oholoko's page

Don't KS if you think you are getting a product. Don't KS thinking it is a preorder... In a preorder you are paying for a product. In kickstarter you are well... Kickstarting an idea with a reward...
Think like this one is we will release a product soon and we are already taking money for it. The other is, we have an idea and will give you something if you fund us now... One has a lot less legal obligations, and is quite a bit unregulated, and preorders are already bad IMO.

oholoko wrote:

I would rather they release more options instead of making handwraps not invested as they are kind of greater doubling rings for every unnarmed weapon you are using.
I would rather see more like the berserker cloak and keep the handwraps as they are.

Like a tattoo? Working exactly like the handwraps but engraved on the body.

Oh yeah a tattoo would be awesome. But I was thinking more on the lines of boxing gloves, mouthpieces.

Not I. Because my Animal Barbarian still needs to enhance his skills with item bonuses same as any weapon-wielder.

Note that doubling rings allow a character to save money, but the handwraps are required : there is zero alternative.

Armor is invested and is required. Also unnarmed attacks are an oddity in itself, can't be disarmed, some are always draw even in casual conversation.

I would rather they release more options instead of making handwraps not invested as they are kind of greater doubling rings for every unnarmed weapon you are using.
I would rather see more like the berserker cloak and keep the handwraps as they are.

Wow animal companion defenses shouldn't suffer so much...

oholoko wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Tage wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.

If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.

Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.

Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.

In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.

Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.

You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.

The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.

There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.

There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.

While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and

...

Haha same. To me it was mostly 3.5 that was even more broken. But to me the biggest difference is time. Pf1 takes just so long to do anything, pf2 I know the challenges for level X are Y and they are challenges for a roll. In pf1 some people could do X at level 5 while most could not do at level 20.

It just took so long for builds, to dm... To read old rules. And well the ability to invite a new player to a party of veterans and not go. "Well he will probably die in the first 10 seconda if I try to make a challenge for the rest."

And another thing do remember most people do not go on forums. When you say they are obvious they might not be as obvious to anyone that just picked the book. I've invited about 3-4 people to my table and about 3-4 of them came without even bothering to open the srd or even read the player's handbook haha.

Also just remembered save or dies were often a thing without 4 degrees of success, so many times you could put an enemy with a single save or die spell and see people collapse because they rolled a 10.

Also I am glad they broke the healing wand slurp method and just gave it to regular healers, cause it was annoying.

The Tage wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.

If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.

Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.

Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.

In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.

Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.

You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.

The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.

There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.

There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.

While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and 1d4+4 on the secondary.

In pf2 if I want to hit a lot and grab a ranger in the start I hit 4 times with low penalty while the monk does the same with higher penalty but has a skill that both does more damage and makes his first hit more accurate. Or even if he is a barb that tends to hit only once can hit 3 times. The gap is quite narrow.

I guess the thing is pf2 is a system that is easier to master. And well easier overall if one wants to be better it's just they can't and in other systems it could be done easily.

David knott 242 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I've read the book quite thoroughly and didn't see any such clarifications. There were a number of abilities that obliquely hinted that it was possible, but every time I brought it to the forums as evidence in favor of using lower level spell slots, it was shot down by disbelievers.

Frankly, if the disbelievers do not accept Jason's answer on this question, they are impossible to convince. In the context that his answer is given, there really is no way to interpret it other than that he meant to say yes, you can use a higher level slot to cast a spell that you know only at a lower level. There is nothing else that he could have been saying yes to.

Where was it ever said that you could cast a 1st level spell from a 4th level slot? All I've ever seen is that you have to heighten the 1st level spell to 4th to cast it.

I also felt the same in the answer you can cast a 1st level spell in a 4th level slot. As long as you heighten it. That was always in the rules. Just the act of casting a spell in a different slot is heightening it.

"When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level."
It isn't that you can't cast it is if you do. You are heightening.

The rule to cast spells in different slots is heightening them, there's no rule for casting lower level spells on higher slots without heightening.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I see. Solipsism I must be remembering the 3.5 shenanigans.

Here is the PF1 spell I was talking about: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/euphoric-tranquility

Doesn't look like a combat spell until you use it in combat. Find out it has no save until attacked and basically if they miss the saves, they are at the mercy of the PCs. Loved this one when it sprung on me. Sounds so nice and peaceful.

And it guarantees at least one round of no actions by the enemy and possibly quite a few more if it has a weak or average will save. It sits there in a state of tranquility getting killed.

Why were you allowing content from books you hadn't read rather than curating a list of books for the group to use?

Quote:

You took them or your character was weak. If you're playing some weak, non-specialized PF1 character

Those characters might be weak compared to the theoretical maximum, but that doesn't mean they can't face CR-appropriate challenges. If your group isn't 100% out to power game and nothing else PF1 suddenly acquires a level of depth PF2 isn't designed to achieve.

Because PF1 lacked a consistent means to ban stuff you needed to curate a lot and do a bunch of extra work for the DM. Actually this statement is the biggest reason my group had to change from 3.5 to pf2.

oholoko wrote:

GGSigmar wrote:

One thing I forgot to mention is I also have mixed feelings about Thaumaturge having to use a single one-handed weapon, because he needs the other to hold the implement or free. I don't think 2H weapons would be a flavour home run in this case, but I hope one of the implements in the final version is a shield, so that the class can at least go sword and board. Seeing how weapon implement grants a kind of AoO, the shield could probably grant a Shield Block reaction.

I mean the amulet kind of grants you a better shield block. I would like an "raise implement" since the +2 is undead lacking from it.

Touche`

Also indeed not undead. But I would also love if you actually called a spirit/undead to give the AC.

I agree with you on the silliness of wingless pixies, but the idea that low level 1e characters are more versatile than 2e characters is somewhat hard to take in. Between skill consolidation and feats (1) no longer belonging to unnecessary feat trees, and (2) being placed into isolating "buckets" so that investing in non-combat options doesn't totally screw over your combat capabilities, I'd argue that 2e characters are vastly more versatile than their predecessors.

PF1/3.5/3e to me devolved into the highest tower by the end. How much can i specialize my character so that i can get that extra little bonus, pf2 hard capped everything so you can get only as tall and then you need to go wide.

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that Paizo isn't likely to print an entirely new school of spells and that, by and large, the spells we have now are what we're going to have for this edition. I get that they aren't a WotC sized company but it does suck that we won't get large dumps of new spells the way we did in PF1.

We got 200 spells just a few days ago lol I think it was more spells than we had before SoM. But yeah outside of fixed spelllists from class arquetypes(elementalist showed us that) we will probably only get expansions to the 4 traditions. I mean that's good for me. I hate when a book comes out and only covers 2 classes for spells... Or when a spell has like 3 lines of classes beneath it to cover all classes.

Can I just say, thamaturge is bad at everything he does but can do so much. He is not as much damage as the rogue, his support is pretty bad compared to most casters, his trinkets aren't as good as the alchemist, his keyscore being Cha makes it so he can't hit as well as martials, his heal is bad, his reactions are worse than most... But he just has so many options. Like oh yeah I can cast bad spells of all traditions, I can get a super cantrip, I can attack pretty decently and disrupt pretty well.
It's just so much I am in love with every aspect of the class, it just encapsulates so much of the pf2 idea of not a tall tower but a wide one.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Psychic casting in 1e was just OP in terms of regular casting. I just hope this version is unique but balanced.

What.

Mostly because they aren't affected by stuff that affects divine/arcane caster and can cast even when they are paralized.

oholoko wrote:

I don't feel the same with basic Lesson mostly because i find reach spell more useful most of the times. Also one spell + focus spell is not that strong in my opnion.

Hmm... That's interesting.

What do you use your focus point for?

I ask because the focus spells is what I consider the compensation for the 6-HP, no armor, 3 spell slot chassis. Other 6-HP, no armor classes get 4 spell slots. Other 3 slot casters get 8-HP and at least light armor. Witch gets their choice of a good selection of powerful focus spells.

The opportunity of picking up an off-tradition spell slot spell is another nice bonus.

Most times i play with free arquetype so normally i do get one from those. But even when i do not most spells and focus spells of the witch aren't that great.

As I have mentioned before, when I play a character it is often a Witch character. It is my go-to class for spellcasting character concepts. I like the high number of trained skills. I like the flexibility of the spellcasting. I like the powerful focus spells. The combat power is a bit lacking as a tradeoff, and I can respect that. But there are already other threads for discussing that.

I also recognize that there are some mechanical problems with the Witch class that I really think should be fixed with official errata.

In order from most important to least:

Familiar actions when not in combat
For the love of the entire pantheon, please clarify the action economy of minion characters during exploration and downtime modes of play. I don't even care what the ruling is. If I don't like it personally, I will houserule it to be what I want for games that I run.

The problem is that the uncertainty is causing people to be wary of creating characters that have a familiar as part of their character's identity and power. We don't know what to expect when the time comes to actually play the character with other players. Are the abilities that I have planned on using actually going to work? Or is it just going to cause contention with the other players at the table? Am I going to feel that my familiar feat choices are dead feats that need retraining at best and maybe just scrap the character entirely (especially for Witch characters that can't just retrain a feat to drop having a familiar entirely)? Is some other player at the table going to feel jealous that I am effectively playing two characters while not in combat?

No ruling is going to make everyone happy. But we do need an official ruling on this.

Basic Lesson
I am not aware of any other class feat of any class at any level that is so single-choice as Witch level 2 taking Basic Lesson, and that includes the Alchemist's Powerful Alchemy feat that was given errata to make it a class feature instead of a feat. No other Witch class...

I don't feel the same with basic Lesson mostly because i find reach spell more useful most of the times. Also one spell + focus spell is not that strong in my opnion.

If it does not say the usual familiar is a regular one that has two abilities. Witch, wizard special familiars are the exception the regular familiar is 2 abilities.

Familiar out of combat... I am almost sure only eidolons can take actions during exploration. But that one does need a better clarification if not an expansion.

Ahm... anyway, Truename.

I hope it involves a lot of mental stuff and some rituals haha.

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess I am one of the few ones which is perfectly fine with the current caster situation, especially cause I come from a martial combatant perspective.

Being able to have a great variety of spells is way more interesting than being stuck with the same actions round after round.

My lvl 10 champion for example is tied to these actions

-strike ( the only strike attack my character has).
-step/stride ( movement)
- denoralize ( polymath bard)
- lay on hand/hymn of healing ( focus power). I also have basic and advanced passion domain spells ( no combat purposes).
- no maneuvers ( deity weapon is a glaive, so bored maneuvers for me)
- champion reaction ( reaction)
- guidance + shield ( bard cantrips).

Not that other characters are different ( stride + double slice/twin takedown/twin feint/flurry of blows would be equal to stride + strikex2).

Being able to play a spell caster would mean infinite possibilities, the more the character advances ( starting from the cantrips choices in terms of attacks).

In my experience at the table martials play through a power fantasy and casters just contribute. I see wide eyes and smiles on martials critting a couple times a session and casters with blank despondent faces after the third consecutive save from a monster against a spell. That's ultimately anecdotal and not good for an argument, though. The systems math isn't gonna change but I'm excited for all the items and special components (caster charm equivalents) that'll help out lvls 1-10. The second half of the game is fine bc weaker spells dont matter when you have so much to work with, but low lvl casters need a shot in the arm.

I find this so weird. In my tables martials play the power fantasy of hitting things with stick or hitting things with extra big stick. While caster play the fantasy of poof i ran away, poof now that guy likes us we don't have to fight, poof now there's a speed debuff on the enemy now he won't be able to run after us, poof now we can fly...

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Okay. I'm perplexed. How is this not a (str-based, mountain stance) monk? [...]

It shares a lot of similarities with a very specific build of the monk, but is very different in concept and a lot of monk class features do not make sense either. You can technically build something that vaguely approaches the idea, yes, but as I said above, it is very rough and at that point it warrants a different class. Not to mention that the "stand on the ground" requirement of Mountain Stance is fundamentally incompatible with different movement speeds or jumping.

Class features that do not fit:
- 8 HP/ level
- Dex as possible key stat
- flurry of blows (this is exactly the opposite of the paragon concept)
- Path to Perfection
- huge inherent movement speed increase (to some extent)

That is like 90% of what makes the monk unique. At that point not even a class archetype will bridge the gap. I get what you are saying and appreciate the well-done attempt, but even with heavy reflavouring the mechanics are simply not sufficient for what I have in mind.

Monk is a 10 hp per level class... Captain american seems like a dex character to me. Even if the other examples seem str based.

It just feels like your concept is not exactly a class and can be done already. You should probably flesh it out first... Just my 2 cents.

Can i just say that post around the forum kind of changed my mind, we don't need free reloads IMO, we need ways to make reload interesting. Just like the level 6 feat from the gunslinger we need small feats that let a class reload and hold weapons or that make reload interesting and fun instead of removing the action.
Juggle is an exemple that can help.

RexAliquid wrote:

oholoko wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

You quick draw your melee weapon. It still has runes on it.

You mean reload, quickdraw blade shoot? If so that actually sounds really smart and I kind of like it.

But also only works one time, since the new rings are two weapons only... Not two groups or two types of weapon.

You can put your sword away before you reload again, then quickdraw it next round.

Reloading and sheathing weapons each cost an action. A two-action penalty is too steep for melee gunslinger builds to be viable.

Yup stow is an action after all... Drop is free but then again no runes.

You quick draw your melee weapon. It still has runes on it.

You mean reload, quickdraw blade shoot? If so that actually sounds really smart and I kind of like it.

oholoko wrote:

I was thinking about a dualwielder gun and gun or gun and melee... And I noticed... You literally can't reload your gun without releasing the other weapon. Unless you are a level 6 drifter a feat. What pretty much sucks for everyone else. You can't adjust your grip on a one handed weapon and to reload you need a free hand. So basically you are stuck with one gun for the whole rest of the encounter. Or needing to reload and then pick up your weapons...

Did anyone else notice this problem? I am missing something?

Quick Draw is a level 2 feat.

Yeah but going runeless is quite hard... I mean you can have one gun with runes using the ring but the next one will be without them.

Imho thats the disadvantage of old style firearms. Its not meant to be convenient. I'm surprised they didn't use a longer reload to more accurately mimic real life reloading (i understand why tho, fun factor and all that). I think they will have other weapons listed in the final product that has more ammo capacity, ala pepperboxes or 6 shooters to facilitate a more cinematic gunslinger shooting up the place. If anything you can modify the guns presented now, having multiple barrels or a revolver style drum without too much fuss for the playtest.

Currently the problem is both subclasses were made with that in mind. So having both not able to even use the main class feature that is guns well when they both mention dual wielding is pretty bad and will lead to a poor playtest experience.

I was thinking about a dualwielder gun and gun or gun and melee... And I noticed... You literally can't reload your gun without releasing the other weapon. Unless you are a level 6 drifter a feat. What pretty much sucks for everyone else. You can't adjust your grip on a one handed weapon and to reload you need a free hand. So basically you are stuck with one gun for the whole rest of the encounter. Or needing to reload and then pick up your weapons...
Did anyone else notice this problem? I am missing something?

Temperans wrote:

All this stuff trying to make shared HP work, but separate HP like all other creatures is too difficult.

Temperans, it works fine. Its absolutely not complicated, and presents no rules issues.

If people weren't attacking it, thered be no perception that it doesnt "work".

As a game mechanic its simple and easy to run.

Please don't pretend that some folks not liking it - which you are absolutely entitled to do - is equivalent to the mechnanic "not working".

I wouldn't say not complicated but does lead to an weird thing where the summoner in my party tends to forget that the eidolon shares his hp and goes to hide behind the party only to go down by letting his eidolon exposed while using a breath weapon... And about rules stuff it does lead to a lot of them that need to be clarified but that's normal anything new specially complicated mecanica give the dm a lot of wiggle room.

oholoko wrote:

Well... Steel Ball Run is kind of a soft reboot. But yeah all under the same artist.

Which lead to

** spoiler omitted **

Jojo story is just awesome.

Ravingdork wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

I've been into Jojo longer than Pathfinder has been around, so I welcome it. The comparison definitely arose when I looked at the class. Regardless of association, though, I think it is a very good niche to fill. Two beings lives magically linked together is a trope that has definitely stuck around. It is worth exploring and the flavor of the Summoner is a good fit.

Jojo aired in 2012. Pathfinder was published in 2009, predating Jojo by 3 years.

Was Jojo a Manga first?

Edit: Seems there was a manga that started in 1987.

Started and continually run for decades. No restarts or reboots after a few years- just running the entire time. All under the same artist.

And it lives up to its name. Cyborg nazis versus aztec vampire gods was one of the EARLY things. Given its long life span and wide variety of content, there are a lot of series that took inspiration from it.

Well... Steel Ball Run is kind of a soft reboot. But yeah all under the same artist.

oholoko wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.

Or have no best thing. Warpriest is for example a class with no best thing that fills a niche role if you class lack a frontliner and a healer that way you can provide both even if you aren't the best at both.

You seem to mistake some of my previous comments for saying warpriest is in any way good. It isn't.

Oh I don't care about your comment at all don't worry. I had a whole campaign with an warpriest by my side ending at level 20 and he was in the whole thing useful interesting and overall a useful character so yeah he is good.

oholoko wrote:

May I just say that most people think the summoner is closer to a martial but I think he is closer to a caster? I mean I think he might be closer to an warpriest instead of a ranger with a pet.

I would rather see him get some less combat feats and more useful ones, he gets the second best spell progression full caster with reduced slots instead of 2-3 slots behind a full caster with limited slots like a multiclass character.
The eidolon needs to be a fair bit behind martials IMO, and from the stats I see it seems fair to say that. I do think he needs some better 1 action abilities and some more eidolon 1 action cantrips. Also probably a summon pool as some pointed out that summon feats with 4 slots feels bad.
But outside that... The class seems to be on the range I hoped it would be. Bellow a caster in versatility and bellow a martial in combat.

No not at all. The biggest thing about being suboptimal at two things is that you are able to be decent at both.

If you are the best at one thing or close to the best at it... You will be crippled completely in the other.

Your last bit. The bit at the end. They means useless.

The summoner lack of proficiency and no real incentive for their main casting stat means their few slots are far and away better used on just buffing your fighter, not even your eidolon.

It has nothing else on its own. Everything else is the eidolon.

So yes not even a good hybrid. Magus with all it's faults is so far ahead of the summoner while still being weaker than other martials. If the only benefit of the summoner is being a masochist than I feel it's wasted design space for an actual class.

I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun role for him. Summoner space isn't being a martial or being a caster. Is being a caster with a martial pet.

Eidolon should really get their unarmored bump at level 1.

Think it'd be nice if the Summoner themselves got light armor too.

Not a fan of Boost as is. Every martial right now has a damage-enhancing ability (except the Champion) and Boost has the worst action economy and really poor damage scaling. I'm okay with Summoners not doing as much raw damage as Barbarians or whatever, but losing on both ends by having low damage and eating an action every turn feels bad.

Counting that the summoner has a "free" action every turn it seems to balance out.

Temperans wrote:

Eidolons should not be sub classes. They are not meant to be subclasses. And treating them like subclasses is what created this mess in the first place were Eidolons dont have evolutions.

I continue to think it is disingenuous to say that they don't have evolutions. They do. They very clearly have evolutions, 16 of them in this playtest.

What they don't have is:

a pool of evolution points

level 1 access to a large number of distinct and discreet options

rapidly stacking extra actions through extra limbs

a necessity to spend points to each a desired cosmetic appearance

malleable attributes

upgrades for armor, damage

early or unmatched access to monster abilities

The question isn't "should they do this the way PF1E did", because such a system clearly doesn't fit as-is in 2E. Discreet options to increase damage or natural armor or attributes simply aren't something that jells with the system.

The bigger question is whether the initial Eidolon should have a familiar type pool of inoffensive options. But that still wouldn't be PF1E's pool. It would be things like senses, manual dexterity, skills, swim or climb speed, extra carrying capacity, and speech. Not stuff like greater darkvision, true flight, dimension door a few times per day, or greater constrict. If those are ever options, they are going to be through feats.

That does sound quite nice actually maybe choose between small options like those at first level instead of getting the whole chassis with the eidolon type will fix quite a few issues and removing the evolution cantrip for that instead choosing at each manifestation.

So what I have found interesting when looking at all of the new classes that have come out and the play-test is kind of interesting a kind of power shriveling.

None of the new classes are a strong as their player handbook counterpart if you compare the swashbuckler and investigator to the rogue they can generally out fight and out skill both whilst jumping through half as many hoops.

The Cleric is substantially a better healer than the oracle. The Bard a better controller than the witch.

The play-test features a summoner whose companion mechanics are more punishing than the druid and the ranger. The Magus has such a small amount of magical competency and spell casting that the title Mage seems inappropriate so I just call this version Gus.

So obviously that is a bit of hyperbola. Do you think the new class options are on par with the old ?

I feel like the magus is a hot mess(Bad action economy, needing multiple stats and having a bunch of problems with his kit overall) and that the summoner reaches a decent power level due to having a bunch of new features good action economy and quite an powerful 'pet' besides the already existing spellcasting(Limited of course).

Well it's a niche spell, i don't see much wrong with it. Yeah it's bad most times but useful once in a while. Some campaigns can use it quite a lot a regular one will use it once or twice.
Not a spell a sorcerer would take for sure but a prepared caster can make use of it.

Oh sure, I was just pointing out Effortless isn't required.

Afterall any character can have an Animal Companion (or Familiar) at level 2 and knowing a single Summon is possible at level 1.

So theoretically a Druid with Summon and AC can do what I described at level 1.

Effortless Concentration doesn't come online until level 16, so a pretty substantial amount of time.

Oh yeah that's 100% correct, that's a silly tecnically possible thing but it's mostly useless. I was just giving how to summon the most theorical things are fun even when useless.

Free archetype paragon, pf2 giving more options tends to not elevate the power level a lot.

I like scales of a dragon on a strength monk.

I wasn't aware it's just uncommon w/o meeting the what I thought were requirements. Kobold ancestry was awful for a strength monk having the strength flaw and only 6 hit dice.

Kobolds have a con flaw not strength.

Okay, I was looking forward to this archetype, but unless I'm reading it totally wrong, it seems to be a waste of feats except for a kobold and isn't this supposed to be more widely used?

First, only a draconic sorcerer, or a dragon instinct barbarian, or a dragon/spell scaled kobold can become one. The flavor text indicates that other characters can choose it, but the access conditions say that they cannot.

Second, since the sorcerer and barbarian can already get or wouldn't want almost all of the feats offered by the archetype, what is the advantage gained?

** Claws of the Dragon (4) only increases the die from d4 to d6 for the sorcerer, who normally isn't up in melee combat anyway. I know there are a very few melee sorcerers out there, though. It does seem to be an always-on ability, but the extra resistance would still only activate when using bloodline spells . A barbarian isn't going to switch their possible weapon damage down to a d6 (at least I hope not). Kobold is the only one who would use this.

** Draconic Scent (4) for barbarian can already be chosen as a feat and built upon if wanted. Sorcerer has much better things to choose from. Again, maybe a kobold would want this, depending on their own class feat availability.

** Dragon Arcana (4) for sorcerers is a no. A barbarian would have to take a previous spell casting archetype to use this. Again, only the kobold might want it.

** Scales of the Dragon (4) for sorcerers is a maybe since the item bonus from armor runes on explorer's clothing would stack with the status bonus, but that dex cap of +2 really hurts, unless you build specifically for this. Eh. Barbarian can do better with medium armor and a +1 dex mod and raise that with armor runes. For kobolds, it would depend on their class and, like the sorcerers, would want to build for this feat.

** Breath (8), Wings (12), and Shape of the Dragon (14) for a sorcerer are useless as they already have them. Barbarians, maybe, if they want the transform and the aoe/ranged...

Access is a soft condition it's not a requirement.

I’m not sure which is better for playing the basic “Elf Archer” Fantasy.

I’d like to play an Elf Ranger in a campaign starting in 2 weeks (not this Friday but next Friday).

So I pick my Ancestry: Elf

I pick my class: Ranger

Making multiple shots per turn being somewhat the Elven Ranger fantasy (Legolas rapid firing arrows) I’m looking at Flurry for my Hunter’s Edge.

Feat at level 1 is Hunted Shot and that would look like Take an Action: Hunted Shot take two shots at -0, -3 for Flurry on my Multi-Attack Penalty.

Or I wait for level 2 to take Archer Dedication and at level 6 I take Double Shot, which is two attacks against 2 separate enemies (one being my Prey, one not, assuming) at -2. Well that’s actually a bit better than -3...

Then we get to level 8 to get Triple Shot and now I can make 3 attacks at merely -4 to hit against my prey. I don’t know how it interacts or if it does with Flurry. Otherwise I suppose I would Hunted Shot twice (?) (2 Actions) for 4 attacks at something like 0/-3/-6/-6 ? Rather than 3 at -4?

Is there any benefit to being a Flurry Ranger if I take Archer or alternatively does the Archer actually offer anything meaningful to the Ranger class at all?

Alternatively it doesn’t appear the Ranger goes particularly deep into “being an Archer” as it were anyway... most feats don’t seem to add more attacks or anything. Just extra status effects on top of an attack you’re already making such as making the target flat footed.

Do any Archetypes interact well with the Ranger? It seems like the Beastmaster has poor synergy with the Ranger due to BMC not getting the Ranger’s Hunter’s Edge effect... and the Archer may not really offer anything particularly meaningful either? I don’t know... slightly disappointed I suppose. I may be misunderstanding the rules though.

You can't use hunted shot twice per turn. It has the flourish trait and that means it can only be used once. It also wouldn't even work using double shot+hunted shot as double shot also has the flourish trait. Triple shot is quite weak in the action side as it takes 3 actions and does not in fact interact with your flurry, it would probably be better to take hunted shot and haste yourself for 5 strikes in a given turn 3 of them having -6 penalty.

Most annoying of all is that the same row - level 1 feats - gives either the animal companion OR the ability to heal it but not both at the same time -_-

You know you can pick both being a human or when you reatch level 2 right?

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

So I don't get why people get so obsessed over master proficiency. It's like BAB. Almost everyone gets at least 3/4 (expert) while some martials get full (master) and fighter has a bit of an edge (like the old weapon training for legendary).

Master is cool and all, but flank for the rogue and you're mathematically swinging at the same bonus to hit as a barbarian or fighter, which is way better than the PF1 multiclass fighter wizard had.

I think this is dice-feel WAY more than number crunching. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, missing is the worst form of failure. This is difference from 1E as missing pretty much wasn't an issue, between MUCH higher success rates and far more attacks per round.

I've seen players at my table that internalize any failure and bottle up frustrations, and 2E's more even odds of success really plays an emotional trick on them. They feel like they are missing left and right and aren't being rewarded for their investments, and often they look to the Fighter and say 'if only I had that extra proficiency, I wouldn't feel this way.'

It is, in my opinion, a convenient thing to point at and blame when the real culprit is 2E math in general. The math is balanced around have a 50/50 chance to hit and wasting a non-zero amount of turns to missing, but it is one thing to say that and another to go through it. Just because it still works out and you can get through encounters that way doesn't change how people feel.

I think this dice-feel is coloring a decent amount of what people feel about gishes. We can't forget that the Magus was the class that did very little but pick up a keen scimitar and jam metamagic'd Shocking Graps out the wazzoo. How many people's preconceptions of what a gish does are colored by the nostalgia of that type of Magus critically hitting on a 15 and dealing hundreds of damage in huge bursts? That's an entirely different feeling than anything in 2E, and safe to say that isn't going to come back.

The biggest problem is that pf2 isn't pf1. The systems are in the same setting but nowhere near the same jump as 3e to 3.5 or 3.5 to pf1.

1: Big heals you got the biggest of them all so you can keep allies safe.
2: Warpriest basically gives you a survivability on par with some martials, maybe a but behind some but still it's quite good.
3: Divine list got them buffs, your allies will look up to you.
4: Casters don't need as much gold as martials so your allies will be getting good weapons.
5: Anti-undead machine you are great at fighting them after all.
6: Well, gods are fun in pathfinder 2e edicts and anathemas make several cool restrictions.

I think i finally understood my problem with N N 959 points. It's because i never played a class thinking i am the class, might be a difference with my table. But when i play i never thought 'oh yeah i am a ranger' i always thought my name is bill 2 eyes, i hit stuff multiple times and have a pet.
How can i have a pet and hit multiple times? Ranger? Multiclass something? Prestige? No one in my table would call me a ranger.
Currently in my table we have a sorcerer that is great at stealing who never steals and is often called a cleric or priest... Or deity right now as we are high level as he is the main healer. An cleric often mistaken as a hand to hand fighter/monk due to the fact He punchs a lot and uses smite as a main gimmick and has a god. An ranger that fights like an barbarian and charges in with his pet. And a barbarian/wizard that is mostly know for crafting and his love of storm giants.
When N N 959 talks he says the ranger i guess to me the ranger weren't ever a class, i mean... Mecanically he always was but i never saw the ranger as a ranger, i always saw rangers as a means to create a character. So having it strip down to bare concepts to me was better actually, but now i can see how this is annoying. If you want a pf1 ranger in pf2 you will need a lot of resources one of witch is a multiclass for spellcasting. With that you get the base ranger of pf1 and then none of the feats that used to make your pf1 ranger different from the other rangers. When i create i think of what i want first then go to ways to make it real, not think i want to play the AD&D ranger/pf1 ranger because those concepts in my table never existed.

(Also my experience with pf1 is extremely limited as i switched from 3.5 to pf2 mostly.)

Edit: Just to show the difference. None of the things any character is know for in my group is a main class feature.
Punching hard is easily achieved with a monk and one inch punch, healing with medic/cleric or other stuff, charging with a mount (paladin,cavalier etc) and crafting... Well alchemist and hitting hard as a fighter/alchemist if you count the fact he is the heaviest hitter.
We don't see what the ranger needs to do as unique, just it needs to be able to do it well enough to compensate for it's flaws.

Curious to see if we'll get a means for the witch with the attack hair option to bolster that attack, akin to magical handwraps.

Magical handwraps already work for it.

As for me, I think time has come for them to say something about shields ( whatever the outcome ).

Yeah, some way to progress some magical shields is quite a bit needed. I mean something like the magical one that gives a circustance bonus to save is fine without it. But some shields like the lion one or the thorn one without progression feels really bad...

I hope the Sentinel works like having a stance turned on which penalizes all opponents in your reach from hitting someone other than you (i.e. the 4.E Defender's Aura, which I consider the most elegant way of translating the art of RPG tanking so far). Hope getting such a feat as low level as possible...

Then again, knowing my luck, it might be a practical yet boring Armor Proficiency update archetype.

Armor specialization is a must for sure, and i bet that if there's something like that it will be similar to the paladin reaction instead of an aura.