Potential Changes to Core 2 Classes


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I mean, we haven't been given indication that ANY changes are planned for the Swashbuckler, and adding debuff options doesn't feel any more out there than removing MAP.

Sort of disagree. A debuff-focused swashbuckler is changing the whole direction of the class, which is right now themed around finishers and the 'one big hit'

Making finishers slightly better is much less significant than pivoting on the entire direction of the class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Barbarian: I feel so 'meh' on all of the Instincts. I know 'fury' is the weakest choice but I end up going for it because I don't want to be forced to lick my enemies with my tongue, I don't want to carry a weapon bigger than I am, I don't want to be a cast member on Supernatural, and I'm so over dragons...

"Knights of Last Call" called Barbarian a glass canon in their 3 hour deep dive of it yesterday and... I agree. Even though our group has one who is front line and has probably double my Witch's hit points - seeing him in game makes me think "this is that one fury warrior in a World of Warcraft raid that keeps spamming his taunt button and then getting one-shot at least twice every boss pull."

In the one trick this pony has: being the bloke who does massive damage with a 2-handed weapon... the best option to play has an anathema to using weapons so only attacks with their tongue or antlers... um... lol wut?
- And then, in that one trick - a fighter who picks up a Maul will out damage them.

And know tongue's 1d4 damage is obviously only on the list as a 'meme' choice... but still - with Barbarian you either play without the weapon that is iconic to the class, or you go roleplay and purposefully make a weaker character.

Alchemist: I feel this needs it's own topic that has 3x as many posts as the one for Witch because so much needs to be said and done.

Investigator: The "you must used the devise roll now that you rolled it" makes a class feature a player almost wants to avoid using half the time. Needs clearer guidelines for when you can be using your abilities regarding a lead because as it stands a GM will either block you too often or not enough.

Monk: I dunno. I have one "if only" request that I cannot justify which would be to make shields and shield boss a monk weapon so I could finally have Captain America as a character concept down pat - but I have no logic to justify this. I will say this instead: introduce some stuff blatantly taken from Boxing, Capoeira, and Pankration so it looks more universal. And um... I guess once that happens I could slip in "shield brawler" when nobody's looking.

Sorcerer: make sure the number of bloodlines for each spell list is equal. If I recall right Arcane has less than the others. Fix that.

Oracle: I have yet to even read this class after a GM warned me off playing it in my first PF2E game. So I can't say anything.

Champion: I want Champions of causes. The Order and Anarchy Champion concept. Maybe Champions of things like the Green Pact. Etc.


If you want Captain America, Fighter is the way to do it. They have a ton of feats that give you neat tricks with Shields. Not to mention a whole Shield fighting style.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
If you want Captain America, Fighter is the way to do it. They have a ton of feats that give you neat tricks with Shields. Not to mention a whole Shield fighting style.

Champion all the way.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I get that I can make shield characters with fighter and champion. But Captain America is more of a brawler who uses his fists most of the time, and a lot of martial arts moves (just not East Asian style, more like boxing style). And then he sometimes smacks someone with his shield or throws it.

I guess I did find some hal-baked logic to justify my meme concept for monk. But I will admit it's mostly a meme idea. ;)

Plus... I'm not worried about Fighter and not as worried about Champion with that comment. I was fishing for ways to give monk more ideas that are from sources other than East Asian martial arts. And expanding the monk weapons to include shield attachments used not for defense but for offense feels like a fun way to do it.

I'd also love some things that go just a little bit more nuts on uses of grapple specific to monk. Give me a wrestler - be it a WWE TV wrestler, a lucha dore, or a greek wrestler - I don't care.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
If you want Captain America, Fighter is the way to do it. They have a ton of feats that give you neat tricks with Shields. Not to mention a whole Shield fighting style.

Just be sure to pack extra shields because you'll be going through them like water in the desert.


Gortle wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
If you want Captain America, Fighter is the way to do it. They have a ton of feats that give you neat tricks with Shields. Not to mention a whole Shield fighting style.
Champion all the way.

Yep, Champion works very well too.


Squiggit wrote:

While I agree that MAPless finishers would be an extreme change, it's also kind of telling to look at SuperBidi's math and notice that even such a dramatic change barely pushes the needle into problematic territory, even on ideal turns.

It says a lot about where we're starting from.

I just realized Citricking's tool is not making Finishers right. It says Precise Finisher but it doesn't apply half damage on failed attacks. So it's less bad than I thought and the MAPless finisher is now out of bounds.

Still, I consider that an attack called "Finisher" should be the end of series of attack, not a single attack. But, anyway, Paizo didn't say they will rework the Swashbuckler, so this discussion is certainly pointless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

The class is definitely not intended to rely on regular panache damage, much less most of the time. It's a tiny damage bonus that you have to spend an action and succeed at a check for. On a dex class which requires finesse weapons, meaning your normal damage is already low. Regular panache damage is really only for cases when you don't want to spend panache.

Granted, the name is not particularly fitting in any case, but finishers are the main damage tool.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

The class is definitely not intended to rely on regular panache damage, much less most of the time. It's a tiny damage bonus that you have to spend an action and succeed at a check for. On a dex class which requires finesse weapons, meaning your normal damage is already low. Regular panache damage is really only for cases when you don't want to spend panache.

Granted, the name is not particularly fitting in any case, but finishers are the main damage tool.

I've heard this. But it is literally terrible design if this is the case. Mathematically terrible design.

A thief rogue with debilitation has a much better chance of getting 6d6 damage on every single attack post level 10. So somehow the designers at Paizo thought a finisher doing 6d6 damage with a Finesse Weapon without doing your dexterity damage was somehow going to compete for damage with a rogue who gets 4d6 every attack with the possibility of 6d6 for a thief rogue or an additional 5 points for a bully rogue? Somehow this terrible damage math made it past the testing team at Paizo?

Swashbuckler, just a terribly designed class. How they can not fix this class given its current state I do not know.

How do you seriously look at players straight in the face when they know that a rogue can do 6d6 damage every single attack past level 10 which is your finisher damage once a round at maximum level. It's nutty that that would be considered acceptable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

The class is definitely not intended to rely on regular panache damage, much less most of the time. It's a tiny damage bonus that you have to spend an action and succeed at a check for. On a dex class which requires finesse weapons, meaning your normal damage is already low. Regular panache damage is really only for cases when you don't want to spend panache.

Granted, the name is not particularly fitting in any case, but finishers are the main damage tool.

I've heard this. But it is literally terrible design if this is the case. Mathematically terrible design. [...]

My point was merely that your second sentence is not correct, nothing more. And while the comparison is considerably more complex than just "6d6 once vs 4d6/6d6 always", I agree that the swashbuckler could use a bit of a boost.

However, I also have to correct something else - the thief does not get 6d6 on every attack. They get that bonus damage only after their first successful strike against a flat-footed enemy and has to be kept up with additional successful hit on subsequent turns. So it doesn't apply to the first strike or when you have wiffed a turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
arcady wrote:
"Knights of Last Call" called Barbarian a glass canon in their 3 hour deep dive of it yesterday and... I agree. Even though our group has one who is front line and has probably double my Witch's hit points - seeing him in game makes me think "this is that one fury warrior in a World of Warcraft raid that keeps spamming his taunt button and then getting one-shot at least twice every boss pull."

Starting from mid to end game, when when enemy spellcasters becomes a thing and many monsters have some save attack is where barbarians show that they aren't a glass cannon. Many times during APs I saw the fighter and the champion suffering from basic save effects and needing some healing support while barbarian suffer too but their large amount of HP allows then to basically take the double before need healing.

But I agree, that from levels 1-9 the heavy armored classes are more resistant.

Also sentinel archetype allows non-giant barbarians to become pretty resistant too.

In the one trick this pony has: being the bloke who does massive damage with a 2-handed weapon... the best option to play has an anathema to using weapons so only attacks with their tongue or antlers... um... lol wut?
- And then, in that one trick - a fighter who picks up a Maul will out damage them.

And know tongue's 1d4 damage is obviously only on the list as a 'meme' choice... but still - with Barbarian you either play without the weapon that is iconic to the class, or you go roleplay and purposefully make a weaker character.

arcady wrote:
Alchemist: I feel this needs it's own topic that has 3x as many posts as the one for Witch because so much needs to be said and done.

For its first versions from first prints with only CRB alchemical itens, yes! But for today I think that it only need a normal master martial proficiency with its simple weapons and bombs.

Many things improved for alchemist with erratas and items. IMO the only problem that remains is the fact that alchemist still are excellent character for other party players but mediocre for those who play with it. Alchemist deserves to be effect by itself too that's why me and many others think it needs a better and fair weapon proficiency progression.

arcady wrote:
Sorcerer: make sure the number of bloodlines for each spell list is equal. If I recall right Arcane has less than the others. Fix that.

In CRB we have 4 divines, 2 primals, 2 arcanes, 2 occults. So with exception from divine it's pretty fair. If we include the other books (including APs) we have 6 divines, 4 primals, 3 arcanes and 4 occults.

But I don't think this is a problem at all. These bloodlines will increasing overtime as new books are released.
arcady wrote:
Oracle: I have yet to even read this class after a GM warned me off playing it in my first PF2E game. So I can't say anything.

Your GM seems to be pretty conservative. Because in practice Oracles are far from being so complicated to the point of recommending their non-use for beginner players (in my first adventure using PF2 one of the players started with a Battle Oracle quite successfully, he was one of those who stood out in the difficult adventure to protect Plaguestone).

At least they are much simpler than classes like alchemist and summoner, where the former requires understanding several mechanics of the class (advanced and fast achemy), the game (persistent damage, poisons and formulas) and items (various mutagens with different cost-benefits, different alchemical bombs and elixirs) and the second has a series of mechanics, restrictions and changes to very particular basic rules.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

I agree, but the problem is that the way it is mechanically built today, encourages players to use finishers as standard attacks instead of trying to take advantage of the very low additional damage that panache provides.

Today basically the best way to play with a swash is to use panache to debuff and gain the right to use the finisher, use the finisher to deal a lot of damage and use the third action (before or after these two) to do anything else that doesn't involve the attack (like another debuff, raising a shield, RK, or anything else useful you can do).
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

The class is definitely not intended to rely on regular panache damage, much less most of the time. It's a tiny damage bonus that you have to spend an action and succeed at a check for. On a dex class which requires finesse weapons, meaning your normal damage is already low. Regular panache damage is really only for cases when you don't want to spend panache.

Granted, the name is not particularly fitting in any case, but finishers are the main damage tool.

I've heard this. But it is literally terrible design if this is the case. Mathematically terrible design.

A thief rogue with debilitation has a much better chance of getting 6d6 damage on every single attack post level 10. So somehow the designers at Paizo thought a finisher doing 6d6 damage with a Finesse Weapon without doing your dexterity damage was somehow going to compete for damage with a rogue who gets 4d6 every attack with the possibility of 6d6 for a thief rogue or an additional 5 points for a bully rogue? Somehow this terrible damage math made it past the testing team at Paizo?

Swashbuckler, just a terribly designed class. How they can not fix this class given its current state I do not know.

How do you seriously look at players straight in the face when they know that a rogue can do 6d6 damage every single attack past level 10 which is your finisher damage once a round at maximum level. It's nutty that that would be considered...

I fully agree.

For me today, after analyzing, testing and following players playing with it. My final conclusion is that it's a class that needs to be completely rebuilt from scratch, just from the idea of its flavor. For the current construction of the class just punishes the player who wants to play it in almost any sense.

Today, if you want to make a Jack Sparrow or Zorro style character, it's much better to make a Fighter with freehand feats for the first case or even a combat-focused rogue for the second case than to go for the swashbuckler.


Karmagator wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I moved the Finisher tag back to no attacks after you use it. It is my opinion that it was intended for the swashbuckler rely on Precision Damage without using a finisher most of the time. A finisher should be something set up to finish an enemy, not used every round as some recommend. If the class does insufficient damage relying on precision damage, then something is not right in the design of the class. The precision damage is either too weak or the combination of precision and finisher damage is too weak and/or hard to use effectively.

The class is definitely not intended to rely on regular panache damage, much less most of the time. It's a tiny damage bonus that you have to spend an action and succeed at a check for. On a dex class which requires finesse weapons, meaning your normal damage is already low. Regular panache damage is really only for cases when you don't want to spend panache.

Granted, the name is not particularly fitting in any case, but finishers are the main damage tool.

I've heard this. But it is literally terrible design if this is the case. Mathematically terrible design. [...]

My point was merely that your second sentence is not correct, nothing more. And while the comparison is considerably more complex than just "6d6 once vs 4d6/6d6 always", I agree that the swashbuckler could use a bit of a boost.

However, I also have to correct something else - the thief does not get 6d6 on every attack. They get that bonus damage only after their first successful strike against a flat-footed enemy and has to be kept up with additional successful hit on subsequent turns. So it doesn't apply to the first strike or when you have wiffed a turn.

Yes, they must first land a sneak attack, then it they can keep it going indefinitely because they can actually keep attacking after sneak attacking whereas the Finisher for some reason was designed to not allow other attacks after it was used which makes less sense given a rogue with a mini-finisher known as a Debilitation can keep on debilitating stacking a couple on once the sneak attacks land.

Vigilant Seal

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Things I want, in no particular order:

Monks to get a bo staff/polearm stance. Just copying and pasting Whirlwind Stance from the Staff Acrobat archetype would be fine. It's wild that the class has sword and bow stances but not a stance for one of the iconic martial arts weapons.

Swashbucklers to get auto-scaling proficiency in Acrobatics and/or their Style skill. If the core functionality of a class depends on passing skill checks then it should always get auto-scaling proficiency in the relevant skills, in the same way that Inventors get auto-scaling Crafting and Thaums get auto-scaling Esoteric Lore.

Monks and Champions to get their bump from Expert to Master (un)armor(ed) proficiency at level 11, when fighters, rangers, and maguses get their bump to Expert, rather than 13 so you don't have a weird two-level interlude where half of the offense-focused martial classes are just as good at defending themselves as the two martials that are hyperspecialized in defense.

Champions to get access to Paragon's Guard stance. I really don't like the fact that the iconic sword and board class doesn't get to eliminate the action tax of raising a shield until level 20 when Fighters and Swashbucklers can do it by level 12.

Panache to be something that persists for a fixed duration once acquired rather than earned and then spent on a Finisher immediately afterwards. If getting panache meant retaining it until the end of your next turn and it was not consumed by doing a Finisher, it'd be a lot more attractive for non-Gymnasts to take advantage of their panache bonuses and Derring Do, and a lot easier to keep panache up, especially against bosses. I think that'd address a lot of the Swash's current pain points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want mutagens to lose the penalty to saves.

That won't happen, but that's what I want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsubutai wrote:

Things I want, in no particular order:

Monks to get a bo staff/polearm stance. Just copying and pasting Whirlwind Stance from the Staff Acrobat archetype would be fine. It's wild that the class has sword and bow stances but not a stance for one of the iconic martial arts weapons.

Swashbucklers to get auto-scaling proficiency in Acrobatics and/or their Style skill. If the core functionality of a class depends on passing skill checks then it should always get auto-scaling proficiency in the relevant skills, in the same way that Inventors get auto-scaling Crafting and Thaums get auto-scaling Esoteric Lore.

Monks and Champions to get their bump from Expert to Master (un)armor(ed) proficiency at level 11, when fighters, rangers, and maguses get their bump to Expert, rather than 13 so you don't have a weird two-level interlude where half of the offense-focused martial classes are just as good at defending themselves as the two martials that are hyperspecialized in defense.

Champions to get access to Paragon's Guard stance. I really don't like the fact that the iconic sword and board class doesn't get to eliminate the action tax of raising a shield until level 20 when Fighters and Swashbucklers can do it by level 12.

Panache to be something that persists for a fixed duration once acquired rather than earned and then spent on a Finisher immediately afterwards. If getting panache meant retaining it until the end of your next turn and it was not consumed by doing a Finisher, it'd be a lot more attractive for non-Gymnasts to take advantage of their panache bonuses and Derring Do, and a lot easier to keep panache up, especially against bosses. I think that'd address a lot of the Swash's current pain points.

This actually brings up another change I want for Monk:

Make Monastic Weaponry's benefits just a core part of the Monk trait on weapons. It's weird that it costs a feat for weapons that largely underperform vs unarmed stance attacks when the unarmed stances also have other powerful benefits. Plus it feels like a weird feat tax for Shooting Stars and Peafowl Stances, which could also be 1st level feats.

Verdant Wheel

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What if a Finisher could be attempted while Panache was charged, but only expended if the Strike was a success or critical success?

Similar to how a Bard trying to Linger Performance only expends the Focus Point if they succeed the Perform check...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the most thematic change for the Swashbuckler's difficulty in gaining panache is in the "I will disadvantage myself on purpose" space. Like the "I will fight you with my left hand so that it is more fair."

Since Panache is supposed to represent confidence and overconfidence is a kind of confidence.


I think it might be interesting to have a few swashbucker feats that would support the idea of "pull impressive-but-risky stunt for no good reason" -> "gain panache and also some other immediate use-it-or-lose-it benefit"

Something like..."Make an attack at a meaningful penalty. If you hit, gain panache, and if your next action is an attack against the same target, your MAP does not increase until that attack is done. If you crit and your next action is an attack against the same target and hits, then that attack automatically crits as well."

I'm not sure what "meaningful penalty" should be in this case. Somewhere in the -2 to -4 range? I feel like it should be possible to come up with a number that would make this a balanced feat.

Possibly a sort of double-tap finisher ability that, given panache and two actions, would let you make two finisher attacks on the same target in quick succession, but leave you flat-footed until the end of your next round while also giving every enemy in reach a chance to take a swing at you (not just provoking an opportunity attack, but actually letting them make a one-action attack against you whether or not they have opportunity attack natively)

I have no idea of that one's balanced, or what would be necessary to *make* it balanced, but I feel like it vaguely gestures in the general direction of something that might be cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist: I think that getting the alchemist to a place I'd consider to be a fully great design would require reconcepting the entire thing, which probably goes beyond the scope of what they're doing. Assuming that we're sticking mostly with the loose shape of the current design, the major things I'd focus on are:

-- Making the alchemist come online and feel like a full alchemist at level 1. This likely involves giving them some cantrip-equivalent feature.

-- It's my experience that most people who read the alchemist class want to focus more heavily on their research fields than the current mechanics make a good idea. They want their bomber to be really mostly focused on bombs, their mutagenist to be a capable combatant, etc. I don't think that the "bit of everything" alchemist should go away, but I think there's some headroom to make the various research fields more better at their specific thing.

Barbarian: I think this class is in a reasonable spot. I'd give them more breadth through angles like thrown weapons and borderline-supernatural combat techniques, but that's as much a job for normal splats as it is for a line-wide refresh. A very low-hanging fruit option to improve the class would be to simply add additional rage damage to the weaker Core instincts. There's no particular reason that Fury and Spirit can't be ticked up a few notches. (Also while I think that they should always endeavor to balance options as neatly as possible, if some options are going to be a bit worse or more niche than others, Fury, which represents the stock general Barbarian concept, should not be one of those.)

Champion: Champion, at least Good Champions, are a perfect class design mechanically. Just pull out whatever alignment stuff you're going to pull out - it's not even consistently very good flavor to begin with, and I won't miss it at all.

Investigator: Investigator's combat routine is too clunky for not enough payoff. I don't think that the class is too terribly undercooked as a whole, but it can be juiced a bit to smooth things out and allow for greater flexibility. As a start, just allowing the player to discard an unwanted Devise a Stratagem roll smooths things out a bit. Melee investigators could probably also use a bit of action economy help. I don't want the class to be a combat monster, but right now the investigator combat fantasy is too unreliable and a lot of the tricks that make it somewhat worthwhile require venturing outside of the core concept of the class.

Monk: Current design is very solid. Can't think of anything meaningful I'd change.

Oracle: I think that the overall framework of the class is in a solid place, but many of the individual mysteries are kind of a mess. For what it's worth, I suspect that Oracle mysteries are probably the hardest open-ended subclass type to design by a wide margin. Most of the mysteries are flavorful and evocative in their descriptive text, but the actual mechanics are kind of fiddly and in some places feel like the connection to the concept is a bit arbitrary. Curses are all over the place in terms of benefits and drawbacks; while conceptually it sort of makes sense for there to be some with greater rewards but greater associated risks, in practice the game is more fun when advancing your curse has meaningful drawbacks but is still generally a pretty good course of action.

Sorcerer: If I was doing a full and complete refresh, there's some tweaks I'd make, but this class is in a pretty solid place. Depending on what spells end up in Cores 1 and 2, there are some places where granted spells that are awkward fits could be swapped out.

Swashbuckler: I'd maybe shuffle a few things around to get the class off the ground a bit faster, but I think Swash is basically fine. The overall class design isn't to my personal taste, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Joyd wrote:
Alchemist: I think that getting the alchemist to a place I'd consider to be a fully great design would require reconcepting the entire thing, which probably goes beyond the scope of what they're doing.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Even if this is only errata+, the alchemist has received more errata than any other class. Treasure Vault moved the needle forward on their overall options. And the core alchemical items are being remastered in the same book. I think the class has so many potential pain points they could smooth out. I'm not losing hope that a significant number will be.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joyd wrote:
Alchemist: I think that getting the alchemist to a place I'd consider to be a fully great design would require reconcepting the entire thing, which probably goes beyond the scope of what they're doing.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Even if this is only errata+, the alchemist has received more errata than any other class. Treasure Vault moved the needle forward on their overall options. And the core alchemical items are being remastered in the same book. I think the class has so many potential pain points they could smooth out. I'm not losing hope that a significant number will be.

Since they specifically announced a revision for the Witch only, I expect nothing similar for other classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joyd wrote:
Alchemist: I think that getting the alchemist to a place I'd consider to be a fully great design would require reconcepting the entire thing, which probably goes beyond the scope of what they're doing.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Even if this is only errata+, the alchemist has received more errata than any other class. Treasure Vault moved the needle forward on their overall options. And the core alchemical items are being remastered in the same book. I think the class has so many potential pain points they could smooth out. I'm not losing hope that a significant number will be.
Since they specifically announced a revision for the Witch only, I expect nothing similar for other classes.

They specifically announced a revision for Witch, Alchemist, Oracle, and Champion. Witch is the only one to be in PC1, though- the rest are getting a little more time and ending up in PC2.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

With talk at PaizoCon about Spirit Damage and its ability to be “sanctified” to Holy or Unholy, part of me wonders if Spirit Instinct Barbarians might get in on all of that and enjoying a wider flavor than just punching ghosts.

I’ve been hurting for a demon-blooded Barbarian option, and an Unholy Spirit Rage would work just fine.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

With talk at PaizoCon about Spirit Damage and its ability to be “sanctified” to Holy or Unholy, part of me wonders if Spirit Instinct Barbarians might get in on all of that and enjoying a wider flavor than just punching ghosts.

I’ve been hurting for a demon-blooded Barbarian option, and an Unholy Spirit Rage would work just fine.

!!!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
keftiu wrote:

With talk at PaizoCon about Spirit Damage and its ability to be “sanctified” to Holy or Unholy, part of me wonders if Spirit Instinct Barbarians might get in on all of that and enjoying a wider flavor than just punching ghosts.

I’ve been hurting for a demon-blooded Barbarian option, and an Unholy Spirit Rage would work just fine.

I would love this, so I hope it happens!


Makes more sense than choose between negative or positive damage specially that spirit barbarians also have divine trait in their rage. But I don't expect holy or unholy trait once that as far I understand with currently info holy is a trait linked to celestials (replacing good dmg) and unholy is a trait linked to fiends (replacing evil dmg) and these traits don't make much sense to a spirit barbarian.


Golurkcanfly wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:


Monks and Champions to get their bump from Expert to Master (un)armor(ed) proficiency at level 11, when fighters, rangers, and maguses get their bump to Expert, rather than 13 so you don't have a weird two-level interlude where half of the offense-focused martial classes are just as good at defending themselves as the two martials that are hyperspecialized in defense.

This actually brings up another change I want for Monk:

Make Monastic Weaponry's benefits just a core part of the Monk trait on weapons. It's weird that it costs a feat for weapons that largely underperform vs unarmed stance attacks when the unarmed stances also have...

I just think this is a subclass in anything but name, so they should just make it a subclass and allocate the right power budget.


Has anyone heard of anything regarding official transitional rules for the champion? After all, they are in PC2, which comes about 9 months after PC1 takes alignment behind the shed. And alignment damage is rather elemental for many of the champion's abilities. Homebrew rules to bridge the gap shouldn't be too hard, but still.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:
Has anyone heard of anything regarding official transitional rules for the champion? After all, they are in PC2, which comes about 9 months after PC1 takes alignment behind the shed. And alignment damage is rather elemental for many of the champion's abilities. Homebrew rules to bridge the gap shouldn't be too hard, but still.

I have not heard anything official, but I imagine it will be something like:

-- Use the codes as written.

-- Sanctify champions based on their tenants. Tenants of good are holy, tenants of evil are unholy.

-- Turn alignment damage to spiritual damage.

While formal transition guidance would be nice, I think we will be fine without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Has anyone heard of anything regarding official transitional rules for the champion? After all, they are in PC2, which comes about 9 months after PC1 takes alignment behind the shed. And alignment damage is rather elemental for many of the champion's abilities. Homebrew rules to bridge the gap shouldn't be too hard, but still.

I have not heard anything official, but I imagine it will be something like:

-- Use the codes as written.

-- Sanctify champions based on their tenants. Tenants of good are holy, tenants of evil are unholy.

-- Turn alignment damage to spiritual damage.

While formal transition guidance would be nice, I think we will be fine without it.

Exactly what I was thinking, yeah. Plus, the causes just require the respective tenets, i.e. a holy champion can be a paladin, redeemer or liberator. Choices can be limited based on your deity.

The final product will probably be much more open than that, but this will do for now.


Could Champions lose the Favored Weapon? Please?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
Could Champions lose the Favored Weapon? Please?

Does it do anything for them? All it impacts is deadly simplicity and I'm not sure why you'd want to lose that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Favored weapon meaningless to champions.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Does it do anything for them? All it impacts is deadly simplicity and I'm not sure why you'd want to lose that.

I don't understand your question. Why make some Champions pay a feat tax to get a decent weapon? If you get to chose your weapon freely, you get to pick something else as your first level feat.

>>--> To be perfectly honest, I wasn't thinking about feats when I asked the original question. It was more a matter of esthetics. What if I want to be a Champion with a Halberd? The last time I looked, there aren't any Deities with that weapon as their favorite.

What if I want to be a Champion of Desna? If I don't happen to like the Starknife, I'm still stuck with it.

What does 'favorite weapon' accomplish besides using up a line of text in the reference books?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think champion's favoured weapon should be expanded in the sense of letting them get advanced weapons like the cleric does which only matters for achaekek but still, feels weird that a champion of the mantis can't actually use sawtooth sabers


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
What does 'favorite weapon' accomplish besides using up a line of text in the reference books?

It creates a recognizable style for the various gods that players can choose to opt into if they want, as well as providing some additional characterization for the gods. Calistrians using whips, Abadarites using crossbows, Shelynites using glaives, and Urgathoans using scythes- all of those are iconic and distinctive, with reasons why those gods favor those weapons.

Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:

>>--> To be perfectly honest, I wasn't thinking about feats when I asked the original question. It was more a matter of esthetics. What if I want to be a Champion with a Halberd? The last time I looked, there aren't any Deities with that weapon as their favorite.

What if I want to be a Champion of Desna? If I don't happen to like the Starknife, I'm still stuck with it.

You're not stuck with it. Champion has martial weapon proficiency, so you can pick pretty much whatever you want. But because Desna has a starknife as a favored weapon, they can be used to distinguish Desnan NPCs or provide clues.

Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
I don't understand your question. Why make some Champions pay a feat tax to get a decent weapon? If you get to chose your weapon freely, you get to pick something else as your first level feat.

... What first level feat are you talking about? Champions can pick whatever. They have a class feature that makes it so that if your deity favors a simple weapon, you can use it without that being too bad of a choice, but it's generally in the ballpark of martial weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Does it do anything for them? All it impacts is deadly simplicity and I'm not sure why you'd want to lose that.

I don't understand your question. Why make some Champions pay a feat tax to get a decent weapon? If you get to chose your weapon freely, you get to pick something else as your first level feat.

>>--> To be perfectly honest, I wasn't thinking about feats when I asked the original question. It was more a matter of esthetics. What if I want to be a Champion with a Halberd? The last time I looked, there aren't any Deities with that weapon as their favorite.

What if I want to be a Champion of Desna? If I don't happen to like the Starknife, I'm still stuck with it.

What does 'favorite weapon' accomplish besides using up a line of text in the reference books?

I'm a bit confused. You know you don't have to use your deities weapon for champions right? They get martial weapon proficiency. The favored weapon is just a flavorful weapon tied to your deity but you can use any weapon you want. There are no feats needed. Well except for advanced weapons but thats most classes.

No feats are needed.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
arcady wrote:

Barbarian: I feel so 'meh' on all of the Instincts. I know 'fury' is the weakest choice but I end up going for it because I don't want to be forced to lick my enemies with my tongue, I don't want to carry a weapon bigger than I am, I don't want to be a cast member on Supernatural, and I'm so over dragons...

"Knights of Last Call" called Barbarian a glass canon in their 3 hour deep dive of it yesterday and... I agree. Even though our group has one who is front line and has probably double my Witch's hit points - seeing him in game makes me think "this is that one fury warrior in a World of Warcraft raid that keeps spamming his taunt button and then getting one-shot at least twice every boss pull."

In the one trick this pony has: being the bloke who does massive damage with a 2-handed weapon... the best option to play has an anathema to using weapons so only attacks with their tongue or antlers... um... lol wut?
- And then, in that one trick - a fighter who picks up a Maul will out damage them.

And know tongue's 1d4 damage is obviously only on the list as a 'meme' choice... but still - with Barbarian you either play without the weapon that is iconic to the class, or you go roleplay and purposefully make a weaker character.

Alchemist: I feel this needs it's own topic that has 3x as many posts as the one for Witch because so much needs to be said and done.

Investigator: The "you must used the devise roll now that you rolled it" makes a class feature a player almost wants to avoid using half the time. Needs clearer guidelines for when you can be using your abilities regarding a lead because as it stands a GM will either block you too often or not enough.

Monk: I dunno. I have one "if only" request that I cannot justify which would be to make shields and shield boss a monk weapon so I could finally have Captain America as a character concept down pat - but I have no logic to justify this. I will say this instead: introduce some stuff blatantly taken from Boxing, Capoeira, and Pankration so it...

The GM warned you out of one of the deadliest combos in PF2E...

Oracle dedication flame at level 4 gets incendiary aura. Kobold monk with fire attacks and incendiary aura deals a lot of dmg.

Liberty's Edge

Verzen wrote:

The GM warned you out of one of the deadliest combos in PF2E...

Oracle dedication flame at level 4 gets incendiary aura. Kobold monk with fire attacks and incendiary aura deals a lot of dmg.

Why Kobold ? I would have thought Goblin a better fit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’ll only speak for the ones I know a fair amount about

Sorcs: pretty close to perfect to be honest, I would maybe suggest some of the blood magic effects need tweaking, since some are just generally whilst others are so bad you may as well forget they exist.

Oracle: Divine access should come with their curse/mystery at level 1 I feel. Also some of the curses are so much harsher than others. Like bones for example. They need to either tone them down or up the benefits.

Investigator: When I built an investigator I felt like I was constantly asking myself, “and then what?” Like it felt as though the class had a fairly narrow use case, and all the tools it needed to do that one thing very early on. Then never really got anything else after that, like every combat was gonna be extremely similar from level 1-20 regardless of what you’re facing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

With all the spoilers for Player Core 1, we should have a better estimation for how Player Core 2 might look like.

From my experience with Monk, I would argue it is one of the best designed PF2 classes. However, there are still a few functional flaws:

1. Ready action Flurry of Blows with Stunning Fist has game breaking potential. Stunning someone during their own activation not only steals them one action on their following round, but also completely ends their current activation.

Suggested fix: Clear up the rules for the Stunned condition.

2. Mountain Stance Monks starting combat with "their pants down". The way stances work, you cannot start combat in a stance, which means that a Mountain Stance Monk who usually has very low Dex has a very high chance of getting critically hit into oblivion before he had the chance to act. You can work around this by hiding behind party members, but this is very anticlimactic for the flavor of a Mountain Stance Monk, which is being a hard to move and tanky frontliner. And no, a level 12 class feat is not a fix to this problem.

Suggested fix: Add following text to Mountain Stance:
Special While in Exploration Mode, if you chose the Defend Activity, instead of Raising a Shield you can enter this stance once combat breaks out.


Subutai1 wrote:

1. Ready action Flurry of Blows with Stunning Fist has game breaking potential. Stunning someone during their own activation not only steals them one action on their following round, but also completely ends their current activation.

Suggested fix: Clear up the rules for the Stunned condition.

I had never imagined such a naughty strategy than using Ready with Flurry of Blows with Stunning Fist.

That said, it's not a problem, in fact it's even more limited since the condition Stunned is only applied at startup of the turn, so even if you try to interrupt an opponent's turn this way, the effect will only works in the next round.

Wayfinders

The PC1 change from the locked-in wizard schools to the more flavorful and expandable ones with the curricula have me hopeful that a similar approach is gonna be taken for the champion options - I dearly hope for something that is more along the lines of 5e paladin's oaths, which I have to admit I think do a much better job of representing all manner of divinely-empowered warriors that aren't locked into a 3x3 alignment grid. (for which an entire middle row is off-limits, in PF2's case!)

Now, for legal and creative reasons I expect Paizo to come up with something else entirely, but if it opens up previously-incompatible deities to champions (and shores up the mechanical inequality between the most popular and unpopular causes while at it), I'll see it as a win no matter what form it takes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RiverMesa wrote:
The PC1 change from the locked-in wizard schools to the more flavorful and expandable ones with the curricula have me hopeful that a similar approach is gonna be taken for the champion options - I dearly hope for something that is more along the lines of 5e paladin's oaths, which I have to admit I think do a much better job of representing all manner of divinely-empowered warriors that aren't locked into a 3x3 alignment grid. (for which an entire middle row is off-limits, in PF2's case!)

Yeah. And Champions actually already have that. They already have Edicts and Anathema they have to follow AS WELL AS alignment. So you just toss the alignment and add one more paragraph the Edict's section and hit the print key.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I’ll only speak for the ones I know a fair amount about

Sorcs: pretty close to perfect to be honest, I would maybe suggest some of the blood magic effects need tweaking, since some are just generally whilst others are so bad you may as well forget they exist.

Oracle: Divine access should come with their curse/mystery at level 1 I feel. Also some of the curses are so much harsher than others. Like bones for example. They need to either tone them down or up the benefits.

Investigator: When I built an investigator I felt like I was constantly asking myself, “and then what?” Like it felt as though the class had a fairly narrow use case, and all the tools it needed to do that one thing very early on. Then never really got anything else after that, like every combat was gonna be extremely similar from level 1-20 regardless of what you’re facing.

100% agreed, these were my experiences too. I didn't go too deep into my Sorc/Investigator, but the little I did felt like this.

Quote:

2. Mountain Stance Monks starting combat with "their pants down". The way stances work, you cannot start combat in a stance, which means that a Mountain Stance Monk who usually has very low Dex has a very high chance of getting critically hit into oblivion before he had the chance to act. You can work around this by hiding behind party members, but this is very anticlimactic for the flavor of a Mountain Stance Monk, which is being a hard to move and tanky frontliner. And no, a level 12 class feat is not a fix to this problem.

Suggested fix: Add following text to Mountain Stance:
Special While in Exploration Mode, if you chose the Defend Activity, instead of Raising a Shield you can enter this stance once combat breaks out.

I think we are just skirting the issue with this kind of patch and it is pretty inelegant.

Also, the whole "touching the floor" thing to Mountain Stance remains a thorn on the side.


pixierose wrote:

I'm a bit confused. You know you don't have to use your deities weapon for champions right? They get martial weapon proficiency. The favored weapon is just a flavorful weapon tied to your deity but you can use any weapon you want. There are no feats needed. Well except for advanced weapons but thats most classes.

No feats are needed.

Copied straight from the 4th edition CRB:

Deific Weapon
You zealously bear your deity’s favored weapon. If it’s uncommon, you gain access to it. If it’s an unarmed attack with a d4 damage die or a simple weapon, increase the damage die by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12).

This does not say "most Champions" or 'some prefer"; it says "you do".


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
pixierose wrote:

I'm a bit confused. You know you don't have to use your deities weapon for champions right? They get martial weapon proficiency. The favored weapon is just a flavorful weapon tied to your deity but you can use any weapon you want. There are no feats needed. Well except for advanced weapons but thats most classes.

No feats are needed.

Copied straight from the 4th edition CRB:

Deific Weapon
You zealously bear your deity’s favored weapon. If it’s uncommon, you gain access to it. If it’s an unarmed attack with a d4 damage die or a simple weapon, increase the damage die by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12).

This does not say "most Champions" or 'some prefer"; it says "you do".

Nowhere does it say you must use it, if you look at the proficiency of the class they gain simple and martial weapon proficiency. If all you could use was your favored weapon why not just put "proficient with dietys favored weapon."

In addition the first sentence of things is often flavor text.

All the feature mechanically does is give you access if the weapon is uncommon and boosts the damage die if it is a simple weapon. If you notice there is no actual mechanic in that first sentence, it doesn't mention "Strike" or anything else you would think a mechanical statement relating to a weapon might use. Heck even the official rules for holding an item is, "wielding an item" not bear. If we want to go that in depth.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
pixierose wrote:

I'm a bit confused. You know you don't have to use your deities weapon for champions right? They get martial weapon proficiency. The favored weapon is just a flavorful weapon tied to your deity but you can use any weapon you want. There are no feats needed. Well except for advanced weapons but thats most classes.

No feats are needed.

Copied straight from the 4th edition CRB:

Deific Weapon
You zealously bear your deity’s favored weapon. If it’s uncommon, you gain access to it. If it’s an unarmed attack with a d4 damage die or a simple weapon, increase the damage die by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12).

This does not say "most Champions" or 'some prefer"; it says "you do".

That's flavor text, yo. I don't think there is anyone else on the planet who looked at that and thought "well, champions NOT wielding their deity's favored weapons is clearly anathema." If you take that sentence literally, what do you think happens when the champion puts down the weapon to eat, bathe, sleep, or wipe their butt?

I guess if we did take it super literally, it says you BEAR the weapon, not wield it. So all it forces you to do is carry the weapon, not actually use it in combat. Still wouldn't make any sense for the outhouse though.

251 to 300 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Potential Changes to Core 2 Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.