Aashua's page

KrispyXIV wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Later, the summoner would have a Sustained Flight Evolution at high level that has Flight Evolution as a prerequisite and allows more flexible flight.

This is something I desperately want to avoid, personally - persistent flight is really good as a 16th level feat, but its hit hard by adding a prior feat to the cost.

Currently, I can make a eidolon with wings and spend zero feats on flying, and fly in every single combat encounter. If I want perma flight on top, it costs one feat.

I dont see a good reason for it to cost two feats.

Okay, PF2 tries to avoid feat chains, so that is consistent design. Drop the prerequisite and allow the summoner to retrain the low-level Flight Evolution away. In that case, we can call low-level feat Fledgling Flight Evolution.

Alternatively having the low level one in addition could add a notable speed boost to the later one.

Just to lay out some of the other early PC flying abilities here.

Airwalk - available at level 7 (4th level spell slot) - Single Target - 5 Minutes

Phantom Steed - available at level 11 (6th Level spell slot - only good for 1 person I believe - 8 Hours - notably ever so slightly dangerous as if it dies you'll plummet, he is a very fast lad tho

Form Control Soaring Form Druid - available at 12 (6th Level Focus Spell) - Self only - last 1 hour - costs 3 feats(2 if you picked Wild order to start with)

Just something to consider 9th level 10 minute focus spell seems like it could line up reasonably here but perhaps 5 minutes would be better.

I think this is a pretty solid Idea, 10 minutes of flight is a lot more usable in out of combat scenarios then just one, so that would allow people who are really wanting that fantasy to work with it a bit more. I really wish more interesting things were placed in the 10 minute space in general. I feel its pretty hard to cram a ton of combat inside that time, while allowing you to use things more as adventuring tools then combat ones. The extra clause you added here is also a nice extra layer to completely dodge ye old buff and rush where suddenly the PCs want to count rounds constantly so they can keep their buffs up for 2-3
really close fights.

Pretty sure that's intentional, to prevent magic casters from casting more than one offensive spell per turn.

The only 1-action attack spell I can remember off the top of my head is the 1-action version of Magic Missile. Which just feels like a waste.

There are some focus spells, elemental toss from the sorcerer is the first to come to mind at 1 action.

I'm really excited for elemental but my biggest worry is that they will end up with more passive then active abilities, I really am not fond of the eidolons that dont really get anything special they can actively do. (phantom has a reaction which is something, but it just encourages certain positioning, angel doesn't have any active effects until 17) Dragon is my absolute favorite of whats been revealed so far as they have 2 nice active combat abilities so there is more to do with them then buff>bonk every turn.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback folks!

I am pondering changing to a state where Act Together is a variable action activity (one to three actions), where one of the two characters can use all the actions, and the other one does a single action. So for instance, Act Together for three actions, the summoner casts summon animal, and the eidolon Strikes once. This would also allow Summoner two-action-spell via Act Together while eidolon Strides, then eidolon Strikes, so it increases flexibility significantly.

This sounds like an awesome change. I showed my GM and he's enthusiastic about it, so I think we're going to play it this way and see how it turns out. It's funny I went into this playtest super hype for the Magus (my favorite PF1 class) and ignoring the Summoner entirely and it's completely flipped for me. I find the Summoner to be oozing with flavor, and I really want to play one. :D

Just make sure you mention the edits when you decide to report your playtest feedback.

That's reasonable. I feel obligated to point out though that it sounds like that wording might still allow 2 and 2 action splits (if the 1-action version allows one character to grab all the actions).

You'd probably have to say the extra actions can only go to one or the other, or cap it at 2 for 3 to avoid that.

If the result is that I can do eidolon stride, strike, summoner cast 2-action spell, that removes one of the biggest pain points though.

The wording specified that both halves were had to take at least 1 of the actions so it would be impossible to do multiple 2 action activities

Thanks for the feedback folks!

I am pondering changing to a state where Act Together is a variable action activity (one to three actions), where one of the two characters can use all the actions, and the other one does a single action. So for instance, Act Together for three actions, the summoner casts summon animal, and the eidolon Strikes once. This would also allow Summoner two-action-spell via Act Together while eidolon Strides, then eidolon Strikes, so it increases flexibility significantly.

I would absolutely love to see this, one of my biggest qualms with summoner currently is that its impossible to use a two action activity with either character if you try to split your actions evenly between the two, as well as it being impossible for the other character to do anything in tandem with 3 action abilities, which has make them feel really bad to use. Would love to see a change like this in the final doc. ^_^

I'm just sad dragons always get attached to arcane, give my primal dragons some love lol

Cydeth wrote:

Is that what I said? No. I said that it's a penalty in my mind. And that I said as much in the survey. Please don't place your assumptions in my mouth, because it's things like that that make this board a very hostile place to be.

What I said in the survey was that the forms were currently far too limited, and that at least some forms should be available to multiple traditions. For instance, someone who wants a fire dragon shouldn't be forced into the arcane sphere, the primal sphere should be an option.

I didn't imply you said anything.

I stated my assumptions based on how another class where picking one's tradition was very important to players, and about what probably happens if your tradition isn't tied to your Eidolon.

In your example, it sounds like you're talking about a Elemental that has a dragonlike shape - but honestly, having some forms have more than one option isn't offensive to me or anything.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't bother me if it happened.

To be fair dragons are pretty diverse and Primal dragons that use Primal Spells are a thing ie. Magma Dragons , this probably wont be a huge issues for creature types outside of dragons tho tbh

Deadmanwalking wrote:

totoro wrote:

Finally! This is the only rational explanation for the state of spellcasters in PF2. It is a rationale I despise, but it has to be the answer. Spells are "good." Fighters are "better."

That is not what I said. Or meant. A Fighter is the single most accurate and one of the best DPR Classes in the game (indeed, I think the highest DPR build in the game is a Fighter with a bit of multiclassing). They are very good when attacking, just in general.

Individual spells can be better than that (and many are), but by a fairly narrow margin on how much better given how good Fighter is already. And narrowly better but costing resources doesn't tend to be a better choice than free 'really good' stuff.

This isn't a choice the actual game makes you make, with a PF2 spellcaster having basic attack routines inferior to a Fighter, but spells just a tad better, and then utility spells as an option as well. But you give a Fighter spellcasting and it starts looking weird.

It is what you said, you just didn't mean to. (I should probably put a snark tag or something.)

Individual spells are better is kind of like playing a rigger in shadowrun. "Is anybody a rigger?" "Right here!" "OK, you make it safely to where you want to go. Now, what does the magician do?" (In this example, wizard with that "good" spell is the rigger and magician is fighter.) Wizards are awesome if you need to alarm your camp! Or if you need to breathe underwater! But in actual gameplay, there is never a spot in the adventure where it says, "Party needs to have someone cast waterbreathing to continue." It's a potion or hand-waving and you move to the next spot.

I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move...

More power too you but please consider that you then need to give spontaneous casters some sort of bonus otherwise they are far more inferior to prepared.

My question fundamentally is this.

Lets ignore heavy armor for a moment.

fundamentally light and medium armor result in the same thing, you end up with the same ac, and assumming you have the same stat investment you have no penalties from heavy armor.

It doesn't increase your combat power,

so why then,are you forced to upgrade it with the feats that are explicitly meant to increase your combat power instead of general feat which are much more commonly for flavor or downtime purposes.

There are at least arguments to be made for weapons, in that they are direct upgrades, but armor is very much more designed to be equivalent between the various types.

A Sorcerer who sees the claws as a backup weapon is going to see them as a pretty piss poor backup weapon, likely worse than flame blade.

I think that the levels where they don't inexplicably suck they're actually pretty good to build for, though. 1d4+1d6+3 is plenty competitive with the single attacks of other martials. I could see 16 STR / 16 DEX / 14 CHA Draconic Sorcerers who's main deal is ripping people up with their claws being a thing - certainly not the best thing, but something you could choose to do without feeling bad about it. If proficiencies are fixed so the claws get bumped up to expert when they're supposed to then this is a build I'd be willing to play.

Am I missing something I don't remember seeing flameblade in the spell list?

The dragon claws do activate blood magic and gives resistance for one element, so use it will have.

I'm gonna be honest the majority of the time that resistance is going to be irrelevant, it will come up once in a blue moon, and maybe on a trip to an elemental plane it"ll be cool but for the most part I'ts moot.

And the blood magic, is a +1 ac bonus, its shield, the cantrip shield, the one you can use every turn, I suppose you could stack it with your cantrip, but then you cant even cast a spell.

Claws and jaws allow you to provide flanking with free hands.

You can do that with a gauntlet too,

My opinion on martial sorcs is this, if you want to fight in melee then you should mainclass your martial, you can even hold a staff in your offhand if you wanna spam truestrike, if your mainclassing sorcerer you have better thing you can do with actions mostly then smacking things with your hand, at the very least I can't see why it would be valuable enough to give up 2 or more class feats.

I'm saying this as someone that wants to be a mainclass sorcerer multiclass monk, the primary thing monk multiclass offers to a character are stances that let you use special strikes, and flurry of blows.

How functional is a dragon sorcerer build with a monk multiclass? It makes you a bit tougher and gives you the ability to flurry with your claws. Not sure how well the dragon stance abilities synergize, though.

Flurry comes pretty far in and monk dedication doesn't give you a way to increase your unarmed proficiency for some bizarre reason. dragonstance synergizes decently well with a high charisma class , but I'd rather multiclass to bard for perma fear then use dragons roar

Honestly almost all 1st level bloodline spells are obsolete at 6th level.

Which really shouldnt be the aim in my opinion at least elemental bloodlines is a consistently useful 3 action for further burst on a non attack spellcast turn.

It does seem like the least they could do to compensate the one class without a master save.

Did we ever find out if the book or sheet was wrong I recall someone saying the sorcerer character sheet had master will saves at level 17 like a wizard which would make way more sense.

Aashua wrote:

Im just curious what part about the flickmace is egregious to you because there's already a one handed reach weapon its the whip.

I think it's this...

Colette Brunel wrote:

It is a flail and therefore knocks prone with its critical specialization, thereby synergizing with Attack of Opportunity, because Standing provokes; as per page 474, the Attack of Opportunity against a creature Standing takes place after the Stand, which means that a critical hit with specialization knocks the target right back prone.

From a numbers game, a lot of people are saying it's a superior DPR choice. I can understand Wheldrake's feeling because I don't want to return to PF1's days of, "Well if you're going to play as [X] you should obviously have [Y]." I think it remains to be seen, however.

Like I mentioned in that post, whip is in the flail subclass, it has the same crit spec effect. The dpr would be much lower though at the higher levels though.

Honestly I really like flickmace its cool its also the only weapon in the Advanced category that I can see very obviously from its description why is so hard to learn their others are two are axes with more abilities and a sword you dual wield with more abilities but nothing that really explains why their so hard to use.

The sawtooth saber annoys me far more then the flickmace as there are no arguments to be made that it isn't the best weapon to utilize for dual wielding, at least you can make a argument for whip that you can use combat maneuvers at range.

I dont really even mind Sawtooth that much but it sticks out way more to me then flickmace, its just better cause its serrated I guess.

Im just curious what part about the flickmace is egregious to you because there's already a one handed reach weapon its the whip.

Is it the fact that its lethality, or the damage die? whip has the same crit effect, while also adding the option to ranged trip and disarm.

Personally I really like the flickmace its a fun option. Yea people that want to spec into AOO are going to want reach thats obvious, there are better tools for many other builds.

Focusing on Glutton's Jaws here for a moment, I cannot quite figure out what a demonic sorcerer is "supposed" to do in a fight. The jaws are not finesse-based, unless I missed something, and they are forceful, so a sorcerer is encouraged to keep spamming attacks with them.

Is that really how it is supposed to go? The sorcerer continuously chomping down to essentially be a third-rate martial?

Ill be honest Colette I wouldn't make a melee sorcerer, I'd play a martial and multiclass into it most like monk but maybe fighter if they get there proficiency in unarmed strikes. I wish that was'nt true and maybe a multiclassed sorcerer into a martial might be decent but its really hard coded that if you just want to hit stuff you shouldn't be playing a caster mainclass.

Handwraps are not very favorable to the claws, whose base damage is 1d4.

The d4s aren't great however if you wanted you could opt for more elemental damage runes perhaps? The dragon claws are essentially a dagger with a guaranteed sneak attack attached, the downside(? it depends) being that its elemental instead of the same damage type.

It is worth noting that like some people have mentioned that you do get some elemental resist(mostly irrelevant) and some ac on the turn you cast (somewhat noteworthy).

I will say that the demon jaws offer a much more unique and probably more potent option for you, giving you a forceful weapon and temp hp every turn. The only other forceful unarmed strike I'm seeing being Ironblood stances', while this would give you the option to commit to the forceful follow up or use a agile attack while also potentially giving you a different stances benefits.

It also does piercing damage which monk stances mostly cant do, but if the monster manual resembles pf1s, I'm guessing you'd probably rather have bludgeoning most of the time.

Question does temp hp stack? Im guessing no but i suppose 2d6 every turn would still be pretty good. (I'm assuming you just end up with any amount thats higher then the current amount of temp hp you have would that be correct?)

Is it even worthwhile to build towards these? I am having trouble seeing how building towards any of these actually pays off, particularly at the lower levels.

Personally I'd say these a both probably better for a monk multiclassed into sorcerer. Something to consider is the hand wraps actually reads as your unarmed attacks are boosted which applied to both of these abilities as far as I can tell

"As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands. These handwraps have weapon runes etched into them to give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes, making your unarmed attacks work like magic weapons. For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two (normally 2d4 instead of 1d4, but if your fists have a different weapon damage die or you have other unarmed attacks, use two of that die size instead)."

Unless some other rule is at work here both of these are listed as unarmed attacks so they should work with the handwraps. Assuming you want to get into the fray I actually think they are better then a lot of the base unique monk strikes (I would definitely say dragon claws are better then ki strike).

Xenocrat wrote:

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Casters can mainly focus on damaging people by being blasters, though, or they can do those other things you said. If they choose to be blasters and primarily and primarily focus on damaging people, should their dpr then be significantly lower because they could have chosen a different route? I don't really think so...

Of course, this assumes caster damage is actually less, I've seen some argue that it is, and others argue it isn't, but since your argument there assumed that it is I decided to do so as well.

I really wish there was someway to actually hard focus into doing blasting. I'm hopeful that kineticist will do pretty well since I would imagine they will be balanced more similarly to martial then casters (Like rogue, barb, and paladin who have access to some more mystical effect in addition to their martial prowess) since honestly for the most part they functioned more like some sort of ranged single shot martial with a few fancy tricks and the power to cast fireball than wizards in 1e.

Really weird that the classes that can use spells to go invisible, heal people, wall enemies away, provide defenses, heal, transport people, and a lot of other things can't also damage people as well as classes who mainly focus on damaging people.

Bruh I just wanna play a kineticist if im being real, blaster sorc with almost nothing but damage is as close as I can get atm.

Also, RAW you can't imbue prepared spells with a wand (like Smoldering Fireball Wand and Ezren's prepared FB slot) even though Mark said RAI you can, that's a fun typo :P

Can you please elaborate what exactly this means I'm not sure I understand (Also a link or something to what mark said would be nice though I can probably look for it myself once I have more context.)

graystone wrote:

Don't count on teleporting as it's uncommon.

The bigger issue is that it takes 10 minutes, making it impractical in combat (although still amazing outside, of course)

Dimension door has no rarity, and take 2 actions to cast, so caster still have that. At 5th level is has a range of 1 mile and doesn't need to be in LoS, either.

Better not have a familiar though or your leaving the poor fuzzball for dead.

Not just weak save (and damage vulnerability) targetting, Spell DC also doesn't interact with MAP.

There are also almost no single action spells, in the game at current, and I may be wrong, but none that ask for saves? So that is somewhat irrelevant.

Rage lasts for 1 minute max.

Unless there is something that I missed seeing in that build that changes that.

That in this theoretical situation the trolls are taking infinite turns in a 6 second span.

Realistically any gm would just say after the second stand up the turn order cycles because why would you want a bottomless loop but it is amusing that a computer would go infinite.

Ah ok thanks guys I felt like I might be missing something.

Random Aside I guess this means burn it does effect cantrips and focus spells though? Its a status bonus so it overlaps slightly awkwardly with dangerous sorcery but might be worth it as a gobbo or human to take since cantrips seem to be bread and butter

"Fire fascinates you. Your spells and alchemical items that deal fire damage gain a status bonus to damage equal to half the spell’s level or one-quarter the item’s level (minimum 1). You also gain a +1 status bonus to any persistent fire damage you deal."

Just curious does the elemental Bloodline arcana(I know thats not the name but the actual term escapes me at the moment), and the dangerous sorcery feat actually effect cantrips? When I originally read spell level damage my brain automatically did the pf1 5e thing where cantrips=level0 but since they're heightened to half your level rounded up they get the extra damage right?

It looks like they specifically worded the spell to exclude taking a familiar with you. Without the language to exclude other creatures, you would still be limited to bringing along creatures that you could somehow carry.

You can carry a small or medium sized creature on your back or theoretically in a large enough portable planer space. which i image are the main reason for all the lawyer text in this spell, it would seem very strange to me if they actively wanted this spell to read "if you use this to flee you leave a class feature to die or to somehow figure out how the heck to return to you.

If I'm very honest the only thing in 5e that i can say I drastically prefer over this system is how familiars work, where you have a stable consistent and relatively safe partner that should problems arise you can canonically and in the rules very easily bring back to you, but that's really not what this topic is about.

Party teleportation in this edition for large party, you are better off using Shadow Walk(Supports up to 9 people). It can be very dangerous of course...but well, for a large party, it's a better solution.

Gate is of course, the other option but considering Gate is 10th level slot, won't really expect many to have it.

Most likely what will happen, I imagine by APG or maybe even the character guide, we will probably get a ritual for large party teleport.

Teleportation circle is definitely ritual material for the future.

Ah very interesting, I was reading through the spell list when I noticed dimension door was unchanged which prompted me to give a look at teleport, Shadow Walk seem to be a new addition since the playtest and looks quite fun.

The hard cap at 4 creatures does also penalize larger than usual parties as well as anyone with familiars and animal companions. Also causes problems for transporting rescued NPCs and the like. My group generally have 5 or 6 pcs in a party. So a teleport will never take the whole group. Spell slots are more precious now, so 3 castings (if you only have one teleporter) to get the whole party is kind of rough.

3 Castings is also very possibly a hard split of the party seeing as it can send you up to 10 miles off target which can be quite the adventure on its own potentially, especially with overland fight being gone, Gods help your poor wizard if he needs every slot to move the party and has to walk 10 miles alone XD.

This is a topic that I brought up in some places during the playtest but never really saw addressed but was really hoping it would be addressed by the the full release.

Specifically my main complaint/concern is with dimension door, it's very tightly sealed as far as moving about with other creatures, making sure you aren't finagling your friends around somehow, and I understand why, but it seems really strange that it essentially forces you to abandon your familiar should you attempt to use it to flee. This is especially rough for familiar focus wizards and, when they arrive, witches. Could familiars get some sort of clause that includes them with you due to their magical bond or something, or at the vary least a familiar or master ability at absolute worst that includes them as a part of your person for effects like these?

Teleport technically doesn't have this issue but it means you can only bring 3 other people if you bring you familiar, this also creates issues if your other pcs have creatures as part of their class features, which while this irritates me I can accept much more reasonably that wizards wouldn't have bothered sorting out problems of teleporting their ranger friends and their pets together.

As an aside the teleport spell mentions that you can take up to 4 creature sized objects, I'm assuming this means medium or large, but it doesn't say. Are these objects mouse sized, tarrasque sized or somewhere in between? I know the writers and designers have been working really hard so some things were bound slip through, but a clarification would be nice.

Overall though It's been an interesting read and thanks for the hard work, not sure I'll be making a hard convert as my main game, but the system certainly seems compelling enough to run through a few games ^_^

Can a high level character summon a Phoenix, can they still turn into a Phoenix with monstrosity form?

RicoTheBold wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

Thanks for the info on Barbarian Animal totem! :)

I see my question on metamagics might be a bit too open.. So more concretely, is there an Extend duration type of metamagic feat for Wizards? :)
Also, is there a way to gain Quicken spell more than 1/day?

These don't overlap much with the long answer I just wrote.

** spoiler omitted **

Woah woah woah, what's that about focus sorcerer spell that extends 1 minute to ten? What bloodline is that in?

The vanila arcane one, imperial iirc?

Do sorcerers have access to the same metamagics as wizards or do they have a different suite of them?

Are Elemental Grab and Blast Just standard Damage abilities?

Also The Damage Type Shift is just for turn fire into Bludgeoning? that a bit of a bummer, thought we'd get the corresponding energy types like in pf1.

Is Storm of Vengeance pretty much the same as PF1?

Thanks guys ^_^

Yeah he even tends to seem upset when people think that is what he is doing.

AH apologies then I didn't realize I'll go ahead and delete the comment on it.

Aashua wrote:

Honestly can't tell but I really feel like that remark was sarcastic guys...

I doubt it. Cryptic sarcastic quipping isn't really Jason's style.

Ok fair enough I'm not particularly familiar with the man it just seemed so based on the post structure, and the fact that the game seemed very much designed that way intentionally based on the blog posts from the pre release talking alot about not wanting general or skill feats to end up just being used to get more class feats.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Yeah, we were hoping Quick Prep would make the wizard a little more approachable for less experienced players while giving something else fun but not too intimidating to do during a break while treat wounds and repair are going on (there isn't always a new item to identify or the like). Given it was an extremely popular feat choice already,the difference is that the ability is something from the start (and easier for the new player to learn the wizard that way rather than pick it up later on) and it frees up a level 4 feat for something else. Now if people wanted us to abolish or limit Quick Preparation altogether, we hadn't realized that before. Jason has mentioned a potential survey just about updates, so that's something we can ask a broader group to see how many agree.

The problem isn't Quick Preparation per se. So many of us prefer Arcanist style casting over pure Vancian that anything which brings prepared casters like the Wizard back closer to that is a good thing. Frankly, if you won't use Arcanist casting for some reason, I'd prefer Quick Prep on the cleric and druid as well.

The problem is this happening in the absence of a meaningful fix to the sorcerer, and Paizo seemingly still way over-valuing spontaneous casting. Without improving the sorcerer, what Quick Prep does is let the wizard etc eat the sorcerer's lunch, by also being able to use any of their spells known at almost any time in any slot - and they have access to way, way more spells known than the sorcerer.

If you give the sorcerer a stronger core and identity, build in more and stronger powers, and unshackle spontaneous heightening, that solves the problem. Quick Prep doesn't have to be nerfed or removed at all.

This wholeheartedly, Sorcerer needs a bigger niche then just a different casting paradigm, and being able to be any of the spell schools isnt it. I think its great that thats a thing that is in 2E but it has no effect in beyond character creation. Their basically subclasses and the class itself need a niche in gameplay that extends into the subclass. Personally I'd really be down to see them as spell point masters with their various bloodline powers and maybe other class feats that let them bolster spells in some way with spell points as well. This is especially concerning if the intention is for oracle to appear eventually. There needs to be a reason I would play divine sorc over oracle, and atm there still needs to be a reason I would play divine sorc over any of the casters, especially bard, and right now I'm really just not seeing it.

Colette Brunel wrote:

LuniasM, Quick Preparation is not for combat. It is for rapidly swapping spells around outside of combat, thereby allowing wizards to help out in noncombat situations to an unparalleled degree, and also allowing them to quickly prepare for combat.

I know, I was trying to say that it would only start to be an issue that takes away from the Sorcerers flexibility mid-combat if it was something that could be used during a fight. Since it can't, it's strictly more of a versatility feature than a power boost. That may not have been clear in my review though.

So let me preface with saying that I greatly begrudge complaining about this because overall I have felt casters are on the weak end outside of cleric and Gish build.

I especially am not fond of complaining about this when I have been complaining a lot about the fact that +1 to DC should not be stealing away class feats, and this is something that at least made it so that it felt like a legitimate feature.

The problem with quick preparation is that general what it allow the wizard to do is spend all his slots on combat focused tools and nothing else and then whenever a problem appears out of combat they can just switch out a slot. thus giving them very similar flexibility levels to sorcerer.

The problem with versatile casting is that one it is a bonus feature for the wizard while every other casting class has been left with the stupid +1 dc and nothing else at those levels, and two its an ability that was supposed to be a spontaneous casting trick so it feels wrong that its been dumped into wizard even though I would very much like to see something interesting and wizard class based be put in its place.

I worry that sorcerer is going to be left with out any sort of interesting niche because spontaneous casting is so incredibly highly valued by Paizo that it feels like paizo doesn't want to give them interesting things beyond it or even let you really make use of how you would imagine spontaneous casting would work as far as heightening goes. At the moment there feat list is incredibly similar to wizards with the some middling blasting boosts because extra damage is being carefully safeguarded, and the rather mediocre evolution series of feats at 4th level.

I just really hope paizo can bring some focus in for the sorcerer as im kinda left feeling really meh which is the opposite of how I've felt about both pathfinder and 5es sorc that have interesting niches. I hopeful for some sort of boost to the spell point abilities as right most of them just seem rather mediocre when i really think they deserve to have a solid focus in the sorcerer class.

Why key ability score of Wild Order's Druid can't be Strength?

Heightened effect of Monstrosity Form is right? Because the AC and TAC is lower what the base version.

Mark confirmed its a typo in another thread, he didnt specify the correct ac but i imagine it was supposed to be 39/36

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks, many of these are on our list (or rarely, maybe already fixed; I swear I thought I increased dragon form's AC in 1.6?) and for those that aren't, I'm adding them to look at. Throughout this process, you and your group have consistently provided solid feedback of what worked and what didn't, with careful analysis. Thank you!

You're quite welcome! It's excellent to have confirmation that you've seen these. :)

And the Dragon Form AC has certainly improved...but it's still an AC debuff for most Druids (and even some Wizards). As a level 6 spell, it's competing with normal ACs of 30 or so (11 Level +2 Magic Item +3 Hide Armor +4 Dex), and that goes to AC 32 at 12th before they can get a higher level spell. In contrast, Aerial and Elemental Form of the same level grant AC 31.

Honestly Im far more concerned with monstrosity form which has the same new AC as Dragon form cast at level 6, as a heightened level 9 spell...

EDIT - Looking back at monstrosity form in the book at level 8 it has ac 35 the same as new heightened dragon form meaning that your be casting at 9th level for a lower ac, gonna go ahead and guess that yeah, thats a typo.

I don't understand why wizards are being giving even more versatility over sorcerers then they already have, everyone gets the ability that turns wizards into sorcerers for free and they get a old feat that was for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters?

Versatile spellcasting would have been a really cool tenth level sorcerer feat and instead you gave that to wizard and gave sorcerer something that really honestly feels like it should just be baseline, the more I play the more i have come to dislike "spontaneous" heightening, which is frankly anything but. If it could at least be chosen as needed when circumstances arrived throughout the day it would be one thing. But instead it feels like an obnoxious wizard feature in the sorcerer and bard class.

ChibiNyan wrote:

graystone wrote:

AndIMustMask wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I like the choice of uestions for magic items survey. They were spot-on for the most part. Spells I would have liked more about spell durations and utility.

agreed there

I was surprised to see no questions on duration or save DC's.

There was one for spell DCs. It was like "How could spells be improved?" and one option was "Better success rate (DC vs save)"

I went through the whole thing and I don't recall that question. Was that part of one of the multi-option questions?

Vidmaster7 wrote:

What would you change about save DC's? aren't they just calculated on the same principle as everything else?

I'd up the DC's to make it so you have a better chance to succeed when you use a limited resource. It's bad enough you have less spells but then you add on lower durations and a substantially greater chance of a made save and it can make things quite unfun.

As to everything figured out the same, well I have issues with that too. I find all chances low for my taste. I'm more flexible on reusable actions [like attack], but things that are used for the day, like spells, should have a better chance to actually be useful when you use them.

It was in one of the rank from 1 to 5 sections, specifically the one on how you'd liked to see spells buffed. options were spells per day, power level, success chance, something else that escapes me atm, and don't buff them. I do remember the surprising lack of duration as an option so I noted it later on in the text boxes.

One thing I will say for strength that is odd and probably should be looked at is that relative to you weapon, the bigger it is the less you actually care about strength. On average a +5 damage from 20 strength is worth 2d4 damage. For a 1d4 weapon this is a +2 potency rune worth of damage but for 1d12 weapons its not even worth one.

That just strikes me as very very odd.

While strength doesnt effect non martials in a particularly large way (basically only encumberance and athletic chanlleges if you dont want to expend the resources to skip them) I'm really not sure if i can agree with the thought that strength is less useful then int. The fact that every melee build but rogue, even casters that want to gish, will feel the pull to add str for extra damage. Where as only wizard and alchemist ever have a real reason to push int. The extra langauge is nice and the trained skills are better as of the minus 4 penalty but it still feels way lower on the totem pole then strength.

Im partial to the idea of perhap giving one extra skill advance per tier at the level right before the next tier ( gain an additional skill advance at level 5, 13, and 17/19.) assuming you int is at 14+2 per ability boost you had access to at that level.