Balkoth's page

Upon talking to one of the other players more, the biggest sticking point seems to be the idea that 4 enemies arranged horizontally can block movement through but those 4 enemies arranged diagonally cannot.

This means rather than moving 5 feet to the southeast either as a Step or Stride, they're arguing you need to tumble through the square of either the enemy to the east or to the south (and provoking reactions from entering/leaving those squares) and then continuing to the southeast corner, costing 10 feet of movement (two squares) plus another 5 feet of movement for the difficult terrain of tumbling through for a total of 15 feet.

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements. Provided there's no actual space in the first case and allowing (of course) tumble through in the second.

Which creature(s) is/are getting tumbled through?

Also, if there's an enemy fighter with a non-reach weapon to the bottom left (SW) of C1 or upper right (NE) of C2, which (or both) gets an AoO?

1, This is an incomplete question. Are those wall segments connected or do they form two sides of a corridor/choke point?

Assume both grid squares are 100% made of stone or iron or something.

3 & 4, I think easier to handle, there's nothing stating that you can't move around/between creatures like that, I would not require a Tumble Through check to get from S to F in either case and allow direct diagonal movement.

But is there something stating you can?

In PF1 we had this:

"When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.

You can’t move diagonally past a corner (even by taking a 5-foot step). You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.

You can also move diagonally past other impassable obstacles, such as pits."

That said try to avoid to go to far from the expected RAW rules to prevent unexpected frustrations to your players and try to be transparent about these situations with antecedence if possible.

That's my concern here, I've never run it that way or seen it run that way but now a DM is claiming that and I've realized the rule might in fact not be crystal clear. But it's going to be weird for me to try to remember this DM is handling movement differently.

For the longest time, I've run PF2 like it was PF1 movement rules where you couldn't move diagonally if a corner was in the way but could move diagonally when creatures were involved.

Now someone has me questioning this and I'm struggling to find clear rules. So, let's reference this diagram where a PC (or NPC) is trying to move from S(tart) to F(inish).

1, can the PC move diagonally between W1 and W2? I think everyone agrees the answer is no.

2, if W2 is removed, can the PC move diagonally from S to F or do they need to go through the W2 square?

3, can the PC move diagonally between C1 and C2? Or is it blocked/would it require a tumble through check?

4, if C2 is removed, can the PC move diagonally from S to F or do they need to go through the C2 square (or tumble through the C1 square)?

I am looking for actual rules references if possible to settle this disagreement.

Now if they're trying to hear someone specifically that is 100' away and there's seven other things in combat between them? I'll impose Circumstance penalties on the check because they're trying to hear something specific over a lot of noise and that's more difficult than "there's a large creature thudding around nearby."

In this case it was more like "A PC (enemy) is in melee with two NPCs (allies) about 100 feet away."

I didn't think the NPC could reasonably make a hearing check to be firing arrows into the right square under those circumstances :)

I basically had the blinded NPC caster start stacking some buffs on himself and the combat wound up ending (NPCs surrendering) a few rounds later as the buffs were finishing, amusingly.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=59

If you're a melee attacker, then you could hobble at half speed to the sound of combat and attack in a square if you think an enemy is there with a 50% miss chance (plus you're off-guard).

A ranged attacker trying to shoot from a distance seems unlikely to be reasonable.

A spellcaster targeting any spells from a distance seems unlikely to be reasonable.

Do they basically need to switch to melee weapons and hobble to the fight to do anything other than just stand around?

Do they need to try to fire arrows or cast spells essentially point blank range so they're confident about targeting?

Anyone had experience dealing with this sort of thing?

Well M2 could spend two actions on repositioning, so given points 1 and 2, yes.

The issue was that the Boss would be occupying a minion square after the first reposition and thus that wouldn't be a valid Reposition, I think the GM was referencing this rule:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2560

First of all, I want to be clear I am asking for what the rules say, hence why this is in the rules section. However, I'm aware there might be some grey area here where this is no clear RAW.

https://imgur.com/a/SLREHUY has two diagrams (before and after minion 2 (M2) acted).

I was Player 1 (P1) in this scenario and we had an enemy caster boss (B) who was at the front of his group of minions. I had rushed in (so had P2) to try to catch him while he was out of position in the front. I also had a reach weapon and Reactive Strike.

The DM then said four things when it was M2's turn:

1, since M2 was an ally of B, M2 didn't need to roll a check to reposition B
2, since no check was needed, M2 got the critical result of reposition
3, M2 could chain two repositions together to move B 20 feet south
4, since M2 was moving B, B did not provoke a Reactive Strike from me

Is that all correct?

All of the minions are large creatures, so is the boss.

Mobility seems to say you can move at half your speed (so presumably at least 15 feet in essentially every circumstance as an elf, likely 20+ at mid to high levels) without triggering any reactions.

Elf Step lets you Step twice as one action, which has a maximum distance of 15 feet if they're both diagonal.

Is there ever a circumstance in which Elf Step would be worth using over Mobility?

Obviously any elf (or half elf etc) can take Elf Step while Mobility requires a class or multiclass feat instead of an ancestry feat, so Elf Step is often "cheaper" in that regard.

That is very interesting. Thanks!

However, you could switch it up in the campaign by switching which armor you wear. You would have to pay to swap out runes, but that's not too bad.

Yeah, I was musing on that. I'd need a few days to swap out the runes and pay 10% of the cost, but otherwise I could switch armors fairly easily.

Melee focused with a halberd. Main stat is still strength.

We're using a VTT (Fantasy Grounds) so asking the GM shouldn't be such an issue. But I agree with your general point, Claxon.

And I have no idea on the enemies/attacks. I'm joining a campaign at level 11 (I'm currently also GMing a campaign that's at level 16 so I'm familiar with PF2, fear not) so there's a lot of unknowns.

I'm planning on making a fighter with high dex (to still be reasonable at ranged combat and acrobatics checks among other things) which means Full Plate isn't that helpful.

So I'm looking at Splint Mail or Half Plate.

They seem effectively identical (except for a minor cost difference) except for the armor specialization.

Splint Mail would resist 3-5 piercing damage.

Half Plate would resist 3-5 slashing damage.

I'm tempted to go with Splint Mail for resisting things like arrows and bite attacks (especially from dragons or devils/demons) but I'm really not sure. On the flip side, anything using a claw attack, Greatsword, or Greataxe (among other things, obviously) will be doing slashing.

What do people think on this issue?

Technically what I was concerned with was Slumber Wine and whether counteracting it would let the person immediately wake up or just when the current stage of poison wore off (so potentially a day or three).

Say someone is afflicted by a sleeping poison that knocks them out for a minute each stage.

Then someone else uses a spell to counteract the poison (like a 3rd rank or higher Cleanse Affliction) halfway through a stage.

1, it sounds like the poison is just gone if everything goes correctly with the counteract (like say it's a rank 5 poison vs a rank 4 spell and the counteract check is a success), no more rolls or anything

2, do effects of the poison (like the sleep) also immediately go away? In other words, would the person immediately wake up or simply wake up when the current stage wears off since the poison is gone and there's no more saves to make?

its AC is horrible

19 AC seems pretty good for its level? Look at the Legacy version.

Are you absolutely sure you needed to kill the drake before level 2, Or did you seek it out before being fully prepared? Because as hinted by Tarlane, The drake isnt found at the first floor unless you seek it out.

We discussed whether we should try to fight the drake now or see if we could hit level 2 first.

The DM said hitting level 2 for milestones involved clearing the entire first floor.

You don't want milestone leveling to be too rigid or it can be punishing for the party. You can't really expect a party to find absolutely every secret or do every fight.

I think it's basically "When the players and DM feel the party is basically done with the current floor and are ready to descend, gain a level."

So missing out a few secrets isn't going to punish us. But we can't simply skip an encounter and come back after we've done one or more lower levels.

I think.

And I dont think that either encounter mentioned are neccesarily overtuned but both absolutely are severe-threat and Extreme-threat bosses against level 1 party.

I mean, by definition that means they're overtuned :)

The drake is considered a moderate encounter (+2) at level 3.

If it's severe or extreme threat it should be level 4 or 5.

I am not sure if you had any measure of defence against reactions, Forbidding Ward, Protection, Raise shield and so on.

That all sounds like stuff the warpriest would have access to and no one else.

Did you clear the top floor? Should maybe level two by the time you fight the drake.

We're on the entry floor with the Mitflits and scorpion. We have not gone down a level. We found this stuff on the western side of the ruins, close to the kobold haunt.

Those were all rough fights, swash felt terrible for many fights. I didn't enjoy the adventure as I felt very ineffective tickling with a d4 weapon and missing a lot.

Yeah, the Swashbuckler is hitting for 1d6+4 but only a buckler...feels a rogue would be hitting as hard with sneak attack bonus and a fighter would be hitting either way harder or at least slightly harder with a better shield.

Is Swashbuckler just not good?

Your group doesn't look like they have much reliable damage, rogue and swash aren't great for damage especially in AV.

Yes, I originally suggested I play a 2H fighter with a halberd or greatsword to act as a fulcrum but they wanted an arcane caster.

When we ran AV, my players similarly identified what was nesting down there and decided they weren't yet prepared for that fight.

There was no "down there?" We were told the milestone leveling indicated we basically needed to clear the whole first floor including the drake to hit level 2.

Again, I think if we had to stuck our initial plan we could have prevailed, but it was way harder than the scorpion or things like the two Giant Flies.

A tale of water and stone, or how we got destroyed by

First of all, I like the DM and I think he's doing his best. I don't think he's trying to screw over the party or anything weird/malicious and he has seemed very reasonable overall so far in the campaign. I think two things can be true at the same time:

1, our party did not handle the encounter properly

2, the enemy in question seems very overtuned for its level

Our intrepid group, which nearly had someone die the second session due to

Here begins my tale (and I will do my best to recount things factually without editorializing)...

Thus ends my tale.

The Tap into Blood feat has a unique way of using one skill instead of another skill, so any comparisons of Tap into Blood to other replacements without acknowledging that merely signal the fact that they haven't grasped what is actually written.

How is using Arcana to make a recall knowledge check on Zombie Lore different from using Gossip Lore to make a recall knowledge check on Zombie Lore?

Personally, I make a huge difference between reading rules & how I feel about those rules. Many others do not; they let their emotions dictate what they read, not the text right in front of them.

The Pathfinder 2 rulebook literally says

"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is."

Even though it is not relevant for you here: The Armor Proficiency feat was remastered to grant Expert at lvl 13.

Oh excellent, that would solve the entire problem! Not that it's likely to be relevant here. Thanks!

Did you carry a shield? Was it helpfull to have one?

No, though I was using the shield cantrip. In theory I could carry a shield as well, though, yes.

I am not certain that Bulwark applies against a Basic Reflex Save (and it certainly won't help you when you want to Grab an Edge). Frex: how does Bulwark help you save against a Grease spell?

It'd help as much against a Grease spell exactly as much as it helps a Champion or Fighter with 0 dex modifier :)

Bulwark applies only against damaging reflex effects, though at level 10 it would apply to literally everything and be +4.

That person voices its general issues with Lore skills, not on the applicability of using Arcana instead of a Lore skill.

He literally said

"Using arcana to recall knowledge about a zombie is never using an applicable lore skill to RK on a zombie."

As this thread shows most people are convinced that this is how the rule works, even if they personally would run it differently.

I got the opposite impression from that thread, especially things like this post:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4vf0v&page=2?Problems-with-Tap-Into-Blood# 67

So what? Rebuilding a character from scratch, because it doesn't work with your group's demands, is perfectly fine. If they force you to play a character you're no longer comfortable with, then you have some serious problems to address at your table.

If he dies, he dies, and I'll make something else. But for now I'm working with what I've got and trying to figure out ways to survive.

In particular, I wouldn't wait until level 7-8 to get your armor class right. You're going to have a bad time until then.

I agree. I think I'm going to pick up Sentinel at level 2 (free archetype) and Heavy Armor Proficiency at level 3. The campaign will end at level 12 so lacking Expert at level 13+ isn't a huge deal. I can use Fleet and Tailwind to make up for the speed penalties. I'll have Bulwark for Reflex saves and can improve that to +4 with the level 10 Sentinel thing.

Work with the party so that they use tactics that make the enemy go after them instead of you. Stay back. Have them get between you and the opponents. Ensure you have some 60' range attacks not just 30'. (Have someone) throw down difficult terrain when they can. Etc.

If your group runs more towards dungeon crawl run-and-gun or you're playing an AP like that, then you are probably better off going with what many other posters have suggested: a build that does the OOC stuff tolerably well but not excellent, but doesn't sacrifice AC or HP.

I'm definitely planning on avoiding attracting as much attention as possibly, using things like Invisibility too.

It is Abomination Vaults which sounds like a fairly big dungeon crawl but the DM claimed investigation and diplomacy would both be important.

You can get by without a lot of hp (False Life lasts 8 hours, 12gp on a scroll). You can't get by without AC in AV.

That sounds like a fascinating idea I will definitely be looking into.

You say that you have played the character as a sorcerer once already. I would like to hear your report on that.

It was one session where we fought some small creatures throwing darts and then an animal and dealt with environmental stuff. Several people learning the VTT for the first time so slower going. Ended with going into another combat. Being vague to avoid any (minor) spoilers. So not much to go on yet.

Basically, by utilizing Arcana instead of a specific Lore skill, you drop the DC of whatever you Recall Knowledge on by 5. The Zombies might have needed a Religion DC 20, but with Arcana (Zombie Lore) it's just DC 15. This is equivalent to a +5 bonus to the Arcana skill for Recall Knowledge. You're still limited by triggering bloodmagic first, so you'll want to have enough focus points to use the skill.

I'm not convinced (nor does it seem most people are convinced) that situations like this allow you to use the lower Lore check. But I could absolutely use Arcana instead of Religion/Society/Nature/Occult.

If you use that, then there's no need to raise your Intelligence sky high, a +1 or +2 should suffice - a Sprite or Gnome would be a good ancestry here.

Wouldn't the opposite be true -- focus everything on Int because you're using it to recall knowledge on everything? If anything it could let me drop Wis in favor of more Dex or Con.

Also race is set as human already, but he is Imperial bloodline.

I've already played a session as the sorcerer at this point so I'm hesitant to switch classes.

Spells like Mystic Armor can be helpful starting out, but unless you pick up Armor Proficiency (from Rogue or Sentinel, or the general feat), you will most almost always be behind except for maybe at max level.

I've been trying to look into some armor proficiency stuff with the assumption that I could make up for the movement penalty with Tailwind and suffer the penalty to athletics/acrobatics/stealth.

Sentinel multiclass gives me light and medium, but full plate is looking tempting with Bulwark. So then the question becomes getting light and medium before taking Sentinel. I could take Armor Proficiency twice but that would be level 3 and 7 I believe, so nothing for level 1/2, light armor from 3-6, medium armor at 7, and heavy armor at 8.

I can't take the Champion archetype due to lack of strength.

I could just take Sentinel at 2 and wear medium armor the whole campaign. This is -2 AC (due to lack of Dex unless I assign one boost to it) and no Bulwark.

I could take Sentinel at 2, Heavy Armor Proficiency at 3, and wear Full Plate the rest of the campaign since it'll probably end at level 12 (Abomination Vaults) so not having Expert at level 13+ probably won't matter.

Any other ideas or things I'm missing?

Ah. So you aren't supposed to tell them things about how to play or what actions to take, but they can require you to play an arcane caster.

Let me clear: the DM and a player know each other, but the other three people (including the warpriest) are all strangers to everyone.

Only the warpriest's player had that weird reaction.

And the DM did not require it, I said "wanted" above for a reason. I said I'd fill the last slot with whatever the party needed.

It may also be that the words of the Warpriest player are not directed at the Sorcerer player directly.

It was definitely directed at me after I made the post below. But again, he's the only one who had the weird reaction (and the GM thought it was a weird reaction too)...but he's also the only other caster or character with good mental stats, basically.

"So it sounds like the party will be...

Warpriest (cleric with melee capability)
Swashbuckler (flashy nimble melee combatant dancing around)
Gladiator Rogue (flashy nimble melee combatant dancing around)

Based on this I see four things I think would work well, split into two different roles...

Melee Anchor

Although we already have three melee, none seem really suited for being able to just stand there and go toe to toe with enemies and some will want to dart in and out of melee. So here are two options:

1, Fighter with either a Greatsword or Halberd (haven't decided yet). Offense focused with the ability to do things like make enemies off-guard (for the rogue sneak attacking), frightened, and/or prone. Basically just turn the group into a melee blender.

2, Champion with Longsword and Shield. Defensive focused with the ability to tank/block hits and punish enemies who attack someone else (Champion's reaction). Basically more focused on drawing aggro from enemies and protecting the more fragile members, but less damage and lacking the debuffs of the Fighter.

Ranged Support

We could also say we have a lot of melee power but only one caster who is already giving up some casting power for melee capability. Therefore someone to support the melee might be nice. Here are two more options:

3, Bard, occult caster focused on buffing the melee and using support magic (things like Heightened Invisibility and the like).

4, Sorcerer/Wizard, arcane caster focused on blasting and debuffing enemies (with some buffs as available, but arcane has less than Divine or Occult, for example).

I had originally been considering a Divine Sorcerer (which would let us double up on healing for emergencies) but I don't know if we want two Divine casters specifically.

--------------------------------------

Right now I'm leaning towards the Fighter but I'm open to any of the above, I would welcome feedback."

That's the post that triggered the warpriest's response.

If your GM is willing to run with Free Archetype, you'll be in a lot less pain; double that if they're also willing to consider gradual ASI.

It is both free archetype and he's stated he wants to use gradual ability score improvements.

Depending on why you wanted to play the sorcerer in the first place

The DM wanted me to be either a wizard or arcane caster given the rest of the party:

"I'd like to see a wizard/sorcerer in the party, since we don't have any arcane characters yet. That could balance out things in composition and provide some more tools for investigating some of the mysteries of the adventure"

Sacrifice a lot of those int boosts and pick up Additional Lore feats for the things you're supposed to be knowledgeable about, and don't be shy about retraining if necessary.

I was planning on taking additional lore, yeah.

Why are you being relied upon to fill all of those roles? What is the rest of your adventuring party comprised of? And why can they not make some adjustments to take on some of this burden as well?

It's a random new group with random new people, not people I already know.

Group is a swashbuckler, a rogue, a warpriest, and me.

When I mentioned a few potential character concepts that *I* could play for the fourth slot the warpriest went on this mini-rant:

"[You seem] to me to be approaching play in a cold and methodical way, kinda like a WOW raid. Everyone is entitled to play in the manner that they choose but that's not the way I play this game. If I have to spend all my time trying to play only the most optimized actions, or God forbid be told which actions to take, then that sucks all the fun of the game for me. I mean no disrespect by this. I just don't play that way. It's not FUN. I don't play to 'WIN.'"

Ideally the warpriest could cover Religion and Nature, for example, with high wisdom but given his...interesting...response above I'm hesitant to say anything quite yet until we see how things are going in actual play. So I'm trying to cover everything in that regard...just in case.

Let them handle the physical, I'll handle the mental.

I'm basically being relied on to be the party face and the party knowledge bot.

Combat optimally, I'd start with 10 str/14 dex/14 con/10 int/12 wis/18 cha I believe.

But in this case I'm planning on starting with 10 str/10 dex/12 con/14 int/14 wis/18 cha.

Boosts are another problem. Normally at level 10 I'd have something like 10 str/18 dex/18 con/10 wis/16 wis/20 cha. But in this case it'd be 10 str/10 dex/16 con/18 int/18 wis/20 cha.

So now I'm 4 AC behind optimal and still a con modifier as well.

And obviously if I bump up dex instead I'm left with lower HP.

The campaign will end in the early teens I believe so there's no "catching up" later on by leaving int and wis at 18 and bumping dex and con more at that point.

Obviously you have things like staying back and general basic caster tactics, but any other thoughts on trying to survive in this scenario?

Got it, thanks!

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5173

I've been running this as the rogue in the party can just always make a stealth check in the middle of an empty room and try to Sneak -- if he succeeds he isn't noticed, if he fails everyone still sees him.

But the failure condition of Sneak isn't being fully spotted, it's being hidden. Which made me re-examine the rules.

I *think* it's supposed to be the rogue can try to Hide at any point. If he succeeds he's now hidden, if he fails everyone still sees him.

THEN he has to Sneak and make another stealth check. If he succeeds he's undetected. If he fails he's hidden. If he critically fails he's observed.

Is that all correct?

Thanks!

"This ranged weapon is less effective at close distances. Your attacks against targets that are at a distance within the range listed take a –2 penalty."

So if something has Volley 30 then...

1. if you're 25 feet away then you get the -2 penalty
2. if you're 35 feet away then you do NOT get the -2 penalty
3. what about 30 feet exactly?

I'm thinking it does get the penalty because otherwise volley 5 wouldn't mean anything, but I wanted to double check.

This thread had drifted way off topic long before you posted, so I certainly don't mind.

I'm the original poster and I've gotten all the info I needed for the original topic, so I also don't mind :)

In PF1E, I’m pretty sure a Ftr 20 or a Wiz 20 are each a CR 19 enemy unless given PC level gear.

I was assuming PC gear, yes, basically like a party going against a fully equipped end of campaign villain.

But as you also said, even if you assume low budget for gear they're still each considered CR19.

The main point here is the designers told us the CRs were equal given equal budgets for gear :)

Ideally a Champion would be a holy striker with little or no reactions focused on crushing the enemies of their faith. The Fighter would be more versatile, able to batter any enemy better than the Champion, except the few the champion shines against.

So basically you want a Fighter that has bonuses vs undead/fiends but weaker stats vs everything else compared to a default Fighter?

But I think your assertion is that PF1E's diegetics are that they're equal, and the gameplay is they're not, right?

I've never gotten that impression from PF1E.

The rulebook literally tells you that a level 20 fighter and a level 20 wizard are both CR20 enemies.

Telling me to build a fighter does not let me build a wrath of god champion.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "wrath of god."

You can easily build a Champion with equal accuracy to everyone but a fighter, who uses a big 2H weapon for massive damage, smacks any enemy who dares attack weaker allies, smites enemies (especially unholy enemies) for bonus damage, takes Reactive Strikes when given the chance, has Blessed Counterstrike, etc.

The Divine Evolution feat gives you another max rank Heal (or Harm) per day, which is very good.

Yes, that especially is exactly what I was looking for, thank you!

You might want to pick up a better bloodmagic effect to make good use of Diabolic Edict, like Propelling Sorcery at level 2, which turns this into a 1-action spell to free allies (or yourself) from grapples or have them Step around reactive-strike opponents when in a bind. Don't sleep on the power of this free spell!

Also good stuff.

While you don't have healing hands, Sorcerer have by default Sorcerous Potency, that gives +1 status bonus per spell rank to healing, that basically your dice d10 on average.

That does significantly help.

Blessed one archetype might be interesting for you, it gives you another focus spell, a healing one, as well the access to mercy feats for condition removal. Character wise you might be blessed by Asmodeus if you wish.

"However, any deity can grant such a blessing, as long as they're capable of granting a healing divine font to their clerics."

So that's out, unfortunately.

Thanks for the advice, Finoan.

Interesting, I can't play Skyrim without turning into a stealth archer.

Start as a mage, by the end I'm a stealth archer.
Start as a 2 handed weapon user, stealth archer.

Doesn't matter what I do. I end up a stealth archer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQLJ6Yp_C0

I mean, that is, for me, an absolute reason why I now think 2E is superior to 1E. I've been GM'ing 3.5/1E for about 20 years at this point and have reached the end of my rope dealing with overbuffed parties and players still discovering hidden buffs which stack in some dark corner of the 1E splatbooks even now.

Even without allowing splatbooks I had a level 12 party where a monk did 700 damage to a single target in one round, a vivisectionist who had 3 attacks at full AB and 6 more at -2 AB (all with Sneak Attack), and an Inquisitor who had 38 AB (for comparison, CR 12 creatures were "expected" to have 27 AC).

I believe that was just Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, and Advanced Class Guide.

And trying to adapt to that group caused a TPK for another campaign who weren't doing things like pre-buffing (minutes per level buffs or longer, just to be clear) even when warned about incoming threats.

Now a better group may get through the content more easily but one group isn't six times as strong as the other or something.

Obviously this is not the optimal way to heal, something like a cleric with Healing Hands and Divine Font for Heal would be much better.

But this character would probably be a follower of Asmodeus.

I originally considered a cleric but with the unholy sanctification I'd only get a Harm font. Cast Down seems to be the main helpful rider, but 1d8 damage per spell level for a single target Fort save doesn't seem great. Maybe the goal is using Selective Channel with Cast Down? But that also doesn't come online until level 6.

However, a Diabolic Bloodline Sorcerer would still be capable of casting a bunch of Heal spells per day while also being able to flex into debuffs/buffs/blasting. Weirdly, this doesn't seem to offer sanctification, which really isn't a huge deal since if you're fighting "neutral" or unholy enemies then being unholy yourself doesn't really seem to help.

I considered trying to take a cleric dedication and then Healing Hands but realized that requires a healing Divine Font so that's a bust.

It basically looks like I'd get 3 (odd levels) or 4 (even levels) of max rank spells per day plus obviously some focus spells. Do Sorcerers have anything like Drain Bonded Item for Wizard to restore some spell slots?

PF1 was never intended to be the cakewalk that optimized players turned it into. What you see in PF2 is a system that you (as a player) pretty much can't do that at all, but the GM can adjust if that's the story they want to tell.

Yeah, in PF1 I was literally rebuilding the monster creation table in order to challenge players at the proper level (and just using higher level monsters for very optimized groups created problems with abilities that got bonus effects for lower level characters).

PF2 has made designing stuff far easier, and I can run a level of difficulty appropriate to the group I'm DMing for.

It's probably better to think of grapple as you got your hand on their should, or grabbed their wrist, or something similar.

He gets that. I think he just expected to be able to try to do something more without necessarily restraining/pinning the person. Like spending all 3 actions to increase the spell failure chance or increase the AC penalty or something.

Although, an enemy that is +2 levels above the party is usually a pretty big threat all by themselves (though I recognize that this is an unusual case).

Not when you hit for 1d8 damage with 8 AB, not exactly a big threat :)

+7 modifier vs DC 17? That doesn't seem too bad to me.

Someone specifically said "The monk shouldn't need to roll a 20 to critically succeed" and I showed math that the monk would indeed need to roll a 20. That was my whole point.

In the scenario you describe, though, the summoner was acting more like a complex hazard than a conventional npc, and I might run them as such, actually.

This is entirely true. It was basically a combat puzzle of hitting the right undead with the right weapons/spells (that they had faced previously) and prioritizing their targets.

Like if the necromancer buffs a specific skeleton, the party should kill that one first so the buff is essentially wasted.

What? What did he expect? He narratively basically strongly grasped an enemy's clothes or a limb.

He expected that three PCs with Str 16+ standing next to a physically weak caster could do more than hold him in place with a 20% spell failure chance and -2 AC penalty. Without actually attacking the caster with normal Strikes, to be clear, which is where I think his hope and the PF2 system diverge.

Staying within combat rules was no longer the right scene to use to navigate those expectations.

That is an interesting point I will carefully consider and bring up to him.

There is actually some guidance for running VP systems within a combat encounter (it’s a lot like complex trap in a combat) that could be fun to think about for the future. Especially if you are willing to create such complex creatures in the first place.

Do you know where that is by any chance?

Level matters a whole lot more than in PF1. A level 3 caster getting shut down completely by a level 1 grapple should be rare.

He didn't expect to shut down a higher level enemy with one success using one action.

He was hoping to be able to more than "Grapple once per round and then hit the caster" in terms less hitting and more grappling.

It causes immobilized and off-guard. Off-guard reduces the enemies AC by 2 (which consequently means that they get easier to crit).

He felt the off-guard was wasted due to the flanking going on.

The monk should have used 1 action to grapple, 1 to flurry of blows, and something else each turn.

I know what's optimal. At this point he knows what's optimal. He just doesn't like "needing" to use Flurry of Blows rather than increasing the grapple somehow. He doesn't like hitting things. He'd jaded and a bit different in that regard. And he's used to looser rules system and PF1.

Your Wizard has a Fort. DC of 17, and your Monk has a +6 Athletics, so the Monk will at least succeed at a grapple check 50% of the time, and imposes a 20% chance of spell failure, again, at the cost of 1 action by the Monk.

This just doesn’t seem like reasonable expectations.

He didn't expect to do more with one action.

He expected to be able to spend more actions and make some "progress" of some kind rather than each round being a 50/50 coin toss whether the grapple continues. And he expected the Champions to be able to help in some way more than a +1 or +2 Aid bonus.

Sounds like what they wanted was a narrative victory, not a crunch enabled one.

Or at least not a "beat the caster down with Strikes" victory, yeah.

Well, they could have if the GM told them right away what exactly Grapple in PF2 means. But the GM is also new in PF2 as I understand and so probably didn't fully realize this themselves.

I told them what Grapple did as soon as they asked about it.

I've also been running a PF2 game for four years that's at level 16.

This new group just has some very jaded players who are different.

"But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."

"People won't invest in characters that are almost dead semi-frequently. That's their connections to the fluff."

"I just want to point out the philosophy of setting clear priorities in your design between story, character, and mechanics. It feels like you want story to matter, so make it matter more than the mechanics."

Your players will get it if they explore the system further.

They'll get it. I'm not sure this group will like it.

More than anything I think this is a misalignment of expectations coming from PF1 and expecting the same tactics to work.

It sounds like 3 martials were all trying to grab the caster instead of kill it? That is just bad tactics in PF2.

Yeah, if that's the case, then the scenario makes more sense to me. Once the monk had the grapple, everyone else should have been piling on the damage instead of attempting to apply a non-stacking condition. The monk should have got a few hits in too.

I think basically the monk was hoping he and the champions could subdue the boss caster without actually hitting the boss caster and bringing them to 0 HP. Not necessarily in one round or anything, but I think the monk player finds hitting stuff boring. He basically wanted to basically work with the champions to say "Okay, we've grappled/pinned/tied up the boss and ended the fight" rather than inflicting (non-lethal) HP damage.

Again, he didn't expect to win round 1 or something, but once he grappled the boss and I told him "Okay, the boss is now immobilized, off-guard, and has a 20% chance to fail spells" he was like "Wait, that's it? And I can't do anything more unless I crit succeed? And I have do this every round? And the champions can't help me subdue this guy beyond a +1/+2 bonus with Aid? This doesn't make narrative sense."

Also it sounds like a 5 person party going up against a solo boss caster? I am betting either an elite template was applied or we were looking at a level +3 or 4 NPC? The players are lucky they didn't die/the caster was wasting time casting summoning spells while grabbed instead of just frying them.

It was a special fight where the caster literally had nothing but the ability to summon creatures and buff them. And got weakened as his summons were killed.

It's effectively a reflavored version of the monsters being there from round one and then reinforcements arrive (to avoid the fight being too tough by all the enemies being active round 1).

But the monk was basically annoyed from round 1 at the perceived ineffectiveness of grapple.

There is almost no reason a Monk with an 18 str should be looking at a crit chance of 5% with grapple against a caster unless the level disparity is vast, or the caster was a brute creature with a casting template applied to it, even at level 1.

He had 16 str (but 18 dex). That said, a level 3 wizard would have 3 (level) + 2 (trained) + 2 (con) = 7 fortitude, and a level 1 monk with 18 str has 7 athletics (1 level + 2 trained + 4 str) so you'd still need a nat 20.

I hope you guys adapt to the new paradigm that is 2e. It really is a great system once you get a hold of the ropes.

Oh I'm running another campaign that is level 16, I'm enjoying the system. But some of this group is just...different. They're a bit jaded after playing TTRPGs for so long and get bored with what they view as basic stuff, I think. The ranger, for example, wanted to take the alchemist dedication and focus on supporting the party:

"My thought was that <name> is more of pest control guy. Sometimes he doesn't outright kill his prey, but outsmarts them. I was thinking with his traps and such.

I want this character to be using poisons and debuffs and not exactly be pouring damage into the enemies."

He didn't want to play an Alchemist, though, due to the complexity (which I understand). But I broke it to him that he'd still be like 70% shooting stuff with his bow even with the alchemist dedication.

They've played a lot of different systems and we just finished a Dungeon World campaign. They said they were interested in trying a system with a lot more crunch (they've played PF1 in the past). But I'm uncertain if PF2 is the right system for them.

I just started running a PF2 campaign with some people who are veterans to TTRPGs but new to PF2 (so level 1 characters, monk/ranger/champion/champion/sorcerer).

They had a combat vs a summoner style boss whose shtick was summoning creatures, with the idea being the party needed to kill the minions and render the caster not much of a threat.

The party monk wanted to try to grapple the caster to interfere with his summons (and casting in general) and was really disappointed that the result was only making the boss flat-footed, unable to move, and have a 20% chance to lose a spell (which incidentally never even happened in the 5ish spells the boss cast while grappled). Obviously if the monk crit succeeded he'd restrain the caster for one round hence the "5% lucky roll" comment below.

"If you have a clothie caster surrounded by 3 beefy dudes all grabbing him, it feels unreasonable to say 'oh well rules say you can't do anything further but mildly inconvenience him. Under no circumstances can you do more than grab his shoulders or waist no matter how big, strong, or trained you are - unless of course if you get your 5% lucky roll.'"

I remember Pathfinder 1 characters able to grapple and tie up basically anything in one round and I know this player doesn't want to go that far (and PF2 doesn't want that result), but he's feeling like grapple is unimpactful and that his supporting monk character concept doesn't feel very good as a result.

Any thoughts on this topic?

I’m pretty disappointed with Dragon Transformation too. Being able to turn into a dragon just because you are upset is…a bit silly.

Let's not exaggerate here.

It's not just because you're upset.

"or after watching a marauding wyrm burn your village"

It's because you're REALLY upset.

That being said, the question becomes whether you can benefit from the +3 of a martial weapon you aren't wielding anymore, despite the factor that your gear does get absorbed into your form, and you benefit from the constant effects of your gear. I'd lean into "No," because your natural attacks from being a dragon aren't weapons, meaning the argument of "I'm still wielding a weapon, so the bonuses from my existing weapon apply" is invalid, so you'd have to then invest in Handwraps of Mighty Blows for it to apply, which is a feelsbad moment.

That was how I read it too.

I'm not opposed to letting him keep the +3 since investing in a second weapon (handwraps) just for the level 16 feat is definitely feelsbad...but your interpretation is how I read it too.

The remastered feat in question:

"You transform into a ferocious Large dragon, gaining the effects of 6th-rank dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Dragon Breath action uses your class DC. Add the temporary Hit Points from dragon form to any you already have from entering a rage (or any other action with the rage trait). The action to Dismiss the transformation gains the rage trait.

At 18th level, you gain a +20-foot status bonus to your fly Speed, your damage bonus with dragon Strikes increases to +12, and you gain a +14 status bonus to your Dragon Breath damage."

Legacy feat:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=172

The main difference seems to be the 10 minute cooldown on the remastered version.

So the Dragon Instinct Barbarian just hit level 16 and gets to turn into a dragon at times. That's cool. He can fly and has a better breath weapon. But he's feeling rather underwhelmed by it, mainly in terms of attack and damage.

He has 5 strength modifier and a +3 greater striking weapon with holy and flaming runes.

This means he has 16 (level) + 6 (master) + 5 (strength) + 3 (item) = 30 attack.

He's using a 2H reach weapon for 3d10 damage plus 1d4 spirit (holy rune) + 1d6 fire + 5 (strength) + 6 (greater weapon specialization), or 33.5 prior to rage damage (which applies to the dragon form too so I'm ignoring it).

So 30 attack, 33.5 damage with reach.

As a dragon, he gets 16 (level) + 6 (master) + 5 (strength) = 27 attack, which is already a very significant drop.

His jaws do 2d12 damage + 2d6 energy + 6 (polymorph bonus), or 26 damage. It might be 32 damage if Great Weapon Specialization counts.

So he's losing 3 AB, 1.5-7.5 damage, reach and the additional bonuses of the holy and flaming runes.

He could use his tail for reach at the cost of losing 5-11 damage (and the additional bonuses of the holy and flaming runes).

But it seems like a significant combat nerf for the ability to fly and an improved breath attack.

Are we missing anything here?

I think in theory he could invest in handwraps maybe for better unarmed AB but that's another big investment when he's already put a lot of money into a +3 cold iron weapon (fighting a lot of demons). Seems odd for a dragon instinct barbarian to suddenly have to do at level 16.

There's a difference: good was a real damage type. Holy is not a damage type, it's a trait. So holy works mostly like silver or cold iron, while good had its own numbers and calculation 'thread'.

That's my point, Greystone is the one suggesting otherwise :)

Both pre and post remaster: "If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value."

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bxf?Two-Small-Flaws-in-the-Weakness-S ystem#24

Unless you know of a more recent explanation, I'm going with this one that clearly states both cold iron and good weaknesses would be triggered (but not cold iron and slashing in that example).