A Safe Space for Respectful Criticisms of PF2

[Perpdepog]

Minor gripe, I wish that the Inventor's weapon innovation could be applied to unarmed attacks, or that the Sterling Dynamo's unarmed attack had special language allowing it to count as a weapon.
It feels like such a missed opportunity that these two things don't interact and you can't tinker with your super weapon arm to make it more super.

[Djinn71]

The Raven Black wrote:

Just a reminder that people tend to hate on skill uses that seem to be feat-gated. To the point that they misread feats as saying you cannot do this or that without the skill, whereas the feat merely allows a more efficient approach. This was already the case in PF1 and PF2 inherited them.

I think people want more feats that aren't really within the normal purview of a skill but enable a play style, like Bon Mot, which I haven't seen much griping about.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Secret Wizard wrote:

*Alternatively, it means "bear-coated" but I don't see how "bjorn" could have transformed into "ber",

It didn't. 'Bjørn' is a case of palatalization of an older form of the word, which is closer to 'ber'. An intermediate form you might be familiar with is 'beorn'.

Palatalization is generally a one-way street from older forms.

[Leon Aquilla]

I think Shelyn worked better as a goddess of platonic love and chastity since there seem to be several deities that have gotten more relaxed attitudes towards sexuality since migrating from 1e to 2e. She would have stood out more among the now-highly-diverse pantheon that way.

Also Pepe LePew-esque Shelynites are becoming a bad cliche.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Shelyn's a really interesting goddess, and I like her embracing sexuality because, well, sexuality and intimacy are huge facets of love for many people, just like beauty and attraction. That said, I do see where you're coming from here. Your interpretation works, too.

[Grankless]

My most controversial yet strongly held opinion is that ability scores are unneeded and numbers can just be class based, like 13th age sort-of operates with to-hit values.

[Grankless]

Also, I wish Inventors had firearm related modifications.

[AnimatedPaper]

Grankless wrote:

Also, I wish Inventors had firearm related modifications.

Yes, this. I understand that G&G is properly 2 different books that have a child as the back third, but I would have preferred more cross pollination of the 2 Gs.

[Cintra Bristol]

I wish that the Absalom map had street names.

[Squiggit]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Also, I wish Inventors had firearm related modifications.

Yes, this. I understand that G&G is properly 2 different books that have a child as the back third, but I would have preferred more cross pollination of the 2 Gs.

Honestly this so much. The fact that inventors don't have any direct interactions or modifications at all connected to the back half of the book... and even going a step further and specifically not allowing a weapon inventor's cool semi-capstone feat to even work with firearms/crossbows feels bad.

[Ventnor]

Grankless wrote:

Also, I wish Inventors had firearm related modifications.

There are several Level 0 & Level 1 firearms, which means Weapon Inventors can make a firearm their Innovation weapon. There are no weapon modifications that apply to specific weapon groups, though.

[graystone]

Ventnor wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Also, I wish Inventors had firearm related modifications.

There are several Level 0 & Level 1 firearms, which means Weapon Inventors can make a firearm their Innovation weapon. There are no weapon modifications that apply to specific weapon groups, though.

Weapon Innovation: "It begins with the same statistics as a level 0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice, or another level 0 simple or martial weapon to which you have access. Firearms aren't common and inventors don't have any access to firearms: As such, you need to get access some place else, like being from Ustalav, Shackles [Motaku Isle Ironworks], Alkenstar, Tian Xia [Goka, Ling Shen, Po Li, and Quain] or Arcadia. If they don't, they can't make a gun into an innovation.

[Grankless]

I mean, your GM can also just give you access. That's how uncommon works. (I GM for a gun inventor)

The issue isn't "inventors don't have gun use" it's "inventors don't have anything specific to guns despite being in the same book as them".

[graystone]

Grankless wrote:

I mean, your GM can also just give you access. That's how uncommon works. (I GM for a gun inventor)

The DM can also triple the number of feats an inventor gets too but that doesn't mean that that's what the game gives them. As presented, inventors do not have access to guns. You couldn't expect to sit down at a PFS game, for instance, and expect to play with a gun unless you had another way to gain access.

Grankless wrote:

The issue isn't "inventors don't have gun use" it's "inventors don't have anything specific to guns despite being in the same book as them".

I'd say it's both as they have neither access OR Modifications for [just] guns.

In fact I find the Modifications a bit too generic as you can put a scope on a sling, your blowgun can have rope shot and your shuriken can be integrated into your gauntlet.

[AnimatedPaper]

graystone wrote:

In fact I find the Modifications a bit too generic as you can put a scope on a sling, your blowgun can have rope shot and your shuriken can be integrated into your gauntlet.

Given some of the mechanical engineers I know, that part rings true.

[Grankless]

graystone wrote:

Grankless wrote:

I mean, your GM can also just give you access. That's how uncommon works. (I GM for a gun inventor)

The DM can also triple the number of feats an inventor gets too but that doesn't mean that that's what the game gives them. As presented, inventors do not have access to guns. You couldn't expect to sit down at a PFS game, for instance, and expect to play with a gun unless you had another way to gain access.

Inventors are also uncommon, so you could say literally the same thing about the class itself, but whether or not a GM would give access to uncommon stuff is kind of not remotely the topic at hand.

[graystone]

Grankless wrote:

Inventors are also uncommon, so you could say literally the same thing about the class itself, but whether or not a GM would give access to uncommon stuff is kind of not remotely the topic at hand.

I have to disagree: You posted "There are several Level 0 & Level 1 firearms, which means Weapon Inventors can make a firearm their Innovation weapon" and that just isn't true if you don't have access to a gun to put the modifications on. Secondly, giving access to the class isn't the same thing as giving access to guns: for instance, PFS gives all pathfinders access to gunslingers and inventors but that doesn't give inventors access to guns. So allowing inventors is no guarantee the DM is going to ignore all other rarities for the chracter.

[Cylar Nann]

I wanted to add a little criticism that is quite minor but kind of odd to me. When you pick something like Bard/Druid it is actually better to choose a muse/order you do not want.

For example if you want to get the Storm Druid...
The logical thing would be to pick Storm Order Druid at level 2 and then pick Order Spell at level 4.

In reality this is just really bad though since you will not get the level 1 feat and will be blocked from taking Advanced Wilding until you take advanced.

So the correct thing to do is 100% take some random Druid Order at 2 and take Basic Wilding for Order Explorer. PF2 does a decent job of getting rid of "trap" feats but this is one that I am sure a lot of new players will fall into the trap.

In general I kind of wish the Basic>Advanced dedication feats didn't exist. I 100% understand why they are there. Some dedications it is just so awkward to backtrack for the level 1/2 feat when you want different level 4/6 feats from the dedication.

[Grankless]

graystone wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Inventors are also uncommon, so you could say literally the same thing about the class itself, but whether or not a GM would give access to uncommon stuff is kind of not remotely the topic at hand.

I have to disagree: You posted "There are several Level 0 & Level 1 firearms, which means Weapon Inventors can make a firearm their Innovation weapon" and that just isn't true if you don't have access to a gun to put the modifications on. Secondly, giving access to the class isn't the same thing as giving access to guns: for instance, PFS gives all pathfinders access to gunslingers and inventors but that doesn't give inventors access to guns. So allowing inventors is no guarantee the DM is going to ignore all other rarities for the chracter.

Me and Ventnor are two different people, and also most games don't use PFS rules, and also you already brought up how to easily get firearm access in PFS so why in god's name are you trying to start a fight over literally nothing? Did you forget what thread you're in or something?

[aobst128]

Don't you just need to be from some specific places to get access to guns for PFS?

[fanatic66]

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

[Sanityfaerie]

fanatic66 wrote:

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

"What % of players play PFS" is one important question.

"What % of players had a PFS game as their first PF2 game" is another.

Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of answer either of those. I'm just noting that when you're in a position where you're considering the first, it's also worth considering the second.

[willfromamerica]

Cylar Nann wrote:

I wanted to add a little criticism that is quite minor but kind of odd to me. When you pick something like Bard/Druid it is actually better to choose a muse/order you do not want.

For example if you want to get the Storm Druid...
The logical thing would be to pick Storm Order Druid at level 2 and then pick Order Spell at level 4.

In reality this is just really bad though since you will not get the level 1 feat and will be blocked from taking Advanced Wilding until you take advanced.

So the correct thing to do is 100% take some random Druid Order at 2 and take Basic Wilding for Order Explorer. PF2 does a decent job of getting rid of "trap" feats but this is one that I am sure a lot of new players will fall into the trap.

In general I kind of wish the Basic>Advanced dedication feats didn't exist. I 100% understand why they are there. Some dedications it is just so awkward to backtrack for the level 1/2 feat when you want different level 4/6 feats from the dedication.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you want what comes with the Storm Order, why not just take it at level 1?

(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand.)

[RexAliquid]

willfromamerica wrote:

Cylar Nann wrote:

I wanted to add a little criticism that is quite minor but kind of odd to me. When you pick something like Bard/Druid it is actually better to choose a muse/order you do not want.

For example if you want to get the Storm Druid...
The logical thing would be to pick Storm Order Druid at level 2 and then pick Order Spell at level 4.

In reality this is just really bad though since you will not get the level 1 feat and will be blocked from taking Advanced Wilding until you take advanced.

So the correct thing to do is 100% take some random Druid Order at 2 and take Basic Wilding for Order Explorer. PF2 does a decent job of getting rid of "trap" feats but this is one that I am sure a lot of new players will fall into the trap.

In general I kind of wish the Basic>Advanced dedication feats didn't exist. I 100% understand why they are there. Some dedications it is just so awkward to backtrack for the level 1/2 feat when you want different level 4/6 feats from the dedication.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you want what comes with the Storm Order, why not just take it at level 1?

(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand.)

I also had trouble following this train of thought, but maybe they are talking about multiclass archetypes? It still doesn’t make much sense to me though.

[fanatic66]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

"What % of players play PFS" is one important question.

"What % of players had a PFS game as their first PF2 game" is another.

Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of answer either of those. I'm just noting that when you're in a position where you're considering the first, it's also worth considering the second.

The second question is interesting, but also beckons a follow up question, "How many people that started with FPS and keep playing PF2e, stick with PFS or move on to home games?" My guess is that the % of people (first timers or not) playing PFS is not the majority (similar to AL for 5E) of PF2e players, and is more of a niche player base. But I could be wrong.

[The Raven Black]

Everyone does not need to abide by PFS standard though. Only those who play PFS do.

[fanatic66]

The Raven Black wrote:

Everyone does not need to abide by PFS standard though. Only those who play PFS do.

Exactly, and if PFS play is a niche part of the player base, I wouldn't worry too much about PFS standards.

[Squiggit]

I mean yeah, but if someone plays at a paizo table and has to deal with the minutiae of the rules they set forward, that feels like fair game for a thread about respectful criticisms of PF2.

[AnimatedPaper]

willfromamerica wrote:

Cylar Nann wrote:

I wanted to add a little criticism that is quite minor but kind of odd to me. When you pick something like Bard/Druid it is actually better to choose a muse/order you do not want.

For example if you want to get the Storm Druid...
The logical thing would be to pick Storm Order Druid at level 2 and then pick Order Spell at level 4.

In reality this is just really bad though since you will not get the level 1 feat and will be blocked from taking Advanced Wilding until you take advanced.

So the correct thing to do is 100% take some random Druid Order at 2 and take Basic Wilding for Order Explorer. PF2 does a decent job of getting rid of "trap" feats but this is one that I am sure a lot of new players will fall into the trap.

In general I kind of wish the Basic>Advanced dedication feats didn't exist. I 100% understand why they are there. Some dedications it is just so awkward to backtrack for the level 1/2 feat when you want different level 4/6 feats from the dedication.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you want what comes with the Storm Order, why not just take it at level 1?

(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand.)

At a guess, they were not aware that picking the order at level 1 grants both the order feat and the focus spell for “free”.

[graystone]

Grankless wrote:

Me and Ventnor are two different people

Ok, mixed that up.

Grankless wrote:

also most games don't use PFS rules

Sure, but that doesn't mean every table that isn't is going to allow the inventor to have access to firearms by dm fiat and that was my point: PFS was just an example. Myself, I haven't seen a table that handwaved firearms access and I don't play PFS: by default, inventors are clueless about firearms and that is more than enough to grumble about.

Grankless wrote:

also you already brought up how to easily get firearm access in PFS so why in god's name are you trying to start a fight over literally nothing? Did you forget what thread you're in or something?

Having to jump through hoops to get an inventor to get access to guns seems to be in line with the thread. Taking something to get access to the firearms also locks you out of other things too: I can't be from Ustalav to get firearms and Saga Lands for Runescarred for instance.

[Gortle]

Cylar Nann wrote:

I wanted to add a little criticism that is quite minor but kind of odd to me. When you pick something like Bard/Druid it is actually better to choose a muse/order you do not want.

For example if you want to get the Storm Druid...
The logical thing would be to pick Storm Order Druid at level 2 and then pick Order Spell at level 4.

In reality this is just really bad though since you will not get the level 1 feat and will be blocked from taking Advanced Wilding until you take advanced.

So the correct thing to do is 100% take some random Druid Order at 2 and take Basic Wilding for Order Explorer. PF2 does a decent job of getting rid of "trap" feats but this is one that I am sure a lot of new players will fall into the trap.

In general I kind of wish the Basic>Advanced dedication feats didn't exist. I 100% understand why they are there. Some dedications it is just so awkward to backtrack for the level 1/2 feat when you want different level 4/6 feats from the dedication.

So you are specifically talking about multiclassing into Druid. Yes I agree its wierd and wastes class feats. In the multiclass situation if you want Order Magic it traps you out of the first order you select because of the prerequisite. But you can just take Basic Wilding and then pick up that first level order feat. So there is a way to avoid joining a second order if what you want is just wild shape. But for the other powers you need to follow the Order Magic route.

Definitely a bit odd, with a lots of little niche cases. But that seems to be part of what Paizo is aiming for: easy rules, but a complexity of outcomes which is hard to reduce to a few factors. The point being its often hard to say class/power X is better than Y. There are always circumstances to consider.

[aobst128]

Animal instinct barbarian deer and frog awkwardly get a bonus plus bigger dice while the others only get the dice. Like deer is just better than snake past 7th level.

[Perpdepog]

aobst128 wrote:

Animal instinct barbarian deer and frog awkwardly get a bonus plus bigger dice while the others only get the dice. Like deer is just better than snake past 7th level.

It does kind of feel like deer should have a die drop or something to bring the options more in line with each other.

Maybe it's also balanced over the animals themselves? I think a snake gets a climb speed when you morph into it while deer doesn't get much special, but I could be wrong.

[aobst128]

Perpdepog wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Animal instinct barbarian deer and frog awkwardly get a bonus plus bigger dice while the others only get the dice. Like deer is just better than snake past 7th level.

It does kind of feel like deer should have a die drop or something to bring the options more in line with each other.

Maybe it's also balanced over the animals themselves? I think a snake gets a climb speed when you morph into it while deer doesn't get much special, but I could be wrong.

That might be what they were going for, but animal rage is optional and also not good. It would make more sense to include a bonus for every option. Add extra traits and crit effects. Ape could get forceful and snake could add persistent poison damage on a crit. Stuff like that.

[PossibleCabbage]

graystone wrote:

In fact I find the Modifications a bit too generic as you can put a scope on a sling, your blowgun can have rope shot and your shuriken can be integrated into your gauntlet.

The modifications for ranged weapons specifically are a bit underwhelming. Like I've been trying to get a weapon inventor whose innovation is based on a heavy repeating crossbow off the ground, and while it's neat to let you collapse the thing down to light bulk and gain modular, once you get past the initial modifications a lot of the ranged ones are "add range" which you absolutely do not need with a crossbow.

[aobst128]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

graystone wrote:

In fact I find the Modifications a bit too generic as you can put a scope on a sling, your blowgun can have rope shot and your shuriken can be integrated into your gauntlet.

The modifications for ranged weapons specifically are a bit underwhelming. Like I've been trying to get a weapon inventor whose innovation is based on a heavy repeating crossbow off the ground, and while it's neat to let you collapse the thing down to light bulk and gain modular, once you get past the initial modifications a lot of the ranged ones are "add range" which you absolutely do not need with a crossbow.

Yeah, they missed a lot of opportunities with weapon modifications. I would have like to see parry as an option.

[aobst128]

Ranged trip with the range of a heavy crossbow could be handy. Only really works with assurance though since you won't have the strength as a ranged inventor. It does however, get rid of the circumstance penalty from ranged trip conveniently. I do wonder if it's intended to use ammunition though. It just says you can use this weapon to trip using your weapons first range increment.

[aobst128]

Rolling athletics when you pull a trigger to trip someone 100 feet away feels weird too.

[The Raven Black]

graystone wrote:

Grankless wrote:

Me and Ventnor are two different people

Ok, mixed that up.

Grankless wrote:

also most games don't use PFS rules

Sure, but that doesn't mean every table that isn't is going to allow the inventor to have access to firearms by dm fiat and that was my point: PFS was just an example. Myself, I haven't seen a table that handwaved firearms access and I don't play PFS: by default, inventors are clueless about firearms and that is more than enough to grumble about.

Grankless wrote:

also you already brought up how to easily get firearm access in PFS so why in god's name are you trying to start a fight over literally nothing? Did you forget what thread you're in or something?

Having to jump through hoops to get an inventor to get access to guns seems to be in line with the thread. Taking something to get access to the firearms also locks you out of other things too: I can't be from Ustalav to get firearms and Saga Lands for Runescarred for instance.

You can but you have to work a little for it, rather than it being automatically granted (the difference between Common and Uncommon). You will then get it unless the GM actually bans the Uncommon thing from their table.

That is the difference between Uncommon and Rare, which usually require far more work to obtain.

[Errenor]

Gortle wrote:

So you are specifically talking about multiclassing into Druid. Yes I agree its wierd and wastes class feats. In the multiclass situation if you want Order Magic it traps you out of the first order you select because of the prerequisite. But you can just take Basic Wilding and then pick up that first level order feat. So there is a way to avoid joining a second order if what you want is just wild shape. But for the other powers you need to follow the Order Magic route.

So now I don't understand anything. How does it block you? Which prerequisite? https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=704 The only things you need are dedication and order, both are given to you by the dedication feat.

Also Basic Wilding at 4th lvl is the way to get you 1st level order feat in both cases: by just taking that 1st level feat directly or by taking Order Explorer and taking 1st level feat from another order (and getting another anathema!). So where is this presumable gain from the Order Explorer path?

[Temperans]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

I think Shelyn worked better as a goddess of platonic love and chastity since there seem to be several deities that have gotten more relaxed attitudes towards sexuality since migrating from 1e to 2e. She would have stood out more among the now-highly-diverse pantheon that way.

Also Pepe LePew-esque Shelynites are becoming a bad cliche.

This is late since the conversation has moved on, but I do want to say that I agree Shelyn worked better as a goddess of platonic love. To me she was very much the goddess that didn't care how you expressed your love, which seems even more meaningful with current IRL culture.

But also there are some gods that have become kind of weird. For example, there is no reason why Gorum wouldn't accept CG or N followers who value the honor of fighting and combat. Especially when he has this line:

Quote:

Gorum does not care the reason for battle...nor does he choose sides in such clashes. Good or evil, law or chaos, the reason for the fight is irrelevant. It is the thrill of battle that finds his favor, the crucible of struggle in which victory is there for the taking.

what about that prevents you from being good?

[Squiggit]

I feel like you could extend that out even further. Feels weird to me that a god who so strongly emphasizes fair combat and rejects underhanded means favors CE but completely rejects N, NE, LN and LE followers.

Not that a CN or CE character can't fight fair but I feel like if someone described a character to me who considered that very important to them CE would not be the first or second or third alignment I guess.

[Temperans]

Exactly Squiggit, Gorum as stated should be neutral or allow all alignments. Not be limited to CN and CE both of which are the most likely to do underhanded tricks.

[Gortle]

Errenor wrote:

Gortle wrote:

So you are specifically talking about multiclassing into Druid. Yes I agree its wierd and wastes class feats. In the multiclass situation if you want Order Magic it traps you out of the first order you select because of the prerequisite. But you can just take Basic Wilding and then pick up that first level order feat. So there is a way to avoid joining a second order if what you want is just wild shape. But for the other powers you need to follow the Order Magic route.

So now I don't understand anything. How does it block you? Which prerequisite? https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=704 The only things you need are dedication and order, both are given to you by the dedication feat.

Also Basic Wilding at 4th lvl is the way to get you 1st level order feat in both cases: by just taking that 1st level feat directly or by taking Order Explorer and taking 1st level feat from another order (and getting another anathema!). So where is this presumable gain from the Order Explorer path?

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

[graystone]

The Raven Black wrote:

You can but you have to work a little for it, rather than it being automatically granted (the difference between Common and Uncommon). You will then get it unless the GM actually bans the Uncommon thing from their table.

That is the difference between Uncommon and Rare, which usually require far more work to obtain.

Sure but what does that mean for an inventor that must have access to the weapon BEFORE the game starts so that they can make it their Innovation? You can rebuild a destroyed one but I don't recall a way to change the base item after you pick one except the 19th level ability. The only way to use it after you make the character is to waste a feat like Dual-Form Weapon and that leaves you with a vestigial weapon form that you never really wanted.

So, you can do it if you do MORE work than others and either waste feats or wait till 19th level to use it... Seems worthy of complaints.

[The Raven Black]

In a home game, you just need to convince your GM to grant you access at creation.

In PFS IIRC there are boons that give access to uncommon options at creation.

[AnimatedPaper]

graystone wrote:

Sure but what does that mean for an inventor that must have access to the weapon BEFORE the game starts so that they can make it their Innovation? You can rebuild a destroyed one but I don't recall a way to change the base item after you pick one except the 19th level ability. The only way to use it after you make the character is to waste a feat like Dual-Form Weapon and that leaves you with a vestigial weapon form that you never really wanted.

Retraining works on selectable class features like your innovation.

[graystone]

The Raven Black wrote:

In a home game, you just need to convince your GM to grant you access at creation.

It's possible, not guaranteed that they'll handwave it. IMO, it's like saying 'in a home game, your DM can just let your paladin use a flickmace as a simple weapon'. Sure they CAN do it but it's outside the rules: IE houseruling. It's not something I'm going to expect when I sit down at a new table.

PS: you also have a 3rd category of play. Those that do not have a home game and do not play PFS. Myself, I'm in this one. I play online with different groups/DM's for variable lengths of time.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Retraining works on selectable class features like your innovation.

Sure... It's up to the DM how long that takes and if they deem it a "larger choices like a druid order or a wizard school", it's "always at least a month" of downtime. There are a LOT of games where you don't have the luxury of taking a month or two out to retrain something.

So yes you can do it, but it's a huge pain in the butt that feels [at least to me] like it shouldn't be needed: it feels weird that the class that can make giant robot cats and power armor has no starting knowledge of firearms. It's one thing to have to go though hoops to use them but more annoying when it's for something that feels like it should be something you start with. It just feels wrong that a barbarian and an inventor start off with the same knowledge of, and ability to use, firearms. :(

[Ferious Thune]

The Raven Black wrote:

In a home game, you just need to convince your GM to grant you access at creation.

In PFS IIRC there are boons that give access to uncommon options at creation.

Yeah, it's somewhat more of a guarantee that you can get access in PFS if you want it, because the ways to do that are pretty well spelled out at this point, and things like World Traveler exist to get access to stuff from a different place than you're from.

Outside PFS, you just need to talk to your GM.

I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.

[graystone]

Ferious Thune wrote:

I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.

Yes, for myself it's less about the hoops you can jump through to do it and more that you have to jump through hoops in the first place.