Angwa's page

Correct, I do think persistent damage is damage, and thus benefits from modifiers to damage in the same way as regular damage. The point I am making here, however, is that neither weapon specialization nor sneak attack are damage modifiers, they are additional damage. These features do not modify damage like a status or circumstance bonus, they are separate components of additional damage that are added to an existing instance of damage, typically Strikes. Moreover, sneak attack damage uses the attack's damage, and would be unable to interact with the persistent acid damage supplied by the unique effect of ooze ammunition in your example (though the precision damage would still be acid damage due to the ammunition's effects).

Not sure if I see the logic. If we treat persistent damage as just regular damage, and I deal it with a strike using a weapon I'm specialized in, what exactly is stopping the interaction? Same with Sneak Attack. If it is regular damage from a spell, melee or ranged attack, then everything that applies to those should work, so why only status and circumstance?

Why not? Also, Burn It! gives not one, but several bonuses: the +1 is for any persistent fire, whereas the higher bonuses apply to spells and items, which can include their own persistent damage. It only "goes out of its way" to specify one bonus out of several, and the bonus is treated as completely ordinary. Nothing there supports your interpretation that this is a break from the rules.

Ok, lets agree to disagree.

Neither weapon specialization nor sneak attack are bonuses to damage, though, they are their own damage that gets added to your Strikes. I feel like a lot of the complication here is coming from not really understanding how certain mechanics work, or at the very least conflating separate mechanics that have nothing to do with one another.

But that persistent damage is part of the damage of the strike, and according to you should be treated as regular damage and get whatever stacks with regular damage. Also, when speaking about damage in the rules there is just damage dice, ability modifiers, bonuses and penalties. Specialization and Sneak Attack can not be anything else but bonus damage. Anyway, just status and circumstance bonuses then?

Burn it! gives a bonus to persistent damage because it goes out of its way to tell you it does. Yes, it is possible to get bonus damage to persistent damage, but that does not mean all bonuses to damage apply to persistent damage.

Like, I shoot you with ooze ammunition. I'm specialized, so I get that bonus on the persistent damage as well? And if you're offguard do I add my sneak attack? Anyway, I'm sure we can stack some impressive numbers with the right attack/weapon/class...

Much easier to just say they are different things.

That blog statement is just downright bad...

How would a contract that is already in place incur an upkeep in billable lawyer hours? How many addenda and changes could there have been over the years, and more importantly how many did they expect to make going forward because that is where the cost savings would be...

There are alternatives for the artwork besides AoN, so I don't see that work going away, and they have other partners besides them requiring tracking and actually charging royalties, which in the case of AoN is a big fat zero and hence very close to no work at all.

Most importantly however, because it seems the most transparent lie, I very much doubt that this so-called 'negotiating' they were supposedly doing amounts to substantially more than just the notice they are terminating the deal. AoN released their statement for a reason after all, which very much reveals that there was no good-faith two-way conversation going on. Also, the CUP is in place so what could be in this new potential agreement that is not the art and getting the content in advance? It does not leave much else on the table so what on earth is there to negotiate over in the first place!?

And would this new agreement also not cost billable lawyer hours both in drafting it as well as this mysterious upkeep?

I think there are two problems with this:

1. The statement isn't true, with Burn It! as a clear counterexample of a condition benefiting from a status bonus and the source being relevant. More broadly, the source of a condition does matter: for instance, if you're clumsy from synesthesia, then counteracting the spell will cause you to no longer be clumsy. Warp mind specifically denotes its exception by stating that its effects are instant, and therefore can't be removed by counteracting the spell.

2. Even if we were to follow this reasoning, it does not contradict the case of status bonuses to damage, as the buff simply injects a status bonus into the condition at the moment where it is inflicted, which it retains once applied, in the same way that many effects inject a specific condition value when applying a condition (including the value of persistent damage!). In the case of applying a status bonus to blistering invective's persistent damage, for instance, the damage roll for the persistent damage would simply be 2d6+2.

What I mean is that everything is set when the condition is inflicted. Burn it! changes the value of the persistant damage, because it does so specifically, and that would not go down if the goblin gets killed the instant after inflicting it, nor would it go up if the goblin's Bard ally casts Fortissimo the next round. There is no dynamic link which you have to keep track of.

As for your second point that a general status damage bonus to damage might apply to persistent damage as well, that kinda goes to weird places imho.

For example, a Sorceror casts Blistering Invective, which is an instant spell. Would you really let Sorcerous Potency work on that? The spell wouldn't really do damage multiple times, arguably not even once as it just inflicts the persistent damage condition in that instant. Would you perhaps let it apply only on the first tick? But if so why not on a potential second or third as it is an instant and not a sustained spell and it isn't be the spell doing the damage anymore but just the condition?

Question: why is this an either-or? Why are we assuming something can only be damage or a condition, instead of considering that it may be both?

This is indeed a fair question given the wording.

The reasoning behind my answer to that question is that once inflicted conditions just exist and run their course. Their sources aren't tracked and any buffs or debuffs that affects those are irrelevant.

If you throw an acid flask that persistent damage is not your damage. It is the condition running its course. If for example you benefit from Courageous Anthem it wouldn't do anything because that persistent damage is not a PC or NPC which is allied with the Bard. It's just a condition without agency.

Same logic with EB's persistent damage and Channeler's Stance. The Animist could enter or leave the stance but why would that change the value of a condition? The Animist does not 'own' that condition after all.

Persistent damage from a spell is generally dealt when a spell is cast, and in some cases Sustained, so the instance of persistent damage occurs at that moment, even if the actual damage from persistent damage happens later in the way described by its own rules. A clear-cut example of this would be blistering invective, which deals 2d6 persistent fire damage when it is cast.

Blistering Invective is not worded in a substantial different way than for example Acid Flask or Ooze Ammunition. It being a spell that is cast does not change anything, and if we want we could swap to Courageous Anthem and an Acid Flask.

You are taking damage from an ongoing effect, such as from being lit on fire. This appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type. Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw. Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. After you take persistent damage, roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.

Persistent Damage is a condition and its value can be influenced by how the target saves or your attack roll, like in numerous other cases, like frightened 1 on successful save, 2 on failure and 3+fleeing on crit fail.

So, the question is: are you dealing damage or inflicting a condition with a certain value (which happens to deal damage at a later stage)?

I personally think it is just a condition, but the way they always talk about you/your spell/your weapon/... dealing X persistent damage, i.e. using the exact same language as dealing regular damage, obviously makes matters less clear.

This is just such a weird decision o.O

Do they think they'll sell more directly or through Demiplane because AoN will update slower in the future? Enough even that it is worth the negative publicity of making life more difficult for the most remarkable and beloved volunteer community resource this game has nurtured because it is insufficiently monetized?

I really can not imagine this decision resulting in any upsides or increase in revenue for Paizo...

Yeah, sure, if you don't mind being confused in exchange for a R-2 spell and likely losing a round it's okay.

Just to clarify: I think the situation where a R-2 spell in exchange for a round of confusion is the best course of action is vanishingly rare.

Meh, this EBM combo is nice for white room theorycrafting and flexing just how much damage can be done in one round, but isn't really providing much value in actual play.

Besides the fact that it only really comes online at lvl 20, it isn't exactly hard for Blaster Sorcerors to offload their FP's and trigger multiple Explosions. Imperials at this level can condense more of it in a single round instead of 2 rounds, but honestly, it is extremely unlikely this would change the outcome of an encounter.

I mean, we are assuming an anointed ally being in position to use Explosion of Power to have good effect and a lvl 20 Sorceror built for it starting their turn. That will always be a ridiculous amount of damage incoming and barring extreme luck will result in the encounter ending or moving to the mopping up phase.

It's another reason why I think the rogue and sorc are stronger. The rogue has at least two highly functional build choices and the sorc has quite a few good bloodlines, but the animist goes from very good with the Liturgist to action starved with any other practice. Only the Liturgist could remotely be seen as S-tier and every other practice is probably B or C-tier due to action starvation trying to use vessel spells.

Maneuvering Spell. That does look very synergistic with the Liturgist and Elf Step.

It is true that Liturgist is the only one which can keep up with the action economy of other classes, but from what I experienced I still believe this is still mostly playing catch-up, and looks much more impressive on paper than in high level actual play.

Sure, elf step is 2 sustains for one action, but that is only useful when sustaining twice, which will not be evident with your table's playstyle of opening combat at long range followed by mopping up the stragglers and not allowing much time to refocus. What would be two spells worth bringing into play in such a set-up, even allowing for set-up time before entering encounter mode?

Also, Elf step and maneuvering spell imho do not really synergize in the sense that you would not be using them in the same round for the simple reason that you need to sustain 3 spells to get a payoff. They have different and incompatible uses (namely reducing action cost of sustaining either 1 or 2 spells by 1 action).

Anyway, Animist is a difficult fit for what you describe. You will have to use your high rank slotted spells in the opening volley, followed by at most 1 sustained vessel spell, likely EB for the mop up. You really won't have the gas in the tank to do this in many encounters if you are going to have to play like a Sorceror, Oracle or Wizard.

Angwa,

I see you use a lot of archetype material like I do. I have not tried Sixth Pillar because I read they nerfed it a bit.

How are you using Cardinal Guardians? I noticed reading the feat that you have to use a spell from a different apparition that affects a target to set up the next spell from a different apparition to benefit from the penalty or bonus.

What are your spell combinations from different apparitions for Cardinal Guardians? It doesn't appear to affect your divine spells, just your apparition spells. I am wondering what players are doing to set up Cardinal Guardians.

I did notice the step and strike thing. Skirmish Strike looks good for the build from Ranger or Rogue archetype. Synergizes well with the level 9 ability even with a bow.

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with the Animist's native feat choices. For me they didn't synergize with the basic chassis and in many cases add more restriction, pressure on your action economy and hoops to jump through, and you already have so many of those.

Cardinal Guardians is decent, but obviously depends on what Apparitions you take along. Any combinations of apparition/vessel spells that forces saves every round will get it rolling and there are many. Depends on what you want to do really. E.g. Mask of Terror, Nymph's Grace and Earth's Bile were spells I remembered using regularly, but obviously there were many more.

Sixth pillar was for maneuvering spell and the stance. At the level I took the stance you could fix being unarmored and +4 AC against reactions was very, very useful.

The biggest weakness with Liturgist and being in the front lines you have to watch out for by the way is getting your mobility shut down. You offload your sustaining actions to movement, so grabs and being swallowed really hurt you. Feather Step is a must-take feat.

This was the final build I played in a campaign we played until lvl 20:

https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=1512448

(don't mind the gear or the specific spells, it was in Foundry and couldn't be bothered to fully copy those).

Some notes:
- Free Archetype and Paragon were used.

- There were rp reasons for picking ranger, and we started the campaign with that orc AP, hence Dromaar and not Elf. It wasn't bad, but for full optimization you would probably prefer to pick rogue instead and fit in Acrobat.

- There was a Bard in the party, so EoB was devaluated and got my own reaction from Champion (also heavy armor). As I wanted to cast freely and not be locked out by battle forms also invested in using a guisarme.

- Steward of Stone and Fire, Impostor in Hidden Places, Monarch of the Fey Courts, Reveler in Lost Glee were the most used Apparitions.

- Playstyle was a mobile gish, operating in the frontline and focused on disruption and blasting. You can cast and strike, which also gives you a step and leap (and 2 sustains).

Anyway, to contribute to the conversation, I prefer focus spells that replace casting a spell (even if it's slightly weaker) bc I prefer using focus points as a tool for caster sustain over the adventuring day over a nova tool. If it's interesting, moderately impactful, and thematic I'm happy to use it and conserve spell slots for the next turn. Even if it doesn't scale up as effectively as a top rank spell it's still a rank -2 level worth of magical effect that you didn't have to spend resources on. In my onion, I rank a 6d10 fireball I can cast forever over a 10d10 fireball I can cast 3 times.

This very much depends on your level and class. At lower levels what you describe is very much the case.

However, at some point the 4 slot casters (and especially the Sorceror for triggering blood magic) will have enough juice to start valuing the good 1 action or reaction focus spells more. The 2 action focus spells would still be useful to have, just less useful.

Outlier:
Sorceror - Anoint Ally + Explosion of Power

Adding Rank x D6 damage (basic reflex save) is just too much of a damage boost for something so relatively easy to set up and depending on bloodline trigger multiple times per round.

Having played it to level 20 I found Animist to be a fun and different class, but I agree with blue_frog that it is not S-tier, just a regularly strong but also overly complicated class.

It really has a lot of limitations and vulnerabilities but we already discussed that to death. Lets just leave it at this class apparently producing very different play experiences depending on your table and playstyles.

With that said, although I do consider the Rogue to be a very strong class, I wouldn't always pick them in a party even if we were going for raw strength: although a Rogue can do a lot of different things well, I would probably not pick them in a party that already has lots of utility and is very squishy, and would probably pick a more defensive martial class like a Champion or Guardian instead. In this respect, I also think it's worth asking what the tier list...

I believe this boils down to PF2e's strong emphasis on team play. Your character should always be viewed in the context of their party. A build could be great in one but mediocre or troublesome in another. In other words, you build a party, not a single character.

Some party roles run into issues when duplicated unless your table has enough trust, communication skills and experience to handle it. Two skill monkeys, two tanks, focused healers or support classes tend to be one too many when people aren't careful to let the other one have an equal share.

Obviously it can be done, and work well even, but the players and gm must work together to let everybody shine.

In that light I think it is important to think more in roles than classes. Some classes come with a particular role baked in, but for many it's all in the build.

PF2e is very much a team-based game, with the expectation that all the bases will be covered. As such I value being outstanding at your role more than being able to cover multiple ones.

Ahead of the curve:

- Rogue: a martial with an outstanding dps mechanic, feat support, reactions, perception and saves. And it's not just outstanding in encounter mode, but also brings more to the table in the other modes than most other classes. Strong at low levels, and only gets better. The clear winner in the martial bracket.

- Sorceror: 4 slot spontaneous caster with good feats and focus spells (depending on subclass options obviously). Whatever you want your magic to focus on, you can excel in it while still covering your other bases. Cha is also a solid primary attribute.

Behind the curve:

- Inventor and Psychic.

Oh, and another way is to place the fight in an environment that heavily favors the opponent or actively works against the pc's.

Hurricanes, sandstorms, earthquakes, underwater rapids, traps everywhere, a lava field, in a collapsing cave vs a burrowing creature, etc...

The idea here is to mess with the PC's action economy, make executing their standard go-to tactics very challenging to execute and make it a much more dynamic situation.

Well, to be fair, for Moment of Renewal it's just the oracle that becomes immune so it's a R8 slot and 2 actions to get con mod x lvl hp's and lose some conditions just for yourself if you cast it a second time.

Meh, heals less than Heal and clearing/lowering conditions would be very situational in encounter mode, and outside encounter mode you will have better ways of dealing with these. Definitely not TGTBT in my opinion.

Nothing currently would really be TGTBT if you allow this, but yeah, that would mean the battle curse comes with a little bonus advantage unlike all the others which does feel unintended.

On the other hand it actually makes Battle feel more like the old Oracle curses and I wouldn't mind the other Curses also having perks like this. It feels in theme for a battle oracle and it's a fun, cool perk, but nothing more, so I'd allow it.

A second initiative track and more hitpoints are things I have used as well and can say definitely worked.

There are some variations you can do. E.g. instead of straight up increasing hitpoints I've had the boss go through stages ('You fool, this isn't even my final form!').

Also once had the boss start powered-up with loads of buffs/immunities/resistances/regeneration which the players could turn off by disabling the ritual focus items sustaining them, obviously also on a timer because this was a ritual for ascending to godhood nearing its climax.

On the other hand improvised weapon fans aren't exactly hot stuff and neither are bucklers, so I wouldn't object if the player really wants this...

Full casters in PF2e are most certainly not weak, and that asessment of just being good for buffs, 1-turn debuffs and cleaning up mook is simply untrue.

Now, that said, buffing/debuffing and CC is the Bard's specialty. If this is what you are looking for, yeah, it's one of the strongest choices, if not, well, YMMV.

Fortissimo can be great, but you want to combine it with things like True Target and Synesthesia before it really starts to shine.

You already got a bunch of good spells, and all I can say is that you seem to undervalue the effects of even a successful save vs the likes of slow or laughing fit and overvalue the cost of a slot.

Anyway, some more spells to consider:

Friendfetch and Lose the Path: R1 evergreens with excellent utility, one of 'em a reaction.

For R2 heightened Illusory Object and Revealing Light can be real game changers and turn an encounter around.

At R3 Bonewall Bulwark can be nasty in AV (rare, but eh, you're the GM) and also Rouse Skeletons for sustained damage, which is a good way to go if you do a lot of encounters per day as you guys seem to do. The damage really adds up, it creates difficult terrain and targets Reflex save.

At R4 a heightened Silence can have a huge impact on encounters. And in AV Spiritual Anamnesis would have its upgraded effect very often.

A lot of these are a bit situational, but when they can have an impact, like e.g. Revealing Light vs invisible opponents or Silence vs a caster, they will have a tangible impact.

Meh, like I said before, I disagree that Zelekhut and Kraken's double strikes activities are incompatible with the container reading as they give permission to be followed up with trip and grab and even modify how to resolve it.

This seems, to me at least and call it disingenious all you want, just as valid in the rules as giving them a special trip/grab which contains a modified prerequisite and resolution. Especially as it saves wordcount and the monsters are self-contained and their abilities are bespoke.

But yeah, what Trip.H keeps dancing around is providing a convincing chain of logic that if 'next action' is always only the activity and not the first subordinate action why 'previous action' would suddenly see the last subordinate action and not only the activity, taking into account that it was just examples illustrating the principle that doing an activity is not the same as doing the subordinate actions and not an exhaustive list.

Dude... text is not some ambiguous thing you can just call "close enough" and claim truth. If you are going to talk like that, why are you even wasting your time posting here?

...

If you want to have any sort of productive discussion, you need to engage in good faith. You can easily still attack the cited text; diminish it's weight by saying that it's just monster ability with less QA, and a dev error, etc.

Respectfully, Trip.H, when it comes to people reading and interpreting text 'close enough' is all we'll ever get. And in the case of GM's reading the Kraken or Zelekhut entries I am confident they will be able to run them as intended and it is totally unambiguous.

Also, please cool it with the accusations of wasting time or not engaging in good faith.

They never say they carve out such an exception. They simply provide for what would happen if you *were* allowed to activate the actions, there’s no text overriding the normal activation conditions for trip/grab

Yes, well, if stating how trip/grab works following the double attack is not considered allowing you to do just that we are quite frankly being very silly.

This not code to be run by a computer but rules to be applied by humans.

The Zelekhut is a good example, has an ability it literally can’t activate otherwise. The Kraken is similar as well.

Except that the double attack activities of both creatures explicitely carve out the exception that allows them to be followed up with a trip/grab, and even more modifies these follow-up actions to work on all targets hit.

Well, we seem to have reverted back to the exact same discussion as on page 1 of this thread.

When clarifying the subordinate actions and stating that using an activity is not the same as using the subordinate actions they gave 2 examples, namely quickened and next action, and specifically called them out as just examples.

Two examples are not an exhaustive list, and any reading that results in that conclusion seems, to me at least, pretty forced. Therefore judgement is required and this is where consistency becomes important.

I do not believe PF2e balance breaks if you let next/previous action abilities trigger on the subordinate actions by the way, but I do believe that the rules text prohibits just that, both for next as well as previous.

I like having attributes. I think they are realistict and help describe the character. I do think it is silly just handing out large amounts of attributes as the characters level. Are you just fixing a maths problem in the game? What are they supposed to represent in the first place?

It could be covered with a set of feats eg like choose some feats that describe what your character is best at and provide a mechanical bonus. I think I prefer to do both this and have attributes.

I'd prefer if there where a few more options where attributes where not important. Example at the moment you can build a caster with just buff, healing, summons, walls and force barrage. You cut out almost all your offensive options but it is somewhat workable and you don't have to have a good spellcasting attribute. Can we get a class without a primary attribute?

In the current system attributes are too important for the mechanical side of things to be properly used for expressing and describing your character. They are a very large part of your attack bonus, set your DC's, defenses and what skills you can be really good at. This severely limits your freedom in how to use them without having to choose between mechanically viable vs staying true to you concept.

Of course people are different and some have a natural advantage in athletics, academics or socializing, but I don't believe a pure and permanent mathematical numbers advantage which can never be overcome is the best way to express that.

I think most of the suggestions here will not result in a fundamentally different game or a rules light game.

You can reverse this and ask what absolutely needs to be kept to make it feel like PF2e or an iteration on it.

I'd say that would be tight math, scaling with level to create a zero to hero arc, great customization for building characters and the 3 action system.

Nixing attributes, fundamental runes and handling the weapon categories, spellcasting or skill feats in a different way is mostly streamlining.

Just saw the update to the guide, @Nintendogeek01, and it's unfortunately wrong.

Amps are, in effect, spellshape, as they require you to cast a psi cantrip as your next action. They're thus completely incompatible with spellstrike. So psychic should be red (*), since all you get from the dedication is one cantrip, and getting the amp doesn't even give you a focus point, since you start with one as magus (and the rule about having a focus pool as large as you have focus spells does not apply to amps).

That makes it strictly inferior to, well, every other spellcasting dedication. At least for the Magus.

Amps working exactly like spellshapes is a reasonable assumption, however they should have been clearer on what next action Amp expects.

Spellshapes ask for your next action to specifically be the 'Cast a Spell' action while Amps RAW make no such demand. Spellstrike is after all also an action which can cast a psi cantrip, so technically it is allowed to make an amped spellstrike, though this is likely not RAI.

Hopefully they will clear this up in the Spellstrike specifics when they remaster Magus.

My wishlist for 3e:

- No more attributes

- No more Vancian casting

- Use trained/expert/master/legendary for spell-tiers instead of 10 ranks

- integrate item bonuses/fundamental runes into the base math

- change simple/martial/advanced weapons to training and let those with the training upgrade damage dice/add tags

- change all the little passive modifiers into an actively used pool. now you can play around with how to generate them, limits on which rolls you can use them for, whether you can use them before or after the roll, etc.

- Even more modular character building, preferably completely doing away with classes and offering the class features as buldingblocks/feats like in pathwarden, giving you complete freedom to build exactly the character you want

You don't understand that Imaginary Weapon and Exemplar cleary stepped outside the normal range of damage expectations that they had established?
For me it was as a distinct change where they went off the rails.

Exemplar dedication, sure, but IW?

There's tons of ranged focus spells, aoe even, with 2d6 scaling and decent riders. The touch range should give something, no?

Would IW be out of bounds if it were a save spell? If Starlit didn't exist? And because Starlit exists there should never be a spell attack that increases damage by reducing the range to touch?

Because you're casting the psi cantrip as part of the container of spellstrike, you're not using a specific action to cast the cantrip? Is that how people are parsing it?

I vaguely recall an FAQ about actions and container actions and stuff that supports that interpretation. But in a plain text reading it's not disingenuous to think/argue once you're inside the container action of spellstrike, you're granted an action to cast a spell (which can be the psi cantrip) which could grant you the free action to amp.

Without the FAQ that I can only vaguely recall....I feel like it wouldn't be unreasonable to think you could still amp the psi cantrip as part of spell strike.

The main question is about what amping requires.

If you parse it as needing the next action to be specifically Cast a Spell (like the spellshapes do) it won't work with Spellstrike, Act Together and all the others like it.

If you parse it as needing the next action to be any generic spellcasting action Spellstrike e.a. obviously work.

The former is likely correct, even if they didn't explicitely capitalize, but with the IW nerf nothing would break if you take the latter interpretation.

As was mentioned unless a spell mentions only enemies are affected, everyone in the aoe must save.

I would personally also do so with Revealing Light. The players should learn to cooperate and use tactics that allows casters to use aoe spells effectively.

Besides, in the specific case of Revealing Light it may not be as detrimental as you make it out to be.

If the enemy is invisible it is now concealed. Even if the PC is also dazzled that makes no difference against the now concealed enemy. This is always a net positive.

Using it against concealed enemies while also catching the pc's in the aoe may also be a net positive, depending on how your table/gm reads the spell and party make-up:

I've seen gm's rule that Revealing Light also removes the concealed caused by dazzled, so basically nobody affected by the spell suffers from or gains concealed. But even if that is not the reading odds are the aoe can be placed so just one pc is also hit, and for that pc things won't get worse, and for all the rest the situation improves.

I just don't see how you can turn either RAW or natural language to mean that "action is casting the psi cantrip" is one and the same as "action which [also] lets you cast a psi cantrip". Even when "Cast a Spell" is not written explicitly.
Unless you engage in nonsense like 'next action is the next basic action inside complex activity' which is not how this game works.

Because 'Cast a Spell' is not the only action which casts spells. Spellstrike does too. And that is specifically because we do not engage in the nonsense you mention.

Because we also know that are capable of writing in such a way that makes it clear and explicit whether they require the next to be Cast a Spell, like they do in spellshapes and everywhere else they refer to Cast a Spell.

But for some reason they did not write amping in the same way, so, no, it is unclear, to me at least, whether this is intentionally allowing Spellstrike or a formatting mistake.

I don’t think you can take any free action without a trigger inside a combined activity, so the issue is that’s spell strikes explanation of why spell shapes don’t work is underinclusive.

Spellstrike's explanation why spellshapes don't work is because they require your next action to be 'Cast a Spell'.

'You typically can’t use spellshape with Spellstrike because spellshape actions require the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.'

They didn't make an Amp action summary like they did with unleash psyche, but the way they worded it amping isn't a triggered free action since it is talking about next action being casting a psi cantrip, which would be impossible if it were triggered.

Pffff.

Just checked it on Demiplane Nexus and the wording of amping is still really sloppy. Bah.

'Whenever you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip, you add the amp effect.'

Unlike spellshapes it does not require the next action to be 'Cast a Spell' specifically, so all other actions which let you cast a psi cantrip would also qualify. Like Spellstrike.

Is there a sidebar in Dark Archives which goes in to more detail?

This is flatly incorrect. Both Cast A Spell and Strike are subordinate actions inside of Spellstrike.

Yes, indeed, you are right and I stand corrected. AoN did not use capitalization, just a link, but that link went to Cast a Spell and in Secrets of Magic it was capitalized correctly.

However what matters is whether amping requires that Cast a Spell is your next action or not, and that is unclear from the quote is all I'm saying. The Spellstrike action casts spells just fine, even if it's obviously not the Cast a Spell action.

You can disagree all you like, that is not how the basic sequence of actions works. You yourself said it: your next action is Spellstrike. That is distinct from casting a psi cantrip, even if you cast a psi cantrip as a subordinate action of the Spellstrike. Once more, this is how spellshapes work for the purposes of determining what the next action is, and I don't see why we would make an exception here on top of this leap of logic.

It does not matter whether the next action is Spellstrike or Cast a Spell if all you care about is casting a spell.

Both actions cast a spell, and imho, the way Spellstrike is worded it never invokes Cast a Spell as a subordinate action, only Strike.

Angwa wrote:

Quote wrote:

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

If this quote however is directly lifted from the book and not paraphrased amping is not asking specifically for the Cast a Spell action like the spellshapes do and is therefore compatible with Spellstrike.

Okay, but again, to be very clear, Spellstriking is not casting a psi cantrip. If you use an amp and then Spellstrike with a psi cantrip, your next action after using the amp is to Spellstrike, not cast the psi cantrip. Thus, by that quote alone, you would not gain the benefits. Although the spellshape trait makes it explicit that the benefits are lost if you don't immediately follow up with the exact specified action, the core principle here is the same.

Eh, no, I disagree. If your next action is Spellstrike with a psi cantrip you are most definitely casting a psi cantrip and it will be amped.

You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack. You cast a spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires either a spell attack roll or a saving throw....

The Spellstrike action is not the Cast a Spell action, that much is obvious, so not compatible with spellshapes which ask for that specific action, but you are still casting a spell when you use Spellstrike. That is explicitely stated in Spellstrike's description.

Spellstrike is not Cast a Spell, though. If you use the free action before Spellstriking, your next action would be to Spellstrike, not to cast the psi cantrip, so the amp wouldn't function. Because the free action presumably has no trigger, it can't be used during Spellstrike either, so there is no order of actions that could allow the amp free action to be used immediately before Casting the Spell as part of Spellstrike.

Yeah, I know the Spellstrike action is not the Cast a Spell action.

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

If this quote however is directly lifted from the book and not paraphrased amping is not asking specifically for the Cast a Spell action like the spellshapes do and is therefore compatible with Spellstrike.

But maybe this quote is not literal and the actual text is just as explicit as the spellshapes...

I had a situation the other day where our commander used pincer attack. I stepped adjacent to an enemy no one else stepped adjacent to. The commander claimed that the person I stepped adjacent to was not off guard to my attacks because the text states all OTHER squadmates. I claimed the enemy was off guard to my attacks as well. Who is correct in this situation?

I believe you are correct. Imho any enemy an ally, so not the Commander themself, ends up adjacent to by taking the step is offguard to:

- the Commander, even if they did not use a reaction to step.
- all others who used a reaction to step.

Responding to Pincer Attack, to me at least, means those who choose to use a reaction to step. The Commander can't force anyone to follow their tactics after all, so those who stepped responded, the others didn't.

I honestly see little support for a potential third choice on offer, namely, not using a reaction to step, but still counting as if you executed the tactic and responded.

It appears that amped cantrips can no longer be used with Spellstrike, anyway.

Reportedly the text now says

Quote:

You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip, you gain its amped effects.

You can't spend the focus point as a free action during the Spellstrike, and activating Spellstrike after spending the focus point would mean that your next action wasn't casting the psi cantrip so the cantrip wouldn't be amped.

So there's no way to use an amped cantrip as part of a Spellstrike.

Well, if that is the exact wording and not paraphrasing you can still Spellstrike with an Amped psi cantrip. Spellshapes typically demand the next action must specifically be the 'Cast a Spell' action and that is what makes it incompatible with Spellstrike, but Amp as is quoted does not restrict what action is used to cast the spell.

The Spellstrike action would definitely qualify as casting a psi cantrip and thus gain the amped effects.

Things I'm hoping for:

- Give the Eidolon its own skill progression instead of using the Summoner's skills. Yes, would make Summoner a skill monkey class, but why not. It really fits the class fantasy and the way it works now often feels very forced and weird.

- Let Eidolons use the tools their skills require.

- Just let Boost Eidolon's duration go up by heightening the spell. This shouldn't require a feat (and definitely not a successful non-KAS skill roll vs lvl based DC).

- Tandem Movement should be a class feature instead of a feat tax.

Well, to be fair, I believe care needs to be taken to avoid mixing different use cases or we risk comparing apples and oranges.

If all you want is a decent focus spell and increasing your pool and never plan to invest more Blessed One has just as much to offer as Psychic. Just depends on what you are looking for and if it fits your ability scores.

However, if you are looking for a decent focus spell and increasing your pool, but don't mind investing a bit more and can wait until level 4, most spellcasting dedications have your back. In this case you are likely using FA so you must that investment anyway.

It is actually only if you have a use for a particular basic amp in combination with either an advanced amp and/or spellslot casting that that Psychic can come out ahead.

Myeah, Psychic Dedication is unique in that it offers you a choice from a reasonably wide selection of focus spells that may be useful for many different builds and party set ups.

It's class that is all about focus spells so I don't really mind even it gives one out with the basic dedication. It's in theme and it fits. Sure, to be the same as all the rest it should ask for a lvl 4 feat, and that would be fine too.

But why not go the other way and strip the feats for slot spells from the dedication instead of turning it into a carbon copy of all the other spellcasting dedications? We already have spellcasting dedications like that for all of the traditions and in all the flavors you could wish for.

I hope they lean even more into the focus spells for the Psychic class AND its dedication in the Remaster.

The remastered Cursebound trait from Oracle is indeed the best comparison point as that lets everything with it default to spell DC.

The Mindshift trait uses very similar language and until we get an official remaster I would include using Spell DC for saves as a temporary houserule patch.

Psi Burst is just one among many feats with the Mindshift trait and I am confident that, just like the Oracle's Cursebound feats, using the Psychics Spell DC for them is RAI in Remaster. After all that's the DC you would us when playing legacy and Psychic really doesn't need nerfing, on the contrary.

The Psychic dedication itself is a spellcasting dedication with all the regular perks, but which also hands out a focus spell. And not just a fixed focus spell, you get to pick from a pretty wide array of choices on offer. Damage with saves, spell attack damage, good reaction, defense, there's something useful here for everyone. And as a bonus you have 2 attributes which allow you to qualify for easy access.

It's no doubt ahead of other spellcasting dedications and if you feel your caster's focus spells don't fulfill your needs, odds are you can patch or supplement them easily with Psychic. It's also nice for martials as you can pick up some impactful and sustainable magic without bothering with slotted spells by picking just the psi cantrips.

Anyway, you can move the first psi cantrip out of the base feat and that would bring it in line with other spellcaster dedications, though I personally don't mind. I prefer the dedications to be either frontloaded with a couple of good choices to supplement it and quickly inject the wanted flavor into you character, or a solid longterm slow burner you can stick with over the course of the campaign.

Anyway, Magus has the issue of relying on spell attacks, not a great selection to begin with, and within that selection they have a preference for melee spell attacks as those trade range which they don't need for something they could actually use. Those are really rare.

I believe the easiest fix would be to give Magus some bespoke spellstrike cantrips and build in ways in the hybrid studies to amp them. Combine this with easier ways to use their Arcane Cascade and change its element. The alternative is publishing lots more close range spell attacks (cantrip, regular, focus) for them to access. If focus spells are disallowed for spellstrike dedicated slots will be necessary.

Several of my players went for similar builds with some key differences: rather than go for heavy armor and Intelligence, for instance, they often went more for Dexterity and Rogue dedications for Skirmish Strike, plus the Sixth Pillar archetype later on for Maneuvering Spell, and they took feats like Embodiment of the Balance instead of Apparition's Enhancement. Despite these differences and different party compositions involving a Champion, a Sorcerer, and an Investigator in one, and a Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Witch in another, the Animist consistently took a lot of the spotlight both for their ability to fill in more niches overall than other party members, and for their ability to frequently step on their teammates' toes.

Sorry, I really can't see Animist getting in the way of a Champion, Sorceror and Investigator and definitely not Rogue, Barbarian and Witch.

And then there was even a third party with Fighter, Monk and Psychic? Psychic has issues and compares badly to, well, everything, not just Animist. Fighter and Monk honestly should have zero issues.

This isn't true at all, as untamed form takes 2 actions to cast, meaning an Animist can start swinging right away if they're not setting up with other vessel spells. If both classes have to spend at least one action Striding each turn, that still means the Animist can make a 0-MAP Strike on turn 1 compared to the Untamed Druid's second Strike on subsequent turns, so it will take a while for the Druid to catch up. When there isn't a Bard in your party buffing everyone's attack rolls, embodiment of battle allows you to eventually match and then exceed the Untamed Druid's accuracy while also boosting your damage rolls, so even if your first turn would be longer to set up, you'd exceed the Untamed Druid in all respects from there. Add that to the fact that the Animist's vessel spells automatically provide elemental form as they scale, and Monstrous Inclinations has the wandering trait, this allows the class to easily outscale a Druid, and therefore Strike more accurately than martials at certain levels too.

You forgot to mention that the Druid also has to spend an action to exit untamed form, but that matters indeed much more rarely.

However, fact remains that it is hard to you need Liturgist lvl 9 and something like skirmish strike not to be 1 action per round behind, and even if you have that maintaining 2 vessel spells, like combined EoB in your example, brings us back to 1 action per round behind.

This is not a trivial cost and needs a very particular situation for the Animist to come out ahead in the action economy.

Elf Step continues to let you Sustain two vessel spells in one go, and is how you would normally Sustain EoB and DFF in a single action while retaining some measure of movement. Of course, you wouldn't be moving as far as with a full Stride action, which is why being able to use river carving mountains instead of EoB with a Bard giving you its usual bonus would give you immensely more mobility and let you readily make several Strikes on the same turn. This is why I wouldn't knock the feat.

Sure, ok, but why would Elf Step and 2 strikes while maintaining RCM and DFF be synergizing better than Skirmish Strike and Maneuvering Spell while maintaining RCM and anything else, like e.g. EB to pick one?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an error in propositional logic that I think comes up often in conversation with you: for sure, Striking is not the only aspect of martials, but it nonetheless is an aspect of martials, and one you included in your comparison. It is therefore correct to call out the fact that you did not build your Animist for any amount of serious Striking power when you claimed that the Animist doesn't outmartial martials, including the high-Striking Rogue. The fact that you count Striking as a martial strength when it counts against the Animist, but not when it doesn't suit your comparison as with the Champion, is a double standard worth noting.

It boils down to generalist vs specialist. No matter how you build your Animist, no, not even yours, you will never come close to the striking power of that Rogue (or Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc who builds for it). Nor reach the tanking potential of a Champion (or Guardian, Fighter, Monk, etc who builds for it).

The Rogue went for single target striking DPS, the Champion went for tanking, so in what way, shape, or form could it be considered a double standard to evaluate exactly that when discussing whether Animist steps on their shoes?

Yes, the Animist is a better generalist, and that is something I will never deny, but those martials weren't generalists at all.

A party of, let's say an Animist, War Priest, Thaumaturge and Bomber Alchemist would be much trickier to manage, but you could swap the Animist for an Untamed/Storm Druid and it would remain just as difficult.

I think your build explains why rather well, as you purposefully did not make use of the Animist's other apparitions and stuck to the same handful each time. The equivalent would be another prepared caster sticking to only a narrow subset of their available spells and complaining that their selection is limited. By contrast, I not only swapped out to many more apparitions, including battle form apparitions, but also got to swap out wandering feats to suit my playstyle in the day, and I can tell you that it made a huge difference.

I said that at the level liturgist kicks in those where the Apparitions I generally attuned. At the lower levels I made other choices, and of course in downtime as well. And if we had a good idea of what we were up against that day that might make a difference as well, obviously.

I know how prepared casters work, thank you very much, and how to properly evaluate this particular strength.

Can it make a difference? Yeah, sure it can, just like for Wizards and the other prepared casters, and I refer you to the many, many threads about the subject. A huge difference? Nah, not really, no. Most of the time you don't have a complete picture of what you will be up against and the other PC's can't shift roles on day to day basis and those will be covered, and the expectation that you cover yours.