Angwa's page

No. This contradicts the text.

It does not. You only quoted the second paragraph. The one above stated that you resolve the subordinate actions with all their normal effects, consequences and triggers (unless modified by the activity).

A subordinate strike IS a strike with all that entails, but what you spent your actions on was the activity, you did not do the strike action. The last/previous thing you did is sudden charge, not a strike or stride. That's the part that is stated in the paragraph you quoted.

Hide
"You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise."

The Hide text specifies Strikes. You are starting the activity Double Slice; Double Slice is in the "anything else" bucket, because Double Slice is not the same as using strike twice; therefore it requires GM fiat for the...

This is indeed correct. The way the stealth rules are written is very minimalist.

What is 'doing anything except Hide, Sneak or Step or that attempted Strike'? It does not play well with activities and subordinated actions, that's for sure, as they RAW would all go into the 'anything else' bucket by default.

However, this is not code written to be run on a computer but rules to be used by thinking people, and the stealth rules are so restrictive you have to go gm fiat the majority of cases anyway.

...So Double Strike should proc off-guard, because I get all the effects of a named action strike, including effects that ask for Strike by name, even though using an activity isn't the same as using its subordinate actions and you don't think you ever actually use a strike and just drop in the rules text of strike?

Yes. That is what that sidebar says.

While resolving the subordinate actions treat them as if you used the referenced base action, potentially modified by the activity. While not resolving the subordinate actions only the activity exists.

That's why a subordinate strike gets everything a regular strike gets, but when not resolving it the only thing that you can refer to is the activity, so next/previous action and the like won't see the subordinate actions.

And there has been no instruction to the effect of "X hides contained Ys"

'As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.'

Except I believe this means exactly that. And yes, that it applies equally to 'previous action'. I honestly see no other way to parse this.

Under your interpretation an activity that includes a Strike would count, and that is the opposite of what is written.

If an activity is not its subordinate actions, then it gains none of the traits or other properties of its subordinate actions, no?

Seems like quite the slippery slope as that logical process and line of reasoning would completely break the game when taken to its logical conclusion.

Ergo, it must be the case that Swipe can be used prior to Drink From My Foes.

Well, no, Subordinate actions keep their effects and traits, that is also very specifically covered in their rules, so let's quote everything this time:

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

The subordinate actions themselves still do everything they normally do, unless modified or constrained by the activity, but the activity itself is not the same as the subordinate actions.

Swipe may use a Strike subordinate action, which functions for all intents and purposes like a Strike, except where Swipe modifies it, but it does not count as a Strike for anything that is looking for you taking the Strike action, like Haste quickened actions or previous/next action stuff because that just finds the activity as a whole.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

This makes it clear, at least to me, that whatever you do is the activity, not the subordinate actions. Your current, previous or next action can never be a subordinate action. Yes, the specific example used is next action, but they clearly call it out as just an example so I see no reason whatsoever why this rule would not apply to previous action as well?

The issue is that "the sub-steps of a Strike" are plenty observable, but the "flavor verbiage" a player would need is undefined, because that's definitionally outside game mechanic language.

This is were the disagreement is. I personally do not think they are observable to the extent that they can be used as a trigger for Ready.

'When I am being attacked' or every variation thereof still states that you are being attacked. The (N)PC may certainly WANT to leap away or whatever other action they readied before the blow connects, but why would that be guaranteed?

For this to work you really need to lock in on a specific step of the attack resolution, namely after declaring the attack, but before the rest of the resolution. However the trigger is described in natural language does not matter when what it unambiguously must describe is a sub-step of strike resolution. It does not get more mechanical than that and Ready disallows that. Disallows does not mean 'dress up in pretty natural language, but can not be anything else than this particular game mechanics widget'.

I don't agree with this. The target moves to a square adjacent to you indicates they stopped. It doesn't say moves through or moves by. It says moves to a square adjacent to you meaning they halted their movement in a square adjacent to you. Doesn't really matter if they're trying to pursue you or anyone else. They moved to the square and are done.

Otherwise you would write something like, "The target moves to or through a square adjacent to you."

Well, Zephyr's move is specifically someone entering a space within 5 feet of you, not ending their move there. You could for instance use it to get out of the way of an opponent using the trample ability.

Also, the entirety of the rules about 'stride' is allowing you to move up to your speed. You do not have to commit beforehand what your target square is, let alone declare it to the gm/other players.

Should the situation change while you are doing the action, which it can as every 5 feet can trigger reactions or reveal something that changes the situation, nothing prevents you from changing your mind.

This spell is a bit of a mess.

Stunned 1 with a duration doesn't make sense. Stunned either has a rating which you buy off with actions to make it end or it has a duration. It can't have a duration AND a rating according to the description of the condition.

Frightened also ticks down unless it is called out that it does not, which definitely is not the case because they don't specifically mention frightened 1, 2 or 3 for the duration of the spell. They just give the condition and its rating.

So, it would seem that the frightened and stunned effects are ongoing effects outside the duration entry of the spell.

Which is good, because resentment witch exists.

But anyway, why then assign it a duration in the first place? It should have been an instant spell if there is nothing in the spell effect to apply any duration to and 'duration: 1 round' is likely a mistake or carried over from an earlier draft which did something else.

Well, nobody who is in position to tell will come here and whether the game is designed around the principle that out-of-combat strength comes at the expense of in-combat strength.

It seems pretty dubious though, more than that they failed to implement this as a principle.

Rogue is the obvious pre-eminent example of a class being pretty potent in both areas, and without having to choose. There are plenty of other classes who do well in both, and obviously everyone can get 3 legendary skills and has a dedicated silo of skill feats reserved for this purpose.

Prepared casting in general seems, to me at least, seriously overvalued compared to spontaneous casting. PF1 was littered with silver bullet spells and especially those that could replace skills entirely, but that is simply no longer the case. There is not a lot, almost nothing really, to leverage, even with perfect foreknowledge, and even then you can never guestimate just how many and what level.

Recall Knowledge is in a weird place as well. It requires a bizarrely uneven investment and/or a high level depending on which class you play. For some it's cheap, low level and efficient, for others, like Wizard, not so much.

The real problem with the remaining divine tradition regarding blasting is that during the cantrips and early ranks, especially the first 3 ranks, it's very limited. Since most adventures require you to complete these six levels, it can be somewhat frustrating for a player who wants to focus on blasting to play with the divine tradition. This is especially true for short, four-level adventures, and even for 12-level adventures and PFS, where you'll spend the first half of the game struggling with a lack of good blasts and having to play in different ways (likely debuffing and slamming).

For blasting Divine is definitely a slower starter than primal and arcane.

To be fair though, if you want to play a Divine blaster you'll likely also have a damaging focus spell to fall back on and/or have likely picked a class which gives some non-divine blasting options, which most of them offer.

Divine is certainly not in a bad place for blasting these days. They have some really nasty spells every blaster would be happy to take if they could.

But with all this talk of Arcane being weak, lets be contrary:

If playing a campaign spanning all the levels and you want to focus on blasting, the Arcane tradition has the widest range and will give you a good selection of spells covering all the saves, ranges, aoe, multitarget or single target and with a solid mix of damage types sooner than the other traditions.

Especially with how spontaneous casting and signature spells work that matters a lot. Arcane is in general the best equipped for exploiting vulnerabilities, sidestepping resistances or immunities, targeting the weakest saves and having a good blast for any range or situation.

I was running on the assumption that we weren't counting any setup. I'm happy to be wrong here, but once more, that means that if we're expecting the Sorcerer to set up, it stands to reason that the Animist ought to be afforded the same courtesy. Why then make excuses against it?

Except that same single action to cast a vessel spell or enter a stance is considered a massive action tax on the Animist. How do you reconcile this?

Why are you addressing me with these comments? I just said they require more setup than a regular Sorceror, but not so much that it's crippling or a deal-breaker. I told you how I built my Animist so that they would never be action-taxed doing the things I want them to do.

They would still have to spend a round turning on 2 apparitions though, but I'm not the one saying that is a crazy massive action tax and often this can happen before initiative is rolled. It's still more than Anoint Ally though?

If the "informed decisions" you make are made at character creation, it stands to reason you expect resistances and immunities to be solved at least in substantial part at character creation. This significantly differs from my experience and the experience I know of others, where enemies in any given campaigns are diverse enough that their resistances and immunities can't be solved at just one stage of the game.

Read my post again, please. You may discover that I said I expect to encounter resistances and immunities, as well as situations where any tactic might be less or not effective.

In case I was unclear because I was too busy being sarcastic and snarking I hope this is now clarified.

I informed my players prior to Abomination Vaults not to overcommit to fire or void damage, but if you know the AP, you should know that it's got quite a few different enemies, so it wouldn't really possible to optimize at character creation. Similarly, by its very premise, Gatewalkers is not exactly something you can prepare perfectly for at character creation. You'll have to tell me about your "oops, all oozes" campaign, but the number of adventures I've seen that revolve around a single monster family are... well, to be honest, I don't think I've played any.

As I said, it's a basic practice. You understand how it would not solve everything at character creation? It didn't, right? How this is not 'pick this element, it will not ever be resisted'? How your players could make an informed decision, because you, well, informed them?

So, this is exactly what I said I expect, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, we regularly interject shorter campaigns of about 5-10 sessions as palate cleansers and to let the main gm recharge and play as well. Those can get pretty focused. One was all a about a gnome cocaine wizard and his jelly factory gone wrong. All oozes, cubes and all the whole shebang.

And yet, that setup was included and now you're demanding to have Explosion of Power and Anoint Ally added on top of that, while refusing to allow the Animist to spend equal to fewer actions setting up. Why are you so afraid of letting the Animist set up to even a lesser extent than your Sorcerer?

Not what I actually wrote. If I wanted to make such a comparison I would make it myself and would most certainly not demand anybody else to do it. They included what they wanted to include, and are under no obligation to do anything more.

By all means, go nuts making all the comparisons you want with as much setup as you want. I honestly do not mind seeing a comparisons between any builds, including an Animist sustaining 2 damage spells while they are also in their stance.

I've done that as an Animist. Plenty of times. It's cool. It's fun. It's strong. It's not hard to pull off either as you can do while on your approach. It's definitely not unrealistic. Go for it! Nobody is effing stopping you, and certainly not me. Really don't know where you get that...

... helpfully pointing out that nuking of the mark is only good when facing many opponents ...

Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is in general. Specific situations and scenarios may potentially make going boom a bad idea or even impossible. I know this, you know this, we all know this, no need to point this out.

Okay. Thanks.

And that's also a major aspect in which the Animist shines, as your play experience would have shown: because vessel spells are designed to provide a benefit throughout the entire encounter, the Animist gets to have this baseline of consistent, reusable power, while spells like ancestral memories or elemental toss only give you their benefits once a pop. Whereas slot-dependent classes like the Sorcerer suffer when forced to settle for lower-rank slots or cantrips, the Animist gets to have that much higher floor of power to fall back on. Not only does the Animist benefit immensely from setup (and still performs well without it), their performance in encounters gets to be a lot more consistent than that of other casters thanks to their vessel spells.

Okay. Thanks.

Why would anyone be scared of Animist being a good blaster? It's a relatively strong blaster for sure. However, it really does favor either really long protracted fights and preferably more than one per day to really get mileage out of it's kit.

One thing that doesn't click for me, though, is: if you think no class is unique and everything in Pathfinder just blends into itself, why make a special mention of the Animist? Because according to your spiel here, it's not even that the Animist isn't special in conforming to this framework of yours, it would be effectively impossible for the Animist to be any different. You could have just said "I think all classes are essentially the same and what differences that do exist are erased by archetypes", and that would have been a more accurate reflection of your perspective.

I did not single out the Animist. I just said this in this very thread which happens to be about the Animist. And to be fair, Animist is one of the harder kits to replicate gameplay-wise close enough using other classes and archetypes, but it can be done.

Also:
The gameplay elements classes provide are very restricted however, and not that varied. Most classes are indeed very samey when looking at gameplay loops and outcomes.

Not quite saying the classes are the same.

Oh, so we're also including Anoint Ally, then? That's great, let's add even more setup time to the Sorcerer while denying a much smaller setup to the Animist, that'll definitely make for a fair comparison.

Obviously we include Anoint Ally and lets not pretend you didn't know.

One action per minute is not some huge, complicated set up. Keeping that up all the time should not even require your exploration activity.

That action isn't actually the 'hard' part of Explosion's setup, that would be your anointed ally being in a good enough place. But in such situations you also have plenty of good options you want to use anyway which don't trigger your blood magic if for some reason you need to be conservative with those. It's all very easy to work around and anticipate even in more fluid chaotic encounters.

We can have a discussion about how to best work Explosion and all the different options and potential snags and pitfalls if you want. It's strong and easy to leverage, more so for certain blood lines than others, but it's never weak.

Mostly though: it does not have to be weak for Animists to be a strong blaster. Imho Animist is not in competition with any of the specialists, and that includes the premiere blasting specialist.

No shade on your GM, but it sounds like you play some pretty monotonous campaigns if the distribution of enemies and their resistances and immunities is so homogeneous that you can solve it all at character creation. That certainly hasn't been my experience, and my campaigns have been full of diverse enemies that serve to shake things up rather than just pile on more of the same.

How do you get from I said to to this? And yes, please, no shade on my gm's. Resistances and immunities happen. Well, mostly not Force, but okay.

You wouldn't inform your players if the campaign focuses on, say, an invasion from the Elemental Plane of Fire, or fighting the magitech soldiers of an ancient civilisation, or lotsa oozes?

Sneak attack and Rogue isn't made weak because you will encounter enemies who are immune, sometimes entire encounters. Trip isn't a weak combat maneuver to invest in just because some enemies can't be tripped, sometimes entire encounters. Fire Kineticits, Oracles or Sorcerors aren't weak because... Well, you get the gist, I hope.

All of these character options will work more often than not. Way more often than not. There will also be other reasons why any given tactic or damage type will be harder to leverage or less effective beyond resistances and immunities. That's fine. Explosion of Power is no different, and actually much less build-defining or crippling when it fails.

But, seriously, when the gm is planning a campaign where there will be enough of such encounters to make any of these options a bad idea, then yes, it's common courtesy to give a heads up. That's pretty basic. Why does this need to spelled out?

How on earth does this lead to solving everything at character creation or a homogeneous campaign without diversity or that going all-in, no compromises, on a certain damage type or tactic without a back-up plan should not have the expected consequences?

As already pointed out, though, this is false, they also included a build that required prior setup and even made mention of how this gave the Animist an action economy advantage. In fact, your own Anoint Ally + Explosion of Power combo proves this false, as you too are implicitly demanding more setup to favor the Sorcerer. All I'm pointing out here is the double standard in giving the Sorcerer generous amounts of setup time for these calculations while denying a much smaller setup on the Animist that would carry much greater returns, to say nothing of how they also had several other force multipliers and entire parts of their kit excluded. Even if it is not your explicit intention to counterfeit the comparison, that is what it ends up being in practice when every concession is made for the side you've been favoring long before the comparison was made and no such grace is extended towards the other.

Blasting Sorcerors in general do not require much setup, if any. This particular build did. That's all. For my Sorcerors Fiery Body would be a back-up scroll for cases where I would either not want to touch my slots or start the fight without focus points. But that does not matter because this is what they put in their comparison, and they did not include certain other options from Animist or Sorceror. That's okay, but it does not mean anything more than that.

I like Animists, I really enjoyed playing one. It was fun. I also enjoy Sorcerors and many other characters. They all have things they excel in and their pain points.

I would definitely put Animists in the group of classes who benefit greatly from a pre-combat buff-round, though they are hardly alone, and before hairs get split, everyone can get a benefit from that obviously. It's a matter of degrees. It's not crippling, or a deal-breaker, but it's there.

Stand-off ranged damage dealers and casters by their very nature require less set-up than those who need to close the gap. Certainly not blaster casters like Sorcerors/Oracles/... Round 1, your turn, press your nuke button. Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is in general. Specific situations and scenarios may potentially make going boom a bad idea or even impossible. I know this, you know this, we all know this, no need to point this out.

By all means, feel free to disagree, but it's all rather self-evident and something everyone sees happening all the time in their games.

Hold on, so if all you care about is outcomes, wouldn't this just mean that most classes are the same to you anyway? Forgive me, but this seems like just about the driest, most depressing way to evaluate gameplay that you could suggest me: it's not just that the Animist does generate a combination of outcomes that is unique to them, moving into close ranges and casting from there very much does lead to different outcomes when it changes how you and enemies interact with each other at those ranges. There is no sense in separating the how from the outcome here in my opinion; the two are inextricably linked, and one cannot ignore one or the other without drawing an extremely bland and incomplete picture of any given class.

My powers of abstraction are great indeed.

Every character I build in PF2e is unique, and I have an immense array of customization options. This is true.

The gameplay elements classes provide are very restricted however, and not that varied. Most classes are indeed very samey when looking at gameplay loops and outcomes. Classes themselves, and the way you can combine them and the by now extensive library of dedications you can plug in means we're about as close to a classless system as this edition's implementation can manage without putting of those who dislike that. This is also true, imho, but your YMMV.

PF2e an exception-based system, but with a very dominant base and is very conservative in doling out its exceptions, as well as having immense overlap, shared ways of interacting with the base system and design space between classes. The one that doesn't integrate as fully as the others stands out. Hairsplitting countermeasure: this is relative to other similar exception-based systems, especially its predecessor and close relatives of the d&d family.

There is no contradiction or inherent opposition here, nor is this some scathing condemnation of PF2e. There are good reasons for this approach and worthwhile pay-offs.

There are little to no character concepts that can not be built using different classes/dedications. There are no gameplay loops or desired mechanical outcomes that can not be built using different classes/dedications. This separation is not bland or dull, but enriching. The details of course matter because at the intersection of my character concept and how I implement it and the resulting gameplay is where I can find the uniqueness, and nowhere else.

I'd mention that the apparition spell repertoire (and their associated spell slots) is a massive point of power by itself alongside what you listed, but I think this highlights a different criticism from the current discussion, and a no less valid one: correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like vessel spells are your main draw to the Animist, yet their limitations didn't make them feel as fun to use as you wanted. This is a sentiment I share, that and stuff like the Lore skills being needless complexity and yet more power that isn't put to proper use in the class's abilities.

Although I do think vessel spells are very powerful, and thus more worth using than not, I agree that they can often feel a bit clunky to use, and it can feel especially bad when a spell like embodiment of battle does nothing specific when Sustained, other than have its duration extended. The Liturgist in this respect plays quite an important part in helping bypass that clunkiness, even if independently both represent a significant amount of power and exploit potential for the class. In effect, I do think these are things that make the Animist extremely powerful (and, like a curse-less Oracle, on a class that's already got a lot of raw power elsewhere too), but I also agree with you that in practice, that power doesn't necessarily translate to enjoyment so much as annoyance.

Vessel spells are very much the draw indeed. It's the class' unique selling point to me.

The Apparition spells were fine, I guess?

I mean way back when I played a Halcyon wizard flexible caster. Everything basically being a signature spell which you can change around is nothing new or special to me. Also played 2 sorcerors and I feel confident enough that I can build a repertoire that covers all the bases just fine. There's a point where getting more signature spells starts having serious diminishing returns.

Anyway, about the clunckiness of using the vessel spells, lvl 1-4 were fine. Being a slowed pocket martial is fine. Tossing cantrips or the occasional spell while sustaining Earth's bile is fine. You're not amazing, but really, who is. Lvl 5 you get fireball, but you really start feeling your accuracy lagging. Earth's Bile started becoming more dominant. It mostly was a drag around levels 6-8. The other caster starts getting under steam, everyone has good reactions, the martials are pulling ahead and their builds have their basics covered.

Level 9 is obviously very 'yay'. Stupidly so. Think this is the only class which has to wait so long for something so essential.

We are circling back to a point that's been made ad nauseum, which is that of course spontaneous casting is better in a no-information or "pop-up miniatures battle" style of game. That's totally fine, not every class has to be a good fit to every campaign. It's just something GMs and players need to be aware of when they talk through session 0: witch and wizard, with their INT focus and prepared lists, are a better fit to games where some time in the evening (after 'returning to base') or morning before daily prep can be spent gathering info. If nobody at the table wants to play that sort of game, they probably aren't the best fit. Or to turn it around, if some player takes Witch/Wizard, then that signals to me, the GM, I should think about how to integrate a bit of information gathering into the campaign.

Eh, we do information gathering and generally will know what we're up against. My Resentment Witch will definitely switch some spells around, and it helps, but we hit lvl 10, so we're way past the point where no matter what we encounter the Sorceror will have good options. Might not be perfect, but always good.

Having that info is just the baseline, and it generally won't put you on even footing with the spontaneous casters.

Not having the correct info however and encountering stuff you did not expect, oh boy, that really has the potential to leave you with a bunch of dead slots.

What I am trying to say is that it is more like you will be punished if you don't have info than that you will have the edge compared to spontaneous casters.

Yes, exactly! And that's why the Animist's action compression is so good, because it lets you do exactly that and move at the same time, sometimes even do a third action on that same action too. If we're using the Sixth Pillar, that's two actions as a free action, which is amazing.

It's not just spells you need to Sustain, though, it's spells you want to Sustain, because again, you're spoiled for choice when it comes to spells you could cast at any range otherwise. If you don't want to drain your actions, don't, it's that simple. That you choose to proves that there is enough of a benefit for you to do so, and it is evident that the Animist provides exceptional action economy in this regard.

This is where we get to the core of where we disagree:

There is no spell I want to sustain, only spells I need to sustain. And as I go up in level that action tax needs to go because I'll get progressively more options in my spell slots that are better options to spend my actions on and actually do not need me to be in the frontline.

Those action taxes on my class features, which overwhelmingly want me to be in the frontline, need to disappear because my full caster chassis gets ever more filled out and long-ranged, just like you said. There is a tension there that only grows. You can see it too, but apparently are less bothered by it than me. Which is fine by the way, I'm really not throwing shade, we can have different opinions about what is balanced and what is not.

If my focus spells would still drain my actions at the double digit levels, I would only use them very sparingly and I would be playing a basic caster chassis with barely any class features.

Okay, so I can make them disappear with Liturgist, though to be fair I have to go somewhat too far out of class to make that happen to my satisfaction. A Class fixing it's own imposed action economy penalty as you level up is not amazing to me, it's a basic expectation, and one that Animist could definitely have handled better.

I really can't explain it more clearly than that, I'm sorry.

How, exactly? This is a rather bold claim you're making here; I'm interested in seeing the evidence you have.

Okay, no matter what gish with full caster progression I am playing, could be warpriest, warrior bard or animist, by the time we're solidly in the double digit levels I want to be able to cast those many, juicy spells, but also do my gish thing, but also will probably need to move as well.

You will need to go to dedications to fix this and invest feats, no class really offers good tools for this but there are a number of ways to go about this.

Anyway, for my Animist from lvl 12+ the main 2 were maneuvering spell from sixth pillar and skirmish strike.

(for levels 9+10-12 there was elf step and tumbling opportunist, but those were trained away at lvl 12, though tumbling opportunist came back at level 14, though that was more a nice to have, hardly a need to have).

Anyway, now I could strike, cast a 2 action spell, get a step and a leap, and sustain 2 spells. For warpriest and warrior bard just maneuvering spell will be enough for repositioning in general combat and do their gish thing. Running 2 vessel spells was definitely worth getting skirmish strike for.

Sixth pillar by the way has at least one other pretty essential feat you want anyway if you want to survive on the frontlines at higher levels while casting spells, so pretty good investment which won't lock you out, though that won't really matter at these levels.

But warpriest and warrior bards can't do all that while sustaining 2 spells! Big difference! Imba!

Well, they don't need to sustain vessel spells to begin with. And let's face it, warrior bard's martial performance essentially is sustaining your class thing by action-compressing it into a strike. From level 1. And they can get effortless concentration.

As an aside, also effortless captivation, I guess, if you want to deal with getting that to work post-remaster. Mostly good for the Bard, but I guess it should work for Nymph's Grace and Trickster's Mirrors as well.

They should have one of their attack stats high, if not maxed...more damage is more damage. They can use dex if they want but they can fill their reflex saves with bulwark if they upgrade their armor proficiencies.

Yes, it's definitely an option to go 16 str and dex 10 instead of the other way around and go for heavy armor proficiency.

There are more dex skills however, and if you are playing thaumaturge odds are you are the party's designated skill monkey whose job it is to be good at them.

You may not be, or you may just want to give the dex skills niche to another player, all good reasons to go another way, but for me going dex and forgetting about strength is definitely the path of least resistance when building a Thaumaturge.

I do not agree that the Animist can encroach on some of the key benefits of other classes in a meaningful way, except druid shapeshifting, but that discussion is meaningless.

From my perspective, this registers as taking an immense strength for granted. Had you been any other caster, you would have only been able to take one action to position yourself and your other two actions to cast a spell, nothing more. It was specifically your character's benefits from being a Liturgist that allowed them to essentially perform four actions in one go. The Liturgist's Dancing Invocation in this instance was "necessary" to perform this exceptional feat of action economy only in the same vein as a Fighter's exceptional weapon proficiency was "necessary" to get a higher degree of success on an attack roll than anyone else. In other words, this is a...

Okay, but not really?

What Liturgist's Dancing Invocation actually does is letting you sustain Vessel spells for free if you move in certain ways. It does not give you that movement.

If I were playing another caster that had an equal need to reposition and be in the frontline, like say, a War Priest, without compromising my action economy so I could still cast and strike/trip/whatever in one round I would use the same methods. Because it's the same problem, obviously, and it's a solved problem. I have actually played a War Priest like that, so this is nothing new, special or unique.

This mobility really has nothing to do with the strength of the Animist Class, and I had used no Animist class feat or feature to action-compress away my mobility. Really, every caster who wants to can do this. Every single one.

Obviously, and this is really, really important: not every caster needs to do this. Needing to do this and having to invest to be able to do so isn't exactly a positive or some 'immense strength'. And certainly not every caster has to deal with sustaining. The ones that do, like Witch, get tools to deal with it. Arguably better ways, and much earlier.

To me the real question remains why the other Practices don't get decent tools to deal with sustaining, and why they don't get one from lvl 1.

This discussion reminds me of when Thaumaturge was just out and there were a lot of complaints of how they could 'do it all' and encroach on other character's niche.

As I said earlier, I don't think Liturgist is busted, but that all Practices should get get the old playtest dancer feat for free. As it is now only Liturgist can truly leverage their class features and vessel spells, the rest, not so much.

Might be a hot take for many, but as you get to the double digit levels and gain more spellslots there aren't a lot of vessel spells that are generally worth the action to sustain them if that is all that action provides.

And except Earth's Bile, and strictly in my opinion obviously, certainly not the vessel spells which were the focus of the discussion here. The vessel spells I got the most mileage out besides Earth's Bile, were Nymph's Grace in situations with lots of lower level mooks (which become the more troublesome encounters at high levels), Discomfiting Whispers and potentially Trickster's Mirrors against higher level enemies and River Carving Mountains was downright amazing in encounters were mobility was required.

Every single one of those use-cases was likely to occur in a typical adventuring day. Stuff like having 30 ft reach is nice, and you can certainly go for hovering behind the frontline but, eh, imho not the most impactful play and you can only bring so many Apparitions. There just wasn't space. And certainly not for EoB and Store Time. They don't suck, but at these levels I liked the other options better. YMMV.

For sure, I realize this evaluation is not universal and is heavily biased by the make-up of the party I was in and the type of encounters my gm favored, but Liturgist was downright necessary to be able to position myself and bring those close range vessel spells to bear and still be able to do something else.

And while nice, the vessel spells on their own weren't enough contribution compared to what other characters are capable of in high level play, so the 'doing something else' is pretty vital, and just a strike isn't enough.

TLDR: If you lean into Liturgist Animist can be a decent supporting character as a good 4th PC choice. The other practices are too weak in a party even vaguely optimized imho.

consider the wizard at level 13 can casting group haste and eclipse burst in 3 encounters straight, a sorcerer is making choices with the 3 rank 7 casts they have the wizard is choosing to do both every encounter.

If those 3 R7 hastes in 3 encounters straight are truly needed (and they won't be), the Sorceror can cast them too.

And Eclipse Burst is just damage and the Sorceror can outdamage that with lower level slots? Depending on what type of Sorceror quite easily even.

Yeah, okay, perhaps Eclipse Burst's AOE of 60 ft could make the difference, and Explosion of Power isn't usable at all, and Eclipse Burst + group haste might be the absolute perfect move 3 times in a row. But it might also make it more difficult to use and Chain Lightning might be better, or reflex is the worst save or you meet undead or cold resistance, or a million other possibilities...

In general though, in most of the situations? Even with lower level slots + explosion I will bet on the Sorceror outdps'ing the wizard without even touching their R7 slots because group haste is better 3 times for some reason.

I just realized that Apparition's Quickening is even better than I thought – it can save you two actions instead of just one.

Because you can choose to disperse your primary apparition, which then immediately makes another one of your choice the new primary, it allows you get to skip the Circle of Spirits action tax for getting multiple vessel spells going. So you can Vessel spell + Quickened Spell + 2nd Vessel spell on round 1 – ready for the long game with elf-stepped double Sustains but also still getting a somewhat respectable spell off immediately. That's pretty powerful.

Apparition's Quickening is definitely one of the Animist feats worth picking up, but do not overestimate it by trivializing the cost. Also, the use case in actual play is narrower than you might think, very dependent on both your current situation and how you build your Animist.

If you are are confident this will be the only or final encounter of the day, go nuts. If not, eh, those are vessel spells you are denying yourself access to the rest of the day.

Situations where it's worth doing happen regularly enough to take it, no doubt, but I for one was making use of all of my different vessel spells throughout a regular multiple encounter adventuring day, especially at the higher levels. And by the time I got to the later/final encounters in such a day odds were good those R-2 slots and lower had been used, or at least most of the options which might be a better use of an action than anything else I had available.

i posed that scenario to show sorcerer is not always better than a wizard at all levels and in all situations.

So what spell ranks would you consider ones where what you gain at that rank is game changing? If having double the casts at that rank at the level you gain it isnt a worthy and equalizing class feature then those spells are not actually gamechanging in the first place.
I used rank 3 spells as an example and its a good one. But what about rank 6 for chain lighting, or rank 7 for group haste? With 6 casts at the level the new rank is gained the wizard can reasonably open every encounter every day they want with that new rank gamechanging spell while the sorcerer might hold back and open with lower rank spells in the days first encounters so the 3 top slots can be saved for possible harder fights later. When to use top slots can also be a possibility point for misjudgment and a wizard with 6 of them isnt worried about it.

Look, when we are starting to talk about being to cast rank 7 spells like for group haste the wizard will be behind if we compare to sorceror. I did not pick that lvl 13 cut-off point I mentioned earlier out of the blue. We might try to imagine some contrived scenarios for adventuring days where that might not be the case, but I certainly have not ever seen those actually happen.

That potential Sorceror our Spellblending wizard is competing against will have anoint ally and explosion of power if we want to call them optimized. Let's try to get a bit more concrete:

Their rank 4 spells will be on average 6d6 behind your rank 7 spells if we compare +2d6/rank spells. It's easy to trigger blood magic twice for our optimized sorceror with 1 action focus spells. That's an extra 11d6 damage thrown in the mix, for 3 rounds at least. Granted, at level 13 it's probably just Primals who can trigger twice while going R-3. Arcane Sorcerors will be better of with triggering once, like with Ancestral Memories, but that's still +7d6.

Yes, yes, just on those adjacent to the anointed ally, I know, but in my experience this tactic isn't difficult to set up or use efficiently. It will work out and perform as advertised way, way more often than not.

And that's just the Sorcerors R-3 spells. They'll have 11 slots which will do more. And at this level you can make the gap even bigger if you want to push in that direction.

To be fair spellblender wizards can keep up for a fair bit in my experience and a lot depends on what type of combats you typically run.

Also, the term 'lower level slots' is doing a fair bit of lifting here.

However, by level 13 at the latest the turning point should come around. Just having a couple of top rank slots more just won't compensate for the wide breath of choice spontaneous casters will have and the fact that are just too many lvl 3+ evergreen spells which are worth casting.

Trying to justify your frustration at being disagreed with using a fabricated moral high ground does not make your experience or opinions superior to mine, and so I would avoid this kind of tactic in the future.

I honestly do not care about anyone disagreeing with me, let me assure you. That's not what this is about.

This is about me calling you out for thinking you are being rude, dismissive and abrasive in this thread. Do with this opinion what you want, but lets not pretend it is about anything else.

And since you want citations, sure, let me give you some quotes of yours from the last 2 days to illustrate why I feel this way about you:

My point is very specifically that you have been ignoring the points where the Animist does overlap or exceed the capabilities of other classes, often deliberately, have wilfully ignored the facts and evidence presented throughout this discussion and others, and are projecting your white-room assessments upon people who are speaking from experience.

If you want to play suboptimally and use your spell slots inefficiently, though, that's your prerogative.

I think you may have missed the point.

I don't think this attempt at rebuttal makes a whole lot of sense.

The Animist's single biggest weakness is certain players (or, rather, theorycrafters on the forums) tunnel-visioning on a single course of action when multiple valid (and powerful) options exist.

In the future, I would also please ask that you avoid making statements like "I'm really asking this sincerely" when requesting information with the express purpose of challenging it, rather than sincerely requesting information for its own sake as the statement would normally indicate. Perhaps this is just in the presentation, but this doesn't really register to me as a genuine attempt to understand the Animist better so much as an attempt to find another angle in this argument.

In general, I get the impression that many of the claims here are not really informed by facts, and that this thread's OP wasn't really a genuine attempt discussion so much as a manifesto.

What even is the yardstick you're using as the measure for a balanced full caster gish anyway?

What's becoming apparent is that your standard for "piddly damage" seems to be unreachably high for any kind of full caster gish, including the Warpriest.

so why lie here?

I'm not sure why you're clarifying that you're not taking a position I never accused you of taking in the first place. My point is very specifically that you have been ignoring the points where the Animist does overlap or exceed the capabilities of other classes, often deliberately, have wilfully ignored the facts and evidence presented throughout this discussion and others, and are projecting your white-room assessments upon people who are speaking from experience.

I know you addressed this post to YuriP, but you have been equally dismissive of just about everyone.

Just because people do not agree with you about the Animist's OP'ness does not mean they have been ignoring your supposed facts and evidence and/or have no experience with this class or the game in general.

They haven't. They just disagree, and just about everyone, myself included, gave you their reasons why. No need to be rude.

Myeah...

No, still not seeing it.

Animist does not have martial accuracy. Yeah, it has a relatively easy way to get a status bonus and reactive strike at the cost of slowing itself. At level 9 you can start mitigating this.

Sorry, but this does not put the Animist on an even footing with martials, and definitely not with those good always-on damage boosts. Everybody can get Reactive Strike if they want. And that status bonus.

And since Shining Kingdoms came out a second Reactive Strike at lvl 12.

Yes, yes, costs feats, and you'll get it a few levels later, but without any drawbacks you need to dance around.

Everything Animists can do damage-focused martials can do as well, and Animists will never ever be able to bridge the gap, not even close.

The apparitions are a real mixed bag. I think I'll start with Earth's Bile and Circle into another one when I need it.

I'm plotting out my rounds and the sustain even with movement is costly until level 18.

Animist is real messy. The Exemplar looks like a much cleaner class. Animst needs a rework to make more practices viable and vessel spells not cost costly in actions for any practice other than a Liturgist at level 18. They really need a free vessel spell sustain for all the practices at higher level.

Other casters can drop double phantom orchestras for the same action cost or sustain summons without wrecking themselves.

Summons are the divine list are real nice. The vessel spell interferes with using them.

The vessel spell is real costly. Most not even worth using.

It is worth using when you can action-compress it away, and with liturgist you can mostly do it by level 12, you don't have to wait till 18, but you need to go outside the class.

Maneuvering spell is huge if you want to blast. Spellcasting + Leap + sustain is 4 actions you want to take for 2 actions. You basically turn your Earth's Bile into your always-on dps mechanic, and get the movement to position it well built-in.

Myeah, I truly believe that Paizo and many people on this forum seriously overvalue martial accuracy. That is just 1 part of how martials do damage.

Look, EoB is good, but once you have enough slots for Heroism, and more slots for spells with saves, have gotten your melee reaction and runes come into play for your damage its value diminishes and the cost of that save DC rises.

It's not a trap, and definitely not at lower levels, but you have other options which may be more attractive at higher levels, that's all.

Darkened form is ok and all, but locks you out of spellcasting and weapons have their perks, and can be combined with strike feats.

I’ll also say that more generally, the idea that you can only blast with top-rank slots is a myth largely perpetuated by theorycrafters on internet forums. If you’re fighting low-level enemies, top-rank slots can be overkill, and you will often do better with options that have better action economy or large areas of effect, both of which the Animist happens to have in spades. For any given situation, the Animist generally has at least one option available, which is one of the reasons they’re strong in ways that aren’t necessarily immediately noticeable on paper. I wouldn’t try to do use all of those options at once, as you’ll be stretched too thin and will be unlikely to have all the actions you’d need to do everything you’d want, but it is very easy to switch to essentially a different class even in the middle of combat.

I agree with this in principle, but that will only give you a passing grade as a blaster.

What makes the 4 slot spontaneous casters great blasters is that, beyond more juice in the tank, they will often have just the right blaster spell, and lets face it, also have access to additional 1 action damage, and probably with a greater range than 30 feet. Also, Divine is okay now, but Primal and Arcane are still better for blasting. Add extra damage features such as blood magic and the like, and you become best in class.

And Psychic really needs a Remaster. Sorceror really ate its lunch.

I’ll also say that the investment is, by and large, fairly generic. Many Animist feats are fairly situational or mediocre, which makes the really strong ones stand out all the more, and several of those feats have the wandering trait, meaning you can retrain them daily. This I think is what contributes to the Animist not feeling all that thrilling to play, because nothing you choose about your character ever really lasts. Even your attributes become a solved game, because most apparitions that depend on a particular attribute rely on Strength, and the one apparition that scales off of Int doesn’t require it terribly much either. I’m personally quite a fan of the FOMO that happens when having to choose between equally interesting competing options, and that’s just not something I ever really got with the Animist.

I do truly enjoy having a class which is a good generalist hybrid, but Animist class feats and the imbalance between the Practices are really the weak point of the class.

There is definitely room for feats which lock in certain Apparitions permanently for those who'd like a more personal and deeper connection to a particular spirit. I definitely would have preferred that as a way to create sublasses instead of the Practices if I were to go full homebrew rebuild.

Instead of nerfing, I would actually give the old playtest dancer feat, for free, to all Animists at lvl 1 and let Liturgist keep their lvl 9 feature as an upgrade to this. The better version really doesn't break anything at lvl 9 and is definitely more fun to play (which REALLY should not be level-gated), and makes the other practices just as viable.

But I have opinions about what I consider other unfun action taxes like Hunter's Mark and Recharge Spellstrike as well, so YMMV and all.

I'm going to play this thing. I know how to optimize. I'll see what this animist class looks like built in an optimal fashion surrounded by optimally built classes. Then I'll see what I think of its power level.

I also strongly suggest trying to play it as well. It's one of those classes you really need to experience in actual play to fully understand its limitations, constraints and strengths.

I haven't seen what Teridax has seen at my table. You honestly can not outperform the specialists in my opinion. I'm guessing this is more system mastery related.

Some observations from actual play, low to high level:

- Embodiment of Battle will see less and less use as you level up, but it's certainly nice at the lower levels. You can eventually pick up the good reactions and that status bonus elsewhere without nerfing your spellcasting, which will obviously increase in importance as you level up.

- Feel free to try, but actually I advice against trying to specialize too much, like going all in on spellcasting or heavens forbid, striking.

I personally never could get their meta-magic feats and channeler's stance to work decently. The action economy simply isn't there and Earth Bile's range is 30 feet, so you need to be close to the action to use that optimally. Or any of the good vessel spells really.

For consideration, here is a generalist I played from low to high level (FA game, Liturgist):

- Only took 3 Animist feats: Embodiment of the Balance, Apparition's Enhancement and Apparition's Quickening. There is room to take more Animist feats lvl 14+, but, eh, I felt I could do more with dedication feats.

- Now, I went with reach melee (guisarme) and heavy armor, but you have many options. The key features I wanted to hit were maneuvering spell from Sixth Pillar and action compress a strike with a sustain.

I went with Champion and Ranger picking up Champion's Reaction and Skirmish Strike as they fit the character the best, but like I said, many options (which even come online earlier actually, e.g. Clawdancer, or go skirmish/ranged with Crossbow Infiltrator).

By level 12 whatever you do, you'll be sustaining at least once for free. Your standard, balanced round will be a strike and casting a spell, which will also give you a step, a leap and 2 sustains if need be.

Being able to weave into and out of combat, strike or trip and cast a spell while running 1 or 2 vessel spells was neat and unique. You won't outperform any of the specialists, but can provide whatever is needed in your basic set-up, whether it is healing, blasting, off tanking or tripping and at a reasonable, good-enough competence level.

It wasn't OP or broke anything, needs a tanky melee buddy to support, but will outperform most other generalists. Warpriest is fine, I think, can do mostly the same and imho has the better feats, but I certainly wouldn't play it alongside the classic Tempest/Shapeshift Druid.

While I think that the Animist, and particularly the Liturgist, is one of the stronger classes, I don't agree that it is OP.

It won't outblast classes like Sorceror, it won't outheal a Cleric, it doesn't offer better support than a Bard, and it sure won't outdps or be a better tank than the martial classes dedicated to those.

What they can do, however, is to be build to be very, very decent in whatever they want to do. And not even on a day to day basis, but as a baseline.

It is, hands down, the best generalist, and will outperform other classes aiming for that niche. Mostly the Druid's lunch is in danger of being eaten to be honest.

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?