Angwa's page

Well, anoint ally and explosive power is definitely using your bloodline abilities meaningfully, no matter what bloodline you picked.

And depending on your bloodline meaningful can be a bit of an understatement as plenty of 'em have combinations of sorcerous gifts and/or bloodline spells which are worth casting and would trigger explosive power multiple times per round.

I must admit that I share the opinion that Druid starts out strong, but loses steam at higher levels. Now, a strong start and being a full primal caster makes for a perfectly playable character, definitely also at the higher levels, but you really start feeling your specific druid stuff starting to lag behind.

Animal has well-known issues at higher levels, and, well, especially in FA games, everyone who wants one can have an animal companion comparable to yours. So, besides not being unique enough, even with the feat investment doesn't scale well into the higher levels.

Fixing the scaling, which really ought to be done anyway as it would benefit all companion-using classes and archetypes, and adding some unique druid-specific benefits to their companions should go a long way.

Untamed also asks for way too many feats for what you get at higher levels. While your accuracy is okayish, your damage and especially your defenses become abysmal. It's still crazy good utility and mobility though, so not worthless, but in fights where you don't want to use resources most of the time you're better off sticking to tempest surge, pulverizing cascade and even just electric arc.

I mean, I've seen it been useful in combat at higher levels, but way too rarely. With the feat investment it requires, it should be more impactful and character defining.

But again, it's mostly fixing the scaling of damage and defenses, perhaps also giving some form feats for free if you go Untamed, and battleforms really ought to get some clarifications in general anyway.

The Druid's core package is solid enough, just some polishing needed at higher levels. Even if it is on the more general level of tweaking all companion and battleform numbers so they scale better and not even touch anything specific for druids that would be great.

Also, I completely disagree that fewer attributes makes characters more homogeneous and less interesting or that more attributes makes them more different or interesting. This depended on only of how the attributes will be used and could be invested by other mechanics of the game.

Yup, this right here.

The system puts some serious restrictions on what numbers make sense and attributes contribute about as much as your proficiencies.

The attribute you intend to use for your main offense will in the overwhelming majority of cases be as high as is allowed, so +3 or +4.

If your concept allows it, you will boost the attributes linked to saves. Hopefully you do not like combinations of strong, smart and charismatic because picking two, or, you wild and crazy person, all three results in having lower defenses and survivability.

Furthermore, for most classes there is little incentive for investing heavily in skill proficiencies which are not supported by a decent attribute bonus, meaning yet another constraint on your choices.

Anyway, with just a couple of dry, technical datapoints, not going into descriptions and whatever background is envisioned for the PC, the attributes can be guessed with a high degree of accuracy.

As most of the general differences between PF1 and 2 have already been addressed I'll add some more specific advice, after repeating the following: try it out some at somewhat higher level. I suggest level 5 or level 7.

Anyway, you no doubt have a lot of PF1 system mastery internalized. It really does not translate all that well to PF2, and system mastery will still make a difference. This edition bakes a lot vertical progression directly into your class chassis, but that does not mean you don't have plenty of meaningful choices to make or interesting builds to explore.

First magic, while no longer LFQW, is still really, really powerful. You will have to relearn a bit what the good spells are, and especially under what circumstances. Generally you'll outgrow your cantrips pretty quickly and between your focus spells and your slots you will soon have enough staying power.

I think good all-round entry points could be Imperial or Elemental Sorceror, Storm Druid and Cleric to get a feel for how spontaneous and prepared are different and the impact focus spells can make.

Your second issue was the 3 actions feeling static and boring. This is definitely the place where PF2e system mastery and your build choices will make the difference. Depending on your class, skills and feats you pick you will create a wide range of possibilities. Action compression feats allow you to get more out of your 3 actions, you will need useful options for your third action and your reaction(s). There is lot to play around with.

And beyond optimizing and winning the action economy, simply having more good options (within reason) for your 3 actions is in itself a winner. Versatility is power in PF2e, especially as vertical progression and specialization is limited.

I believe it is also important to note that it is not an issue of damage, but also not quite one of having worthwhile 3th actions.

It is more a matter of helping/contributing/supporting group play. If you play melee you have a multitude of tools to support the other players. At its most basic even where you decide to stand can block the enemies and provide flanking and you can obviously get an ever-growing repertoire of options, and by consequence choices to make, starting from level 1.

Personally I really think it is weird that people are arguing that the low level issues are just the opinion of a tiny minority, anecdotal and whatnot.

Outside these forums it isn't exactly a contentious opinion.

I mean, after priming chatgtp to answer relative to D&D5e by asking 'is pathfinder 2nd edition harder than d&d 5th edition' I asked the following:

'is pathfinder 2nd edition deadly'

Now, this thing can't think, it just responds with what it scraped of the internet, I summarized it's answer a bit for brevity, but feel free to try these queries yourself:

Yes, Pathfinder 2nd Edition (PF2e) is generally considered more deadly than D&D 5e, especially at low levels and if players don’t engage with its tactical depth. Here's why:

⚔️ Why PF2e Can Be More Deadly
1. Tight Math...
2. Action Economy...
3. Critical Hit Rules...
4. Status Effects and Conditions...
5. Healing Is More Limited...

️ But It's Not Unfair
PF2e is deadly but fair — it rewards: Smart play, Party synergy, Preparation, Tactical combat

Players who engage with the rules and coordinate well are rewarded, and a well-built party can often prevent deaths through careful planning.

Low-Level Danger
Levels 1–3 are particularly dangerous. A couple of bad rolls or a lack of coordination can lead to a TPK.

After level 4, survivability improves as characters gain more options, HP, and better gear.

Summary
Yes, PF2e is more deadly than D&D 5e, but it's a controlled, tactical kind of deadliness. Poor decisions are punished, but smart play is richly rewarded.

So, again, chatgtp can't actually think for itself, and what it got from the collective internet is that, while PF2e is indeed regarded as having tactical depth which rewards good play and teamwork, encounters at the lower levels are particularly prone to be decided by bad luck and specifically called out as 'particularly dangerous'.

You are absolutely asking for the game to be easier and less lethal. I don't see the point in pretending you are not. It sends the wrong message to Paizo.

No. Absolutely not asking for that. Categorically not asking for that. What I am asking for is slightly less RNG domination. A bit more predictability, and mainly at the lower levels.

I mean, Season of Ghosts is the next AP I'm considering using and I will have to spend more time reworking it to have exciting encounters, especially in the first chapter, than previous AP's because it is way, way too tame for my group.

We like our combats big, dynamic, spectacular and deadly. Not clear one room, rest, rince and repeat. More an entire floor/series of encounters chaining into each other, preferably with some additional environmental effects and objectives beyond killing team monster.

PC's being slightly more durable at lower levels means there is more freedom in encounter building, especially on the more challenging end. I'd like to be able to use L+2's and the above set-piece fights sooner and without a few consecutive high rolls immediately threatening a TPK instead of a set-back.

You've yet to prove that PF2 even has the issue you're claiming, much less that it's a significant source of players bouncing off the game.

With all due respect, you can do your own googling. The issue of new gamers coming to PF2e and finding low-level play being unforgiving, harsh and the PC's feeling like weak scrubs isn't exactly new or unknown.

More importantly: even in the published adventures we can see the shift, either just outright skipping the rough levels altogether or taking care to avoid opponents outleveling the PC's.

It took a serious while for Paizo to calibrate the low-level experience in their AP's. Experienced GM's and players who stuck around went along on this learning curve and have internalized how to adjust building and approaching encounters at those levels and tailor it to their group's preference.

But do not take for granted a group just starting PF2e knows any of this.

I don't believe that upping PC HP and/or lowering monster damage at levels one and two is an improvement to the game. Nobody has put forth a convincing argument that this is a problem aside from the odd poorly balanced encounter, a GM that runs through Grand Central on a fixed schedule, or simple poor luck.

That something that has gone wrong could just be poor dice luck. That's assuming that a low-level PC dying or even a TPK is a failure in the first place. Aside from a few players in this thread who think every player death and party wipe should be telegraphed and only occur because the players messed up, I don't think the general TTRPG cares for a riskless game where they can't die unless they try to.

Any encounter including a L+2 vs a lvl 1-3 party has the potential to be an 'odd poorly balanced encounter', but how would players and gm's still learning the game, which is what we are talking about here, know that?

Nobody is arguing for a riskless game. Nobody is saying player death or party wipes should be telegraphed.

And, yes, of course some dice luck is involved in one-shotting low levels. Nobody denies that. The math was already shown and didn't convince you, so let's try a different approach:

L+2 monster striding twice and critting, followed the next round by managing to get two hits is not some weird out-of-bounds occurrence, right? Won't happen every time, but it's really not _that_ unlikely.

Nobody at our tables would raise an eyebrow if this happens. Pretty sure you have regularly seen even worse than that in the 2 opening rounds before the slows/trips/grabs/debuffs lock it down.

After all, it's just an opponent with a very high to-hit vs your AC rolling decently in that short window of time where it can still act relatively freely. Nothing special or weird.

There is no counterplay or way to avoid that, you just have to deal with it. The more tools you have when facing a higher level monster, the more you can deal with massive damage spikes and the shorter you can make the aforementioned window so there won't be any more damage spikes.

However, at the low levels, 1 crit or 2 hits from a L+2 is enough. So, it downed two PC's, or one PC twice. It's a deathspiral a low level party is ill-equipped to recover from. They don't have the tools.

Hence, L+2 vs low levels boils down to luck. It's rocket tag.

Obviously, not using a L+2 at all in that level range is the solution. But:

Pf2e is known and marketed as a balanced game, with interesting tactical gameplay and meaningful choices in combat for the players. For the GM's it is a game where you are supposed to be able to trust the encounter-building rules and which works at all levels. Yay.

Except, when you're new to it and neither the GM or the players have experience, if you actually trust the encounter-building system or went with an old AP, you may get OSR style luck-based deadliness.

Most of the time, if a crit can take out a PC, so can a MAP strike + a MAP -5 strike. (The exception is for things with deadly, fatal, etc.) That's still pretty unstable.

Yup!

To give a concrete lvl 1 example:

Dire Wolf. Has +12 to hit, D10+5 damage.

A PC on the AC cap has 18 AC, DW has a 25% crit-rate and that crit does on average 21 damage, enough to take down most PC's.

In case it's not a crit, there is still a 50% chance it was a regular hit and a second strike with 50% to land, to get to that average of 21 damage.

In short, every round it gets 2 strikes against AC 18 the Direwolf has about 50% chance to do an average of 21 damage. Obviously not a guaranteed takedown, no, but imho still firmly in the realm of rocket tag play.

Obviously AC could be lower or higher. Probably lower, to be honest. It could target a clothy with AC 16, the wolf could get frightened, or shields could be raised, but it can also easily trip or grab to make it's target off-guard, etc.

Yeah, that fighter is probably not faster than the corpse-light, so it'll catch up in 1 stride and the fighter will eat 2 attacks and he won't have a shield up yet.

So, +10/+5 vs AC 17, obviously not guaranteed they will get crit or hit twice, but those are not odds you want to bet on. Perhaps not quite a coin flip, but won't be far off.

If the fighter goes down, even if the Druid still has a heal or the Rogue can successfully Battle Medicine, it's not likely to end well and a single lvl 2 will have defeated the party.

(Also, Recall Knowledge for a corpse-light is religion DC21. That wizard must have taken Lore: Undead to have a realistic chance to succeed twice.)

Anyway, the specifics don't really matter. The damage the corpse-light does or it's to-hit modifier is nothing special.

In PF2e, at level 1, you actually are not more survivable than in previous editions, especially against opponents with a level advantage. Far from it. Seriously, your starting hitpoints being higher means nothing if the incoming damage is also higher.

Don't forget that on that first attack it can have 20%+ chance of critting, and even if that first hit wasn't enough, _every single monster_ can attack multiple times per round, and being higher level has good odds of landing a second hit.

This really, really, wasn't the case in earlier editions...

I'm with Trip H and the others on this:

Low level encounter balance in PF2e is not well-calibrated. Going from full health to dying 2 happened way too much in our play-throughs of AoA and AV.

There may be some who consider this a feature and not a flaw, but certainly not our group. Tactics don't matter, nothing matters. An L+2 or higher enemy crits, and odds are they _will_, somebody goes down. At lvl 1 even some L+1 enemies can do that.

And this issues persists for a few levels too many.

AoA was obviously our first experience with PF2e and those lower levels really made us doubt the system worked. Sure, eventually this problem goes away and good play and tactics start to outweigh good or bad luck. And then AV reminded us again in a most unpleasant fashion.

Anyway, it's not a coincidence that 2 of the more recent AP's just skipped those levels, and that it is now common knowledge to avoid L+2 enemies in the starting level range...

Our local tabletop community was never exclusively D&D, but it was always a system that was played, fading in an out of popularity.

PF1 however never really caught on as by that time everyone was burned out on 3.5 and PF was seen as not fixing the underlying issues.

4e did not catch on at release, but after the edition matured, and especially the MM3 monster math fixes, D&D was back on the menu with a vengeance.

After 4e 5e was tested but dropped very quickly, there were still some forays into D20 territory like 13th Age and Beyond the Wall, but nothing which spawned multiple long-term campaigns like 4e.

Until PF2e was introduced. Its selling points to the groups I play with:

1) fun character customization
2) balanced enough so the GM doesn't have to worry about the above
3) easy enough to GM
4) combat is fun
5) keeps working at all levels

So, yes, like many others, also playing PF2e because of 4e. But unlike many others, specifically because we liked 4e ;-)

In our Golarion without a doubt that new state in the Stolen Lands that recently rose to power.

Had a bit of a rough start, but now a total powerhouse with benevolent rulership. It has it all, advanced mastery of magic and academics, airships, the place to be for all things artistic and festivals/parties every month.

Pfah, Absalom, old news.

To be fair, Spellstrike's flexibility in choosing different damage types is mostly an illusion. Gouging Claw overperforms the other cantrips enough to be able to ignore the average weakness/vulnerability.

As to needing to expend spellslots, well, between the font and being a full caster that isn't really an issue in my experience, and neither is the slightly worse accuracy. It certainly doesn't compare to not needing to recharge, not provoking a RS and the vastly better class feats.

Only if you spellstrike with focus spells can a Magus keep up with a proper channel smite warpriest.

JiCi wrote:

Then why use a ranked spell with a save for Spellstrike? You'd probably be better off a higher-ranked spell with an attack roll.

In short, you're adding an attack roll to Spellstrike... without getting any real benefit from it, compared to simply casting the spell normally.

You're doing it because it's normally impossible to Stride up to an enemy, Strike them, and then Cast a two-action Spell, but you can Stride up to them and Spellstrike with a two-action spell using Expansive Spellstrike. That's a very nice action economy booster - it's only a 2nd level feat, after all.

Also archetyping Magus isn't mandatory, and spellstriking every turn isn't mandatory. Magus is a perfectly effective class with getting a spellstrike every second turn, and relying exclusively on Magus class feats. Those are needed to get the very highest possible efficiency Magus has available, but that standard simply isn't required for magus to be effective.

Or just never use a ranked spell with spellstrike. Whether it has a save or not is irrelevant. You don't have many slots and you have better uses for them.

There is a lot of illusion of choice in the magus class.

You have a bunch different damage types in your attack cantrips, but that is only in theory. If you look at the numbers you need an above average vulnerability for any of them to outperform Gouging Claw to a meaningful degree.

You can use ranked spells to spellstrike, but that is not sustainable and they don't actually outperform focus spells. You can indeed choose to not to archetype for those focus spells, but what is the upside/benefit to that choice? You just deny yourself a sustainable high damage option?

I mean, just be sensible? Both as a player and as a GM?

If the PC's let team monster know they are close by they will prepare, call for help, prebuff as well and basically do everything they can not to be wiped out.

If team hero is careful and stealthy they will find their enemies lazing around, weapons undrawn, perhaps laying down, whatever makes sense.

That's just it, make it sensible. There is this huge grey area between being an antagonistic gm and one who acts like the crappy AI of a video game.

shroudb wrote:

In my experience, Reactive with Reach triggers at least 1/2 rounds without any effort

I play a 15ft. reach large size Reactive Strike character in PFS and I'm not even at 50%.

As I said, players significantly overvalue the occurrence of reactions. Once every 2 rounds is much closer to Opportune Backstab chances to trigger.

Guess the party I am currently playing with is a hallucination. Time to go to the doctor ;-)

Yes, Tumble Through being a masked stride, but somehow better because you do not have to actually tumble through anything is... something. I don't think I would ever allow that, but whatever, my table isn't yours.

However, I wonder if anything else breaks with Liturgist:

"When you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through, you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell."

Elf Step and Manoeuvring Spell from Sixth Pillar were mentioned, but on a closer look those just incorporate Steps as subordinate actions. Won't let you Sustain in other words.

Peafowl Stance however lets you Step as a free action before or after striking with a sword with the monk trait. Not a subordinate action, so that definitely counts. We can Strike, Step and Sustain.

Anything else to look out for?

Squiggit wrote:

Any particular reason for that?

Well, we have the precedent from PF1, where Mythic broke an already broken game in many other ways. We have the speculation and posts from others on the forums here in regards to currently published Mythic options that either obsolete or hamper expected gameplay elements. And we also have personal stigmatisms for what the system is meant to accomplish being in direct contrast of what the stated design goals of the new edition was, which was to keep things in balance, not throw them out of whack. Put it all together, and you have a reasonable concern behind the system in question.

Eh, that seems a bit hyperbolic. Mythic hardly breaks the game.

Mythic stuff that needs a fix because it impacts too much of the game:

- Exemplar Dedication is indeed too crazy powerful. Martials benefit more, but there is OP goodies for all. Just disallow it for now or give it to all your players.

- Mythic Resilience I would for now give the same on/off treatment as Resistance, namely mythic characters automatically bypass it. Casters are screwed over more by Resilience, but honestly, this is just anti-fun for everyone at the table. Almost every character has abilities which require an opponent to make saves.

Mythic stuff with a smaller impact on the game but that could use a second look:

- Kineticists. Either some Mythic feats below lvl 12 specifically for them, or added text on enough existing feats allowing for their blasts and impulses to benefit. Perhaps even a Destiny specifically for them as their mechanics are so walled off from the rest of the system.

- Rewrite Fate vs Calling's mythic proficiency boosts. Your Calling should define your signature bad ass area of expertise. My current fix would be to only let those boosts cost a Mythic point if you get a success or higher.

Yeah, Fire Ray is definitely a worthy alternative.

Psychic also being keyed to int and coming with an extra focus point pushes it way in the lead, imho. Especially if you first go for amped ignition and retrain for IW at lvl 6.

I mean, if you want to. Amped Ignition is pretty solid too and the whole fire and ice thing of oscillating wave has a pretty attractive imagery.

Now, Force Fang is a nice pick. I would definitely take it to get 3 FP points by level 2 (if you also take Psychic). Having one of the good Conflux spells is a valuable option to have in your arsenal, and Force Fang is one of those.

The kind of encounter where you face a bunch of mooks who don't outlevel you isn't exactly a rarity, and this is where the action compression of conflux spells shines.

See, Gouging Claw + FF does about the same damage as an amped IW if you don't crit. It's a different story when IW crits, but against lower level enemies that would be ridiculous overkill. A GG crit will probably even be enough and FF can at least target your next victim.

However, when facing enemies who are higher level than you, the story changes. True strike + focus spellstrike, preferably when it is off-guard and got softened with frightened/clumsy/sickened, is definitely better as this is where a crit will make all the difference. If that L+2 or higher is still standing, and in reach, nothing is stopping you from following up next round with a FF and another amped IW, this time using a hero point.

It's those higher level enemies you go all in on, crit-fishing for the big numbers which win you the encounter then and there.

This really isn't hyperbole, by the way. If you have such a Magus around L+2 and higher enemies will regularly get utterly obliterated before being able to do much of anything.

As a brief aside, I need to ask how many tables allow an Amped Img Wpn spellstrike to hit 2 targets? Because that's *very* much against the rules, and a Magus being able to do that would certainly contribute to their damage output going over the top. No idea how much that "houserule" could be involved in the perception....

Even then, the gap between a d6 & d8 cantrip seems... a bit over-focused on.

Nobody takes IW to hit 2 targets which the rules indeed clearly do not allow, or just because it is a D8 cantrip instead of a D6.

Could it be you missed the real reason people value IW so much?

-> Amp Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d8 instead of 1d8.

It kind of feels like in order to "buff" magus you'd have to nerf spellstrike by making it incompatible with focus spells, as the simplest way or removing this design issue. But then how to make spell slots worthwhile for spellstrike instead of more versatile spells like the ones mentionned above ?

Or should power come from other places in the chassis like arcane cascade or new martial leaning actions (special strikes etc)

All depends on what you take issue with.

In essence it's not about the damage, its about sustainability over multiple encounters and flexibility in decision-making.

Focus spells and slotted spells do about the same damage, but the former you can use every encounter, the latter not so much. Opportunity cost for focus spells is not using conflux spells, but you can choose in the moment if that cost is worth paying. Opportunity cost for using spellslots is not being to use them for other purposes and is paid during your daily preparations.

Investment required for 'focus spellstriking' is a dedication feat and a feat for the focus spell (Psychic can even get away with just one if you don't feel like upgrading amped ignition's D12 to IW's 2d8).

Couple of question:
- Are you ok with this damage increase becoming sustainable on an encounter-to-encounter basis, thanks to being powered by FP's?

- Are you ok with having to go out-of-class for this and not be made available with Magus Class feats? Purely mechanically this may seem like a small issue, it's the same pool of feats in the end. It does impose limits on your choice of possible dedications.

- Regardless whether it may come from Magus or dedication feats, how close to a must-pick do you consider focus-spellstriking?

Depending on your answers Magus is generally fine, or it needs more fundamental fixes.

My opinion, reduced to a quippy one-liner: I don't want Magus to be a subclass of Psychic.

Some of the remarks here really do not match my experiences.

- Summoners being less of a gish: striking twice with full martial proficiency, a fully runed weapon and making extensive use of trips and grabs, while still casting a spell that round and having a reactive strike on call as a reaction is about as gish as gish can get.

Really, no other class can combine martial striking and spellcasting like a summoner.

Sure, they can't enhance their martial side directly with dedications like Mauler or two-weapon fighting, but indirectly works perfectly: Bard, Blessed One, Medic, Champion, soon Commander, etc. Or whatever else strikes their fancy, really, and fits their background. They don't _need_ anything beyond what their class gives them to do what is expected.

I also strongly question the assertion that those direct martial capability-boosting dedications like Mauler can actually do anything for Magus? When you take into account the opportunity cost of not using those feats for the spellcasting dedications and a good focus spell, how can they be anything but a very distant secondary consideration.

- Super spellstriking with spellslots: slotted spells which meaningfully outperform the focus spells do not exist. There will probably never be a spell that outperforms Imaginary Weapon to the extent that using a very limited daily resource will be a real choice.

These focus spells and how they compare to anything else you can spellstrike with really is the elephant in the room. All things Magus are warped around their existence.

Yes, you might prepare one slot to spellstrike if you don't have scrolls/items/anything else for those rare circumstances the enemy is immune/highly resistant to your focus spell, you couldn't refocus or 3 focus points aren't sufficient before the encounter is in the clean-up phase.

In my experience however, a reposition spell, potentially with added damage (e.g. jump, time jump, blazing descent) and buff spells, haste and improved invisibility in particular, are way more useful and attractive. As you level up you offload those repositions/buffs which don't scale with rank to items as much as you can, and keep the ones that benefit from upscaling in high rank slots.

maybe you could make Spellstrike into a Focus Spell?

Well, I have seen more than a few Magi in games, and all but one made sure to get a focus spellstrike outside the class. Some through cleric, but most take Psychic. It just makes that much of difference.

So, yes, I agree, Magus needs a spellstrike focus spell within their class to complement their basic spellstrike as long as using using focus spells is an option.

And again, I really do not believe publishing more touch spell attacks would solve anything.

There could be some variants of gouging claw obviously, For all the different elements, and perhaps also some which do less damage, but with different condition riders, also in a wide enough range of elements. So, uh, about a dozen perhaps? Of which you will prepare 3 if you keep to your class?

Spellslot spells then? You don't have the spellslots to create much diversity. Furthermore, If we want Magus to feel like real spellcaster wouldn't it be better to have them use their spellslots to, you know, actually mostly cast spells?

Seriously, Magus can be fun, but it really is one of the classes most dependent on supplementing its own class features with another dedication from a very limited list.

As fodder for the discussion, the homebrew I implemented for a Magus being played at my table:

*disclaimer: it had to serve this player's particular build (Inexorable Iron), being played in a particular party and campaign. It was not meant as a complete package Class overhaul, etc, etc..

* Spellstrike is basically Gouging Claw as I mentioned before. Didn't count as a cantrip, still provokes RS. Damagetype starts out as the same as your weapon, but if AC was active you could choose the damagetype it was attuned to as well.

* You could do an Empowered Spellstrike, spending a spellslot add spellrank D6. Upgrades to D8 at lvl 6, D10 at lvl 11, D12 at lvl 16. You had to be in AC to do an Empowered Spellstrike.

* You also got a Focused Spellstrike (at lvl 4). Works as above, but you get a list of minor effects depending on the damagetype you can access by downgrading the extra damage dice (e.g. electricity gave clumsy, slashing allowed you to inflict the bleeding effect to everyone in reach, etc.). You had pick at least one such effect.

* 2+ Action non-focus/cantrip spells also recharge spellstrike, or activate AC as a free action. Reaction & 1 action on-focus/cantrip spells can just activate AC as a free action.

* Activating AC gave you a choice of damagetypes to attune your AC to (started with a list of 2, but that grew to 5 at max lvl). When it was already active, reactivating it allowed to change damagetype and gave an extra stacking amount of temp hp's and doubled the extra damage (player was Inexorable Iron).

* Extra/modified feats: Expansive Spellstrike added its functionality to Focused Spellstrike (15ft Cone or line, 5 ft burst for one downgrade, could later be made bigger for an extra downgrade, or adding terrain modification such as difficult ground, fire giving smoke, etc). There were also feats for adding bigger effects(2 downgrades, e.g. electricity adds stunned 1, cold could add slowed). You get the picture.

Anyway, yes, it started out by what looks like taking away options, but by making Spellstrike its own thing also allowed to give back so much more without having to make the billion homebrew touch spell attack spells which could potentially exist. Another goal was to eliminate the pressure to get the classic out-of-class toys such as Psychic/IW.

The main focus was still spellstriking, and trying to do so every round was certainly still an attractive option, but a round casting spells was very much a valid,0 option as well, and left room for useful 3th actions (e.g. Spellstrike +1 action, next round Blazing Descent +1 action).

It was obviously still just homebrew, those feats were pulling way too much weight which should have been offloaded to more diverse basic spellstrike 'cantrips' and class/hybrid studies features to make it all useable for the class as a whole.

Also, the explicit wish of the player was to be able to modify his spellstrike on a very granular level and a round-to-round basis. By level 15 he had a rather extreme range of options when using Focused Spellstrike. As implemented, not for general consumption and if I would do the class as a whole I would definitely scale that back, and focus on what would be appropriate for the different studies.

graystone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Magus has a very easy, effective playstyle just like PF1. If you want to archetype into psychic for Imaginary Weapon, go for it. If you don't, gouging claw or telekinetic projectile are great.

I like Needle Darts to trigger special material weaknesses.

That one is good too. When I was playing my magus, that spell wasn't out. Definitely a new good one further allowing the magus to trigger weaknesses with a strike.

Meh, honestly there probably won't be any real meaningful difference between gouging claw and needle darts triggering vulnerability.

On a normal hit gouging claw starts out doing a minimum of 1.5 damage more at rank 1 and the difference widens with 2 damage per rank. The difference isn't quite doubled on a critical, starts out with 2 points minimum and the gap widens by 3 per rank.

So, yeah, even at low ranks the difference exists, but is honestly marginal, especially if gouging claw's bleed manages to tick twice. Already at rank 2 if the enemy has vulnerability 5 and bleeds twice, gouging claw wins by 1.5, if not it is only 1.5 damage behind. That is functionally the same damage. Every rank we go up gouging claw pulls ahead, but so will the average vulnerability, so nothing really changes fundamentally.

Needle Darts pays for its range and needs an above average vulnerability to overcome the difference with Gouging Claw, which is built for actual close combat. It doesn't help as an alternative to Gouging Claw when encountering something with resistance either.

Now, the above applies to all the other Cantrips you can Spellstrike with too. Ignition and Telekinetic Projectile scale better than Needle Darts, but are still behind Gouging Claw and the rest are simply worse. They are superior to Needle Darts at least when you run into resistance to P and S, though not resist all, so, skeletons I guess? Oh, and everything that doesn't bleed. Yay.

Simply put, there need to be above average resistances or vulnerabilities in play to create something more than a marginal difference with Gouging Claw. Just because close combat cantrips with other damage types have not been printed. Even if they were ever printed, it would boil down to approximately Gouging Claw but with different damage types. This is silly.

This is why I'm in favor of a bespoke spellstrike cantrip. If Gouging Claw is our baseline high damage cantrip use that as a model, and if we want Magi to _really_ hit vulnerabilities, let them change the damage type (from a limited list) by e.g. using AC or something.

This leaves room for Spellstrike cantrips which do less damage, but with actual interesting effects...

The core mechanics of the Magus are solid, and as is certainly does not underperform compared to the other martials but some improvements could definitely be made to open up more variation and fun in build options and gameplay.

Using the standard cantrip/slotted/focus spell attacks for spellstrike is a big part of the problem in my opinion. Those spells were built to with their range component being a balance-point and are really not well-suited to be the base of a core class feature. Another good illustration are the high damage focus spells. They are the best choice to balance both damage and sustainability over several encounters but you can only get them out-of-class.

My ideal solution would be restricting Spellstrike to a limited number of bespoke spellstrike-only cantrips. And they most certainly should not be restricted to just doing damage. Spending a spellslot of an appropriate rank when you spellstrike lets you access additional effects/damage, depending on the cantrip, your hybrid study or feats you took. Think Psychic and amps, but spellslots would be the resource you pay instead of focus points.

The goal is to make it possible to have a baseline and sensible variation in damage and effects with an additional choice of boosting either when spending resources.

Secondly, I would allow slotted 2+ action spells to recharge spellstrike or making activating/entering AC a free action. One action slotted spells would just allow you to activate/enter AC as a free action. Cantrips/spellstrikes allow you to enter/activate AC for one action as before. Activating AC when you are already in it should give a minor extra effect besides changing the the damage type of your extra damage.

This should go a long way towards alleviating the pressure to spellstrike every round.

You really do need to acquire quite some system mastery to make spellcasters shine in PF2e. These recurring 'casters-are-weak' vs 'git-gud' discussions are proof of that, I guess.

First off, you need to learn which spells are good and which ones plain suck, and under what circumstances.

Your spells available should ideally be able to deal with higher level opponents who will save as well as regular encounters, have some minimum spread in targeted saves, ranges and areas and if you are blasting some variance in damage types.

You need to learn when it's ok to rely on your cantrips/weapon and focus spells and when to cut loose. You have managed to get focus spells worth casting, yes? A decent reaction and some potential 3th actions too?

It really is a lot to internalize and even if you have, at lower levels you won't have as much impact as decent martials. Around lvl 7-9 imho you start have a good enough spread of spells to feel on par. Lvl 11+ is when it starts getting wild and casters can easily have more impact than martials.

Which means what? That we can make statements and be accurate if they take the form of "this option will be optimal within situations such as this" like "slam down is optimal against enemies susceptible to trip and without significant resistance to the type of damage your weapon does or higher reflex DCs."...

Having played most of the 2e AP's and a couple of custom campaigns, sorry, no, tripping has always proven to be the overall top go-to tactic. Characters who had it in their bag of tricks, whatever the class, never regretted it. Fighters just synergize insanely well with trip.

Of course their will be fights where it will be useless, but I have not ever played a campaign where such fights were common.

Wouldn't mind though, imho tripping is too easy and powerful.

I would actually lean much more into the concept of hampering strike. Make being the sticky tank as the core feature/identity of Guardians.

For starters I would make it a level 1 class feature so it can't be poached easily and keep it as an action tax every round to make it the 'this is what a guardian does'-thing.

Everyone within reach would get -2 to attack everyone but the Guardian. If a enemy tries to leave the Guardian's reach the Guardian gets a free action attack which cancels the movement on top of doing damage. A free action and not a reaction is indeed very juicy, yes, but it's my opening bid anyway ;-)

With their lower weapon proficiency this is far from guaranteed (and actually a powerful enough feature to be worth that lower proficiency). Letting the player roll an attack is also much more feel-good than letting the gm roll a save and, besides, the Guardian could really use more damage-dealing capacity.

Taunt would be what you use to lure that enemy over there to come over to you, or shoot you if it is ranged, and can actually stay as it is.

This class seems to be at odds with its own basic class features and lacks something to set it apart.

You may be ahead with your armor proficiency a bit, but not at the first 4 levels where it matters the most.

Furthermore, if you use taunt you throw that advantage away. At level 1-4 you basically are as easy to hit as a raging barbarian. That's... the opposite of being a tank? If Taunt even works, that is. But you have a second starting class feature, Intercept Strike, which boils down to setting your AC to what the person you're protecting has.

Hmm, something is not tracking here. Better armor proficiencies should be the selling point here, but your two starting class features won't let you use them...

Anyway, at level 2 there is a class feat which is unique and powerful enough to function as the answer to the question 'why play a Guardian', Hampering Sweeps. Of course, being a lvl 2 class feat it is prime poaching material, so it's more the answer to 'why pick up the Guardian archetype'.

So:
- Make Taunt give the -2 penalty, no save and forget the bonus to-hit. The fact it costs an action and only lasts to the start of your next turn is restrictive enough. Don't let it work against the class' selling point of actually being tanky.

- Intercept Strike should have as trigger 'when an adjacent ally is targeted' and should make you the target. The ally needing to be adjacent is enough of a restriction to let them use their own defenses at least.

- Give the Guardian expert armor proficiency from level 1. Why not let them be ahead in AC from the start. They give up standard martial progression and the sort of damage mechanics other martials have.

- Make Hampering Strikes a class feature so it can't be poached. Add 'an enemy can only be affected by one instance of this feature' so 2 PC's with hampering strike can't completely lock down an enemy.

Yes, this one:

A Single Drop of Water.

Some of those mythic destinies could also lean into how you became immortal.

We recently had that story about those two immortal cultivators going on a rampage/date-fights and then there's the likes of Sorshen, Baba Yaga and Jatembe.

None of these fine folk needed bits of divine essence raining down to achieve immortality. Perhaps Eternal Legend is one of the destinies for those who succeeded on their own merits.

Szuriel was once, before she became an Apocalypse Rider, a mortal paladin. So this might be the path to immortality by way of claiming the power of daemons. Seems unlikely though as it's not really a viable route for PC's, so perhaps more for those who claimed bits of her divine essence. After all if she went up against Gorum odds are good he took her down with him.

I really wish they explicitly called out the Protector Tree as a summoned creature with a more elaborate stat line. As it is written now is inviting a head-on collision between the fiction and game elements.

Sure, spells like Black Tentacles/Slither also conjure undefined stuff with just AC and hitpoints and nothing else, but it is also much more simple and obviously does its thing independent from the caster.

Protector Tree is much more complex. There are just so many messy edge-cases if it has no mind of its own and needs the caster to determine who are allies and enemies (on a round-to-round basis even because otherwise it can't protect eg. new summons).

Ok, sure, when confused you have no allies so Protector Tree can't do anything, but do unconscious or dead casters have allies? Do casters have allies and enemies in another plane of existence (eg. under the effect of Maze/Quandary?). Or less extreme, if it is a spell effect from the caster, and it isn't an aoe, does it target your ally when it prevents damage and suffers from miss-chance when the caster is dazzled/blinded?

It is just so much more elegant when it is just a summoned creature with a mind of its own...

I have played plenty of characters who boosted 2 non-save attributes, mostly int+cha but str+cha as well. My current character, a witch, will also be pushing cha+int. It fits the character concept and that trumps everything else and that's that.

However, let's be honest here, if I could choose the attributes linked to my saves I would _never_ leave one, let alone two, of my saves lagging behind! Those saves _matter_. A lot actually. Especially as dex, con and wis seem to offer just as much as the other three even without the saves attached.

I will have fun with my witch and it will definitely not be unviable, but she will be vulnerable. It is an arbitrary cost you have to pay for some concepts but not others.

Eh, over the course of a PF2e campaign you will spend a lot of time both in combat and out of it. Just how much depends on what the players and the gm want (and why session 0 is so important).

That said, even if the overall preference of your table is known and expectations for the campaign are established individual players can still emphasize one over the other and that's ok. It's a good thing that the classes and how you build them support this because different people look for different things in a rpg.

Still, Deriven has a point. I mean, a TPK is likely a campaign-killer, but a botched social encounter or investigation is not. Can even lead to great RP and story/character beats.

Balance and good rules are imho much more important for the combat part of the game. Bad rules and classes/builds which over- or underperform too much in that aspect of play just ruin the fun for everyone.

Out-of-combat on the other hand of course needs rules as well but by its very nature should be much free-form. Just enough rules to make sure that the gm does not have make up rulings for everything, but not so many that it stifles creative approaches. It also needs a more modular approach as some tables like more rules support but others will want to ignore all the sub-systems and whatever else imposes limitations and structure.

True Strike and big attack spell boosted by an item bonus.

The Magus does not have that many slots to take both. Much less than full casters.

Also the Magus does not go to Legendary proficiency in their attacks.

Finally, the full caster will be able to also use their KAS (and their Legendary proficiency in the very high levels) for save spells. Not so the Magus.

Not to mention the Magus is often in melee. And even the Starlit Span Magus would be able to do the True Strike +Spellstrike at most every other turn. Compared to the full caster who can do the True Strike + attack Spell on every turn.

Nah, Magus adds weapon damage so they don't really need spell slots as much as regular casters. Besides, magus can easily have 3 juicy focus spell attacks per encounter (mostly starlit, but okay) before they even need to touch their spell slots. They also have hero points and true strike when setting up a big nuke.

So, spell attacks with proficiency progression matching AC bumps and not lagging them by at least 2 levels, item bonuses and adding weapon damage on top of that apparently do not break the game. Well, guess what, just item bonuses without the faster progression and adding weapon damage won't either? I really can not comprehend what there is to argue about this?

Splitting the proficiency progression in this manner is problematic in that it requires players to track two proficiency values for the same entity. The only other class that does this is Fighter, but at least proficiency values between weapons is easier to track/manage by comparison.

Meh, does not seem that complex or problematic to track in all honesty.

Certainly less problematic and complex than expecting a player to be aware of the base accuracy of their spell attacks fluctuating lvl by lvl, before even taking into account of what you are targeting, and use them accordingly.

PF2e is otherwise pretty tuned up mathematically but with spell attacks they dropped the ball.

The Kineticist was balanced with these runes available and taken into account from the start when designing their blasts.

Not so the spells.

Do you have stats / calculations for what the impact of the runes on existing spells would be ?

Because, otherwise, I will trust the maths the designers used for balancing the whole game.

Alas, no, monster AC takes into account both when martial proficiency jumps a level and when they get their potency runes. That is why martial accuracy remains pretty stable at all times. Against a +0 creature, and assuming max ability, martial accuracy is about 60% (13 lvls 60%, 4 lvls 55%, 3 lvls 65%).

Spellcaster proficiency follows a different scheme and is matched to saves. That means their accuracy vs AC varies wildly, starting at the same 60%, steadily dropping to 45% at lvl 6. At lvl 7 they get expert and jump back to 55% and will start declining again, this time to a measly 40% at lvl 14. Lvl 15 is master, 50%, lvl 16 45%, this repeats for lvl 17 and 18. The last two lvls when casters get legendary they are only 5% behind martials. You will be below 50% accuracy 6 out of 20 lvls, even against an equal lvl opponent.

Anyway, that is why shadow signet exists, but for example a +1 spellpotency rune at lvl 4 and +2 around lvl 12 would be a much better way to keep spellcasting accuracy reasonably stable.

In my experience the spontaneous casters are a great deal better at meeting the expectations the game system imposes than prepared casters.

For starters you need to be able to target the different saves, preferably with a decent spread of elements for you damage spells. However, on top of that encounters with L+2 or higher enemies you will like to have spells with good effects on successful saves.

Some utility stuff would also be nice.

Spontaneous casters can meet these demands easily once your spell repertoire is big enough. No matter what the situation demands, you're covered.

Prepared casters, not so much. You may have all the spells in existence in your spellbook, but odds are very, very low your prepared spells can cope with what the adventuring day throws at you half as well as a spontaneous caster, even if you have a rough idea of what's ahead.

Personally? I liked 4e. I found it a lot of fun. It was also a very limited system in many ways.

4e was ridiculously combat-focused. the non-combat parts were vestigial bits sort of stapled on after the fact because they needed to have rules for "the bits that aren't combat" and so they put some in. They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical. It was obviously built by and for people who were into CharOp and tactical wargaming and it showed... and at least part of how it showed was the way that it utterly ignored the needs of all of the players who were into anything else.

PF2 is very much not this way. Noncombat abilities and mechanics are much more robust, and integrated much better. The game actively encourages you to build a bunch of stuff into your character that has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your ability to Do Combat, and then makes sure that you won't lose too much combat ability in so doing. Now, combat ability is still quite significant - it's still a descendant of Chainmail, after all - but I honestly think that of all of them that I've seen, it's the one that handles the noncombat stuff the best. That's not nothing.

Eh, I disagree? It was way, way more robust than previous editions in offering support for the non-combat parts of the game.

4e was the first with a skill system that was not a complete mess and with skill challenges at least attempted to provide a framework for resolution. Each skill had a basic, but non-exhaustive) list of clearly defined uses, with a listed action cost if also useable in combat.

There were some feats locked behind being trained in a skill, but also depending on skill levels you unlocked utility powers you could take. Oh, and you had the 5 knowledge skills with which you could use knowledge checks, of which Monster Knowledge checks were a subset.

Beyond the defined out-of-combat applications of the skills there were plenty of powers which were useable out of combat, or even only/mostly useable there. Also the rituals system which was all about out of combat magic.

If you play PF2e all of the above should be eerily familiar.

D&D's main strength, regardless of which edition, is obviously its brand recognition. Everyone new to the hobby is overwhelmingly likely to have started their gaming career with it, and for this generation that means 5e.

Among those with more experience I have rarely met anyone whose preferred edition is actually 5e however. It isn't as light and gritty as the first editions, you don't get the wide variety of build options of 3.x nor the balance of 4e. That said, if the majority of your table does not have a pronounced playstyle preference better served by another edition it is a good enough compromise, though with the definite risk of not really satisfying anyone.

As an aside, at least for me and others I know whose favorite D&D is 4e, PF2e definitely has a lot to offer that drew us to that game in the first place: fun set-piece battles with meaningful choices to make in combat, reasonable balance between classes, doesn't break down at high levels, nigh endless build options, dependence on defined rules and not whimsical gm rulings and so on.

Both try to fix issues in their 3.5 predecessors and have a focus on providing an engaging tactical grid-based combat experience and highly customizable character building, so, yeah, in the extended d20 family I can not help but see them as close siblings.