File: 1721311644846044.pdf (4.59 MB, PDF)

4.59 MB PDF

Reposting the feats for reference
>Foretell Harm
Not going to make or break a character. If Tempest divine blaster is actually worth playing, then yes we're using Dedication feats to pick up enough ranked spells to fuel this.
>Nudge the Scales
It's a revive without a roll or Manipulate, available at Level 1. Again, not something you build a character around like Double Slice or Familiar of Ongoing Misery, but definitely useful.
>Oracular Warning
Finally, some good fucking food
>Whispers of Weakness
The first half is explicitly what a success on Recall Knowledge does. Spending a class feat to autosucceed on an RK check feels awful. The +2 to your next attack roll or skill check as part of an attack action would be worth it if this class had ANYTHING in its chassis to support gish gameplay.
This is a recurring theme, that Paizo is determined to make this class gish-capable and create a dead feat. I haven't seen the Oracle dedication yet, but I want to remind everyone looking at this and thinking I'm too harsh that Thaumaturge exists.
>Glean Lore
ChatGPT could've done better
>Level 2 Feats
Domain Acumen seems good relative to this steaming trash pile but here's the thing - I could play a Cleric or take a Dedication feat.
>Level 4 Feats
I'm conflicted. Knowledge of Shapes is actually really strong. I would LOVE Reach Spell as a free action, and it works on Widen too?!? The problem is, remember what I just told you about Level 2? That's right, you're probably taking Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting so you can be a hybrid Divine/Primal or Divine/Arcane caster with d8 hit dice, the level 10 feat, and Revelation spells.
>Level 6 Feats
You're nearly ready to write this shit off, yeah? Gifted Power is a free spell slot of your highest level. If you have played a full spellcaster in PF2 you understand how good this is. Unfortunately no one thought this through, and most Mysteries don't give you a 3rd-rank spell.
(cont.)

>>93393581
What is the gayest path you have found?

When did this become a furfag game? What was the tipping point?

>>93393827
Flames gives you Fireball, which is actually really good... except Flames gives you absolutely nothing else good. The Revelation focus spells would have to justify the class on their own, because you get nothing.
This does get better, almost immediately at level 7 for most Mysteries, and then you get a massive power boost at 11 when you can just poach a spell granted by a deity who grants a domain your mystery could hypothetically take. At 14 you can just learn any spell. Just because. Your bonus slot works on this too.
>Advanced Revelation Spell
Depends on how good it is.
>Level 8 feats
Another disaster. Surging Might was almost good, but you're too limited in which resistances you can overcome. Water Walker is a prerequisite for perma-flight while Cursebound, but level 14 means it fights with that learn any spell feat I mentioned.
Gifted Power goes here, most likely, and you take Advanced Revelation Spell at 6 so you can get immediate value. Fuck whoever wrote this class with steel wool, I hope the money was worth it.
>Roll the Bones of Fate
This and Nudge the Scales can potentially save Bones Oracle as a support class, depending on how good Soul Siphon and Armor of Bones are. I have zero expecations for Lore not to be trash.
Let's look at this: you know how powerful advantage/disadvantage is in that other game? You have a 75% chance to hand out one or both., and the remaining 25% of the time you don't necessarily fuck everyone else over, and might get what you want anyway.
>Waters of Creation
Seems really good. That is a substantial amount of healing without a spell slot.
>The Dead Walk
Wow, a spell attack that can benefit from flanking. Can't believe this is a 10th level feat.
>Trial By Skyfire
Holy shit this is so bad. This might be the worst feat I've ever seen printed in PF2. Isn't this offensive to Buddhism?
>Overall verdict
Bones might be good. Not Bard, Cleric, Fighter good. Not Thief/Resentment good. But just below that.

>>93394030
When they started printing material for Tian Xia, the not!Asia region of their setting.
How do you stand 5e? Every time I look in your general direction it's Tabaxi this, Gortle that, and now Ardlings? Really?
>Cornugon
>Gelugon
>Narzugon
I refuse to accept that it's not an Asmodean plot. Harengons are obviously devils.

>>93393827
Weakness is explicitly vision of weakness reprinted.
The intention here is that at least one character in a group should be able to RK about monsters, because it is essential to succeeding as a group.
It being a feat is the critical thing to note, because it is an option rather than a mandatory feature.
Would you take this in a game with a thaumaturge? No.
In a three player game with a rogue and a fighter? Yes.
The +2 is a ribbon.

>>93394119
That's a very specific case, and if you're only a party of 3 (why won't your GM give you a shared NPC?) that's all the more reason not to waste options, like playing Oracle.
I agree that ANY party needs to be able to Demoralize, Medicine, Athletics, at least two types of RK. This is doable with 3 characters, however, without assistance.
I would only ever take this in a with Natural Ambition, Clumsy is a death sentence on a spellcaster, and I've already explained why Cosmos is shit. But it feels bad taking Natural Ambition and not Oracular Warning.

>>93394116
wtf are you talking about. when did i ever mention 5e

>eldritch archer now has a feat that lets them reload when casting a spell, using eldritch shot or activating magical ammunition
I can finally shoot magic with guns

>>93394502
It's explicitly limited to crossbows, unfortunately

>>93394518
Where does it say that?

>>93394526
Okay, maybe that feat isn't, but Eldritch Shot says bows and crossbows, not firearms

>>93394544
That's very cringe, tbqh, it would have been nice as an alternative to beastgunner for a spellshot slinger

>>93394596
I think the only way to make it work with a gun would be a starlit span magus that poaches eldritch archer for that ability and maybe the spellcasting benefits

>>93394544
That's so gross. Just why. Why is Paizo so intent on punishing anyone for using anything out of Guns & Gears?

>>93394639
Technically RAW that shouldn't work because Cast a Spell wasn't your last action, but that rule is so fucking gay I just ignore it completely.
You shouldn't be penalized for picking action compression feats.

Thinking of either making a dragon blood draconic sorcerer, or an oec fighter, that uses and axe and his tusks.

What would be more fun? .. and what kinds dragon, same or mix ?

>>93395043
Never mix your dragons.

>>93395043
Damn the tusks are finesse and not agile

File: Untitled4.png (567 KB, 625x814)

567 KB PNG

>Aura of Despair is -1 to saves against fear
>Frightened can't drop below 1
>Easy to get +2 to Demoralize off Intimidating Prowess
>They stack because Aura is for enemies, IP is for you, swing of 3 overall
>Resistance even if they do hit
Desecration Champion is a pretty big guy...

>>93395098
Cafolk instead the, they should have an claw attack 1d6 with both finesse and agile

>>93394693
By that point I would just let eldritch shot use guns.
Like seriously, the worst that can happen is some gunslinger critting with Live Wire. He isn't gonna get imaginary weapon or another good focus spell until level 14 at minimum.

What is better, two 1d8 damage attacks, or a 1d8 and a 1d6 agile ?

>>93395307
agile

>>93395376
nice, so a snagging strike fighter, and also have a catfolk claw attack would work great

>>93394078
Trial By Skyfire is so strange, it's a reprint of Flames' old Major Curse, hence why the damage is so low. But Flames is no longer a skirmisher caster, cosmos was never trying to be such (at least intentionally...), the caster now takes equal damage to the targets, and it doesn't scale up beyond its initial damage. Even with Incendiary Aura, I don't know why you would take so much of a risk just for a psuedo-repositioning effect with you as the center AND target?

Just go with Debilitating Dichotomy for self-damage shenanigans.

>>93393827
You sort of undervaluing Whispers of Weakness, a +2 on spell attacks like Blazing Bolts, Moonlight Ray, Fire Ray, Moonbeam, etc. can go a long way in whacking something hard, and just getting an automatic success on RK saves is super convenient. It's no Thaumaturge but given the fact this can be combined on any non-big-brained Oracle build (or poached for others, given its a Level 1 feat), you get quite a lot of bang to your buck.

>I can now use the nodachi on literally any character with the mauler dedication
Thank you Paizo for letting me a disgusting weeb.

>>93395637
They count as martial weapons, when using mauler right?

>>93395676
The updated Mauler lets you treat Advanced two-handers as martial, so yeah. go full yamato damashii
>>93394692
Normally I would be with y'all but Eldritch Archer was always for Archers and it doesn't have proper gun support. Even just editing all the text to write our "arrow, bolt, or firearm ammunition" to give support for the non-spellcasting/Eldritch Shot feats would be awkward.
It's just better to ask for Beast Gunner to be updated or a real Spellshot Gun archetype to be made than to force Eldritch Archer to be such.

fuck guns & gears, though.

>>93395637
just trying to understand the mauler .. If a fighter take this dedication at level 2, and is using the nodachi, will he get critical specialization? As fighters are expert with martial weapons?

>>93395731
Yes.
Why would you do that though, it's a waste on a fighter.

>>93395731
So that's OLD Mauler. The previous version, before the remaster, would actually let Fighter treat it with their highest weapon proficiency. This let Fighter cheat and have two or more different weapon groups at their Master/Legendary weapon proficiency.
The REMASTERED Mauler would give neither to Fighter. There is a difference between weapon groups and Simple/Martial groups for the purposes of proficiency. Fighter needs weapons at Master tier to gain Critical Specialization. They don't get Martial weapons to Master tier until Level 13. Only 1 weapon group would be Master at Level 5, and Mauler can no longer grant you additional weapon groups.

Fighter having multiple Master/Legendary weapons (before 19) very much was a niche or downright unnecessary thing, hence why it was removed in the Remaster (this also applies to Archer Archetype). The only one losing out on this are Combination Weapon Fighters, which...meh...

>>93395760
Fighters are only trained in advanced weapons and expert in martial weapons, so to be expert with the weapon at level 2 instead of only trained.

Have just been looking at low level characters so far, so can only guess it might not be great at higher levels

>>93395803
>>93395731
>>93395814
Though yeah, at Level 2, it does mean they can use Advanced Two-Handers with their Martial Weapon Proficiency, so that is something Fighter gets out of Mauler. Though really, just wait 'til 6 and grab Advanced Weapon Training, there's no Advanced Weapon worth getting a redundant archetype for your class.

>>93395760
I guess if he's got FA then it's just more gudstuff. You can get something like Farabellus Flip at 4 and just get Slam Down from Mauler.

How much experience is a creature worth in 2e if it’s party level -5? The table only goes to -4. Would -5 be worth 5xp? 0xp? What risk, if any, do I run by inserting them as mooks to be one-shot and make my players feel badass during an important boss fight?

>>93396190
They're worth 0 XP towards the encounter budget because unless you're using Proficiency Without Level they're literally just timewasters.

As an example if your party is level 5, and they have a Fighter. Their to-hit is going to be 11 (Proficiency, level 5 + 6 for Master) + Strength (4) + Potency (1) for +17. They'll have AC of 10+5+6+2+1 for 24 (without shield).

A level 0 orc has AC 15 and a to-hit of +7. They get hit on anything but a 1 (which is a Fail, not a Crit fail) and they hit on 17+. Also 15 HP, so they die in one hit on average to a longsword at this level (2d8+7 on a fighter is average damage of 16).

So essentially they can't do anything but literally block movement. But if you want your dudes to feel badass by one hitting shit willy nilly, that works.

>>93396328
Yeah it’s partially for the “wow I just slaughtered an army I’m a badass” feeling and also thematically they’re like in the heart of a little bad evil guy’s stronghold and it doesn’t make any sense lore-wise for it to just be him and like five guys chilling

>>93396408
If you want it to have a lot of dudes but not be a chore to run and still feel like a challenge you could look into Troop monsters. So it's the bad guy and a lot of dudes to mow down, it's just that the lot of dudes behave basically like a swarm.

>>93396408
Just don't make them roll. Use your words, Storyteller. Emphasize that rolling is for things which can reasonable pose a threat, or where the outcome is even remotely in doubt.
>>93395594
>sort of undervaluing Whispers of Weakness
Am I really? I'm willing to consider this.
>spell attacks
Definitely a better use-case than parties of 3. I have a massive aversion to spell attacks, though, considering how good the best attacks on Reflex are, how basic reflex saves still inflict half damage on a success, and how much easier it is to stack AC than Reflex.
I do like Fire Ray in spite of this, but as a Cleric action. Committing to this Mystic Theurge concept feels absolutely awful compared to playing a Cloistered Cleric of Sarenrae, where I get the amazing Wall of Fire, 4 free Heightened Heals every day, and amazing feats every level, without persistent fire damage. Oh, and all my skill rank-ups go to Religion>Nature>Medicine so RK isn't an issue.
The problem is, I'm trying to find a justification to play this class, ever. Right now, it's looking pretty bleak. Tempest's Revelation spell is a fucking touch attack. Flames falls off so hard and gives so little. Ancestor makes you even more of a paper tiger than any d6 hp caster.
Bones has a lot of unique and useful things. Unlike classes such as Champion, level 1 Feats are NOT locked to your Mystery, so anything that lets you pick up another level 1 class Feat, like Natural Ambition, and poach something useful like Oracular Warning or even Whispers of Weakness, would be just enough to Nudge the Scales (pun very much intended) into a decent, worthwhile class. Just a tiny buff to Soul Siphon that makes it worth using every turn, or targeting allies with Armor of Bones, this'd help too.
But right now, in a world where all Divine Sorcerers that aren't Undead got their bloodlines buffed and get free Dangerous Sorcery across the board, and Cleric is already this strong... it's really hard to justify playing Oracle at all

>>93396498
Your Mystic Theurge concept works better with Oracles, premaster or remaster as:
>CHA is far more a splashable stat for other classes like Psychic and Sorcerer than WIS. Clerics can afford to go +2 to CHA but it still pretty MAD to deal with.
>Light Armor training and d8 HP without losing out on spell proficiency or general feats.
>No Edict or Anathema to deal with. You can grab Wall of Fire AND Sure Strike off of Sekhmet without having to be evil.
>Divine Access means you get more than 3 granted spells and can shop around for other gods for their wilder stuff (depending on Domains), things like Shax or Nyarlothetep
>The good Oracle Focus Spells like Incendiary Aura, Interstellar Void, Armor of Bones, and Life Link are handy and can have more staying power.
>Sorcerers LOST poaching power thanks to the changes with Crossblooded Evolution so Divine Sorcerers without Multiclassing are more stuck to the Divine list.

Oracles are weird in that they very much a class you build wide than tall, even as a blaster. (Cloistered) Clerics are stupendous but they suffer a bit from how much they slant towards healing and how Deities can be something of a ball-and-chain if your GM doesn't play nice with you. Witch would have to start with Flame's Faithkeeper to start mixing up Divine and Arcane goodies, which is an okay patron but definitely losing out quite a bit and there's no INT Divine Option to poach from if you start with the other patrons.
A Flame Oracle may not get much, but they also don't suffer much and what they DO get can be very potent and provide a lot of synergy with other options with less commitment. And this is the same with most other Mysteries (barring Ancestors, Battle, and Lore...). The potential is there but you got to start going wider with your overall builds to really express them. I am honestly willing, though, that's a bit of a failure of the rework, as it still doesn't do the best job at showcasing that potential.

>>93396968
(cont.)
I can at least agree some minor-to-moderate errata would help express the benefits of the class more, its why I'm a proponent of giving them back their Mystery Benefits from the pre-master. They weren't attached to the curse at all and while some have to be rebalanced, they have to do it with the curses anyway (seriously, why Clumsy? Why does Lore STILL GOES MUTE??), so might as well give them some kind of exclusive benefit. If Sorcerer's Blood Magic can go ham and still be 4 slot casters, I don't see why Oracle can't have a close-to-equivalent option.
But Oracle, even back in the 1e days, was always a class where the sum of the parts was greater than the whole. It's not one big deal that makes you pick them but specific synergies in mechanics that work in tandem. Especially if other options would come with more baggage that you might be comfortable with. The reworked Oracle helps make this more apparent, a Cloistered Cleric may want things like actual features and defenses if they want to go harder on attacking than just healslutting. And there's more to build upwards for this idea. They are to Cleric what Sorcerer is to Wizard.

I won't say every option was a good idea. Again, errata should be done, whether on launch day or with the Fall errata. I just think the new Oracle is both a healthier design than the original attempt and has more to grow, especially knowing how soon we are to seeing such. So I choose to avoid counting my chickens before they combust into flames.

Can someone with the pdf post the pirate archetype, I'm seeing people claim it's become Sudden Charge+ and I can't believe they'd remove the godawful restrictions on it and make it actually generally useful

>>93393581
Having a problem in 2e; most if not all of us, are having a LOT of trouble with our accuracy.
In my case I'm a thaumaturge, and I seem to be able to land my better attacks or moves maybe 60% of the time?
>Same with saves where it's been like the old Final Fantasy games: critical failures against conditions are a thing that happens to us, and even landing the condition only seems to be possible if an attack would've just killed the mobs anyway.
We're clearly missing something here, but can't seem to find sources of accuracy beyond stat/training/+1 to match the ACs we're facing.

>>93397100
Boarding Assault [two-actions] (flourish) Either Stride twice or attempt
an Acrobatics check (DC determined by the GM, but usually
DC 20) to swing up to twice your Speed on a rope or similar
object, then Strike. If you boarded or disembarked from a
boat or similar vehicle during this movement, the Strike
deals one additional weapon damage die.

File: file.png (87 KB, 487x424)

87 KB PNG

>>93397100

File: giphy.gif (326 KB, 500x269)

326 KB GIF

>>93397139
What level are you at? Because you pretty much just described my current campaign from levels 1-5. It hasn't been until hitting level 6 that our characters are kinda coming online and getting competent. Low levels in PF2e are the platonic ideal of Rusty Shanktown.

>>93397151
>>93397182
Thanks, that's kind of wild they finally let it just strike with no conditional. Genuinely rad as hell, and makes the archetype one I might seriously plan around now, given the extra mobility it could give something like a rogue.

>>93397183
I'm eternally baffled by how much I've gotten told by other places that low levels are so much better and the ideal place to start when every time I've played them and every time I see discussion of people playing it, it boils down to
>man I can't hit shit, everything's reaming my ass, and all our casters want to kill themselves because their only contribution most fights is casting runic weapon
>yes we're still using the fucking supportive team actions you cocksucker it's barely helping, stop recommending shit we're already doing

>>93397139
First: get status bonus
Bard, Bless from a divine caster, Marshall dedication, try to get that +1 status to strikes.
Second: debuff the enemy
Flanking, demoralize, trip/disarm/grapple, try to get as many negative numbers on them as possible.
Third: aid
Having someone that can give a +1 to certain strikes can be extremely worth it. It's pretty easy to hit the DC 15 for bonus.

>>93397299
Have you tried consistently rolling above an 8?

I've got a Mirror Thaumaturge taking the Marshal dedication to make use of the double emanation and get AoOs. Just took the dedication. I'm thinking I might want to take Inspiring Stance, but someone's playing an Oracle with a Bard dedication and it doesn't stack. Cunning Stance seems really appealing. I can trip with my reach weapon, and the Rogue and Kineticist seem interested in grappling. May just end up getting both, eventually.

>>93397389
Yes, but unfortunately the GM was too busy eating every roll result over a 12

>>93397415
Let me specify that I'm unrelated from the other thaumaturge complaining about accuracy.

>>93397389
my honest response to my players when they brought up the issue of them missing

>>93397420
pl+2 solo boss monster?

File: 1482329827229.jpg (30 KB, 251x375)

30 KB JPG

>>93397447
>||

>>93397447
>PL+3
What level are you at?

>>93397183
7th. Yes we're "have you thought of using strategy?", and this IS the result. A lot of the things we are allegedly supposed to exploit have failure rates too, and while we DO succeed, everything feels like it takes overly long and it's always our own shit rolls that we could do alright with in other systems that are staring us in the face.
Well, that and the incapacitate trait driving our wizard up the wall.

>>93397587
How many players do you have at your party?

>>93397587
what kind of encounters does your gm run

>>93397609
4

>>93397675
What classes are you running?
I'm sorry but by level 7 you shouldn't be having big problems debuffing and hitting unless your GM is constantly rolling really well.

>>93397698
If he's fighting PL+3 then of course he's going to have trouble hitting.

I want to try Oracle, but I heard mixed things about both the pre and post remaster versions. What's the best pick here?

>>93397722
Level 10 monsters usually have ~30 AC and between +19-23 saves. Just by flanking and having a +1 status he has 50% chance of hitting.

>>93397771
Not necessarily.

>>93397786
Sure, it can range from 27 to 32, but the most common is 30. It's more likely to be easier than to be harder to hit. He could also be using rare and unique statblocks, then it ranges from 18 to 33.

>>93397299
First of all, the advice is shit. I don't care about your white room math, do you know what a striking weapon does on a miss? Exactly. Runic weapon is retarded, it is a "win harder" not "win consistently" spell so let's get that fixed right away. Bless is +1 to hit for everyone, not just one weapon.
We want Bless. Fear. Grease. Shockwave. Phantom Pain.
>critical failures against conditions are a thing that happens to us
This is your GM's fault. Does he actually test any of his encounters? He should have your character sheets, so after the second session where this happens, "what if I'm the problem" should've crossed his mind.
>>93397183
More info?
>>93397323
good advice
>>93397420
Sounds like too much /v/
Bosses make sense in Final Fantasy, because it's not an RPG, or even a game. You have RPG stats, sure, but they exist to gate plot progression. You run around, beat things up, numbers go up, until you beat the big thing that was impeding your progress forward so you can lose control of the 4 dudes in a line and watch them cry about the Empire of Darkness and Chaos.
But you never really had control. Oh sure, you can choose to make this one a Red Mage or a Thief or whatever. But it's all so railroaded and scripted.
The closest FF gets to an RPG is the Ivalice games. FF12 Gambits are weirdly close to an action economy. You can have some crazy overleveled dude but unless he's an Illusionist he's not doing anything off in the corner there.
Your GM needs to stop thinking of encounters as things you grind to fight some boss. Dark Souls is a better /v/ mindset to be trapped in, where a small alley with 2 dogs is a serious potentially lethal challenge, and a small alley with a miniboss and those same dogs right after that is a party wipe.
Yes, you are supposed to use a Gold Pine Resin, make sure your build can fight in close quarters, and doesn't fat roll. The internet is right, you DO need to git gud. But Capra Demon was unquestionably a harder boss than Gwyn.

>>93395851
I’d say it’s pretty decent for FA at least just to be able to double up on Fighter feats whenever you want and to be able to have a +2 to hit for 4 levels which is a pretty significant amount of time in a game.

is starting and/or running a school a good motivation for an adventurer

>>93397828
>says the advice is shit
>recommends all the things everyone else recommends on top of runic weapon

>>93397817
It's still going to be a lot more complicated than that in the majority of cases. But I'm not surprised a nogame would defend PL+3 encounters.

>>93397866
Having problems with PL+3 at level 7 isn't a case of the system being bad like it's PL+3 at level 1-3, it's the players being retarded.
You have rank 4 spells and master in skills.

>>93397888
Which isn't going to work against bloated saves that are ahead of your math, especially when impeded by whatever bullshit effects the monster has, and especially because the damage output of this kind of enemy is going to leave you with just a couple of rounds of attempts before people start dropping like flies.

I sure hope you at least get paid to defend the flaws that even assmunching redditors can admit to.

>>93397842
Yeah if he’s trying to get rich to be able to open it why not

>>93397828
>More info?
PWL, FA, lots of homebrew weapons. Part of the issue is that two of us are Inventors and have had just abysmal luck on stuff like Overdrive, and last night's game was the first time I've actually been able to land Dread Marshal Stance and have it do anything (entirely because Paizo dropped the DC to easy. Otherwise I would have whiffed).

>>93397934
>Which isn't going to work against bloated saves that are ahead of your math
Nigger, master in athletics gives you +18 at that level.
I swear every dumb cunt that screams nogames never went past level 5.

>>93397986
>two inventors
There's your problem right there, your party should, ideally, have zero inventors

File: itssoover.jpg (133 KB, 723x475)

133 KB JPG

>>93397587
>incap
Just get rid of this. Yes, removing it is a house rule. But is it actually protecting you? Is it really stopping the spellcasters from trivializing encounters?
>wizard
He's useless. He is playing a character who has wasted his whole life studying magic to perform a mere imitation of what nearly every other caster is capable of.
Look at this. This is what Imperial Sorcerer is getting in remaster. They were already better. Now they spend an extra action to have a +1 to hit. +2 at Level 9. This is Fighter levels of better-than-you. Everyone else is doing his job better and more on top of it, then going home to fuck the girl he had a crush on in school.
>>93397722
Checked and correct, however casters should still be choosing spells that do things on a successful save. If they want to play a game where nothing happens on a basic failure then play a martial.
Rust Cloud, Vision of Death, Wall of Fire - there are, in fact, rank 4 Arcane Spells that will do something regardless
>>93397860
>too illiterate to read further
If this is (You) then I take back what I said about your GM, it's player retardation more than anything else.
>>93397986
>two of us are Inventors
Well that's a big issue. That class feels designed for people who would rather play with roulette wheels than dice. An animal companion suffering from minion rules would hit more consistently. Why would they do this to themselves?

File: shrugs.jpg (103 KB, 500x715)

103 KB JPG

>>93398020
> Why would they do this to themselves?
Because the Innovations sounded cool and we're in a very tech-focused campaign. A lot of us were/are playing the system for the first time.

>>93397986
>PWL
I have never played with this, but if I understood it correctly, boss fights should be easier, not harder.

>>93398048
ok, I am extremelly curious what is your party full composition and what are the builds, I've literally seen some of my party members not roll more than an 8 all session long and still they went through combats moderatelly easily in that level bracket

>>93398048
I've never heard anyone defend Guns and Gears or anything in that accursed book except ironically or to troll.
The classes in the remaster Player Core were chosen because Paizo perceives them as the easiest and most approachable to play. While I don't necessarily agree with all their choices, it's definitely true that you're going to have a much easier time starting with a Cleric than a Gunslinger, Magus, or Swashbuckler.
Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric are really hard to screw up - you have to pick an absolutely shit weapon or spells, and Cleric gets to repick every night - and a party that has at least one of each is probably going to be fine.

bros, why did they make g&g so shit
it makes no sense

>>93398061
Idk if you're responding to the right guy. My group hasn't really had any boss fights up until last night minus a particularly large group of bandits that we had NPC help with. We've just been struggling with base accuracy in general and missing all the time.

>>93398103
>Armor Inventor w/ Marshal focusing on melee
>Ranged Weapon Inventor w/ Acrobat
>Toxicologist Alchemist w/ Barbarian
>A Gunslinger whose archetype I forget.
>A bard. I forget what her Archetype is because she basically just casts Dirge, the +1 aura, or shocks stuff. Definitely the most reliable member of the party
We rolled hot as shit last night and the Alchemist ripped the heart out of one guy and the head off another, so that was fun.

>>93398190
To annoy me, specifically.

Not a single Fighter in the entire party.

>>93398158
More choices with a bit more learning curve. Tried to list every class at least once. Bard bias is evident.
>Resentment Witch
A bit trickier to get the hang of. You need to learn the rules for controlling a pet, and understand which of your teammates' effects you can extend and which you can't, but very strong.
>Thief Rogue
Also slightly harder. You need to learn how reactions work beyond Reactive Strike, and you have to be much more mindful of where you're attacking from, so you can get off-guard. But this is a nice alternative to being The Other Fighter
>Maestro Bard
Has the opposite problem of all of Paizo's design failures - they have too many good options for what to do on their turn. If you don't have analysis paralysis they're very good. Biggest learning curve on this list.
>Polymath Bard
Easier to control but less skill expression. Value drops off exponentially for everyone in the party with good Recall Knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion, Society)
>Animal Druid
Maybe you like the idea of having a pet, but Witch was too subtle. Too many conditions, not enough damage? Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, pet Tiger, pet Bear. This is for you.
>Warrior Bard
There's an entire subclass that feels like it was built for Marshall Dedication
Bard goes hard.
>Player Core 2
>Barbarian
I haven't played one, but every time there's one at my table they do so much damage. If you're going to buff and pocket some dude it's this guy.
>Champion
The challenge here is picking options that go well together. I feel like the only reason this was in PC2 is because they ran out of time, this is easier than half the list above.

>>93398232
A single fighter wouldn't salvage it.

>>93398218
holy fucking shit that party makes my eyes bleed
>Armor Inventor w/ Marshal focusing on melee
I'm so sorry for you. I can see your character concept in my head. You wanted to be Iron Man, and you got rustbucket instead.
>Ranged Weapon Inventor w/ Acrobat
I can't visualize this beyond turbogimped. Particularly because Gunslinger is in the same book. Which is equally poor at fulfilling your friend's gun-fu fantasy.
>Toxicologist Alchemist w/ Barbarian
This might've worked in reverse. At the very least they'd do damage.
>A Gunslinger whose archetype I forget.
I'm seeing a pattern. 3 out of 5 characters are martial damage dealers that aren't equipped to take hits, support each other, or cast spells because their class chassis suck. You're a tank and no one does enough damage or provides enough utility.
>A bard. I forget what her Archetype is because she basically just casts Dirge, the +1 aura, or shocks stuff. Definitely the most reliable member of the party
>Definitely the most reliable member of the party
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OF COURSE SHE IS LMAOOOOO I TOLD YOU SO
god it's so much fun being the only time Paizo fucked up in the players' favor
give up all ambitions of dealing damage to reduce enemies to a drooling, sobbing, vomiting mess and make the players into HEROS
has she complained about back pain, carrying you all?

>>93398323
It'd be better than nothing. I mean, at least something to light a trash bucket on fire, you know?

>>93398190
They love to shit on tech. Same back in 1e, where the tech guide was full of shit like doubled base costs, no ways around antitech the way casters can antimagic, half n half plaas, and those shitass low DCs on items so expensive they can only be failed against on nat 1s by the time it would be 100% of your wbl.

>>93398323
maybe. maybe not. I've seen what a dual pickaxe wielder with Fortissimo Anthem can do to an enemy affected by Synesthesia and Lingering Dirge.

File: b8tSgvM.png (112 KB, 571x270)

112 KB PNG

>>93398326
Fmeh. The GM is humoring us so far, although the early levels really were dogwater thanks to Paizo's absolutely baffling DC standards.

There's so much homebrew flying around that the system's semblance of balance is eventually going to get taken out back and shot no matter what. Depending on how lucky we get, my Marshal aura will be handing everyone a +20 damage bonus just by me existing on the field because it keys off of damage dice and we know there's at least one 20d6 weapon floating around out there, somewhere. The ammo for it is so rare I doubt I'd be able to fire it more than twice in the whole campaign, but it wouldn't even matter.

The day I find it is the day I become unstoppable.

>>93398190
It had stuff about gunslinging and tech gadgets. And even crossbows.
You remember the paizo devs arguing in favor of keeping THOSE worse than water balloons on their forums? Because they did.

>>93398369
not that much, considering he'll be the sole priority target soaking up every single hit

>>93398323
Party having anything other than human fighters is completely unsalvageable.

>>93398416
You need at least one Alchemist to buff the Fighters.

>>93398378
As a GM I like and encourage playing PF2 because the engine, the underlying mechanics of the game, are very easy for me to use to tell stories that I make up myself. Using the contents of the Player's Handbook (now Player Core 1 and 2) and Game Mastery Guide (now GM Core) and some monsters I either stole from Archives of Nethys or stole and then modified a bit, and then simulated in combat against my players (since I have their character sheets), I am able to tell the stories I want with the amount of combat and fighting I want, and resolve the players' actions and the worlds' reactions with less effort and more personal enjoyment compared to other, similar game systems.
The further I get from those core rules, the worse the game gets for everyone involved. Guns and Gears is probably the absolute worst offender, but I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I was absolutely enamored with Secrets of Magic or Dark Archive or anything like that. I recommend my players to talk with me before they bring anything from outside the core rulebooks, and if they pick a wizard I'm going to laugh at their frustration and this is their only warning. But, I let them re-roll if they're truly miserable and retcon them in. This is a game, after all.
So, when I say I enjoy PF2, I mean I enjoy ONLY PF2 in the purest sense, because Paizo has struck gold, then proceed to smear shit all over it because the shine and luster hurt their eyes. I expect them to heap more shit over the original gold every chance they get, and am rarely disappointed but frequently amused.
>>93398410
For 3 turns he will be a walking fountain of carnage before exploding himself into a shower of blood and guts. I will witness his glorious violence, until the valkyries carry him to Valhalla, shiny and chrome.

>>93397998
youre fucking retarded

>>93398020
this spell fucking sucks Id rather just cast sure strike for spell attacks

>>93398496
meant for >>93397866

Hello. I'm running the intro chapter of Kingmaker (2e) for my group of three. They are:
>Narga Aldori, Aiuvarin Thievery Rogue (Sword Scion)
>Hralok, Deep Orc Fighter (Crystal Healer)
>Atir Dorennil, Rock Dwarf Flurry Ranger (Martial Disciple)

I ran an initial combat test and it went very smoothly, with a couple of hiccups. The Ranger had some serious finagling to get his head around the action economy with Hunt Prey, and the Fighter was just generally tearing ass with his greatsword. I'm aware that Fighter is strong as hell in 2e, so I am a bit worried that it'll become a bit too much the Fighter's game and not allow the other two to shine as much. Any tips to make sure that the other two - the Ranger in particular - get their limelight in combat?

>>93398509
Sure strike works as a good replacer for spell attacks, but how easy is a status penalty on enemy saves? Like, genuinely, I don't know, I assume it would require an enemy to fail a save to begin with for that.

if you ever feel like you can't hit at least 50% of the time, you probably screwed up your character somewhere and you need to go restart your character and run it back

>>93398513
Make monster identification a big deal, since rangers can tie that into their hunt prey action

Hello again, fighterfag. Did you know sure strike does nothing for spell attacks, which are worse than going after saves, because nothing happens when you miss a spell attack, but many spells do something anyway on a succesful save?
Of course not, you're a furious keyboard warrior who just comes here and types like an angry 13 year old. All point, no edge, and absolutely no games.

>>93398509
That one is focus.

>>93398536
/pol/tard-tier schizo post

>>93398326
>>Ranged Weapon Inventor w/ Acrobat
>I can't visualize this beyond turbogimped.
Hawkeye or green arrow maybe. Boxing glove arrow.

File: familiar stuff.png (1.08 MB, 1272x964)

1.08 MB PNG

A youtuber teased some familiar stuff, this is the only stuff that seemed to be new, it looks okay I guess? Homunculus seems... Fine I guess? An alchemist might be making okay use of it, maybe?

>>93398520
frightened feels pretty easy to apply. if only the martials werent faggots and tried to help

>>93398513
Hunt Prey is the single biggest problem with Ranger. You are spending an action and need line of sight to unlock your class benefits on a single target.
The fighter starts with a +2 to everything she wants to do except Athletics checks or Demoralize, and they're always available. Ranged Fighters can switch targets at will.
Thaumaturge, Barbarian, Rogue, Champion, and all of the usual recommendations not named Fighter will get some sort of ridiculous pay-off for meeting their conditions.
Ranger's conditions are sabotaging your action economy, and the payoff is worse the fewer actions you have left, and doesn't let you switch targets. So you spend all this effort to unlock Flurry, let's say, and only have two actions left. Then it's the next turn and you Flurry and the target is dead, and now you have to spend actions setting up again, Stride into position, Hunt Prey... it just feels bad.
>Outwit
Clearly bad
>Precision
I can understand how this might seem good to someone new. The problem is, Rogues is like, what, 6 pages later?
Consider giving the Ranger 2 out of the 3 options. I really don't think an extra d8 damage a turn, or a +1 circumstance bonus to AC and +2 circumstance to Recall Knowledge checks is going to break the game.
>Captcha: STAKM
That's the idea.

>>93398520
At level 9 its as good as automatic critical success on demoralize but without 10 minute immunity so you can do it every turn if you have focus points

difference between bow fighter, bow ranger, crossbow fighter, and crossbow ranger

>>93398655
I think Outwit might be a good thing to just make part of Hunt Prey, perhaps.

File: the guard looks at you wi(...).jpg (107 KB, 600x450)

107 KB JPG

Inventor makes me sad because the concept is cool but the execution is bad on almost every level. A player in a future game wants to be an Inventor to play as Kamen Rider and every discussion feels like pic related.

worst dogshit: inventor, investigator, summoner, or magus?

>>93398520
Frightened is pretty much the only consistent status penalty, everything else requires another spell slot or weirdly enough Catfolk Dance/Distracting Feint. And even then, Frightened tends to help martials than casters more often than not. Been one of my biggest issues out of there.
Being able to save on Sure Strike slots and make your save spells great as a Focus Spell is why this is kind of crazy.
>>93398655
Yeah, Melee Flurry is pretty rough. It's way better on ranged, while melee wants Precision or Outwit. It's not impossible or even bad, just counterintuitive to a good routine. If you gonna be using an Agile weapon to maximize Flurry anyway, you might as well take it on Precision to equal out your DPS. Borderline trap build...
At the very least, your Animal Companions benefit from both Precision and Flurry more than you do, so things can click together if you know what you are doing. Still, I'm surprised they kept Hunt Prey exactly as it is while recognizing Barbarian having an Assumed First Turn Action is unhelpful for its fantasy.

>>93398655
>>93398701
The fact Outwit isn't just default part of Hunt Prey baffles me

>>93398701
I imagine it was. This reeks of a "dev" telling a writer they need a third option besides Flurry and Precision, and the writer being underpaid and running out of time so they take a base feature and split it off into a third option.
>>93398691
Fighters start with Expert proficiency in all of these weapons, and gain Master at 5th level, and Legendary at 13th. Rangers start at trained.
Longbows have Reload 0, Crossbows have Reload 1.
So, going into Ranger, your mindset choosing Feats should be "how do I compensate for starting at this disadvantage, and become better at shooting than a Fighter would be?"
Going into Crossbows... just please don't, OK?
>>93398724
It's not Summoner. I've played Summoner before and been good. Not great, but good. I had fun, and I didn't sit there failing every round and having nothing to do out of combat.
Probably Investigator because Witch makes a better gumshoe but I haven't played the other 3 so who knows?

>>93398741
>>93398733
Honestly? Flurry, Precision and Outwit should be baseline features for every ranger, and choosing which ones to improve should be the decision you have to make when leveling, like a thaumaturge's three esoterica.

>>93398724
Inventor easily.
Other 3 do what they are supposed to do. Inventor sometimes can't even do that.

>>93398691
Bow Fighter gets a really accurate shot and a middling second one. Can crit fish if need be. Incredible Aim pretty much guarantees damage.
(Flurry) Bow Ranger gets to crit fish with bows and prevent people from getting near them with an Animal Companion or Ranger's Bramble. More consistent damage and support, lack of spikes.
Crossbow Fighter at base...doesn't really exist. They really get nothing to support crossbows compared to bows.
Crossbow Ranger gets Running Reload, Crossbow Ace, and Deadly Aim to top out the DPS charts. Plus the previous mentioned spells and other options.

Fighter becomes better overall if you are willing to archetype, but Ranger is more practical at the end of the day.

>>93398724
Inventor. It's just not a good design. It's hard to understand what exactly it's supposed to be or do, despite it at the end of the day just INT Barbarian.
They say there are 4 different kinds of stories.
A simple story told simply.
A complex story told simply.
A complex story told complexly.
A simple story told complexly.

Feel free to guess which one Inventor lies in.

>>93398520
>>93398683
>>93398733
If it was just an automatic Frightened 1 on your next spell it would be OK. But it doesn't have mind-affecting or incap.
At level 9 it's the same penalty as Frightened 2. How are you getting Frightened 2 without a check or a spell slot?
At level 15 it's -3. You have to crit on a spell using your highest spell slot for that. Think of a Focus spell you get at level 1 that scales this well, or has this much versatility.
They're all for Bard

>>93398765
>Going into Crossbows... just please don't, OK?
Even worse, I want to make a sling ranger.

>>93398767
I'm fine with the concept of Ranger subclasses and even what Hunt Prey does. Marks are strange things in tabletop play so it is better to not overcomplicate and start pissing off grognards who worry about things becoming "too videogamey", and I think Ranger accomplishes it very well. It just that in the light of Investigator and Barbarian, who have become simpler to pilot and avoid their action taxes; or Thaumaturge, who goes hard on action taxes and opportunity costs but get a lot out of their marking abilities and potential to skirt around them; Ranger sticks out like a sore thumb. It is comfortably average. Not bad, not great, just decent. And that just doesn't fly anymore like it did back in 2019.
Hunt Prey should just be easier to switch around, mark more at once, or do more things if it will remain Ranger's Assumed First Round Action. I don't mind the idea behind Ranger being THE marking class, nor do I think it should compile every bonus at once. I think simplifying Ranger down to its core essentials of wilderness survival and damage racing is more genius than not (see how 5e Ranger fumbles the bag trying to do everything at once). It just that in the light of new options and higher optimization ceilings, Ranger leaves much to desire. Whether you give it more interactivity or compile bonuses, I think Paizo missed the mark by just treating them as the same as Fighter or Monk: not worth giving real attention in the Remaster because nothing was wrong with them.

They could have easily done more, especially if you going to remove Snares as a core option from their playbook (not that they helped at all but it's the thought that matters).

At the very least, they aren't Inventor. As long as you build them right, they really don't go bad.

>>93398767
Folding Outwit in is enough, I don't think we need all three folded together. Monks are already on suicide watch after they didn't get any buff to flurry.

I'm a big proponent of melee flurry, even compared to fighter. I can't fit all the numbers here but the basic story is:

At level 1 you're making four attacks per turn, (which is one more than fighter is capable of), and you're trading -2 compared to fighter's first attack for +2 compared to the fighter's third attack (and obviously you get a fourth attack, which the fighter doesn't get, but which retains the comparative +2). Your second attack is tied with the fighter's. Even on rounds where you need to Hunt Prey, you're still making three Strikes, and that same trade-off applies (the fighter's first is better, your last is better, both by +2).

You have access to an animal companion at level 2 (or 1 if you happen to have access to Natural Ambition), which puts you at a pretty nutso 5 attacks compared to the fighter's 3. The fighter can poach an animal companion or Twin Takedown, but the earliest he can get either of them is level 6 (or 4 if you're free archetype), and he needs to grab both of them if he's trying to keep up. Poaching Twin Takedown, of course, also subjects the fighter to the same Hunt Prey action tax that you're subject to, and if he doesn't want to deal with that he has to wait all the way until level 14 when he gets Two-Weapon Flurry. By this time you've already made it through two thirds of the campaign.

If the fighter does opt to poach the ranger abilities, he enjoys a lead from level 10-16 due to Agile Grace, but he loses it again at 17 when ranger gains his Masterful Hunter upgrade (which further lowers his MAP penalty), and ranger's lead is further solidified by gaining Impossible Flurry at 18, granting him 6 attacks per turn (7 counting an animal companion). The ranger retains this lead until 20, where the fighter's perma-quickened level 20 capstone puts him ahead again.

In call cases, the actual numbers remain pretty close between the two of them, even if one or the other pulls ahead. Melee flurry ranger is by no means bad.

>>93398784
>Running Reload, Crossbow Ace, and Deadly Aim to top out the DPS charts
I don't understand how the first two improve your damage over using a bow, or how Deadly Aim is specific to Crossbows. Do you mind explaining?
I think Deadly Aim + Companion's Cry is the best thing Ranger has going for it, but with a Longbow.

>>93398902
How are you getting into melee range, though?
This entire comparison falls flat when you have to move, you remember Reactive Strike exists, or you stop comparing against a Fighter that refuses to take and use their own feats at higher levels.
Let's not pretend the battlefield is static and we just show up in position like this Street Fighter.

>>93398920
Deadly Aim is to top out the average damage you would miss out on using a crossbow over a bow spam Ranger. Deadly Aim on bows is kind of unnecessary and counterintuitive anyway, they want as much to-hit as they can get to procc the Deadly d10 die as consistently as possible.
It's less about if Bow or Crossbows are better, more about where the support for your idea lies and how practical it would be achieving such in an optimal way. It's why I say Crossbow Fighter doesn't exist. They CAN, but you have to go out your way because Fighters doesn't really give it any real support outside of Incredible Aim.

>>93398983
Isn't exactly that is what Twin Takedown is for? It's a one action attack twice, as long as it's against someone marked by Hunt Prey. Fighter Strides once then attacks twice, Ranger does Hunt Prey, Stride, then Twin Takedown.

>>93398983
>How are you getting into melee range, though?

The same way the fighter is? What do you mean? Also rangers get Disrupt Prey at four, which is the same level fighters get Reactive Strike and doesn't interfere with any of the progression in that post.

>>93398804
you can't even make a dart fighter or a dagger+shield fighter because they got rid of attacks per round and made the game like gurps where everyone gets the same amount of attacks no matter what

>>93399005
>which is the same level fighters get Reactive Strike
Wait, what? Did you forget to bring your rulebook into the white room?
>>93398992
>they want as much to-hit
Then play a different class that starts with a +2. You should make use of what you have, and if what you have is inadequate, pick something else. You're missing double and triple shot for what, exactly? To shoot a single crossbow shot that tops absolutely nothing.

>>93399036
>Wait, what? Did you forget to bring your rulebook into the white room?

Oh yeah my bad I was thinking of the Reactive Striker feat from the multiclass. Worth noting at the extreme early levels fighter is competing, DPS-wise, with a ranger that is making 1-2 more Strikes than them per turn and doesn't rely on enemies to trigger them like Reactive Strike does. Either way, it becomes a wash at level 4.

I'm about to start a game as a Brawler, level 1. What should I be using Martial Flexibility for early on? I picked up Improved trip for my Feat, and I forsee being able to pick up entire chains for CMB shenanigans but right now? What can I do with it?

>>93399051
My point is that if you start the turn with your animal companion in a flanking position, and you start yours in melee, yes, absolutely, you're going to do more damage in that precise situation, particularly if anyone's cast a spell on you that gives you any kind of status bonus to hit or damage, even if the Fighter has the same one, you're getting more chances, after all.
The issue is, in a fluid combat scenario, where there's changing terrain, enemies dying or repositioning, the amount of times a melee character gets to fully unload without striding are few and far between. The 2weapon fighter, not having a pet to command, not having to hunt prey, suffers less from having only two actions to attack.
This is my problem with rangers - Hunt Prey being the single biggest. They're not bad. The setup involved in making them good prevents them from being more than mid in such a gamist system.

>>93399013
> dart fighter
Hey, 1efags. Help me out here. Was this EVER a thing? Was this even remotely an optimal choice or this more weird bitching?
>>93399036
Sometimes it's not about making the most meta choices but playing the strengths of your desired options. Grapplers in fighting games are usually far from the best characters, but people play them because the playstyle intrigues them. You tell them how to play grapplers, you don't just say "play rushdown, they are the best". I was simply laying out the potential options for someone asking what the differences in optimizations for crossbow and bow rangers and fighters.
Otherwise I would have just said "Play Gunslinger" this entire time.

>>93399147
>Sometimes it's not about making the most meta choices but playing the strengths of your desired options.
You just repeated what I said but with extra words. Deadly Aim is your strength. There's nothing even close for ranged weapons.
>Grapplers in fighting games are usually far from the best characters
Are you serious? What a poser.
>"Play Gunslinger"
Oh, nice job, solid 9/10 troll. I'm not mad enough for a 10 but you got me, I admit I was thoroughly fooled. Enjoy your 9 and your (You), they were earned.
"Grapplers are bad" I bet you main Potemkin.

>>93399116
So, two things. First, I take your point regarding Hunt Prey. I think it's awkward too. I'm not defending Hunt Prey as an action here, I'm just saying that Flurry rangers are a lot more competitive than people give them credit for.

Regarding the actual builds, remember that even on rounds where a ranger has to Hunt Prey, he's merely making the same number of attacks as a fighter (and is still benefiting from his Hunter's Edge). This math doesn't swing in the fighter's favor unless he gains access to his own fourth attack, either through poaching Twin Takedown itself (which, again, also makes the fighter subject to the Hunt Prey action tax) or by waiting until 14 to take the associated fighter feat.

Similarly, regarding animal companions, if we're dealing with a Young Animal Companion, then the same (single) action the ranger uses to command the companion to move also grants it a strike (two total actions), which retains his action-economy lead over the fighter. If we're talking about Mature Animal Companions, they move on their own anyway, with no need for the ranger to expend any actions on them. They lose out on a single Strike when they need to Stride to a foe in the same way that a fighter does. This isn't really a white room scenario we're talking about, even on a super average, mobile battlefield the numbers remain about the same. I guess the ranger's advantage vanishes in a world where no enemy lives longer than a single round and they're having to Hunt Prey every turn, but that's not really reflective of most games. Again, I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of Hunt Prey as a design choice, I'm just saying that people shit on melee Flurry ranger too much. It's pretty damn good. The fighter comparison wast just to demonstrate how effective a flurry ranger is, because fighters are the gold standard here.

>>93397730
Cosmos is still good unless they nerfed interstellar void. Enfeebled is a non-issue since you should be avoiding melee. Horrible bonus spells though.
Flames is probably good now. You don't take persistent fire damage from your curse when you get knocked unconscious, which is important. And most of all, you actually get some fire spells to use now without having to spend a feat at level 4. Wow!
Lore is still completely invalidated by Diverse / Esoteric Lore from Thaum. Lore previously had the most and widest range of spells you could poach with Divine Access. but you can't do that until level 11 (and only once) so there's even less of a reason to play them now. But hey at least you don't get a -4 to initiative for using one cursebound focus spell.
Ancestors is actually playable now but clumsy from curse is rough.
Life is okay but it really doesn't stack up to Cleric for healing at all now (and it hardly did before). Lack of Divine Access until 11 also hurts here too, since you could at least get Fireball or something.
Tempest is fine. most of its curse detriments are a non-issue aside from level 4. Not sure why you don't get lightning bolt though. I think the bonus spell list guy was on drugs.
Battle has hands down the worst initial focus spell of any mystery (and maybe the worst focus spell in the whole game). Otherwise, Battle wasn't great before, it's still not great now. But it has a really good cursebound spell at level 10.
Bones is...okay? Definitely nowhere near as tanky. Also has the same really good cursebound spell as Battle.

>>93399147
>usually far from the best characters, but people play them because the playstyle intrigues them
i think you answered your own question about dart fighters with this
for me, darts were fun because it's just fun to attack really fast

>>93399147
In 2e it was incredible. The trick was that you fired a half dozen with shit like 18/00 strength, while everyone else was busy eating half the round with weapon or casting speed.
Your lower peak damage potential without a belt of giant strength was lower than some 2h grandmaster, BUT concentration checks did not exist so you had one or two opportunities to mangle and spellfuck anyone trying to get a fireball going.

>>93399196
Ancestors is the other one that gets Battle's level 10 cursebound. Bones shares its level 10 cursebound with Lore.

>>93399240
whoops, thank you for clarifying

>>93399190
The two weapon fighter has double slice. The fighter also doesn't even have to be a two weapon fighter. The animal companion benefits from hunt pretty as well, but for flurry that's only when it makes two attacks.

There's might be some merit to precision compared to rogue, but flurry has a lot of ground to clear to catch up to a fighter.

>>93399190
It's weird that people shit on it, when the ideal scenario is a single large "boss" enemy.
>easier to flank
>lives multiple rounds
>doesn't move as much
>incap is an issue, buffing the melee ranger and their pet is the highest value spellcasters will get
>hunt prey exactly once
This thread has convinced me that I'm in the minority of GMs for frequently making my party fight 4-6 PL+0 enemies, and depending on how they rolled during exploration determines who has surprise on whom, who is starting where on the encounter map, and who is getting fucked over by elevation, visibility, and hazardous terrain.
I used to think I overly relied on NPC parties and that was a weakness as a GM, balancing the game by making the party fight 2+ fighters, a thief, and a spellcaster or something, and just scaling their tactics up and down or maybe tossing in their pet monster.
No, apparently /pgg/ is full of people suffering from endless PL+2 Savage/Mythic Raider grinds, and many of you are struggling to clear.

>>93399147
Pretty much any weird or kooky weapon could be made viable enough with enough Warpriest thrown at the problem.

is pl+4 winnable

>>93399308
at low levels, unlikely. once you get to the mid levels, sure. Especially if you have a larger than 4 party.

>>93399276
a lot of people play paizo APs and complain about the fights all being single PL+whatever encounters, so, yea you might very well be a minority of GMs people deal with. If it makes you feel any better, I've been debating whether to try running PF2e myself, and every time I play around with encounter design to familiarize myself, I feel like a larger crowd of on-level or lower enemies would be way more fun for players than a smaller number of above-level enemies.

a lot of people play schizo APs

>>93399308
It's quite easy with certain party compositions.

>>93399397
Three fighters and a bard?

>>93399445
Three fighters and a rogue, all with wands of heroism.

>>93398790
Id rather just cast heroism on myself and get more and better mileage out of that

>>93399445
Yes. Bard is a non-negotiable, the force multiplier potential is crazy. It's very easy to make sure all of the fighters have status and circumstance bonuses to hit, and enemy loses actions and has status and circumstance penalties to AC. Doing all of that and healing, improving defense, or giving the party extra strides is the action economy/resource challenge. Also, a smart monster will target you because you're a force multiplier.
>>93399341
PF2 as a mechanical system is a lot of fun for me to run and play, and I think the fact that players can't tell/don't care (haven't complained) they're fighting the Linear Guild again with different costumes speaks to that.
I had multiple encounters for the same group of Orcs and their Daemonic (War) Boar. Identical stat blocks, and I just swapped equipment or which map they were on based on the party's actions.
Do they isolate the Boar out in the courtyard? How much noise did they make? Do they walk in on the Orcs in the keep and surprise them while the Bard is balls deep in a captive, the Fighter and Sorcerer are playing dice, and "Chef" is in the kitchen? Or do the orcs let them into the keep, walk out with the captives, and then ambush them when they're in a tight corridor, and the Daemon Boar is blocking the exit? Does Chef just have his cleavers or did he have a chance to grab the Pickaxe and Machete? Does the Boss have his armor on? The Bard doesn't have his pants on but maybe he has his banjo, Where's the Sorcerer set up? Is the party even aware?
The encounter difficulty changes drastically based on how we got to the point where everyone rolls initiative. If the party particularly hates one character maybe I'll have them flee and show up again. And I have so much more control over how it plays out.
Book of the Dead was great. Skeleton as a PC class means now I can have challenging Undead that aren't some obscure bullshit out of an AP that I have to trust presents an appropriate challenge.

>>93399445
Yeah, sure. If you're doing fist of the ruby Phoenix or something where you're guaranteed to start at level 12+ you can swap the bard for a Cleric with a Bard dedication, the problem is that doesn't come online until 8th level for inspire courage and 12th for dirge. Now that Martial has been buffed and can auto succeed at every level past 3 with assurance you can take dirge+lingering composition on a bard and use inspiring martial stance with assurance and versatile performance to be a walking +2 swing for every ally between+1 Status bonus and -1 Status penalty. If you're Free Archetype you should add on One For All from Swash as an additional+2 to +4 circumstance bonus. If you do literally nothing but stand in the middle of your party going TOOOOOOOOOT every round making them benefit from inspiring marshal/dirge/One For All and occasionally casting Soothe while never taking a step or doing offensive actions you'll still contribute more than any other caster in the game. Hell, never attacking is a good thing, it means you can sit there jerking off blasting music while Invisible or under Sanctuary 24/7. Be the invisible loudspeaker that plays all the fight music in every Devil May Cry game.
>MUH EVERY PLUS ONE MATTERS fags when they realize one guy can give the entire team a near permanent uptime +2 and a conditional +4 on top for a net +6 to hit once they get Legendary performance

That post was unreadable, and if you're using FA for anything except to increase your survivability, pointless.

>>93400063
to be pedantic, free archetype allowing you to have 100% uptime on Dirge of Doom because it's no longer competing for your single active composition and you can now have your cake and eat it too IS increasing your survivability, since enemies now have a -1 to hit the moment they get within 60 feet of the party. Marshal also has straight up survivability bonuses like giving allies temporary hit points and bonuses to saves or letting them re-roll a save and immediately end an ongoing effect or being immune to Flanking. It's not like Marshal is a bad archetype and now that Assurance allows you to auto succeed from level 3 up its main annoyance is entirely gone

>>93400131
30 feet* of the party

wish the pirate archetype offered anything past 10th level

>>93400131
Oh, I see. I guess that's nice, I'd rather just have Heavy Armor. I'm making too much noise to care about Stealth anyway.
Bard's ideal single big enemy strategy is to open with Dirge and then cast something with a longer duration. The whole point of Dirge is that you are rolling against a flat DC. If you can replace it with a higher level of Frightened, or something specific that requires a failed Will save, you do that. If Linguistic isn't an issue and you're confident you can hit its Will save, go for Bon Mot, it's an extra -1. You're just trying to replace Dirge with Signature Fear or Phantasmal Killer.
On your second turn you switch to Fortissimo Courageous Anthem and use something else debilitating like Enfeeble, Slow, Blindness, Never Mind, Synesthesia, Confusion
Your last focus point goes to Lingering Courageous Anthem, unless you used Bon Mot and you can get another turn of Heroism for everyone with Fortissimo. You can burn a 3rd spell slot depending on the situation, or just Force barrage, this is a judgment call you have to make based on how the fight is going.
So, yes, it is nice to have a free frightened aura, but you can do so much better than frightened 1

So how is the oracle now? I heard battle mystery got fucked over.

wish the elementalist archetype was fun or at least good or at least updated with spells

>>93400550
see >>93399196

>>93400299
>The whole point of Dirge is that you are rolling against a flat DC
you don't roll for dirge period. theyr'e automatically no-save frightened, that's the entire reason it's good.
>You're just trying to replace Dirge with Signature Fear or Phantasmal Killer.
you never replace dirge. at most you use Synaesthesia on big bosses as an even bigger status penalty to AC, but even then dirge is still relevant for applying to their attacks and saves.

>>93395102
still mogged by Dirge of Doom I fear

>>93400795
Nah the two are synergistic.
A bard can tag everything with dirge and then swap over to inspire.

>>93398691
>bow fighter
Lower damage, higher accuracy, needs 1 feat to function (arguably 0), can spend the rest on archetype feats. Can't poach Fake Out with bow gauntlet anymore since crossbow got split into its own group (well, remaster errata for TV isn't out yet but it's a matter of time), but still has a lot of good options. Equipment is nice. Can compensate for low damage with magnetic shots, can get Slam Down + Crashing Slam for free with bola shots, can ping weaknesses with elemental ammo, etc.
Debilitating Shot is fucked up.
>bow ranger
Wants precision edge, lower accuracy/higher damage. Hunted Shot makes Hunt Prey a wash. Pairs well with an animal companion (probably want Natural Ambition and the Beastmaster archetype because they gimped in-class progression). Fighter ammo stuff still applies but works worse due to lower accuracy.
>crossbow fighter
Needs gunslinger archetype to come online, kinda sucks.
>crossbow ranger
Play gunslinger instead unless you really want something ranger has, but better than crossbow fighter. Back when it was just CRB and APG, it could eke out a "one good hit per round" playstyle between precision edge, Gravity Weapon, Crossbow Ace, and Running Reload (and possibly weapon siphon), but if you want this type of thing now I'd say go for Starlit Span magus, grab Imaginary Weapon, and use Sure Strike. Maybe grab a mature mount off a 2nd archetype for the free move.

>>93398724
Premaster? Investigator hands-down. Remaster? Probably inventor but investigator is still pretty janky.
Summoner is respectable but has a low ceiling; magus is janky but has a high ceiling.

>>93400742
Since we're assuming higher-level FA you can also have the party spec into Dread Striker for free off-guard, too.

>>93398881
I'm heavily considering allowing Rangers and Monks to use Hunt Prey and a Stance either on initiative like Barbarian, or at the start of their first turn of a combat as a free action. Further uses probably stick to needing an action.

>>93401119
They get that as a feature at high level.
It's compensated for at low level by flurry and by hunted shot etc.

>>93401119
Hunt Prey should be able to switch targets when the first one dies, either reaction or free action with cooldown/restriction.

>>93398902
>>93399190
>I can't fit all the numbers here
Post the numbers, anon. You seem to know a lot about ranger but almost nothing about fighter.

My numbers are thus, although I can expand to other target ACs using a spreadsheet if desired:
>level 6, +1 Striking weapons (Doubling Rings if necessary), all combatants have a Mature Companion w/+12 to hit and 2d8+4 damage

>fighter w/Double Slice, d8 and agile d6: Command to flank and Strike, Double Slice (+17 2x)
>flurry ranger w/Twin Takedown, d8 and agile d6: Command to flank and Strike, Twin Takedown (+15, +13), Strike (+11) (giving your ass Hunt Prey for free)
>same ranger but with precision instead (+15, +11, +7)

>level 4 enemy, high AC (21, effective 19)
>level 8 enemy, high AC (27, effective 25)

>companion vs 4: 11.7 average damage, +4.05 average damage w/precision edge shared
>companion vs 8: 5.85, +2.025 w/precision

>DS fighter vs 4: 33.6 + 11.7 = 45.3
>DS fighter vs 8: 19.2 + 5.85 = 25.05
>flurry vs 4: 35.4 + 11.7 = 47.1
>flurry vs 8: 17.7 + 5.85 = 23.55
>precision vs 4: 35.96 + 9.1 + 3.15 = 51.71
>precision vs 8: 18.17 + 4.55 + 1.575 = 26.05

>>93401174
So if you're looking at dual-wielding builds, ignoring the need for the character to move, and ignoring Hunt Prey, yes the flurry ranger keeps pace with a fighter. I'll note that in the case of the level+2 enemy, the ranger:fighter ratio is LOWER than for the level-2 enemy, despite the fact that these whiteroom factors I've magnanimously granted you are more likely to be true there.
Curiously, despite this whiteroom scenario ignoring several factors to favor the flurry ranger, the precision ranger actually does slightly more damage than the flurry ranger. Surely lessons will be learned from this.

The fighter, of course, has a reaction that applies to all enemies and not just the ranger's active prey, and +1 AC from heavy armor, and an extra feat, and Bravery on top of its bump to Expert to Will saves, and at level 7 it gets Incredible Initiative for free with its bump to Perception. But gosh darnit, the ranger gets an extra trained skill at 1st level so I guess it's impossible to tell who's better.

You don't even need to crunch the average damage when comparing the "worse-case" turns when Hunt Prey is a factor. Stride + Double Slice (perhaps with free companion Stride to flank) is +2/+2, Stride + Hunt Prey + Twin Takedown is +0/-2.

>GM Core removed the NPC gallery

I feel robbed, that shit is so useful for on the fly dming

>>93401201
Supposedly its gettin turned into its own book, npc core.

>>93398902
>Even on rounds where you need to Hunt Prey, you're still making three Strikes, and that same trade-off applies (the fighter's first is better, your last is better, both by +2).
By the way, even if you weren't blatantly incorrect about how dual-wielding fighter works (it's a +2/+2/-6 with Double Slice), the comparison between +2/-2/-6 and +0/-2/-4 still favors the fighter.
The first reason is that, when dual-wielding, your first Strike has higher damage on hit than your later Strikes, because it should be a non-agile weapon. In the numbers I ran, that's 13 average damage vs 11; the fighter's leading +2 is piled onto the former whereas the ranger's finishing +2 is piled onto the latter.
The second reason is a boost stacked onto higher-accuracy attacks is worth, in raw damage, twice what it is for lower-accuracy attacks. Take a 2d6+3 Strike (average 10 damage) that needs a 7 to hit. Expected damage is 9 damage, and a +1 to hit raises that to 10 damage, for +1 damage. If that same Strike needs a 14 to hit, expected damage is 4, and a +1 raises that to 4.5 damage, for +0.5 damage.

File: h1y5m9jhhmdd1.jpg (32 KB, 640x345)

32 KB JPG

>>93399837
>while the Bard is balls deep in a captive
I'm sorry, what?

>>93397202
Isn't the condition that you need to swing from a rope prohibitive outside of a naval campaign?

>>93401201
>>93401207
That better be a thick fucking book. I don't want no 30 pages of rambling. Gimme generic statblocks for all levels. Also a good chance to really flesh out places where statblocks are lacking. There's a handful of genie-kin, and it's all 1 per type.

>>93401363
It's stride twice OR swing, and it can be a rope... thick vines, etc. Heavy curtains. Hell I'd let you swing from the fucking chandelier. But getting to strike at the end isn't shackled to that. So it's Sudden Charge, but better.

>>93401368
50% of the book is going to be long ass descriptions about how diverse the female magically HRTed troon goblins? hobgoblins? skeletons? wtf is even the blanket evil race now?

File: eogt.jpg (66 KB, 732x877)

66 KB JPG

>>93393974

Alchemist, who gets to make like a hundred of these for free each and every day.

>>93401383
Combo it with Combine Elixirs to (al)chemically castrate your entire party or the town by selling them spiked magical potions

>>93401378
Always has been Chelaxian.

>>93401389
The fact that Paizo has removed any kind of non-pc game rules like owning slaves but kept in the ability to spike healing potions with involuntary sex change brews really makes you think.

>>93401543
...why do you need a specific rule for owning slaves? They're traded like any other commodity, and you have rules for that.

>>93398509
You are fucking retarded if you think this sucks.

>>93401569
Why do we need rules for HRT? You can RP whatever the fuck you want so why be a Tranny?

>>93401589
Because they have them in their office. Writers always add dumb shit that's their personal pet project to releases. Admittedly, this here is extra dumb because there is already the magic gender swap potion.

But what does that change about fucking slave ownership rules? Why the fuck do you want specific rules about owning slaves in your RPG? If it crops up in your campaign, just homebrew that shit like a normal person any other incidental fiddly shit and keep both hands above the desk.

>>93401731
>Why the fuck do you want specific rules about owning slaves in your RPG?
Because I want to roleplay as slavemaster.
>just homebrew it
fuck off

>>93401543
>>93401569
1efag here, enjoying my nice and detailed price chart on how much to pay for halfling slaves, how much they weight, and what to call them. They just don't make quality like this anymore.

>>93401741
What the fuck makes you see Pathfinder 2e, the generic ass kitchen sink fantasy setting, and think that one is gonna have rules for owning slaves you absolute troglodyte? Do you have zero social awareness?

You want a dark fantasy rule setting, you fucking moron, not high fantasy family friendly adventurer shit. They exist! They're cool! But learn to temper your fucking expectations to reasonable levels.

>>93401731
You are sperging out about the wrong thing anon. The point was Paizo try there very best to scrub any of the sharp edges of their setting and system so it cant be used for problematic gameplay but then just plops in non-resistible gender transition potions that the alchemist could spike into anyone's drink which is extremely problematic to anyone outside a certain niche demographic.

>>93401750
Those were added in the pirate AP that has you dealing with a lot of slavers amd had the players start out as slaves. Makes sense to add that shit there, what's your fucking point?

>>93401752
>the generic ass kitchen sink fantasy setting
Because I still remember the non-cucked version of golarion

>>93401752
>FORCED TRANSITIONS IS LE HECKIN WHOLESOME UNLIKE SLAVERY!
American detected.

>>93401759
Nah, they were actually already in Adventurer's Armory, the pirate thing just added more stuff. Just making fun of Paizo taking themselves too seriously nowadays.

>>93401757
>extremely problematic
Alright, snowflake.

If you're playing the kinda campaign where you have an Alchemist that forcefems you over the span of months and the DM just lets it fly, the problem is that you're playing with degenerate coomers, not that an item exists.

>>93401773
>Y-You're just a Snowflake!
Rich coming from the anon crying about slave rules. I dont care about the item in itself. i'm calling out the obvious hypocrisy your kind love to engage in you disingenuous faggot.

>>93401798
>N-no, y-you are the s-snowflake
Who's crying? You brought that shit up out of nowhere and I pointed out why bringing it up out of nowhere is dumb as shit. And all you have to get back on that is
>b-but what if I get turned into a femboy b-by my party!?
Well, find a party that plays with both their hands on the table, easy fucking solution!

>>93399188
He’s right that grapplers are rarely especially good. This is intentional, because good characters get played more and grapplers greatly change the dynamic of a match. If one is too good, it risks making that different dynamic (guess right three to four times and you win the round) the norm instead of what the majority of characters are designed to do. Better that it’s a mediocre archetype that specialists can make good use of.

>>93401119
>>93401131
Yeah, handing it our on low levels might be a bit too much action compression. Swift prey is their near-capstone feature, so giving a discount version of that at level one seems really sketchy.

>>93398717
>>93398724
Inventor just sucks, man, and everyone should forget it exists.

It's in more desperate need of a remaster than the alchemist ever was, but it got cucked out of the remaster treatment. It will never get additional features in future books. The only thing you use it for is in free archetype games if you REALLY, REALLY want extra weapon features on your fighter's gizmo weapon.

>>93401832
>Who's crying?
You are. Very clearly with your several post rant about fantasy slavery.
>femboy party.
Pure projection. This argument is about the hypocrisy of Paizo but you got triggered by fantasy slavery simply being mentioned as an example.

>>93401589
So that the DM can't say no.

>tfw have several ideas for characters in my head
>like my current character so don’t want him to die
>realize if my current character dies I can play my new character
>repeat ad infinitum
My cleric will not die even if there are some really fun thoughts in my head. How are Spirit Barbarians, by the way?

File: 1719730690740244.png (34 KB, 387x227)

34 KB PNG

>>93401904
Wrong.
No you may not ask me why I ban HRT elixirs.

>>93401943
Hmm, I find trannies, gays, blacks and all the other woke shit objectionable, so it must be banned. It's not okay to ask why.

I am really liking the idea of a Spirits Barbarian Kholo with a Khopesh and a shield. I have no clue if it’s good at all but Great Kholos having +1 to Trip and Barbs having the +4 Strength right out the bat seems really good.

>>93401874
>Y-you're crying
>Y-you're projecting, I-I'm just m-making random examples
You really showed me, anon.

>>93401962
...are you trying to make some kinda point? That's how most tables work since Gygax times. During session 0 you talk about what shit's gonna be in the game. If you don't like it, you either ask the DM to strip it from the game or you bounce.

Now, used to be the thing you talked about in session 0 were campaign themes and how combat heavy shit would be, but it's the same principle if you hate trannies and the DM wants to have trannies in the campaign.

>>93402010
The +1 is pretty good, but keep in mind that getting +1 competence bonuses is really easy. So it's mostly an early game advantage that kinda stops mattering later on when you have a billion ways to get that +1 competence.

>>93401962
Based and rules-pilled.

>>93402079
Yeah, but back then if someone wanted to ban random shit in the campaign, it was perfectly acceptable to ask why instead of simply obeying their every whim.

>>93402094
It says +1 Circumstance bonus? Did you mean that or is competence bonus a different thing? How would you gain +1 or more circumstance bonuses for Tripping? I’m curious now mostly, I’m liking the thought of this big hyena going for someone’s legs to trip them up and go for the kill. Trip -> Strike -> Strike/Raise Shield would be the best order of operations in such a case, too, right? Since you want the higher bonus for the Trip to avoid crit failing with it more than avoiding a crit fail with the sword strike?

>>93402125
It misspoke because I'm currently fucking around with my 1e sheet. 2e doesn't have competence bonuses (as far as I'm aware) it's all circumstance bonuses.

As for your order: Yeah, that's how you want to go about it. Critfail on attacks generally don't do anything, So it's better to go for the trip with your best option. Especially since a tripped enemy is easier to hit, mitigating your MAP.

The main way you get circumstance (and status) bonuses is from buffs. Talk to your party about what they can possibly offer in that regard.

Of course, if you wanna max your chances, you could always play a fighter instead of a barbarian. Fighters do have +2 to hit compared to all other martials, which makes that attack after the trip even likelier to hit.

File: 1709293055746832.png (26 KB, 546x354)

26 KB PNG

>>93402159
More crucially than that, fighters get the advantageous assault feat to follow up after trips, and ensure damage even on a failed attack roll.

File: Agile Grace.png (23 KB, 644x205)

23 KB PNG

>>93402179
Also this, if you pick an agile weapon, which you probably want to.

>>93402159
>>93402179
Fighter does make sense, true, the extra to hit is very important and unlike Barbarians they do get the Shield Block reaction. How is the Kholo’s -Wisdom and +Intelligence? The +Strength is good for either Fighter or Barbarian either way, too.

>>93402199
You can always ignore that and just pick alternate whatever and just pick 2 stats you like to boost like humans do.

-Wis +Int is kinda meh, both for fighters and Barbs. Wis is perception and thus initiative. Int is crafting and lore. But since you're gonna use a shield, you'll need to pick crafting, so it's not entirely terrible.

>>93402197
An agile weapon would be pretty smart but I was thinking about going off of their traditional stuff and figured Khopesh (since it has trip and a respectable d8 damage) plus a Shield would be good, though that is pretty nice there too. That and I don’t think there are any Agile Trip weapons that do more than d6 damage without being two handed? Fighter does seem really good but I do also really like Spirits Barbarian for the thematics, so it’s tough to decide.

>>93402197
Tactical reflexes at 10 is probably the better choice for trip fighters.
I wouldn't bother with reducing map at all. Just trip, do some low investment press attacks, then end your turn and drool waiting for them to try to stand up.

>>93402179
>>93402252
Man, after looking at Fighter Feats I realize they have a crazy amount of Trip and Knockdown related feats actually, and Lunge also seems really good too. Maybe I really should go Fighter then, be a big armored Kholo in some like tribal plate like he’s the son of some chief or whatever?
>>93402232
Yeah I realize since for Shield stuff crafting for repair is pretty necessary.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (69 KB, 800x450)

69 KB JPG

>>93401943
>>93401962
Got slaveryfag seething.

>>93402234
Barbarians also have things that give them bonuses to athletics and free damage when tripping. If you get mauler and pick up knockdown, you can make a reliable trip barb for a slight investment

>>93401760
>1E has no rules for birthing lamashtus children through forced goblin insemination
>no marauding/rape/pillage rules
Pozzed system

File: pathfinder_demon_mothers_mask.png (32 KB, 1334x357)

32 KB PNG

>>93402832
>lamashtus
Best deity.

>>93402864
>wearer may breed with animals
Not quite but close, I guess I would just proxy the rules for the Bloom from Kingmaker oh well

>From potential 54 daily elixirs as a chirurgeon to 8+6
Glad I waited for these "buffs."

>>93403238
>from potential 54 daily elixirs to 8+6+288

>>93403238
Firsts wizards now alchemists
What will paizo SODOMIZE next????
I mean in relation to the game rules ofc

>>93403238
Are you just too stupid to do math? Versatile vials recovers 2 charges every ten minutes. That’s more over the day than the old alchemist ever could have. And you get literally infinite acid bombs. Learn to fucking read.

>>93403478
yeah because casters have infinite spells because they can regain some out of combat? what kind of logic is that. you go into combat with a fraction of what you had before

2e question for Interplanar Teleport. It says it requires "a magic planar key created from material from that plane as a locus for the spell". Is this something that specifically has to be crafted? I can't find an item or piece of equipment that suits it, or a spell to make such an item?

>>93403519
No. You have, literally, infinite acid bombs. QA lets you make them FOR FREE without using up any of your six vials.

You can get up at 6 am, finish your daily prep at 7, and then spend LITERALLY the entire day chucking 30 acid bombs per minute until you fall asleep from exhaustion.

You stupid imbecile.

>>93403552
GM fiat for tardwrangling purposes.
You need a fair quantity of material from a plane to travel to that plane.
The form is unimportant.

>>93403552
>>93403659
Yeah, it just exists so you can’t spring planar travels on your DM out of nowhere.

1e
What are some fun Dwarf only archetypes I can try out, any class? Just finished a game where I was a Stonelord and it was fun being a rock fanatic.

>>93403659
>>93403717

Excellent. My PCs have just been sent to generic hell and the wizard player said after last session "Guys it's fine, I can just teleport us out with interplanar teleport". And since I just drew up a dungeon for them to do in hell I'd really rather they not look around and just go home. Would it be fair to say that if they wanted to try and craft a key home it'd need magical crafting and to sacrifice some powerful magical items of theirs (runes, mainly) to do it?

Ultimately, I don't really want them to just go straight home but I completely understand why that'd be their response.

>>93403769
Sounds about right, yeah! Might wanna let them find some kinda NPC who can craft it if none of them already have the feat, tho, but the rest sounds like it‘ll be fun!

>>93403769
It's up to you and what you want to achieve in your game.
I would make it so that they're all carrying a personal locus, and they need to deduce which of their normal possessions it is somehow.
If they get all of them wrong, the spell fails.
If they get some of them wrong, only the players with the correct locus experience departure the plane.
Anyone stranded is MIA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh9pItIBKkc

Posting this incase people are curious about swash changes. Much easier to get panache it looks like

>>93403851
It’s in the trove.

But yeah, getting panache is easier, but you also need it less. Pretty good changes! The new fighting dirty action and Swash spec kinda suck, tho.

>>93403729
Exarch is doodoo
Foehammer is fun if you're into smacking people around
Forgemaster is good if you want to play support and craft weapon

While it is not strictly dwarf only, my favourite is the Deep Marshal, a magus who follows dwarven traditions. It's a bit on the weaker side overall but it's perfectly functional.

>>93403845
That's very mean. But it does sound like a lot of fun. I think I'd offer it as the risky last resort rather than their first port of call.

PF2E
Is it possible to make a good melee focused mutagen alchemist?

Was there not a rage mutagen alchemist in 1e, can you do something similar in 2e now?

why the fuck are all the witch focus spells so bad (until major lesson that is)

>>93404242
Sure: Make a human fighter, and you're done. It's officially far more superior choice than any of your puny alchemist things.

>>93404242
Technically, the best mutagenist is a fighter with the alchemist dedication making the warblood mutagen

>>93404299
I do love me a good fighter, just wanted to see what I could do with a mutagen alchemist, high on his own elixirs

>>93404242
With the new alchemist it’s hard NOT to make a good melee mutagen alchemist. You won’t outperform a fighter, but at level 7-9, 15 and 17-19, you are at a +1 to hit compared to barbarians and rangers if you start at lvl 1 with 16/+3 strength.

Plus, bestial mutagen now has striking rules baked in, so you don’t even need handwraps. …though in practice you still want habdwraps for property runes.

>Nobody:
>GM: Man, FH 10 is just so good, in the other group I'm playing I have a bloodrager with FH 10 at 9th level and it's amazing, like no contest...like anon, don't you agree?
>Me: meh
>GM: Come on, there's no argument
>Me: I mean, it's nice sure but I feel DR gets better at higher levels when you get surrounded by lots of enemies and/or enemies have lots of attacks, your FH 10 is probably already in it's diminishing returns stage too and you can get DR 20 probably even higher with ease
>GM: Nah, I bet you can't do shit
So I played an Invulnerable Rager and 3 levels later I got asked to reroll because GM got mad. Now he calls me a powergamer, I don't get it, he especifically told me to disprove his point, and I didn't pick deific obedience or the rage powers that rise DR, just invulnerable rager and stalwart/imp stalwart

>>93404397
The man wanted you to agree with him, not to disprove him, my guy...

>>93401943
r/Pathfinder2e is exploding over the elixir right now.

>>93404564
'Exploding' might be a stretch. It was funny seeing the complaint about estrogen burgers though, fucking lightweights.

>>93404564
it's always fun to see memes from here spill over to there

>>93404564
Go back

I want to guess that the hrt elixir doesn't have a save or require consent because they didn't think that someone would use it like that, they weren't retarded enough for the player base and as a wise man once said
>When game is going full retard, you can only go with it. If you start going against it, if you start going half retard, you're done for!

>>93404840
Yeah, pretty much. It's funny, tho.

>>93404840
Nobody learned anything from the opium spears of 1e.

>>93405071
it's extremely funny because it's the quintessential GM mistake, forgetting that there isn't a dumber animal than a player character

>>93401383
Not hundreds. Any effects of a consumable made by Quick Alchemy last no more than 10 minutes. You have to use your daily 4+Int advanced alchemy creations on that.
>>93401389
Because it has to be advanced alchemy, you can't put any additives in it.

Or just stick to the miraculous serum of sex shift.

>>93405280
You have to USE them within 10 minutes, their effects last the normal duration.

Wow, /r/pathfinder2e is even more histronic and insane than I already thought they were

>>93405123
>>93405182
Exactly

>>93405443
Have people learned nothing from the ninja/samurai debacle

>>93405607
how did that thing end by the way, did they kick the mod out or what

explain the samurai thing for someone who wasn't there for it

>>93405660
reddit mod decides to go on an anti-japanese tirade saying that having samurai and ninja as an option is racist against asians

>>93405644
iirc the mod got kicked out and the mod team apologized

>>93405660
a loose recollection
>The Tian Xia books had someone do a writeup that said there would be nothing named Samurai or Ninja as player options in them
>the community was understandably disappointed for a variety of reasons, and voice this in thread replies
>one reddit mod goes on a tear about how Samurai and Ninja are orientalist at their core and anyone who wants one for any reason is racist
>everyone understandably goes "hey what the fuck dude"
>the reddit mod doubles down by devoting his review of the TX World Guide to talking down to people about the topic, and banning people who question them or post about it
>people go digging and find out that mod has a long history of being obscenely racist against the Japanese and obviously has a chip on his shoulder
>Eventually the mod team has to step in and hand-sort through bans to unban anyone unjustly banned, and remove the problem mod

>>93405743
He also had a stranglehold of some sort on the Discord because I don't think the mod teams for the subreddit and the Discord were the same at the time, so that was a whole extra debacle.

File: 117434179_p0.jpg (4.9 MB, 1736x1685)

4.9 MB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qID4NeB67E

Interesting perspective on a Pathfinder 2e tier list. This person rates the Player Core 2 barbarian as the strongest class in the game.

>>93405960
I saw the thumbnail and expected a troon.

Then I heard the voice and I just instantly knew.

>>93405960
>fighter is S-B tier
Lmao. Doesn't once mention being consistently +2 above the to-hit curve.

...but I admittedly like the reason for Barb being listed so high. And that tiers are a spectrum. It's neat.

>>93405960
It's probably the best in damage right now, and also tanks like a motherfucker.

>>93406210
I mean, it always was best in damage. Just getting that damage to stick was tricky with your gimped AC attracting crits like a motherfucker.

>>93406185
They say that their attacks scale faster near the beginning.

>>93406287
Yes, and now it has the biggest amount of health, on top of temp HP, and doesn't gimp your AC.
It also can intimidate + sudden charge and still enter rage.

>>93406320
Yeah, but that's wrong. Their attacks don#t scale "faster". That implies the other classes catch up. They NEVER catch up. You just have a permanent +2 compared to all other martials, and it stacks with all buffs.

>>93406377
The +2 matters less and less when you start stacking +3 item and +4 aid, criting on 12 compared to 14 isn't as impactful as criting on 17 compared to 19.

>>93403964
Foehammer looks pretty cool. I've been meaning to play a CMB based character. Thanks

Pf1
Does anyone have experience in using the rules for having monster as PCs?
Following them you could make a PC with the lycanthrope template by making it count as one level, but is it balanced?

>>93406406
You don't know the math, do you? If you're a lvl 1 barb fighting a CR 1 critter, you hit ~60% of the time. If you're a lvl 20 barb fighting a CR 20 critter, you hit ~60% of the time. That's how the game math works.

Encounters are scaled around all that shit. That's why you HAVE to have your runes by level X. But the fighter +2 is ALWAYS above the curve. You ALWAYS crit more than everyone else.

>>93406448
You actually think criting on 18 compared to 20 is the same as criting on 12 compared to 14?

File: y8u3aocgnzdd1.png (11 KB, 315x75)

11 KB PNG

Turns out the reason the new Monk capstone is kinda lame is that it's actually for Wrestler.

>>93406481
It's actually even better, yeah.
Just because you have more chances to crit doesn't mean having EVEN more chances to crit is somehow not good?

>>93406528
Monk's can't have cool shit.

>>93406538
Barbarians have more damage per hit than fighters. This means that, even with higher accuracy, barbarians will eventually catch up on average damage per turn even if the fighter is criting more. Criting on 18 compared to 20 means they are criting 3x more than the barbarian. Criting 12 compared to 14 means they are criting only 15% more than the barbarian.

File: swash_capstone.png (20 KB, 310x144)

20 KB PNG

this goes infinite, right?

>>93406598
It's not just the crit, though. It's also the hit. The barb hits on a 4 and up, the fighter on a 2 and up. Ever play X-com and notice the difference between 85% accuracy vs 95% accuracy?

And then, why are you treating this like they'll both only get a single attack, and that attack will have a setup by an ally? We, presumably, both played high level campaigns and are very aware of the fact that setups don't always work out.

Plus, there's the second attack, without aid. ...the flurry ranger is gonna be fine on that second attack, sure, but the barb will struggle. And the fighter, once again, struggles less!

I don't have an excel sheet to crunch the numbers on me, but I'm pretty sure the fighter still absolutely trumps average DPS over a combat that's longer than 2 rounds.

>>93406666
Nah, only once. Second finisher doesn't get the bravado trait. Still, step and 2 finishers as a single action is pretty good.

>>93406696
can't you attemp this same finisher after regaining panache as part of the same action?

>>93406713
No, because of the Fortune trait.

>>93406666
>fortune without actually rolling two dice per finisher

So is this just there to prevent you from using Perfect Finisher with this?

>>93406722
>A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use. If a fortune effect and a misfortune effect would apply to the same roll, the two cancel each other out, and you roll normally.
don't see how fortune prevents it

>>93406736
>>93406754
It's the finisher trait that prevents it.

>>93406689
>Ever play X-com and notice the difference between 85% accuracy vs 95% accuracy?
Do you not understand that, with enough damage on the 85%, the average will be the same?

>>93406666
Multiple attack penalty

File: finisher.png (331 KB, 704x512)

331 KB PNG

>>93406758
how?

>>93406764
get Agile Finishers, and bravado mitigates failure

>>93406793
Because it results in extra strikes which have the attack trait.

>>93406762
NTA but consistency is better than overkill in any type of turn by turn / strategy / tabletop system. For PF2e specifically even more since this game refuses to have noticeable resistances and rewards more attacks compared to large big hits. (Note that I think Barbarian and Fighter are about equal.)

>>93406808
but it expressly allows another finisher to be used

>>93406839
Yeah, one extra finisher. Other than the first sentence which is fluff and describes the overall effect of it (performing two finishers) the wording of the feat is very singular. There is nothing to suggest it goes infinite as only the first finisher you perform as part of the action gains the bravado trait.

>>93406896
but can't you use Illimitable Finisher for the last finisher again?

>>93406923
No. I don't even understand where you're coming from at this point. The illimitable finisher action allows you to step and then perform a maximum of two finishers. You then cannot use any actions with the attack trait because of the finisher trait.

Are you trying to suggest that you can use the action again halfway through using it the first time? That wouldn't work.

>>93406973
how I see it working
>use illimitable finisher
>step
>use any finisher
>not critfail
>regain panache
>can use another(not different) finisher
>chose to use illimitable finisher again

point where this breaks

>>93407020
Oh right, I see what you mean now, I hadn't thought of just using illimitable again, was just thinking of bleeding into confident or something.

Yeah, can't see any reason why that wouldn't work.

>>93407020
Nta, but it's definitely poorly worded. Another thing you could do would be
>use illimitable finisher
>step
>use any one action finisher
>illimitable finisher is a one action finisher
>step
>repeat to take infinite steps
Obviously this isn't supposed to work like this, and nobody would allow it. All you have to do to fix both issues is to remove the finisher trait from it since the actions you're doing with it already have it.

>>93407078
why can't we have nice things?

NO 2HU, WHYYYYYY?!

File: Fzj0E8NaQAAPaFM.jpg (143 KB, 1598x791)

143 KB JPG

>>93407078

I think it depends on the definition of "another finisher."

>really want to play a Hellknight
>never have room to fit one in my party because my friends are all Chaotic Morons or the adventure just doesn’t seem like a Hellknight would make sense in it
Bros please, the new Obedience Paladin is perfect for a Hellknight of the Godclaw, even.

>>93407186
Eh?

>>93407487
he revealed Illimitabble Finisher thing to the "wider audience" and now it will be innevitably ruinned

>>93405432
No. You have to USE them that round. Or by the end of your next turn if you have Enduring Alchemy. Their effects are capped at 10 minutes now. Because that's when you recover versatile vials.

>>93406827
>NTA but consistency is better than overkill in any type of turn by turn
You aren't overkilling 300 HP.

>>93406666
>>93406713
The Strike gets the bravado trait, not the finisher itself. And only that specific trait.

Which also means you can’t use Illimitable finisher again, because illimitable finisher steps, it doesn’t strike.

...fuck, did another Remaster batch of stuff drop? I stop paying attention to 2e for a week and this happens. What's the big deal with the game right now, Player Guide 2?

>>93407594
Player Core 2, yeah. Much less dramatic than PC1, but a bunch of classes got new toys (and monks got cucked again)

Did the new spells ever leak?

>>93405743
>a loose recollection
Spot on. Some minor notes:
The community was split on samurai/ninja; it remains hotly debated but the "pro-samurai" faction was still surprisingly large for that subreddit.
They retroactively removed an 8-month-old samurai homebrew class because people were pointing out that nobody gave a shit at the time.
There was another reddit mod that was backing him up with similar rhetoric who got looked over in the initial apology "we're fixing things" post and eventually also stepped down from the team.
The subreddit mod team is still a clique of insane progressives (and this is coming from a progressive). Around a year and a half ago during the OGl fiasco, they put out a weepy, poorly-received statement about how the phrase "5e refugee" was offensive to real refugees and they were banning it, as well as "5e convert" for reasons that were less clear. People shit on them but it seems to have been memoryholed in the time since.
The drama made its way to r/SubredditDrama where even the lefties there were shitting on the mods for their beliefs and behavior.

File: KnightExample.png (570 KB, 812x1520)

570 KB PNG

>>93407366
Playing the long-suffering Lawful character can be fun in a group of rowdy retards as long as they (your PC and their PCs) aren't assholes about it, desu. My current knightly character has bonded with the tribal alchemist over the fact that they're both essentially in exile, and that the face of their respective peoples may rest on their shoulders.

Does he still give her shit for roid raging in combat and warn her that she's going to explode her heart if she doesn't learn some moderation? Ab-so-lutely. Does she make fun of him for being a tightwad prude with his helmet on too tight? Also yes. But she understands he's really just trying to look out for her, and that she can trust him to watch her back in combat or offer an unfiltered opinion on hard issues. And he knows she's just an impulsive kid trying to prove herself in a harsh world. At the end of the day they can both sit back with a tall drink and bitch about their relationship issues to each other and exchange light banter. It's a fun dynamic that's helped by the fact their backgrounds and outlooks are so different.

Of course sometimes it can be really shit too. We had one PC earlier in the campaign who was just relentlessly chaotic stupid and misanthropic. I hated interacting with them, but they had to step out for IRL reasons.


... That all said, the impression I have of Hellknights is that they're relentless hardasses. I guess it might be harder to work one of them into a party unless he was already an outlier, idk. I admit that I don't pay attention to actual Galorian.

>>93407743
Yeah the issue with Hellknights is that if you brought up an Alignment chart that they are Lawful Lawful. The Law comes first and foremost. Your average dude might lean towards Lawful Evil, your better Hellknight might be Lawful Good, and your stereotypical Hellknight is probably Lawful Neutral, but all three of these guys will put the Lawful part before any other part, even at their own expense. At the same time, if there is a Hellknight around, they usually have the power of authority and are basically knightly cops/lawyers, so your Good Hellknight will seek to petition to have unjust laws rewritten while still enforcing them or look for a loophole by saying X law contradicts Y law and therefore can’t be enforced whereas your Evil Hellknight might say that another character is breaking both laws and will do his best put both penalties to them. They’re a very fascinating order of knights who have a bunch of sub orders all around Cheliax and the surrounding areas. I love them and their aesthetics!

>>93393581
why are people upset about star finder

>>93408135
because people need to feel angry about something or they dont feel validated

>>93408135
people with nothing better to do, there's not really any reason to be mad at it when it's mostly just "what if MORE content for 2e?"

File: 1695608924259639.png (181 KB, 1217x862)

181 KB PNG

>>93408303
>there's not really any reason to be mad at it when it's mostly just "what if MORE content for 2e?"
The entire reason people are annoyed by SF2E is that instead of actually being its own fucking game system with a unique design paradigm like Starfinder 1e was, SF2E is a glorified expansion pack for PF2E and is explicitly tied to the same garbage core system math and design principles that make it so unfun.
>Starfinder 1e design principle: All classes are either 3/4 BAB or Full BAB, no full casters, even dedicated magic classes cap out at 6th level spell slots, how you assign your attributes and feats is what determines your combat role, you can build classes to do what you want, anyone can be good with melee or ranged weapons or skills or technology if built for it.
>SF2E: brought over the railroaded class design from pf2e, made casters have standard 10th level spell slot progression, half the classes can never be good at attacking because they cap out at Expert proficiency, half the classes have arbitrarily worse AC and perception and saves, your level 1 class choice determines everything you're ever allowed to be good at, not your attributes and feats, got rid of skill ranks for binary proficiency

It's especially annoying because Soldier and Operative (the space fighter and space rogue) were already considered the strongest classes in Starfinder to begin with. To anyone who actually fucking liked Starfinder and thought it was a breath of fresh air from the legacy design constraints. Anyone who's actually a fan of Starfinder looks at how they're handling 2e and fucking cringes, especially since it's inheriting the retarded Revenge of the Nerds seething at spellcasters making them arbitrarily worse across the fucking board that *never even existed in Starfinder*. Imagine if the Magus from 1e Pathfinder was changed into a 10th level spellcaster who only got Expert in weapons like the Wizard and had terrible AC in 2e, that's what happened to Starfinder

>>93408775
Starfinder 1e sucks. Pathfinder 2e has its problems, but it's still leagues better than SF1e's "the operative and soldier are made to do the same thing every turn in every combat forever" design.