Potential Changes to Core 2 Classes

[Red Griffyn]

In the spirit of the OP for the thread. Here are my suggestions. Hoping the Paizo gods are listening and CR2 isn't too late to influence:

Alchemist
- Key Ability Score (KAS) selection of STR, DEX, or INT
- Expert/Master Master Proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, Simple Weapons, and Bombs at L5 and L13.
- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs
- Increase low level infusion count to give more resources at early levels or provide the perpetual infusions at L1.
- Weaken bombs/alchemical items overall to justify these buffs to the class
- Give auto scaling E/M/L in craft as a class feature at L2/7/15.
- Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger. Maybe as a L6 feat. The current scaling doesn't make a ton of sense.
- Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped)

Barbarian
- Give the animal barbarian a 1D4 ranged unarmed thrown strike at L1 (maybe 30ft?) so they aren't option-less for ranged options.
- Give ways to mitigate the -1AC (go see Barbarian+ for ideas because their barbarians are way more fun than baseline barbarians in core).
- Maybe extend rage length to 2 minutes. It really sucks to drop out mid combat on the rare 'runs long combat'
- Remove the feat tax on ranged options and just make rage work with thrown weapons with no feat tax for raging thrower.
- Change the superstition instinct anathema to allow spells/magic items/etc. from allies.
- Move raging resistance to L5

Champion
- Fix the whole what gives focus points language so deities domain works (not sure if this has been errata'd yet)
- Allow more open selection of each cause for all kinds of traditionally good (holy) or evil (unholy). The mechanics for the antipaladin are really cool (e.g., a selfish champion reaction, intimidation focused, etc.) but are gated behind being evil (basically removes it from 90% of games out there).
- Significantly improve the L2 feat options. They're really not great and its almost always better to take some multiclass at this level.
- Consider extending the range of reactions or creating a cause that is more considerate/less bounding on a ranged champion. PF1e has the Divine Hunter, perhaps there could be a nature themed champion that has a less impactful reaction out to 40-60ft.
- Extend the blade ally free runes for all causes to all causes (i.e., fearsome would still be cool on a holy champion).
- Include a few more of the weirder less taken blade ally runes in the base selection and other feats that boost options (e.g., crushing, extending, etc.) from what has been published since core.
- For Champion MC make the armour auto scaling with your class proficiency just like the sentinel archetype.
- Make focus points qualify as a basic spell casting feature so champions can activate cast a spell magic items without 2 feats in a caster class (I think its okay to have monks/rangers/champions with built in focus point features spells allowed to do this).

Investigator
- No idea, not that knowledgeable about its mechanics.

Monk
- Remove ki spell feat tax. Give them ki strike at L1 for free so all monks have ki points as a base class feature. Or at least remove the higher level ki spell restrictions requiring you to have a L1 ki focus spell.
- Consolidate monk weapons feats/stances into just the monastic weaponry feat (i.e., no stance for bows or shurikens, etc.). Remove the short/longbow because now we have a monk bow.
- Make ki spells qualify as a basic spell casting feature so monks can activate cast a spell magic items without 2 feats in a caster class (I think its okay to have monks/rangers/champions with built in ki spells allowed to do this).
- Consider more diversity/boost in power to monk weapons. It has to balance the fighter and every other martial getting flurry of blows at L10 with a MC. But perhaps there is a way to class lock the better options so they can get up to 1D10s or anything equivalent to 1D8 finesse/Backstabber/agile stances.

Oracle
- I liked the mix and match of PF1e oracles with mysteries/curse effects. However, now that the game designer has forced the combinations together,none of the benefits from mysteries appear to be worth the downsides of the associated curses. To me this whole class needs a re-balance and a significant boost in power of the mystery benefits if they want to keep the current curse downsides.
- Remove the divine access feat tax as they should just get to know their deities spells. It is such a feel bad use of a limited class feat option.
- Let spell repetoire (i.e., spontaneous casters) use both kinds of staff spell charge mechanics. The prepared spell-caster one is way better.
- There are other generic caster fixes, but they're likely outside the scope of what is happening and would impact all caster classes.

Sorcerer
- At least one CHA based caster should get the L6 wizard feat 'convincing illusion' cross listed. If not the bard or captivator archetype then the sorcerer please.
- Let spell repetoir (i.e., spontaneous casters) use both kinds of staff spell charge mechanics. The prepared spell-caster one is way better.
- L1 Counterspell feat should also allow you to react/use the shield cantrip or w/e to just give a save to the spell for allies or penalize to hit if a spell attack roll. Having an always on/available but not burning up your resources option would be great. Maybe even just give this to all sorcerers at L1 to mitigate the feat tax.
- Build in the evolution feats into the class chassis at the appropriate levels.
- L10 Quickened casting should be boosted from once per day to once per hour. Its super limited at this point.
- There are other generic caster fixes, but they're likely outside the scope of what is happening and would impact all caster classes.

Swashbuckler
- Remove ranged weapon feat tax (L1 flying blade) and just build it into the precise strike class feature. I'd love to see a bow based 'robin hood esc' character so maybe precise strike is 1-3 less or halved for longer increment ranged weapons for balance?
- Give and autoscaling style based skill that boosts to E/M/L at L2/7/15.
- Boost precise strike static weapon bonus damage for 'not doing a finisher' so people don't feel so pressured into doing finishers when it will be near impossible to regain panache.
- Murder the sacred cow of dex to damage and just... give it to swashbucklers. They are going to not have sneak attack (precise strike doesn't make up for it here because finishers prevent more attacks)/less skills/using 1D8 finesse or lower weapon dice. This also frees them up on having to bump STR/DEX/CON/WIS for melee prowess so they can just do DEX/CON/WIS/(STR or CHA) based on what skill their style uses.

[Squiggit]

WatersLethe wrote:

I would like any barbarian to be able to get the equivalent of medium armor while unarmored, not just animal barbarians. I just like the idea of a big burly low dex combatant who doesn't wear armor.

Unarmored + Strong is a such a trope-y combination, it's kind of a huge bummer that there's no way to actually enable it outside a couple really specific options.

[PlantThings]

These are quite specific so I'm not holding my breath, but the general idea is giving some Sorcerer and Oracle focus spells another look. The few that live rent free in my head:

Dread Secret could use a clarification on its contradictory duration entry vs duration detailed in the success effect (until the start of your next turn vs until the end of your next turn).

The Elemental Sorcerer's elemental type damage for Air, Earth, and Water could be versatile Slashing, Piercing, and Cold respectively, just so they're not all plain Bludgeoning.

Horrific Visage being a strictly inferior Dirge of Doom that costs a focus point is rough until it's heightened to 5th level. I think it can reasonably have the 5th level effect from the start.

Life Link is primed to simply heighten (+2) to save on text space for the book. Totally just for that reason, and not anything else...

[kaid]

belgrath9344 wrote:

alchemist getting master proficiency in bombs. please pazio please

This is one of my wishes. It is basically a martial chassis it should at least at some point gain master proficiency in bombs. Splash damage helps but it is a hard selling point of being better at doing stuff when you miss instead of I actually hit people with my bombs to blow them up. Given we have inventors and investigators getting master in weapons just does not seem like it would be a huge issue that a martial chassis character gets master prof in their weapon their class is designed to be really skilled with.

[Squiggit]

I'm not going to say no to Alchemist improvements but master proficiency in specifically bombs would feel pretty bad for alchemists that use weapons or unarmed attacks as part of their kit (poisons, mutagens, healers with backup weapons, generalists who can't throw bombs all day...)

Especially since focused Bomber is already arguably in the most consistent spot out of any focused build.

If broad master-grade proficiencies are too big an ask for the power budget, I'd rather see them get something else entirely than selective proficiency (and definitely not research-field based proficiency either).

[Karmagator]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Allow more open selection of each cause for all kinds of traditionally good (holy) or evil (unholy). The mechanics for the antipaladin are really cool (e.g., a selfish champion reaction, intimidation focused, etc.) but are gated behind being evil (basically removes it from 90% of games out there).

With alignment gone, I wouldn't be surprised if the selection opened up, but only within the former good and evil sides of the coin. The mechanics simply do not match, the antipaladin least of all. It is literally pure, senseless destruction of everything including yourself. No matter what happens to the tenets of good, that's not happening.

[egindar]

The flavor? Yeah, for sure. But the mechanics? Other than the damage type (which may change with alignment's removal), I can see it being reflavored as a sort of flagellant/martyr relatively easily.

[YuriP]

Red Griffyn wrote:

In the spirit of the OP for the thread. Here are my suggestions. Hoping the Paizo gods are listening and CR2 isn't too late to influence:

Alchemist
- Key Ability Score (KAS) selection of STR, DEX, or INT
- Expert/Master Master Proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, Simple Weapons, and Bombs at L5 and L13.
- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs
- Increase low level infusion count to give more resources at early levels or provide the perpetual infusions at L1.
- Weaken bombs/alchemical items overall to justify these buffs to the class
- Give auto scaling E/M/L in craft as a class feature at L2/7/15.
- Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger. Maybe as a L6 feat. The current scaling doesn't make a ton of sense.
- Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped)

Barbarian
- Give the animal barbarian a 1D4 ranged unarmed thrown strike at L1 (maybe 30ft?) so they aren't option-less for ranged options.
- Give ways to mitigate the -1AC (go see Barbarian+ for ideas because their barbarians are way more fun than baseline barbarians in core).
- Maybe extend rage length to 2 minutes. It really sucks to drop out mid combat on the rare 'runs long combat'
- Remove the feat tax on ranged options and just make rage work with thrown weapons with no feat tax for raging thrower.
- Change the superstition instinct anathema to allow spells/magic items/etc. from allies.
- Move raging resistance to L5

Champion
- Fix the whole what gives focus points language so deities domain works (not sure if this has been errata'd yet)
- Allow more open selection of each cause for all kinds of traditionally good (holy) or evil...

I liked many suggestions but...

Red Griffyn wrote:

Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger

Fells too strong specially when compared to spellcaster MC.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped)

I may agree for some mutagens but I don't think that quicksilver mutagen drawback is so bad. It's basically Drained 2 condition with a shorter duration while it's benefit too many skills and ranged/finesse attacks.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Give the animal barbarian a 1D4 ranged unarmed thrown strike at L1

I agree but it's hard to do a lore explanation to this.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Give ways to mitigate the -1AC

I disagree just give a way to circumvent this iconic drawback it's just a trial to make rage more OP to me.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Maybe extend rage length to 2 minutes

I don't like. It's basically make rage more OP we already have with Second Wind. IMO may be turn Second Wind as a class feature nothing more.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Change the superstition instinct anathema to allow spells/magic items/etc. from allies

IMO we can simply ignore or remove this instinct of switch to another. It's hard as lore view point to selective allow some spellsources but not others.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Move raging resistance to L5

Too much resistance to such low level specially for a class with so much HP.

Red Griffyn wrote:

For Champion MC make the armour auto scaling with your class proficiency just like the sentinel archetype

I disagree. Champion archetype is already considered a very strong and versatile archetype option this would made it too OP and would make Sentinel archetype basically useless.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Make focus points qualify as a basic spell casting feature...

I understand you point once that Focus Spells basically gives a character a tradition DC but I don't think that Paizo designers want that Focus Spells could be used in that way. The current focus spell concept is more like a special power (that substitute the old supernatural abilities) than really a fully spellcasting ability.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Remove ki spell feat tax. Give them ki strike at L1 for free so all monks have ki points as a base class feature. Or at least remove the higher level ki spell restrictions requiring you to have a L1 ki focus spell.

I agree with removal of ki spell requirements from other monks focus spells but I disagree with the proposed solutions.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Make ki spells qualify as a basic spell casting feature so monks can activate cast a spell magic items without 2 feats in a caster class (I think its okay to have monks/rangers/champions with built in ki spells allowed to do this).

- Consider more diversity/boost in power to monk weapons. It has to balance the fighter and every other martial getting flurry of blows at L10 with a MC. But perhaps there is a way to class lock the better options so they can get up to 1D10s or anything equivalent to 1D8 finesse/Backstabber/agile stances.

Are very interesting proposal that I like and makes sense into a monk fantasy. Maybe we can consider to put the monk weapons boost (like increase dice size) into the "Monastic Weapons Stance".

Red Griffyn wrote:

I liked the mix and match of PF1e oracles with mysteries/curse effects. However, now that the game designer has forced the combinations together,none of the benefits from mysteries appear to be worth the downsides of the associated curses. To me this whole class needs a re-balance and a significant boost in power of the mystery benefits if they want to keep the current curse downsides.

I agree that some mystery needs rework but there's also very good mysteries like Battle Oracles that's currently well balanced and OK to me.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- At least one CHA based caster should get the L6 wizard feat 'convincing illusion' cross listed. If not the bard or captivator archetype then the sorcerer please.

I agree. Make sense to do this for bards and some faerie sorcery bloodline.

Red Griffyn wrote:

- Let spell repetoir (i.e., spontaneous casters) use both kinds of staff spell charge mechanics.

I don't like. I like as staves works today with them giving more flexibility to prepared casters while give more spell options to spontaneous ones.

Red Griffyn wrote:

L1 Counterspell feat should also allow you to react/use the shield cantrip or w/e to just give a save to the spell for allies or penalize to hit if a spell attack roll. Having an always on/available but not burning up your resources option would be great. Maybe even just give this to all sorcerers at L1 to mitigate the feat tax.

I don't like too much of this idea. Maybe is better to merge shield cantrip and Forbidding Ward into same cantrip. Yet this can be too OP for a cantrip IMO even if you use a feat to do this.

[Karmagator]

I don't know, I quite like the idea of extending rage's uptime. I'd even go as far as to make it 10 minutes - to better fit the usual pattern - but allow you to stop raging after 1 min. It only matters very rarely, but I don't think it's fair to put an arbitrary timer on a class' main feature. Especially as functionally everything you get riffs off of rage.

Second Wind is almost mandatory anyway, as you are likely to kiss the ground sooner or later. I'm not a fan of that either. Rage is already balanced internally via substantial drawbacks and taking an action, so why exactly is the cooldown necessary? There are thematic concerns - raging presumably takes a lot of energy - but that seems like a flimsy excuse to me.

[Red Griffyn]

Karmagator wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Allow more open selection of each cause for all kinds of traditionally good (holy) or evil (unholy). The mechanics for the antipaladin are really cool (e.g., a selfish champion reaction, intimidation focused, etc.) but are gated behind being evil (basically removes it from 90% of games out there).

With alignment gone, I wouldn't be surprised if the selection opened up, but only within the former good and evil sides of the coin. The mechanics simply do not match, the antipaladin least of all. It is literally pure, senseless destruction of everything including yourself. No matter what happens to the tenets of good, that's not happening.

That is the current flavour text. We can separate it from the mechanics and easily make something more flexible:

- LE - A Tyrant could be an inquisitor (or call it something else that doesn't have legacy baggage) that will do 'whatever it takes' for its deity and accept no deviations from their holy word. Using intimidation, intense scrutiny/techniques to seek answers, etc. Change all of the 'weaker than you' type statements in its tenets with "others who worship another deity"

- NE - A Desecrator could be a 'self preservationist, hedonist, Deceiver, or similar'. Always trying to twist events/ideologies to benefit your self. You aren't subverting/corrupting everything, you're simply always out for yourself.

- CE - Antipaladin could be a Pain Taster, Martyr or Similar. Someone that punishes them self/opens themselves up to increased risk/pain/injury for an equally selfish gain.

I just think that most of the good/evil champions right now could simply be re-flavoured as selfless/selfish as the main deliminator and open up the mechanics more broadly without smuggling in the existing good (holy) or evil (unholy) baggage. Fundamentally and mechanically its a tank class that is different from fighters because its high defence instead of high offence. I mean you could have a selfless (within the scope of your god's followers) champion following an evil god and port over the good champion reactions. If we're opening up the can of worms, I feel like we should open it all the way up instead of just substituting good/evil for holy/unholy and calling it a day.

[Red Griffyn]

To YuriP:

1.) Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger

* Feel Fells too strong specially when compared to spellcaster MC

-> Really depends on the power balance of alchemical items and spells. Alchemical items are much weaker on balance than spells right now because the item DCs never scale and you don't get access to quick/powerful alchemy to boost the item DCs. At level -4 you're basically getting the same scaling (which is half level until L10 then its level-5) without super janky scaling (i.e. 3 at 6, 5 at 10, 7 at 12, and +1 every level after that). You're always 1 alchemy item 'rank' (i.e., minor, moderate, major, etc.) behind a full alchemist. As well spell casters open up items and spell slots whereas the alchemist is just getting items.

2.) Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped)

* I may agree for some mutagens but I don't think that quicksilver mutagen drawback is so bad. It's basically Drained 2 condition with a shorter duration while it's benefit too many skills and ranged/finesse attacks.

-> Honestly this is one of the worst ones. You're forced to use this item to maintain your attack bonus at highest levels because the item bonus is one higher than weapon strikes. But making you a 6hp/level martial that has to sit within 20ft (i.e. 1 stride) puts you in severe danger. -2 on fortitude is just aweful. Many of the other ones are just -2 to a save, which I think is way to high a cost in this game for +x to a subset of skills.

3.) Give the animal barbarian a 1D4 ranged unarmed thrown strike at L1

* I agree but it's hard to do a lore explanation to this.

-> Just make it a projection of your animal spirit. Like a spiritual image/tendril of frog, deer, etc can be projected out of you.

4.) Give ways to mitigate the -1AC

* I disagree just give a way to circumvent this iconic drawback it's just a trial to make rage more OP to me.

-> I'm not saying it should be free, but Barbarians+ has great ideas. One is that you have to take x amount of damage, or have to move at least 10 feet, or other means. Makes for far more interesting options than static rage and smash play. Also that -1 and additional -1 from giant makes the barbarian a glass cannon in some cases and I don't think that feels right for the class to me.

5.) Maybe extend rage length to 2 minutes

* I don't like. It's basically make rage more OP we already have with Second Wind. IMO may be turn Second Wind as a class feature nothing more.

-> Could work. I agree with others that because its the key feature of the class and since you can't do any cool things without being raging that there should be more fundamental ways to mitigate dropping out of it if you GM decides you have short successive combats with 1-2 round heal up rests or a fight that goes a little longer, etc. I don't think its that much of a buff to be honest because it only comes up 5% of the time. But man does it suck when it does. If people have to stop for a 10 minute heal/focus/rest then it already 'doesn't' boost power so I don't think there is anything to really fear here.

6.) Change the superstition instinct anathema to allow spells/magic items/etc. from allies

* IMO we can simply ignore or remove this instinct of switch to another. It's hard as lore view point to selective allow some spellsources but not others.

-> The way it is written, it is a NPC option masquerading as a Player option. The anathema needs to be pulled back. Maybe flavour it has you are highly suspicious and distrustful of others. However, once someone gains your trust by doing x/y/z (like a particular party you adventure with who has saved your life), that trust allows you to remove your supersitions about their culture/way of life. If you don't like that, maybe even if you could not accept magic while raging only (because you've lost all rationale/control of yourself so your predjuices bubble to the surface) that would be a step in the right direction to allow one of these PCs to even remotely play well in a party.

7.) Move raging resistance to L5

* Too much resistance to such low level specially for a class with so much HP.

-> its con+3 at L9. So its probably ~6 or 7 for your entire career starting at L9 to select things. I think my major issue is that I'd like it if you got something at L1 and it scaled with level as opposed to just being this static blob you get at L9. Even it it was half level (minimum 1) but received at L1 (separate from the rage feature so only barbarians get it) I think that would be better.

8.) For Champion MC make the armour auto scaling with your class proficiency just like the sentinel archetype

* I disagree. Champion archetype is already considered a very strong and versatile archetype option this would made it too OP and would make Sentinel archetype basically useless.

-> I honestly don't think its that big a deal. Sentinel is picked only for this option and the +4 bulwark to all reflex feat at L10 (so maybe that needs a boost). Maybe let the L12 feat provide the scaling instead of the dedication so it lines up with most classes that get Expert at L13. But I don't think they should have to sink another feat and leaving it only at expert is pointless. The other benefit to sentinel is you don't have to pick any anathemas or causes to get it, so there isn't as much baggage.

9.) Make focus points qualify as a basic spell casting feature...

* I understand you point once that Focus Spells basically gives a character a tradition DC but I don't think that Paizo designers want that Focus Spells could be used in that way. The current focus spell concept is more like a special power (that substitute the old supernatural abilities) than really a fully spellcasting ability.

-> The intent is to let them use magic items with the 'cast a spell' activation. You can chant to the nature spirits, or whisper sweet nothings to a god, or focus your inner ki, etc. You can already do this with the 'trick magic item' skill feat, but I think requiring a roll and additional action to activate things just removes all the fun you can have with items in combat. Maybe the skill feat could be boosted to say 'if you have a focus point' activation becomes a free action and no skill check is required (removing the skill check is just about removing needless rolls,but if you want one maybe having FPs also gives you a +2 or +4 to the check).

10.) Remove ki spell feat tax. Give them ki strike at L1 for free so all monks have ki points as a base class feature. Or at least remove the higher level ki spell restrictions requiring you to have a L1 ki focus spell.

* I agree with removal of ki spell requirements from other monks focus spells but I disagree with the proposed solutions.

-> The suggestion to give it for free is to just remove the need to pick and choose. I think having ki has, for the most part, been integral to the monk class identities. It was strange not to have it in 2e and the truth is there are so many good monk feats that I think if you do this you can increase the prevalence of non-human or not adopted by human monks.

11.) Consider more diversity/boost in power to monk weapons. It has to balance the fighter and every other martial getting flurry of blows at L10 with a MC. But perhaps there is a way to class lock the better options so they can get up to 1D10s or anything equivalent to 1D8 finesse/Backstabber/agile stances.

* Are very interesting proposal that I like and makes sense into a monk fantasy. Maybe we can consider to put the monk weapons boost (like increase dice size) into the "Monastic Weapons Stance".

-> The problem you'll have is if a MC can 'pick it up at L12' it just delays the problem. So really it needs to be in the monk chassis. Like a version of powerful fists that boosts all monk weapon dice by 1 size (but only for monks)

12.) I liked the mix and match of PF1e oracles with mysteries/curse effects. However, now that the game designer has forced the combinations together,none of the benefits from mysteries appear to be worth the downsides of the associated curses. To me this whole class needs a re-balance and a significant boost in power of the mystery benefits if they want to keep the current curse downsides.

* I agree that some mystery needs rework but there's also very good mysteries like Battle Oracles that's currently well balanced and OK to me.

-> That mystery is a trap though. You're a caster class chassis trying to fight with weapons. You're -1 behind for half your levels since your KAS isn't in STR or DEX, and you're another -2 behind at from L5-L11 and L13+ since you get delayed expert weapon proficiency and never get master. Since you're forced to strike to avoid a -2 to AC you're stuck with really crappy AC or a super tight turn rotation with basically no benefit. Like.. the warpriest is better and that is a bad option as well.

13.) Let spell repertoire (i.e., spontaneous casters) use both kinds of staff spell charge mechanics.

* I don't like. I like as staves works today with them giving more flexibility to prepared casters while give more spell options to spontaneous ones.

-> never used or would consider using the spontaneous staff option. Why should wizards get to increase their flexibility with additional staff charges, but a spontaneous caster has to give up a slot and a charge to cast? I think its clear the prepared caster is getting more power here because they're increasing the total resources they have whereas a spontaneous caster is likely burning extra resources.

14.) L1 Counterspell feat should also allow you to react/use the shield cantrip or w/e to just give a save to the spell for allies or penalize to hit if a spell attack roll. Having an always on/available but not burning up your resources option would be great. Maybe even just give this to all sorcerers at L1 to mitigate the feat tax.

* I don't like too much of this idea. Maybe is better to merge shield cantrip and Forbidding Ward into same cantrip. Yet this can be too OP for a cantrip IMO even if you use a feat to do this.

-> I just think casters need some better resource-less reactions. Casting shield costs an action, using counter-spell requires a spell slot. You aren't expending a resource in the same way for other class reaction options like AoO, Stand Still, etc.

[Karmagator]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Allow more open selection of each cause for all kinds of traditionally good (holy) or evil (unholy). The mechanics for the antipaladin are really cool (e.g., a selfish champion reaction, intimidation focused, etc.) but are gated behind being evil (basically removes it from 90% of games out there).

With alignment gone, I wouldn't be surprised if the selection opened up, but only within the former good and evil sides of the coin. The mechanics simply do not match, the antipaladin least of all. It is literally pure, senseless destruction of everything including yourself. No matter what happens to the tenets of good, that's not happening.

That is the current flavour text. We can separate it from the mechanics and easily make something more flexible:

[...]

I'd also say the mechanics don't track, ignoring the damage types for obvious reasons. All of them are fundamentally about selfishness and retribution.

The alternative version you describe are a good attempt, but they are what would formerly be "neutral" at best. For example, there is really no way to frame "the ends justify the means" (in case of the Tyrant) in a way that is "good".

All apart from the antipaladin I could see as not having to be strictly evil (or I guess unholy now), but I doubt Paizo are willing to stretch it any further than that.

[Squiggit]

I wonder if Evil Champions might get rebalanced a bit in an anti-alignment update.

They seem kind of designed to be bad on purpose as written, presumably as part of them being an evil package. But with the changes potentially loosening things up a little that paradigm might not feel as good.

[Karmagator]

Squiggit wrote:

I wonder if Evil Champions might get rebalanced a bit in an anti-alignment update.

They seem kind of designed to be bad on purpose as written, presumably as part of them being an evil package. But with the changes potentially loosening things up a little that paradigm might not feel as good.

Isn't the core problem of evil champions alignment damage (and necrotic damage to a lesser extent)? As in, their damage types only work against very few enemies you are likely to face? Otherwise, they don't seem particularly weak, except arguably the antipaladin.

So the answer might not come from the evil champions themselves. It might just be that unholy damage affects all creatures, not just holy ones, for example. I could see that happening, at least.

Or do you have something else in mind?

[Errenor]

The restriction preventing swapping out bloodline granted spells in Sorcerer's repertoire must go, that one:
"This spell can be a cantrip, but you can’t swap out bloodline spells."
It turns out, Psychics already don't have one for their conscious minds!
Also, bloodline focus spells need to be rebalanced and useless ones to become better.
My GM houseruled Dim the Light to not demand casting any spells before, just being in dim light or even just shadow was enough, and still I could find any use for the spell like once or twice in the whole 10 lvl campaign. And it was mostly just for the flavour...

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm guessing that the paradigm for "alignment damage" once we don't have alignment anymore is that this is damage, so it hurts everybody, it just hurts creatures that have a weakness to that sort of alignment more.

So like an Angel might have weakness to unholy damage and resistance (or immunity) to holy damage. But a giant spider would just take full damage from either type.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm guessing that the paradigm for "alignment damage" once we don't have alignment anymore is that this is damage, so it hurts everybody, it just hurts creatures that have a weakness to that sort of alignment more.

So like an Angel might have weakness to unholy damage and resistance (or immunity) to holy damage. But a giant spider would just take full damage from either type.

I think this makes the most sense. Just have it do something as simple as Force damage, but give it a trait corresponding to your deity so it triggers weakness for enemies that have it.

[The Raven Black]

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

[Karmagator]

The Raven Black wrote:

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

Well, the only ones who really deal holy damage beyond runes will be champions of good deities. And even attempting that will almost certainly see you stripped of your power faster than you can think "breaking my anathema". Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't completely unrestricted. For example, I could see holy damage being unable to hurt an innocent person.

And ignoring that, if that is already the road your character is going down, it's really not the holy damage that is the problem.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Yeah, you should only be able to use it to kill Evil babies.

[graystone]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Yeah, you should only be able to use it to kill Evil babies.

What about evil curious babies?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

This had been a minor sticking point for me a couple times while trying to imagine removing alignment for home games, because I liked the idea that good damage could ignore innocents safely, but also I liked the idea that the unbridled purity of holy power was too intense even for a goodly mortal because no mortal is 'pure' enough good not to be hurt by a beam of holy radiance. It seemed there was a certain value to a champion transmuting their entire smite to holy damage only to find out they did 0 damage to their foe and realize there may be a nonviolent way to resolve the matter if their foe.

On the other hand, there are other ways to remind the Champion player that some foes are not evil monsters and to pay attention to what one should consider not killing out of hand. I'm still in favour of the idea of a holy power that is universally dangerous because its metric for holiness is a lot more rarified than our sense of innocence, but if any class should have a "Oops, I hit the wrong target, just kidding on all that damage" it would be a Champion of good. Doing that without putting objective morality or alignment back in the game though might not be possible, or if it is, it may even just not be worth it...

[keftiu]

I came into the hobby with 4e where there was no Aligned damage. Necrotic or Radiant Damage felt just fine there.

[Golurkcanfly]

Here's an idea that's related to the Alchemist archetype:

Add more focused Alchemy archetypes for those who just want to focus on one category of alchemical items. There are already the Poisoner and Herbalist archetypes, but there may be room for Mutagenist and Bomber archetypes.

[PossibleCabbage]

The GM is responsible for the placement of all babies, puppies, ducklings, kittens, etc. in the game world. So you can always keep those things from any kind of danger if you prefer.

[YuriP]

The Raven Black wrote:

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

This is an exceptional situation that can be handled by anathemas not by a main game mechanic. Because also about the unholy to kill a Neutral baby? Or Negative Energy? Or Fire or Physical Damage?

Even a neutral to good character can make very condemnable things like kill babies in the name of grater good or to protect the others.

We cannot make such edged exception rules govern the main situation. Was this point of view that in the end was extended that an neutral thief and assassin becomes also imune to alignment damage.

[The Raven Black]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The GM is responsible for the placement of all babies, puppies, ducklings, kittens, etc. in the game world. So you can always keep those things from any kind of danger if you prefer.

Agreed. By ensuring that holy damage does not hurt them.

[The Raven Black]

YuriP wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

This is an exceptional situation that can be handled by anathemas not by a main game mechanic. Because also about the unholy to kill a Neutral baby? Or Negative Energy? Or Fire or Physical Damage?

Even a neutral to good character can make very condemnable things like kill babies in the name of grater good or to protect the others.

We cannot make such edged exception rules govern the main situation. Was this point of view that in the end was extended that an neutral thief and assassin becomes also imune to alignment damage.

It is the PF2 paradigm, which came because people did not like the PF1 paradigm where Good damage could kill innocent Neutral creatures.

[Squiggit]

There was no Good damage in PF1, so the premise is incorrect... and I honestly don't ever remember that being much of a complaint either (in no small part because there was no good damage and also because it just wasn't really an issue outside that).

As an aside "what happens if I start trying to kill innocents" is such a weird standard to set for yourself for alignment. Like IDK maybe don't do that.

[Temperans]

"Well if I start throwing these ceramic plates at a wall they keep braking so clearly ceramic plates are bad for eating".

Idk why its such a hard concept that maybe if you don't actively try to sabotage something it wouldn't be broken?

[PossibleCabbage]

The Raven Black wrote:

Agreed. By ensuring that holy damage does not hurt them.

It feels like "the searing light of heaven can burn things somewhat indiscriminately" is thematically appropriate. Like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy and Marion probably wouldn't have survived the Ark being opened if they had not both averted their gaze even though they weren't Nazis.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Agreed. By ensuring that holy damage does not hurt them.

It feels like "the searing light of heaven can burn things somewhat indiscriminately" is thematically appropriate. Like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy and Marion probably wouldn't have survived the Ark being opened if they had not both averted their gaze even though they weren't Nazis.

Which is then used by bad faith actors to justify truly abhorrent things.

"Kill 'em all, Pharasma knows which ones go to Heaven."

[Squiggit]

Karmagator wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I wonder if Evil Champions might get rebalanced a bit in an anti-alignment update.

They seem kind of designed to be bad on purpose as written, presumably as part of them being an evil package. But with the changes potentially loosening things up a little that paradigm might not feel as good.

Isn't the core problem of evil champions alignment damage (and necrotic damage to a lesser extent)? As in, their damage types only work against very few enemies you are likely to face? Otherwise, they don't seem particularly weak, except arguably the antipaladin.

So the answer might not come from the evil champions themselves. It might just be that unholy damage affects all creatures, not just holy ones, for example. I could see that happening, at least.

Or do you have something else in mind?

Having access to negative damage gives you a decent spread of options. It's imperfect, but not really the core issue.

I'm talking more about how just generally bad their core features (namely the reaction) are.

[shroudb]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Agreed. By ensuring that holy damage does not hurt them.

It feels like "the searing light of heaven can burn things somewhat indiscriminately" is thematically appropriate. Like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy and Marion probably wouldn't have survived the Ark being opened if they had not both averted their gaze even though they weren't Nazis.

heh, claiming that Indy is a good person?

ha
haha
hahahahaha

[The Raven Black]

Squiggit wrote:

There was no Good damage in PF1, so the premise is incorrect... and I honestly don't ever remember that being much of a complaint either (in no small part because there was no good damage and also because it just wasn't really an issue outside that).

As an aside "what happens if I start trying to kill innocents" is such a weird standard to set for yourself for alignment. Like IDK maybe don't do that.

No Good damage ?

I could have sworn I saw PF1 debates about some holy spell killing innocent Neutral creatures.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Technically, all they said was that he wasn't a Nazi. And, y'know, points to him there.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the carve out is like how bleed damage does not affect certain bloodless creatures at the GM's discretion the same could be done for Holy damage for particularly innocent creatures and Unholy damage for particularly wicked creatures.

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

There is a bigger problem when you run into the babies that so...

[YuriP]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the carve out is like how bleed damage does not affect certain bloodless creatures at the GM's discretion the same could be done for Holy damage for particularly innocent creatures and Unholy damage for particularly wicked creatures.

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

Or like I said, you could just try to use your holy damage on an innocent creature and immediately lose your powers.

Gods are not idiotic beings to the point of turning a blind eye to the actions of their followers.
At the same time I can imagine an Oracle or sorcerer using holy damage against an innocent creature once they get that power directly.

Imagine the following scenario. A scenario where positive energy can be used against living creatures causing tumors and other similar damage, because positive energy is linked to life it is chosen by benign deities, but power is power, a character who is not good but who has access to this power could use it against innocents in the same way.

If holy damage works similarly to energy damage, it is simply divine power, but just as efficient and useful as any energy damage. You'll have creatures that are immune to it, the way a red dragon is immune to fire, or weak to it, the way a white dragon is weak to it.

The fact will only be that celestials will be aligned to the sacred, therefore being immune to it, but fragile to the unholy, while fiends will follow the opposite path.

[ottdmk]

Red Griffyn wrote:

In the spirit of the OP for the thread. Here are my suggestions. Hoping the Paizo gods are listening and CR2 isn't too late to influence:

Alchemist
- Key Ability Score (KAS) selection of STR, DEX, or INT

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't see it happening. Paizo has shown that they are perfectly ok with non-combat KAS, as shown by the Inventor & Thaumaturge. Not really sure if I would choose to go with a non-Int KAS if such was available.

Quote:

- Expert/Master Master Proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, Simple Weapons, and Bombs at L5 and L13.

This would be nice, but again, not something I see happening. So my Alchemists would be +1 over equivalent Martials from Levels 5-9, even from 11-14, +1 @ 15, even @ 16, +1 from 17-19 and finish off at even @ 20. That's a pretty major shift from current.

Quote:

- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs

Never happening. Ever. I can stay competitive on single target damage against most Ranged Martials with just Sticky Bomb. (Depends on how lucky the GM is with DC 15 flat checks.) Add in Elemental Runes? Not happening.

Quote:

- Increase low level infusion count to give more resources at early levels or provide the perpetual infusions at L1.

A small bump in Batches I could see. Perpetual Infusions at L1, I doubt. L3 is a possibility though... it would stay consistent with how things have worked so far (ie, your Perpetual Infusions are one Tier below your at-level stuff.)

Quote:

- Weaken bombs/alchemical items overall to justify these buffs to the class

God, I hope not. Where's the fun in that?

Quote:

- Give auto scaling E/M/L in craft as a class feature at L2/7/15.

I wouldn't mind the extra Skill Bump, and Inventor gets this. I'd take it.

Quote:

- Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger. Maybe as a L6 feat. The current scaling doesn't make a ton of sense.

The current scaling makes perfect sense. The goal, obviously, is to allow you the flexibility of Alchemists without granting the Level 17+ Items. Gunslinger gets better because they're only entitled to Bombs & Ammo. Similar to how the Alchemical Sciences Investigator only does Tools & Elixirs, with a much smaller pool of Quick Vials compared to Batches of Infused Reagents.

Quote:

- Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped)

Having played a Bomber to 11th level (so far), I fail to understand why some people are so dead-set against Quicksilver. Yes, I effectively have 6HP/level while using it. So what? I'm a Ranged Striker. I have Far Lobber, so I have 30'. If I need to stay further away, I can eat a -2 penalty to get up to 60'. And my speed... well, since I decided to take Fleet as my 11th level General Feat, I have 45' of movement to play with. I might invest in Boots of Bounding to go 50'. Staying out of the way is, in my experience, easy.

And as for the Fortitude Penalty... it's a matter of perspective there as well, in my experience. I've never seen an online discussion where folks are all "Well, forget Rogue. Your Fortitude Saves suck, you're a dead man." Yet that's the attitude folks seem to take about Quicksilver... and with the exception of 2 levels (9 & 10) they're exactly the same. And now, I'm 11th... and I have Juggernaut. So, Expert Saves on Quicksilver (like so many other classes) except that if I hit a Success, it's a Critical Success.

Plus, I have a best in class boost to Reflex Saves, Acrobatics, Stealth & Thievery.

Bestial + Fury Cocktails are a bit harder, because Alchemists don't get Evasion until 15th. So, for 11th & 12th they are tied for worst Reflex Saves in the game with the Oracle... and for 13th & 14th they have the worst Reflex Saves period. 15th on, they're fine.

It's Juggernaut that's hardest, imho. Alchemists only get Master Will saves (and no Resolve)... and that's if they take Canny Acumen.

Mutagens are fine. I sincerely hope Paizo leaves them alone. The fact that Treasure Vault follows the current Mutagens fairly closely gives me hope for that.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

YuriP wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the carve out is like how bleed damage does not affect certain bloodless creatures at the GM's discretion the same could be done for Holy damage for particularly innocent creatures and Unholy damage for particularly wicked creatures.

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

Or like I said, you could just try to use your holy damage on an innocent creature and immediately lose your powers.

Gods are not idiotic beings to the point of turning a blind eye to the actions of their followers.

At the same time I can imagine an Oracle or sorcerer using holy damage against an innocent creature once they get that power directly.

>>snip<<

Have a Lovely Pit to sell in Casmaron, a shattered continent where Azlant used to be, and a freshly sealed World Wound in Sarkoris

No price too small for 'wise' deities.

:>

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the carve out is like how bleed damage does not affect certain bloodless creatures at the GM's discretion the same could be done for Holy damage for particularly innocent creatures and Unholy damage for particularly wicked creatures.

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

I really despise the 'at GM's discretion' bleed rule. It makes certain mechanics really inconsistent and leaves GMs out in the weeds. It's really bad. Hard hard hard hard pass, IMO.

Though not quite as bad as apparently this problem of paladins and clerics running around blasting babies.

Like, how often are people seeing clerics roll up and drop Divine Wrath on orphanages that this needs to be one of the central talking points of this thread?

Is "hey maybe stop trying to kill children" really a bridge too far here??? I feel like that's the reasonable answer to this question but maybe I just play at some weird tables.

[Twiggies]

The Raven Black wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

There was no Good damage in PF1, so the premise is incorrect... and I honestly don't ever remember that being much of a complaint either (in no small part because there was no good damage and also because it just wasn't really an issue outside that).

As an aside "what happens if I start trying to kill innocents" is such a weird standard to set for yourself for alignment. Like IDK maybe don't do that.

No Good damage ?

I could have sworn I saw PF1 debates about some holy spell killing innocent Neutral creatures.

Specifically, things like devils would have DR 5/good, which was damage resistance 5, bypassed by 'good' damage. But 'good damage' wasn't actually a damage type like fire or bludgeoning. Rather, it was something that you could have an attack 'count as' on top of a damage type.

For example, Inquisitor had an ability they could activate that had the following text:
> the inquisitor’s weapons also count as one alignment type (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction.

So the inquisitor's weapon, say a sword, would still be doing slashing damage, but it'd also count as being good in order to bypass the devil's damage resistance.

Same idea with enchanting a weapon with the holy or unholy enchantments.
> A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction.

Basically, good/evil damage was more like a blessing type thing on top of a regular effect.

[AestheticDialectic]

YuriP wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

This is an exceptional situation that can be handled by anathemas not by a main game mechanic. Because also about the unholy to kill a Neutral baby? Or Negative Energy? Or Fire or Physical Damage?

Even a neutral to good character can make very condemnable things like kill babies in the name of grater good or to protect the others.

We cannot make such edged exception rules govern the main situation. Was this point of view that in the end was extended that an neutral thief and assassin becomes also imune to alignment damage.

Isn't "ends justify the means" classically considered evil? Also never seen goblin slayer, but everything I've heard about it makes it sound so incredibly vile, and this clip justifies my feelings

[JiCi]

ottdmk wrote:

Quote:

- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs

Never happening. Ever. I can stay competitive on single target damage against most Ranged Martials with just Sticky Bomb. (Depends on how lucky the GM is with DC 15 flat checks.) Add in Elemental Runes? Not happening.

The issue is that Bombs are consumable, yet are scaled like manufactured weapons with striking runes.

If Bombs scaled like Cantrips, there wouldn't be this conversation IMO...

[Rysky]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

YuriP wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the carve out is like how bleed damage does not affect certain bloodless creatures at the GM's discretion the same could be done for Holy damage for particularly innocent creatures and Unholy damage for particularly wicked creatures.

So like Bart Harley Jarvis would take Holy damage, but most babies would not.

Or like I said, you could just try to use your holy damage on an innocent creature and immediately lose your powers.

Gods are not idiotic beings to the point of turning a blind eye to the actions of their followers.

At the same time I can imagine an Oracle or sorcerer using holy damage against an innocent creature once they get that power directly.

>>snip<<

Have a Lovely Pit to sell in Casmaron, a shattered continent where Azlant used to be, and a freshly sealed World Wound in Sarkoris

No price too small for 'wise' deities.

:>

Azlant got destroyed because of Aboleths, not the deities, two deities died trying to stop the assault.

The world wound was caused by the Demon Lord Deskari trying to break into the Material Plane, it was intentional and not an accident by actual gods.

[YuriP]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

YuriP wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Using Holy damage to kill a Neutral baby ?

No thanks.

This is an exceptional situation that can be handled by anathemas not by a main game mechanic. Because also about the unholy to kill a Neutral baby? Or Negative Energy? Or Fire or Physical Damage?

Even a neutral to good character can make very condemnable things like kill babies in the name of grater good or to protect the others.

We cannot make such edged exception rules govern the main situation. Was this point of view that in the end was extended that an neutral thief and assassin becomes also imune to alignment damage.

Isn't "ends justify the means" classically considered evil? Also never seen goblin slayer, but everything I've heard about it makes it sound so incredibly vile, and this clip justifies my feelings

Not really evil, he's just obsessed in kill goblins and goblins in goblin slayer universe are basically naturally bad and they are pests that live by plundering and raping other ancestors to reproduce (there are no female goblins in the Goblin Slayer universe).

That is, the author created them in a way where they practically have no natural physiological conditions to live otherwise.

Out of this context, the Goblin Slayer is a peaceful, intelligent and hardworking person who ends up helping others whenever they ask (although what really interests him is killing goblins).

This creates just such an interesting context. While Goblin Slayer's opponents are basically evil pests, there's no limit that doesn't justify their deaths, but otherwise he lives a good life in general.

[AestheticDialectic]

YuriP wrote:

Not really evil, he's just obsessed in kill goblins and goblins in goblin slayer universe are basically naturally bad and they are pests that live by plundering and raping other ancestors to reproduce (there are no female goblins in the Goblin Slayer universe).

That is, the author created them in a way where they practically have no natural physiological conditions to live otherwise.

Out of this context, the Goblin Slayer is a peaceful, intelligent and hardworking person who ends up helping others whenever they ask (although what really interests him is killing goblins).

This creates just such an interesting context. While Goblin Slayer's opponents are basically evil pests, there's no limit that doesn't justify their deaths, but otherwise he lives a good life in general.

Creating such a premise is what is considered vile, but this is off topic...

[Rysky]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Azlant got destroyed because of Aboleths, not the deities, two deities died trying to stop the assault.

The world wound was caused by the Demon Lord Deskari trying to break into the Material Plane, it was intentional and not an accident by actual gods.

So in the adventure path it wasn't Areelu?

Areelu working with Deskari.

Areelu is also not a deity.