From what I can see, you don't need to be a full caster, just something that gives you a cast spell ability. For example, the rogue minor magic. As long as it does not turn into a 'innate spell' or something like that.
The only rules I found was on activating a item where it talks about if it says cast a spell, you need a spell caster ability to 'cast a spell'. All of this is purely off my memory.
I'm wondering how a rogue could activate a scroll, or a fighter a wand. Is it just going MC or am I right and anything that gives you some sort of casting ability that is not just a innate spell gives access to scrolls and wands? (not staves since they have their own rules for regenerating spell points) Does this also mean that you can use a 10th level scroll at level 1? I'm sure I missed something and someone here will be able to quickly point me in the right direction.
I know I am just missing it somewhere, but, I noticed that precious materials like silver weapons can only have magic upgrades to a certain level based on 'grade' of that item. Where is the rules for steel and what can steel be up to? Are they unlimited and its just the precious materials quality that determines how good of magic they can have?
It just says "spend a hero point to reroll a check". If some bruiser just crit me, could I force him to make a reroll?
The way it reads and the way hero points are thematically used, no. You don't roll his attack, so you cant choose to reroll it either.
A hero point is a moment of heroics for your character. Its not very heroic of the character if the enemy swings at them. Because whatever was originally rolled no longer exists it would just be a enemy swinging at them one time with the hero doing nothing.
Also in the rules it says you can spend the hero point on behalf of your companion or familiar, but not on a enemy.
Of course this is up to interpretation until we get a eratta. I can see where your coming from though. PG 467 under describing heroic deeds lead more into the thematic's of it. Where your supposed to describe the heroic deed you did when spending that hero point. Since your rerolling a d20 and not changing your own defenses you cant describe how what you did heroically to change their attack (not without it just sounding like a AC change. Even a epic parry or blind luck would be changing your stats, not the enemies since its your heroic deed.
That first stat layout is exactly what she did. I mentioned some of the options to get her wis higher but she is happy with it as is. My worry was for other classes that are more dependent on those stats. Like a halfling fighter.
I may ask her what she thinks of using wisdom as a dump stat. See if she ever cares to do offensive casting or not. I like the idea of her going harm (currently healing) and buffing it so that she can drop all the channel smites.
Ah, I see that now. I assumed that you could not just negate a flaw so did not pay attention to the actual wording as well as I should have.
However, I don't consider taking 2 flaws to get a ability boost as valid. Weakening the race in another way puts them back in the suboptimal position again. But, its still good to know.
So I came across a weird scenario that probably won't happen too often.
Player 1 wants to be a goblin, and chooses Warpriest. Not being one to dissuade a player from what they want I explained the weaknesses and what they have to be aware of while playing.
What I did not realize is exactly how bad a character will be who chooses a conflicting race vs class. The max a goblin cleric can start with in wis is 14. And, if optimized you can have one stat at 16 as your high stat not in your primary stat.
With the RAW you can't put your free stat into your races negative stat. So, it starts at 8 and you can only put 3 more +abilities into it for a grand total of 14. Now, I know they get a stat increase at 5 and 10 to get to that 18 threshold but that is a pretty rough early levels for a 14. I explained as a warpriest she will have to focus on buffs and avoid anything that targets enemies and stick to melee.
This works for her character concept of a Gorum goblin warpriest. But, I can see it being a big hindrance for some of the other classes. Halfling fighter for example.
Was this intended to punish people who don't go optimized or just a non QA side effect. In pf2 a +1 status bonus is considered really good with a +3 being godly. So a -2 is considered a big negative.
Whats your thoughts on this? Should I consider not following the rules and let them put the +2 into the negative stat for ancestry if they want to play a non optimized race/class? Or just let them struggle as PF2 intended?
Somantic specifically says "You can use this component while holding something in your hand." Compare that to material components which say you must have a free hand. Sounds like it would work with both a bow and a two-handed sword.
Being pointed out the info about somatic and the original questions limitations, I totally agree. You could still use a greatsword because you would never need to release your weapon for the spell. Any weapon for that matter unless it was a material component spell that was not covered by eschew or the feat was not known.
I already had a player complain when I told him that NPC's use stat blocks that don't represent their actual equipment. lol. Oh well, I guess I get to use the same answer as everyone else. Because challenges can't be adequately created in PF2 without cheating in favor of the NPC's vs quality builds that don't rely on PC equivalent gear.
NPCs will have attack/damage/saves at their level that are equivalent to PCs with the expected PC gear at that level. Whether or not the NPCs actually have the equivalent gear for you to loot or are just extra well trained to boost their attack/damage/saves (at the expense of other cool feats that your PCs have and the NPCs don't) is up to your GM.
Where was this written. If that is so... Then PF2 is running off a flawed concept.
Why would a player not get frustrated when a rogue with bad gear just flat out rogue's them in every way with no gear? Its basically saying a level 20 rogue NPC vs 20 rogue PC, the PC always only on par even if he has appropriate gold in gear vs the NPC who has a padded armor and shoddy dagger.
Why would us GM's think that's not total BS and just a bad system?
PF1 always gave reasons as I have said before. And often it was just a NPC character that was made so narrowly defined no PC would actually want to play it. Or wasted a finite resource just on the off chance this was the fight of their life. I can understand and accept that. But, just bonus stats for arbitrary reasons is Lazy developing.
You can get away with that with monsters. People expect it. But not NPC's.
I Suspect its completely intended. I assume the rules were created for the higher level stuff, but, never intended for the low level common items to follow those rules. Almost like the items are so common they are just cheaper to know. Or, that having the craft skill makes knowing how to create the item trivial.
For example, if I know how to install a engine in a car, it would be laughable to say I need training on how to change the oil, even if I have never done it before. They probably just created the rules and then went, wait, but then they have to pay a excessive amount for something that they could probably easily figure out on their own. Lets make a cheap crafters book. Crafting for dummies 101.
I admit I would have preferred they said you just need trained in a specific crafting skill to craft any 0 level item of that skill.
I disagree. However, until we get some higher level NPC examples we can't really prove it. Monsters have always been a bit tougher at the later levels then the same CR npc. More hps, ac, saves, and attack. When a NPC was added into PF1 they had the correct stats for what they had. They did not just add bonus stats without a explanation usually in the form of a spell buff, feat, area magic aura of great evil blah blah blah, or a mutation.
There is no reason to assume PF2 will be different. And the monsters are sitting exactly where I would expect them to be based on PF1. They are more narrow in tactics than a humanoid NPC generally can be. Generally.
Agreed, to be fair to shroudb though, the NPC's in the first book saves don't appear to follow normal rules, but, that could just be because of the fact they are weird races who may have racial bonuses of their own.
Which is probably it, because it appears the monsters sometimes have expert training in saves when it appears it should only be trained From the class they have.
I will add that party treasure by level would be completely thrown off if every NPC Humanoid comes at the group with the same gear they should have. It will follow the same path as PF1 with enemy loot. We will know for sure after the 2nd AP comes out. Even the first AP leads one to believe this as a level 5 NPC does not have the gear expected of a level 5.
I assumed potent poison on its own assuming you would get powerful alchemy for some other reason then to up your poisons, but your right.
As to saves runes, where does it say any of that? Have you seen anything that proves it? or is it a assumption?
Assuming 18 con is power gaming. Wizards at 20 do NOT need to take 18. That is a personal choice. There will always be people who put those points in INT or decide they want more dex, or to go something altogether different and take wisdom or charisma. Can't assume everyone will min max the way you think they should.
I for one have never had a wizard above 12 con, and don't plan to start now. I build for theme not min maxing HP's. Something like the bookish wizard who focuses on blasting through enemy defenses (DC's/Resistances) To mind control or hamper them to make everything easier for the group to finish up, after which I sit back to control the battle field.
I feel like poisons are still ok, but, nothing you should focus on sadly.
However, using dragons as your target is a bit excessive. It would be a better point if you used a average fighter and wizard DC's for those levels. As dragons are to this day, still not common enemies in AP's. (How I wish they would make a dragon oriented AP where you fought multiple per AP) Humanoids are still by far the most common enemies you will fight. So, a fighter 20 with legendary fort and 18 con would be a 32 ish. And a wizard with expert fort and say 14 con would be around 26. Those numbers are fluid but not every enemy runs around with runes that increase saves so its a fair number. A potent poisoner is only 1 feat and would give you a decent chance at optimal enemies for poisons. Wizards, Clerics, any other then fighters and champions really have a decent chance with only 1 feat expenditure. Not bad.
As Dragons can talk, I don't see why a druid could not cast magic while transformed and to be clear the spell Humanoid form does not say you could talk either.
Specific rules say, battleforms can not cast spells. I would agree they can talk AND cast spells, but the specific rules say no. Humanoid form is not a battleform so it allows normal actions.
The way written until there is a errata, any damage directly caused by the player. A player bull rushing does not cause fall damage, they cause a move. AOE gets any other bonus damage like from the goblin ancestry feat so yes, it would still apply to the damage. Splash damage is part of the damage of a bomb caused by and required by the bomb thrown by the player. And, sadly no to persistent damage. It is not a action caused by the player that round. If it was some sort of sustained spell then yes, but otherwise no. Sadly, all of this needs a errata for clarification, but, as written it effects any specific damage they do with a action.
And as already stated, it would only give a +1 to each enemy hit from magic missile.
Well, 2 things. Warpriest does not get longsword naturally. And when you get martial weapons, you never get past trained. Unless your a follower of imodea. So you are getting a bonus. Also, some abilities like replenishment of war require your deities favored weapon to function. Otherwise, if you do not wish any of that or can get something similar you prefer, Have fun with it.
If he chooses any weapon other than a longsword then he's not zealously bearing his deity's favoured weapon.
As to this, there is no mechanic or flavor that requires you to use your gods weapon. Though, I would highly recommend he carry one the gods don't require you to use their weapon. Otherwise, why would they give you access to simple, and martial weapons.
Even better is the fact a rogue with raise shield could also use... Nimble? For a +4, or 6 if you had a tower and did the whole take cover too. Of course then your basically on full defensive.
As to never being able to walk out with loot... Why is everyone worried about encumbrance? Just drop items before or at the start of combat. Your expected to drop your backpack or bag of loot (except the most valuable you could keep on you) during trouble, until you can get to a pack animal. The reality of pack animals has always eluded a lot of pathfinder/D&D groups. But, when you can lift 900 pounds with your belt of giant strength fighter, its easy to see why. Or worse your druid who turns into a bear and now gets bear buffs along with quadruped carry amounts.
Not to mention, realistically until you have magic means, you can make multiple trips. A throne made of gold will just be a pain to move and you should not be able to get away with it without all party members being encumbered or worse just to move it.
I would say its clear this is how it is intended. However, to the basics of the original question. Spontaneous is simply how they know their spells. IE not a spellbook. Spontaneous does not talk about how they use their spell slots. Your real question is, why don't they get to free heighten or fill higher level slots with lower level spells. Personally, I don't care. Sorcerer seems fine as is. Just takes planning, and retraining. Often.
Exactly this. Raise shield only gives AC for that turn which anyone with a shield can do. The feat gives you the reaction. Which you can get in various places. Like warpriest, Fighter, or the shield spell (though not the same it works similar)
Then you're playing a different game. D&D is fundamentally a game of resource management. If you're ignoring the resource management, then you're basically homebrewing your own system.
That's a assumption. Its not a homebrew nor did I say I ignore resource management. I even pointed out that the encounters per day don't follow pathfinders AP's. However, if you create a encounter and it does not fit your very defined number of encounters what then? Do you then refuse to allow a goblin to die before they waste those resources? Do you then amp up your next encounters until they use a subjective amount of resources? That's my point, 'resources' and parties are not the same. And you as a GM should be able to role with that. Some parties may clear a whole dungeon. Some may get in only 2 encounters. Either way there is no failure as a GM or as players for having a group capable of either. Killing a party because they can't hit that number in a single day, or overclocking every encounter to make them rest after that number of encounters is not for the best.
And yes, D&D and pathfinder give you a expected encounters per day, but, try some other systems. They are in the minority for giving you a expected encounter limit per rest period.
***Edit Honestly, PF2 is more about XP based encounters. If you increase all encounters so that your party uses a specific amount of resources before resting, all your doing is creating a bigger problem as they level significantly faster then you plan. If everything is significantly harder then it should be with the xp your awarding your players are not stupid and will get annoyed. And that's just a Draconian attitude to have.
Colette Brunel wrote:
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that the core rulebook for a game with a heavy degree of daily resource management (asymmetrical daily resource management, at that) should offer at least some semblance of expectations for how often a party is expected to be able to take a break from combat encounters.
Honestly, I have played a lot of table top games. This is a rare explanation in most systems. Most of the time, its the party takes a 'rest' and continues when they are ready when they choose. Honestly, I have never used the baseline for anything. Hell, the AP's rarely do also. Its always been up to the GM and party. Not every party is equal and not every GM should treat every party as such.
Which, since it specifically says it stops casting spells and the dragon form does not say it allows spell casting, you just have the ability to do manipulate actions. Which is pretty sad. But 'balance' I guess.
Sadly, the shapechange spells don't use common sense, they use meta sense. You battle form and unless the spell says otherwise, you get to do nothing but attack with its given attacks.
Okay then what replaces this feat? I can see this if you have a simple weapon, but then your deity should replace this feat with domain initiate feat if you do not need it.
I think its considered a bonus either way. Either you get a better simple weapon, or access to a weapon that is not simple.
That's a opinion, and a bit aggressive for no real reason. Unless you have a reason that they are more versatile?
Not what I saw yesterday, but, hardness has no game description. You can assume it works on physical, or both physical and magic. But, there is no rules to say what and how it protects against. It just says it reduces damage by this number. Someone else pointed out, what happens if it is hit by a flaming sword. Would it reduce both the flame and sword damage equally? Is all damage just a pool now? Or, does it not effect magic.
PG 489 has the rules for XP adjustments per party size increase or decrease. It specifically says its better to add enemies or hazards vs increasing power of a enemy. Or subtracting enemies and hazards vs making them weaker.
I find the rules very simple to use personally. I have a group of only 2-3 so the adjustments are simple enough based on how many play. Generally 'groups' of enemies will be cut down significantly and only big bads will find a nerf bat coming their way.
Though to be fair I like PocoLoco's approach of a nice mix of additions and elite's. Always coming across large groups, or a single enemy could get boring depending on group size.
Bill Dunn wrote:
PF2 has made it easy enough to wander from your lane. Excluding MC you can always pick up the general feats for the skills/armors/weapons you want. You will never be great with them, but, at least your not untrained. A wizard for example could take feats to be trained in simple/martial/specific uncommon for a +2, or expert +4 for wizard weapons. Same with armor, any armor trained to +2 or expert unarmored for +4. If you look at fighter or champion MC's your on par with your normal progression anyways.
I know there is a big debate thread on armor and weapon feats being useless, but, I disagree. I can use some general feats to get a wizard in full plate wielding a Dwarven war axe for only -2 ac and -2 attack compared to if I stuck with robes and crossbows. And, I could forget about dex going that route and up str a lot more.
I feel like PF2 has opened the doors for cross class options. A fighter MC wizard, and a Wizard MC fighter are both significantly better then a fighter10/wizard10 of pf1.
Personally I will allow my players to know the result of the attack, and then decide if they want to block the damage with the shield.
For example, big bad with a greatsword and 2 badgers all attack said champion. Champion chooses to not block the badgers, but, finds out the first attack with the greatsword crits, chooses not to block so they don't risk destroying the shield, next attack hits but is not a crit, and chooses to block that hit instead. Or maybe he blocked a badger knowing that his shield would take little damage if any and he would not risk the attack, unless the badger surprised him and got a crit in, and he chose to block it so that most of the crit is eliminated.
I don't think it should be based on damage whether they block, but, based on the attack. I like the idea of my players being tactful but not munchkin number crunching.