^I can help with one of those: Secrets of Magic introduced the Flexible Spellcaster class archetype that works for clerics, druids, witches, and wizards(*), that gives you Arcanist-style spellcasting, at the cost of being REALLY cramped for spells per day.
(*)Combines with this to become 2nd Edition Arcanist.
|
A kind of extraordinary/mystical pacifist who has the ability to soak up an extraordinary amount of damage and specializes in non-lethal takedowns (with features to enable non-lethal damage against opponents that normally are immune to it) and potentially even redirect attacks and damage back to opponents.
Currently, non-lethal approaches to encounters, at the very least, are very dependent on dealing the majority of a given HP pool in lethal/normal damage and also just flat out deal less damage, in general, when, I believe it makes more sense that non-lethal damage numbers should have higher damage than lethal options or in the very least be given some kind of benefits akin to how a Martial Weapon is just mechanically superior to a Simple one by way of additional traits or a higher damage die.
^I can help with one of those: Secrets of Magic introduced the Flexible Spellcaster class archetype that works for clerics, druids, witches, and wizards(*), that gives you Arcanist-style spellcasting, at the cost of being REALLY cramped for spells per day.
(*)Combines with this to become 2nd Edition Arcanist.
You do know that arcanist got more spells not less right?
Also missing all the powers and abilities (counterspelling, blasting, primal magic, etc). Especially things like quick study (exchange spells in 1 minute), which they explicitly forbid you from even getting the severely restricted version that those classes can get (change spell from limited list in 10 minutes).
Those are ultimately just mechanical shortcomings which misses the point of the thread which is more about general character concepts that are unsupported or very poorly supported.
You can play an arcanist in 2e, they just aren't as good or as interesting or as flexible as they were in 1e, which is par for the course.
@gesalt -- yes, 2nd Edition seems to have done that with a fair number of other things.
@Temperans -- I was referring to the 2nd Edition Arcanist (actually Wizard with Flexible Spellcaster) being really cramped. The 1st Edition Arcanist did suffer from delayed spell level acquisition but had better acceleration of number of spells of each level per day, but then maxed out the same as a Universalist Wizard and less than a specialist Wizard -- overall, a bit cramped, but not claustrophobigenic like 2nd Edition's Flexible Spellcaster.
As for "general character concepts that are unsupported or very poorly supported" -- start out with the Witch. This is neither very good at supporting most concepts of Witchcraft from legend nor mechanically anywhere near to doing justice to the 1st Edition Witch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "caster" who isn't versatile in the slightest and has no spellslots and no support, control or AoE abilities but can shoot powerful energy beams every turn with fighter accuracy. A true single target blaster caster who fills the same role in a party as a ranged martial - the playtest analysis makes me very sure that the kineticist won't be able to fulfill this fantasy. I don't want to control the elements and do cool avatar stuff, I just want to go pew pew pew with magic all the time like wizard kirby or the magikoopas from super mario.
A mentally strong, physically weak "martial" without any magical abilities who sucks at making strikes, never has a weapon equipped but is still a useful party member just through their great wisdom, charisma and intelligence and excells at resourceless buffs and debuffs. A true nonmagical supporter who fills the same role in a party as bard. The alchemist kinda fits this description but is way too narrow thematically, too martial in general and just IMO not fun to play.
Deviant abilities from Dark Archives cover a lot of the pew pew superhero stuff pretty well do they not?
Comedy relief--Think Pippin and Merry. A character who advances the plot by screwing up. I have no idea how to create this without breaking the math of pf2, but it's an character type that common and missing. In certain other games, you can get this with bard, but bards in pf2 are much more power fantasy than comedy relief.
There's an archetype for Guns and Gears for that. EDIT: Unexpected Sharpshooter
You don't even need to use a gun to take advantage of most if the feats. A receptive GM just might allow alternatives for the remaining feats as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm missing a more accurate representation of John Wick or (to a lesser extent) a Cleric from Equilibrium. We have the gunslinger ofc, but weirdly none of the Ways even come close to representing just a straightforward, aggressive gun-user. Drifter is a melee/gun mix, Pistolero just fools around with their weapon (no built-in support for actually firing it), sniper (despite my love for this subclass) is too static, reliant on cover/concealment (ergo, lacking aggressiveness) and focused on longer ranges. Spellshot is gunslinger but slightly magical.
Vanguard is the one that comes closest, but its heavy emphasis on physically engaging the enemy and actually unremarkable damage output make it a very imperfect fit.
The essence, I suppose, is at least decent mobility and heavy focus on firepower.
I'm missing a more accurate representation of John Wick or (to a lesser extent) a Cleric from Equilibrium. We have the gunslinger ofc, but weirdly none of the Ways even come close to representing just a straightforward, aggressive gun-user. Drifter is a melee/gun mix, Pistolero just fools around with their weapon (no built-in support for actually firing it), sniper (despite my love for this subclass) is too static, reliant on cover/concealment (ergo, lacking aggressiveness) and focused on longer ranges. Spellshot is gunslinger but slightly magical.
Vanguard is the one that comes closest, but its heavy emphasis on physically engaging the enemy and actually unremarkable damage output make it a very imperfect fit.
The essence, I suppose, is at least decent mobility and heavy focus on firepower.
Arguably, you can get some Grammaton Cleric mileage out of a Bullet Dancer monk, but it's true that even there the degree of aggressive assault is kind of limited.
So now the question is... how would that look? If you wanted to build something that had that John Wick feel in PF2 without breaking the balance budget, what would it look like?
I'm missing a more accurate representation of John Wick or (to a lesser extent) a Cleric from Equilibrium. We have the gunslinger ofc, but weirdly none of the Ways even come close to representing just a straightforward, aggressive gun-user. Drifter is a melee/gun mix, Pistolero just fools around with their weapon (no built-in support for actually firing it), sniper (despite my love for this subclass) is too static, reliant on cover/concealment (ergo, lacking aggressiveness) and focused on longer ranges. Spellshot is gunslinger but slightly magical.
Vanguard is the one that comes closest, but its heavy emphasis on physically engaging the enemy and actually unremarkable damage output make it a very imperfect fit.
The essence, I suppose, is at least decent mobility and heavy focus on firepower.
Arguably, you can get some Grammaton Cleric mileage out of a Bullet Dancer monk, but it's true that even there the degree of aggressive assault is kind of limited.
So now the question is... how would that look? If you wanted to build something that had that John Wick feel in PF2 without breaking the balance budget, what would it look like?
The Slinger's Reload would be fairly easy - basically Running Reload Deluxe. 10ft Step, Stride with +5 bonus to Speed and regular Sneak. Or something similar.
Initial Deed - Free Interact to draw a two-handed firearm/xbow or a single one-handed one. As your first action on your firstturn, Stride up to half your Speed without triggering reactions as a free action. +1 to Perception checks for initiative.
Advanced Deed - (flourish) Shoot/Reload/Shoot for two actions, MAP is increased only after both attacks are made. [This one is rather sketchy at this level - Stab and Blast is a thing at level 8, but that has some serious limitation due to the melee part. Maybe only have the second shot if the first hits?]
That's about all I've got and atleast the latter could be more interesting. Sadly, I'm rather limited on the creativity front that matters here :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm missing a more accurate representation of John Wick or (to a lesser extent) a Cleric from Equilibrium. We have the gunslinger ofc, but weirdly none of the Ways even come close to representing just a straightforward, aggressive gun-user. Drifter is a melee/gun mix, Pistolero just fools around with their weapon (no built-in support for actually firing it), sniper (despite my love for this subclass) is too static, reliant on cover/concealment (ergo, lacking aggressiveness) and focused on longer ranges. Spellshot is gunslinger but slightly magical.
Vanguard is the one that comes closest, but its heavy emphasis on physically engaging the enemy and actually unremarkable damage output make it a very imperfect fit.
The essence, I suppose, is at least decent mobility and heavy focus on firepower.
Arguably, you can get some Grammaton Cleric mileage out of a Bullet Dancer monk, but it's true that even there the degree of aggressive assault is kind of limited.
So now the question is... how would that look? If you wanted to build something that had that John Wick feel in PF2 without breaking the balance budget, what would it look like?
The Slinger's Reload would be fairly easy - basically Running Reload Deluxe. 10ft Step, Stride with +5 bonus to Speed and regular Sneak. Or something similar.
Initial Deed - Free Interact to draw a two-handed firearm/xbow or a single one-handed one. As your first action on your firstturn, Stride up to half your Speed without triggering reactions as a free action. +1 to Perception checks for initiative.
Advanced Deed - (flourish) Shoot/Reload/Shoot for two actions, MAP is increased only after both attacks are made. [This one is rather sketchy at this level - Stab and Blast is a thing at level 8, but that has some serious limitation due to the melee part. Maybe only have the second shot if the first hits?]
That's about all I've got and atleast the latter could be more interesting. Sadly, I'm rather...
I think much of John Wick's badassery, if converted from movie plot armor to RPG terms, comes from a difference in levels. Sure those nameless elite have expertise, but that's compared to commoners and street thugs. So maybe 5th, when there's the proficiency bump. Meanwhile Wick is legendary, 13th+, which is a huge difference. On screen his defense relies on environmental usage and situational awareness, but that could be one way to envision level superiority too with its bonus to AC (et al). And that incredible suit.
Note that his lethality drops monumentally when facing unique opponents, a.k.a. one's nearer to his level. Thus I think Vanguard works fine, and with Gunslingers having the maximum attack rolls (alongside Fighters), having a Path that emphasizes even better offense might disrupt the power curve.Though yeah, maybe Monk (at least for Bale), given there's not much in the way of ridiculous reload trickery and they use Stances.
Trouble is that single-player story style doesn't convert well to party builds. To go alone in a published adventure, Wick would have to be Dual Class, Monk/Gunslinger at 4+ levels higher so they outrank even the bosses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're sort of right, Castilliano, but I also think the point they're making sort of touches on another issue though, that there's no like... 'regular gunslinger' Way. You can be the melee specialist, the combination weapon wielder, the pistol twirling swaggerer, the heavy weapons brute, or the stealth sniper.
But it's harder to be just a dude with a gun who's really good at that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're sort of right, Castilliano, but I also think the point they're making sort of touches on another issue though, that there's no like... 'regular gunslinger' Way. You can be the melee specialist, the combination weapon wielder, the pistol twirling swaggerer, the heavy weapons brute, or the stealth sniper.
But it's harder to be just a dude with a gun who's really good at that.
Which is ironic since the best gunslinger build is the paired shots repeater build that doesn't interact with the ways at all. It's also the easiest build to pilot.
You could also argue that sniper is the way for a "regular" gunslinger too. Nothing about it requires you to be at a long range. Covered reload is just as good for diving behind an overturned table or a pillar to reload as it is for taking cover while prone in some brush with some camo. The stealth based ones are also fine for those classic dark room scenes hunting mooks or killing those unsuspecting guards before jumping into a direct firefight.
There's also a lack of a true brute strength character, like Fezzik from the Princess Bride. Not a monk, not a barbarian, just a guy so huge and strong that he can impose his will via those means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a lack of a true brute strength character, like Fezzik from the Princess Bride. Not a monk, not a barbarian, just a guy so huge and strong that he can impose his will via those means.
A fury barbarian with certain feats is just a non magical person with frightening levels of strength
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a lack of a true brute strength character, like Fezzik from the Princess Bride. Not a monk, not a barbarian, just a guy so huge and strong that he can impose his will via those means.A fury barbarian with certain feats is just a non magical person with frightening levels of strength
I think part of the fantasy here is that they don't have to get ANGRY to leverage their strength. They're just naturally big and have the strength that comes with that. Fezzik, going with the above example is pretty chill and passive for most of the story.
There is one very specific type of character I really want to play but haven't been able to find something exactly for, a character like Slayer from dungeon fighter online or Raven from elsword. (Also to a lesser extent kayn from league of legends.)
A guy with a cursed demon arm (raven's was a robo-demon arm) that grants wild powers. Dual wields, one hand has a sword, the other hand attacks with a demonic claw. Can call upon the power in their arm to do big magical attacks. Big story elements about trying to control their powers.
Really, both were pretty clearly their games barbarian equivalent, but getting a demon claw and magic powers on a barbarian in pf2e is tough.
One mechanic I really liked in both was the choice of secondary class at higher levels; you could choose to give into your demon arm and go full berzerker, you could choose to master your demon arm and get more magical ability, or you could choose to forsake your demon arm and go full swordsman. Not sure how you would represent a choice like that in pf2e though, part of what I found fun about it was that you didn't have to pick at level 1.
Yes I was an edgy 13 year old, how can you tell?
Various things you coudl look into to play this:
- Thaumaturge. Reflavor your implements as expressions of your horrific demonic arm, and hotswapping between them as somehow aligning the arm's magics in different ways. Then grab a stance-based attack off of a monk or martial artist archetype. It's a *heavy* reflavoring, and the monk archetype part is kind of inefficient (maybe wait for a FA game?) but it should give you something with rules effects that can support the "demonic arm swordsman" fantasy reasonably well.- Living Vessel Archetype is pretty much exactly this as far as flavor is concerned: your body is the prison for a creature (demon, in this case) of significant power, and you need to spend time working to contain it, but you can also tap its power. It even offers a claw attack.
- If Living Vessel isn't enough, try Curse Maelstrom - another one of those "cursed with awesome" archetypes - not quite as dialed in, but possibly close enough to be another useful layer on.
So... it's the sort of thing that you have to assemble out of ungainly parts, with a bit of permissiveness from a friendly DM, and it really *would* prefer to have FA to play with, but... potentially doable?
Admittedly, I personally would very much like to have the "that's what this class is" version of this one, but in the meantime....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the fantasy here is that they don't have to get ANGRY to leverage their strength. They're just naturally big and have the strength that comes with that. Fezzik, going with the above example is pretty chill and passive for most of the story.There's also a lack of a true brute strength character, like Fezzik from the Princess Bride. Not a monk, not a barbarian, just a guy so huge and strong that he can impose his will via those means.A fury barbarian with certain feats is just a non magical person with frightening levels of strength
Yeah, I'm looking to be able to play an overwhelmingly strong gentle giant. Fezzik or Perrin Aybara come to mind as fitting the general archetype. A Barbarian doesn't really work for that vibe even with a lot of reflavoring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm looking to be able to play an overwhelmingly strong gentle giant. Fezzik or Perrin Aybara come to mind as fitting the general archetype. A Barbarian doesn't really work for that vibe even with a lot of reflavoring.
So... you're totally right that the game doesn't support as-is. If you have a somewhat permissive DM, though, you might be able to get somethign going, especially if they're not the sort that's inclined to exploit the barbarian's rage termination mechanic too badly.
Start with Giant Barb, but "rage" effects are always on. Sure, that means that you can never do concentration checks, but that just means that you're a bit slow, right? Then you take care of the action economy costs by saying that your character is normally super-chill. It's not that he has to spend an action to go berserk. It's that he has to spend an action to rouse himself to violence at all. Perhaps he spends his action sighing about the regrettable state of the world or something.
Once you've gone that far, the fact that you get to use your rageform in noncombat ways when not in combat for extended periods of time is worth... maybe a level 1 feat? If it were my campaign, I'd be willing to offer it for a level 1 feat. Then, as you level, and take those "getting larger" giant barb feats, you just... grow.
Yeah, I'm looking to be able to play an overwhelmingly strong gentle giant. Fezzik or Perrin Aybara come to mind as fitting the general archetype. A Barbarian doesn't really work for that vibe even with a lot of reflavoring.So... you're totally right that the game doesn't support as-is. If you have a somewhat permissive DM, though, you might be able to get somethign going, especially if they're not the sort that's inclined to exploit the barbarian's rage termination mechanic too badly.
Start with Giant Barb, but "rage" effects are always on. Sure, that means that you can never do concentration checks, but that just means that you're a bit slow, right? Then you take care of the action economy costs by saying that your character is normally super-chill. It's not that he has to spend an action to go berserk. It's that he has to spend an action to rouse himself to violence at all. Perhaps he spends his action sighing about the regrettable state of the world or something.
Once you've gone that far, the fact that you get to use your rageform in noncombat ways when not in combat for extended periods of time is worth... maybe a level 1 feat? If it were my campaign, I'd be willing to offer it for a level 1 feat. Then, as you level, and take those "getting larger" giant barb feats, you just... grow.
I'd allow that in any game I run. I just like official versions of stuff too even if only as the inspiration for more homebrew.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
tbh, I think part of the problem with executing the idea is that being freakishly strong is relatively mundane in Pathfinder.
There is an upper limit to how strong you can be and everyone who is strength-based is going to be exactly that level of strong. So being 'the strong guy' is only really an option if you're in a party with no other strong guys, because once you do those characters will be just as good as you purely because the game's math demands it.
Pathfinder 2 is a fun system, but its balance tends to normalize a lot of things which renders certain ideas out of scope. You can't really go 'all-in' on an idea (and in the opposite direction it's kind of hard to be especially dilettante in Pathfinder too).
tbh, I think part of the problem with executing the idea is that being freakishly strong is relatively mundane in Pathfinder.
There is an upper limit to how strong you can be and everyone who is strength-based is going to be exactly that level of strong. So being 'the strong guy' is only really an option if you're in a party with no other strong guys, because once you do those characters will be just as good as you purely because the game's math demands it.
Pathfinder 2 is a fun system, but its balance tends to normalize a lot of things which renders certain ideas out of scope. You can't really go 'all-in' on an idea (and in the opposite direction it's kind of hard to be especially dilettante in Pathfinder too).
Yeah, I get why they went the way they did and why they had to balance around the best stat spreads that can be made for each class but it sure seems strange that one simply can't make a Frodo Baggins type everyman who gets called to adventure. By contrast, one can never be extraordinary in any regard because every adventurer is always a paragon of their ancestry and even at their weakest and least skilled stands head and shoulders above every man at arms and hunter who isn't important to the campaign.
It's also telling that characters can't even have real flaws. You won't see a character sporting a couple of negative modifiers. You won't see many characters that don't dutifully boost their primary stats and then the three saving throw stats. You could very nearly just make 3 or 4 character templates for each class and have the Pathfinder experience for how little can be gained once one does the bare minimum of character optimization.
Sure you can. Just make sure to talk to your party first as they are going to spend most of the game keeping you alive. Just like in the books.
You literally can't though. If you follow the steps for stat generation you must apply all stat bonuses. You can try to allocate a terrible stat spread but your minimum stat will be a 10 and most of your stats will be above average or even well above average.
You would have to break the rules of the game to have a character who doesn't have several 14s on their character sheet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mounted knight.
Mounts are all about action economy. The actual benefits of being mounted are not well reflected in the game. There is little movement rate advantage - in fact it is often a disavantage. Barbarians, Monks and Rogues are often faster.
There is one feat that give you a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for the Cavalier but that takes two actions and so is only useful on the closing round. It is worse than just hitting twice.
Trampling Charge sort of works but the damage is low. Plus it is level 10. Where is the low level option?
Then there is the fact that a lance is just a terrible weapon for a human. It loses its reach, which is it's raison d'etre.
The long and the short of it, is the mechanics do a terrible job of emulating the story of a knight. I am yet to see a traditional looking knight in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure you can. Just make sure to talk to your party first as they are going to spend most of the game keeping you alive. Just like in the books.You literally can't though. If you follow the steps for stat generation you must apply all stat bonuses. You can try to allocate a terrible stat spread but your minimum stat will be a 10 and most of your stats will be above average or even well above average.
You would have to break the rules of the game to have a character who doesn't have several 14s on their character sheet.
Isn't there a rule that practically says "if you want a lower score, go for it"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't the hypothetical everyman be someone whose starting array features 3 12s and 3 14s? It's not an especially good choice (due to the tightness of the math) but it's not especially hard to do.
What are you talking about? There's a rule that practically says if you want a lower score, go for it.
I'm presuming you mean the optional rule sidebar about being able to take extra ability flaws for a boost. That doesn't solve the issue. By RAW you have to apply all ability boosts during character creation and can only take a set amount of flaws to get an additional boost.
I suppose you could combine optional rules and roll 4d6 drop the lowest until you rolled poorly enough to have an average stat character and then use the optional flaws rule to kill any stat that got to high, but the fact that you'd need to do that in the first place shows that the system wasn't designed for such a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't the hypothetical everyman be someone whose starting array features 3 12s and 3 14s? It's not an especially good choice (due to the tightness of the math) but it's not especially hard to do.
Shouldn't the everyman have stats in the 12 to 8 range with an overall modifier of zero? If Dadbod McHalfwit decides to pick up a spear and go to fighter school does he walk out of his training literally transformed into a sterling specimen of his ancestry?
What is the in-universe explanation for the player character stat spread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really feels like "you can have lower stats if you really want" is the sort of thing that doesn't even need a rule since as a GM my only response is "Are you sure? Being less capable might be less fun and you're more likely to die."
There's also no rules for "not taking a feat" when you're able to do so, but I don't think the GM is going to require you to do so.
It really feels like "you can have lower stats if you really want" is the sort of thing that doesn't even need a rule since as a GM my only response is "Are you sure? Being less capable might be less fun and you're more likely to die."
There's also no rules for "not taking a feat" when you're able to do so, but I don't think the GM is going to require you to do so.
Technically you can rule 0 anything but by RAW there isn't any way to be a PC and have average stats.
You cannot play as commoners, experts, warriors, or adepts. There is no way to play a lower-powered everyman struggling against fate in a cruel world-type game. That's something that we have lost with PF2.
I mean, with the way the game's math works, a character with a 10 in a stat isn't average so much as not really competent at relevant actions.
"Average joe" would be closer to those 12-14s (maybe even a 16 somewhere). A level 1 nobody with 10 strength is missing 70% of the time with a longsword. That's less average dude and more WHFB levels of incompetence.
A trained laborer with a +0 in their stat is going to fail more often than not at on-level tasks and be basically 50/50 at -1 (so level 0 for a level 1 character) tasks. I'm not sure you'd call someone who fails half the jobs they get hired to do and is liable to get fired about every 10 work days an average worker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we might want to be somewhat behaviorist about this- as in a thing is defined by what it does. Like there's no difference between "a fighter without a level 1 feat" and "a fighter whose level 1 feat is double slice that never picks up a second weapon." So it feels like we do this better as a character who avoids the limelight but still contributes.
So I feel like the way we build this character is less "can't possibly excel at anything" and more "avoids the spotlight but is still helpful and can make a difference. Like an infinite eye psychic who gets a "better at Aid Other" feat from their ancestry seems really good at this. You mostly Aid, cast Guidance, Spot Weakness, and do other things that help your buddies succeed but when you really need to you do eventually get the ability to cast Weird.
What we do kind of lack is the ability to do this kind of "support character" as a mundane person (so not a spellcaster or an alchemist.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot play as commoners, experts, warriors, or adepts. There is no way to play a lower-powered everyman struggling against fate in a cruel world-type game. That's something that we have lost with PF2.
There's the level 0 character variant rule in the GMG to play such characters.
I mean, with the way the game's math works, a character with a 10 in a stat isn't average so much as not really competent at relevant actions.
"Average joe" would be closer to those 12-14s (maybe even a 16 somewhere). A level 1 nobody with 10 strength is missing 70% of the time with a longsword. That's less average dude and more WHFB levels of incompetence.
A trained laborer with a +0 in their stat is going to fail more often than not at on-level tasks and be basically 50/50 at -1 (so level 0 for a level 1 character) tasks. I'm not sure you'd call someone who fails half the jobs they get hired to do and is liable to get fired about every 10 work days an average worker.
Average Joe probably should miss a lot with a sword, he's not really trained and likely just wants to avoid dying more than he wants to kill the other guy.
https://daiglelawgroup.com/new-study-on-shooting-accuracy-how-does-your-age ncy-stack-up/
You can see that the average for the studied cases as a 35% hit rate, but those numbers were bouyed by cases where the first bullet fired hit the target and ended the fight. Fights outside of a cage usually involve either an ambush or people trying to avoid getting hurt. Most fire is suppressive, most punches are feints, and most people who pull a weapon won't use it. The proper standard for landing attacks in combat should reflect this unless there is an outside factor to account for better hit rates.
Beyond combat NPC Joe isn't rolling for his daily task and his failures are probably similar to everybody's failures at work. Taking an extra break here or there, chatting with NPC Bill when there was hay to be bailed, and taking longer than expected to get his tools together. He's not failing just not getting the maximum yields. The guys that do get great yields, make the best shoes, etc. probably due to having better baseline aptitude or more experience and are likely noted for being skilled.
You cannot play as commoners, experts, warriors, or adepts. There is no way to play a lower-powered everyman struggling against fate in a cruel world-type game. That's something that we have lost with PF2.There's the level 0 character variant rule in the GMG to play such characters.
That's not really supporting a campaign at those power levels. It's obvious that you're not intended to play many sessions at that level and there's no way to level up while staying as an NPC class.
"If you’re playing these characters for more than a few sessions, consider advancing them to 1st level using the fast advancement speed (800 XP). If your group wants a longer experience at level 0, start the group without the apprentice benefits, then level up to apprentice (gaining those benefits and the apprentice adjustments for their class), and then level up to 1st level."
I think that quote from the GMG combined with a lack of NPC classes and NPC feats says it all. The scope of PF2 is firmly on cartoony super fantasy characters locked in tailored combat puzzles.
I'd really like to play a weapon master type character. A martial that doesn't really do extra damage, but has multiple weapons and easy/free ways to switch between them. Think gunslingers reloads for weapon swapping. Maybe with a free shifting rune?
A mounted knight.
Mounts are all about action economy. The actual benefits of being mounted are not well reflected in the game. There is little movement rate advantage - in fact it is often a disavantage. Barbarians, Monks and Rogues are often faster.
There is one feat that give you a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for the Cavalier but that takes two actions and so is only useful on the closing round. It is worse than just hitting twice.
Trampling Charge sort of works but the damage is low. Plus it is level 10. Where is the low level option?
Then there is the fact that a lance is just a terrible weapon for a human. It loses its reach, which is it's raison d'etre.The long and the short of it, is the mechanics do a terrible job of emulating the story of a knight. I am yet to see a traditional looking knight in the game.
Tangential yet strongly related to this: Pathfinder 2nd Edition just doesn't seem to have any support for the Charge and Brace mechanics. No Age of Empires (let alone Pathfinder 1st Edition) Knights or Spear Soldiers for you!
You cannot play as commoners, experts, warriors, or adepts. There is no way to play a lower-powered everyman struggling against fate in a cruel world-type game. That's something that we have lost with PF2.There's the level 0 character variant rule in the GMG to play such characters.
I did not know about that -- thanks for the link!
"We're Superheroes In Training -- and you know what that means!"
I would love to play a Raistlin Majere epic level PF2e character with the Staff of Magius.
A character that can redirect enemy spells. Ideally without being a caster themselves. Maybe some Thaumaturge archetype.
Disruptive Stare not enough for you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character that can redirect enemy spells. Ideally without being a caster themselves. Maybe some Thaumaturge archetype.Disruptive Stare not enough for you?
No. Thanks for the link though.
This thread is a little TL;DR for me to see if anyone else has said what I'm about to say without spend almost an hour reading.
I want a build-a-bear spell caster a la Words of Power from 1e, or Invoker from DotA2. I think the 3 action system is perfect for this kind of thing, and it hasn't happened yet and I'm a little sad about it; also the current heightening system also the cutting out of redundant Word effects that are "this thing but stronger."
A telekinetic blade dancer/swinger like Irelia from LoL or Penny from RWBY, swinging specific weapons at mid range (not telekinetic projectile, because that overrides weapon effects like runes and traits. I want something that keeps those in tact but trades off a little accuracy or damage.)
A fighting game/spectacle fighter style combo character, with move routes and status effect piling, conditional triggers and set-ups; I want move A -> B -> C round 1, C -> D -> E round 2, and E -> F and they're dead round 3. The press action could totally be complimented by an "end" or "finish" (that's not a Swashbuckler's Finisher) tag for something like that. I want a spreadsheet and flowchart that actually means something, and I don't care if it takes 15 pages of rules and a master's degree in strategy to play properly, I WANT IT GOSH DARNIT!