Sending Your Heroes to the Mirrored Moon

Ranger in 2e:

Good at nature stuff.
Can two-weapon fight.
Can choose an animal companion.

If Hunt Target feels not very good it's mostly because it reduces a penalty rather than produces a bonus. I wonder how well the class would have been taken if the Hunt target had been worded:

"A ranger gains a +1 bonus to hit their hunted target."

Instead of reducing the penalty for the iterative attacks. It's not a massive change (means that the primary attack more likely to crit against a single target).

Oddly enough, that would actually be far worse. With bonus stacking, the best bonuses aren't actually bonuses at all, but reductions to penalties, since they stack with everything. But it doesn't feel better, as you say. Maybe the correct stance would be to also have it give extra damage (since damage boosting conditional bonuses seem rare, at least past +1 or +2), so it feels like it's giving you a bonus all the time, even if the reductions to penalties are actually the more impactful part of it.

Is it too much to ask for a fourth Rogue's Technique focused on ranged weapons?

My hope is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition will structure all of the "choose one of these paths" styles of classes easily extensible just by printing more totems, bloodlines, orders etc.

So I have to feel like a sneaky sniper rogue path is about as inevitable as a fungus druid, even if it doesn't make it into the core book.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Is it too much to ask for a fourth Rogue's Technique focused on ranged weapons?

My hope is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition will structure all of the "choose one of these paths" styles of classes easily extensible just by printing more totems, bloodlines, orders etc.

So I have to feel like a sneaky sniper rogue path is about as inevitable as a fungus druid, even if it doesn't make it into the core book.

I agree, although part of me wishes that they went "choose one of these paths" for all their classes, to give that same degree of extendability.

I could definitely get behind each class getting to choose a path at level 1. Some classes (like the monk) feel to me like they are about a feat low compared to other classes until mid-levels, could definitely have a "choose a path, it gives you this thing" tacked on to it.

Interesting breakdown of the Ranger.

Thanks for the breakdown on what you see as the identity of the Ranger.

To me a Ranger is a wilderness skill focused martial character, with an optional companion.

That's translated very well into 2E.

I like the single-target focus. My biggest issue with Hunt Target is that it requires a ranger see the target within 100 ft.

I'd like a ranger to be able to find evidence of a target in exploration mode and declare that their Hunted Target.

One of my favorite scenes in The Two Towers was Aragorn/Legolas piecing together what happened to the hobbits, looking at footprints and drag-marks, bloodstains and broken weapons.

I'd like something like that in PF2E. A ranger happens across scratches in trees, and a torn up monster corpse. "There's been an owlbear here. I declare this owlbear my hunted target." Now the ranger gets bonuses to track their quarry, and then when the confrontation happens is already able to fill it full of arrows, or blend it with their blades.

That would be an excellent identity for the Ranger.

Wilderness detective/hunter/warrior.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Is it too much to ask for a fourth Rogue's Technique focused on ranged weapons?

My hope is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition will structure all of the "choose one of these paths" styles of classes easily extensible just by printing more totems, bloodlines, orders etc.

So I have to feel like a sneaky sniper rogue path is about as inevitable as a fungus druid, even if it doesn't make it into the core book.

I agree, although part of me wishes that they went "choose one of these paths" for all their classes, to give that same degree of extendability.

Alchemists sure could use this instead of having bombs/mutagens forced on everyone.

^ Agreed. I mean, maybe Paizo thinks Bombs are their most popular aspect. OK, that's fine.
But that doesn't necessitate baking that in when other concepts are valid,
and fans of those would rather not waste class design space on something tangential to their desired role.
If you ask anybody what Alchemy means in fantasy game before P1E Alchemist, I don't think Bombs would be automatic focus of it.
Even people who might imagine Bombs could be part of it, wouldn't think that is strictly the focus of it.

Tholomyes wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Is it too much to ask for a fourth Rogue's Technique focused on ranged weapons?

My hope is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition will structure all of the "choose one of these paths" styles of classes easily extensible just by printing more totems, bloodlines, orders etc.

So I have to feel like a sneaky sniper rogue path is about as inevitable as a fungus druid, even if it doesn't make it into the core book.

I agree, although part of me wishes that they went "choose one of these paths" for all their classes, to give that same degree of extendability.

Alchemists sure could use this instead of having bombs/mutagens forced on everyone.

I'm not sure what the other paths would be though. Poisoner? Healer? Bombs and elixirs (including mutagens) are kind of the core of the alchemist. Making those better would be a good first step. But certainly expanding the alchemist would be good too. As it is they're the ones with bombs that aren't that great and sub-par time-delayed buffs.

I do think expandable paths are certainly a good thing. But the sniper rogue is I think a popular enough path to justify being in core.

Tinker? (could include Repeating Crossbows, Guns, Constructs including Mech Suit Armor/Prosthetic Arms)
Mutagens? Alternate paths of Alchemy (broader 'spell list'/ powers). They did this with P1E Alchemist archetypes.

I'm not sure what the other paths would be though. Poisoner? Healer?

Those are a good start.

1st pick path: bomb [expert in bombs], healing [+1 life elixir batches], poison [use poison/poison attack]
3rd: Empower bomb/life elixir/poison
5th: mutagen/healing/poison [uncommon formulas with mutagen trait/with neither mutagen or poison trait/with poison trait]

Tinker?

1st tinker with weapon [2 action attack that combines alchemical weapon and weapon attack in single roll].

I'm not sure what the other paths would be though. Poisoner? Healer?

Here's another few possibilities.

Snake Oil Salesman/woman - Focused on Decieve and feinting with Alchemy for additional morale effects.

One the All - Focused on Occult and adding certain battlefield control transmutation effects to bombs.

Gnosis - Focused on Religion and an animated companion created by binding a spirit to a formerly inanimate object.

Bombs and elixirs (including mutagens) are kind of the core of the alchemist.

They'd still have those but some core style to differentiate them. In the same way that a Brute Rogue can still Feint.

To me a Ranger is a wilderness skill focused martial character, with an optional companion.

Definitely in the wheelhouse of the class.

That's translated very well into 2E.

There's a difference between labeling something and it actually working that way. The labels are there, the substance is not. A feat like Trackless Step does nothing. Its window dressing. The Ranger is no better at wilderness than a Fighter (which now has 5 skills) training in Survival and Nature. It's not until level 11 that the Ranger gets a feat that gives it any real benefit when traveling outdoors. Yeah Nature's Edge sounds good at level 9, except I've never had a battle outdoors where the scenario put the enemy in difficult natural terrain. Paizo doesn't seem to think it's fair to do that to NPCs. They do it to PCs a ton.

I like the single-target focus.

That's fine. But it's not the essence of the PF1 Ranger or any Ranger that came before it.

I'd like a ranger to be able to find evidence of a target in exploration mode and declare that their Hunted Target.

One of my favorite scenes in The Two Towers was Aragorn/Legolas piecing together what happened to the hobbits, looking at footprints and drag-marks, bloodstains and broken weapons.

I'd like something like that in PF2E. A ranger happens across scratches in trees, and a torn up monster corpse. "There's been an owlbear here. I declare this owlbear my hunted target." Now the ranger gets bonuses to track their quarry, and then when the confrontation happens is already able to fill it full of arrows, or blend it with their blades.

That would be an excellent identity for the Ranger.

Wilderness detective/hunter/warrior.

Now we are much more on the same page. One of the changes I've been advocating is that Paizo make Tracking the pivot for the class. This would enable much of what you talk about here. I think it would be great for the Ranger to be able to get some type of bonus on something that its tracked. But the entire combat focus of the class should not be tracking single targets to kill them. With the recent changes, 13 of the Ranger's 39 class feats now require Hunt Target. NONE of the PF1 Ranger's abilities required the Ranger attack a Favored Enemy, not one.

Cantriped wrote:

I am very pleased with the change to the Infused trait for Alchemists. That alone helps them a lot. It was a change on my list of high-priority changes, but I didn't expect it to be touched until next update.

It is odd that shields can be repaired more quickly, but the shield spell's recharge time, and the mending spell's casting time didn't change.

The new multiclassing archetypes are uninspired and formulaeic at best, or downright trap options at worst (particularly because dedication feats lock you into a given archetype). For example, why does every archetype have the equivalent of "basic" and "advanced discovery"? I ask rhetorically, they simply pad the woedully short lists out nicely.
All of those feats could have been replaced with a sentence or two included in each dedication about gaining the "alchemist trait" and "access to alchemist class feats", and that "For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your alchemist level is equal to half your level."
Alternatively paizo could at least fold the basic and advanced permutations into one another and save something like 60-lines worth of text-space.

The content of the archetypes could also use adjustment, but since the character classes they're based on also need work that is understandable and difficult to compose a comment on. I won't get to delve into that content as a GM very much though, so I await my player's feedback when they level-up this week. As is:
I am slightly disappointed that my oft theorized 'heavy-wizard' now has to multiclass paladin instead of fighter in order to qualify for grey-maiden ASAP. I also dislike how many game elements are still being arbitrarially restricted in terms of access to them (Finesse Striker and Additional Heightening for example).

I am also becoming a little concerned about how confusing and unsatisifying it will be for multiclassed casters to have to track spell slots, repertoires, and/or spellbooks for up to three traditions (of the effectively seven different

...

Honestly, the 10th level spells in this edition are so weak that I don't think I'd take that 20th level feat over some of the other options.

An interesting conversation here on item bonuses, and it has sparked a couple of ideas for me I want to throw out there. Special nod to Quandary who I think got my brain rolling on this. These changes don't all need to be put into effect but I think many of them would work well side by side.

1)Move skill items, skill feats, and other skill boosters to skill chapter. T
...

2)Cut back on magical item bonuses and have more special Resonance activated abilities.

...

3) Every skill feat now adds a +1 cumulative "feat bonus" to its skill.

I LOVE these ideas, especially #2 and #3. Skill-bonus items always seemed a bit weird to me even in 1st edition, especially when they tried to make them for skills that don't normally use tools, like Diplomacy. It always really irked me in PFS when people were trying to come up with generic "masterwork Bluff tools" or whatever. I'd much rather see them get de-emphasized in this edition than try to force everyone to buy +x skill items for every skill they want to be decent at.

And the idea of adding a +1 "feat bonus" for taking skill feats is AMAZING! It would really add a nice bit of complexity to the skill feat selection process to not only decide which extra skill use to pick, but also which skill to get a bump in. And for PCs who really want to specialize, it gives them a way to do so (by taking all the skill feats for a particular skill).

N N 959 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Most of the rangers I saw in PF1 were simply trying to skip prerequisites for two-weapon fighting, or shield master, or improved precise shot and so chose that class because it's the one that made their build work.

I would submit that the same argument could be made for any class: it's chosen because it makes the player's build work.

But your point is well taken. For a min/maxers, the Ranger class was not a destination. The only people who stayed with the class, did so because they loved the concept, not the mechanics. it's my experience, however, that the min/maxers are overrepresented on the forums. I don't think the vast majority of players care about non-linearity in the DC table, but on the forums, things like this seem to get the most designer attention.

The Ranger in PF2 does not make me feel like I'm playing a Ranger. If feels like a different class. If Paizo can improve the Rogue, the Fighter, the Cleric without fundamentally changing them, then they can improve the Ranger. It's a just a question of whether they want to.

I guess the issue is that for me the ranger has never felt like a thematically consistent class (from really 1st ed onwards), just a grab bag of mechanics with post hoc justifications.

Like save for favored enemy and favored terrain (abilities I actively dislike because it requires you to predict who and where you will be fighting for the rest of the game) and quarry (the inspiration for "hunt target" most likely) everything the ranger got was pretty much a weaker or later version of things other people got: Combat Feats (Fighter), Animal Companion & Woodland Stride (Druid), Spells, Evasion (rogue), etc.

I kind of appreciate the ranger having a tighter thematic identity in this version, even if it still needs some work.

Huh. I feel like the identity has completely taken a hike. The mindless flurry of attacks that Hunt Target generates describes exactly one D&D character: the dreaded Drizzit (and its subsequent army of clones). It certainly isn't something one does when hunting a target- that involves patience and careful aim. [Or groups panicking animals and driving them into patiently waiting hunters with spears]

The wise wilderness warrior is completely gone, and a more limited fighter has been pencilled in instead.

I think right now the Ranger can fill the role of the single target martial damage dealer. He gains bonuses for hunting a large target and attacking it as fast as possible. That is if you take those feats.

He can also be other niches such as the animal companion/work together user. Or the monster hunter/knowledge guide.

I think that monster hunter could definitely use some buffs (shouldn't need to be a critical success to get the bonuses), but I think there is definitely options available for those that want to be the wilderness guide/scout.

Captain Morgan wrote:

An interesting conversation here on item bonuses, and it has sparked a couple of ideas for me I want to throw out there. Special nod to Quandary who I think got my brain rolling on this. These changes don't all need to be put into effect but I think many of them would work well side by side.

1)Move skill items, skill feats, and other skill boosters to skill chapter. T
...

2)Cut back on magical item bonuses and have more special Resonance activated abilities.

...

3) Every skill feat now adds a +1 cumulative "feat bonus" to its skill.

I LOVE these ideas, especially #2 and #3. Skill-bonus items always seemed a bit weird to me even in 1st edition, especially when they tried to make them for skills that don't normally use tools, like Diplomacy. It always really irked me in PFS when people were trying to come up with generic "masterwork Bluff tools" or whatever. I'd much rather see them get de-emphasized in this edition than try to force everyone to buy +x skill items for every skill they want to be decent at.

And the idea of adding a +1 "feat bonus" for taking skill feats is AMAZING! It would really add a nice bit of complexity to the skill feat selection process to not only decide which extra skill use to pick, but also which skill to get a bump in. And for PCs who really want to specialize, it gives them a way to do so (by taking all the skill feats for a particular skill).

Glad you like them. I feel like one issue would be making sure there are enough skill feats that people would already want to take them, which I'm not sure is true at the moment. But that's a problem that is easy to fix, and inevitably will be as more material is released.

Real problems left unaddressed in the inexorable march to a fixed publication date.

The scarcity of changes and 'quick fix' feel of the thing makes me think I should be more worried about the latter:

_Treat wounds_ is awful. The upshot is you'll be sitting there making checks repeatedly for an hour or two, if not more. It's also completely detached from the game world. Ritual magic (something present but completely neglected) would be a better approach then 'six bandages fix a sword wound' completely (on every person in the party).

_Sorcerer_ opting out the terrible bloodlines is great (but the issue wasn't really 'too restrictive,' it was that they were almost universally awful). So now sorcerers are encouraged even more to just take a multiclass archetype and have as little to do with their own class as possible. Lovely. This is the opposite of progress.

_Ranger_.. this change feels worse. Yes, it isn't anti-synergy with hunt target anymore. But the issue was *hunt target*, not double slice. Again begs for multiclassing archetypes prioritized over...

I completely agree with the treat wounds assessment, it feels rushed and brute forced into the system bursting the game world. The only real restriction of healing being a short amount of time? I guess wrapping everyone up until they look like mummies heals wounds now. I will houserule this asap if it stays anything like this. The DC and the HP regen are completely arbitrary. The more experienced the healer the harder it is to cure the wound? I thought the worse the wound the harder the healing but well.

Sorcerer needs good and inspiring bloodlines with choices involved not a well you don't have to use them exception.

The ranger changes is actually something that I like a lot because it supports his role as a mobile fighter that can deal very well with the action economy.

Huh? The last thing the ranger wants to do is be mobile. Using actions to move means not taking advantage of hunt target. The ranger wants to plant itself somewhere and do nothing but spam attacks.

I like the changes to proficiency bonuses (or penalties, in this case), but I would suggest the following, instead.

Untrained: -3

Trained: 0

Expert: +2

Master: +4

Legendary: +6

The big issue that I found was there there was not enough incentive to Increase a skill beyond expert, as it's only a difference of +2 to Legendary. So there should be a bit more of a spread.

Untrained 'could' be -2, but this is trying to stay in line with the current update.

I agree. There just isn't enough difference between trained and legendary. I'd have preferred -2/0/2/4/6 or -2/0/1/3/5 instead of the -4/0/1/2/3 we have with this update.

Yeah, the Ranger is a tracker, survivalist, counter-intelligence guy; not a single-minded hunter; where that association came from is beyond me.

Also the description is very bad. You can help your allies recover with a significant time expenditure, ten minutes (or less then 2 minutes per person in a party of 6) are not significant not even an hour (ten minutes per person in a group of 6) for a full heal is significant.

>Full Heal

If Level x Con (min 1) is a full heal then you were barely scratched and it probably wasn't worth burning the 10 minutes. If you're at something like half health, then it's probably gonna take at least half an hour, possible more like an hour, to heal up and that's if your healer can get past the coin-flips for every check, so it's more likely going to take an hour or even several hours to heal someone up from half health. And that's assuming you don't nat 1 (or nat 2, 3, 4, 5... etc, depending on how min-maxed you are on Medicine) any of those several checks and get completely cut off from that source of healing for 24 hours.

And while yes, even a couple hours is far faster than you would heal mundanely IRL... all I can say to that is thank the Gods. It's about time mundane skills are finally been able to do useful things that hold a candle to the 9th 10th level casters. Heck, now you can actually build a physician who can actually take care of much of the party's healing without said physician also having to be a holy-man (or musician I guess. And yes, Druid also falls under the "holy-man" category, they gain their power from reverence of nature after all.)

Generally speaking you need about two successful checks to get to full HP from half HP assuming +3 Con Mod or better (it obviously goes up for lower Con folks). That's generally three or four actual checks (depending on the skill of the medic), and thus more like 30-40 minutes than an hour. But that's also assuming good Con Mods. Lower ones take more time for obvious reasons.

Generally speaking you need about two successful checks to get to full HP from half HP

At high levels, this is definitely true. It's not as true up to about level 5, though (and if someone doesn't decide to boost their con when they can). At levels less than three, the number of checks can be crazy-high to heal from half to full.

I ran some numbers earlier that are (probably) right.

Spreadsheet

That's fair. My analysis was specifically done on level 5+, it's true.

Generally speaking you need about two successful checks to get to full HP from half HP assuming +3 Con Mod or better (it obviously goes up for lower Con folks). That's generally three or four actual checks (depending on the skill of the medic), and thus more like 30-40 minutes than an hour. But that's also assuming good Con Mods. Lower ones take more time for obvious reasons.

The game seems to simultaneously assume you advance every stat AND max out every dice roll for checks. I'm not sure where stat spreads are meant to be as there seem to be mixed signals.

That's fair. My analysis was specifically done on level 5+, it's true.

Not actually in parties that have people who can't raise con at 5.

My Paladin build, for example, due to needing Cha and Strength can't always raise Con.

I could modify it for this, specifically, but...

01: 18/12/10/10/12/16
05: 19/14/12/10/12/18
10: 20/14/14/10/14/19
15: 21/14/16/10/16/20
20: 22/14/18/12/18/20

Ya know...

That ain't bad...

(The 14 Dex is for Half Plate - Far superior to Full Plate) I can see this working out. Lemme test it.

I definitely like how "treat wounds" puts more of a priority on constitution, as it didn't do very much before. Particularly since the people who are liable to take the most damage are the most likely to have high con (fighters, barbarians, monks, and the like).

I definitely like how "treat wounds" puts more of a priority on constitution, as it didn't do very much before. Particularly since the people who are liable to take the most damage are the most likely to have high con (fighters, barbarians, monks, and the like).

Oddly enough, due to the widened HP disparity, I'm not necessarily seeing that as the case, except for the Barbarian, whose has features which revolve around Con. I'm actually seeing Con be more prioritized for lower class HP classes, because whereas in 1e the average difference per level of a Wizard and a Fighter was 2 HP, and in 2e it's 4 HP, even though the percentile increase isn't that much different (+50%vs+67% for the fighter over the wizard). So even if the fighter takes more hits, the Wizard needs to invest twice as much in Con as before, to be less frail.

This has been my favorite update so far.

graystone wrote:

Alchemists sure could use this instead of having bombs/mutagens forced on everyone.

I'm not sure what the other paths would be though. Poisoner? Healer? Bombs and elixirs (including mutagens) are kind of the core of the alchemist. Making those better would be a good first step. But certainly expanding the alchemist would be good too. As it is they're the ones with bombs that aren't that great and sub-par time-delayed buffs.

Definitely poisoner - my alchemist player was disappointed that improved offensive poison options were only in the rogue class.

I definitely like how "treat wounds" puts more of a priority on constitution, as it didn't do very much before. Particularly since the people who are liable to take the most damage are the most likely to have high con (fighters, barbarians, monks, and the like).

I don't know about that with the general lack of AoO anyone can take hits. Then add in monsters with higher hit numbers than PC's with deadly ranged weapons and it's hard to see who's 'front line' and who isn't.

Definitely poisoner - my alchemist player was disappointed that improved offensive poison options were only in the rogue class.

And healer would be a good way of bringing more healing options to the party without needing a (divine) caster. (and might feel better defined than Treat Wounds).

There are a few poisoning feats for alchemist. There is the level 8 alchemist feat Powerful Alchemy. Lets you use your class DC in place of save DCs for your infused alchemical items that allow saves. That would include poisons. That level 2 sleep poison can be pretty powerful with a better save DC. It is still uncommon though. Level 10 Potent Poisoner that lests you increase the DCs of poisons by 2 to a max of your class DC. This is kind of weaker than the above, except it applies to any poison you make, not just infused ones. Level 12 Poison Touch lets you apply touch poisons as touch attacks. But that's not really all that great considering the onset times contact poisons have.

Poison in general has some problems. The fact that injury poisons are one-shot, and consumed even on a missed attack does put a serious damper on using poison offensively. Contact poisons usually have 1 minute onsets which makes their use in combat pointless unless it's a really long fight or you apply it and then withdraw and let it work. Ingested poisons are almost completely useless in a fight, unless you do something clever like poisoning some bait and throwing it to an unintelligent monster. And even then you'd have long onsets to deal with. Inhaled poisons can be used as effective area-denial items. There's a 1 round onset, but that's something that is feasible in combat.

There are a few poisoning feats for alchemist. There is the level 8 alchemist feat Powerful Alchemy. Lets you use your class DC in place of save DCs for your infused alchemical items that allow saves. That would include poisons. That level 2 sleep poison can be pretty powerful with a better save DC.

Powerful Alchemy is basically useless for Poisons though, at least until you get Poison Touch maybe. Quick Alchemy items are only usable until the start of your next turn, every Injury poison in the game takes 3 actions to apply, and every non-Injury poison takes an amount of time well over 1 round to take effect. As such it is physically impossible to Quick Alchemy a poison, get it into the enemy, and get any effect at all within the time Quick Alchemy allows.

Unless I'm missing something, the revised Death rules still mention "slowed" under the 'Unconscious' heading:

"If you were dying when you regain conscious, you’re slowed for 1 round, with a slowed value equal to the dying value you had just before you returned to 1 HP"

I would love to see more classes start with some sort of path, and I think the alchemist would really benefit from a reorganization and expansion along the lines of the Bard or Druid - where you can freely grab abilities from other paths, but possibly some function better if they're from your chosen path.

I think the biggest hurdle is that some of these paths would require additional content that has not been currently presented, and I'm not sure how (or if) the overhaul to resonance will affect things. Hopefully not largely.

If I had to pick my top for for the PF2CRB:

• Chirurgeon: Focused on health and welfare (empowered elixirs of life, condition removal, etc.)
• Grenadier: Focused on empowering bombs and using them in strange ways
• Mixologist: Focuses on mutagens and combining multiple effects into new and custom combinations
• Toxicologist: Focuses on creating, using, harvesting, combining and empowering poisons.

Some notable runners-up that I would either also be happy to see instead, or think are interesting enough to come in early rules supplements:

• Blood Alchemist
• Ectochymist
• Mind Chemist
• Promethean Alchemist
• Psychonaut
• Vivisectionist

Doktor Weasel wrote:

There are a few poisoning feats for alchemist. There is the level 8 alchemist feat Powerful Alchemy. Lets you use your class DC in place of save DCs for your infused alchemical items that allow saves. That would include poisons. That level 2 sleep poison can be pretty powerful with a better save DC.

Powerful Alchemy is basically useless for Poisons though, at least until you get Poison Touch maybe. Quick Alchemy items are only usable until the start of your next turn, every Injury poison in the game takes 3 actions to apply, and every non-Injury poison takes an amount of time well over 1 round to take effect. As such it is physically impossible to Quick Alchemy a poison, get it into the enemy, and get any effect at all within the time Quick Alchemy allows.

Good point. I missed that. I guess Enduring ALchemy can give you a bit more time to get it out, but it's still tricky. Powerful Alchemy probably should apply to all of your Infused poisons, not just the quick alchemy ones. That'd make it much more useful. Maybe they didn't want it to steal the thunder from Potent Poisoner, but in the process made it unusable. There certainly still needs to be some work done to make a poisoner alchemist viable (well all alchemists really). Maybe a feat like Fast Onset for poisons could also help make those long onset time poisons viable in combat.

Psychonaut

I have no idea what a psychonaut is, but it sounds neat, I was (still am) a big fan of Micronauts, back in the day (best action figures, ever).

Leedwashere wrote:

Psychonaut

I have no idea what a psychonaut is, but it sounds neat, I was (still am) a big fan of Micronauts, back in the day (best action figures, ever).

I took the name (and the concept) from the Ultimage Magic Alchemist Archetype of the same name. The short version is that they use their alchemy to alter their consciousness and do a lot of divination-related things like remote viewing and precognition. It's pretty neat, especially the association it has with psychoactive drugs as materials.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Leedwashere wrote:

Psychonaut

I have no idea what a psychonaut is, but it sounds neat, I was (still am) a big fan of Micronauts, back in the day (best action figures, ever).

I took the name (and the concept) from the Ultimage Magic Alchemist Archetype of the same name. The short version is that they use their alchemy to alter their consciousness and do a lot of divination-related things like remote viewing and precognition. It's pretty neat, especially the association it has with psychoactive drugs as materials.

Nice, sounds like me, again, back in the day (a different one from Micronauts; I heard there might be a film?).

anyone else wonder if sea legs is supposed to get rid of the trained in athletics prerequisite?

So I'd like to talk rant about the Sea Serpent. And serious question: am I misunderstanding something about this encounter, because it looks like guaranteed-TPK as written.

Hmm, the sea serpent's spine rake looks like it was maybe supposed to be a two-action activity rather than one action based on how much damage it does, the fact you get to move, and the lack of limiters on using it again. Will investigate.

So I'd like to talk rant about the Sea Serpent. And serious question: am I misunderstanding something about this encounter, because it looks like guaranteed-TPK as written.

Hmm, the sea serpent's spine rake looks like it was maybe supposed to be a two-action activity rather than one action based on how much damage it does, the fact you get to move, and the lack of limiters on using it again. Will investigate.

Well we ran the combat with how it’s set out in the book and yeah it’s insane, if you’re character wasn’t geared to having a high move speed it was simple inescapable forcing you to either kill or be killed.

So I'd like to talk rant about the Sea Serpent. And serious question: am I misunderstanding something about this encounter, because it looks like guaranteed-TPK as written.

** spoiler omitted **...

It's pretty nuts, including it felt a bit like a dirty trick on the adventure writer's part. Although we survived it.

Huh, now that I look at that encounter, there's something odd about those second enemies mentioned...

Flying is really hard to counter with the way magic has been nerfed into the ground.

I concur; PC's have few way to get fly speeds anywhere close to that of the monsters, and the 3-action system means that speed differences get amplified much more strongly since those fast creatures can take multiple moves per turn. We found this out the hard way in Pale Mountain where our fighter targeted by the fly spell couldn't actually catch up to the manticore. With his -5 speed from armor he had a 25 ft fly speed, so 75 feet if he took 3 actions. The Manticore's 40 ft fly speed meant he moved 80 feet with 2 actions.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Flying is really hard to counter with the way magic has been nerfed into the ground.

I concur; PC's have few way to get fly speeds anywhere close to that of the monsters, and the 3-action system means that speed differences get amplified much more strongly since those fast creatures can take multiple moves per turn. We found this out the hard way in Pale Mountain where our fighter targeted by the fly spell couldn't actually catch up to the manticore. With his -5 speed from armor he had a 25 ft fly speed, so 75 feet if he took 3 actions. The Manticore's 40 ft fly speed meant he moved 80 feet with 2 actions.

And the manticore can just fly off for a minute and let the spell run out. This is what it did in our play through. Although while it was gone, we all lined up with our ranged weapons and prepared an attack for when it got back into range. The big volley of fire hurt it enough to make it run away.

And the manticore can just fly off for a minute and let the spell run out. This is what it did in our play through. Although while it was gone, we all lined up with our ranged weapons and prepared an attack for when it got back into range. The big volley of fire hurt it enough to make it run away.

I just had the Manticore continually move away from the fighter while barraging the party. Since the party didn't have magical ranged weapons they weren't able to deal appreciable damage in return. It was very much hunker down and wait for it to run out of ammunition. Had the Manticore not had limited ammunition, the party would have had no means of fighting back and would have died helplessly.

I do think this needs to be looked at, because right now melee characters who aren't super-fast are just SOL when fighting faster ranged attackers. With some of our ancestries having paltry 20 ft move speeds and armor reducing that further, even 30 ft speed can potentially be hard for the slowest PC's to handle.