| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WHAT. BUT WE KILLED HIM. IT TOOK 4.5 YEARS TO GET THROUGH ALL SIX BOOKS BUT HE WAS FINALLY DEAD.
oh dear.
Search Posts
I dig it. People in our discord dig it. Game is good.
I like the mentioned changes so far re: expansive spellstrike and sure strike. It's possible the faq page was updated with the post, but some server side cache was not cleared, or will auto clear soon.
Thank you.
I think actions to make Take Cover easier should be discouraged honestly. Especially as all the places you can Take Cover in already give you at least lesser cover by definition. One of the most tedious parts of "roll to hit" / "pass or fail" games with any more complexity than a Mork Borg clone is frequent misses. One of the best appeals to 2e here is the +10 is a crit system. Good cover doubles down on miss chance and erases most of the extra crits. Cover is thematic for ranged combat but also boring in practice for this kind of game, imo, if the enemies are doing it, and to some extent if the players are doing it. Teridax is right to experiment with all of these different ways of addressing that, honestly. I do think it's interesting that "off-guard from exposed angles" becomes enough motivation for people to get behind the target when removing their cover to me would be enough for me personally. I love the idea of more covering shots and assisting shots and more of those actions being basekit, potentially requiring automatic weapons, etc. More things like athletic maneuvers but working from range to adjust to the ranged meta. Suppressed is a good start. As far as compatibility goes, the message of "compatible but different metas" makes me feel like they've got more room to push boundaries than they're using so far.
I don't mind the occasional specific overrides general filter, but the rules only clarify anything regarding feet being used to climb in Combat Climber, which still requires a hand. So it's in this very unclear area. I think the point about the Anadi is a good one though so I think I'll stick with being able to Climb using those extra feet and include this confusion in my playtest feedback. Thank you!
That's an interesting point. GMC and PC1 barely changed anything, and I sort of expect the same for G&G. PC2 is the freshest thing on people's minds though and have certainly pushed the discussions toward an increased scope regarding what may change in a remaster.
Commenting my one complaint first: seems like the climbing heritage skittermander can't actually Climb with those 2 dedicated climbing limbs. They have to be active hands to use actions, even with a climb speed, you're technically auto-succeeding at the Climb action, which requires two free hands or combat climber for 1 free hand. Kind of a weird bummer tbh, my soldier climbs up walls for fun and weird angles, which hasn't felt too strong given the many ranged attacks available to enemies. Otherwise, a two-handed weapon is historically roughly +2 damage dice size upgrades over a one-handed weapon, the difference between a d6 and a d10, which scales to multiple dice with upgrades. 2-handed weapons already come with action taxes in general to restore your grip after you use a free Release. That's where the two-handed weapon plus shield plus free hand is already too strong if unrestricted. It's a tough position to balance around and may end up costing archetype class feats honestly, though I hope something becomes available to grow it from where it is. You might start with something like: wielding a two-handed item requires all of your other limbs to be free; if you're wielding more than one weapon, you can't wield a shield in a hand; you can only benefit from a maximum of two wands at a time, etc. That's quite a long list and it'd get longer. That said I do expect or hope that some of the existing extra appendage feats (usually tail related) make it over, though they are probably excluded because they don't need to be playtested.
Is there a way to get on a "no future re-release books" list for subscribers? Or is the expectation that we make a new customer service request every time y'all re-release a book? I still need to find a good place to donate my current remaster books after finding out my local library doesn't take book donations.
Thank you Xenocrat! --- A couple more notes on the topic while I'm thinking about it, for playtest feedback's sake: Note 1: The definition of reload includes this: > If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn. So I suppose a possible benefit of interpretation 1 is that you are guaranteed to be able to get 1 action toward the reload, where otherwise a GM might rule that your weapon requires being reloaded as a 2 action activity. Still kind of a bummer feat, but still more ambiguity in interpretation. Note 2: A different example for what I mean in parsing Ready Reload, because the car gas one is rough. You Strike, making an attack roll vs. your opponent's AC. Vs. You Strike, and then make an attack roll vs. your opponent's AC. The first is a clarification/reminder of the Strike. The second would be a separate act, but poorly defined. (What am I doing with this attack roll ~ how long does the reload cost reduce) Similarly, when I try to define what interacting to Reload does, I already think of it as reducing the reload cost by 1. So it reads to me as equivalent to "You Interact to reload, spending 1 action toward your reload cost." Note 3: My friend found it funny when I compared it to: You fart, releasing gas from your butt. Action, comma, elaboration on action. --- Anyway, I think I've explained my confusion sufficiently and I hope they revert to the old wording or something closer to it if that's still their intention with the feat. I've decided that I can't playtest this feat because it's too ambiguous and that's okay.
The Field Test wording is at least in line with all of Paizo's previous wordings on the subject. "Interact to reload" (in the meaning of 'spend an action toward reloading') is the phrase used in Raconteur's Reload, Running Reload, Covered Reload, Clear a Path, Reloading Strike, etc. If anything, your point has made me more convinced that ", reducing the reload cost by 1" actually was a clarifying phrase to specify that the intent of the "Interact to reload" is to simply be the regular (spend an action toward reloading) interpretation rather than the others. Especially because there are no additional mechanics described anywhere else for what reducing a reload cost by 1 would mean mechanically if it did mean anything different from the normal "Interact to reload". You've made reasonable assumptions about what that could mean (only for this current reload), for sure, but there isn't anything actually specifying a duration or that it's only this current reload. What I mostly mean is that you have to want the new wording to mean what the old wording meant in order to really arrive at the conclusion that it still does functionally the same thing. Or you have to decide that any other interpretation would make it useless, so it has to be how it used to mean through a series of deductions. For a grammar comparison about what I mean about clarifying clause, consider the two sentences below. I put some gas in my car, reducing the amount it needs by a gallon. (Clarifying subordinate clause, shift away from the active "put". I put a gallon of gas in my car.) I put some gas in my car, then reduce the amount it needs by another gallon. (Active "put", conjuncted with active "reduce". I put some gas in my car, then another gallon of gas.) I reload, reducing (specifying the meaning of spending of an action toward reloading). vs. I reload, then reduce (separate mechanic). To summarize: - I don't think the reload and the reload cost reduction are intended to be two separate mechanics, but different grammar could make that happen
Hahaha, I also overanalyzed it in another possible direction. "You Interact *and* can reload your weapon twice", so I can use an Interact action like swapping and also get the benefit of two actions toward reloading? Language is so incredibly tricky. Closest I got to the right phrasing is "You Interact once to reload twice" before your comical wrench was thrown in, but it would be closer to the text style of Running Reload for example. There's already a lot of precedent for an "Interact to reload" to mean spending an action toward reloading a weapon.
The wording on Ready Reload changed to be more confusing and I'm no longer sure what the feat is doing. I want to clarify that my goal is to write my confusion as clearly as possible, which is a difficult task, but I am generally happy with the playtest and trying to be helpful here rather than pedantic. Where the Field Test 1 wording and the playtest rulebook wording agree are the requirements, action cost, and flavor text: - Must be a 2h ranged weapon
The Field Test is very clear: - "You Interact and can reload your weapon twice." The Playtest Rulebook is very unclear: - "You Interact to reload your weapon, reducing its reload cost by 1."
Now, there's a couple ways to interpret the Playtest Rulebook's version. 1. You Interact to reload your weapon, and "reducing its reload cost by 1" is a clarifying clause to remind what reloading is. This is certainly what the grammar suggests to me, but it means the feat does not let you reload twice, which renders it fairly pointless. 2. You Interact to reload your weapon, "[and reduce] its reload cost by 1" as a separate thing you do. This grammatical change would make it two separate things: a reload and a reload cost reduction. How long the reload cost stays reduced by 1 is very unclear in this interpretation. It presumably would not stack, and maybe presumably would not last after another firing or after the combat ends? That compounds with confusion over the next line. "Unlike most Interact actions, you don't need a free hand to reload your ranged weapon this way." A: While that is true, a 2 handed ranged weapon, which you are definitionally required to be holding in order to Ready Reload, always allows you to remove a hand, reload, and replace your grip as normal. So in the vast majority of cases, this doesn't do anything a basic Interact to reload couldn't do. B: Was there a design intent to no longer allow that part of reload? I don't think so, honestly. C: Okay, so maybe it's meant to work with Damoritosh's Grip (18th level feat), which lets you wield a 2-handed melee weapon in one hand and a 2-handed ranged weapon in another hand. Okay, but then how does one reload a Reload 3 weapon with Damoritosh's Grip or a Reload 2 weapon when you're slowed and unable to use Ready Reload? How do you reload a Reload 1 weapon when Reload 2 is a requirement of Ready Reload? Is the only way you're expected to reload while using Damoritosh's Grip through Ready Reload or through dropping your 2 handed melee weapon? D: Okay, so maybe it was reworded to prevent Operative from taking the Soldier archetype for two free Steps/Strides because Mobile Reload is a passive benefit that always works when you Interact to reload a ranged weapon. But it was already originally one Interact to reload twice, not two Interacts to reload once each. If that seemed a little confusing, are there better ways of phrasing it to make the singular Interact more explicit? E: Do they no longer want to allow you to Reload twice like the original Field Test, but didn't have a clear vision for what the feat would do anymore? That seems like it would make the most sense to me honestly. Anyway, if you're like me and trying to read it without the context of Field Test's Ready Reload, it's extremely confusing. My interpretation of the RAW is 1ACD, which unfortunately makes it nearly indistinguishable from a regular Interact to Reload until you reach level 18 and take a specific feat. I genuinely do not know what the RAI is anymore because the language went from so clear to so confusing.
Thank you James for bringing Our Lord in Iron into the world! Looking forward to the many planned adventures where we may stay iron-tongued and covered in blood, not rust.
Just because it didn't seem to be mentioned previously, flurry ranger pairs well with athletic maneuvers like Trip and Grapple. Start off with those, then use your reduced MAP against the off-guard enemy. Unfortunately there's not a ton of feat support for it in the class, but the basic actions are strong enough. One of the bummers about Outwit imo is that it doesn't include a bonus on those athletics attacks, even a +1 at the start alongside AC could've been nice and still fits the theme.
Lamashtu the only one now that wasn't mentioned in any of the prophecies? Hmmm. My money is still on Iomedead. Edit: Iomedae appears to be the most mentioned. So the last remaining conspiracies I can think of point to either of these two.
Shocking Grasp and Thunderstrike still allowed, side-by-side, for those who were worried.
Oh whew. I was so confused! <3
re: Bluemagetim. If you assume everything hits hard without critting, then up to [16, 160] from 8th rank disintegrate, plus [9, 54] from a scorching ray, plus some kind of hasted weapon that does likely 5d6 so [5, 30]. Okay, so, 244 from range against any target within 60 feet, which means not having to put yourself at risk or feel committed to a single target by adjacency. Anyway, yes, like I stated earlier, in the top ~15% of luck for the barbarian, it wins out DPR against True Strike Horizon Thunder Sphere. I included that in my initial reply here. The caster wins with those two spells for the next ~50-60% with equal luck. They both whiff the rest. (What I mean by top 15% of luck is that if you reduced the barbarian's two strikes to a single d20 roll, it'd win on an 18 or better. The specific example caster round would win between roughly 6 and 16. For that single specific level that I have calculated the data for.) Please stop comparing against the barbarian. What have I done.
Yeah. I feel bad for introducing a red herring to chase down. The idea was "Holy crap! It can even reach barbarian levels!" The idea that a caster should be able to consistently sustain multiple rounds of single target damage above a barbarian wielding its strongest possible weapon? I'm firmly opposed to it. It would mechanically annihilate any ranged martial, all without committing to using any hands to manage weapons. The ranged monk are more clearly where the comparisons should be made, sacrificing power for their array of other abilities. And even solid focus spells compete with their melee 2 Strike rounds. Re: "it's some idealized situation favoring the caster" Thunderstrike vs. middle save is not idealized. It's far less idealized than a barbarian's Improved Knockdown + Reactive Strike. Even the ability to cast True Strike + Horizon Thunder Sphere is less idealized than assuming a Reactive Strike will happen. And that Thunderstrike vs. Middle Save roughly stays competing from rank 2 onward. So does True Strike + Horizon Thunder Sphere. It's not just some rank 8 thing. Rank 8 is just interesting because it's when casters get master proficiency and barbarians get their class damage boost. And caster vs. barbarian is so far from idealized in the first place! Anyway, I was mostly intending to make a case for Unicore, that spell attack spells in pf2e have a place in the toolbox.
Hard disagree that it's sad. Ranged damage is intentionally lower than melee damage and a barbarian is basically intended to be the hard hitting class. And two handed weapons are nothing to sneeze at as a mid-combat investment, especially one that's balanced around having nearly no traits for versatility. The ability to beat the barbarian from range several times a day is fantastic. Especially while a good handful of focus spells compete with two strikes from the same 2-handed melee weapon (without rage) while being ranged and AoE or having rider effects. The fury barbarian's 12 bonus damage at level 15 is basically the same as everything other than the giant (which comes with clumsy) and dragon (which may be stuck on a resistance or immunity). Dragon instinct only bumps the 36.8 to 39.8. Still a bit behind Thunderstrike. True Strike Horizon Thundersphere is about 5 or 12% ahead. True Strike Polar Ray due to drained 2 is about 20 or 49% ahead. And it's basically just an extra action to cast True Strike by level 15. The first rank slot will hardly matter. When I set out to do my calculations, I thought casters would be on par with ranged Ki monks due to the similarities in versatility and conditions as power, the lack of hand requirements, the range, and lack of damage boosts. I think that's a vastly more appropriate comparison to make generally, honestly. But the fact was that their single target DPR against +2 enemies competed with maul barbarians when casting Thunderstrike against a middle save, and True Strike spell attacks often pull ahead of that. The caster pulls further ahead against +3 and +4. Below that, you're probably using AoE anyway.
By my calculations, Unicore is ultimately right, and I think it's ultimately a communication issue perhaps caused by limited print space. If you have a True Strike available at level 15 against a level 17 monster, the raging, +2 flaming frost greater striking maul-wielding fury barbarian only beats your rank 8 Horizon Thundersphere roughly 15% of the time in DPR. You win that roughly 50-60% of the time. (The other 25-35% is bad luck for both of you.) The range depends on your usage of Shadow Signet as well, which nets you 44.7 DPR. However, if you don't have all that, a Thunderstrike vs. the middle save's average DPR (41.1) is going to beat that barbarian's (36.8). Now, 44.7 vs. 41.1 DPR doesn't tell the whole story. Horizon Thundersphere's success damage and sustained likelihood through fortune effects is what carries it to 44.7. Thunderstrike's 9 possible die results that still do half damage is what carries it to 41.1. As Unicore has been saying, if you need to make sure you meet an amount of damage caused by a hit or an enemy failing a save, the fortuned attack will be the best move there. Though, I'd guess the drained 2 (34 damage in and of itself adding to 45 average from 10d8) of Polar Ray makes it even better than Horizon Thundersphere (average of 59.5). Presumably that ratio holds true, making fortuned Polar Ray peak at 59.3 DPR. (Calcs are vs. AoN's non-unique level 17 creatures.) Perhaps it's true that True Strike (attainable by all traditions through a Staff of Divination) and/or Shadow Signet (the way to target AC while potentially hitting a lower defense) shouldn't have existed. (Even though I like them both!) But to adjust for that, the base damage for each AC-targeting spell would have to have higher scaling. And the higher scaling would attract more people to use it without realizing it was high-risk. And then they'd be even more disappointed when it missed, which would happen very often even if it were given an item bonus. Perhaps 3e will make AC spells do half damage on miss instead of more damage and other spells would roll against DCs instead of trigger saving throws. But I'm satisfied with what we have now for the predictable future. I like the variation in tools.
I would still pay more if each of those extra dollars went straight to the workers.
Me, the one player that uses snares, pouring one out for my homie. These are all good changes though, and I look forward to the improved snarecrafter!
Aren't spell attack rolls largely disconnected from being a blaster caster anyway? There's tons of ways to blast well, they just usually involve primarily using save spells. Some attack roll spells only scale like AoE save spells, which is kind of a problem. 2d6 is rough for the risk. But some double scale under the right circumstances, like searing light, which is 4d6 heightening. Disintegrate gets to use d10s instead of d6s, but has to deal with hitting and fortitude. Acid Arrow is good, but has heighten +2. It feels to me like the AC targeting spells should maybe be postponed to the late game, where they should be less accurate but rewarded with higher damage. At a level where the consequences of targeting AC and missing are clear, and people aren't overly enticed by bigger dice pools. Another aspect is that caster damage goes up by ~7 every two levels for many focus spells and slots. Could be why caster accuracy is delayed until the same levels martials get small damage boosts from weapon specialization.
I think you're describing a loophole, although it's unclear if it works. The intention appears to be that if you want to jump a further distance, you need to Long Jump. The easiest way to High Jump further than your speed is to get Cloud Jump, which uses Long Jump rules to jump that high. It also clarifies that High Jump too requires more actions spent to jump further. If you had a 30ft speed, for base 15ft leap, then +5 from crane stance, +5 from powerful leap, +5 from dancing leaf, and +5 from staff acrobat, you're right that it'd bring you up to a 35ft Leap, like you said. You're correct there. There's nowhere else I can find that specifically caps Leap. It's just the kind of thing that seems to be an unintended result of stacking all these untyped bonuses together. A Long Jump is intended to be the way to jump further than a base Leap action. Alternatively, the possibility of jumping further than your speed as a concept is, in almost every other situation, only relevant for Long Jump. But Long Jump itself specifies that You can't *Leap* further than your speed, rather than you can't Long Jump further than your speed. Sometimes rules are placed where they're most likely to be relevant, and then have to be inferred to apply to related things. Squeeze is an example of this, where one of the first things it tells you is that you probably don't need to Squeeze because moving through most places that your token/mini doesn't fit through is just difficult terrain. But this is not mentioned anywhere else.
It will only ever go in circles. We're already clear on where the disagreement is. Trip.H: The duration of the item and effect last until next daily prep. With quick alchemy, the duration of both the item and the effect last until the start of your next turn. Most other people here: The duration of the item and effect last until next daily prep. With quick alchemy, only the duration of the item, not its effect, are specifically overridden to last until the start of your next turn. Re: "This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn." I firmly believe the "it" in this rule refers exclusively to the item, and that it's an extra insertion to assume it applies to both the item and its effect. To assume "it" refers to both the item and its effects asserts more than is written. For extra context, the duration of how long infused items last, rather than their effects, is specified not in the Infused trait, but in advanced alchemy and quick alchemy. The infused trait just allows for both. The ", but lasts until the start of your next turn" seems more likely to be an artifact of the fact that this text is written in a book. So you would read the advanced alchemy section, see that those infused items last until your next daily preparations, and then read the Quick Alchemy section immediately after, and see it clarified that these only last until the start of your next turn instead of what we see in the section immediately prior. Perhaps that's also an assumption, but it seems like less of one.
Part of the trouble of referring to things as a cheat or exploit is that you're essentially offering up a "too good to be true" alongside your rule reading, which is why you are frequently getting people saying the other reading is "too bad to be true". I agree with others that there's a separation between item duration and effect duration. I think poisoned weapons are an item effect, and therefore wear off at the next daily preparation. They can't be used to poison weapons across days. Toxicologist has access to more than one perpetual poison and aren't limited as much in their selection of poison. Their advanced poison also scales with their class DC instead of just the quick alchemy ones. So I don't think the Perpetual Breadth feat replaces the need to be one. I think the confusion is still worth pointing out, since clarification would be good.
So.. I'm still trying to get used to the more granular math of 2E, but... Thunderstrike doesn't look.. all that good. It's extremely good. Against a party level +2 target, it competes with a raging fury barbarian striking twice (once with MAP) against a +2 creature for most levels of the game, accounting for accuracy and middle saves and the existing bestiary on AoN. While being at range, without taking up your hands, but also while costing a spell slot. (Thing is though, this tends to mean upper half rank slots compete with ranged Strikes too.) A big part of why is that it now targets reflex, which means half damage on a "miss". Which means your spell slot is unlikely to feel wasted, and it bumps the average damage up. Analysis is available on the Starstone forums.
Outside of PFS, which seems to be in an uncertain fate, it really seems like y'all are deciding for yourselves that you're not gonna use premaster stuff and then getting mad that you're not able to use premaster stuff. Definitely wait this stuff out y'all and see what's comin'. re: acid splash `weakness_raw:acid` / `weakness.acid:*` only turns up 4 creatures, but `weakness.splash:*` turns up 85, same number as `weakness.area:*` There are at least 29 creatures with regeneration deactivated by acid, according to a `regeneration AND "deactivated by acid"` query. Wasn't sure how to search the regen line exclusively. Some things are deactivated by 2 energies, but most of those are alphabetical.
Good stuff! Thunderstrike is extremely strong now that it's reflex. Definitely a solid single target damage pick for its casters.
So if I can't completely cripple enemies, or lock them down HARD.... Then as far as I'm aware we're about to die. I think that's a rough experience to go through and a rough experience to unlearn and recontextualize. I can totally see why that would lead to a lot of stress around not feeling powerful enough on your own. I wish you better GMs in the future!
I will clarify that avoiding the strongest save is the balance point, and hitting the weakest save is typically better than off-guard. The spell effects you've listed as happening are all very powerful to me from the perspective of a GM. The most important thing in a fight is the flow of action economy (with higher level actions being worth more)--everything hinges on this, damage, healing, everything. The difficult terrain essentially wasted two actions from a creature who didn't get to attack, which means you and your allies functionally get an entire bonus round compared to that creature who is now closer and likely in range of all your allies, reducing how many actions they have to spend. I think it's very difficult to appreciate the impact you are making with more nuanced effects until you GM, and I have seen some frustrated casters move on to become GMs frustrated by new frustrated casters. So when you say "I want my spells to work", and I see spells working, it's tricky to navigate. It is going to be the case that the higher level monsters resist, the same way that higher level monsters are harder for martials to hit. It's just that you'll likely have some effect, and sometimes have a strong or rarely have a critical effect.
If it were balanced then people wouldn't be complaining about it consistently for 4 years. I mean, a large part of it is that people are complaining *because* it is balanced. There have been a lot of complaints for a lot of different reasons over the years, including "casters are too balanced so they're not fun". Even in this thread, it's "elitism"(?) that a more skilled player isn't able to do *enough* better with a class that offers a higher skill ceiling than a less skilled player playing other classes that offer low skill floors. Rather than just having an interesting way to play the game where you aren't just nearly exclusively targeting AC and get to adapt and adjust and get rewards like weak saves typically being more vulnerable than off-guard AC. My sorcerer player complains about the fighter class being too good continuously, even immediately after real fights where the fighter had to switch off their legendary weapon to bow and really struggled to contribute much, even though she's largely a support fighter who sets up everyone else. Even when the sorcerer spends 3 rounds doing support and only 3 rounds doing damage and still did 2nd most damage in a party of 5 (swashbuckler only winning because of an early bleeding finisher that never stopped bleeding), against a single target boss. Consistently one of our strongest damage contributors in fights even when straight blasting with focus spells and still complaining because it wasn't even more. Shining in AoE and in boss fights with damage, still complains cause 15d6 came up 5 points below the average or whatever. Complaints just... aren't really evidence that something is imbalanced. It's just evidence someone doesn't like how something feels. Which is totally okay.
I like the burst feat! Anything that encourages and enables allies to Shove and Grapple is tons of fun. I definitely thought this preview post would be bigger and more detailed but now that my expectations are in-line, I'm looking forward to the rest of them.
I'd be wary of anything that boosts spell attack damage specifically because it will likely funnel even more players into the high risk high reward spells like acid arrow that struggle to hit at higher levels. Best to have that kind of thing maybe boost cantrips or this alternate 1-action zap attack. My players tend to have to learn the "high risk" part of attack spells the hard way, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure Shadow Signet is typically better than Gate Attenuators overall, I'll have to test that out vs. the AoN bestiary. But it does require still engaging with the defense targeting stuff between AC, Reflex, and Fortitude. So I have offered players who are less about that the option of a gate attenuator equivalent as long as it's incompatible with the Shadow Signet.
re: 1-action attack activity. One thing you can already use within the system from a flavor perspective is Foxfire, from the Kitsune, as an alternative reload 0 magical ranged unarmed attack that is fairly well within flavor. It has dex accuracy though, unfortunately. re: Casters shouldn't compete on single target damage. Thunderstrike has tipped the single-target damage scales in a big way. A max rank Thunderstrike cast's average accuracy-damage vs. a creature's middle save is on par with a raging fury barbarian swinging a maul twice's average accuracy-damage*. Thunderstrike is a little behind against on-level creatures and very slightly ahead against +2 creatures, pulling even further ahead against +4 creatures. Granted, you are limited to "I cast ranged 2-handed raging barbarian double maul strike" to ~3-4 times per day, but if you choose comparisons that are ranged, even good focus spell selection tends to keep up as well. Upper half ranks (like, 4th rank when 7th rank is available) of Thunderstrike compete with a lot of martials' ranged average accuracy-damage. Solid damage AoE focus spells still do better here as well, at range. *based on the data of every combination of d20 rolls at max proficiency vs. every non-unique creature in Archives of Netyhs at the target level, and average damage (property runes included), and accounting for crit immunity, MAP on 2nd Strike, and +1 status bonus to saves vs. magic.
Love the write-up! Thanks for sharing! In the two encounters I got to play in, the pull bangles were actually used to good effect--to get a spider in sticky webbing within reach of the party, and to break up an enemy's flank. But we were level 1 with few alternative options. Our Animist also struggled with the pressure to sustain their focus spells. It seemed like they could benefit from an occasional Cackle.
Part of the trouble is that we already have a baseline for how Paizo views the value of martial weapons. It's roughly like: d12?
One of the bummers about weapons is that they all have opportunity costs even in ABP: a lack of access to a hand or two hands, a need to release or stow or draw, etc. Very few spells have that, with Slashing Gust being the only one I can think of. But, almost all spells do cost 2 actions, and so sort of imply some kind of draw/reload requirement by their very usage. Repeating Heavy Crossbow, the two handed martial reload 1 bow (with 5 shots before needing to spend 3 interacts to refresh the magazine), is roughly sandwiched between Needle Darts (~7.5 - ~30) and Telekinetic Projectile (~7.5 - ~42) even with 3 property runes (~5.5 - ~32.5) (analysis of accuracy's impact pending). Anyway, all this I guess is to say that a 1d6 (H+2 +1d6) one-action attack cantrip should probably cost a hand, maybe a wand to amplify a base cantrip. The base cantrip probably ends up needing to be 1d4 (H+2 +1d4).
Well, yeah? Sorta. It just factors into the calculus, and depends on how much your enemy and GM leans into it. If it's the start of a fight but you know you handle damage better than your rogue, the enemy doesn't have a ton of reasons to choose the rogue over you because they haven't experienced much of your team's abilities yet. So a free -2 AC is mechanically persuasive in a situation like that, and displaying oafishness can be narratively persuasive. Same if you're both low health and impactful but your ally is wounded 2-3 and you're not. Unless your GM is really fixing to kill a player, they're usually kinda relieved to have a reason to target somebody else. I'm not pitching a guaranteed or even strong taunt effect here, but it also actually should work in some situations (unless your GM doesn't like it because it seems to abuse RAW in comical ways). Probably just, like you said, not ones where a squishy psychic is in range and just crit the enemy with an amp'd cantrip. Like, to categorize when I expect it to work, it's when being off-guard makes you more vulnerable than other targets who haven't significantly drawn more ire than you. Which is still often, just probably not in most situations where you're desperate for a taunt. For example, it's not terribly different than yee olde Broken Wing Gambit of 1e, which gave the enemy a +2 to hit you. If the enemy actually did try to, it'd provoke attacks of opportunity from allies. Any enemy who knows exactly what mechanical consequences exist from a Broken Wing Gambit is probably going to avoid attacking you. But the game clearly expected it to be a usable feat that the GM's creatures would go along with (excepting likely those who have been pre-informed of your tactics). It's actually much worse than Broken Wing Gambit, because you're 2 more likely to be crit and your allies don't get free hits on the enemy. So it should arguably be even more motivational than that 1e feat.
Free Archetype always strikes me as a candy jar. It's not good for you, but you'll almost never say no to it. I never make it available for level 10+ games, but it's often fine in the moderation of feats that are low level campaigns. And my players still take archetypes. So I give them a bonus feat from time to time when it makes sense in the plot. Selfishly I do hope mythic is somehow incompatible with free archetype, because the game is already at high complexity for many of my players and having so many tables choose all three of class, free archetype, and mythic feats is probably going to be less healthy for players than they'll realize. Analysis paralysis can really slow things down, especially because if one player gets slowed down, they all do as attention spans begin to suffer.
Yeah, basically attack trait defines a relationship to Multiple Attack Penalty, but Grapple is still an athletics check rather than an "attack roll", which has its own definition in the rules. Makes Song of Strength not completely eclipsed by Inspire Courage, and I think it's how the "finesse for dex-based athletics actions" interpretation was removed.
This one, sadly, isn't true. You take a -2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls, and Grapple has the Attack trait. Wildly, attack rolls are a special kind of roll that isn't defined by having the attack trait. All attack rolls have the attack trait, but not all attack trait actions are attack rolls. Came up in an early errata.
It's largely comedy. I think the crit fail Feint thing could meaningfully bait/taunt, provided you were using your first two actions to do something threatening and meaningfully apply pressure. It's mostly really funny to me because it does make you more enticing to target, but it's definitely not the intended use of that action. The fact that the natural 20 is the only thing that ruins the "taunt" is just an even funnier consequence. But to continue questionable tactics development, Grapple attempts aren't penalized while prone! Could make you an extra tempting target, haha.
I was excited today that I figured out how to taunt. It's only one action and fits in unexpected builds. Dump charisma. Keep deception untrained. Don't take Untrained Improvisation. Feint. By mid game you'll be critically failing against every foe's perception DC, and making yourself off-guard to the target of your feint! Good at deception? Don't worry! It's a bit more action intensive but you can manage just fine. Drop Prone! Become an irresistible target! Even works to bait ranged targets and multiple creatures at once. Got 3 actions and a reaction on hand? Ready a Stand! Aha! Now they don't even get to take advantage of your -2 penalty. Have a shield? Ready a Raise a Shield! That way you don't have to waste an action to Drop Prone next round. Have master in Acrobatics? Finally make use of that Nimble Crawl skill feat and Ready to Crawl away and out of range of any enemy that tries to target you! Legendary even lets you fake having an AC penalty! Extra deceptive without deception! Meta-deception! Anyway, hope this was fun for you reading it. It was definitely fun for me thinking about it. Got any other ways to "taunt"?
Is it too much to ask to be a hot enough demigod to flirt with Nocticula at her house again? That's the true mythic goals.
Kind of a Power Attack or Precision Ranger deal already though. Definitely would take the accuracy, which boosts crits and enables press feats.
The strongest fighter I've seen is a one-handed agile fighter who always has snagging strike, hopeful rune, and greater fearsome rune, and uses agile grace and press attack feats to keep up the support. If she hits, it's now off-guard for a round and her next attack is only -1 off her first. If she crits, the whole party benefits from off-guard, frightened 2, and hopeful's +1 aura. That's a 5 point swing vs AC. And with agile grace, her 3rd attack is better than most 2nd attacks. She gets to press and crit fish all day. Shatter defenses can keep the enemy frightened for rounds, if they last that long. Dueling Dance for +2 AC and survivability. She only does 3d6+4 per hit at level 14, but she's the reason so many other hits and crits happen. This kind of build is rarely or never the comparison point against other classes, or part of the analysis of why the fighter is strong, which tends to focus on a damage potential that's marginally better than other classes. I love the variety of character types that the feat spread offers. Many big brawly guys, some noble fencers, some scrappy shield soldiers. The blank slate is great. Honestly I think the feats are stronger than the +2 (though they work off each other). Anyway, good class. Those are my notes.
There's so few things I'd want to change to be honest. I'd be here porting nearly everything over except current alchemist and current mutagens. If I had to pick, I would center more focus spells, more ten minute activities and fewer hour long cooldowns, keeping the balance tight, the limited but mostly relevant skill list, the scaling, the class and ancestry feat pools, the many ways to support/buff/debuff, etc. I would make automatic bonus progression base kit though and probably diversify the caster resource types earlier in the life cycle. PF2 has been my favorite system that isn't rules-light. I think many of its problems are still from growing pains and rather small. Early APs and class abilities that didn't yet know how strong or weak they were in the grand scheme until they saw a few years of play. It really makes me excited for Starfinder 2e that they'll have already all this to work from.
That was another difference in our interpretations. I largely viewed using wizard as an easy point of example about theme, specialization, and generalization to compare against the kineticist, rather than singling out wizard vs. all spellcasters.
|