I still want to know who decided Sorcerer isn't a core 1 class. I JUST WANT TO TALK. Pretty sure it's because the Draconic Bloodline needs some reworking since chromatic/metallic dragons are tied to the OGL and Paizo needs extra time to get their new dragons right. Same goes for Barbarians.
I made a 3rd level Psychic for a PFS game this past Saturday. The party was lacking a healer, so I decided to lean into the support role. Looking at the conscious mind options, I decided Infinite Eye would be the best from a support perspective, with the Amp to Guidance and the combat bonuses / information from an Amp’d Mental Scan. As Psychic is Uncommon class with access conditions, I decided that a Rahadoumi secular medic would fit well with providing additional healing to the party as well as fitting in from a lore perspective. Given that, the Precise Discipline fit my character idea better, and having Int as my key ability score let me pick up a good number of skills. When play testing a class, I generally play a Human, since Natural Ambition lets me pick up an extra class feat. Since I saw this character as healer and support, I picked up Unleash Self-Defense through Natural Ambition, and Mental Balm at 2nd level. I made sure to know Soothe as a signature spell; as the party’s only spell casting healer I figured there was a good chance it would be the only spell I’d cast from my spell slots. We played the new PFS Intro scenario, 3-01, at subtier 3-4.
Spoiler:
In the first encounter, on my character’s first turn, one of the elemental enemies had gone and closed to 30 feet of me. I started with an Amp’d mental scan to learn about its saves and provide the party bonuses, and followed with a telekinetic projectile. On my second turn, the first enemy was nearly dead and the second enemy moved right next to it, so I scanned enemy #2 and cast another telekinetic projectile. This time, I remembered to use the Aid reaction to help one of my allies. (I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to roll to aid, so I just rolled a dagger attack and figured that would be close enough.) On round 3, I Unleashed Focused Intent and used another telekinetic projectile. (I didn’t need the damage bonus, but figured I might want the free amps in the next two rounds). However, the combat had finished before combat round 4 for me. After combat, the GM told us we had 10 minutes of downtime, and I needed to Refocus, but also Treat Wounds on various party members. Looking through the Refocus description from the Psychic, I could “practice a craft or activity that gives [me] the mental space to self-reflect”. I argued that, as a Rahadoumi secular medic with Assurance [Medicine], treating wounds was something my character could do sort of automatically / subconsciously, so I’d be able to refocus while doing so. My GM told me he’d allow it today but not set a precedent on it. Fine by me. In any case, having focus points seemed to be very important, and if push came to shove I’d have refocused and told the party member to drink some potions. In the second encounter, round one was spent striding toward and telekinetic projecting one of the enemies. It then flew towards me and attached itself, so round 2 was using Acrobatics to manually detach it, and then using another telekinetic projectile. On round 3 I finally had the action economy to amp a Mental Scan before attacking it. At that point the combat was winding down; I think I used an Amp’ed Guidance on some sort of after-combat check before taking the time to refocus and treat wounds. When we got to the abandoned tavern hideout, I used an Amp’d guidance on our party member using Thievery to try and remove the boards quietly. Unfortunately, a simple failure was enough to alert those inside that we were coming in, so my focus point was essentially wasted and I’d enter the combat down one Focus. I had rolled low on initiative, so by the time it was my turn, our party goblin had run in and gotten intimidated by one of the scoundrels. This seemed like a good time to use an amp’ed Guidance with Mental Balm. Unfortunately, my counteract check wasn’t high enough to remove the intimidation; I rolled an 8, getting a 17 on my counteract check; I needed something like an 18 or 19 to succeed. On round 2, one of our party members was dropped, so I used my level 2 soothe to get them back on their feet. Round 3 had me approach to get an enemy into the light of my everburning torch. I then unleashed Self Defense (having cast Guidance and Soothe in prior rounds), and then cast an Amp’d Mental Scan with the benefit of an unleashed psyche. The remainder of the fight (ore or two rounds) had me using Daze or Telekinetic Projectile, and lamenting the damage penalty I was taking. My takeaways:
I feel like I’ve heard that the guide is not correct here, at least from a PF2 rules perspective. Uncommon + access shouldn’t really be common. It’s still Uncommon, but you have access and can therefore select that rules option. But that’s up to the org play / guide team to address.
Hello. I'd like to cancel my Pathfinder Battles case subscription. The increase in cost is the primary factor for me.
Side question: If you use Reach Spell while casting a sustain spell, do you have increased range for the full duration? (my best guess is yes) Yes. You've extended the range of the spell, and sustaining the spell keeps the same spell going, so nothing changes the range once it's been cast.
Act together can only be used one a round.
I can't say my experiences match yours. Recall, Gather Information, Request, Make an Impression, Decipher Writing, Disable a Device, Pick a Lock, Command an Animal, Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Wounds, Coerce, Feint, Repair, Craft, Identify Alchemy, Identify Magic... All skill actions that you can crit fail with that either get you false info or actively make your situation worse. Graystone, When I say "skill challenge" I am referring to a specific setup that often uses something like the Victory Point subsystem in the GMG. I'm not talking about making one off skill checks; those are things you clearly assign to the party expert.These victory point subsystems are fairly frequently used in PFS, and are occasionally used in modules/APs as well. And having another actor/participant in the challenge is useful, though it's possible that the number of victory points can scale according to the number of participants.
Why does it have to be a better crit fail chance than success? If it increases your chance to crit fail more than just one roll, it's a bane and that isn't something rare, let alone "incredibly rare" unless you are rolling vs incredibly low fail on a 1 DC's.It can be a bonus is only used when you where going to make the check already and/or there isn't anything bad with failure. If not, it can be more bane than boon. In my experience with skill challenges in PF2: crit fail = lost progress, fail = no progress, success = some progress, crit success = extra progress. The most common point values applied in a victory point subsystem are -1, 0, 1, 2. So as long as your chance of success is more than your chance of critical failure, attempting the check increases the expected value of your victory points. I have seen one case where a critical failure was -2, but that seemed like an outlier.
I have yet to have them IN style. That's money you're wasting there: you're literally burning money. :P I used to have that opinion, too. Then I realized that many permanent magic items have a lifetime where they provide worthwhile benefit, after which you sell them back for half value. Over the life of the “permanent” item, did you do better than you would have if you’d spent half of the cost on consumables? Hopefully yes, but it’s not a guarantee...
Personally, I'm not seeing much reason for a limitation on 2 round actions for both. At best the summoner casts a spell and the eidolon punches someone twice or maybe uses an ability. It’s specifically to limit them both casting spells, or other strong 2 action activities.(Draconic Frenzy, maybe?) Punching someone twice is fine, since that’s two individual actions.
If Paizo gave us new language types, such as dead languages (e.g. Thassalonian) or rare languages (which might be a category that is different from secret languages), then those would not be covered by Multilingual. I don’t believe Thassalonian is a dead language, on account of it presumably being used in New Thassalon. I assumed it was Uncommon.
Well, I have a character with both an Animal Companion and a familiar. I never use the familiar in combat, but have occasionally had it scout in Exploration mode. So is that okay as long as the Familiar is never actually a pawn or the board during an encounter, or not? If it no longer is okay, then I'm in the camp of "I'd like free retraining to change out that feat".
Ray spells target AC now, so I think that ship has sailed.
Congrats on your move to the Design Team, Michael! I noticed you were credited as a designer in the SoM Playtest doc, but kept that on the DL until you made your announcement. :)
Seeing the 5 to 7 point AC advantage Nimble companions had over other options certainly gave me pause. But if those numbers assume taking three specializations, then I’m a little less concerned. The opportunity cost of taking a 2nd and 3rd specialization is quite high, and comes with significantly diminished returns. That being said, I do hope we see some errata / new specializations in future products. My Druid is a PFS character, so I’ve got time for things to get improved. (Effective max level is 8 right now, and 10 in June, so at the Nimble/Indomitable stage things aren’t too bad just yet).
My understanding is that many APs don’t have downtime during a book, but often allow for downtime between books.
This is only for level 7+ adventures, so you can't do it for a tier 5-8 scenario with three level 8 PCs? 3 level 8s would take along a level 5 pregen. They'd be high subtier, so the pregen would get a level bump, and presumably some Mentor boons besides. Unless I'm missing something. Edit: Tonya beat me to it my a mile.
Goblins can do it with survival. I think you’ve just given me a concept for a goblin Cleric of Abadar.
I play a Druid with Badger AC. It’s trained in Survival and has Scent. I’ve often been allowed to have it Track for us. That said, my PC is a gnome that can speak with the AC, so that does help somewhat.
My Wizard has Assurance(Arcana). He can’t fail to learn spells that are lower than his highest level slots.
Dedication/archetype feats might allow you to boost the proficiency by one step, giving you an additional +2 to hit. I don't know of any dedications that increase weapon proficiencies by one step. Certainly there are dedications that will add a set of weapons (or armors) to the proficiencies you already have. But I don't think there's any way to get expert in claws before Sorcerer gives that to you at 11th? level. If you want claws to be your main attack routine, perhaps get them through the Sorcerer archetype, or maybe even Dragon Disciple. The Dragon Barbarian is a way to get draconic flavor in a martial build. But if you want to be a caster first, and use the claws second: find spells that take two actions to cast that dont have attack rolls, and use the claws as a third action. Against an enemy without Attacks of Opportunity, of course :)
if wizards could get a good use of their third action as part of their thesis or something, out the gate without feat investment, that would be nice. Shield cantrip isn’t a bad choice in combat. It’s boring, but effective.
The dedication basically gives Bardic Knowledge, which is the big thing; absolutely worth a Wizard 2 feat. I think it would be a fine Thesis, though I'm trying to think of how it scales as you level. Maybe a temporary pick of the Additional Lore skill feat each day? My personal patch might just be to say that a Wizard Loremaster only needs 0/1 additional feats before starting another archetype.
With the Loremaster archetype, a wizard (or witch, to be fair), can pretty much take the lore expert crown away from the Enigma Bard. Loremaster Lore is just Bardic lore under another name, and the feats after the dedication provide most of the important Enigma feats, albeit slightly delayed. And the Wizard gets to use their casting stat for all of this lore, so there is no need to split scores between Int and Cha, two non-save scores. Now, if you want to be good at both, by all means play an Enigma Bard, but neededing to care about both ability scores means you need to compromise elsewhere.
Both Magus and Summoner will have up to 9th level slots but fewer spell slots than other casters. What this is exactly hasn't been revealed, but the most likely scenario imo is that they get two slots per level.Just to clarify, they don’t get 10th level slots? That is the current understanding of the community, based on what has been said. We'll find out next month when the Playtest drops.
To dovetail on my last point: My favorite character in 3.5 was a gnome druid/bard. When 4e came out, Gnomes, Druids, and Bards weren't in the initial PHB, and I was unhappy as a result. I understand the rationale behind that decision: Gnomes needed to be differentiated better from Dwarves/Elves/Halfings; Bards needed have a strong niche/role (Remember, 4e was a very role-oriented system), and WotC needed to pick a role for Druids, since traditionally they could both heal and lay down AoE. But it was still unfun to not be able to re-imagine my character, and may have contributed to my coming over to Pathfinder. (As an aside, that favorite character worked pretty well as a Summoner in PF1, and works great as a Druid / MC Bard in PF2. Though likely a Bard/Beastmaster would also have been an acceptable re-imagining).
In the CRB, Rangers have the role of martial characters in tune with nature. They are the ones you can expect to be able to blaze a trail through the wilderness, be knowledgeable about wild creatures, and be handy in a fight. They can optionally also travel alongside an animal companion. To me, that last part is important, since I agree that a Fighter with the right skills and skill feats (and perhaps even the Druid dedication) can emulate those things. But the Druid dedication is insufficient to bring an animal companion to the table, because of the half level restriction of multi-class dedications. With the advent of the APG, a Beastmaster Fighter can handle that just fine. In fact, in my Extinction Curse game, we had a ranger with animal convert to beastmaster fighter, because it was a better fit. (Our other ranger with animal companion stayed a ranger, because they were an archer and the precision edge worked well for them). Now, the ranger did get warden spells in the APG, and that was a welcome addition; rangers can now get focus spells without needing to rely on the Druid dedication. So the Beastmaster hasn't obsoleted the Ranger class since Martial + Full progression Animal Companion + (focus) spellcasting not dedicated to the animal would require two archetypes. I played a flurry ranger in Plaguestone. I've got a low-level Precision Ranger in PFS, and I have plans for an Outwit Ranger as well (modeled after a Witcher-like character). I've also played rangers in editions past. If someone played a 3.5 or PF1 ranger (mostly core, let's not dive too heavily into archetypes), I believe the PF2 ranger can give the same sort of class "feel". And sure, some of those characters could have been made as Fighters, maybe with an archetype slapped on. But not all of them, and not with just the Core Rulebook. So I think the Ranger being in the CRB as a class serves an important purpose.
Also, I have said once and I will say it every time I see it, Eidolon is not a minion. Stop treating is as a minion. Dont treat it as a minion. The way to do this in the PF2 idiom is make the Eidolon the actual character, and the summoner the "minion", at least in terms of action economy. I can't see two actors with three actions each being balanced in PF2. If the Eidolon gets 3 actions, expect heavy restrictions on the Summoner's turn.
Eldritch Trickster rogue into a spellcasting dedication is the only way for a human to do it.
Might be worthwhile for the Investigator to stock up on Owlbear Claws.If you went that route then taking Talisman Dabbler might be a good option. It's a pretty good dedication if you don't have plans for a different one. (My Investigator went Medic). Two free claws a day is nothing to sneeze at at 2nd level. That said, Owlbear Claws are level 1 items, so eventually they will be chump change and you can just buy as many as you need without appreciably dinging your wealth.
I suspect that we will see an actual update to the errata fairly soon. I strongly suspect that update will add the 'wearing them and have a hand free' language.
What you propose, but starting at 3rd level. 2 cantrips at 1st level, 4 cantrips at second level. Even before the announcement, that was where I was thinking the Magus might end up, since I wanted it to have better casting than an Archetype caster but slower casting than a full caster.
So, I find all this discussion of animal companions a little bizarre.
Devise a Stratagem says "if you Strike"
All the hexes being loaded with "..temporarily immune for 1 minute" doesn't help either. A bard can inspire all day, but a witch's *one* cantrip hex gets expended right off the bat each combat. Per friend or enemy, right? And if they are sustained, you can keep them going. Sorry don't have my material handy. Here's the thing: by many accounts, the Bard is the strongest casting class in PF2 at the moment. Maybe strongest class, period. If I were a design team, I'd be aiming for somewhere in the middle of the caster pack. I'm not saying the Bard should be nerfed or anything, just that I wouldn't be surprised if they were more cautions with Witch design, and figured that if they needed to give more oomph, they could do so down the line with new class feats and focus spells.
A Frightened AC can never reduce its Frightened value, as it doesn't have a Turn. But on the plus side, they can't take Persistent Damage, for the same reason. I'd say that the AC's turn ends when the Druid's turn ends for both of those effects. There's RAW, and then there's rulings that make sense. Saying that ACs are immune to persistent damage because they don't have an "end of turn" step doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
So, there is a difference between Common and Uncommon but freely accessible. Kobolds are still Uncommon, but can be freely played in Pathfinder Society upon release of the APG. I don’t expect to see more Common ancestries, since that would have lore implications for the setting.
No they're not. Oh, at some point in the future they MAY be but right now the reality is that we can NOT play any uncommon race except kobold. Right now we can’t play any, since they become sanctioned when the book drops on July 30th. Now *maybe* AcP will be working by then. Maybe not. I’m not going to hold my breath.
I'm still having fun and am looking at adjusting future encounters to make them a bit more challenging, but at the same time, I don't want to punish them for building and playing well. The "free archetype" variant is a power boost to the PCs. So they will be stronger than what an adventure path will expect, and as a result things will be relatively easier for them. Just something to keep in mind.
The first one that came to mind was the AntiPaladin which would of course come back as an evil Champion archetype (or you could use one of the alternate alignment rules) We will have Evil Champions in the APG. It's not an Archetype, just a different Tennet. (Tennets of Evil, instead of Tennets of Good, obviously).
So, until level 17, the attack routine should be full/-3/-6/-6, with the agile dogslicers. Yes, flanking with a fighter does help, but it helps the fighter as well. I believe full/-2/-4/-4 is correct for an agile weapon. That said, Hunt Prey takes an action, and unless it’s a significant threat, in my experience foes that the party concentrates damage on don’t last for more than a Round or two, requiring another Hunt Prey to switch targets.
I'm not sure that the Shifter has enough mechanical depth to it to deserve a whole class on its own anymore, but instead would fit in as Doctrine of the Druid, like a Warpriest. I dunno about that. At base, you can sorta make a shifter by building a Wild Order Druid, and then totally forgetting about your spellcasting, except for Wild Morph and Wild Shape. Now, you could trade that spellcasting away for Martial proficiencies, and that’s how I would implement a shifter. (To keep the thread on topic, I’m not going to propose specific proficiency increases) So class path/Doctrine? Not really. Maybe a Class Archetype that makes that trade? That I could believe.
Alright, so you’d like to make a Pyromancer or a Lightning Mage, got it. As you say, some of those are better stocked than others. As an Evoker, I miss Scorching Ray; I wonder if it will come back in the APG, or if it only lives on in the Fire Domain focus spell. But yeah, as more spells and feats are released, it will be easier to build such a character. I’d say that the PF1 Core Rulebook didn’t have all the tools you’d need to make that sort of character viable, either. PF2 has one very significant benefit for those Wizards: the Overwhelming Energy feat.
Well a lot of people seem to ignore that specialist Wizards want to only cast 1 type of spell. They want to master the type of spell they see as valueable. As it stands they cant do it because they must pick all these other spells to fit the meta. True specialist Wizards currently do not exist. Maybe that’s how you play your Specialist, but that’s not universally true. Even going back to PF1, specializing just meant picking a couple of Opposition Schools that casting from was harder. (Or maybe even impossible, if you were into Sin Magic). And sure, you took a bunch of feats like Spell Focus to improve a particular school. But saying that you only ever prepared spells from your chosen school? I would think that is kind of silly. I play an Evoker in both PF1 and PF2, and while I certainly prep Fireballs and Flaming Spheres and the like, I of course prep Mage Armor and Grease and other useful spells. “Specialist” doesn’t mean “I cast these spells exclusively”. And if it does to you, I can see why playing a specialist Wizard is deeply unsatisfying.
I feel like the lores don’t even need to be some invented super focused lore to reach a low DC. If a PC has linnorm lore (or any other monster-type lore), I’m probably giving them that full -5 to the DC when they run into an appropriate monster. If not then, when would I do it? Sure. Arcana: Base DC. Dragon Lore: -2. Linnorm lore: -5. (I’d probably do the same breakdown for Relgion/Undead/Vampire).
I believe it’s one creature, and the humanoid flavortext is a holdover. Note that Charm Animal is gone, and that the Primal List has Charm now, which has me believe that Charm Person, Charm Animal, and Charm Monster all got folded into Charm.
Don't know if this been brought up, but the number of free spells known for a wizard is actually very low, and the cost of adding spells of your level to your spell book is actually very high (scroll prices have increased a lot relativity from pf1), so I feel the spells known by a wizard are actually very limited, which makes them a lot worse off compared to cleric/druid and spontaneous casters. So, you don’t need to rely on Scrolls to copy new spells into your spell book; I agree that doing so is quite expensive. You just need to spend 1 hour/level in conversation with a character that knows the spell, or the same time with the spell in written form (book or scroll). Note that in PF2, copying from a scroll does not consume the scroll, so if that’s the route you take, you can still cast the spell off the scroll later. But I’d recommend making friends with other Wizards, and other spellcasters in general, since every tradition shares some spells with Arcane. (Magical Shorthand helps bring the time down to something more manageable if you are learning spells higher than cantrip or 1st level by talking to other PCs)
Bardic Lore can only be used to Recall Knowledge. Recall Knowledge is an action that can be done untrained. So I believe the only benefit is the +2/+4 to the check. (Keeping in mind that Untrained Improvisation only kicks in fully at 7th level, and from 3rd to 6th you only add half your level). On your second point I would have phrased it a little differently. Untrained Improvisation is very good for Lore skills if you have a high int, but that’s mostly what it does for you, since you likely have more skills trained and need it to cover fewer non-lore skills.
|
Pathfinder Society GM. 1,496 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 33 Organized Play characters. 
