DM Nex's Age of Ashes (Inactive)

Game Master NeoEvaX

Hej, I still haven't levelled up yet. Since there is only a limited selection of Feats, I've been trying to find Precise Shot or anything to mitigate firing into Melee.
Since Spell uses "normal" attack rolls rather than touch, the -4 penalty is kind of annoying. But it seems Precise is gone?
What is the replacement? I was unable to find something :/

Hej, I still haven't levelled up yet. Since there is only a limited selection of Feats, I've been trying to find Precise Shot or anything to mitigate firing into Melee.

Since Spell uses "normal" attack rolls rather than touch, the -4 penalty is kind of annoying. But it seems Precise is gone?
What is the replacement? I was unable to find something :/

Targetted shot, but this would take you 3 feats to get. Ranger dedication (archtype), basic hunter's trick (hunter's aim), advanced hunter's trick (targetting shot). But further investigation puts it out of your reach. You would have to be 28th level. Even a ranger has to be 14th level. The best you could do is hunter's aim, which gives you +2 to hit, to partially mitigate it. This is similar to the attack of oppurtunity situation. They have totally favored warriors, in this edition. Looking closer, I would forget about it. 2 feats, for something that takes 2 actions. This would severely limit the number of spells, you could use it with.

@Phai - There isn't a penalty to shooting into melee... No more -4 at all.

The only thing you would have to worry about is cover if someone is between you and the enemy. But that is only +1 to their AC.

The only thing that might count is the volley property to longbows.. Which make them not good up close. Shortbows replace the up close bow usage.

But yeah, no issue shooting into melee at all! All gone. Sorry if I lead you to believe that was still a thing.

@Phai - There isn't a penalty to shooting into melee... No more -4 at all.

The only thing you would have to worry about is cover if someone is between you and the enemy. But that is only +1 to their AC.

The only thing that might count is the volley property to longbows.. Which make them not good up close. Shortbows replace the up close bow usage.

But yeah, no issue shooting into melee at all! All gone. Sorry if I lead you to believe that was still a thing.

I thought she was talking about greater cover, hence the -4 to hit. Like I said I am learning as well. It isn't easy, they spread things interconnected out so much.

Yeah, lots of fringe cases.

I figure people, allies can give +1 cover to the enemy, but only if in the direct line. Greater cover is actually like FULLY behind a wall. Or someone who had cover and took an action to have greater.

Phai, if you made any spell choices because of this, feel free to change some out. Live and learn.. Lemon Law :)

Lots of edition muddling, it seems! There's a lot of stuff that's ingrained to us in 1e that don't exist in 2e, like the penalty for shooting into melee or everything having an AoO. One thing that took me a minute to parse was that casting a spell with somatic components while invisible still triggers AoOs. They have to make a flat check to hit you or not, but you still provoke.

Wow that one seems off to me. There is the flat check, I do know that. But weird.. I miiiight house rule that..

Will have to think about it, for sure.. ... weird..

Well, that's assuming the spell also has verbal components. Since those have to be loud and clear, it would take you from undetected to hidden, which means you can be targeted. Assuming the creature has hearing as an imprecise sense, anyway.

So is flanking still a thing then at all? Or only for special characters too?

Flanking is still very much a thing, since it imposes the flat-footed condition, a -2 circumstance penalty to AC. Since that also boosts your chance of a crit by 10%, it's even more important than it was in 1e. The rarity of AoOs makes positioning yourself a lot less of a hassle than it was with the Full Attack Shuffle.

There was a time when I too was interchanging rules; but now I confuse them the other way...lol.
My PF1e games, I sometimes think in terms of PF2e.

I actually prefer PF2e nowadays.

There was a time when I too was interchanging rules; but now I confuse them the other way...lol.

My PF1e games, I sometimes think in terms of PF2e.

I actually prefer PF2e nowadays.

You would, it supports the way you play. Not dissing you, but not everybody wants to go toe to toe. PF2 wants spellcasters to act like fighters. Which of course fighters are better at. The deesigners must have got the short end of the stick in previous generations of games. It's better to do what your character did. Be a fighter, With a spellcasting dedication. More cosistant damage and hit points. Then you have spells, when you need them.

I went deeper, but it timed out. Oh well. The biggest thing was fighters starting with excellent proficiency with weapons. To balance, pure spellcasters should have excellent spellcasting proficiency.

They're good at different things, they don't need to be directly analogous. Besides, almost all spellcasters do arrive at legendary proficiency with their spells, but only the fighter and gunslinger get legendary proficiency with any weapons. Spellcasters can also choose to target different saves, while weapons are generally stuck attacking their target's AC.

You are correct, but starting out a spellcaster is no better with spells, than they are with weapons. As for saves, these are not there bread and butter attacks. Just spell slot spells. Which are limited. oh,there is chill touch, one cantrip with a fortitude save. But here is another problem, saves are not what they used to be. Meaning difficulty, Everything now has a minimum of level +2 saves, unless they have a low attribute. It's basically the same as weapons now. It just changes who rolls the dice.

Ray of frost is a spell attack roll, so it targets AC. You might be thinking of chill touch, which does require a basic fortitude save. You also have electric arc for reflex, and there's daze for will. All these are cantrips, so they're spells you can cast over and over and they automatically increase in damage as you gain levels.

Anyway, just about every creature has different bonuses to each save, with some better and some worse. Knowing which things to target is part of what your Recall Knowledge checks are for. You also are much more likely to at least get some effect even if they save successfully, as opposed to an attack roll where you (usually) get nothing on a failure. It changes a lot more than just who is rolling the dice.

Again you are correct, I did confuse those cantrips, I wasn't looking when I said that. But that doesn't change what I said about saves. Their worst saves are level +2. Just like ac. I think what you are talking about is weakness not saves. These would be traits of the attack, not saves. For instance being weak to fire. They are just as succeptible to a spell attack fire spell, as a save one.

I think what she is saying is that when a spellcaster looks at a creature they can decide to attack their AC, Reflex, Fort, or well. Depending on what spells they have. A big mean brute, you can attack with Reflex. There is flexability there. They have the option to try to go for the target's lower ability, based on what they know (which could be gained from a knowledge roll).

Also you are right, the enemy gets to roll the saves, but the DCs also go up every level. So an enemy with a save that is Level +2 + mod, is not that big of a difference than a spell dc that is Level + 2 + mod. It just means it scales with higher level monsters better.

I think the numbers do work out in the long run. Really a smart spell caster could likely hit more, since they can target the ones that are statistically less likely to succeed. Where as a fighter is always going to go vs AC, which might be very. high for an enemy. its tricky to change that up.

Enara was not talking about enemy weakness, just talking about the lowest save. Since enemies (and PCs) usually have some saves that are higher and some lower.

Ok, we are talking theory, let's talk facts. Who is doing the most damage? You and Mosquito, The others just seem to be support. Mostly healing.

Yeah.. Blasting is a bit less of an option. But spells can do a ton of damage, they are just more situational. The repeated attack all day long, yes the fighter will do more.. But when a caster gets the right spell off, AoE, or focused vs weakness.. They can do a ton.

I also agree that spell casters are also support. But support is a broad term. Having a ton of tools in your toolbelt is great. Hasting people, AoE attacks, invisibility, flying, long term attacks, etc. There are a lot of options.

Maybe I might be in the minority, but even with all the PF1 games I played the martials always did the most damage. Full round from a martial can do a TON.. Spell casters where about flexibility.

As far as this group is concerned. yes the alchemist is casting a lot. Phai has spell casting too, but saving the spells for good moments. Bertrum isn't casting a ton either. But has it as an option.

Maybe I just don't see the problem.

@DMNex What you say is true, but with these caveats. A fighter starts with excellent weapon proficiecy, a spellcaster is trained in everything. Two you act like spellcasters have oddles of spells to choose from. They don't. At most, five per level. So let's say a prepared caster, they can change theirs for the day. They have to know what they are fighting in advance or not prepare non-attack spells.

All true. Yes fighters start off higher proficiency, but that is also "their thing". I know casters don't have a ton to work with.

I guess I see the "figure out what we are going to deal with. Prepare accordingly" as a strength of the prepared casters.

Not going to try to argue over it though. I personally like the balance. I am glad cantrips level up and get more powerful. I am glad there are focus spells that can be recharged easily. I also like that spells don't require DEX to aim, they use the main casting score.

Maybe its just an opinion, but I think the game is pretty balanced. Everyone has their strengths.. and its up to the GM to provide a good balance. If its fighting all day every day.. most people should be fighters.. But if there are social encounters, tricky fights, time to rest, puzzles, difficult situations, etc.. Other people will shine.

Anyway.. not sure how this got started. Not trying to cause a argument at all. I hope everyone find a good class they enjoy playing.

Nothing against the alchemist or their player. But they could be any class. Their biggest contribution is the medicine skill. True they use craft for it, but if they were another class, thwy could do the same with medicine. True it would have to be cleric, to make up for the elixers of life. Or spending more money.

Now I am not saying they do not contribute, in other ways. But nine times out of ten.

How this came up? Phai and Bertrum having problems contributing. Both complained. As for fighters I agree, I don't think they should be weakened. I was just advocating excellent spellcasting for pure spellcasters. They should be as good at casting spells as a fighter swinging a weapon.

Yes she chose to be the more medical alchemist build. Thats the flavor she went for. She has been a great addition to healing in this, somewhat difficult, AP. I think she wanted the character fantasy of being an alchemist. And this is a Role Play Game.. not just a numbers game about maximizing damage or healing.

So please, if you wish to read the story here. Maybe chime in occasional so we can all learn. Go for it. But if you are going to criticize characters and their choices I would prefer if you kept that to yourself. We are here to have fun, and I hope I can provide a fun atmosphere to have fun.

As I said I am not meaning to criticize anybody or their playstyle. My main interjection, which seems to being missed. To the point of some post not getting posted. Is I think pure spellcasters should be as good at spellcasting as a fighter is swinging a weapon. These are their focuses in life. All it would take is giving them excellent spellcasting to start with. Like the fighter with weapon proficiency.

Ah, yeah. I think Fighters are the outlier here for sure. Barbarians and other full martial classes do not get it either.

It would seem weird to have Sorcerers, Wizards, Witches, Druids, Oracles, Bards, etc to all have as strong of an ability as the one thing Fighters do best. It would diminish from what makes a trained fighter special.

I may not agree, but it would be interesting how that plays if someone houseruled it. For sure.

I see the complaint. I would say spell casters make up for that +2 by being able to do more than just target AC. They can do other stuff, or target saves. Which might be even more than 2 lower than the AC is.

Anyway.. I do hope Phai and Berturm feel comfortable with their picks. I hope knowing there is no -4 will help Phai will casting.. And I hope Berturm finds what he wants in the class.

@All - If you are not feeling your class and wish to change. We can totally talk about it. Just let me know.

In PF2e, I play a Cleric 16, a Wizard 16, a Fighter 4, Investigator 4, and a Ranger 1.
I state this, because you mentioned You would, it supports the way you play.
Not certain if you have glanced at any of my other characters, but, I tend to play a bit aggressively; and, some of my pcs happen to fit that style...lol.
I went Fighter here, only because I already was/am playing a Cleric 16 and a Wizard 16 in my weekly games.

Having said that; I must disagree with your downing other classes; save Fighter. I absolutely enjoy my casters. They are my preferred class. Spell options that readily target whatever I need at the time is fantastic. Our melee would not be able to deal out the damage, if our casters didn't Haste, Fear, and Hideous Laughter the enemy; allowing the melee to perform at 100%.
There are many damage spells; but, the really good ones plant conditions!
Frightened 1 has been the difference in my combats. Hideous Laughter takes away Reactions. That is so huge as we level: Trust me...lol.

2 1/2 years ago, I started my initial PF2e campaign. Just takes time to fully appreciate the differences.

Casters hang in there; your time is coming!

Also, don't be afraid to ask questions. I would be happy to help!

Ah I can see now how the post about the alchemist can be misconstrued. I was not criticising the character or the player. If anything, it was the class design. As for story and the players I am quite enjoying it.

I am glad. Kinda fun knowing someone else is enjoy the adventure so far. I am enjoyhing this group. Hopefully we find a good pace to continue (my fault). Almost done with book 1!

I have yet to play an Alchy in PF2e; although, I do/did have 4 Alchys in PF1e.
I have heard many folks saying that about the Class. I feel like it is a challenge that I cannot refuse!
Next PF2e game; I am playing an Alchy!

I happen to be enjoying the Investigator; as far as, having some limited access to Alchemical Items and Elixirs only. The mere fact of having ANYTHING at my beckon call is super huge!

They can Buff the melee. They can Buff the Face. They can Buff the Thief. They can....

I have yet to play an Alchy in PF2e; although, I do/did have 4 Alchys in PF1e.

I have heard many folks saying that about the Class. I feel like it is a challenge that I cannot refuse!
Next PF2e game; I am playing an Alchy!

I happen to be enjoying the Investigator; as far as, having some limited access to Alchemical Items and Elixirs only. The mere fact of having ANYTHING at my beckon call is super huge!

They can Buff the melee. They can Buff the Face. They can Buff the Thief. They can....

I have never played one, this was merely observation. Truthfully, I have never played PF2. Plenty of D&D various editions and PF, some other games of various sorts. But this forum is my exposure to PF2.

Ack. I added the -4 to pretty much any attack roll I made because enemy usually was in melee. *sigh*

Without that penalty...ah well, guess I've been making things hard for myself :)

@Complain about contributing: I am pretty certain I will be able to contribute, what I did - and am - critizicing is the harsh limit on dailys as well as spells known.
With only 3 spells to pick per level, that kind of limits the "fun" picks as well as the utility ones with niche applications. No matter what role you try to fulfill, blaster, controller or else, you'll usually get at least 2 spells targetting different saves or providing different effects, and one backup or buff for when your primary role is countered.
I did pick Sorcerer, and I am quite willing to work around that limitation, I just don't feel, intuitively, that that is a change I like from 1st edition.
And the daily limit means less power creep, in a way, but forces you to rely on cantrips that much more, and mostly affects players. (That NPC guy can nova whatever he has, since he's not usually making it out of the encounter anyway...).

Ah well, been a bit ill this past week, but I'll try to get to do the level-up sometime in the near future. Thanks for the patience.

Well you do get four, at the next level. Still not a lot. Even Wizards/clerics only get five. Attributes not affecting spells per day is a big change. Especially affected is sorcerers. They used to have more castings per day, to make up for knowing less spells. What is there strength now? Casting any spell they know, as long as they have a spell slot left?

While I can appreciate discussion of tactics, builds, spell and feat choices; and the why of them, I am not a fan of negativity in what is an enjoyable game for those involved; both players and appreciated audience. At least, enjoyment is the progressive goal; I hope.

I am not one for expressing my personal opinions on these boards. I use this platform for performance. I enjoy role-playing my characters. Live tables are more difficult in that regard; mostly due to time constraints.

I greatly appreciate each and every DM, player and observer. I have been gaming since age 9; and I am always willing to learn a system, teach that system and meet other's requests for fun!

Game on!

Having six or more, at each level is a big difference.

Of course auto-heightened cantrips is as well. We'll see which is better. Definately less variety. Like I said, they basically turned everyone into fighters. Either have a main weapon or main cantrip. Everything else is a back-up or special occasion. The spell slots are like range weapons for a melee warrior. Or in previous editions, bludgeoning backing up slashing.

Ok, looking closer you still need bludgeoning for a skeleton. But my main premise is the same. Back-ups are just that.

@Mosquito Thanks for the feedback. Mostly discussing the differences between PF and PF2. Not players. Sorry if it was taken that way. In some ways it is going back to older editions of D&D. Where spellcasters hung back in most fights.

Just so you know,I am not pro-spellcaster. I was trying to remain nuetral. I usually play warriors. When I have played spellcasters, it usually turned out like the alchy in this campaign. Seems all you are doing is healing, I would do that, when noone else wanted to. That turns the enjoyment to participation in the group, not what you are doing. Still enjoyment, but different.

@phai looking closer, there are feats that let you cast more spells. Cantrip expansion will give you 2 more cantrips. Arcane evolution and from there Greater Mental Evolution add spell slots. Oh, didn't realize that was 14th level. Still something to look forward to.

Or in your case, through your archtype. basic trickery (minor magic), this woud also give you two cantrips.

I am aware. As you say, Greater Mental is far away. I do intend to acquire more cantrips, as well. Alas, those are not what I am worried about.

I love casters, but more for their versatility than their raw power. <3 Arcanist in First Edition, best from two worlds, especially with Quick Study. But I am quite willing to see how things turn out.
As is evident(as with applying penalty for shooting into melee) I have next to no experience with the system.
Maybe the different handling of Spell DC's helps with certain spells remaining relevant longer, I'll see. I had a chance to create another class, or swap, and I decided to stick with Phai as a sorcerer. As said, quite willing to give it a try - just not initially convinced about some of the design decisions around the class; but not to the point that I'd shy away from it.

Wow that was a lot of messages! 2nd Edition is my favourite system (I have an oracle, witch, investigator, fighter and alchemist, and I GM a live table of Agents of Edgewatch), and I'm enjoying playing Beryl despite her not doing as much damage as others. I've always enjoyed playing support, it's a team game after all!

As I said, it's still enjoyable. Just in a different way.

FYI, I will be camping with my son over the weekend until Tuesday.

I will try and post from my phone if possible, otherwise feel free to bot me if I take too long.

=)

1st.. I am so sorry for being behind! I have had a harder time getting to the actual forum to post.

2nd.. What are your thoughts of moving this to a discord server? I have started a discord game, and its going well. I am way more able to post there than get a forum post written and set up. It also allows for more dialog and back and forth, but it does assume access on your phone/computer/web of discord.

Notes:
1. I will only do this if everyone is down for it. Otherwise I will just stay here and do my best to keep up a good pace. I am not going anywhere in the long run.

2. The Owner of the Discords has given full permission to move there for other games. Its a great community with like 3-4 games going now. Not too busy, but a healthy group.

3. Not sure how we would do character sheets. My starfinder game uses an online sheet app. The Pf2 game there uses links to fillable forms in Google sheets. etc. But I am down for whatever. Even just links to aliases here if you prefer. Just something to reference quickly.

4. I am open to all discussions. The story wont change, the history here wont go anywhere.

5. Again only if everyone is for it. And if not, I will continue here.

I'm happy to switch to Discord

I wrote my thoughts in the other game already.
Discord is unavailable in my work network, so that limits my posting to evenings when I'm home, or from my phone.
My preference would be to keep on the boards, but simply because it enables me to post during lunch break or down times/waiting times during work hours.
I will not block an otherwise unanimous decision, just voicing a preference.

I saw your post on the other thread as well. I wont repeat everything I said there, but wanted to comment on it here briefly.

I am not going anywhere. Sorry for the slow posting. I do it to myself. For some reason its tricky for me to get onto the forums and post. I shouldn't put as much pressure on myself to write long posts every time.

I think you all would prefer a post from me that is small and not structurally perfect, than for me to wait a week at a time to post.

Lets move this forward. Almost into book 2! :)