some other boss a thrall around thing that does not eat a focus point. Could also be variant create thrall that is a two action cantrip that summons thralls + some kind of other effect or summons more thralls than the one action version and lets you attack with two thralls with MAP changing after the attacks.

I'm very excited for the Necromancer's interactions with Thralls and believe this is a great way to get the feel of a horde with the mechanical balance of PF2e.

I'll start off by listing my personal Pros/Cons on how I think this is implemented and will give more as I do real world playtests and hope others will add to the discussion as well.

Pros:
- Easy to deploy (love that I could send out 3 on turn one at level one if I want)

- Interactions with focus spells are awesome and very flavorful. I want my minions to be expendable

- Battlefield control is the Necromancer's vibe and these are a great way to do it.

- Bone Spear!

- Life Tap!

- I'm going to stop there...most of the feats look really fun

Cons:
- I really want to be able to move them for both flavor and mechanic. - Proposed Solution - Perhaps under "Create Thrall" add a line that gives you a choice to either create one or move an existing one with both options ending in said thrall making an attack

- There is no way to get rid of unwanted Thralls if you don't have the right focus spell and have already used the Consume Thrall ability in the last 10 minutes. - Potential Solution - Give the necromancer an action that is not on a cooldown and doesn't use a focus point that destroys a thrall for a minor benefit.

- What do I do with my thralls when I'm out of focus points?

- Would like a little more variety on the saves they can target, fortitude is often pretty problematic (mathematically speaking)

Questions:
- While I get that they always fail saves and are hit by attacks, I'd love some clarification on how checks against their DCs works. The big one is that Tumble Through is an untrained activity and so I'm wondering if it is the intension for enemies to auto-succeed on these, or if they have some form of DC. If their stats are simply listed as 0, then mechanically the DC would be 10 (10+modifier), but not sure if that is the intention.

- Dead Weight is a cool ability, but why would a creature try to "escape"...

That is an excellent question about dead weight. The only reason I can think to try to escape is if you are using one of the later feat thralls like perfect thrall but that comes online so late it seems pointless.

Dead weight is not useless as it still likely costs them an action but given how trivial it is to smite the thrall off you just seems like it isn't doing what it seems to want to do.

kaid wrote:

You are going to have minimum 2 focus points off the jump and if you are a human maybe 3 because even their level 1 feats are packed with focus spells.

Where's the second focus spell coming from? You only start with one focus spell ans one point unless I'm missing something. Human can get you to two, but that seems to be the maximum for level 1.

I think I was confusing something in the description in demi plane as giving a focus. If you go human pretty easy to get to 2 focus points the one you are given and then using human to grab a second one.

That said if you are a human you very likely have 2 focus at level one and at level 2 3 focus points. Given how many of their feats are focus spells you are going to have max focus points very quickly regardless of your starting race.

kaid wrote:

You are going to have minimum 2 focus points off the jump and if you are a human maybe 3 because even their level 1 feats are packed with focus spells.

Where's the second focus spell coming from? You only start with one focus spell ans one point unless I'm missing something. Human can get you to two, but that seems to be the maximum for level 1.

I think I was confusing the cantrip as giving a focus. Was working with demi plane. If you go human pretty easy to get to 2 focus points the one you are given and then using human to grab a second one.

Necromancer is going to be a real pain to automate in Foundry.

Honestly I think the bookkeeping aspect is probably the reasons the thralls are stationary unless acted upon by some specific command/spell. If you had the option to move them all around at will the amount of time/energy to deal with them would be problematic.

You could probably automate it like dropping terrain objects. Mostly just there doing nothing but can be acted upon to do specific things.

The class might lose steam in long combats, but normal encounters should be fine. If you're casing a focus spell every round (and Consume a thrall somewhere in there) you don't run into an issue until round five and that's a pretty rare combat.

At a glance, I kind of wish they had a few more sustainable options at low level, and that their melee options came online a bit sooner and/or had a bit more juice... but this is a hype thread and the playtest will start soon enough.

I love what I'm seeing from both classes at a glance though, the ideas are very cool.

Honestly for a low level caster their sustainability at low levels seems really good. You are going to have minimum 2 focus points off the jump and if you are a human maybe 3 because even their level 1 feats are packed with focus spells.

It is going to be interesting to see how good it feels to have a boatload of focus spells by mid levels but early levels I think necros are very sustainable.

So far from what I've seen, there's only two things I think the Necromancer absolutely needs. Something like "Generate Lesser thrall", or a chaveat to create thrall. What I'm thinking of here is the Kineticists Base Kinesis. A bunch of mostly flavorful low impact things that any Kineticist can do that makes them feel more like a kineticist. Having the ability to have a thrall that can move slowly, carry things, perform rudimentary tasks, etc, that don't take much focus from you, but once a stressful situations, like combat, starts (when you roll initiative) or during exploration, the lesser thrall collapses.

Also, a class feat that grants a familiar. Despite being HEAVILY Grave spell focused, it lacks one of the most common ways casters regain focus points outside of refocusing. I'm not even talking about making this a base class feature, but an optional level one feat, to compete with the extra useful undead lore, or dipping into one of the other subclasses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm LOVING the Necromancer. and I understand others smarter than me may have thoughts on balance that are way more useful, but these are things I noticed and wanted.

Necros have an option that lets them blow up a thrall to get a focus point back once every 10 minutes. That is way better than what a familiar can do for less cost feat wise. Still having a lil undead familiar would make a ton of sense so adding a baseline necro familiar feat would make total sense.

At higher levels, a lot of creatures have auras and AoE attacks they were going to use anyway. I don't think the Thralls left around on the battlefield are going to be that big of an issue in most encounters. It will be much more of a parlor trick.

The annoying thing about this class is going to be the exploration mode delays/ sending them in on every trap/arguing with players about how many will reasonably be available at the start of an encounter. I am hoping the "doesn't really move" will be enough of a deterrent to players wanting to start encounters with more than 1 or 2 of them.

Honestly a necro using minions to find/remove traps is pretty on brand for a necro. I sort of suspect thralls probably won't carry over from one fight to another. It is likely a case where you just spend your first turn dredging some up and given they do an attack when summoned it is not an unreasonable opening round.

Still, popping three bodies to stand in the way, and potentially do something else the next round, that would make the enemy spend damage attacking them instead of the team. Even if it's their last attack of the round, that's an action they lost.

That is the interesting thing. Enemies can pop them easily but it takes actions to pop the thralls so do you try to pop them to clear them out or ignore them. If you pop them you are spending resources to do it but if you don't then there are bombs just looming around you ticking away until the necro pops them.

Very like the initial launch of diablo 4 just about anything can pop your skellies but replacing them is a snap of your fingers so it works out to be fairly tanky just through ablative minions.

Easl wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

Necromancer is an int-based, prepared, occult caster with 2 slots per rank. At level 1 they get a focus cantrip called Create Thrall that, as 1 action, makes a thrall w/in 30ft that lasts a minute. Thralls are creatures with 1 hit point that are always hit by attacks and always fail saving throws. They have no actions, but can provide flanking (some feats/focus spells let you move thralls or have them attack with your spell attack modifier). You can destroy your thralls to do various things...

Wow that doesn't sound like a minion master at all. It sounds more like a bank-resources-before-the-fight-then-spend-them-during concept. Personally I'm okay with that, but it's probably not the concept that a lot of the folks clamoring for a necromancer wanted.

This is the complaint I'm most expecting to see once the playtest drops, honestly. People are going to hear necromancer, jump to a game like Diablo II in their heads, and then either be frustrated they can't have giant blobs of guys, or have to wait a long time to have a mechanic that simulates them.

Honestly the thrall system seems way more diablo necro than I was expecting they would let it. You can pop out a lot of thralls but they are super squishy and totally disposable. I would bet there will be feats that let you boss a blob of them around so it probably will scratch that itch pretty well.

R3st8 wrote:

Wonderful! After Animist and Exemplar, we now have Necromancer. The class department in this game is improving at lightning speed; let's just hope it becomes common.

That said, it would probably have been better if they had made each of the schools into their own classes from the beginning. This would allow them to focus on what makes each class great.

I'd probably expect Necromancer to be Uncommon due to its questionable fit in some tables, the way Gunslinger would be Uncommon.

But as for your second point. I really want to see the Mesmerist come back as a dedicated Prepared Occultist spellcaster.

Oh yeah necromancer for sure is going to be minimum uncommon possibly rare just due to the squick factor and just really not being appropriate for all campaigns/groups.

That said come on necromancers being out yer dead!

Easl wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

The whole problem of the Battle Harbinger is that you can build a Magus or Summoner to just be a superior Battle Harbinger with everything the Battle Harbinger brings to the table but better. At least, some classes, like the Investigator, have unique features that make them appropriate choices in some circumstances. But for the Battle Harbinger, unless you play a game that never goes to 7, there are strictly superior choices.

For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space. You're talking about telling a player to play for months with a concept they don't want to get up to a somewhat better instantiation of the concept they do want. In a game that may only go months.

Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6. Even then, the Summoner pays a high 'spell opportunity cost' to play that way, while a BH doesn't.

At low levels a regular warpriest kicks the ass out of the battle harbinger. Battle harbinger is just a poorly implemented idea.

I am curious given the timing of these things if the battle harbinger was designed before the remaster stuff got finalized. The battle harbinger with the premaster warpriest probably looks like a much stronger comparison. Warpriests got a lot of love in the remaster and really fits the niche of fighty cleric well now.

Eh going from D4 to D6 for normal attacks and then D8 on fatal plus the examplar damage boosts I think would still be a fun viable character. Bonking the crap out of people with my mystical frying pan calls to me.

The main use case I see for having a whip is reach to stay out of Reactive Strike range (or nonlethaling enemies), but bigger enemies with reach are more common the higher level you get.

As for whether anyone uses d4 in endgame. My level 15 halfling fighter's weapon of choice is a humble frying pan (d4 weapon with fatal d8). It is definitely not the most optimal fighter weapon choice, but on the other hand its incredibly fun to be hitting people with a frying pan.

I am very tempted to make a halfling exemplar and have an icon frying pan.

For anybody who does not have that mwangi expanse book get it that thing is amazing.

Noticed an error on Page 308 in the Appendix: In the line for Neshen (Knight of the Steel Lash), near the bottom, his edicts and anathema are identical, which I think isn't intentional. I can't imagine a god who exhorts you to "lead others to the light of good," while also forbidding it.

The god of indecision and second guessing.

Okay, to be clear, there is more than enough context to comfortably indicate Finoan's "both Q-Alch options consume a VV" is incorrect,

but!

the addition of the implied missing text would remove that possible mis-reading outright, and absolutely is a high-priority errata change.

Quote:

Requirements: You're either holding or wearing an alchemist's toolkit and you have a free hand.

You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial. Any effect created by an item made with Quick Alchemy that would have a duration longer than 10 minutes lasts for 10 minutes instead.

--Create Consumable: You expend one of your versatile vials to create a single alchemical consumable item of your level or lower that's in your formula book. You don't have to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical raw materials or need to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn. (As normal, you need only one formula for an item to create any level of that item.)

--Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can't be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.

Quote:

You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or [you can] create an especially short-lived versatile vial.

Someone went for shortening the length over bulletproofing the text, and reading it from Finoan's angle, I absolutely agree that it needs to be changed.

It is genuinely/technically ambiguous without the repetition of "you can," though I agree it is 100% certain that RaI the idea behind Quick Vial is to be the unlimited cantrip style option for Alchemists, and that performing it does not consume a VV. It is...

I would agree it is not a function issue but the wording is dense and easy to misunderstand. I think the short lived bomb only versatile vial

shroudb wrote:

You can directly throw/use it for Field Benefits the Versatile Vial for 1 action but that costs you the Versatile Vial.

You can make a Quick Vial from thin air to use as a bomb/Field Vial but that requires 1 action.

Making a Quick Vial isn't make from thin air. You make them from a Versatile Vial. Everything in Quick Alchemy costs you a Versatile Vial - it says so in the first paragraph.

So your choices are:

1) Directly throw a Versatile Vial for 1 action that costs you the Versatile Vial.

2) Make a Quick Vial to use as a bomb/Field vial but that costs 1 action and a Versatile Vial, and then you can throw it for 1 more action.

And why would you ever make a Versatile/Quick Vial bomb using option 2 if you could use option 1 instead?

The quick bomber feat is pretty much the reason.

For people without the quick bomber feat and you just need a 1 action default thing you can toss a versitile vial which expends one use of them.

If you have quick bomber feat you can quick alchemy and toss as one action so you an use a versitile vial turn it into any other bomb you know and toss it for one VV or you can quick alchemy and make a disposable free versitile vial bomb for one action.

Isn't vesk diplomacy just reloading?

It is a similar situation of the vesk and pact world relations. Both powers are too strong to really punch out or take over without causing massive damage to your own home system. So after duking it out in proxy fights both chose diplomacy.

So genuine question why the hell would the Veskarium and Azlanti want to be at peace? one empire has a highly militaristic warrior culture and the other to be blunt are space nazis (that's how I've always viewed the Azlanti Star Empire anyhow) and the PC's are helping the peace deal go down feels really off and weird, if someone could supply some insight that I might be missing that would be appreciated.

Probably because both empires are pretty strong and to go into a war would be a serious undertaking for both. It looks like the vesk lost one world that joined the pact worlds already. It is not that they would not like the conquer the other it is more that you do it when you think you have the other side weaker and vulnerable. My understanding the conflict popped off once the cosmic birthday threw everything for a loop.

I assume future proofing. I think in the non remastered pathfinder book kobolds had access to stuff that at the time did not exist.

Hill Giant wrote:

I picked up the system from 1E, that's not so explicit in 2E, that if you pay the Cost of Living, that covers any cheap costs (roughly 1/10 of your monthly amount). So, meals/rations, lodging, everyday clothes, ammunition, etc. As GM I keep track of time in my notes, and tell the players when they need to pay upkeep.

Yeah I always assumed it was covered in cost of living. Though I just tell players that when they get money, I'm assuming that it's "spending money" and that there's actually a bit more they get to put aside for living costs. That way it's only relevant if I (or my players) want it to be. So for example while the reward may be 50GP on paper, in universe it's 52GP and that 2 is spent on living costs. (I hope this makes sense, lol)

Yup that makes total sense. If you are paying a monthly cost of living presumably you have some room/house where you keep your wardrobe. The stuff you bring adventuring is more like your work set of cloths and maybe one nicer set in case of need but day to day hygiene stuff/cloths is just part of your living costs.

JiCi wrote:

According to the Archives, I got SIX staves from the Club group:

- Staff
- Bo Staff
- Bow Staff
- Gaff
- Khakkara
- Whipstaff

Sling Staves... are not staves, they're oversized slingshots ^^;

The Halfling Sling Staff feels like an error for the Staff Acrobat archetype, because it's not a melee weapon :O

Staff slings are real weapons and are indeed a staff with a sling on top, they actually work like a handheld trebuchet. Real staff slings don't ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling, like the Halfling Sling Staff description says. so I think you are right that Halfling Sling Staff are just oversized slingshots in PF2e, or maybe a slingshot on top of a walking stick.

Honestly even if you picture a staff sling like a lacross stick you can sure as heck use a lacross stick like a staff weapon. There is a reason for the armor they wear when playing it haha.

pauljathome wrote:

Good guide in general.

But I think that you are MASSIVELY overestimating what most GMs will let you get away with using Lore skills. To try and claim that hunting lore + forestry lore can substitute for survival is, in my experience, just not remotely the case.

Thank you. I agree that a couple lores shouldn't cover an entire skill but in the section you are pointing out, I say that hunting and forest lore should be adequate for TRACKING and perhaps COVER TRACKS not the entirety of basic survival actions. This is making me think of reformatting that section for clarity.

I think that probably depends on the table. Most of the ones I have played at specific trumps generic. So if somebody has hunting lore then if you are hunting that would be a valid thing to roll against vs survival which is just generic all of the things.

So if you are good at hunting and good at forests your ability to find food there would be really good but survival also covers if you are on a mountain or in a desert or the plains. We always treated lore skills is you are specifically really interested in/good at this one area of expertise.

probably depends on what the hazard is. Rogues are probably a good go to for most of them. Tons of skills/high dex so good at finding/picking/disarming a lot of different stuff. Stuff like haunts or more supernatural stuff you probably want cleric/spell casters to deal with.

If you don't care about how loud you are or what collateral damage alchemists tossing random bombs into suspected hazard areas can trip/wreck a lot of physical type traps.

I think the fact this is a Rare class and rare archetype it is probably ok. If your GM is letting you take this then they are letting a nascent god into their game and accept that the power level is going up.

2 big complaints I have so far are the following:

The Medium is described as not growing attachments to particular apparitions but then is given a feat that forces you to always attune to a particular spirit. Not mechanically flawed but may confuse players.

The Echo in Lost Moment's vessel spell gives you an extra reaction specifically for Animist or apparition reactions but hardly any exist and the majority that do are limited to once per 10 minutes. As far as I can tell, it's a vessel spell that will be largely ignored by most Animist players unless an errata/change is made.

Could be something that gets enhanced in the divine mysteries book too may be some stuff that makes that more viable that was already in the pipeline.

BotBrain wrote:

What's something not teased in pre-release material that caught your eye?

There's a neat rogue/fighter/ranger stance in the Avenger section (but not limited to avengers) that lets you make d4 bludgeoning agile/finesse attacks with the haft of a two-handed hammer/polearm/spear and use feats that require you to be wielding two weapons. More importantly, while in the stance you're considered to be dual wielding the two instead of using a two hander.

D4 agile is weak, but the other half is whatever hammer/polearm/spear you picked and it's just kind of a cool alternative way to build a two-weapon character.

Keeps you from having to get runes and upgrades on multiple weapons and pretty nice flavor attack. most agile weapons are d6 so not losing much damage there.

Spirit of Halloween it lets you occupy any rental property for a month.

I’m not sure if this is the right place for asking about this, but I don’t think it really cleanly fits anywhere else, and I’m curious.

So to me one of the biggest advantages of pathfinder 2e is that you could play multiple characters of the same class and still manage to make two wildly different characters.

And as I have been attempting to make a solo game for myself for some time now, I wonder if I might be able to take this to its logical extreme and make an entire party off one class.

And I think I want to do so using what is generally thought of to be one of the weakest classes in PF2e. So I have a question that I may post on the subreddit as well.

How would you make an entire party of alchemists? I’ll be playing with the rules my group nearly always play with since that’s just how I like playing, so the rules are you can use ancestry paragon, free archetype, and gradual ability boost. Each member should use any of the different subclasses, but no duplicates. And they should fill a different role for the party. I don’t want a bunch of bombers or mutagenists. Oh and remaster rules only.

And before I get comments, I do understand this is ridiculous and unbalanced. That’s the point to an extent. I want to see how far this can be pushed with one of the most underpowered classes in the game.

If this fits somewhere else, please let me know. I’m new to the forum and I’m not entirely certain where this should go.

Thank you in advance for your replies!

I would think it would work fine. Have a mutagenist or two for people who can hold up in melee, a bomber or two. You could go with a churigeon but honestly if you have a group of four or more alchemists the amount of on demand healing you have available would be WAY more than sufficient for most situations. Lots of utility buffs decent enough damage.

So he became an exemplar by eating god berries.

Goodest berries.

Hmm, does this seem like an odd choice of skill and skill feat for this background to others too?

Quote:

EMPTY HAND LOYALIST [BACKGROUND] The orcs have had a long history of violence that brings some orcs pride, but for you it’s a mark of shame. You see the path of reconciliation that Ardax is paving and find hope in the chance to transform your people’s ways into one that moves away from stereotypes of brutality ... You’re trained in the Intimidation skill and the Belkzen Lore skill. You gain the Quick Coercion skill feat.

"Violence bad, but Coercion good"?

Less smash you might makes right and more Intense mom disappointment maybe? Gronk did you raid villages again?? Gronk I am so disappointed you are better than this.

With the remaster playing a kobold who was born near a place a sphinx was guarding could be fun. Like little tomb guardians helping put traps out and collecting riddles to challenge themselves and others with.