Alenvire's page

...

Thank you so much for all of that. Saved me a lot of googling.

...

Quote refuses to work right and I'm too tired to fix it. Your response to what I would try to do in pf1, I found I did not have the spell slots to support 1 or 2 spells a encounter before switching to the cantrip. To be fair, I have heard that lower level spells have been buffed compared to pf1 and you yourself mentioned a remaster that I have no idea of. So it sounds like after the first few levels you probably do have the spell slots with enough decent spells to assist in every fight.

I will check out the spells again and see if there has been some changes or additions that will change my opinion. It sounds like it will.

Alenvire wrote:

In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.

A caster is a bit trickier to play efficiently in PF2.

You have a lot of money available compared to martials.

If you want to be efficient as a caster, you must invest this money in scrolls. They are what will add to your slots so that you can feel really good.

You can see poster SuperBidi's posts for well-thought advice on how to play casters.

I never considered that as a realistic balance. If its true that mages have more money then a melee would lying around, then its a fair balance that they spend money on scrolls.

**edit I am loving the responses. It does honestly make me want to consider pf2 again. Honestly, this is what I was hoping for. My problems are still there since none of them was completely dispelled, but, I realize it still does have some interesting options. Now to see if I have my books, or if they are in storage.

These are all really good points and honestly, I dunno. I might have to dust off my books and give it another look. Thank you all for the responses.

I'm not going to lie. I felt and to some extent still do that pf2 is more like a mmo then I would like, where dps is just that, a different way to do the same damage as others. But, it does appear there is ways for people to actually feel different, rather then number generators (for mechanics. Story never cares about mechanics really). It may just be the low ish levels of what I played, which I think was a max of level 5, is not a accurate example of what PF2 can be. Not to mention, there is a lot more books and options for people now.

Alenvire wrote:

The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.

That's deliberate: the math is kept in check so you can't build characters that break the game the way you could in PF1. Feats and such give you new things to do, better action economy, or more ways to use things. They don't generally give stacking bonuses because that was a big way to break things in PF1.

I think this is a misunderstanding with how I said it. Its not the smaller numbers that is the problem, or the easier math. I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable. My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing. The cantrip attack, damage, and associated bonuses, had very little difference from the rangers roll, or the fighters, or the druids, or anyone elses. The individuality felt stripped. With little to distinguish the characters apart. The attack type for example had very little distinction between them. It would be very possible to list out all the attack rolls, bonuses and damage, and you might not be able to tell what did each roll.

In PF1 if someone pulled out 12 attacks in a full attack action, you had a good idea who or what was attacking just from the numbers. If you saw a attack for 1 hit, with a single damage die but a huge damage bonus, You knew what you were looking at. If you saw 12 d6's you likely knew what that roll was for. The variety in PF2 was limited IMO. Sure, you still see 12 d6's and the other example 'might' still exist, but, in most combats your just going to see similar rolls for a druid, cleric, wizard, fighter group. At least that is what I 'Thought' I dunno if its true. Again, I have a lack of experience and am just going with what I saw in the rules.

Thanks for all the replies. I agree with some points, mildly disagree with some others.

Sadly it seems like my first impressions were pretty accurate for me and my players. Some of the things here were why I was looking forward to pf2, but, I feel like they went too far.

I liked that it made things easier on a GM, and at the same time, never found PF1 a nightmare to run. I can easily see why people think that though, so no disagreement with that point. I wanted mages to be reigned in because they did really dominate, but, I found it more on the utility side. Blasters are boring and really not that much damage heavy compared to melee (Full attacks with good buffs) in my opinion in PF1 (except aoe). Its why I avoided blasters. I did see mages in 2nd edition still being the AOE masters, but waiting till level 5 to be useful in combat seemed very meh in pf2. I hate being a fireball mage. Evocation is usually one of my opposed schools.

Its good to know that cantrips are on par with ranged. Or at least competitive. Though I suspect it falls way behind after they start adding the magic talisman things to a bow. I don't think a cantrip should be stronger then a dedicated single target ranged or melee. But, I found I did less overall then anyone else in the group since there was no spell slots to make me useful in most combats. Much like pf1, I tended to pass on my turn to allow others a chance to go, or, I would just have my dice ready and try and pass my turn as quick as possible.

In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.

My impressions is that PF2 went too far, made players not the focus, but the GM and storytelling the focus. While superpowered and overpowered is a problem with PF1, pf2 gameplay feels too simplistic for me. As a player, I would like to feel more empowered to effect the game. As a GM, I feel like I don't need the system to be simplified to tell a good story.

There is a LOT to like about pf2. The character making was some of the most fun character designing I have ever done. Way better then pf1 in my honest opinion. It just felt flat playing it though. To each their own I guess. I was hopeful but oh well.

I will stick with GM'ing Shadowrun, Exalted, and WoD. Playing those and pf1 will be enough for me. I just wish there was still PF1 AP's coming out. lol, or a official conversion for PF2 AP's since I really don't know pf2 enough to downgrade them myself. I have always needed AP's to run PF, the others I can freehand. (Probably a good example of what everyone means about PF1 being a pain for GM's.......)

I have played with many people who would probably prefer pf2. Its just not for me. Good luck and have fun all!

To start this is not a hate thread. In fact, I can't really hate 2nd edition because I barely remember any rules. So, this is more of a change my mind please thread.

I started with D&D 2nd edition in the 90's and have gone through many different systems since then.

When second edition was about to come out, I was hyped. I had preordered all the early releases. I had played the playtests. I gave feedback and really tried to give it a chance. I even kickstartered the 2nd edition Kingmaker AP. After I got the books I lost interest. I didn't like the way combat was handled. I hated how magic was handled. I tried multiple games. I played as a GM, I also played as a player. A buddy of mine was in my party, and he was also the person who was the GM when I played. He also is a better GM then me. We tried really hard to get through the first AP of PF2 and never got through the first AP. I canceled all my subscriptions for the rule books and the AP's after that.

We were both die hard PF1 fans. We still play it. However, after support for PF1 ended it started to die off. He moved, and moved on to D&D 5th. I never did try 5th. I felt like the direction of 2nd went the wrong way.

My biggest complaint was that magic felt weak, and unbalanced. I felt like a melee did more damage then a mage except when they used one of their very limited, spell slots. And then, it only put them on par to a melee. I felt like the ... cantrips was it? The spells they were supposed to use as their go to weapons felt weak. And were significantly weaker then someone using a bow or sword. And the moment they started using magic weapons (which felt needlessly weird. Why can't I just make a +3 longsword? Instead you bought items to buff your sword right? I don't remember the exact language but it was something like a major sharpness talisman? Obviously I don't remember how it exactly worked.) it felt like magic just became a joke. Best they could do was being a buffer or using utility spells.

The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.

To add to that, the number of actions per round being static just seemed.... Boring. I understand that you can make people stronger each level without adding any extra actions, and it was done to streamline combat, but it basically just came down to, I attack, your turn. Wow, you attack, next. And then it was just each person attack once, enemy action, each person attack once. It just drained the excitement of combat from the system. Sure, it was annoying when the monk would have to roll out 6 attacks, but it still felt more fulfilling.

Now, I know that I probably have some misconceptions, and I probably did not understand the rules as well as I thought I did. But, there was 2 Seasoned GM's. Both of us poured over the rules, debated and came on here to ask questions to make sure we were doing things right. I'm here to ask your experience and perception as people who probably spent a lot more time then I have on 2nd, what I got wrong, How it has changed for the better, or how the game improves after the first few levels I experienced.

Remember, I have hundreds of sessions in 1st. I love the growth and the variety of 1st. I understand that the characters become more interesting after the first few levels, but, I did not see that in 2nd based on reading the rules and talking about it. I like high magic, 1st had that, 2nd felt more like high magic world/items low magic characters. My greatest sadness with second, was that a lot of the magical wonders of Golarion was not something you could realistically replicate with 2nd rules. For example, could you even play through the Ruins of Azlant AP in 2nd edition with the same characters you would have used in the 1st edition AP with the 2nd edition rules?

This is not a hate thread, I hope that the experiences and suggestions you put here will convince me to reread the rules, and maybe keep a eye out for something you all say here that I missed with my experience. I REALLY want to WANT to play the 2nd edition kingmaker I paid way too much for. lol

For now, I respectfully request all of my subscriptions canceled.

Pathfinder Adventure Path
Pathfinder Lost Omens
Pathfinder Rulebook

I am a long time supporter but currently find myself in a situation where I can no longer afford these subscriptions for the foreseeable future. Thank you for your assistance.

Yah, before I had a chance to come back here I found a general skill feat called trick magic item. With that and also what is here, its clear you need that feat or MC or a class that gives spell casting. But, nothing seems to stop you from using a higher level item from what I can see.

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.

Honestly, a Goblin Warpriest with Str 16, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 14 sounds really good mechanically. They'll be focused on melee combat and healing rather than offensive casting, but it's a fine build at what it does.

How would you do that?

+2 Str from Ancestry
+2 Str, +2 Wis from Background
+2 Wis from Cleric
+2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Wis, +2 Cha

You could instead take even higher Cha for lower Wis, or go Str 14 and Wis 16, or switch to Con 10 and Int 12 if you want better Skills...but honestly, the above build is very solid.

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.

To be honest optimization wise? I would totally dump wisdom as an Goblin and put the War in that Priest.

16Str/14Dex/12Con/10Wis/10Int/16Cha

Buff themself with Bless at low levels and go wild, changing to Heroism ar lvl 11.

Do you see these spell slots? They are Channel Smite and buff slots now, prepare yourself for the harm train.

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.

I'm not seeing where it says you can't cancel the flaw with a boost, in fact I see precisely the opposite:

Quote:

Dwarves, for example, receive an ability boost to their Constitution score and their Wisdom score, as well as one free ability boost, which can be applied to any score other than Constitution or Wisdom.

I don't have my books with me but that's the wording from AoN https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=66

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?

well nevermind then. lol

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.

"You can use this component when holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely."

Huh, so eschew magic materials as little as it covers, is still really powerful.

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.

Yes to both. Spells don't require a free hand unless they demand material component, which your specific queries exclude.

Should... not be true. What about somatic?

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.

A brace is a weapon, while the shield is 'technically' a weapon without a brace. The rules under equipment for the shield say you can use it as a martial weapon. So yes, it should work. Some may say you need martial training with it at least.

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.

A level 5 NPC built as an NPC does not have PC level gear. One built as a PC, however, does and should.

NPCs built as PCs should thus be relatively rare so as not to throw off WBL stuff.

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.

Ohh, good catch. I was going off memory and assumed it was some sort of dodge bonus.

It says you shout a command, so, if they can't understand that command some how I guess it would not work. Though, its up to your GM if that shout is just for the auditory aspect of the spell and you could use body language if applicable for the linguistic aspect.

I'm the GM in question. And my take at the time was "I don't think it works the way you believe it does, so for now it'll just be +1 to damage on spells with attack rolls, etc." My ruling didn't cause the OP to be ineffective during the game (far from it, he was one of the MVPs of the slot), nor did it cause any enemies to survive with 1 HP left. It was just a ruling I made because it made sense to me and to keep the game moving so we could finish our slot on time.

The system is about two weeks old, it's our second time ever playing it, and it's ultimately 1 point of damage. We're all just trying to understand how the game works and have a good time.

In fact, after the game I then encouraged him to post here to hopefully attract an answer from a larger audience. The real questions I have are:

Does it work with persistent damage?
Does it work with AOE spells?
Does it work with splash damage on a bomb?
What does it not work, if anything? EX: Fall damage from a Bull Rush.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion thus far. I don't think it breaks the game one way or the other, but I'm fairly sure it was designed to either not allow these things or to allow them -- and that's the answer I seek. At the end of the day, I told the OP to expect table variation and that ultimately, it is just one point of damage. Maybe we won't have a designer chime in here, but it would be nice for the OP and others seeking to understand the landscape of PFv2.

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.

Darius Alazario wrote:

I personally, question this change from the playtest rules which provided Raise a Shield and Shield Block as part of just having a shield. It felt like the loss of an action to gain your shield AC of likely +2 was balanced with the addition of the reaction for DR against one attack and that DR potentially costing you your shield if over used. Now, you need to use the action for the AC and nothing else. You need to spend a feat (unless you are a fighter or champion) to be able to get the limited DR effect. This seems a rather heavy cost to me.

Druids and warpriests also get shield block at level 1.

Also, they got rid of shield proficiency. Now everyone can raise a shield. One action for 2 AC is still pretty damn good. There are class feats that grant that much so having it as a general feat is great since those are less valuable than class feats.

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.

CRB p. 299 wrote:

Heightened Spells

Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

Other heightened entries give a number after a plus sign, indicating that heightening grants extra advantages over multiple levels. The listed effect applies for every increment of levels by which the spell is heightened above its lowest spell level, and the benefit is cumulative. For example, fireball says “Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.” Because fireball deals 6d6 fire damage at 3rd level, a 4th-level fireball would deal 8d6 fire damage, a 5th-level spell would deal 10d6 fire damage, and so on.

Heightened Spontaneous Spells

...

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.

It's also a fighter feat.

Raise Shield only gives you the shield's AC bonus (usually +2) to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Shield Block takes over as a reaction. Note that reactions happen when it is not your turn, say when someone is hitting you. It doesn't give you any additional AC. Instead, it subtracts the shield's hardness from the damage the attack would have done you. You take any extra damage left over, as does your shield.

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.

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.

I have no idea, but, I would like to add to this question. Do creatures get all their attacks, or are they limited to just the 3 actions of humanoids?

I would assume the agile trait would only effect the one attack and does not carry over to the other attacks.

I made this thread I thought earlier but it vanished. Is there rules on sunder? Is sundering just gone? Can you now only target unattended items?

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.

lol, I am drawing a blank. It was not equipment. I saw it yesterday. I will have to think about it and see if I can remember.

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.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Your level is encoded in the proficiency bonus.

This also means the gap between using something you're at least trained with and not trained with--whether a skill, armor, or a weapon--will increase as characters level up. Another reminder for PCs to stay in your lane.

That may have always been the case with skills in PF1, but that's a new feature with weapons and armor. So, suppose a 10th level bard gets disarmed of his long sword, can't get it back, and there's a scimitar lying on a nearby table - that scimitar is a no-go. He'll suffer at least a 12-point loss in attack bonus in PF2 compared to 4-points in PF1. And he shouldn't even think about putting on the guard's chainmail if he breaks out of a prison cell, his AC is much better if he's naked.

I bet that trips a few players up for a while.

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.

They just left it out I am sure. A sheath or waist pouch is probably fine for a stand in. Its not the only thing that was accidentally missed.

You just have to pick up 2 feats from the archetype to be allowed to pick another archetype dedication feat.