lordcirth's page

Cori Marie wrote:

With Imrijka's color change, does that mean that *all* vindicators of Pharasma have that color scheme? Since it was canonized by Wes that her outfit was the standard uniform of Pharasmin vindicators?

Or that she switched Faiths? Since that's a sacred symbol of Desna she's rocking.

Perhaps she is undercover?

So the Bloodrager's spellcasting, is that gonna be focus spells or more like the limited spellcasting seen with Magus? Or the kind archetypes give?

The article mentions having a repertoire and being able to cast *wall of thorns*. So they have slots.

I believe a Double Slice with slashing and piercing would be treated the same as a single strike with a slashing flaming weapon; you combine them into one attack, but they are still separate damage types.

Yes, an argument can be made that, by RAW, teleporting out of a grapple doesn't remove the grabbed condition. However, this is clearly absurd and not RAI - though there are some ways of inflicting grabbed that you plausibly couldn't shake by teleporting, like Grasp of the Deep.

You can activate an item, but I don’t think you can invest one if you don’t meet it’s requirements. So no staves.

Staves aren't actually invested items; staff preparation is an independent thing.

Honestly, the thing that I'm most curious about regarding Wizards is if the "School of Unified Theory" mentioned in other previews will function the same as the prior "Universalist" school, IE that you don't gain the bonus spell slot per rank to prepare certain spells into, but instead you get to use Arcane Bond to recast a spell at each spell rank, instead of just 1/day.

My forthcoming Wizard was planned as a Universalist, so it'd be nice to know if that's going to be radically different in the Remaster, especially since my group's GM is going to enforce the Remastered versions of ALL affected classes once we start playing PF again next summer.

I think and hope so! Universalist is by far my favorite.

I wonder if curriculum slots can be used with heightened versions of lower level curriculum spells

I'd be very surprised if you couldn't - it would go against how all prepared casters work in PF2.

I’m a bit confused by the feat. It sounds like it’s meant as battlefield control. I don’t see it ever doing damage because taking a minimum of 7d6 to your allies so that the creatures stay in the area seems like mutually assured destruction. Doing this at range with no allies guarantees that the bad guys move. I’m guessing the intent here is to have it make bad guys use an action. Seems awful high level of a feat for this though.

Seems like decent area-denial to me. Say you've got 2 allies and 2 enemies in melee. You cast a Howling Blizzard (or Fireball 5th, or whatever) such that it hits the 2 enemies but stops short of the allies. You spend an extra action to place an impending 5d6 explosion right behind the enemies as well; now they must spend at least 1 action to Step out of the explosion. And, of course, if your melee allies go first, they can grab or trip the enemies to make this more difficult, or they may have already done so. Placing it so it won't friendly-fire isn't any harder than your usual fireball targeting, easier in fact.

The floor on Secondary Detonation Array is a 1:1 trade on actions as the enemy is forced to stride away, which itself opens it up to getting hit by reactions. Not bad but not sure I'd call it 14th level good. You can of course combo it with spells that grab creatures like Transmute Rock and Mud.

Edit: Never mind, spell needs to do damage. My searching seems to indicate there are no spells in the game right now that actually work with this spellshape, all other options for grabbing with a spell have a duration. That's unfortunate.

Being able to both create the zone and trap the enemy in it, in one round, would seem somewhat broken. (Of course you can do it at level 20 with Quickened Spell and Metamagic Mastery, but that's 20). Also, if you're casting an area spell, probably you are catching two enemies in it, so it's probably 2:1.

Build 46: Raging Dragon Monk
~ 18 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Cha, 14 Con
Max Intimidation, then Crafting

1. Skilled Human -> Whatever
General Training -> Shield Block
Dragon Stance
2. Barbarian Dedication (Dragon Instinct)
Quick Repair
3. Toughness
4. Basic Fury -> Raging Intimidation
Cat Fall
5. General Training -> Incredible Initiative
6. Instinct Ability (Draconic Rage)
7. Diehard
8. Dragon Roar
Battle Cry
9. Haughty Obstinacy
10. Advanced Fury -> Swipe
Kip Up

12. Advanced Fury -> Cleave

14. Advanced Fury -> AoO

16. Shattering Strike

18. Diamond Fists (dragon tail Strikes gain forceful)

20. Enduring Quickness

Stride or Demoralize, flurry at 0,-5 with dragon tail strikes + rage damage, and raise a shield.

Only class change that really bothers me is the Champion/Paladin losing Smite Evil for the Champion's Reaction(s). I think some sort of alternate class feature could be possible in the future though (though that would end up being more like 1E archetypes, so maybe that's a can of worms they don't want to open.)

The CRB does have rules for class archetypes, even though none currently exist.

Saros Palanthios wrote:

That depends...

If all you're doing is moving, a non-minion mount can move 3 times per round. However you have to use all three of your actions to command the mount to move three times, so you can do nothing else during your turn. (You can of course use fewer command actions, but then the mount would also get fewer move actions.)

A minion can only move twice per round, BUT you only need to spend one action to command it to do so-- meaning you have two actions left with which to cast a spell, attack, recall knowledge, raise a shield, etc. Plus animal companions can Support you, or attack, and gain other abilities as you level up. Also they tend to have more HP than ordinary mounts.

So if all you're interested in is running away from a battle as fast as possible, then yes, a mundane mount can flee 50% faster than a companion mount (assuming it has the same base movement speed). However if you plan to actually participate in encounters, companion mounts are far superior.

Isn’t it also true that if you take multi action activities outside of combat they are fatiguing after 10 minutes?

That would mean that outside of combat you would get two moves for one action with a minion (and not be fatigued) and one move with one action for a mundane mount unless you want to ride hard and get fatigued.

I realize this might not be directly quoting the rule but seems to be more or less what was indicated by other exploration actions.

Traveling in exploration mode does not use actions. You look at your mount's speed and compare it to the travel speed table.

lordcirth wrote:

Someone using a bow has a hand free to trip. They only need both hands when they shoot.

This is technically correct. However how often do you see somebody with a longbow in melee? And even if the monster gets through, lets look at the following example at its associated action economy.

1) Monster attacks some fronline character twice, then uses his last action to move up to a ranger.
2) The ranger lets go of the bow (free), trips the monster (action), moves back (action), grips his bow again (action).
3) Monster gets up (action), moves up to the ranger (action), attacks (action).
4) see 2)
5) see 3)

Repeat ad infinitum.

If you need to grip your weapon again you will lose 2 actions for every trip you do, which of course is less then ideal. Thats what I meant when I wrote you "lose" actions, when you need to change grips in order to conduct a trip attempt.

There is no action to re-grip a bow. Bows are not 2-handed weapons, they are 1+.

Champion will get you d6 fists. Monk Dedication will get Powerful Fist, which won't stack but does grant lethal attacks without penalty. You can use light armor at first, until you get stances that require unarmored.

Why is covering your tracks, or tracking, problematic? They are basic uses of the Survival skill.

Mountain Stance does slow you a little, but you're a monk. Moving is cheap when you have Flurry of Blows, and at level 3 it will barely matter anymore. Also, dwarves with Unburdened Iron won't care.

The max AC that any non-monk can have at level 1 is 18. A dex monk can have 19, and a strength monk can have 15 base, 19 with mountain stance. And the strength monk can easily have a lot of HP to handle a possible first-round attack.

I think that Resilient Bulwark is very strong, and also a bit too complicated, though I like the idea. At level 1 with medium armor and no shield, you could resist 5 damage, which is the same as a steel shield. Unlike shield, this doesn't take a hand nor damage a shield. I would make it either your item bonus to AC, or your proficiency, not both. Proficiency would probably be better, since it would not unduly punish behemoths wearing, say, hide.

I would also cut the shield aspect, and maybe make something like it a level 1 class feat.

It's also unclear how this should interact with the armor specialization abilities.

Dude literally swore off a system forever because he couldn't cheese his way through a fight. Sorry, but this statement isn't consistent with his behavior as you're describing it.

A rogue being a rogue isn't "cheese". Sneaking and assassination is what the character does.

Perpdepog wrote:

roll4initiative wrote:

Can anyone tell me why Grab is Athletics versus... Fortitude? Why not Athletics vs Athletics? Kinda strange.

The question for me is why is it fortitude rather than reflex? Dodging aside from someone attempting a hold seems to make more sense than, what? Being really healthy at them?

Lol! Yes! I'm like, "Hmm, fortitude measures your resistance to poison & disease, ability to shake off fatigue, and... not being grabbed. Ohhkayy."

Fortitude save tends to correlate with strength and mass, so this is an easy way to make it easier to grab the wizard than it is to grab the barbarian, who might have the same reflex saves.

Ubertron_X wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

I don't get why a higher level foe shouldn't have higher AC and to-hit just because he's a caster. He's higher level, he is stronger in a general sense. Call it passive wards and enchantments, call it years of exposure to mana hardening the skin and sharpening the body, call it what you will. There's no reason a higher accuracy and evasion because higher level caster can't work fine thematically aside from just saying casters shouldn't be able to have good accuracy or AC despite their level.

Because in former editions armour did matter? Cloth like +0 and plate like +8 instead of, well yeah +5 for everything (if you have the appropriate Dex)?

I have absolutely no problem if the enemy caster is playing roughly to the same rules as the player casters, so for PF2 I have no objection for a CR+3 caster to have like +5 AC because AC scales with level and he could also have higher proficiency and/or items (which then however have to appear as loot).

However I have an issue if said caster has like +300% HP or other excessive stats for no reason as they did in 4e. Building enemies the same way as player characters goes a long way regarding a general sense of fairness and pseudo-realism and D&D 3.X and Pathfinder 1 did that very well.

If I manage to jump the enemy mage with my fighter I expect him to be in trouble, even if he might be of higher level and not having my behind handed to me in the field I ought to be the expert in. Ask your own casters how they feel once the enemy Ogre, Troll or else has closed into melee.

Obviously this does only work within certain limits, not if my level one fighter is trying to jump Elminster.

General sense of fairness and pseudo-realism? But you're a group against one? Now the group has 300% more HP than the Big Baddie, who isn't and now is just Bad Bob.

I believe his point is that the boss should have lots of HP because they are a generally higher-level creature, not have +300% HP because they have the "boss" tag.

Where is it written, that the shield is strapped to you? A buckler is, but you will have the hand free nonetheless.

Else just drop it.

RELEASE [free-action]
MANIPULATE
You release something you’re holding in your hand or hands. This might mean dropping an item, removing one hand from your weapon while continuing to hold it in another hand, releasing a rope suspending a chandelier, or performing a similar action. Unlike most manipulate actions, Release does not trigger reactions that can be triggered by actions with the manipulate trait (such as Attack of Opportunity). If you want to prepare to Release something outside of your turn, use the Ready activity.

It is explicitly mentioned that "detaching" a shield is a 1-action Interact. CRB 274, Table 6-2.

Edge93 wrote:

PF2 actually makes solo bosses a real threat, and some of the best encounters I've run. The fact that the level difference actually means something results in them being very difficult to harm and very dangerous on the attack unless you work to make it otherwise. These fights are where buffs, debuffs, and tactics really come to play as it's very important to turn the math as much in your favor as possible against a level+3 or 4 enemy.

A question out of curiosity. How are bosses in PF2?

Are they the same kind of thematically stupid as they were 4e? The bookwormish cloth wearing cult leader that was super hard to hit and apart from being a great caster could still whoop your behind in melee just because he was labelled boss was as a huge turn off in that system...

Cloth caster bosses built using PC rules will generally have lower AC then most creatures their level. APL + 2 gives them +2 AC, but having 16 dex and no armor is -2 from where anyone with armor will be. So they'll be as hard to hit as the PCs, or lower if they don't have 16 dex. But of course they should have pre-cast Mage Armor, False Life, etc in most cases. Then there's more visible spells like Blur or Mirror Image which justify them being hard to hit.

I actually made a wizard boss, at 2nd and 3rd level, and used the 2nd level one because there was only 2 level 1 PCs. That was a mistake. I had multiclassed him into Rogue for studded leather, so he wouldn't be too hard to hit. The PCs won initiative and the monk promptly killed him in one turn. If I'd used the level 3 version with pre-cast False Life, it might have been very different. (The session was still great, though!)

Step is a basic action that anyone can do. It is therefore a "general rule" in the context of "specific beats general". Tiger Stance modifies the generic Step to be 10ft, by being a more specific rule. Elf Step is an action that lets you take 2 5ft Steps. This is a more specific rule still, so it overrides.

Ubertron_X wrote:

It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

As in PF1, unless you had a feat.

Quote:

I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.

I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions. Probably not to the extent that Combat Reflexes did. But the limitation to reactions really doesn’t bother me. I’ve played lots of characters that had a lot of choices for their one swift action, so this doesn’t feel any more restrictive to me.

There are already several feats that grant extra reactions. 3 for Fighter, 1 for Champion.

I actually think the Liberator exalt is slightly worse, since the steps only activate if the target ally refuses the free escape. Which is itself pretty restraining (the irony!) - to get a benefit your ally has to be restrained, in 15ft, and refuse the liberating benefit...

The free steps also activate every time you use Liberating Step against a non-restraining strike - that's why that wording is there. You can either liberate an ally and grant them DR and a step, or you can grant them DR, and all allies a step.

While it's easy to let someone else read your spellbook, it also takes time. And to a wizard, their spellbook and it's spells are their most precious possessions. Letting a stranger read your spellbook for hours would be practically anathema. So I think it's more likely that wizards would scribe scrolls, then sell those to other wizards, who will either cast them or copy them into their spellbook. That means there's a gp and time cost to make that scroll.

Depends what you mean. You need at least half the gp cost in unspecified "materials" to craft stuff. IIRC you can disassemble stuff for half their cost? So yeah, you should be able to re-melt stuff, but it will take longer.

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

Because you start as a level 1 adventurer, not a level 2 baker. "Baker" isn't a PC class. If you want to play as a baker, you could presumably homebrew a class that is untrained in all weapons, and master at Baking Lore at level 1. But that's not the kind of adventurer that most players want to be.

Scare to Death is not something you would normally use against a Dragon or a stronger enemy. Because it has the Incapacitation trait anything of a higher level would roll their saves twice and take the better result.

In this scenario the person using the Scare to Death ability was level 20 with Legendary Intimidation. So at that point they should be one of the most terrifying beings that exist if they're trying.

Incapacitation changes the result one notch, not roll twice. That would be a fortune effect.

lordcirth wrote:

My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

...why would you think that.

The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.

Druids are full casters, who can also get an animal companion. Summoners are defined by their summon. Obviously they could have a strong companion, with utility, and little to no spellcasting. What would be the point of making a Summoner class if their summon didn't do anything an AC couldn't?

lordcirth wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.

A PF2 spellcaster who summons is a summoner, he's just not a Summoner. And summoners suck real bad.

My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.

Champion multiclassing Cleric, which in a lot of systems would be highly redundant, but here it works great. It's seamlessly thematic, doesn't even feel like multiclassing. You get 2 cantrips, Shield being amazing for 2-hander champions. At 4th you take Domain Initiate, which is better than the Champion's Deity's Domain because it gives you an extra focus point, which you can use for Lay on Hands. You don't even need to take Basic Spellcasting to get good value out of it.

Bartram wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.

This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.

If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.

I, for one, fully intend for certain magic items to be not trivially available, but still craftable. Formulas may be a bit harder to find, but you only need to buy them once. You can also invent them.

lordcirth wrote:

shroudb wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

prototype00 wrote:

vestris wrote:

I think the mobility crane stance grants has been underestimated here especially with skill feats like quick jump.

I appreciate mobility as much as the next guy Vestris, but does that really warrant bumping up crane style? I’m not so sure, especially since I don’t think IIRC stances can be used in Exploration mode?

I don't see why you couldn't use a stance in exploration mode.

But even so, if there is something that your group is encountering that requires movement skill checks like that where stance-improved mobility features are useful, the players should be able to request running it as a non-combat encounter mode instead.

"Stance: A stance is a general combat strategy that

you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and
you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get
knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated,
until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance,
whichever comes first. After you take an action with the
stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You
can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode."

Yes. But encounter mode does not equal combat.

What are you talking about?

I was answering the post that said "I don't see why you couldn't use a stance in exploration mode."

with the direct rule that shows that stances are Encounter Mode ONLY.

what kind of encounter isn't either in the question nor the answer i gave.

They also said "the players should be able to request running it as a non-combat encounter mode instead. "

Doktor Weasel wrote:

And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

That bard spending his downtime singing on the street? He's "saved" just as much money during his downtime as the artificer who used one of his skill feats just to be able to craft magical items in the first place.

Except the bard didn't have to spend a feat, didn't have to hunt down a formula to get the "savings," and can spend his earnings on the exact same magic item the artificer spent his time crafting or on something else of his choosing (unlike the artificer, who only gets to "spend" his money on his one item).

Yeah, Paizo cracked down on these known "abuses" hard.

The alchemist "free crafting" that is being referred to is Advanced Alchemy.

breithauptclan wrote:

prototype00 wrote:

vestris wrote:

I think the mobility crane stance grants has been underestimated here especially with skill feats like quick jump.

I appreciate mobility as much as the next guy Vestris, but does that really warrant bumping up crane style? I’m not so sure, especially since I don’t think IIRC stances can be used in Exploration mode?

I don't see why you couldn't use a stance in exploration mode.

But even so, if there is something that your group is encountering that requires movement skill checks like that where stance-improved mobility features are useful, the players should be able to request running it as a non-combat encounter mode instead.

"Stance: A stance is a general combat strategy that

you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and
you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get
knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated,
until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance,
whichever comes first. After you take an action with the
stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You
can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode."

Yes. But encounter mode does not equal combat.

I don't think the heavy crossbow is great, but the normal crossbow is fine. d12 vs d10 isn't good enough for the extra action a lot of the time.

I think the takeaway here is that if you want your character to dual-wield necksplitters, go for it, it'll work fine. Don't worry about the optimizing. What kind of half-orc barbarian does math?

There are certainly level 0 creatures in the Bestiary. 8, in fact.

Standard apologies if this has been answered. etc etc.

If a creature has two attack forms. One normal, and one agile. And it attacks with the normal first, then agile, then back to normal.
Say his attack bonus is +20. Would it go +20, +16, +11? Or would it go +20, +16, +10?
I guess what I'm asking is.. does the -4 or -5 (and -8 and -10) come off the attack in front of it? Or does it come off of the original number?
I hope this made sense.

MAP uses only the number of previous attacks, and the traits of the current weapon. You would attack at +20, +16, +10. Using agile weapons later is therefore better.

Something went wrong when characters started being referred to as "Builds".

Characters are not builds. Builds are the mechanical skeleton that makes a character able to function in the game world.

"If combat breaks out while you’re casting one, your spell is disrupted" - page 302. Combat breaking out is not the same as rolling initiative. Once your rogue shoots (hit or miss), the ritual will be disrupted.

Allowing all spontaneous spells to be cast at any level has two problems:

1) It pressures players to pick only spells that heighten well, which is a fraction of the spell list

2) Combinatorial explosion of the number of spells to pick from every turn

The option was for it to have +1 AC at all three item levels (with just the save bonus going up) and not cap Dex or go +1/+2/+3 to both and cap Dex. We switched to the latter, as currently printed in the item itself, late in the process on the grounds that it is always more effective or equal for all characters and is otherwise just a worse choice for mages and the like than wearing robes/adventure's clothing.

Thanks for confirming! I also find it amusing that a Dex 22 character can dodge so fast that the magic forcefield can't keep up.

CyberMephit wrote:

How is this party going to take down a storm lord? Or a level 5 wizard with fly? Or even a level 1 lantern archon in a friendly contest?

Champions have serious issues against ranged/flying opponents, it is true. Champion's Reaction applying only out to 15 feet can be a serious limitation in anything but cramped dungeons.

Presumably, though, one of them is a fighter multiclassed into champion, for Sudden Leap and Felling Strike at 9th. Failing that, one of them is a bard multiclassed into champion for fly at 7th.

Alternatively, they all carry a backup shortbow. Not as dramatic, perhaps, but they are all trained in it.

Personally I intend to ignore the - bulk 1cp basic items like sheaths. It's nice that they included them for those who want it, but even my RAW-loving self finds that degree of detail overkill.

Some characters I'm excited to play:

Dwarven monk, (10 dex) mountain stance, going for both stunning fist and brawling specialization (They stack!) for maximum Flurry of Stuns.
Built level 1.

Human monk, Dragon Stance, (16 str, 16 dex) steel shield to bring AC up.
Spinkicks + spiked shield is just cool.
Haven't built yet.

Human Paladin of Iomedae with steel shield and flail. Might domain for Athletic Rush, to dash + trip with flail. Will take all the shield feats and probably multiclass either Cleric or Fighter.
Built level 1.

Afternoon everyone!

Just making sure I didn't miss something, but I don't need an Int/Wis/Chr score of 16 to cast 6th level spell? Having a high key ability only impacts the DCs and Attack rolls?

Thanks for the assist!

Correct, there is no minimum stat. Though multiclassing into casters requires a 14.

Not only does PF2 require you to buy competence in your class, it has feat locked entire approaches to the game to certain classes. I have a sword and board Ranger in PF1 that is achieved within the confines of the class. That isn't even possible in PF2. Granted, that may change with new content.

I don't understand what you mean, that a sword and board ranger isn't possible in PF2. Get a steel shield and shield spike, take Versatile Human or General Training for Shield Block, and take Twin Takedown. An effective sword and board ranger at level 1. If you don't want to be human, then you can take Shield Block at level 3, and settle for the +2 AC until then.

I'm testing out all sorts of stuff in the character creator via herolab and having a blast.

I made an elf barbarian who was a gladiator in an underground arena hundreds of years ago who went into hiding after a bunch of other adventurers burned the thing to the ground.

I made a charlatan diviner whose whole shtick is to whip up towns into a frenzy of intrigue just to see what happens.

I made a ranger of Gozreh who protects the wilderness from gentrification.

Also a former bounty hunter turned liberator, who's fighting to free the people she unjustly handed over to corrupt lawmen.

A lawful necromancer, follower of Nethys, who in her spare time consults as a private investigator, mainly because of her expertise at keeping her own privacy.

And the best part is each of them is so easy to start up because it's little more than picking a background and a class and just going hog wild.

I'm trying to figure out a way to make a detective barbarian. But I can't stop giggling at the idea of Conan looking around him and cursing at the black and white and shades of grey.

Charisma is useful for deception, diplomacy, etc for detective work. It's also a very strong combat option for intimidation for a barbarian. Decent Int for skills shouldn't cut into your build too much, given that you use medium armor.