moon glum's page

Instead of God Mode, arcane refactor makes sense, since refactoring is about making code more reusable and easier to modify.

Sudo spell definitely needs a name change. I like recursive spell myself, since that is also a way to iterate a section of code, and recursion has always seemed really trippy to me.

I think debug spell is OK, and that it's fun to consider that low damage dice are the result of magical code defects.

God mode is also OK with me, though I like the references to Triune that you suggest.

I agree that speed run could use a name change. I like glitch step better than anything I have thought of so far (goto just doesn't sound as cool, for example).

I am not sure how I feel about occult necromancer's. It seems to me that necromancers are, weirdly, spirit and matter, which would be a whole new tradition-- the tradition of necromancy. If not that, then divine, but maybe with a feat that gave them access to occult spells with the force trait.

Science fiction and science fantasy is way more about melee combat than is realistic, and Starfinder should be especially so. In Star Trek, it's Kirkfu against a vesk, err, um, gorn, captain Micheal's insane martial arts, or Worf with a batleth. In starwars its Jedi, and bounty hunters, and arena fights against monsters. In Dune, its knife fights with shields. In Guardians of the Galaxy, there are oodles of superpowered fights. In fire fly, there is probably as much melee combat as gunplay, with Mel punching people and kicking them into engine intakes, and River's super powers.

In starfinder, since you have all sorts of monsters that are going to get up close and claw/bite/trample/squish/absorb you, melee combat should be a big part of a fight. Especially since players love to fight in melee. It is very satisfying to split a void zombie in half with a doshka.

Unwieldy weapons are a holdover from Starfinder 1e, and do not make sense for the 2e actions mechanic.

For melee weapons, the restrictions on them are too severe for 2e, especially when you consider that things like an archaic maul do not have that trait. For the unwieldy melee weapons (doshka and neural lash) and for the assassin’s rifle, the weapons seem balanced without the drawbacks of the unwieldy trait. For weapons with the automatic and area traits, the 2e actions mechanic already does what the 1e unwieldy trait did, because area fire and auto fire both are 2 action activities. A 2 action activity can’t be done more that once on your 3 action turn, and can’t be used as a reaction (you would need a special action or the like that let you do that).

That being said, one could make a some new traits that encompassed some of the ideas behind the unwieldy trait, and that might let one make some very cool, yet balanced weapons. For example, unwieldy weapons in 2e could be the opposite of agile, and impose a an extra -1 to attacks after the first one in a round, or could they impose clumsy 1 when wielding the weapon (and so giant totem barbarians would be wielding unwieldy weapons).

One could also make a cool down trait.

In any case, weapons that have these traits should be a bit better than weapons without the traits. An unwieldy doshka should also have something like a 'massive' trait, that gives the weapon a +2 bonus to damage, or the like.

S. J. Digriz wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.

Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.

It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world.

The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards.

As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)

I mean, that's one way to read it, but the concepts I've come up with for Guardian are not just 'body guards' - they are active combatants on their own and would absolutely be taunting things.

IMO, that's a very shallow read of the class and its potential flavor.

If they are taunters, and not body guards, why call them guardians. Why not call them Harriers or Hecklers or something? I can dig a class that is a body guard. But it's silly to have them taunt, just because there is a taunt WoW ability. Being able to jump in front of attacks though, that is cool and actually more effective because it repositions the Guardian to be adjacent to the enemy and actually intercepts the attack. Or an ability that lets them jump to the origin of a burst and smother it. There are so many cooler things that could be done other than immitating WoW.

How does someone going "stop trying to hit me, and hit me!" and banging on their shield or chest plate - which is a perfectly fine way to flavor your Taunt - make any less sense in a world where as someone said before you can just survive forever non-magically with Legendary Survivalist? You haven't responded to that.

Also the Guardian is actually 'doing' the Taunt - like it's something they are actually doing.

It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world.

The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards.

As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)

Nah Taunt is a neat mechanic, it just needs some mechanical touch ups.

And it's about as "meta-gamey" as demoralize or feint. So just... not really.

Taunt is quite a bit more 'meta-gamey' than demoralize or feint, because demoralize and feint make sense within the world. Those are things the character can actually do, and their limitations make in world sense. For example, they are both mental, they are charisma based, and by default demoralize requires that you share a language with the target.

I could see a skill action to taunt, perhaps unlocked via an intimidate based skill feat.

There are much cooler, more thematic ways to let a guardian agro than a taunt.

This is about the whole idea of Guardians getting Taunt, not about its mechanics. Even if the mechanics were neat, I would still hate Guardians getting Taunt, and that's because it is an ability that is about the Guardian's meta role in the game of being somekind of WoW inspired 'Tank' who should have an 'agro' ability, and not about a power that everyone who was a specialized body would learn to do. Bodyguards don't taunt people. It feels both silly, and meta-gamey in same way that D&D 4e sometimes, when it was at its worst, felt meta-gamey (I actually liked 4e fine. There were some had some cool ideas.)

Also, how it could possibly work within the game world doesn't make sense. Its not magic, but it somehow draws even mindless being into attacking the bodyguard, including, say, a golem who was programmed to attack mages, or a revenant bent on vengeance. What is the body guard doing when they spend this action?

Instead of Taunt, why not have some ability that let the Guardian designate a ward to protect, and then if the ward is attacked, the Guardian can use their reaction to stride adjacent to their ward, and take the attack instead of the ward. This could be augmented as they level, or via class feats so that they can also strike the attacker, or push the ward to a different space.

Finally, do we really need another excuse for even more Mounty Python and the Holy Grail quotes while gaming?

Oh well, Urgathoa was my first guess, and here I was feeling all smug last week about Asmodeus (many people arguing online where guessing Asmodeus because it's a deity in 3.5e, and I was arguing that the big A is not subject to copyright).

S. J. Digriz wrote:

To me, RAW, the feat works with two melee weapons that are thrown. This includes hatchets, tridents, or any melee weapon with the thrown trait.

Also, thieves do get Dex to damage with thrown melee weapons that have the appropriate traits (daggers and throwing knives). Aside from RAW, it's just cool. Thieves throwning daggers is classic fantasy. Shadowspawn from the Thieves World anthologies comes immediately to mind.

So, yeah, you throw one hatchet overhand, then the other hatchet underhand at your MAP. The target is off-guard for the second attack. You are now disarmed.

By RAW this is all flatly wrong. If you want to houserule it at your table because you think it's cool, that's great. But telling people the rules already work that way is simply not true.

Yeah, I looked up the thrown trait, and its in there that it says that a the weapon becomes a ranged weapon when thrown. Y'all are correct.

Note that if you emblazon your weapon to become a holy symbol, you can use Raise Symbol with two handed weapons. That's nice for clerics of a number of faiths. Also, a war priest with weapon and shield can spend 2 actions to raise symbol, and then raise shield, if they want. +2 to saves is sometimes going to be worth it, especially if you are raising shield and striking anyway. Its a nice 3rd action.

We now know that the god who dies is not Pharasma. If it were, the psychpomp would not be able to present the book to her as a gift.

Note that the light cantrip can be used to track the location of creatures that hide or turn invisible. Attach a light spell to a creature, and where ever they go you will know what space they are in (they'll still have concealment, of course).

A hasted magus casting a debuf or blast, striding, and striking is badass. If you want to do this, you may want to start str/dex 18, int 16.

I'd like a witch's choice of patron to give them a cantrip, a basic lesson, and some extra thing (like a bard's muse does). For example, a vengence witch might get a +1 circumstance bonus to curse DCs against a target that has ever attacked her.

I'd like the witch cantrips to all be reworked. They need to be a little bit better. Make them in line with the psychic cantrips (unamped).

I'd like cackle to be usuable in a manner similar to a psi cantrip. If used without a focus point, it requires an action. Cackle also sustains all the witch's spells.

I agree more classes should get those skill increases. I don't think Gunslinger or spellcasters generally need them, as they're not essential to the function of the class as much? Spellcasters are closer due to learn a spell, but spontaneous casters don't really need that and it's technically optional for the others too (and Witch can sidestep it entirely). Gunslinger ways mostly don't hinge on the skill the way Swashbucklers do.

Alchemist and Swashbuckler though absolutely.

There are a bunch of classes whose main stick requires a skill check. For example, pistolero gunslingers make either deception or intimidation checks when reloading.

One thing that has bugged me as being inconsistent is that the dedication feats require the character to get more trained in the spellcasting skill of a class’s tradition than the class itself requires, and with sorcerers or bards it’s actually quite likely that the dabbler is more trained than they are, because they’re better off training up in a charisma skill, like performance, intimidation, or diplomacy.

I forget who originally said it, but I really like the idea of swashbucklers getting a free skill increase to be spent on one of their panache-gaining skills. They get skill feats for them already, and that's cool, but if you're expected to increase a panache-granting skill as much as you can in order to ensure you can enter panache, then it feels a bit sad to have to use one of your three or fewer eventual legendary skill picks to make sure your core class feature comes online.

I think that the free skill increase that the Thaumaturge and Inventor currently have should be applied to a number of other classes. Especially, alchemists should get it with crafting and all spellcasters should get them in their tradition. Swashbucklers should get them in their panache skill. Gunslingers in their way skill.

It’s strange that the harrow bloodline gets suggestion for its 4th level bloodline spell, and not read omen. I can’t see how suggestion has anything to do with the harrow, but read omen seems obvious and it would be odd for a harrow sorcerer not to have it.

Start out with a one or even two drakeheart mutagen elixers. You would have to give up a scroll or two. They are 4 gp each, and will raise your AC to 17 for 1 minute, which is just one less than the best you could start with. Buy more as you can afford to.

Then, for spells go with magic weapon. At first level, casting magic weapon on one of your friend's weapons is amazing. Color spray is also good.

1. Bastard swords that are versatile piercing. My pet peeve. But in general, more 1+ level non-magic gear would be cool.
2. Numeria and scfi-tech stuff. Maybe some starfinder conversions.
3. Large ancestries-- centaurs, ogres, giant eagles, sentient trees
4. More alchemical items that are not uncommon, and more gadgets.
5. Skilled cleric doctrines: inquisitor (for investigating), evangelist (for persuading).

Back in the very early 1980s we ran an all kobold campaign. There were 4 kobold PCs, Huey, Duey, Luey, and Puey. Huey was a fighter, Luey was a cleric, Duey was thief, and Puey was an assassin. Most of those kobolds died, but Puey, aka 'Puey the bold', went on to join the regular adventuring party and eventually became a 15th level grandfather of assassins. He was like a kobold James Bond. These were kobolds from the 1st edition monster manual, which looked like cute little reptilian devil puppy people, and they were technically members of the 'giant class', and so somehow related to ogres, trolls, fire giants, orcs and goblins.

It seems that the basic armies by level table, which should be on page 63, is missing from the players guide.

I'd see it similar to a good religions tenets against killing. It's OK to destroy undead in self defense, or to otherwise further the creation of unlife in the world and the cause of Urgathoa. If some cleric of Norgrubber created a bunch of undead and had them attack a community of Urgathoa worshipping gouls, Urgathoa would be cool with destroying those tools of Norgrubber.

It could also be that Urgathoa wants just to make sure that their clerics are a negative force in the cosmos, weighing things away from life and towards undeath. As long as the cleric creates or saves more undead beings than they destroy, they are OK.

But then, there are also probably Urgathoa fundamentalist fanatics that are very strict. A pragmatic blood lord would use them, but not really buy into their strict, literalist interpretation of Urgathoa's anathema.

I don't know if you noticed this yet, but you have a section where you say,

"Double-Dipping Weaknesses
It is possible to double dip a weakness, sort of. If your attack already trigger’s a monster’s weakness, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis instead. So, if fighting a Troll and you have a flaming weapon already, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis, and trigger both its fire weakness and it’s ‘you’ weakness."

This does not always work, because of the following rule regarding weaknesses:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=345

"If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value."

So, for the flaming sword example, you could use the personal anti-thesis to trigger the 'you' weakness for the slashing damage that the sword does, and then the 1d6 fire damage that the flaming sword does would trigger the troll's fire weakness (I think that's how it would work, those are 2 different damage instances, right?). But, if you were attacking a werewolf with a silver sword, you could not do this, because the silver weakness is already triggered by the slashing damage, and you don't combine weaknesses.

I am more into the mana wastes and steam punk these days, but I will say that Iron Gods was an utterly awesome adventure path to run. Each and every module was splendid-- not a weak volume in the 6. Also, when you dig into Numeria, it is friggin *cool*, what with mutants, rat folk warrens, Kellid barbarians, the Technic League, all of the crashed alien starships and alien monsters.

A trickster muse for the bard would be neat.

A good, large, sturdy towel can be very useful.

4)A new cleric doctorine. Something that makes up for the poor performance of warpriest. I've personally put forward the idea of Sacred Fist, where the doctorine...

I am surprised that there have not been several new cleric doctrines by now. In addition to Sacred Fist, you could have an Evangelist, that gets automatic skill increases to Diplomacy, Society, and Bluff as well as a few bonus skill feats, and an Inquisitor that gets automatic boosts to Perception and, Stealth, and Intimidation, a bonus to Reflex saves, and few bonus skill feats. The Inquisitor would get light armor proficiency, and the Evangelist would get to to use their divine channel spells to cast divine enchantment spells in additional to heal or harm.

Something like that.

There are a lot of ways one could go for this. There are advantages to doing it as an archetype, as that would let you add in some focus spells that are particularly appropriate, and it makes sense that it would be a dedication feat, as it would involve quite a bit of dedication for a wizard to develop their strength and develop spell casting tricks that utilized it. Note that this version of the concept would not have any powers for actually physicall punching stuff. The character would have to choose a further archetype (barbarian, martial artist, fighter, magus, as they desire) to get some ability to hit stuff.

Other notes: you can get this dedication archtype by taking the Stength Powered Wizard arcane thesis. That thesis basically is just 'You can the Strength Powered Wizard dedication feat'.

Here is an outline of some ideas:

Archetype: Strength Powered Wizard
Prerequisites: wizard level 1, transmuter or evoker specialization, or universalist wizard, strength 14.

You have developed a unique arcane thesis that allows you to boost some of your magic using your physical strength. You may add your strength modifier to the damage dealt by any evocation or transmutation spell that you cast. This applies to any damage dealth by the spell throughout its duration, for example, it applies to each damage roll a flaming sphere deals, and to any damage you deal while polymorphed into a battle form. In addition, the status bonus you gain from the focus spell physical boost is equal to your strength modifier if it is greater than 2, and you can add your strength modifier to the damage dealt by the focus spell hand of the apprentice.

Feats
Force Master (level 8): whenever you cast an evocation spell with the force descriptor, add half of your Strength modifier (round down) as a status bonus its spell attack roll. Targets of evocation spells that you cast that have the force descriptor take a status penalty to their saving throws equal to half your strength modifier, rounded down.

Mighty Shield (level 2): WHen you cast the shield cantrip, you add your strength modifier to the spell's hardness. When you use Sheild Block with your shield spell, you may also make an athletics check to push the attack. Add both your strength and your intelligence modifier to the skill check for this push attempt.

Break Magic (level 4): gives access to a focus spell (and a focus point) that lets you counter wall spells and other magical barriers, as well as effects that would restrain or hinder you (slow, entangle, etc.)

Hefty Telekinetic Haul (level 10): When you cast Telekinetic Haul, the distance you can move the target increases to 10 feet times your strength modifier, and the maximum bulk of an object that can be affected by the spell increases to 80 plus 10 times your strength modifier. Once per turn you can sustain telekinetic haul as a free action.

Mighty Battleform (level 6): You add half of your strength modifier (round down) as a status bonus to attack rolls you make while polymorphed into a battle form.

Hand of the Apprentice (level 1): as per wizard feat.

The Inventor class feat 'Gadget Specialist' (pg. 27-28) does not list the level of the gadgets that the inventor gets for free each day, just that they must have the formula. As it stands, it seems that a 4th level inventor can make a 19th level temporary gadget, and acquire valuable high level formula. The text should probably be changed to something like the following:

"You gain the formulas for three common or uncommon gadgets of your level or lower (page 66). Each day during your daily preparations, you can create two temporary gadgets of your level or lower from your formula book. Gadgets prepared in this way don’t cost you any resources to Craft and don’t have any sale value. They are temporary items and fall apart the next time you make your daily preparations if you haven’t already used them.

The ogres, centaurs, and vanara. People love to act like monkeys. I am surprised vanara have not been more popular. I had a blast playing an vanara unchained monk (a monkey monk).

It would be nice to have a class feat that let you get some of the implement empowerment benefit with bows and two handed weapons, just so that Thaumaturges could have more weapons options. Perhaps an class feat that let you use your weapon implement to empower itself for half of the damage bonus.

A class feat that gives Thaumaturges Trick Magic Item as a bonus skill feat and lets them use there Charisma bonus instead of their Wisdom or Intelligence bonus for any relevant skill checks would be a good low level class feat.

It would also be nice to have a class feat that let the Thaumaturge use some version of Implement's Empowerment with two handed weapons (or at least two handed weapon implements). Then I could make a halfling Thaumaturge with a staff sling and a filcher's fork as a backup weapon. Halfling nature seems perfect for a Thaumaturge.

I'd also like to see more pacts, even though they are uncommon.

One idea for a pact: a pact with a hag coven that curses creatures that bring you to 0 HP but requires you to, say, surrender a number of years from your lifespan for each such curse might also be cool.

Cook and Tidy are transmutation and illusion, Lift is now evocation (because they have made all the telekinesis effects evocation) and Make is conjuration.

I don't see why it could not have traits for all 4 of those schools.

Music and powerful magic are a staple of bards in fantasy fiction. Kvothe from the Name of the Wind, Deth and Morgan from the Riddle Master of Head, Orpheus from Greek myth, Taliesin from Welsh myth... There are a bunch of them. Learning song and story reaches into people's hearts and spirits. Music is a harmony that at its most perfected reflects the secret harmonies of the universe. The class makes total sense to me.

If you started as a performer or wandering musician, you learned the deeper secrets of your art and they developed into a knack for some magic.

Or you may have learned your art as part of a path to a deeper, occult understanding of the universe.

I love adding science fiction to my D&D world. Doing so is as old as D&D, and I am a giant fan of all sorts of science fantasy, science fiction mixed with fantasy, and high technology mixed with fantasy. From movies like Bakshi's Wizards, to comics like Saga, to books like Vance's Dying Earth or Gene Wolf's Books of the New Sun, I love all of that stuff. Iron Gods was the first adventure path that I thought was so cool I had to stop my current campaign and run it. So, yeah, there are other fans, and count me as one of them.

Inqisitors and evangelists would both make good cleric doctrines, the inquisitor getting the warpriest's weapon/spell progression light armor, and boosts in perception and intimidation (with bonus skill feats), while the evangelist might get the cloistered cleric's weapon/spell progression and boosts to persuasion, deception and perform (with bonus skill feats).

That being said, in my group the only two 1e classes that people have run that are not 2e classes are the inquisitor and the skald, though a couple of us have been hankering to try a bloodrager. Only one person ever ran an inquisitor. They liked it, but then that was a kingmaker campaign where we punished law breakers by having them torn apart by castings of mad monkeys.

Right now it is not easy to create a ninja in 2e, if by ninja one means a stealthy Asian martial arts sneak attacker with ki powers. You can do it, but it takes a lot of fiddling. So, my guess for one of the two classes is ninja.

A shout out for cockroach people! It could be so very fun to play a cockroach person, and the general toughness, stealth, and creepiness of the species would make for some great abilities.

Elves were one of the first playable races in the first fantasy RPG. They were there, because the D&D creators were playing medieval wargames with a Tolkien fantasy element (because the battles of 5 armies, and the battles from the lord of the rings rock so hard). and those wargames evolved into D&D. They didn't think through the fluff of elves too much. They assumed that people who were going to play D&D would use their background knowledge of elves from whatever source, and run with it.

Game mechamically, non-humans had extra powers that humans did not, starting from 1st level, but this was balanced in the original D&D and AD&D by limiting the maximum level you could advance an elf to as a player (except as a thief, for some reason). Non-humans were also limited to what classes they could hold. For example, elves could not be rangers (weird, right).

Even back then, there was this nagging issue with regards to elves. If they are so long lived, why do they not dominate the world? Even NPC elves would have centuries to hone their skills, gain worldly knowledge, craft wondrous artifacts, study, explore... People make up all sorts of relatively dumb explainations, like that they are sickly and die off fast, or that they reproduce very slowly, or that they are big-time slackers that spend all their hours playing harps and frolicking (even so, they would get really good at harping and frolicking). The conundrum has not kept elves from being a popular D&D race. There is so much that doesn't make sense about the default D&D fantasy universe, that this issue with elves perhaps only makes D&D more popular, as it gives one something to ponder for a few moments in this all too brief life.

I think that they could work as cleric doctrine, where they would have only light armor proficiency, and a more limited weapon selection, but gain a bonus to perception, a hunters mark like feature (but working on creatures that were condemned by/anathema to their religion), and some extra skill training/skill feats (probably having to do with intimidation). If cloistered clerics were the spell casting clerics, and war priests were the fighting clerics, inquistors would be the perceptive and skilled clerics.

I am very curious if anyone has run numbers. I tried to search for info online but couldn't find anything. We are playing Extinction Curse btw.

Our group switched over from 5e but most players are feeling like hit chances are worse in 2e which makes turns feel wasted and I honestly have no idea if it is true.

I guess when I am playing I dont even think about these kinds of things. I just use my 3 actions with all the options I chose and have fun.

I really enjoy the ability to mess with numbers with demoralize/bon mot/flanking and all the other effects.

Do you think 1st attack is nearly the same without buffs/debuffs? I have a feeling they arent too far off. I would guess flat footed would make it quite even since it is super easy to cause.

Do you think saves for spells are close to the same? I actually have no idea about this either. IMO the 4 degrees of success really make spells more interesting to me. All I can say I have noticed a lot of crit saves, especially if you target the strong save on accident.

On the other hand I love landing a crit failure on an enemy with a spell. Even something as simple as fear is great. Also for most spells I feel like a success is a minor hit which feels nice.

There is one huge difference in PF2 and 5e, that is damaging spells in 5e always do damage unless they have built in evasion. On the otherhand they can crit fail too.

Overall I completely understand people hate missing. I am very curious if it is just a feeling or numbers are really that much lower in 2e.

Has anyone else ran into issues of players feeling hit chances are bad in 2e from 5e.

5e has a different design with regards to math than PF2e. In 5e, your level does not affect your chances of hitting nearly as much. A 1st level character has about a +5 to hit without spell boosts, and a 20th level character has around a +14 to hit or so (+14 assumes a 20 in the relevant attribute and a +3 weapon). AC for a 1st level monster will be in the mid teens, and AC for a 20th level monster will be in the low 20s. In PF2e a first level character is around +7 to hit (fighters are around +9), and a 20th level character is around around +35 or so.

Because level matters more in PF2e, if the monsters are a little high level for the players, the players will miss more (or the monsters will save/crit save more). In 5e, you can face a CR 8 monster and hit it a lot, but it will be harder for a 5th level 2e party to hit a 8th level monster. (especially true when the level difference is one where the characters would advance to the next level of proficiency). If the DM throws lower level encounters against the players, then it works the other way around, and you will kick their butts (both with increased hits, and with increased crits) Of course, that would also let your spell casters use incapacitation effects, so such encounters should be over quickly.

Also note that each +1 is more significant in 2e in that it has a 15% chance to matter with each roll (to turn a crit fail into a fail, a fail into a success, and a success into a crit success). In 5e, a +1 only has a 5% chance of mattering per roll (to turn a fail into a success). That being said, each +1 5e is pushing your dice roll across a greater percentage of the space between what you rolled, and what you need to hit a higher level creature, since creature AC doesn't improve across levels as much. So, in 5e, spells and abilities that boost your attack rolls, like bless, or bardic inspiration, will result in a larger increase in the number of player hits during a combat, and gaining advantage in 5e, which is fairly common, results in what amounts to about +5 to hit. Taken together, all of that means that players do probably hit more often in 5e, especially against higher CR monsters.

"Longswords can be one-edged or two‑edged swords. Their blades are heavy and they’re between 3 and 4 feet in length." (CRB p. 281)

The description is entirely correct for the modern (and for Germans historical) use of the name. However, the stats and traits do not match that description at all. With a very long and relatively thick blade, such a weapon requires a long(er) handle, which makes it somewhat awkward to wield with only one hand all the time. That is why, historically, these were primarily wielded in two hands. This would also be the case for most small and medium people on Golarion, since most people are relatively normal, by our physical standards.

So the appropriate stats would look more like this: a two-handed d10 weapon with parry, one-handed d8, versatile p and maybe one more low-power trait.

The current stat block of the longsword is more appropriate for a regular one-handed sword. I would call it "Einhänder" (German, literally one-handed sword), which is not exactly great, but at least doesn't have the very specific cultural implications of the arming sword.

The description would be something like this: The einhänder is a sword with a short handle, with a blade typically measuring just over two and a half feet.

As a hema practitioner, and fellow sword nerd, I agree with the spirit of your post. The weapons in D&D and pathfinder are more based on D&D history and trying to balance the game than on historical weapon taxonomy. So, in pf2e you have the bastard sword, which can be easily used in one hand and can't be used to thrust (it apparently has no point, and does no piercing damage-- a type of sword that probably includes an oakshott XIIa. XIII, XIIIa), and the longsword that can be used to cut or thrust, and then the short sword, which seems to act like most one handed swords hema people fence with in that it's agile and finesse and that the word 'short sword' brings to mind the oakshott XIV - XVI swords.

There really is not a PF2e weapon that matches the what 21st century hema practitioners call longswords, or that matches oakshott type XVa, XVIa, XVII, or XVIIIa,b,c swords. Typical humans can't fight normally with one of these and, say, a left hand dagger or shield, though you can momentarily use a free hand while fighting with them. I have seen really great athletes temporarily parry/bind with a longsword in one hand, but its more a trick (feat), where the D&D bastard sword is a weapon that you can wield with a shield.

So, I agree, but there are more unrealistic things involved in D&D combat, so I can live with it, especially since there are now feats to grapple and trip while wielding a sword.

For example, bucklers are not at all like historical bucklers, because you *hold* a historical buckler in your hand, and greatswords in PF2e do not have the proper traits, which would include sweep and backswing if you model their usage after the historical montante.

This is an extremely silly ability. It not only makes no sense that any drifter gets it, it makes utterly no sense that every drifter gets it.

Many games do not want to be this silly. For some games, its OK, but not as a standard feature of all drifter gunslingers.

Also, there are a host of alternate abilities that would be good for the drifter's 9th level deed. How about a dual weapon attack that takes 2 actions, lets you shoot someone, move up to them, and attack with a melee weapon with no additional multiple attack penalty and a bonus to damage if the range attack hit.

S. J. Digriz wrote:

I think it would be interesting if firearms had a 'point blank' trait, that gave them an extra damage die when they hit a target in their first range increment. That would mean the gunslinger (or other firearms user) would be encouraged not to fire until they saw the whites of their opponents eyes, so it speak.

Also, it would make firearms more useful to classes that don't have a fighter or gunslingers proficiency advancement. It's great that there are simple firearms, but there is little reason for a character to want to use something with such a bad range increment that also only does 1d4/1d6 (except on an unlikely critical hit).

I believe that the ideal solution to this is to de-emphasise getting crits on simple firearms, giving them a higher base damage and either deadly or a smaller fatal, and leaving the higher fatal values for the martial and advanced firearms.

Getting extra damage at point blank range is also only really a blunderbuss/shotgun thing. Most guns (and especially the longer-ranged ones) aren't going to see significant enough losses of velocity to have distinct damage until at least several hundred feet of range.

I would not be against just raising the damage die a size, but note that by giving them an extra die at the first range incrmeent encourages risk taking tactics that are flavorful. Also, raising the damage die a zize makes the striking firearms more deadly and makes it less important to score a critical hit, but adding a damage die for the first range increment does not improve striking firearms, and keeps the critical hit incentive (as all of those damage dice are improved by the fatal trait).

I think it would be interesting if firearms had a 'point blank' trait, that gave them an extra damage die when they hit a target in their first range increment. That would mean the gunslinger (or other firearms user) would be encouraged not to fire until they saw the whites of their opponents eyes, so it speak.

Also, it would make firearms more useful to classes that don't have a fighter or gunslingers proficiency advancement. It's great that there are simple firearms, but there is little reason for a character to want to use something with such a bad range increment that also only does 1d4/1d6 (except on an unlikely critical hit).

Are injury poisons bad/evil/chaotic and only used by sketchy characters?
Or are they a tool that even paladins could use if they have an Alchemist in the party?

In the 1st edition AD&D, using poison was considered an evil action. Because most every poison had the same effectiveness (save vs. poison or die), it was also a matter of game balance that only assassins (who were by the rules, evil) could use poison.

I think that his bias against poison has somehow continued up through PF2e. In fact, in most PF1e and D&D 3.5 games I've played, poison is rarely used by the PCs, but I believe some of that is due to the cost of poisons, and some of that is due to the bother of adding an extra mechanic to an already rather complicated rule set.

If you are just looking for inspiration, there was 3.5 supplement called Lord of Madness that dealt with aberrations. It included some D&D copyrighted aberrations (mind flayers and beholders), but also had gricks and grell and aboleths.

There is also Sandy Peterson's Cthulhu Mythos for PF1e. It's pretty cool, and contains information about handling the re-appearance of an old one in the game world.

People have mentioned the Strange Aeons adventure path. I have read parts of it, but have not run it. The first adventure seems awesome. It's for PF1e.

In addition to aberrations, look at the qlippoth. They are ur-demons with a Lovecraftian vibe.

There have been a number of adventures over the years that were inspired by the Lovecraft story 'A Shadow Over Innsmouth'. One is Carrion Crown #4 'Wake the Watcher'. It is a PF1e module from the Carrion Crown adventure path.

I think that cats in most game systems are not powerful enough. The only reason people think cats are weak is because they choose to be nice to humans. If cats were to turn hostile, the results would make a zombie apocalypse look like a beach party. Cats are highly intelligent, Machiavellian stealth predators who have been studying human behavior for millennia. They can see in the dark. They are fast. They can jump. They know of a variety of poisons that they can apply to their claws. They are telepathic. They are on friendly terms with the elder gods.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus reports that in the ancient Egyptian city of Bubastus, when a Roman soldier accidentally ran over a cat with his chariot, a mob gathered and put the soldier to death. The population of that city was likely under feline telepathic control.

Consider this recent archeological discovery:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/a-giant-cat-picture-was-just-discov ered-among-the-nazca-lines/

Back in the wild west days of 1st edition where the rules taken as a whole never made much sense anyway, there was infravision, which let you see infrared light sources, like body heat, and ultravision, which let you see ultraviolet light sources, like black lights (it was the 1970s). We added things like the ability to see microwaves, radio waves and x-rays for those with very good vision. It seems complicated in retrospect, but it didn't come up very often, because everyone had continual light amulets.