Advanced Player's Guide miscellanea speculation thread


Paizo Products

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So everyone is very vigorously discussing the big thing coming in the APG - the four new character classes.

However, we know that those are not the only things coming in that book worthy of being excited about - we still have ancestries, archetypes, spells, equipment and who knows what else in there.

So, what do you want to see from the APG that maybe hasn't been talked about yet?

For me it's certainly more class feats and class paths for the core classes (as well as class archetypes but by the sound of it not many are there) - neutral/evil champion causes, more sorcerer bloodlines, maybe-the-oft-mentioned ranger focus spells? Make use of that sweet sweet design space.

Beyond that, rituals - currently they only go up to level 8 (obtainable at level 16) but they should technically be able to go all the way up to level 10 (obtainable at 20) much like spells do, and there's quite a few missing classics that would make for excellent rituals - reincarnate and create demiplane come to mind here especially.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I want more ancestry feats, specifically higher level ancestry feats (like some level 17 ones.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it isn't technically a lore book, but I'm curious to see how orcs and kobolds are presented sympathetically. I'm also wondering dhampir will be a universal Heritage the same way the planetouched are.

My biggest hope is a Gunslinger option sneaking in, either as a path for Swashbuckler or as a more general Archetype. The varied Archetype is probably the biggest draw for this entire book for me; no specific hopes, just lots of The Good Weird Stuff.

Alternate class options would be a dream; the LN and CN Champion, an Inquisitor for Ranger or Cleric, maybe some options to bring back Ninja's unique Rogue + Monk feel from 1e.

Sneak a Bloodrager in there and I'm the happiest girl in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranger (Focus) magic is interesting. Not necessarily expecting it, but non-Primal paths like Arcane or Divine interest me too.
I'd also like to see more Barbarian stuff that is less overtly supernatural, either as general Class Feats or new Instict besides Fury.
I'd like to see distinct Neutral Champions of Druidic and Pharasmin Soul Cycle themes.
I'm curious about future races/ancestries, it seems wierd there is no penalties to DEX or INT.
Probably Oracle is new APG Class I'm most inspired by personally, and think 2E system can let it shine more.
Curious how they do Guns which I assume they are in APG, hoping it integrates well with Alchemist Class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

orcs orcs orcs orcs orcs orcs orcs

Class archetypes too I guess but mostly orcs


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen anything suggesting this will be included, but I kinda hope we see more animal companions. Boar, Camel, and Venemous Snake are a few I hope to see soon, APG seems as good a place as any. Or maybe these are best left for the next Bestiaries.

Seeing more for alchemist is exciting. If they make some really good alchemical items and maybe a few strong alchemist class feats I think the class might be exciting, right now it is missing a bit too much IMO.

If the LN/CN champion paths show up I'll be rather happy, but I don't expect those for quite a while to be honest. Paizo has resisted adding CN/LN champion-type characters for a long time (looking at you, LG-only Chaos Knight).

More ki and wisdom options for monk would be nice. Ki powers are 1/fight for a long time currently, and very little care about wisdom. More support would be nice, preferably soon.

Have we been given any idea about new spells in the APG? I could go for more spell options. I'm used to the PF1 lists and while I don't need that much again, larger selections of spells would be nice.

Dragging creatures is currently missing from PC options, I'd like to see some way to grab somebody and pull them back. Maybe some grapple weapons like Lasso too.

Magic Tower Shields would also be nice. Right now they are bad for shield block, with very poor hardness/HP scaling. Taking Cover is nice I suppose, but overall they seem like mediocre options.


The interesting thing about Champions is like current ones are all Champions of Good but covering LG,NG,CG,
if they do a future Champion Tenet built around Law, it could also include LE,LN, as well as LG.
Which is to say, overlapping with Paladin, but presumably different vibe much more focus on Law, yet still Goodly.
Not sure if they're really going to go that route, but the structure of class certainly invites such a symmetrical approach.

I mention that also because there seems certain efficiencies in linking multiple Champions together by shared Alignment,
without that there is disproportionately larger demand for unique Feats if not shared with Alignment cousins.
Although that gets back to (True) Neutral, which I think itself could be "roof" for multiple Neutral Champion ethos,
but in this case not so much Alignment defined as thematic, Druidic, Pharasmin, I'm sure there's one more...

Of course CN Champion should probably have Rare: GM permission only ;-)


Oh, Rage Powers would be really nice to have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

More utility alchemy items.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paradozen wrote:
Magic Tower Shields would also be nice. Right now they are bad for shield block, with very poor hardness/HP scaling. Taking Cover is nice I suppose, but overall they seem like mediocre options.

Strongly agree with this.

For now, since tower shields and steel shields have the same hit points and hardness in the first place, I'm just going to tell my PCs that a sturdy shield can be either a steel shield or a tower shield at no cost difference. Tower shields have a built-in drawback and a sturdy shield is vastly more expensive than either anyway.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like more all the things but mostly Kobolds.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So while no specific examples were given, we know for damn-near certain that there will be new spells in the book.

And I hope one of them is dinosaur fort.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw a leaked draft of the Swashbuckler. It's just feat names so far, but looking good.

2 Inconceivable!
2 A Pity to Damage Yours
4 You Seem a Decent Fellow
6 As You Wish
6 On the Brute Squad
8 Lies Do Not Become Us
10 Let Me Sum Up
12 A Wheelbarrow
14 I Am Not Left-Handed
16 Riposte of Unusual Size
18 To the Pain
20 Prepare to Die
20 One of the Classic Blunders


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I saw a leaked draft of the Swashbuckler. It's just feat names so far, but looking good.

2 Inconceivable!
2 A Pity to Damage Yours
4 You Seem a Decent Fellow
6 As You Wish
6 On the Brute Squad
8 Lies Do Not Become Us
10 Let Me Sum Up
12 A Wheelbarrow
14 I Am Not Left-Handed
16 Riposte of Unusual Size
18 To the Pain
20 Prepare to Die
20 One of the Classic Blunders

Death First and Anybody Want a Peanut must be in a later release :(


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I saw a leaked draft of the Swashbuckler. It's just feat names so far, but looking good.

2 Inconceivable!
2 A Pity to Damage Yours
4 You Seem a Decent Fellow
6 As You Wish
6 On the Brute Squad
8 Lies Do Not Become Us
10 Let Me Sum Up
12 A Wheelbarrow
14 I Am Not Left-Handed
16 Riposte of Unusual Size
18 To the Pain
20 Prepare to Die
20 One of the Classic Blunders

I heard that Swashbucklers get the ability to declare that they've built up an immunity to a poison once per week.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Im interested in the whole 60+ new Archtypes schtick. I just hope to see Inquisitor back in some shape or form. I can sort of do a poor's man with ranger cleric, but there is a lot of features missing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

60 pages of Archetypes, which about translates to 60 Archetypes is what they're shooting for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

Seeing more for alchemist is exciting. If they make some really good alchemical items and maybe a few strong alchemist class feats I think the class might be exciting, right now it is missing a bit too much IMO.

I agree that the alchemist needs more alchemical tools and more alchemical items wouldn't hurt, but I think that won't resolve all the problems that the alchemist have (I'm looking at you, 1st level mutagenist!).


Did they say anything about introducing new Class Paths?

That would possibly include the Inquisitor or more Champion types


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Did they say anything about introducing new Class Paths?

That would possibly include the Inquisitor or more Champion types

They didn't really say anything one way or the other, but I'd be highly surprised if there weren't any.


Midnightoker wrote:

Did they say anything about introducing new Class Paths?

That would possibly include the Inquisitor or more Champion types

I would suspect those specific things might be a better fit for the Gods book that's coming down the pipe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to see some more druid orders. Maybe an Elemental druid or some environmental druids. Desert and Snow are my top picks for that.

Also, between the druid and bard, I think both classes need more feats that aren't tied to a class path.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Did they say anything about introducing new Class Paths?

That would possibly include the Inquisitor or more Champion types

I would suspect those specific things might be a better fit for the Gods book that's coming down the pipe.

I feel like we would’ve heard as much about Gods & Magic by now if that was going to be in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anybody notice how there is no DEX or INT penalty races? Seems like vacant niche.
Full Orc could be INT penalty candidate, and for that matter DEX penalty might match too (and counter bonus to STR and CON for example).
(I earlier proposed approach for Orcs getting +6 total bonus accross STR and CON but neither above 18 @Lvl1, at cost of penalty to DEX and INT)

Personally I'd like to see Fetchlings (Shadow Humans) but doesn't sound like they are immediate priority.
Although honestly it seems like introducing them parallel to Wayang would make alot of sense,
probably in context of setting exposition of shadow plane and so on. My personal theory of Wayang
is despite being known as "creatures of shadow plane", they originated from Gnomes altered by Shadowplane like Humans became Fetchlings,
although whether they want to approach that as Planar Heritage for Gnomes or as distinct Ancestry is Paizo's call.

Other cool stuff: non-planar para-Humans like Gillmen, Caligni etc.
Gillmen have interesting vibe in that they plausibly wouldn't have own distinct endonym, either using "Azlanti", some exonym for themselves (whether Aboleth or human), or broadly identifying with whatever human community but seeing Gillmen's mutual condition as curse/caste etc. Those that develop own endonymtic identity wouldn't necessarily see all Gillmen as sharing that, this being more a nationality, so as general term "gillmen" (or azlanti or aboleth equivalent) could be used by them as well when broad "ancestry" need be referenced as a whole? Overall doesn't seem like they have strong shared identity and solidarity as species that would parallel a unique shared endonym.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Anybody notice how there is no DEX or INT penalty races? Seems like vacant niche.

Full Orc could be INT penalty candidate, and for that matter DEX penalty might match too (and counter bonus to STR and CON for example).
(I earlier proposed approach for Orcs getting +6 total bonus accross STR and CON but neither above 18 @Lvl1, at cost of penalty to DEX and INT)

I’d be very surprised if they print any Int-penalty races for a long while, given how quickly those can skew problematic, especially with Ancestries like orcs where there’s a long bad history of racial coding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Anybody notice how there is no DEX or INT penalty races? Seems like vacant niche.

Full Orc could be INT penalty candidate, and for that matter DEX penalty might match too (and counter bonus to STR and CON for example).
(I earlier proposed approach for Orcs getting +6 total bonus accross STR and CON but neither above 18 @Lvl1, at cost of penalty to DEX and INT)

I’d be very surprised if they print any Int-penalty races for a long while, given how quickly those can skew problematic, especially with Ancestries like orcs where there’s a long bad history of racial coding.

I tend to agree with you but it's a bit unfortunate it is perceived that way. After all, I tend to think a Wis penalty is more or less the same thing said differently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I expect/hope that they're going to keep with the standardized ability scores; bonuses in one physical and mental stat, penalty in another stat. I'd probably do orcs +STR/WIS -INT.

Int penalty isn't as much of a problem as it was in prior editions since A) intelligence doesn't have a monopoly on all knowledge anymore and is strictly a bookworm stat and B) it is incredibly simple to build an orc with sufficient intelligence to be "intelligent" even with the baseline penalty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one thing I do not want to see is an ancestry with a bonus to two physical stats and a penalty to a mental one. I do not want "big dumb brute" to really be a thing that they just lay out for you as in "all these people are like this."

Having an Int penalty coupled with a Wis or Cha bonus (or any permutation of those three) is tolerable because it speaks to specific idiosyncracies among a people. Like in my homebrew I gave orcs +Str/+Int/-Wis to indicate that they are powerful both physically and mentally, but are nonetheless prone to making poor decisions and following charismatic leaders. But Cecaelias, for example, are +Dex/+Wis/-Int to indicate that they are flighty, but have the insight to avoid getting into too much trouble.

As long as every ancestry either lacks flaws, or has a bonus to a physical and a mental stat along with whatever flaw, I think it's fine.

One thing that's worth considering is "which type of spellcaster most represents the magical tradition most associated with a culture." Like if the most identifiable kind of orc spellcaster is a witch, then whatever stat the witch keys on the orc should get a bonus (and not a penalty) to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing that's worth considering is "which type of spellcaster most represents the magical tradition most associated with a culture." Like if the most identifiable kind of orc spellcaster is a witch, then whatever stat the witch keys on the orc should get a bonus (and not a penalty) to.

This is basically the logic that I was going with; if Golarion Orcs are known for any sort of spellcaster it's their clerics. You see an orc cast a spell in a Paizo adventure and you could bet good money that he's holding a holy symbol of Gorum or Rovagug.


Yeah while an INT penalty would be a little ugly (though that's more an issue with the ability boost/flaw and ability score systems in general), I think 2e is built in a way where it wouldn't sting as bad as it would in 1e - you could still easily make an 18INT orc wizard or alchemist if you desired, due to the flexibility in the chargen process.

I'd still prefer orcs to have a more balanced spread of stat mods - STR/WIS make sense for boosts (I'm not SUPER familiar with Golarion orcs but the above comment suggests they're often clerics as far as spellcasters go, and it would also support druids and possibly rangers as well, which are also somewhat thematic for orcs, and opening up nonstandard options like monks). Maybe with a DEX penalty? Orcs don't strike me as the most agile, though whether that's enough to justify a flaw is debatable.


I really don't see extra STR/CON bonus as problematic when limited so neither can go beyond 18...
I posited it as tied to Class Bonus stage, so they have additional bonus going to STR/CON but can't put it in same one Class does,
so their max is no larger than any other race, for both STR or future CON classes like Kineticist etc.
And of course, a DEX penalty actively hurts AC which requires boost just to counter-act and bring to 0.

Anyhow, it seems like DEX penalty is niche that should be served whether or not Orcs do it themselves.


I really do think Orcs should get +4 Str and -2 to mental stats. They are generally perfectly portrayed by the big dumb bully jock or as a green skinned Drax with tusks. It also makes sense to have +4 Str given how their culture is who ever hits the hardest keeps everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Racial stat boosts, given that you get a free one, have a pretty minimal impact in your final build. I wouldn't be surprised if you can get pretty much the same spreads as Elf or Dwarf unless they are keeping their 8. All in all, it doesn't have much of an effect mechanically if a Race gets +2 on 2 physical scores: It'll just even out. Only thing you gotta worry about is people making a big deal out of the "brute" portrayal, specially if it comes with -INT.

Kinda silly to me that it's some taboo to imply someone is less intelligent than another, but such are things.


I also wish Half-Elf/Orcs specified one of 2 free bonuses went to choice of 1 of Elf/Orc 2 fixed bonuses.
(and would count as fixed bonus in terms of being able to buy-back with Optional Flaw)
If you can't manage to pull of HALF of what makes Elves Elf-y or Orcs Orc-y, I don't believe that is Half-Elf/Orc material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like if you want to do an ancestry with a bonus to two physical (or two mental) stats, the way you do this is clear- you give a penalty to the third stat in that category.

Like +Str/+Con/-Dex works fine for Orcs- they prefer heavier armor and non-finesse weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if you want to do an ancestry with a bonus to two physical (or two mental) stats, the way you do this is clear- you give a penalty to the third stat in that category.

Like +Str/+Con/-Dex works fine for Orcs- they prefer heavier armor and non-finesse weapons.

I’d like this a lot. Makes your big Fighter or Barbarian feel nice and beefy, and gives some of that strong, sturdy flavor to every other class. Or if you take optional flaws, you can tank those and drop down to baseline, which feels fun; a weak, frail orc is a normal everyone else.


I personally want more runes, I love the runic enchantment system, and any more things I can stick on my sword to make my Murder-Death-Kill skills better makes me happy... Also, maybe some new mundane weapons with new traits? i really want a trait/rune that interacts with the 10 over/under system and manipulates it in your favor (armor making them need 11 over, weapon making you only need 9 over) or something of the like. Maybe some new monk styles? I've made a homebrew one themed after Fiends, but I'd like something a little nastier than the core ones being officially printed, just so I can mimic the more sadistic villains in typical shonen martial-arts series.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Anybody notice how there is no DEX or INT penalty races? Seems like vacant niche.

Full Orc could be INT penalty candidate, and for that matter DEX penalty might match too (and counter bonus to STR and CON for example).
(I earlier proposed approach for Orcs getting +6 total bonus accross STR and CON but neither above 18 @Lvl1, at cost of penalty to DEX and INT)

I’d be very surprised if they print any Int-penalty races for a long while, given how quickly those can skew problematic, especially with Ancestries like orcs where there’s a long bad history of racial coding.

Honestly I think that so long as it's made clear that bonuses reflect a cultural relationship with education, spirituality, etc rather than a genetic predisposition (using a flawed conception of IQ that was popular when the game was created), its fine.

Especially since the game allows you to get a flex bonus from your race that can cancel out the flaw (in other words, you can choose to get both a - to int, and a + to int from the orc, since both come from ancestry)and does a fantastic job of presenting human ethnic groups *as* human ethnic groups, which precludes the comparison, in some ways. We've already been shown that those ethnic groups will offer specific feats and such that have membership in them as a kind of soft requirement.

For the sake of balance, I really hope they don't avoid it with a single ability score, that reduces the design spaces.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if you want to do an ancestry with a bonus to two physical (or two mental) stats, the way you do this is clear- you give a penalty to the third stat in that category.

Like +Str/+Con/-Dex works fine for Orcs- they prefer heavier armor and non-finesse weapons.

I’d like this a lot. Makes your big Fighter or Barbarian feel nice and beefy, and gives some of that strong, sturdy flavor to every other class. Or if you take optional flaws, you can tank those and drop down to baseline, which feels fun; a weak, frail orc is a normal everyone else.

It also encourages Orc casters to be Clerics or Druids (because they can get medium armor proficiency in class) as opposed to Wizards, Bards, or Sorcerers because your caster Orc is going to want to put the free boost into their casting stat, and light or no-armor also requires dex.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:


For the sake of balance, I really hope they don't avoid it with a single ability score, that reduces the design spaces.

Well from a balance perspective, Intelligence is one of the better stats to take a penalty to, with Charisma being the other arguable one.

At least in the case of Charisma, a minus effectively excludes you from a slew of abilities that casters, skill monkeys, and straight martial classes all can use (and well I might add).

Intelligence really only gates your ability to learn one additional Skill at level 1 (which is a downside, but not a huge one) and recalling knowledge.

It's particularly strong if the Ancestry also get Strength as a bonus, because that effectively means that Ancestry will often times be used for Classes that aren't centered around Intelligence anyways.

If Intelligence was a -2, I think it would probably be more balanced to couple it with a +2 Constitution instead of the +2/+4 Strength and then also couple that with Charisma or Wisdom bonus.

It's not the end of the world I suppose, but Intelligence lacks a lot of incentive for almost all classes. At least Charisma has Intimidate.

+2 Str +2 Wis -2 Intelligence with some kind of balancing piece coupled to compensate for the favorable stats (pretty much any Martial loves the above stat array) such as with sensitivity to light could fit.

Or a really weird, but I also think works is:

+2 Con +2 Cha -2 Int

Since Orcs are thematically command presence in the same way the Goblin does (fear).

Or even more apt, instead of making orcs "dumb" make them uncouth, ugly, and generally sloppy:

+2 Str +2 Wis -2 Cha

And then give them an innate +1 to Intimidate as a racial bonus, since thematically it fits.

Then I'm one of those people that doesn't really use alignment outside of required areas (spells and classes) and thinks "evil" is about perspective and context. Some people like having the "this thing is evil, therefore I can attack" thing, because it's transparent and easy for a person to translate "X means they are my enemy".

But ultimately, that's not really realistic right? Killing someone/something just because of its Ancestry is a bit, well, evil.

The black and white world of Tolkein has always been the main inspiration for DnD, but moral gray area is just way more common than that.


If they're doing more class paths, I'm sort of hoping for a fight-y version of the bard.

I'm not really seeing it though, because the way they made that work for the cleric was to put the casting proficiencies and stuff in the Class Path to allow for variance, and the bard... doesn't.


Staffan Johansson wrote:

If they're doing more class paths, I'm sort of hoping for a fight-y version of the bard.

I'm not really seeing it though, because the way they made that work for the cleric was to put the casting proficiencies and stuff in the Class Path to allow for variance, and the bard... doesn't.

Well a Muse could theoretically take more control of the Class than is current. Right now all they do is give them a 1st level Class Feat and a skill, but replacing proficiency is theoretically possible.

Clerics are structured in a way that helps that concept better, since Doctrines have several tiers as opposed to one major one.

And they could just create Class Feats that grant said benefits. It's possible, but indicative that it probably won't happen anytime soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not holding out hope for more fight-y versions of spellcasters tbh.

The Warpriest/Cloistered Cleric is the model Paizo set out for making a dichotomy between pure caster and a more martial version of said character, but the Warpriest doesn't actually get better at swinging weapons than the CC, it just advances its proficiency a few levels earlier.


Squiggit wrote:

I'm not holding out hope for more fight-y versions of spellcasters tbh.

The Warpriest/Cloistered Cleric is the model Paizo set out for making a dichotomy between pure caster and a more martial version of said character, but the Warpriest doesn't actually get better at swinging weapons than the CC, it just advances its proficiency a few levels earlier.

What I'd mostly expect from the skald, as we might call it, is something like proficiency in martial weapons and medium armor, and perhaps advancing somewhat faster in weapon and/or armor proficiency (though, like the warpriest, not necessarily higher). I would also expect a bunch of possible feats that improve their fighting abilities in some way, or let them do things like cast a composition cantrip at the same time as they Strike, or be able to perform Somatic components with a hand holding a weapon, or stuff like that.


Squiggit wrote:

I'm not holding out hope for more fight-y versions of spellcasters tbh.

The Warpriest/Cloistered Cleric is the model Paizo set out for making a dichotomy between pure caster and a more martial version of said character, but the Warpriest doesn't actually get better at swinging weapons than the CC, it just advances its proficiency a few levels earlier.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s gets errata but fair point


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tengu and Kobolds as playable PC races with the 'common' rating.

I'm also hoping one of the two is the replacement race for one of the iconics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Class archetypes would be nice. The CRB explains what they are, but doesn't actually have any. Apparently there's going to be one in "Tomorrow Must Burn," but it would be nice to have a few in the APG.

I'd also like to see some non-divine sorcerer bloodlines and, of course, orc stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Archetypes are definitely the thing I'm most excited for, though I'm prepared to be disappointed. The idea that archetypes can be applied to any class is awesome and has my mind going nuts about all the possibilities, but chances are most of them will be a couple feats mostly for flavour. But having something like gloomblade or constructed pugilist or adaptive shifter as an archetype would be too cool.

But the things I hope to be in it that haven't been announced yet are more class paths, class feats and skill/general feats. More class paths are obviously something everyone wants. But some classes feel very stuck once you pick their path, such as champion. A lot of your choices are made for you. Casters (mostly wizard and sorc) seem to have some pretty lame choices at some levels if you ask me. I know most of their choices come from spell choices but it makes me feel like multiclassing is the only way to go. Skill feats are another one; I would love if there were multiple feats for every level of proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thing I hope to see in the APG is more support for 2-weapon rogues. They are the one class I associate with wielding 2 weapons, and yet in PF2 core the only support they get outside of MC is Twin Feint. Some more ways to benefit from wielding two weapons would be nice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Another thing I hope to see in the APG is more support for 2-weapon rogues. They are the one class I associate with wielding 2 weapons, and yet in PF2 core the only support they get outside of MC is Twin Feint. Some more ways to benefit from wielding two weapons would be nice.

I'd like more varied weapon support in general. TWF barbarians and rogues, Einhander Rangers, unarmed something that isn't barbarian or monk... and so on and so forth.

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Advanced Player's Guide miscellanea speculation thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.