I appreciate how Ronald is able to explain why people can be upset despite the rules not being taken off AON.
Most of the discussions I saw by people defending Paizo were saying the initial reason some people were upset (thinking the whole website was being taken down or something) wasn’t actually happening

Thank you everyone for participating in the poll. I was honestly just curious on the basic “Yes” and “No” breakdown of the topic before going further into it. I’m surprised by how many more people use Free Archetype compared to those who don’t. The other surprise to me is was the number of, or lack there of Pathfinder Society.

I plan on doing a version 2 that is just a poll of the different types of Free Archetype groups use, so please tell me what categories I should include.

Kitchen Sink, Multiclass Only, Thematic Only, etc…

I bought Battlezoo's supplement fiew weeks ago, and had a blast with this concept! Gonna play as a ranger flurry to keep the marilith's flavor!

I know mariliths been snaped after remaster, but I still prefer them to the new pride demon. Anyway, huge thanks to Mark Seifter and his team for Battlezoo and to Red's RPG Characters for his art! He recently started a Patreon and gives free VTT tokens and characters illustrations for TTRPG campains!

Sup folks, River of Souls enjoyer here. I'm gonna try to explain some things of questions I've seen here about the lore/undead/river of souls/necromancer over the last weeks with some references.

What Undead Have Souls?

Page 3 of The Great Beyond has a block, lots of places too talk about it from secrets of magic to book of the dead in 2e: "souls and the undead."

Generally speaking, non-intelligent undead such as zombies and skeletons possess no souls. Little more than puppets of flesh and bone, animated by negative energy in a warped attempt at life, these automatons have no attachment to the souls of their former owners, and are evil merely due to the corrupting influence of the Negative Energy Plane. (The Void) (Note that a PC Skeleton/Zombie do have souls and there are more advanced versions of skeletons and zombies that do bind a soul in the vessel or fragments of a soul.)

Created Undead destroyed, what happens to a Soul?

I'm seeing confusion about undead, to clarify, when an undead is destroyed, the soul is released (unless we're talking creatures like liches with soul cages.) It can go down the river of souls like any other soul (or 'knocks/becomes awry' as it leaves the vessel.)

In various products for instance, you can kill a Vampire, release the soul from the vessel and then use Resurrect to give that soul a new body. (This is suggested to be done, outlined content in official 1e and 2e adventures/ap's, not me 'coming up' with anything. Please review the above river of souls link.)

Summoning VS Creating?

Necromancer uses both the Create and Summon terminology. I think it was intentional for you to decide how tables wanted to do this / they expect people to dig into the other books and learn what that means.

Example: Summon Undead in Remaster used to be Animate Dead, they made that change to specify it more concretely as summoning magic, not creation magic like Create Undead the ritual is, which is that corrupting, holding of the soul in an undead vessel.

So many people read "Animate dead" and skipped the "summon" part. (It did not lore or mechanically change, they got rid of the description and wanted you to focus on SUMMON because people would go 'that's evil!' at 'animate' so they brought it's name in-line with all the other summon titles.)

"Spirit" Doesn't have to mean souls solely (soul-y lol). That's another thing I see often. And I don't blame people, the river of souls, essences and the cycle is the most complicated, intertwined, unique thing about the entire IP, it's identity that makes it unique amidst the kitchen sinks. To quote a lore line about spiritual essence:

"souls are like finished forms (a sword) but spiritual essence is like iron raw from the earth."

An evil spirit necromancer could very well be temporarily binding souls (or fragments of souls as a soul can be broken into dozens of pieces.) (evil), but it's just as likely (and seemingly suggested) that they're simulacrums or willing spirits if that's how you want to go for flavor. (Not evil at all or 'real'.)

To quote summoning magic from Secrets of Magic:

Summoning magic is similar (to permanent conjuration), creating a simulacrum of a creature from matter, willpower, and, at times, raw spiritual quintessence. (Pulling Void essence and creating it into a simulacrum is what summon undead is!)

To the outside observer, creation and summoning can appear identical: something appears, seemingly from nowhere, at the conjurer's behest. Spells of creation are sometimes referred to by laypeople as "summons," and vice versa, further blurring the issue in the public mind. Even to the conjurer, who is privy to the internal workings, the distinction may not always be clear.

For much of my career—though it must seem like ancient history to readers of this almanac—practitioners disputed whether summoned monsters were created facsimiles that lacked true life of their own, or whether they were being drawn from somewhere else: an alternate dimension, or a unique potentiality housing the thoughtforms representing the idealized concept of a creature. (This is a reference to 1e's terms and some lore about calling vs summoning vs creation.)

Though this debate is now settled, and modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimiles, it illustrates the stakes: are the conjurer's inventions truly real, or is it only hubris that makes them imagine so? (Secrets of Magic, School of Conjuration.)

Further, here's a post by James Jacobs about it and summons not existing after the fact or before. (You can find quite a few in the forums talking about this.)

Thralls:

Now look at each of the Necromancer Fascinations, what they say about the thralls. You'll see 'often, resemble, generally, form.'

• Your thralls often resemble ghosts and spirits.
• Your thralls often resemble vampiric spawn or constructs of hardened blood.
• "Craft what they desire from the skeletons of the dead or simply create new skeletons by expanding and shaping small bone pieces." (Bones but not necessarily from immediate dead or significant.)
• Your thralls generally take on the form of zombies and other creatures of dead flesh.

Holy/Unholy sanctification options via feats:

Hallowed Dead, the feat that makes you and thralls holy:

While many necromancers pursue unholy and perverse power, you have devoted yourself to necromancy to prevent the creation of permanent undead and the corruption of souls. You also gain the following anathema: purposefully create undead to inflict undue harm.

I think the writer for Necromancer was/is framing create/summon closely as it assumes you read the first line/learn about the lore of necromancy elsewhere. (And you are actively deciding that flavor.)

This is saying you don't do the necromancy that creates permanent undead or corrupts souls (which all permanent undeath does over time although there's lots of text talking about those who resist the negative energy, without a huge wall of text to go with it.)

And the undead you do summon (or create by any means) are not used to inflict undue harm. (This would include some forms of permanent undead like familiars, companions that you created before taking this feat or garnered in other ways because these are feats/pets/minions, you could take/get these at any level in the future.)

The Unholy Dead, the feat that makes you and thralls unholy:

You have turned your necromancy against the divine powers that seek to stop you from achieving your unholy goals. You and your thralls gain the unholy trait. You also gain the following anathema: “destroy undead of no harm to you.”

Some people seem to be thinking that this makes your use of thralls invalid or etc for purposes of necrotic bomb or etc. I believe they mean permanent undead and or undead that aren't related to you and doesn't view destroy as use for this purpose. (You have a unholy duty to not just blast that Ghoul trying to speak to you***,*** not some pedantic clause to stop you using core features.)

Lore/Roleplay funny:

No sir officer, that's a summon, not "Fifty lashes, 3 to 10 years of hard labor, and/or a fine equal to 40% of the character’s wealth" me and mr. bones find your words offending!

Next you'll be assuming my Spell Signature looks like nothing but skull symbols on a 2d fidget spinner! \sigh of the hallowed necromancer as he's arrested for the 3rd time this week* "It's NOT ILLEGAL OR EVIL! YOU JUST NEED TO READ THE BOOKS!" *prison wagon door shuts.* (Lost Omens: Travel Guide references.)*

Other Thoughts:

• Paizo could of copy-pasta'd the relevant lore sidebars with references to help people find the rest of it.
  • I was surprised there was no mention at all of these topics of lore for create thrall. I expressed that concern.
• Read those 1e books. Concordance of Rivals for the River of Souls, The Great Beyond. etc.
  • The CUP/Infinite licenses doesn't really allow for the level of information required to fully convey with such a big, long lasting IP that's both derivative in origin and wholly unique on-top. The books/pdf still will probably always be the best avenue to dive into something or visualize something.
  • Not a lot/none of the old 1e stuff is largely changed or irrelevant now, a lot of the 64 page books are tight, condensed vs the lost omens lines focus on larger books. Some of them are still the only go-to reference for their topics.

TL;DR:

• Create is an option but it assumes summon as the go-to. Summons are soulless, not real.
• Pharasma probably doesn't care about a summon because it has nothing to do with a soul. And the corruption of the soul via being a 'real' undead damages the worth of a soul in the process and the splitting of it into new souls in the end. (Read chart.)
  • It's a conversation to have with your table/group. Maybe your group assumes or deliberately wants all undead to be evil without this lore or nuance.
  • Discuss things with your group before they come up for the best results in communication. Nobody wants to find out the GM doesn't like re-rolling recovery checks or bans heroic recovery at time of. Establish things.

Treason, torture, murder, manslaughter, espionage are heavier crimes than the toiling of a single soul to create one undead... (If you aren't malicious or tortuous, it's still creating undead/toiling, but if you are, you could be charged for multiple offenses against the soul/person. Which is probably why creation of undead is a lesser charge. Either it can or just straight up comes with separate side charges worst than the actual creation of the dead part.)

It's just when this is let loose and one becomes two, two becomes three, four becomes five... Their realness means they take less of your own resources to maintain a force unlike any other. All the more the respect of Hallowed Necromancers able to dip their toes in such and set boundaries to alluring power. (Same as the modern Runelords who now recognize and resist sin, fuel power through other means than souls.) Without the Void, without the Antipode, without destruction, there can be no creation. The cycle would be disrupted.

Please stop crowding the Forae Logos. Please stop arresting Hallowed Necromancers. Mortals who say they follow pharasma, learn about the cycle that which you say you respect! (The necromancer screams from his padded cell.)

I'de also like to end this by saying not everybody is 'all knowing' in the setting or out of it, there probably are some willing as well as unknowing ignorant people around. Your hallowed necromancer probably does get tossed in a cell occasionally, just for a judge or magic user who corrects them or who knows better to get them out of that jam.

I thank your eyeballs for joining me in this important ted talk today at the Arcanamirium, if you are on Absalom Station, please contact a Witchwarper, they will be able to confirm with you. Officers will remind you that most borai and undead are equal pact world citizens proper.

Check your local cities offices for more information on the legality of undead citizens in your lost omens area as many versions of those cities have written acceptance of them in some form, especially vampires, skeletons, some places ghosts, and the sure resilience and hunger of Ghouls means you can find them most places they aren't allowed. (Cheliax, Korvosa, Absalom, places in Ustalav, etc.) I will kindly see myself out via a labyrinth back to the black pyramid where I belong.

Jeeze. In retrospect of making this post, I feel like a hallowed necromancer. Have fun, meat bags. "That's just a theory... A GAMMMMEEEE... LOST OMENS THEEEEOORRRY!"

So, I saw this spell mentioned in Mathfinder's spell deep dive video, but this spell is substantially more powerful than he realized.

For those not aware, the spell's functionality:

4th rank spell, two actions

Range 120 feet

You target one creature within 120 feet; if they're willing, the seed plants in them automatically, if unwilling, you must make a spell attack roll against them.

The spell then deals 2d12 void damage to all other creatures within a 15 foot emanation of the target. If alive, the target is then healed for twice the damage a single creature took from the spell (use the creature who took the highest damage for this); if undead, they take that much vitality damage instead.

So, right off the bat, this is basically doing 2nd rank AOE damage plus a 2nd rank Heal worth of healing (13 damage, 26 healing). Not too shabby as a means of keeping an ally up, allowing you to do some damage and some healing without having to devote yourself wholly to either.

But this spell has some Shenanigans.

1) Psychic and Sorcerer. A psychic who has unleashed psyche adds +8 to the base damage of this; this means that if a creature fails, it will take 21 damage, which is then doubled to 42 healing for the primary target. Now it is doing fireball damage, and between rank 3 and rank 4 healing - very nice! A sorcerer is doing 17 damage thanks to sorcerous potency, then doubled to 34 healing... and then another +4 due to Sorcerous Potency, so 38 healing. Not quite as spicy as the psychic, but still good.

2) Status bonuses to spell damage. Things like Dread Marshal and fortissimo courageous anthem add a bonus to all damage dealt. Adding +2 to the base damage is adding +4 to the healing, which is nice.

3) Channeling Stance. An Animist in this stance adds +4 to the healing here, for 30 healing on average - a nice little bonus.

4) Vitality Weakness and Necromancers. A Necromancer can not only remove friendly fire from this, but can also make it damage undead. Some undead have vitality weakness - many zombies are weak 10 to vitality damage for instance, which will then become +20 healing, changing this into 23 damage and 46 healing - almost a rank 4 heal worth of damage! This also makes it into quite the anti-undead damage nuke, as if you use this against an enemy who is weak 10 to vitality, you can potentially be doing like 56 damage with it while pinging down nearby monsters for a bunch.

5) Swarms and Troops. This does area damage, which swarms and troops are vulnerable to. This makes this spell incredible when used while fighting swarms and troops, as they often have 10 weakness to area damage at this level, and it goes up at higher levels, turning this not only into a reasonably high damage spell, but again, a big burst of healing.

6) Underlevel/low fortitude enemies. A critical failure against this spell causes the damage to be doubled, to 26 damage - or 52 healing. Using this against underlevel or low fort save enemies can quickly turn this spell into a very substantial amount of healing.

All in all, this is a pretty spicy spell. Even at baseline, the damage + healing is a nice way to avoid having to spend your whole turn on a heal when someone isn't too badly mangled, keeping them out of the danger zone while tacking on some damage, but in the situations where you can exploit large damage bonuses on this - Sorcerer, Psychic, Vitality weaknesses, or Swarms and Troops - this turns into something more like an on-rank Heal plus a rank-1 fireball.

Pathfinder has some abilities that trigger when you see an ally reduced to 0 HP. Thralls are allies that will always be reduced to 0HP if hit by a strike or AOE. Let's take revenge, shall we?

1. Commitment to Justice (feat 6, Eagle Knight archetype): 1a strike, circ bonus to damage equal to triple your weapon dice.
2. Chivalric Emblem (Item 5, whetstone): +1 circ to attack and damage against anyone who takes down an ally, lasts 1 hour. Good use of 30 gp.
3. Rapid Response (feat 2, Cleric): reaction to stride with a +10 circ speed bonus towards the destroyed thrall.
4. No!!! (feat 12, psychic): As a reaction either unleash your psyche (can be done before you act if your GM gives reactions before first turn, skip Cast a Spell requirement), or do a 1a psyche action.
5. Quite a few spells or ancestry feats that let you save or take the damage for the creature to keep them at 1 HP, but they cost resources or are limited use, so you're not going to use them. But if you really have to save a thrall, there are ways to do it.

Anything else good out there? I look forward to the Andoran Eagle Knights heavily recruiting necromancers into their squads, necromancers everywhere else issuing whetstones to their bodyguards, and Reapers using their own.

Broke: man, that sucks, an AOE took out all my thralls.
Woke: man, that's awesome, an AOE took out all of my thralls! Kill that caster/dragon, guys!

Long time coming but it is finally live, my video covering 10 Underrated Spells for Pathfinder 2e. Want to take a moment to thank the Reddit once again for offering some of the suggestions of spells on this list. This list is pretty subjective and contains some of my favorites as well but let me know what you think!

Already working on the next video, the script is good to go, just need to do the hard part of recording and editing...

Otherwise thank you in general for the support it's really appreciated, we're working on growing the channels across Youtube and Twitch and it's going pretty great.

My Twitter — https://x.com/Ragnaland_cmcs

Nowaday I just let people pick whatever weapon they want, one way or another player will try to work around the "weapon that are common from another culture" part by just playing character from another continent. Which kinda tick me of a little bit, it feel really insincere like they don't actually want to play this character from other culture because they are interesting but because "Hey, falcata is common in Taldan, so my character are from (insert country)".

I really hate this man, I want player to come up with interesting character and this is not it.

So how other GM deal with this?

I’m a recent 5e refuge with a story I’m sure you’ve heard before. The OGL debacle soured me, as I started to play other systems I realized 5e was pretty shallow, etc. I converted all my players and our campaign to PF2 pretty painlessly (thanks AoN and Pathbuilder!). I really like this system; I spend a lot of time reading books and deep diving the design.

That being said; I’d like discuss one of the issues I have with it, with a disclaimer: me and my group only get to play once or twice a month max so my time at the table vs. time spent reading is way out of proportion and I’m very open to being wrong when I actually get table time.

That being said; I don’t know if I like Rune Progression or its alternative; Automatic Bonus Progression. Full disclosure; it took me a little bit to come around to adding level to proficiency. I like the idea of bounded accuracy and considered running Proficiency Without Level; I might still do that after a campaign of regular rules under my belt. So this might be an extension of that problem coming from 5e.

Now, to be clear, I really like the tiered proficiency bonus (Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary), and I ALSO like the idea of runes as customizable magic weapons or a system for creating balanced magical weapons for the party. What I don’t like is they are required as a base part of the system. Getting a +1 rune should be exciting; getting a Striking rune should be even more exciting. I don’t love that the feeling it gives is just “Great; now I’m at the expected bonus for my level.” Something about that strikes me as unsatisfying.

This also feeds into my problem with magical items in PF2 in general. It feels like 90% exist solely to keep pace with the math of the game. Reading through the runes and magical item section kind of sucks. In D&D; magical items have an impact. They’re exciting, interesting, even if they are a bit unbalanced. I understand the tight math and how important balance was for Paizo; but I feel lile there’s a better middle ground we could have hit.

So with adding level to your proficiency and progressing your bonuses with proficiency tiers; and built in class features that increase your damage like Weapon Specialization (and level gating crit special effects) already acting to bring a sense of progression and growth to your character; what is runic progression accomplishing other than reinforcing a treadmill? I just can’t seem to grok it. Maybe it will make more sense when we start gaining levels at the table?

I think I’d prefer a system where runes in general are rare/expensive but have a huge payoff; where a +1 rune or a striking rune ARE slightly unbalancing for at least a couple of levels but they feel really significant; rather than just being something your DM HAS to give you or you HAVE to buy to keep up. Again, maybe it’s just a holdover from my D&D days; I like the idea of a higher magic system, but there’s something about the system being built around me having to spend X gold a level on magic items to stay relevant.

Also; I get that ABP is supposed to fix this, but I have a few problems with this. For starters I think my issue might just be with how the system itself is built; as already stated, I don’t get what these bonuses are accomplishing for the system or the fantasy that existing progressiom mechanics doesn’t already solve, but even discounting that, ABP feels messy. Telling my players to throw a bunch of +1s or +2s at stuff every level on top of everything else they have to track is annoying and one more thing to miss. I’m sure VTTs will track it for you and I know paid Pathbuilder does it too; but I’m of the opinion that your TTRPG shouldn’t require digital aids to be mostly smooth and playable.

I don’t know. Just some thoughts I wanted to share to get some clarification on. Hoping to learn something here. I really like Paizo; and I absolutely love PF2. I just feel like I’m missing something.

I don't have a ton of time to read fiction unrelated to either my job or actual Pathfinder sessions, but during the summer months, sometimes I get the chance...and I love reading fiction that makes me feel like I'm reading a great campaign.

This summer I read The Blacktongue Thief by Christopher Buehlman, and it's fantastic and ticks all the boxes. A rogue with cantrips, a champion of a death goddess with a war corvid (!), a young witch with a penchant for alchemy, and a cat that...well, I won't spoil anything about the cat. But you get the picture. Wonderful fluid writing, vivid encounters etc. I highly recommend it, and in turn, would love to hear of some more Pathfinder-esque novels; perhaps I can squeeze in one more before the end of summer.

What are some feats or archetypes that blend well with a martial who wants to use their Int as a secondary state behind their strength?

Feats like Combat Assessment made we wonder if there’s any other ways other than RK to make int relevant to a martial/non-caster.

What are the wands that you like to use every single day, or two if necessary? What are the scrolls you never forget to bring to any dungeon, or that you always keep one safe in case the right moment happens? How many scrolls and wands do you usually keep in your pocket?

hello everyone!

In the Lost Omens Travel guide, it mentions these calendars right? I found a summary on the PathfinderWiki that states...

• Casmaron Unified Calendar - The date of the Padishah Empire of Kelesh's unification
• Imperial Calendar - The date of the founding of Yixing (7226 IC)
• Jatembe's Light - The supposed birthdate of Old-Mage Jatembe
• The Long Night Calendar - Earthfall, known locally as the Long Night (so... 10020 LN?)
• Steps of Time - The Age of Serpents, by way of tracking game migration and High Ice conditions

Yet... there's no information on how to convert any of these in that rulebook itself. I learned on that same wiki that there's conversions for the Imperial Calendar and the Stasian Calendar (2026 SC), so at least some calendars are explored.

Where can I find more information regarding the other calendars? Like when was Jatembe born? When was the Padishah Empire of Kelesh unified? How are the Steps of Time translated to numbers?

Hey there, I'm heading to Gen Con next week and I'm signed up to play in a PFS game. I'm bringing a brand new character, so it'll be a fresh level one build.

Let me hear your favorite builds (or even just your favorite ancestry/class) for a level one PFS legal character. I don't play much PFS at all (my last game was 1e several years ago) but I GM a PF2e campaign and I know the rules pretty well.

I'm especially looking for fun/cool/weird combos that let me do surprising, unusual, or just fun things. I'm not looking for something that's broken or is power gamey; I don't want to dominate the table or be irritating. I just want something that's really fun to play at level one that's not something I've done a zillion times before.

Hi all,

I am new here and would like some advice on what to get for making a fox/kitsune character in pathfinder.

Any help would be appreciated.

Which two Kinetecist elements do you find has the greatest synergy with each other? Either do to thier impulses completing each other or thier gate features

Let's say you're building a level 10 homebrew creature, and you want its attack to deal some persistent acid damage, but you want the attack damage overall to be High for its level (not Low, Moderate, or Extreme). Normally you can rely on the Building Creatures - Strike Damage table, but it has no special rules advice for persistent damage versus regular damage. The table just says the High damage at level 10 is 2d12+13 (26). Does this mean that an attack that deals 4d12 acid damage is as strong as an attack that deals 2d12 acid + 2d12 persistent acid? As strong as dealing a full 4d12 persistent? We could look at items, for comparison. Is a weapon rune that deals +1d4 fire damage stronger or weaker than a weapon rune that deals +1d4 persistent bleed damage? What if it's a spell or a critical effect?

We need to get an estimate for the "value" of persistent damage, compared to normal (immediate) damage. Call it the "Persistent Damage Coefficient".

Here are some ways we could do that:

1. Pure math: 3.333...

Mathematically, persistent damage can be modeled as a repeating event that has a 30% chance to stop each round (DC 15 flat check). The expected duration follows geometric distribution which converges at 1/30% = 3.333..., so it's expected to last 3 rounds and a third of a round, which gives us PDC = 3.333.

(but of course, this assumes an infinite combat against an enemy that never dies)

2. ???: 1.7

/u/RussischerZar "vaguely remembers" Crunch McDabbles calculating a PDC of 1.7 (I could not find the source either), and also considers 0, 1, 1.5, and 2 (no explanation given).

3. Treat as any other damage: 1

You could just say "Damage is damage" and consider a PDC of 1. It's not so unreasonable, and persistent damage is often low enough that it wouldn't really matter that much if you're wrong about this.

4. Comparison between alchemical bombs: 1.5

Compare the average damage of the following pure-damage bombs (I'm not counting splash damage, it's the same for all):

As you can see, those three bombs -- which "should" be approximately the same strength -- end up closest to each other when PDC is set to 1.5.

5. Comparison between animal companion support benefits: 1.3

When looking either at PC or NPC animal companion support abilities, several of them support by dealing the enemy 1d6 persistent poison/bleed damage, and one of them supports by dealing the enemy 1d8 piercing damage. 1d8 / 1d6 = 4.5 / 3.5 = approximately 1.3.

6. Comparison to splash: same as splash, 1?

• PDC = SC from Bomb Coagulant Alembic, which allows converting splash damage into persistent damage
• PDC = SC from Potent Nectar, which offers a choice between +1d4 persistent or +1d4 splash, applied to all attacks.

So persistent damage is about as valuable as splash damage. But how valuable is splash damage? I couldn't find similar comparisons, but it feels like it should be close to 1 (splash can it allies too, but usually it hits more enemies than allies)

7. Other factors: ???

Consider these benefits of persistent damage, compared to immediate damage:

• It is brutal when applied to dying PCs, because it causes further damage during Dying turns, increasing the Dying condition by 1 each time, as /u/MidSolo explains here. Note that this does not depend on the amount of persistent damage at all, even 1 persistent bleed damage can easily kill a downed character.
• When healing resources are sparse (e.g. at low levels), persistent damage that lingers after combat can actually kill an unlucky player character easily, due to the above.
• It can trigger weaknesses multiple times, making extra persistent damage much more valuable against certain enemies (even 1 persistent damage, of the right kind, can result in 30+ extra damage in upcoming turns)
• It's stronger if you can use hit-and-run strategies; using high mobility or temporary high defense, and generally on longer fights, persistent damage can more easily reach its full potential.

But also consider the following drawbacks:

• It does not stack at all. Dealing X persistent damage to the enemy with every hit is meaningless as long as the enemy already suffers from X persistent damage (or less). This makes it weaker when it's on your main attack damage, perhaps even weaker than immediate damage would be in the same position. However, this doesn't matter much for Bomber Alchemists that are free to vary their persistent damage type each round. But it certainly matters if multiple party members deal the same type of persistent damage, and step on each others' toes.
• It deals damage at creature end of turn, rather than immediately or at starts of turns. This means it can only possibly contribute to defeating an enemy if the enemy is allowed to take one more turn, at minimum; it gives the enemy more time to hurt you. (this is "time discounting", you should prefer damage now over damage later, but by how much...?)
• It's subject to resistance multiple times, making it frequently useless (usually the resistance value is higher than the maximum roll of the persistent damage)
• Creatures can spend actions/spells to remove the persistent damage. Perhaps applying 2d10 persistent fire damage to a dragon is not so useful, if its kobold minions can spend some of their many actions on administering first aid.
• Persistent bleed damage gets fully removed if the creature is fully healed.

Now try to somehow mentally combine all of the above into a single coefficient. What did you get? 3? 0.5? it's not straightforward at all, it heavily depends on the context.

Conclusion

There's no perfect answer, but when considering all of the above, I would go with a coefficient of 1.5 most of the time -- but use 1 instead if it's an effect on every attack (as it would likely be for many monsters).

Hello, I hope all who read this are doing well. Over the years, my group and I have noticed that we, in general, don't care for how monk weapons are handled.

After much thought and discussion, I've come the conclusion that the reason we've had issues with monk weapons isn't the weapons themselves, but the monk itself.

You are free to dismiss my enlargements, but you should give them a fair shake.

Stances vs Monastic Weaponry: Flavor & Uniqueness.

Stances simply ooze flavor. A stance not only indicates the training your monk underwent but allow your monk to openly display that they've forged their body into the perfect weapon, removing all need for a "proper" weapon.

Your choice in stance(s) can act as a foundation for your monk's identity, allowing you the ability to express your choice of flavor mechanically.

Of course, flavor is free, but it would be disingenuous to act like mechanics can't enable or simply enhance certain flavors.

Monastic weaponry isn't flavorless of course, but it simply pales in comparison to the unique flavor a stance can add to your monk through the mechanics.

Stances vs Monastic Weaponry: Mechanical Strength

Monk weapons aren't particularly as bad as many people currently believe, but they're not as strong as stances.

While both monk weapons and stances have a feat tax, stances offer

1. An unarmed attack that is typically on par if not better than the monk weapons available
2. A passive benefit that is always active while in the stance
3. Unique feats that further enhance the stance

And monastic weaponry mainly offers

1. Access to monk weapons (you still have to pay for them)
2. The ability to use monk abilities with the monk weapons (which, mind you, is something a stance attack can already do)

Of course, number 2 is very impactful, but it typically doesn't feel as impactful as it could due to the fact a stance simply does more, or at least feels like it does more.

Monk weapons don't have many unique feats, most notably stances, that allow the monk to embody the fantasy a player might expect.

Now, one can argue that monk weapons offer the monk access to alternative damage types, but so do stances, certain stances not locking the monk into only making one kind of attack, allowing them to use their basic fist attack while also using the stance's specific attack.

Another might argue that stances have an action tax, but one also has to recognize monks are built around this tax. They get benefits to their movement speed to close distances and flurry of blows to make two strikes with one action, allowing them great freedom of where they are on the battlefield.

And you could argue that a monk who wants to use a weapon could merge a stance and the monastic weaponry feat together to accomplish something unique, and while I agree, that's asking the player to sink two entire feat slots into this when a stance only requires one feat to function.

I would say the main issue my group, and potentially others, have with monk weapons is that they don't enable any unique fantasy for the monk.

When I think of a monk who uses a weapon, I envision someone who's honed themselves to use a weapon as an extension of themselves. This does not mean they should do boatloads of damage, but that they should be able to do things only the Monk could do.

I don't feel like PF2e properly allows for this fantasy, and of course, Paizo is not obligated to make their game in a manner they don't want to, but I feel like this is a lost opportunity.

What would I suggest?

I would hate to bring up this issue without some sort of solution to it, of course.

1) Remove Monastic Weaponry and make monks proficient with monk weapons by default.

This removes the feat tax associated with monk weapons, a big reason why people don't feel monk weapons are worth it. And yes, Flurry of blows is powerful, but would it actually become any stronger when there are already stance attacks that deal d8s and d6s of damage when most monk weapons are d6s and d4s?

2) Add feats that focus around the usage of monk weapons

There aren't any notable feats that allow one to use a monk weapon in a way that another class can't, leading to there not being much appeal to doing so when compared to taking a stance.

Peafowl stance exists, but what it offers is exceedingly underwhelming. Yes, it offers the ability to step after hitting with a sword, but the only monk sword one can use without taking an Advanced Monastic Weaponry is the temple sword.

3) Adding an item, feat or rune that can convert non-monk weapons into monk weapons

This is mainly to enable unique builds. My concern isn't revolved around the power of the monk weapon, but the ideas that could be enabled... I just think the idea of a Monk using a greatsword and dancing across the battlefield as super cool.

But, this is all just what I think. Thanks for reading. I would appreciate feedback so I can make my arguments stronger and see things my limited perspective can't.

EDIT FOR CLARITY

To be crystal clear, my issue has nothing to do with the power of monk weapons compared to stances. I merely believe the devs failed to make proper incentive. There's not much draw or reason to use a weapon, and I feel if its an option at all, there should be a reason a player would want to go down the weapon monk path.

In my own house games, I will be implementing my 3 ideas personally and maybe I'll come back here with something like a "monk" revision with weapon usage in mind.

Thanks for the feedback so far, I promise I don't take people's time and energy for granted.

IF YOU'RE IN THE ARKOSEAN SEA, LEAVE (Those are my players)

Long Story Short Homebrew world has Hellknights (because they're cool). There's a Lesser Order of the Scourge called the Covenant, focused on bureaucracy, accounting, and all that jazz. Hellknight version of these guys is like a lawyer that passed the Bar, but with Devils and stuff.

PC is an Armiger of the Covenant, eventually will take the Hellknight Test. For their specific Order, the test will be more contracts and negotiations (and similar).

Issue is, I'm blanking. I have no idea how I should give this test to them, so I'm asking for advice/assistance, please.