For those of you who already have the Lost Omens World Guide: What are the best optimization uses of these new dedications?


Advice

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So, what’s the word on the Student of Perfection?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Hearing that the weapon specialty dedications require you to buy into proficiency before you can use them has really cratered my interest here and left me incredibly disheartened about the future of advanced and other strange weapons in PF2.

Incredibly disappointing on Paizo's part that they keep doubling down on all these hoops they want to make players jump through to pull off weird builds.

Archetypes here are less like traditional PF1 archetypes (those are called "class archetypes now") and more like PF1 prestige classes. PRCs had all kinds of hoops to jump through in order to qualify but weren't available at that "here's when I define my character" level.

Like we had a Aldori Swordlord PrC back in 2012, and we had to wait to 2017 for archetypes which were for "I'm in the Aldori club" for fighter and I think Swashbuckler. Now we can get in the Aldori club as soon as we can wield the weapon, and can spare a class feat.

So having certain archetypes be much easier for certain classes to access than others, is mostly the same as how certain PrCs were much easier to access with a certain class or combination of classes, than others.

Plus this justifies the existence of those proficiency general feats which top out at trained- something else is going to key it to your class advancement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Hearing that the weapon specialty dedications require you to buy into proficiency before you can use them has really cratered my interest here and left me incredibly disheartened about the future of advanced and other strange weapons in PF2.

Incredibly disappointing on Paizo's part that they keep doubling down on all these hoops they want to make players jump through to pull off weird builds.

You call them hoops, but it seems like most proficiency things scale primarily through class and rarely, at very high level, through general feat.

What was your vision for the game? Would it be that difficult for your table to modify the proficiencies to work the way you want them to? It would probably make characters a lot more powerful because they would be setting their general proficiencies at a very low level and then expecting the game to auto push everything up, but for your own games it is probably not much different than just awarding additional class feats at certain points as a house rule.

But the reason this isn’t the default option is precisely because one major aspect of class design was restricted access to proficiencies. Without that, class distinction itself starts to become meaningless. Which again, sounds like what you, and your table might want, less distinct class lines. But it is not what the developers were aiming for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus this justifies the existence of those proficiency general feats which top out at trained- something else is going to key it to your class advancement.

That's fair, but it's kind of in the same vein as how Improved Trip 'justified' Combat Expertise's existence by having it as a prerequisite. Maybe not quite that bad, but it's not a good look if this is the design philosophy PF2 is going to follow going forward, in my opinion.

Unicore wrote:
Without that, class distinction itself starts to become meaningless.

I can't really buy that. The difference between wielding a short sword and a dueling sword is d6 vs d8 damage. The difference between someone in a chain shirt and scale mail is one point of dex.

Mechanically, these benefits are minor. In terms of how the class plays, it has virtually no effect at all. If one point of damage is really the lynchpin keeping classes distinct from each other then PF2 has much bigger problems.

Mechanically, three feats for +1 to damage is a really hard sell. From a roleplaying perspective, it's needlessly restricting character concepts in a way that doesn't particularly enhance anything that I can see.


Squiggit wrote:


Mechanically, three feats for +1 to damage is a really hard sell. From a roleplaying perspective, it's needlessly restricting character concepts in a way that doesn't particularly enhance anything that I can see.

which is why the archetype feats require you to spend multiple feats in them between switching out. Spending three feats on something should mean significantly changing your character concept from another, not grant you a +1 damage or a +2 AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the lore book isnt floating peoples boats, they might want to wait for the APG. This is the equivalent of Inner Sea Prestige Classes which were designed with a dramatically different philosophy to APG archetypes.

Quote:


The second paragraph specifically demands a weapon with an ancestry trait, which the Aldori dueling sword lacks

While you are right from a technical perspective, I think the RAI is quite clear. Although if that's the sort of legalese interpretations your GM wants to engage in (or if you want to engage in those sorts of technicalities as a GM) then I think that sets the tone for the type of game that will be run and players can make their own determination if that GM is right for them.

For me, I lost interest in those sorts of games long ago. If I find a GM or player at the table who wanted to rule that interpretation that would actually be a good thing. Because it would tell me I'm not compatible with that person and I'm better off finding a more compatible player/GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In addition to the APG, October's "Lost Omens Character Guide" promises to be a lot more player focused too.

Something called "World guide" is always going to be more about the setting and the story than the crunch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Incredibly disappointing on Paizo's part that they keep doubling down on all these hoops they want to make players jump through to pull off weird builds.

LOL I'm with you. I was leery of 'archetype for special armors/weapons' BEFORE the added obstacle course.

The "dog and pony show" might not look too bad unless you the dog or pony... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, for a fighter the archetype is cheaper than Advanced Weapon Training if you want to use a Aldori Dueling Sword or Sawtooth Sabres- it's a level 2 feat instead of a level 6 feat *and* you get 3 skill trainings with it.

That's hardly a hoop.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A dueling sword fighter who takes this dedication is delaying or missing out on both combat grab and dueling parry, though. A level 2 Fighter with a rapier is certainly going to be better at the same job than a level 2 Fighter with this feat; at best, you're getting nothing now so you can be better later. This is why I feel the dedications should give you an action or something that makes you do the thing you want to do better rather than just working as a numbers fixer.


I'm still waiting to find out if dueling parry and combat grab have anti-synergy. It's conceivable you're only going to want one of those feats, since the action turns off the stance.


Arachnofiend wrote:
A dueling sword fighter who takes this dedication is delaying or missing out on both combat grab and dueling parry, though. A level 2 Fighter with a rapier is certainly going to be better at the same job than a level 2 Fighter with this feat; at best, you're getting nothing now so you can be better later. This is why I feel the dedications should give you an action or something that makes you do the thing you want to do better rather than just working as a numbers fixer.

There are levels where the fighter feat is quite situational/doesnt necessarily have great synergy with your earlier fighter feats (from memory I think its level 4, but I'd have to check my book to be sure). A dedication feat at that level would definitely be worthwhile. Also is combat grab really a "must have" feat?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't actually matter if you only want one of them, because taking the dedication means the earliest you can get the one you want is four.

Which means the earliest you can get anything you care about from being an Aldori Swordlord is six.

And now that feat is competing against Revealing Stab and Guardian's Reflection.

This is the problem with the archetypes: because the dedication is, for all purposes that could possibly excite a player, a dead feat, you have to weight the benefits of the later feats against the cool stuff you would have gotten if you hadn't pushed your entire character concept back two levels.


Arachnofiend wrote:

It doesn't actually matter if you only want one of them, because taking the dedication means the earliest you can get the one you want is four.

Which means the earliest you can get anything you care about from being an Aldori Swordlord is six.

And now that feat is competing against Revealing Stab and Guardian's Reflection.

This is the problem with the archetypes: because the dedication is, for all purposes that could possibly excite a player, a dead feat, you have to weight the benefits of the later feats against the cool stuff you would have gotten if you hadn't pushed your entire character concept back two levels.

Sure. And if the archetype feats arent competitive with 6th level (or later) feats the it's a bad archetype.

So far I dont think that statement can be applied to the multiclass archetypes. So we will have to wait and see how archetypes in the future balance out.


I mean, is "Advanced Weapon Training" a "dead feat"? If you're a fighter wanting to use an advanced weapon that's not an ancestral one, you're taking that at 6 unless something better does the same thing. This is something better. So the question becomes "if you could take Advanced Weapon Training before level 6 but not at level 1, where would you fit it in?"

We're just going to have to compare the rest of the feats in the archetype to the rest of the fighter feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Spending three feats on something should mean significantly changing your character concept from another, not grant you a +1 damage or a +2 AC.

And yet, in this case, that's exactly what's happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really saddened to learn Red Mantis Assassin still requires evil. They have such cool abilities.

That said, as an eternal GM I rarely get to play a character, so I guess it wont impact me much. Still a little sad.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

I'm really saddened to learn Red Mantis Assassin still requires evil. They have such cool abilities.

That said, as an eternal GM I rarely get to play a character, so I guess it wont impact me much. Still a little sad.

To be fair, they are a death cult that is ruled by the Lawful Evil god of assassination.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

If killing people for money is wrong, he doesn't want to be right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ramanujan wrote:

I'm really saddened to learn Red Mantis Assassin still requires evil. They have such cool abilities.

That said, as an eternal GM I rarely get to play a character, so I guess it wont impact me much. Still a little sad.

One of the boons auctioned off for charity at GenCon this year gives you a background that allows you to be a renegade Red Mantis Assassin, which opens the archetype up to a Lawful Neutral character. So when the book drops presumably there will be at least one non-evil character with the archetype wandering around in Pathfinder Society games. Sadly, it went for a stupidly large amount of money, so I won't be the one using it.


Ramanujan wrote:

I'm really saddened to learn Red Mantis Assassin still requires evil. They have such cool abilities.

That said, as an eternal GM I rarely get to play a character, so I guess it wont impact me much. Still a little sad.

If your an eternal GM you have the ability to change that.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

I'm really saddened to learn Red Mantis Assassin still requires evil. They have such cool abilities.

That said, as an eternal GM I rarely get to play a character, so I guess it wont impact me much. Still a little sad.

If your an eternal GM you have the ability to change that.

I'm so vain, I prob'ly think this post is about me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
If killing people for money is wrong, he doesn't want to be right.
LuniasM wrote:
I'm so vain, I prob'ly think this post is about me.

Thank you both.

I will enjoy these songs...in my head...all day...

Dark Archive

Colette Brunel wrote:
Red Mantis Dedication is a 2nd-level uncommon feat that requires training in sawtooth sabers, Achaekek as a deity, a LAWFUL EVIL alignment...

; _ ;


3 people marked this as a favorite.

re: Living Monolith 1st feat Uncommon / 2nd feat Rare,
It feels premised on initiation path demonstrating dedication before final initiation, you are not waiting for random Rare event.
It's just a "welcome to our cult, learn the basics and if you are worthy we will turn you into rockmanrock like you want so bad."

I'd say Aldori Sword +1die size is solid effect for going from martial->uncommon/advanced, that scales harder than Backstab,
certainly considering this only uses 1 general + 1 skill (and Archetype to scale) or 1 ancestry feat to scale as Martial.

I think it works GREAT with Rogue,
proficiency easily gained via Weapon Proficiencyx2 (General/Skill) and/or MC'ing into Fighter for other benefits of that,
General/Skill Feats into Archetype, bypassing MC and 1/2 level penalty for Fighter Feats sounds quicker and to the point.
If really interested in unrelated Fighter Feats, MC is option, but Weapon Proficiencyx2 is easiest just considering Arch.

IMHO bizarre to complain about Fighter/Champion/Ranger not having Finesse options while discussing complex Arch builds,
as if Rogue MC does not exist enabling Sneak Attack and subsidiary Feats depending on Finesse weapon, even if using STR.
Ancient Elven Fighter: RogueMC+Sneak @1 (open General+Ancestry), ANY RogueFeat finishing MC @2, and Aldori Archetype @4.

I don't even know how Aldori Sword could be "locked out" of Unconv Weaponry, it's associated with Aldori of Rostland,
"Broken Lands" as Pre-Req of Archetype, as "Common" in that Region as Dwarven Waraxe in 5 Kings or Sawtooth in Mediogalti.
Obviously ANY "advanced" weapon involves "elite training" since it's not proficient merely thru martial & Common access.
But Unconventional Weaponry seems irrelevant to this discussion, why treat as martial when Archetype scales proficiency?
Unconventional is only ideal for somebody with scaling martial proficiency who ISN'T bothering to take the Archetype.

Seems like solid Archetype, or Unconventional Weaponry option for Fighter/RogueMC not aiming for Aldori Archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
to pull off weird builds.

I am ... personally on the fence on the discussion of ease of entry. I'm primarily a GM, and unlikely to run anything in the short term future that hinges on this, so I am NOT the immediate targeted audience.

But, I have one question for those of you that ARE the immediate target audience.

If it was easy ... would it be a weird build?
If it was easy ... would it be as fun for you?
Is the draw the fact that it's a lore based, prestigious, cool, nifty, odd, etc, organization?

I keep hearing "Half the fun, is jumping through many hoops to make this 'cool' (insert other adjective of choice) build."

Is this a bug? Or is it a feature? Is it something you can work with your local GM to make work for YOU? Or is it something that will be forever for someone else's game, because it just doesn't fit YOUR game style/etc?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So I've got the book now.

The Duelist looks solid, even for those with which its strengths overlap. Getting even one additonal skill up that brings something to expert is fantastic in a system in which your total number of skill increases (outside of rogue) is rigidly restricted.

Some of its stuff overlaps with things fighter already gets, but most of it is still handy. There is only one truly obsoleted feat (out of 6 so you absolutely still can finish the dedication without it) and it is a level 4 feat that is obsoleted by a level 13 feature. This means you can get the level 13 feature 9 levels early and then retrain if you ever actually get to 13. That is pretty amazing!

For non-fighters there are some solid feats that give you a lot of free and reactions to really feel good with the weapon. This is especially nice for classes that otherwise lack a reaction.


Malk_Content wrote:

So I've got the book now.

The Duelist looks solid, even for those with which its strengths overlap. Getting even one additonal skill up that brings something to expert is fantastic in a system in which your total number of skill increases (outside of rogue) is rigidly restricted.

Some of its stuff overlaps with things fighter already gets, but most of it is still handy. There is only one truly obsoleted feat (out of 6 so you absolutely still can finish the dedication without it) and it is a level 4 feat that is obsoleted by a level 13 feature. This means you can get the level 13 feature 9 levels early and then retrain if you ever actually get to 13. That is pretty amazing!

For non-fighters there are some solid feats that give you a lot of free and reactions to really feel good with the weapon. This is especially nice for classes that otherwise lack a reaction.

Hows the Student of Perfection?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Cool way for monks to get more ki style stuff or a solid way for non monks to get ki stuff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
prototype00 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

So I've got the book now.

The Duelist looks solid, even for those with which its strengths overlap. Getting even one additonal skill up that brings something to expert is fantastic in a system in which your total number of skill increases (outside of rogue) is rigidly restricted.

Some of its stuff overlaps with things fighter already gets, but most of it is still handy. There is only one truly obsoleted feat (out of 6 so you absolutely still can finish the dedication without it) and it is a level 4 feat that is obsoleted by a level 13 feature. This means you can get the level 13 feature 9 levels early and then retrain if you ever actually get to 13. That is pretty amazing!

For non-fighters there are some solid feats that give you a lot of free and reactions to really feel good with the weapon. This is especially nice for classes that otherwise lack a reaction.

Hows the Student of Perfection?

I am looking over the pdf now. Which level 4 feat is made obsolete. I am not seeing the 13th level class feature that would replace it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Paul Jr wrote:
prototype00 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

So I've got the book now.

The Duelist looks solid, even for those with which its strengths overlap. Getting even one additonal skill up that brings something to expert is fantastic in a system in which your total number of skill increases (outside of rogue) is rigidly restricted.

Some of its stuff overlaps with things fighter already gets, but most of it is still handy. There is only one truly obsoleted feat (out of 6 so you absolutely still can finish the dedication without it) and it is a level 4 feat that is obsoleted by a level 13 feature. This means you can get the level 13 feature 9 levels early and then retrain if you ever actually get to 13. That is pretty amazing!

For non-fighters there are some solid feats that give you a lot of free and reactions to really feel good with the weapon. This is especially nice for classes that otherwise lack a reaction.

Hows the Student of Perfection?
I am looking over the pdf now. Which level 4 feat is made obsolete. I am not seeing the 13th level class feature that would replace it.

Both initiative enhancers (aldori feat and battlefield surveyor) are circumstance bonuses and thus don't stackm


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we make an Hellknight Signifier like Wizard in Hellknight plate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
Can we make an Hellknight Signifier like Wizard in Hellknight plate?

Not yet. This book has the Hellknight Armiger, which is like an apprentice.

The next book will have both the Signifer and the martial one (forgotten its name). The Armiger archetype counts as all types of Hellknight dedications for the purposes of restrictions, and I believe is designed to flow into them.

Although I’m sure you will be able to make a Wizard Hellknight Armiger in full plate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

re: Living Monolith 1st feat Uncommon / 2nd feat Rare,

It feels premised on initiation path demonstrating dedication before final initiation, you are not waiting for random Rare event.
It's just a "welcome to our cult, learn the basics and if you are worthy we will turn you into rockmanrock like you want so bad."

Why make the second feat rare at all, from a mechanical perspective?

Quandary wrote:

I'd say Aldori Sword +1die size is solid effect for going from martial->uncommon/advanced, that scales harder than Backstab,

certainly considering this only uses 1 general + 1 skill (and Archetype to scale) or 1 ancestry feat to scale as Martial.

I think it works GREAT with Rogue,
proficiency easily gained via Weapon Proficiencyx2 (General/Skill)

That has a fairly heavy opportunity cost. Two general feats and a 2nd-level class feat are a steep price to pay for a marginal damage increase for a rogue, and I believe it does not even open up critical specializations for a rogue.

Quandary wrote:
and/or MC'ing into Fighter for other benefits of that

Dedication feats have limitations on how they can be taken. You are not going to be taking both Fighter Dedication and Aldori Duelist Dedication without heavy investments.

Quandary wrote:

IMHO bizarre to complain about Fighter/Champion/Ranger not having Finesse options while discussing complex Arch builds, as if Rogue MC does not exist enabling Sneak Attack[

Again, due to Dedication limitations, you are not going to be seeing someone going into both Aldori Duelist Dedication and Rogue Dedication without some serious investment.

Quandary wrote:
I don't even know how Aldori Sword could be "locked out" of Unconv Weaponry

I actually covered that earlier in the thread. The real reason why Unconventional Weaponry does not work for the Aldori dueling sword is the precise wording of the feat:

"You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.
"If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon."

The second paragraph specifically demands a weapon with an ancestry trait, which the Aldori dueling sword lacks.

This means that if, say, a bard or a rogue wants an Aldori dueling sword with scaling proficiency, they are going to have to sink two general feats into it, as well as a 2nd-level class feat. That is a huge opportunity cost that most likely not worth paying.


“You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.

If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon."

Reading the second paragraph; ‘you can choose an advanced weapon with such a trait’.

Going back to the first paragraph, the trait is ‘with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture’

Access to Aldori sword lord is granted by being from a certain region or culture. To me that suggests the Aldori sword has the trait of being common to another culture.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roonfizzle Garnackle wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
to pull off weird builds.

I am ... personally on the fence on the discussion of ease of entry. I'm primarily a GM, and unlikely to run anything in the short term future that hinges on this, so I am NOT the immediate targeted audience.

But, I have one question for those of you that ARE the immediate target audience.

If it was easy ... would it be a weird build?
If it was easy ... would it be as fun for you?
Is the draw the fact that it's a lore based, prestigious, cool, nifty, odd, etc, organization?

I keep hearing "Half the fun, is jumping through many hoops to make this 'cool' (insert other adjective of choice) build."

Is this a bug? Or is it a feature? Is it something you can work with your local GM to make work for YOU? Or is it something that will be forever for someone else's game, because it just doesn't fit YOUR game style/etc?

Can't speak for other people, but the point of more options is for them to be available and be roughly the same power as existing options (not blatantly more or less).

Gate keeping through weirdness and rarity /advanced nonsense doesn't add to 'fun'. It just confirms those systems actually are the terrible idea they seemed to be in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Roonfizzle Garnackle wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
to pull off weird builds.

I am ... personally on the fence on the discussion of ease of entry. I'm primarily a GM, and unlikely to run anything in the short term future that hinges on this, so I am NOT the immediate targeted audience.

But, I have one question for those of you that ARE the immediate target audience.

If it was easy ... would it be a weird build?
If it was easy ... would it be as fun for you?
Is the draw the fact that it's a lore based, prestigious, cool, nifty, odd, etc, organization?

I keep hearing "Half the fun, is jumping through many hoops to make this 'cool' (insert other adjective of choice) build."

Is this a bug? Or is it a feature? Is it something you can work with your local GM to make work for YOU? Or is it something that will be forever for someone else's game, because it just doesn't fit YOUR game style/etc?

Can't speak for other people, but the point of more options is for them to be available and be roughly the same power as existing options (not blatantly more or less).

Gate keeping through weirdness and rarity /advanced nonsense doesn't add to 'fun'. It just confirms those systems actually are the terrible idea they seemed to be in the first place.

They don't seem any more powerful than the base stuff. The "gate keeping" are lore restrictions that make sense, not restrictions on power. If you aren't playing on Golarion (or even if you are) you can have anyone learn the Aldori techniques if you want, but on Golarion their access is defined as being a combat style from a specific culture.


Ramanujan wrote:


Going back to the first paragraph, the trait is ‘with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture’

Access to Aldori sword lord is granted by being from a certain region or culture. To me that suggests the Aldori sword has the trait of being common to another culture.

"Trait" is an actual rules term for weapons. The Aldori dueling sword has no such relevant trait.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Malk_Content wrote:


They don't seem any more powerful than the base stuff. The "gate keeping" are lore restrictions that make sense, not restrictions on power. If you aren't playing on Golarion (or even if you are) you can have anyone learn the Aldori techniques if you want, but on Golarion their access is defined as being a combat style from a specific culture.

This.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Gate keeping through weirdness and rarity /advanced nonsense doesn't add to 'fun'. It just confirms those systems actually are the terrible idea they seemed to be in the first place.

Yeah, I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. The system is terrible because it does what it was intended to do? It's supposed to be a way for the GM to control the features and functions that fit within their game through having them permit certain options (Being the good guy GM) instead of having to require them to disallow them (Being the jerk GM).

Am I missing something here because I have yet to hear or read one solid criticism of the rarity system that didn't basically boil down to something along the lines of "WaaaaaH! I want to be able to use ALL of the silly and unbalanced options that are printed without having to get permission."

Allowing certain feats to be more subjectively powerful compared to the other options of the same level is a really elegant solution to bend the power-level formula to grant better options if it fits the game the GM wants to run.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the way a character can gain access to the uncommon Aldori Swordlord archetype is by saying "I was born in Rostland, and practiced swordplay as a youth, so naturally I fell in with the Aldori".

If you want to be from somewhere else, like Qadira or Tian Xia or Castrovel, well... you're going to need to sell your GM on "how exactly you fell in with the Swordlords" and if you have a sufficient backstory, which the GM agrees works with the game they want to run (I once had someone born in Kintargo have a backstory that took her to Tian Xia by way of the Witchmarket), you can do that.

But this is how uncommon always works- either you have the thing that lets you have it, or you ask the GM about it. The GM's interest here is "making the game fun and interesting" so they're most likely going to try to work with you to come up with something.

The benefit of giving specific flavor to something like this, is that someone who doesn't know about the setting will read the World Guide and think "oh, in this place there is this long-standing order of fencers and duelists, that sounds like a neat thing, I'll have my character be from there."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM always determines what is allowed and what isn't. The rarity system is just guidelines. If you think your GM would use the rarity rules to screw with you, I suggest finding a new one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
They don't seem any more powerful than the base stuff. The "gate keeping" are lore restrictions that make sense, not restrictions on power.

Then you're just making characters pay for flavor with power, which is worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure that Monolith feat is rare because it requires some advanced ritual that you'll only be able to get in Osirion or something. It's a lot easier to join the order compared to getting the ritual, which will require you to potentially travel half of the Inner Sea and convincing the faction that you deserve the ritual. It's rare because this feat has implications that can't just be handwaived. Being from Osirion is not enough, you HAVE to RP all of this. If your campaign cannot accommodate all of this, then it would be impossible to gain this power. And it is gonna happen right in the middle of a campaign, since it requires some levels before you can take it.

For PFS purposes you probably need to earn some reward thing and belong to correct faction before you can take this.

In short, you are supposed to jump through hoops to gain this feat because of the flavor of it. It is intended that it's so complicated. I would say that's enough for the "Rare" tag.

The Hellknight order requirements of having a Knight witness you single-handedly defeating a powerful Devil are a lot more lenient than this, specially since Hellknights can be found throughout Avistan and the requirement could be met pretty easily. It might be rare too, for all we know.


Malk_Content wrote:

So I've got the book now.

The Duelist looks solid, even for those with which its strengths overlap. Getting even one additonal skill up that brings something to expert is fantastic in a system in which your total number of skill increases (outside of rogue) is rigidly restricted.

Some of its stuff overlaps with things fighter already gets, but most of it is still handy. There is only one truly obsoleted feat (out of 6 so you absolutely still can finish the dedication without it) and it is a level 4 feat that is obsoleted by a level 13 feature. This means you can get the level 13 feature 9 levels early and then retrain if you ever actually get to 13. That is pretty amazing!

For non-fighters there are some solid feats that give you a lot of free and reactions to really feel good with the weapon. This is especially nice for classes that otherwise lack a reaction.

I kinda figured Colette was underselling the Duelist, I'll have to take a look myself to judge. How's the Runescarred archetype look? Is it a good option for Rogues that want to do the magical trickster thing but not take a caster multiclass dedication?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Runescarred is good if you're looking for a cantrip (initially) and Thassalonian Lore, and then once/day spells or the ability to load an armor property rune on yourself. It seems interesting.

Dark Archive

Squiggit wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
They don't seem any more powerful than the base stuff. The "gate keeping" are lore restrictions that make sense, not restrictions on power.
Then you're just making characters pay for flavor with power, which is worse.

? Bit confused what this mean. Like do you think flavor and mechanics should be completely divorced?

I can understand that school of thought, but I prefer mechanics having flavor over mechanics and flavor existing in completely separate space. Like I'm okay with Starfinder's "Okay, you have this ability and you can decide whether its through augmentations or skills or what, flavor is up to player", but I'd prefer stuff like Aldori Swordlords having their own mechanics instead of them being represented by generic "duelist" mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My personal philosophy is that thematics are what give mechanics meaning, and mechanics are what give thematics weight so you should never do just one or the other if you can avoid it.

It's not like the Aldori Swordlords are the only duelist group on the face of Golarion, they are just the most noteworthy one we have already learned about in PF1. If they don't highlight all these various organizations (which canonically exist) in PF2 material people are going to wonder where they went.

If you want a different group of duelists somewhere else in the world, then feel free to homebrew it. If Paizo wanted to highlight a different group somewhere else in the world, they're just going to make a new archetype for it. But the one thing that the other duelists from elsewhere aren't going to do is "focus on the Aldori dueling sword" (unless they're Iobaran I guess.)

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / For those of you who already have the Lost Omens World Guide: What are the best optimization uses of these new dedications? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.