Top Ten things I'd like to see addressed in pathfinder 2023

[Mathmuse]

Red Griffyn wrote:

VampByDay wrote:

18)I think so too, but what would a true neutral champion look like?

GM: There is a villain terrorizing the countryside, what do you do? Fight him? Help him?
Player: I have no feelings one way or the other.

For #18:

- As others have suggested what are things that are of importance to neutral deities. This involves things like knowledge, nature, magic, etc. You can spin it many ways that the destruction of these technologies, idea, tools, etc. are what galvanize your character. Your ethos can be ensuring that these things are preserved in time for all to have equal access to because while they have potential good or evil uses, their existence is (in your mind) an essential good/necessity.
- You get to explore key words like preserve, balance, equality/equity, etc.
- Mechanically I just want to see more champion mechanics as a defense based martial and I'm not hooked on the anathema being any specific flavour. Even a mercanary could be a 'neutral champion' with an ethos of 'loyalty to who pays the most get my services' (like the golden company in game of thrones who you might say are LN).

Perhaps neutrality on a champion could offer more than one cause:

The Conservator champion could serve nature gods such as Gozreh and Fandarra.
The Librarian champion could serve knowledge gods such as Nethys and Ng the Hooded.
The Spirit Guide champion could serve psychopomps and gods of death such as Pharasma or gods of change such as Aakriti.

Their cause would be independent of good versus evil and law versus chaos, but they could still be passionate about it.

GM: There is a villain terrorizing the countryside, what do you do? Fight him? Help him?
Conservator: I shall ensure he does not damage the countryside.
Librarian: I shall advise him on his long-term goals.
Spirit Guide: I shall look after the dead and grieving.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

also a good GM could easily twist things to make a villain the players would want to impose.

If you party has a "librarian champion" or whatever, someone interested in knowledge the big bad could be a knowledge horder, or do a lot with miss information, or book burning, theres a million ways to mix it into the story.

[aobst128]

I like the idea of neutral champions because it opens up a lot more concepts and potential deities to "champion". More options are good. Plus more potential utility from champ reactions to diversify what the class can do. It's pretty one note right now. 2 with the evil champs, but we can make it 3!

[Deriven Firelion]

I can see a Neutral champion that maintains the balance or a Chaotic Neutral or Lawful neutral champion for sure. True Neutral would be hardest to play since at times you'd probably be arguing to keep some evil thing alive for the sake of balance. People would probably dislike you more than a lawful good paladin at that point.

I could see the eyes rolling as the True Neutral champion says yet again, "Maybe we should let the evil velstrac go or go and find some good angels to kill to balance this out."

[VampByDay]

Guys, guys, the true neutral champion thing was a joke. I’m sure someone could come up with a version somewhere. It was a joke. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

I think that would fall into the same category as playing the lawful stupid paladin.

An alignment isn't an all consuming A.I code that moderates you ever decision without grey area (if anything a neutral character should understand grey area best)

I'd point to the flexibility written into Druid Anathema. Alignment is a guide to help you whilst roleplaying, in a game about fun. Its not a cast iron edict designed to drive a wedge between you and the rest of the game.

We killed this devil now, but this devil killed those soldiers just then - balance.

And again, I think it would be best to pick a thing you think is anathema to balance. Not try to control balance of all things on a macro scale. you're a person not an omniscient god.

[Dubious Scholar]

Hmm. If I had to go through a list of things I'd personally like to see changed:

1) Witch, nothing to say on it that hasn't been said already.
2) Reload 1 - Gunslinger isn't quite there, and I feel these weapons are still lacking somewhat.
3) Inventor - Specifically, do something about Dual-Form Weapon, which takes a wonderfully iconic concept and butchers it with utter uselessness. How did this end up being made even worse than the playtest version?
4) More skill feats. A lot of skills still feel really anemic on options here, and taking new skill feats often feels like I'm just picking something to pick something.
5) Ancestry feat depth. Really, just give us some generic ancestry feats or something? A lot of ancestries feel lacking in choices because they only get so much page space and have to have many levels covered.

[Phntm888]

Red Griffyn wrote:

For #10:

- Starlight Span doesn't get the damage from arcane cascade so why bother enter it? It literally does more damage recharging and spell striking every turn so I'm really confused why it can't enter the stance to have an off turn where they fire off 2 arrows and move.

I do kind of agree with this one - removing the word "melee" from arcane cascade would provide a small bonus. I suspect the reason they can't benefit from Arcane Cascade was because the ability to Spellstrike every round without risking an AoO was viewed as being a sufficient damage boost (Disclosure: The GM for the game I'm playing a Laughing Shadow Magus in is taking a "common sense" reading of Arcane Cascade, in that I can stay in it once I'm in it even if I take actions besides Cast a Spell).

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Panache generation isn't the issue. Using it for finishers or getting precise strike is limited to melee weapons OR and ONLY thrown weapons with a feat tax for flying blade. So the archer, gunner, crossbow user are out in the cold.

This I view as a rather niche issue. While the swashbuckler I'm playing carries a bow just in case, more often than not I try to be in melee range of my opponents. I don't really see a swashbuckler as a primarily ranged character.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Rage isn't for ranged.

I think the Monk only has one ranged unarmed strike, and that's if you're in Wild Winds Stance, which requires a focus point to enter. Wind Crash Strikes have a range of 30'. When the final version comes out, the Kineticist might have something similar.

Paizo really doesn't seem interested in allowing ranged unarmed attacks. Animal Instinct doesn't say you can only make the strikes granted by your animal instinct, just that you gain them, so the Animal Instinct Barbarian can use Raging Thrower while they are raging. This is another one where I have a hard time seeing a barbarian who chose Cat for their Animal Instinct fighting at range. For that matter, raging with a bow seems very strange to me.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Inventor balances its 16 Starting Attack stat with getting class features like Offensive Boost. That only applies to melee strikes for armour inventors.

Don't know enough about Inventors to weigh in on this one. Might just be an oversight in the wording, though.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Thaumaturges have to pay a feat tax for ammunition and still can't get implement's empowerment on 1H+ weapons.

Playing a thaumaturge, I think the ability to reload without a free hand is a significant benefit. However, I do think that an option could be added as the Initiate benefit for the Weapon Implement, allowing you to utilize a 1H+ weapon with implement's empowerment in exchange for sacrificing the pseudo-AoO you get.

On this topic, I'll add a general thought that not every class needs to be equally effective at using every weapon they are proficient with. I'm okay with some classes generally being pushed more towards a certain playstyle or requiring a specific subclass or feat investment to play in a more unique way.

[Ganigumo]

Things I'd like to see:

As mentioned, an upgraded alchemist. Most importantly get rid of the feat and action economy taxes and please flatten out their resources so they have a relatively static amount at all levels, instead of progressing from starved to flooded. I'm fine with versatility being their thing too, but if they're not getting master offenses give them tools to be better on fails (like tying bomb debuffs to the splash damage). Additionally if we're going master offenses it would be awesome to see a split where we can get a martial alchemist, and a pf1-style caster alchemist.

Buffs to witch: Witch should get either armor or extra spells (like wiz/sorc/cler) they're the only class with neither. Some of the feats need some cleaning up/buffing as well (like the hair ones, super cool but it takes like 3 feats to get going, or the terrible spellstrike ones). Also the focus cantrips are generally quite weak for being their gimmick to make up for all the stuff they don't have, it would be nice if they were a bit better. Personally I like the idea of them getting better every time you sustain the spell, since its a unique niche (I.e Evil Eye would start at frightened 1 and increase by 1 every time its sustained). Witch isn't in nearly as bad a spot as alchemist, but its pretty much always worse than playing a different class with the same tradition.

Something to help out MAD builds a bit: The change to voluntary flaw really hits MAD builds harder than other builds. This could be something that needs investment to work like a feat that lowers multiclassing requirements, but it can be really difficult to make certain builds work now.

More ancestry feats/heritages: Some heritages are blessed with super interesting/useful ancestry feats like Tengu, Gnomes, hobgoblins & Humans, but others tend to have really boring picks It would be cool to spice up some of the less interesting feat lists.

More access to ancestry feats: Its really tough to get extras, I know there's a variant rule for it, but a class archetype that goes all in on ancestry abilities would be pretty interesting. Would be cool to see it have an option to go all in on ancestry casting or combat.

Fixing some narrative dissonance around weapons: Some things regarding weapons are a bit strange like a lack of simple axes or whips being better as a strength weapon (despite the finesse trait, because it doesn't apply to maneuvers). I get that there's some balance concerns around it, but it makes certain character concepts tough to build.

[Scarablob]

On top of all those "class upgrade" for the usual suspects (alchemist, witch, somewhat wizard, etc), here's a few think I'd like to see on pathfinder :

- An "adopted" common versatile heritage, that simply give you the "adopted ancestry" feat right from the start. Should be simple enought to implement, won't cause balance issue, allow for a lot more flavorfull options to come in play right from the start. Allow that orc baby raised in a halfling household like a proper halfling to grow into a good rogue that can use a slingstaff right from level 1, just like his brothers and sisters. Allow that "insert non human ancestry here" that was raised by the red mantis cult to grab a sawtooth saber right from level one.

- Some feat that focus on improving slings. Seriously, people are already complainning about how "reload 1" make crossbows and gun strictly worse than bows, but at least those have dedicated feats, classes and archetype to bridge the gap. Slings have the same problem, but only one halfling feat, and nothing else. Allow them to launch alchemical bombs, give them some special reaction, anything that wouldn't make me feel like I'm voluntarily nerfing myself when I decide that the main weapon of my character will be a type of sling.

- Druid stuff. Just, more of it. I know metal druids are coming, and I'm a bit curious of how they'll turn out, but I'm affraid they won't scratch the itch properly. I need a proper fungal druid. I need some way to use shape wood endlessly out of combat. Also, I need a fix for wild shape that don't force it to always grow, it would be nice. I'd also like to see insect shape lumped into regular wild shape instead of taking a feat as it have the exact same power level as animal shape, and because insect are animals too, but I think that ship have sailed unfortunately. Also, kind of in the same ballpark, but I'd it very much if an "ultimate wilderness" type of book was in the work for PF2 right now, even if it doesn't come out in 2023.

-The whole tar baphon meta plot moving forward. I don't know if the poor reception of tyran's grasp made paizo reluctant to touch it again, but it's been like 5 years that the tyran's been chilling on his isle, I think it's time for players to actually deal with his forces in some way, even if it's only his generals and not himself at first.

[Alchemic_Genius]

dmerceless wrote:

I'd rather see a neutral Champion, instead of being a Champion of neutrality, being a cause that ditches alignment-based tenets to focus entirely on your deity. So I can be a Champion of Gozreh that's just about protecting nature, for example.

My homebrew peels away all alignment components of causes and tenets, and tenets no longer have their own edicts, though causes still do. What determines your touch spell is the divine font of the diety.

It works out pretty well, since it emphasizes the diety's actual wants instead of a code that might only have tangential relevance, plus it opens up a lot of options.

I also basically soft removed alignment, since from my experience; ironically; it kinda holds the play experience back when it comes to moral and ethical dilemmas

[Rysky, Vindictive Bastard]

Temperans wrote:

True neutral... like say a... Fighter or literally any class not based on championing things?

There is no need to have a true neutral champion. If you are, then just make a Vindictive Bastard where alignment doesn't matter.

Vindictive Bastards are not Neutral Champions.

They are not alignment-less Champions.

They are fallen Champions. BIG difference.

[PossibleCabbage]

It really feels like the Champion ought to champion something. It doesn't even have to be an alignment!

Like "Nature Champions" make a lot more sense than "Champions of Gozreh who are dedicated to the tenets of Neutrality."

[Temperans]

Rysky, Vindictive Bastard wrote:

Temperans wrote:

True neutral... like say a... Fighter or literally any class not based on championing things?

There is no need to have a true neutral champion. If you are, then just make a Vindictive Bastard where alignment doesn't matter.

Vindictive Bastards are not Neutral Champions.

They are not alignment-less Champions.

They are fallen Champions. BIG difference.

Well vindictive bastards were "anything that didn't fit a regular paladin/antipaladin and their archetypes". Since that distinction is gone you can make vindictive bastards into the true neutral champion.

The difference between a champion who no longer fits their alignment and one that no longer fits the edict/anathema is indistinguishable.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It really feels like the Champion ought to champion something. It doesn't even have to be an alignment!

Like "Nature Champions" make a lot more sense than "Champions of Gozreh who are dedicated to the tenets of Neutrality."

Something about this logic doesn't quite sit right with me. Unless the point is to add a 3rd axis just to distinguish between the different neutrals. That would be a very blue/orange morality.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think there needs to be axes. I don't think there's a practical limit to the number of different Causes/Tenets that the champion has. Some of them shouldn't have anything to do with alignment or gods.

Like a Champion of the Laws of Mortality should be a thing open to all non-chaotic followers of those tenets.

[Squiggit]

I feel like PF could really use classless options for certain combat styles.

Stuff like an alternative reload action for crossbow/firearm users. Or ways to buff simple weapons if you could otherwise use martial weapons.

Stuff that feels like it's important for turning on an option but maybe would be too cumbersome in an archetype. Feels like something they could even do with general feats so we aren't just taking toughness and fleet immediately.

Options for classes in general. A lot of classes, especially post-core ones, just are severely lacking in options and feat choices.

[Red Griffyn]

Phntm888 wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

For #10:

- Starlight Span doesn't get the damage from arcane cascade so why bother enter it? It literally does more damage recharging and spell striking every turn so I'm really confused why it can't enter the stance to have an off turn where they fire off 2 arrows and move.

I do kind of agree with this one - removing the word "melee" from arcane cascade would provide a small bonus. I suspect the reason they can't benefit from Arcane Cascade was because the ability to Spellstrike every round without risking an AoO was viewed as being a sufficient damage boost (Disclosure: The GM for the game I'm playing a Laughing Shadow Magus in is taking a "common sense" reading of Arcane Cascade, in that I can stay in it once I'm in it even if I take actions besides Cast a Spell).

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Panache generation isn't the issue. Using it for finishers or getting precise strike is limited to melee weapons OR and ONLY thrown weapons with a feat tax for flying blade. So the archer, gunner, crossbow user are out in the cold.

This I view as a rather niche issue. While the swashbuckler I'm playing carries a bow just in case, more often than not I try to be in melee range of my opponents. I don't really see a swashbuckler as a primarily ranged character.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Rage isn't for ranged.

I think the Monk only has one ranged unarmed strike, and that's if you're in Wild Winds Stance, which requires a focus point to enter. Wind Crash Strikes have a range of 30'. When the final version comes out, the Kineticist might have something similar.

Paizo really doesn't seem interested in allowing ranged unarmed attacks. Animal Instinct doesn't say you can only make the strikes granted by your animal instinct, just that you gain them, so the Animal Instinct Barbarian can use Raging Thrower while they are raging. This is another one where I have a hard time seeing a barbarian who chose Cat for their Animal Instinct fighting at range. For that matter, raging with...

Swashbuckler - The class fantasy is based around using swords. But really can decompose that further to a flashy showy martial. Why can't I be Legolas doing crazy aerial flips with bow shots on the move? I point it out because its just another example of how trying to have a ranged archer fantasy is constantly punished by PF2e.

Rage is for barbarians and is states "You deal 2 additional damage with melee Strikes." I'm not sure why you're talking about monks. It wouldn't matter if you were an animal instinct barbarian or not you can't rage and get bonus damage on ranged attacks so the literal main feature doesn't work. Raging thrower can get it on thrown weapons which again is the formula of feat tax to get limited access to your class chassis features, and a big old **** you to non-thrown items.

Monk is just another example that has monastic archer stance at L1, wild winds stance at L8 (stance and a focus point), or one of ~4 ranged unarmed strike options from ancestries (i.e., leshy seedpod which is aweful, kitsune foxfire which only goes 20ft so basically a shitty thrown weapon, sprite's spark which is the same as the kitsune option, automaton laser eyes which are okay but a big walking robot isn't quite fantasy, and a L5/L9 fey dryad 2 feat combo for a hair leaf attack that doesn't have a range listed). Again, the formula of spending 1 or multiple feats to get to use baseline class chassis options and they are generally limited to half range which was essentially 30ft (i.e., thrown weapon range) prior to the new monk bow in Treasure Vault.

Inventor isn't an oversight. PF2e designers go out of their way to disengage ranged options from class options. An armour inventor can pick a stealth option which mean you can have a stealthy DEX based sneak and hide kind of build except that you can't because you're immediately at a disadvantage with base class chassis features.

Thaumaturge shouldn't need to spend a feat or have special restrictions. Already the reaction on weapon implement is limited to 10 ft, so removing it to allow 1H+ just makes no sense. That damage from things like implement empowerment are again, there to make up for the fact that you only can start with a 16 in your main attack stat. Also, there is no need even talk about the weapon implement. All kinds of thaumaturges want to use a bow without having to pick that implement. Almost none of my thaumaturges want the weapon implement.

With respect to the general thought you put. I don't fundamentally disagree. But this is a systemic system bias that is just bad game design IMO. Especially now that we can literally throw boomerangs with 60ft range, returns on a miss, and uses full STR bonus, and no need for a returning rune thanks to the thrower's bandolier. Literally better than a short bow and if that's okay fix the rest of the system.

[Rysky, Vindictive Bastard]

Temperans wrote:

Rysky, Vindictive Bastard wrote:

Temperans wrote:

True neutral... like say a... Fighter or literally any class not based on championing things?

There is no need to have a true neutral champion. If you are, then just make a Vindictive Bastard where alignment doesn't matter.

Vindictive Bastards are not Neutral Champions.

They are not alignment-less Champions.

They are fallen Champions. BIG difference.

Well vindictive bastards were "anything that didn't fit a regular paladin/antipaladin and their archetypes". Since that distinction is gone you can make vindictive bastards into the true neutral champion.

The difference between a champion who no longer fits their alignment and one that no longer fits the edict/anathema is indistinguishable.

No, they were explicitly Fallen paladins, not paladins that were just trained differently.

You can still very much Fall in P2.

“I’m going to ignore flavor, lore, and mechanics to declare my point right” is not a winning argument in a flavor/lore discussion.

[Squiggit]

Phntm888 wrote:

This I view as a rather niche issue. While the swashbuckler I'm playing carries a bow just in case, more often than not I try to be in melee range of my opponents. I don't really see a swashbuckler as a primarily ranged character.

You're not wrong, but that's sort of circular. Swashbucklers aren't ranged characters because their ranged options are super limited.

Red Griffyn wrote:

That damage from things like implement empowerment are again, there to make up for the fact that you only can start with a 16 in your main attack stat.

That's not entirely true. IE mostly exists to 'compensate' for their weird hand economy. It effectively turns their 1h weapons into 2h ones.

[Temperans]

Rysky, Vindictive Bastard wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Rysky, Vindictive Bastard wrote:

Temperans wrote:

True neutral... like say a... Fighter or literally any class not based on championing things?

There is no need to have a true neutral champion. If you are, then just make a Vindictive Bastard where alignment doesn't matter.

Vindictive Bastards are not Neutral Champions.

They are not alignment-less Champions.

They are fallen Champions. BIG difference.

Well vindictive bastards were "anything that didn't fit a regular paladin/antipaladin and their archetypes". Since that distinction is gone you can make vindictive bastards into the true neutral champion.

The difference between a champion who no longer fits their alignment and one that no longer fits the edict/anathema is indistinguishable.

No, they were explicitly Fallen paladins, not paladins that were just trained differently.

You can still very much Fall in P2.

“I’m going to ignore flavor, lore, and mechanics to declare my point right” is not a winning argument in a flavor/lore discussion.

I mean I get told constantly that "those mechanics don't matter because its from the old edition". I really do mean constantly.

Its why I gave Vindictive Bastard as an easy "don't need to champion nature" solution. Otherwise I do agree with you.

[Gobhaggo]

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Divine access is a thing for Oracles to be fair.

And Oracles should get Sorcerer/Psychic style extra repertoire considering that Divine is not good enough to fulfill certain Mystery's theme(looking at the elemental ones). It's not a good look when the only non-focus spells for flame is their cantrip for level 1-4

[JiCi]

I had to double-check for alchemists and you're right: there's no Legendary mastery. Then again I always thought it was weird that the Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary rule wasn't tied to specific levels for all classes, like "all classes at 6th level become experts", "all classes at 11th level become master" and "all classes at 16th level become legendary".

I feel like the Alchemist needs discoveries that are on par with spells, like creating a bomb that deals 1d6 points of damage/level once per day, or apply striking runes to bombs, to which it double, triple or quadrupal the damage for these, as a special case. I also wouldn't mind an archetype that resembles P1E's alchemist, to which they could mimic actual spells. Right now, any cantrip is better than the bombs.

For other classes:
- The Inventor should receive a greater feat for Manifold Modifications, allow them to add MORE innovations. Seriously, right now, an innovation can only get 2 Initial, 1 Breakthrough and 1 Revolutionary... and there's no way to increase that number.

- The Thaumaturge's Wand should be more energy damage, like Acid, Sonic and Mental. I get the feeling that this specific Wand cannot be used in a Wand Cane or similar effects.

[keftiu]

The absence of LN Champions continues to feel like a missing tooth.

[rainzax]

#10

[Laclale♪]

JiCi wrote:

- The Inventor should receive a greater feat for Manifold Modifications, allow them to add MORE innovations. Seriously, right now, an innovation can only get 2 Initial, 1 Breakthrough and 1 Revolutionary... and there's no way to increase that number.

Yeah, especially for construct innovation with intelligence route.

[AceofMoxen]

Quote:

-The whole tar baphon meta plot moving forward. I don't know if the poor reception of tyran's grasp made paizo reluctant to touch it again, but it's been like 5 years that the tyran's been chilling on his isle, I think it's time for players to actually deal with his forces in some way, even if it's only his generals and not himself at first.

this plot is getting some movement in a recent society scenario. 4-15: in glorious battle for levels 9-12, coming late June. The player summary suggests the Orcs are getting ready for a major offense. (Insert joke about ORCs vs a wizard on a coast)

[Ganigumo]

All this champion discussion reminds me of how much I want neutral champions. My Ideas were:

Lawful Neutral: Judge
-LN is a pretty easy alignment to do, its all about law, order, and contracts regardless of the morality.
True Neutral: Mediator
-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.
Chaotic Neutral: Truthseeker
-Seeks and shared the truth no matter what. Seems like it could be a "good" cause, but not all truths are good so I feel like it fits into CN

[Pronate11]

Ganigumo wrote:

-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.

Ok, but how does that fit into a party? How do they fight, and how is that different from a redeemer?

[3-Body Problem]

Pronate11 wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.

Ok, but how does that fit into a party? How do they fight, and how is that different from a redeemer?

They fight as every other champion does but with whatever unique reaction they get. As for what makes them not a redeemer, they don't seek to redeem anybody but to maintain the status quo and find common ground to lower tensions where possible. They bring emotions down and soothe grudges but don't favor good solutions over evil ones if the evil solution avoids chaos in the near term.

[Ganigumo]

Pronate11 wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.

Ok, but how does that fit into a party? How do they fight, and how is that different from a redeemer?

Tenets:

in addition to the tenets of neutrality???(Should There even be "Neutral" tenets? Maybe just unique tenets for this three)
-You must seek to mediate conflicts before they escalate to violence when possible (can never "shoot first"), in contrast to the redeemer seeking to redeem those on the wrong path, the mediator is just looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, not necessarily a good one. As an example, In a situation in which bandits are raiding farms a redeemer would try to convince the bandits to give up banditry take up gainful employment, but a mediator would work to find a solution that both parties can agree to, which may include things like: paying the bandits protection money, collectively hiring the bandits as guards etc.
-You must remain impartial during negotiations

Reaction:
Appeal to Reason:
Trigger: Someone within 15 feet of you makes an attack against someone else within 15 feet of you.
Make a diplomacy check against the attacker's Will DC. If the attacker is attacking someone who has yet to attack them or one of their allies treat the degree of success one level higher.
Critical Success: The attacker takes a -4 penalty to the attack roll and becomes stupified 2 until the end of their next turn.
Success: The attacker takes a -2 penalty to the attack roll and becomes stupified 1 until the end of their next turn.
Failure: The attacker becomes stupified 1 until the end of their next turn.
Critical Failure: You become stupified 1 until the end of your next turn.

Divine Smite:
In addition to the other effects the target takes persistent mental damage equal to your charisma modifier.

[Ched Greyfell]

The only reason I feel like the alchemist should have a high proficiency with throwing bombs isn't a power-gamey "all classes should be balanced" reason, it's from the fact that.. in PF1 they threw bombs against Touch AC. Since there is no Touch AC in PF2, they should have a really good proficiency to reflect that all they're doing is smashing a glass vial against something.
Or, at the very least, let them use their INT instead of DEX.

[Phntm888]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Swashbuckler - The class fantasy is based around using swords. But really can decompose that further to a flashy showy martial. Why can't I be Legolas doing crazy aerial flips with bow shots on the move? I point it out because its just another example of how trying to have a ranged archer fantasy is constantly punished by PF2e.

You can be Legolas doing crazy aerial flips with bow shots on the move. Elven Fighter or Ranger with Archery feats (either from class, archetype, or both) and the Acrobatics skill or the Acrobat archetype. You don't gain a mechanical benefit from doing so, but you can absolutely be a flashy, showy martial.

When you say "Legolas", I picture an Elven fighter with a bow. When you say "Swashbuckler", I picture Will Turner.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Rage is for barbarians and is states "You deal 2 additional damage with melee Strikes." I'm not sure why you're talking about monks. It wouldn't matter if you were an animal instinct barbarian or not you can't rage and get bonus damage on ranged attacks so the literal main feature doesn't work. Raging thrower can get it on thrown weapons which again is the formula of feat tax to get limited access to your class chassis features, and a big old **** you to non-thrown items.

I was talking about Monks as an example of how ranged unarmed strikes are limited in general. I brought up Animal Instinct because in your original post, you specified that Animal Instinct needed a ranged unarmed attack option. That's where the comparison came from. Yes, Rage doesn't apply to ranged attacks outside a feat tax allowing you to get the benefits on thrown weapons. I don't think is a problem. I think of archery as something that requires concentration and focus, which I find to be very much at odds with the theme of a barbarian's rage. Maybe Paizo brings back the Urban Barbarian in some way, where the Rage is more of a "combat focus" and less "Raar, angry!", and the Urban Barbarian gets the benefit with ranged weapons.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Monk is just another example that has monastic archer stance at L1, wild winds stance at L8 (stance and a focus point), or one of ~4 ranged unarmed strike options from ancestries (i.e., leshy seedpod which is aweful, kitsune foxfire which only goes 20ft so basically a shitty thrown weapon, sprite's spark which is the same as the kitsune option, automaton laser eyes which are okay but a big walking robot isn't quite fantasy, and a L5/L9 fey dryad 2 feat combo for a hair leaf attack that doesn't have a range listed). Again, the formula of spending 1 or multiple feats to get to use baseline class chassis options and they are generally limited to half range which was essentially 30ft (i.e., thrown weapon range) prior to the new monk bow in Treasure Vault.

This just further illustrates my point that Paizo isn't interested in adding ranged unarmed strike options. As for monk only having the option of monastic archer stance or Wild Winds Stance, given that the traditional D&D-style monk has always been unarmed strike focused, I'd chalk this up more to the devs keeping in pace with that tradition than any direct intent to neuter ranged builds.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Inventor isn't an oversight. PF2e designers go out of their way to disengage ranged options from class options. An armour inventor can pick a stealth option which mean you can have a stealthy DEX based sneak and hide kind of build except that you can't because you're immediately at a disadvantage with base class chassis features.

Are you sure it isn't an oversight? Have the devs stated that they intentionally chose to prevent armor inventors from being able to use ranged weapons? Or is it that they just didn't think about it? I'm not particularly inclined to assign intent when Paizo has a history of creating mechanics that they didn't quite fully think through.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Thaumaturge shouldn't need to spend a feat or have special restrictions. Already the reaction on weapon implement is limited to 10 ft, so removing it to allow 1H+ just makes no sense. That damage from things like implement empowerment are again, there to make up for the fact that you only can start with a 16 in your main attack stat. Also, there is no need even talk about the weapon implement. All kinds of thaumaturges want to use a bow without having to pick that implement. Almost none of my thaumaturges want the weapon implement.

Squiggit wrote:

That's not entirely true. IE mostly exists to 'compensate' for their weird hand economy. It effectively turns their 1h weapons into 2h ones.

Squiggit addressed the point about IE already. As for Thaumaturges not needing to spend a feat or have special restrictions, I challenge you to go hold a bow in one hand, a cup or book in the other, then draw and shoot an arrow with any kind of accuracy and without dropping anything. That is absolutely something that should require a lot of practice to be able to do competently and be reflected by taking a feat.

I brought up the weapon implement because that seems the natural place to put an option allowing Thaumaturge to use 1H+ weapons. Since the reaction is limited to 10 feet anyway, you could choose weapon implement to gain that reaction (if you chose a melee weapon) OR to be able to use a ranged 1H+ weapon that both counts as the held implement for implement's empowerment and lets you ignore the free-hand prerequisite as long as the weapon implement is the only implement being held.

Red Griffyn wrote:

With respect to the general thought you put. I don't fundamentally disagree. But this is a systemic system bias that is just bad game design IMO. Especially now that we can literally throw boomerangs with 60ft range, returns on a miss, and uses full STR bonus, and no need for a returning rune thanks to the thrower's bandolier. Literally better than a short bow and if that's okay fix the rest of the system.

Perhaps it's just me, but I haven't noticed any systemic system bias against archery, just that some classes have class features that aren't particularly effective when it comes to ranged options. I'm okay with that, personally.

As far as the boomerang goes, it is Uncommon, which means it won't always be available at every table. I personally would have made the boomerang do either d4 B base damage or have a 30 foot range, so I do actually think it's a little overtuned for my taste.

Squiggit wrote:

You're not wrong, but that's sort of circular. Swashbucklers aren't ranged characters because their ranged options are super limited.

Yeah, what I typed does read as circular logic. Let me try to clarify. If the Swashbuckler class didn't exist and I wanted to make a Swashbuckler-type character, I'd try to pattern their abilities and combat actions off of someone like Errol Flynn or Jack Sparrow, and probably make a Fighter with good Acrobatics and class feats that focus on dueling or fighting with a free-hand.

[Ganigumo]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

The only reason I feel like the alchemist should have a high proficiency with throwing bombs isn't a power-gamey "all classes should be balanced" reason, it's from the fact that.. in PF1 they threw bombs against Touch AC. Since there is no Touch AC in PF2, they should have a really good proficiency to reflect that all they're doing is smashing a glass vial against something.

Or, at the very least, let them use their INT instead of DEX.

Touch AC existed in the playtest, but they got rid of it and let casters just use their primary attribute to hit with, but alchemist didn't get the same treatment.

[Candlejake]

A big gripe i have is gunslinger and dualwielding pistols. GnG features lots and lots of pictures of dual wielding pistols but the build itself is really clunky. Pistolero is maybe the Gunslinger way implied to enable that playstyle but actually has no support whatsoever for it. Doesnt even allow you to draw two pistols with the initiative free action.

capacity works with slingers reload only because the devs said so specifically. dual weapon reload doesnt work with slinger reload at all, which would be an okay trade off it it at least reloaded both weapons.

There needs to be an actual dual wielding gunslinger way.

[Ched Greyfell]

Ganigumo wrote:

Touch AC existed in the playtest, but they got rid of it and let casters just use their primary attribute to hit with, but alchemist didn't get the same treatment.

Pretty sure I'm gonna start allowing INT to bomb throwing in my home games. I don't feel alchemists should have a hard time smashing a vial against a creature. They're not having to bypass armor or anything.

[AceofMoxen]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Touch AC existed in the playtest, but they got rid of it and let casters just use their primary attribute to hit with, but alchemist didn't get the same treatment.

Pretty sure I'm gonna start allowing INT to bomb throwing in my home games. I don't feel alchemists should have a hard time smashing a vial against a creature. They're not having to bypass armor or anything.

I think the question then becomes "what does the poisoner, mutagenist, and healer get to bring them up?"

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

A pogo stick

It’ll be up and down

[Squiggit]

AceofMoxen wrote:

Ched Greyfell wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Touch AC existed in the playtest, but they got rid of it and let casters just use their primary attribute to hit with, but alchemist didn't get the same treatment.

Pretty sure I'm gonna start allowing INT to bomb throwing in my home games. I don't feel alchemists should have a hard time smashing a vial against a creature. They're not having to bypass armor or anything.

I think the question then becomes "what does the poisoner, mutagenist, and healer get to bring them up?"

I mean strictly speaking, this would benefit all of those except a melee mutagenist, really, which probably needs some work on its own because it's in a weird spot.

Not saying it's a great change per se, but worth pointing out because some people act like alchemist specializations are exclusive when really they're closer to wizard schools and don't matter all that much (although the toxicologist level 1 bonus is kind of a big deal for action economy, sucks for other alchemists paizo designed it that way).

[Cyder]

Increase the item bonus by 2 for alchemists when using an item belonging to their specialisation. Toxicologist might need an alternative such as reliable application to they can poison even on a miss maybe with a bonus to the target's save against the initial damage/effect of the poison on a miss.

Bombers - additional +2 item bonus to hit with bombs
Chirugeon - additional +2 item bonus to counteract with antitoxins etc
Muties - + additional 2 to hit when under the effect of a combat mutagen - remove drawbacks from use of mutagens.
Toxicologist - additional +2 item bonus to hit with poison bombs, additional +2 item bonus to hit with strikes with a weapon they have applied a poison they have made using quick or advanced alchemy.

[Squiggit]

I strongly disagree with putting a bonus like that under research field, it makes using out-of-field items feel really bad (when using a variety of items is a core component of the class)... those examples are also really skewed, a mutagen gets a bonus to everything they want to use and the chirurgeon only gets a bonus to one type of item and nothing for combat functionality.

[PlantThings]

Two changes that are constantly at the forefront of my mind:

1) Enduring Alchemy should be removed as a feat. Quick Alchemy's last sentence should then be changed from "it remains potent only until the start of your next turn" to "it remains potent only until the end of your next turn."

At the very least, it's a courtesy to Double Brew and especially Alchemical Alacrity. I think it's perfectly appropriate to expect those class features to function effectively without having to take a separate feat. Alchemical_Genius already touched on this, but I think it's worth reiterating for much it smooths out for such a tiny change.

2) Oracles should get one Divine Access feat for free at 1st level. Divine Access should also at least be a level 2 feat.

With the clamor for Oracles getting more spells to better support each mystery, utilizing the already established Divine Access seems to make the most sense. I especially like how it showcases early on how integral and unique the Divine Access feat is to the class, even if some mysteries are more thirsty for it than others.

[Pronate11]

I will also point out that if you remove the drawback of mutagens entirely for mutagenists, then mutagens just becomes fancy elixirs for them. If part of the fantasy of mutagens is "alchemical power at a cost", then removing the cost for mutagenists entirely removes some of the fantasy of the subclass. Partially mitigating it or temporarily surprising it sure, but the drawbacks should always be a consideration.

[graystone]

Pronate11 wrote:

I will also point out that if you remove the drawback of mutagens entirely for mutagenists, then mutagens just becomes fancy elixirs for them. If part of the fantasy of mutagens is "alchemical power at a cost", then removing the cost for mutagenists entirely removes some of the fantasy of the subclass. Partially mitigating it or temporarily surprising it sure, but the drawbacks should always be a consideration.

Myself, I'd prefer for it to be an opt in for a drawback: I'm 1000% fine with fancy elixirs and mutagenists getting some kind of risk/reward feature for them or something else for the drawback. Having them always having a drawback may reinforce one kind of fantasy, but then cuts off another fantasy for those effects without crippling side effects.

[Red Griffyn]

Phntm888 wrote:

Perhaps it's just me, but I haven't noticed any systemic system bias against archery, just that some classes have class features that aren't particularly effective when it comes to ranged options. I'm okay with that, personally. ....

Lets say we consider only martials because the casters weren't going to be great weapon users of melee or ranged attacks. That gives us:

Barbarian - Can't use most ranged with rage, needs a feat for thrown weapons.

Champion - Champion reaction needs you, the damaging enemy, and ally within 15 ft. Essentially, limiting you to thrown weapon range.

Fighter - Literal archery feats are trap options. Double Shot and Triple shot drop DPR (except against CR-2 enemies or lower) until you get to mobile shot stance at much higher levels.

Monk - Spend 1 feats to get ranged attacks with bows or 2 feats to enter a stance to throw shurikens. Limit range on those to 1/2 first increment which is likely within 30ft with shortbow. Somewhat patched by TV monk bow.

Swashbuckler - Precise Strike and finishers only work with melee weapons unless you spend 1 feat for thrown weapons only.

Rogue - Sneak attack will work with ranged, but requires a way to get flatfooted at range which are all outside the class! Thief dex to damage doesn't work on non-melee weapons.

Magus - No arcane cascade even though its way more optimal to never enter it and just spellstrike/recharge every turn.

Thaumaturge - fake hand juggling issue manifested out of thin air that could have been resolved by just 'wearing' your implements like in PF1e. Now means you have to spend a L1 feat for all non 1H+ weapons and all 1H+ weapons can't work with implement empowerment. Doesn't have a starting 18 attack stat.

Inventor - Doesn't have a starting 18 attack stat and as mentioned armor inventors don't get to play/have fun with their build in offensive class boosts.

Investigator - Honestly its the one class I know very little about so lets assume it works as a counter to my point.

Gunslinger - Singular Expertise prevents top level proficiency in bows. You only get it on crossbows and firearms. Since they have the reloading property you do worse damage and struggle with tight action economy.

Summoner - Summoner doesn't get the weapon scaling and the eidolon literally can't use weapons. Must spend a L2 feat for a 30ft ranged eidolon option.

Ranger - FINALLY a class that can go for flurry or one big hit with precision without any class chassis elements being denied to it.

Alchemist - Literally doesn't get above expert in bombs or unarmed strikes. Certainly doesn't get it with bows and doesn't have a starting 18 attack stat.

That means 2 of 14 classes can effectively use ranged weapons like bows with all the class features and feat lines within the class. You may not have noticed a systemic bias but it is there.

Attempts to say 'my vision of a swashbuckler or a x doesn't include bows' is not a convincing argument. Everyone can have a varied sense or idea of what belongs in a class or not. One person's lack of imagination of a design space is easily combated by those with that imagination, novel character idea, or fantasy they want realized (just look at the raging debate about neutral champions and the folks saying well what would that even mean, and the equal number of folks saying THIS or THAT). I can imagine an archer with derring do like the green arrow, robin hood, or whoever from existing fantasy that could easily fit within the swashbuckler subclasses of Braggart, Battle Dancer, Gynmast, and Wit. Sounds to me more like the class name of swashbuckler is the issue since it forces people to only view the class through a myopic lens.

As it stands ranged combatants, especially bow users, have to jump through multiple feat taxes and hoops to even hope to maybe use their class features. Even then in most cases it still comes at a massive cost which tends to be the literal range that those weapons even offer as their one advantage which is already taxed in weapon dice size, and strapping on negative weapon traits like volley.

If they thought ranged weapons were so overpowered they should have nerfed the weapons NOT the class features. As it stands its essentially stand within 15-30ft of my monsters or lose big chunks of your defining class features. That is bad game design.

[gesalt]

Hey now, mobile shot stance is also a trap.

But, fighter has debilitating shot at 10 which is fantastic and can do truly filthy things with their high accuracy, the doorknob spellheart for auto-blind on crit, bola shot for auto prone on hit with chance of auto-stun vs low ref enemies and an immobilize on crit from bow spec so they can't even stand without blowing an action removing the immobilize first.

Get those buffs and debuffs going and you can have some good fun with it.

[Squiggit]

Red Griffyn wrote:

That means 2 of 14 classes can effectively use ranged weapons like bows with all the class features and feat lines within the class. You may not have noticed a systemic bias but it is there.

This is a bit misleading. Your criticisms of the thaumaturge and inventor aren't really issues with ranged weapons but more with specific pieces of gear or builds. A weapon inventor or construct inventor can use a bow just fine. A thaumaturge can use any 1h ranged weapon just fine... they can't use bows or rifles, but they can't use greatswords or halberds either.

Likewise saying that inventors or thaumaturges not being able to start with an 18 in their attacking stat is anti-ranged is disingenuous, because they can't start with an 18 if they're melee either. How is that a specifically anti-range thing?

Your complaint seems to more be that there's one specific weapon you like and you dislike that not every class can use it. Which is fair, but materially different than how you're representing it (and extends far beyond range weapons).

[Temperans]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

Perhaps it's...

Lets say we ...I can imagine an archer with derring do like the green arrow, robin hood, or whoever from existing fantasy ...

Not going to comment on the other stuff since I still need to process it, but regarding this bit it already exists in the pathfinder universe.

The one and only Hooded Champion Ranger Archetype. An archetype replacing Ranger's favored enemy (Hunt Prey in PF2) with Swashbuckler's Panache but applying it to archery.

Maybe we'll get it when they release the PF2 Advanced Class Guide.

[Gortle]

Ganigumo wrote:

All this champion discussion reminds me of how much I want neutral champions. My Ideas were:

Lawful Neutral: Judge
-LN is a pretty easy alignment to do, its all about law, order, and contracts regardless of the morality.
True Neutral: Mediator
-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.
Chaotic Neutral: Truthseeker
-Seeks and shared the truth no matter what. Seems like it could be a "good" cause, but not all truths are good so I feel like it fits into CN

I'd like to see more different Champions. But to do it I'd have to get more into their philospohies and Golarion is pretty light weight most of the time. Also the outlook of the character needs to be protective because of the nature of the Champions mechanics. In my opinion there is certainly room for more LG, and LN options.

[JiCi]

Candlejake wrote:

There needs to be an actual dual wielding gunslinger way.

That could be a "simple" mechanical enhancement for firearms with the Capacity trait. If there's something that rotates the next barrel automatically after each shot, that would work.