Bast L.'s page

40 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I guess it lets you turn any 1st level scroll into a casting of one of those two spells listed. So if you have a bunch of floating disc scrolls sitting in party treasure, your cleric can convert them into heals, or something.

Seems pretty bad anyways though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure there's any benefit to crafting (as in the craft activity, not the craft skill).

First, though I'm not 100% on this, formulas are of the item level of the item you want to craft, so it's not like formulas are a way around availability limits.

Second, formulas aren't free, so you're paying more for the item if you craft it in 4 days, than if you just buy it.

Third, crafting is a small discount under wildly ideal downtime circumstances, but that's only if you ignore...

Fourth, you need a workshop for many items. There's no price for these, but I imagine it's a lot. Also, good luck bringing it with you to the next town.

So, you give up several feats, skill choices, money, and downtime... to get nothing? Just buy the item. If you're in a backwater that mysteriously has loads of formulas and workshops, but not magic item vendors, just travel during those 60 days you were going to craft, and buy the thing. Crafting in 2E is so pointless, they had to add a use for it in the AP, because otherwise everyone would train out of it (btw, I haven't seen a formula drop yet in the AP, though I'm only on book 2).

Ok, repairing items is useful. But the craft action itself? I don't see it.

That's an interesting way of handling it. They haven't seen the bones yet, but I'll see what they make of them (they fought the croc outside, golem, and while refocusing, the dormitory people geared up and came in).

So, before heading into the fortress, I told the players that, arbitrarily, they can't just run away and rest after every encounter. But I don't have any justification for that. Even the ritual, which wouldn't work, isn't something they can know about ahead of time.

The mine, specifically, said players should leave, and come back, and beat them by attrition, but for the fortress, it would just be uninteresting. How do you guys handle things like that? Camping in the jungle isn't much threat, since they roll well enough to avoid diseases, and random encounters are never much concern (even using pf 1 tables, we haven't run into anything interesting). They don't run out of food or water, thanks to the druid. I don't see anything propelling them to finish the fortress' defenders quickly.

I also would prefer not having the enemies just swarm in from other rooms, because those rooms add to the encounters.

What do you all do for these situations? Have them reconstruct the golem? (his curse is pretty nasty)

I say all terrain, because it's an all terrain vehicle (it takes you to all terrains).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

That is solved by making either regular spells (not focus spells) or 1 action spells flourish.

This would also allow for Quickened casting to become more powerful by letting it bypass "spell flourish" when you are master or legendary in spellcasting; Which would justify the current 1/day limit.

One-action flourish would be great for letting the wizard actually do stuff. People might think it's too powerful, but that would be ignoring the spells/day limitation. So what if the wizard did more damage than the fighter for that round? He can't do it all day.

I think, though, if such a system were implemented, MAP would need to apply to save DCs too (and from them), or else wiz/ftr might be too good.

This doesn't, of course, address the utility spells issue, but it would at least make playing a wizard more engaging.

Draco18s wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Maybe I misread it? (He does say that after enough rounds the bare Sorcerer has more AoE healing than the bare Cleric)
There you have it, under ridiculously ideal circumstances, the sorcerer can outstrip the cleric in a very silly fight where everyone is immobile, and the fight lasts 13 rounds (actually 15, since he needs two to cast angelic halo, as the fight has lasted longer than a minute at this point)

That is, the sorcerer spends 15 rounds using low-level spells slots and the cleric spends only from Divine Font.

Which is a very unrealistic comparison. The cleric will have low level heals, mid level heals, and high level heals they can also use.

No, sorry. In my attempt at apples to apples, the cleric was using all the spells of the levels that the sorcerer used. It's just not a realistic scenario. A few aoe heals per day? Maybe. But 13 of them? And all within 15 ft? No chance. Also, clerics are better aoe healers just because of selective energy (though sorcerer can pick it up with MC).

Forums aren't great for showing math stuff. The cleric actually casts more spells in my example, but reducing rounds of casting to make it more apples to apples would help the cleric, not the sorcerer (and if we let the cleric cast more because of the rounds the sorcerer is casting angelic halo, it bumps the cleric even more).


First, it needs to be stressed again, that 15 ft 3-action heals, are exceedingly unlikely to be useful in combat. Outside of combat, you'll use treat wounds, focus spell healing, etc.

However, let's consider the ideal scenario for your angelic sorcerer: Level 20, immobile group surrounding the sorcerer, fighting undead, with all players damaged enough each turn to need 3 action heals, and combats lasting long enough that low-level healing (even boosted with angelic halo) is worth bothering with.

Now, you said in the earlier post that sorcerer will quickly outpace the cleric. Using your low level spells is only an apples to apples comparison if the cleric also uses those spells, so whatever the sorc uses, the cleric uses (so much as he can).

Cleric font (5 cha bonus at 20):

6 10th level spells: 10d8 *6 (should be 10d10, but we're being silly already) = 45*6 = 270


4 1st level spells: (1d8 + 20)*4 = 24.5 * 4 = 98
Sorc total: 98

3 for cleric: 13.5
Cleric total: 283.5

4 2nd level spells: (2d8 + 20)*4 = 29 * 4 = 116
Sorc total: 214

3 for cleric: 27
Cleric total: 310.5

4 3rd level spells: (3d8 + 20)*4 = 33.5 * 4 = 134
Sorc total: 348

3 for cleric: 40.5
Cleric total: 351

4 4th level spells: (4d8 + 20)*4 = 152
Sorc total: 500

3 for cleric: 54
Cleric total: 405

There you have it, under ridiculously ideal circumstances, the sorcerer can outstrip the cleric in a very silly fight where everyone is immobile, and the fight lasts 13 rounds (actually 15, since he needs two to cast angelic halo, as the fight has lasted longer than a minute at this point), and also doesn't need large heals, just a lot over time.

In any actual fight at that level, casting the level 1 spell is the sorcerer letting other characters die.

The point of the heal spell is not to top people up outside of combat, it's to heal people during combat, and during combat, they need at-level or close to it heal spells. 3-action heals are rarely useful, though nice when they are. Mostly, it's two-action.

If you use two-action heals (which is what's actually cast, in any game I've run/played in), the landscape changes quite a bit:

Same spells used as above, Cleric total: 1125, Sorc Total: 820.

More sensibly, level 8, 9, 10 spells used for heal:
Cleric: 1512.5
Sorcerer: 1350

Admittedly, not as horrible as I thought, though far from outpacing the cleric. If you still insist that casting level 1, 3 action heals in a 15-ft zone at level 20 is reasonable though, I have no further arguments to offer.

Edit: to be clear, it doesn't have to be 1 fight, the math is the same if it's over multiple fights, but a sorcerer finding the opportunity to use 13 low-level 3-action heals in a day is not a very likely scenario.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I mean, if we’re talking about first level, then sure; i mean the Cleric’s gonna need the handicap by how quickly the Sorc’s gonna out pace them. Though let’s be real for a moment that that Cleric’s gonna be using Treat Wounds more often than their Divine Font; barely even a Class Feature at early levels unless you go Harm.

Also who was talking about Focused healing? I was simply pointing out that an Angelic Sorc is gonna be better at healing than a Cleric’s Divine Font. All the Sorc needs is a Healing Staff to be a dedicated healer at best, but i guess if your Cleric needs all those feats and gear just to keep up to a Sorc; i guess just don’t really see the point. : /

Er, you mentioned first level spells. Going up levels, the situation remains roughly the same, getting slightly better for cleric at 5 (more font). Mind you, the cleric can cast those spells without filling any slots with heal (and he probably should fill slots with heal). Those feats aren't necessary, it was comparing your dedicated healing sorcerer to a dedicated healing cleric. Even without those feats, the cleric still has way more healing than the sorcerer, just slightly less on a spell by spell basis. Also, your example uses 3 action heals (on targets within 15 feet, mind you, for your angelic bonus), something far less likely than 2 action heals, unless you're only fighting undead, and in close quarters (and something that the cleric can do much more easily than the sorcerer, by picking up selective energy, and by having more hp to be in melee with).

As for font being "barely even a class feature"... I don't like to assume intent.. have you played the game? Healing Font is, by far, the best class feature in the game. It's the thing that makes clerics worthwhile.

Edit: thinking of paladin reactions, maybe it's a slight exaggeration, but not much of one. Font is great, at low or high level.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So we’re just gonna completely overlook the fact that Angelic Sorc can spam 1st level 3-action heals for guaranteed better minimum than a Cleric’s Divine Font then?

I dunno from spam, a first level sorcerer has 3, first level cleric has 3+ (could have fewer, but that would be a bad choice), not a bad choice to have 4 (not to mention spell slots with it, most useful spell, though magic weapon is a strong contender). Also, healing hands (human cleric) offsets this bonus. Also, who uses three-action heals? :) Really though, in the months since the game's been out, I've only seen them a handful of times, mostly when undead were around. Of course, the bonus applies to regular heals too, but that range limitation is rough, for someone who should really be in the back, with his 6 hp/level.

Edit: Also, it takes a round to set up, because you're using 3-action heals, so really, this isn't very good, compared to font (1 point more per die (assuming cleric takes the nearly-mandatory healing hands), with the setup buff, and careful positioning). And, of course, we're ignoring a cleric being focused on healing, like this sorcerer is, and getting things like healer's blessing (bad), rebuke death (pretty okay, especially not increasing wounded condition), communal healing (feh), improved communal healing (eh? not horrid), selective energy (three action heals much more usable!).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, and the more I feel the title is misleading. Casters don't have an issue. Some casters have.

Bard is S tier. There's a topic about ideal 4-character party and even the more martial inclined posters gave their party a Bard.
Cleric is at least A tier. Nearly always there in the ideal party.
Druids seem fine. No complaint.

So, the issue with "casters" looks like it's an issue with Wizards and maybe Sorcerers (even if I feel that Primal and Divine Sorcerers who accept the healing part of their traditions are doing fine). And when we look at Bast L. list, he conveniently forgot healing which is present in 3 traditions out of 4...

But the list was just for wizards.. Explicitly about wizards.

Also, I didn't mention divine sorcerer, but they may just be the worst thing ever. Worst tradition, no font, no armor. I just don't see the point of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if this helps, since it works on Roll20, but I made this a while back (didn't distinguish between uncommon, rare, normal):

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

... or Conjuration Wizards giving small buffs to their next summon.

It's worse than that even. They can cast it on a summoned creature, not the next summon, which means that's a round they won't be casting a real spell, because summon is 3 action, and then sustain is 1, augment is 1. So, the conjurer can summon with 3 actions (should be 2, since summons are terrible anyways), then has to spend the next round sustaining and augmenting (and shield or move, or whatever, not a real action) to get a minor buff to the summon. It only gets worse as you level up.

I don't know if any of this will change OP's mind, since it's all been said before, but I'll give it a shot.

Let's consider what a wizard brings to the table. Blasting, Debuffs, Buffs, Counterspell, Dispel, Identification, Crafting, Wizardly Utility.

Blasting has stayed roughly the same. You have to heighten it, losing your higher level spell slots, but the DC increases with your level. It is overall nerfed due to bloated hp. I did some calculations based on the first monster of each level from PF1 and PF2 bestiaries, and it's a slight, but significant nerf to basically all blasting (slightly better at odd level, more worse at even).

Debuffs: hit few targets, at close range, for low effect. The game-changing effects are moved to critical failure, and bosses have pretty good saves, relative to your DC. Slow is a good-ish spell, but it's not likely to work on the boss anyways. Pretty weak overall.

Buffs: Last a minute, reactive to combat starting, usually a waste (unless magic weapon, early on, or a few others, but mostly better off blasting the enemy).

Counterspell/Dispel: Counteract rules make it nearly impossible/completely impossible to use these on bosses' highest level spells. Counterspell, especially, with its built-in penalties, and heavy feat requirements (need clever counterspell to even try to CS a boss, unless you have his higher level spell in your book somehow).

Identification: works fine. Good for you wizard, you're useful for something.

Crafting: not very useful. Get a bit more gold value over a campaign. Making an at-level item at full-discount takes something like 50-60 days, assuming crit successes. And someone else can earn an income anyways. Example: Level 8 item, +1 resilient armor. 500 GP. Assuming only crit successes, the wizard takes 62.5 days to craft the extra 250 off. In that time, someone earning an income at level -2 (and we'll say 50 days, since they have to find jobs) would get 100 gp. So, the wizard saves 150 gp, at level 8, assuming he has 67 days to craft (62.5, rounded up, plus the 4 base), and a workshop. That's 15% of his total value from table 10-9, at the cost of several feats (the auto-crits assumed specialty crafting, impeccable crafting, and of course, magical crafting), two skill increases in crafting, a workshop (whatever that costs), and ideal downtime conditions.

Wizardly Utility: Here's the real sting of 2E. So many fun spells ruined or reduced in effectiveness. Some of them, seemingly out of spite. Unseen Servant (sustain), floating disc (holds 2.5 longbows), feather fall (1 target, no heighten), rope trick (10 minute cast, level bumped by 2), comprehend languages (1 language, level bumped by 1), fly (5 min, level bumped by 1, speed more than halved), dimension door (haha, familiar wizard, just self, range down to 120 from 400, have to see target location), darkvision (self), permanency (removed), levitate (level bumped 1, range touch, speed halved).

The question now is, what can a wizard actually do? They bring very little utility, buffing is nearly pointless, debuffs don't work properly on bosses, crafting isn't very good, if you can get to a city, counterspelling doesn't work on bosses. They can blast. Which is what they do in the games I run, after they see all of their more interesting spells constantly fail to do anything interesting.

When I've raised these points before, it's been dismissed as hyperbole. But I've been running two games, and the wizards are just so superfluous when they're not blasting, and when they are blasting, they're less effective, and a lot less healthy than martials. So, I guess, OP, I'll ask you to change my mind. What do wizards actually bring to the table now? Why, specifically, do your players want to play a wizard?

Maybe I wasn't clear. So in PF1, the DC was partially based on the spell level, aye? While the damage scaled with caster level. However, you could use a higher level slot to memorize the spell. What I was wondering was, would the spell, cast using a higher level slot, increase the DC as if it had been a higher level spell?

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Blast spells have been nerfed in damage less than they may seem to be. Since DC scales with the caster the reliability of the damage is actually better than with many 1e spells that scaled with caster level.

The burst potential is arguably lower for some even with crits accounted for, but the average tends towards being higher.

The HP values scale faster in PF2e sure, but that kinda effects everyone including martials.

It's been a while for me, but did spells count as the level you prepared them at in PF1? If so, a level 5 fireball prepared by a level 10 PF1 or PF2 wizard would do 10d6, and the DC would scale in both.

Comparing the first creature of level 10 I saw in the PF1 bestiary, the Brachiosaurus has 171 hp, while the Brontosaurus from PF2 has 220 hp.

Of course, you're right that the scaling affects both martials and casters, but do martials scale their damage better in PF2? Striking being a die, instead of +1 to damage, might suggest that they do, but I really don't remember the numbers from all kinds of bonuses in PF1.

The point being, if the answer to both questions is yes, then casters scale roughly the same as they did in PF1, while martials scale better, and monster hp scales better, so effectively, blasting is nerfed.

If either isn't true, then disregard this :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
... When the Sorcerer made some Recall Knowledge checks and pointed out things like, "Their Will save is their weakest," she just sighed and kept going with two action harms.

To be fair, the recall knowledge section on creature identification says you get a piece of knowledge about what the creature is best known for (such as a troll's regeneration being stopped by acid or fire), which in my game (of course it's up to you how you run it) would never be, "it has a low ref save." I doubt I'd even give such meta-game type knowledge with a crit success, and just some other relevant info about weaknesses or special attacks.

Of course, even using recall knowledge means either you're not sustaining (or using another 1 action, like move, or shield), or not casting a real spell that round (unless you spent 2 skill feats and a skill increase for automatic knowledge of the right type for that creature, and it's inside the assurance level range for you).

All of that is to say, meta-game or bust, on targeting a creature's worst save (though, over the course of a fight, with a descriptive GM, you might be able to make a decent guess, depending on how well it's telegraphed).

Btw, I've been unclear on this since the start: does the player need to specify which skill they're using for recall knowledge? Much of the time, of course, they can guess, but often, it can be unclear (this Sabosan thing kind of looks fiendish, and it's speaking abyssal.. oh, it's a humanoid). I sometimes do recalls secretly, but the effect of having to pick the skill means that they may completely waste the action.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

It's kind of funny how we have one group of players saying utility spells are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is blast.

And then another group saying blasts are terrible and all casters can do that's any good is cast utility spells.

To be clear, blast spells have also been nerfed, relative to increased HP. However, I haven't read anyone saying to use utility spells. Some people say to use buffs or debuffs (and usually, it's debuffs), but when I say "utility", I'm referring to things mostly out of combat, or things that can change the nature of a combat, not tuning the dials of a combat (+/- 1 to x).

15 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys played a different 1E than me. Martials were destruction machines in the games I ran, while wizards were good at utility, and decent at combat.

As for things needing to be fixed, how does it explain spells that weren't broken? Feather Fall only hitting 1 target? Unseen servant being a three action + sustain spell? See invisibility leaving them concealed to you?

Then we can look at casters going martial dedication vs martials going caster. The martials gain up to mastery in casting, while the casters gain only expert in martial weapons (and then, only if fighter, expert armor for champion, expert nothing for rogue/ranger).

Or how about counterspell being almost gauranteed to fail against higher level casters?

And why do casters get their expertise increase later than martials? And no items to buff their hit/dc, yet enemies gain spell resistance? And martials usually get a flank, while casters need a spell, or to hide, or something else to have the enemy be flat-footed, with their already reduced actions (their main actions cost 2)?

Or how about summon spells being horrible at higher level (summon a level -5, probably against an enemy +1 to +3)?

And it all feels so much like a video game. All of the utility spells are so thorough in their limitations, that most player creativity is nullified. You do the thing in the exact intended way, and in no not-yet-imagined way. Combining that with level bump, duration and effect reduction, and often being on the uncommon list, and most utility spells go out the window. So casters are blasters, and the game is computer-ready.

Add in-between combat medicine checks (and the silliness of non-touching battle medicine), and it really does feel like a slow-moving CRPG. At least it's turn based :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
For context, without level a level 1 fighter will be only +2 weaker to hit than a level 12 fighter. This means that ten level 1 fighters have a very good chance at taking down the level 12. Sure makes you feel good that you had to kill hundreds of them to get there when ten of them can take you down easily.

+2 from mastery, +1 from 2 strength increases, +2 from magic weapon = +5 total. A pretty big difference.

Also the level 12 fighter has magic armor, and 180+ hp.

All the level difference does is lock you into a threat range, and limit GM options.

"A horde of zombies is overrunning the town!"

"Send the wizard out with his non-magical dagger, we'll all take a nap."

Also, I'm sure most people aren't looking for a simulator with PF, but when you push the boundaries so far, it breaks immersion. A Level 20 monk with no gear literally can't be hit by ten-thousand level 1 archers shooting at him. It's like the end of the movie "Hero", except the guy lives.

I'm curious what people think the level boost adds to the game. Does it trick people into thinking it's progression? Everything you fight progresses with you. Is it so that the players can bully low-level NPCs? Or make it so that high-level monsters are impossible? What's the benefit?

I hope the GMG rules are straightforward enough that I can write an easy script to adjust the monsters on Roll20.

PF2 has a lot going for it over 5E, but one of the great things about 5E was the wide range of possible encounters. You could fight a horde of low-level creatures, and they could be a problem. You could also have a nail-biting fight against a level +5. In PF2, a level +3 fight is a pretty big TPK risk.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So the problem is, you're still ignoring the possibility of someone using half plate, and you're ignoring the main idea here: heavy armor proficiency loses its primary benefit of granting you a +1 AC at 13th level. Yes, you have to pay something, a +1 dex boost, to get the greater AC (though that's again assuming you weren't wearing half-plate, which is not entirely unreasonable for someone like an elf cleric with under 16 str), but this becomes necessary, if you want to keep the best AC you can get (which makes sense, for a war priest).

To be sure, you could ignore that AC, and enjoy the increased bulk and speed penalty of heavy armor, but I think if we're talking about being disingenuous, suggesting someone would do so may be an example.

It's a design flaw to have deprecating armor and weapon feats, and to require that war priests get champion dedication if they want to have better defense after level 13. If it's unbalanced for it to increase, was it unbalanced that they had +1 AC for the first 12 levels? If it's not, shouldn't it increase?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's disingenuous? Using half-plate? Or deciding that since you have to switch to medium to keep up, you'll take a dex boost?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Becoming better at wearing an armor you've never used to the point it surpasses the armor you are actively wearing and should be getting better at using is dumb.

In order for medium armor to "surpass" heavy armor for a character that is embracing the use of heavy armor (by which I mean is not investing in Dexterity), the proficiency level with medium armor needs to become 2 ranks higher than that for heavy.

Otherwise you've just got a character that can have the same AC in full plate or in a breast plate, and is probably choosing to stick with the full plate for the bulwark feature.

If we assume most characters won't intentionally have lower AC, then they put one attribute increase in dex at 10th, since they know the AC penalty for wearing full plate is coming (and who says they weren't wearing half-plate the whole time, with a +1 dex bonus?). So really, it just comes back to: the feat loses its utility at 13th level.

Really, all of the proficiency increases should be for the armors and weapons you're trained in. Unfortunately, since the ancestries and champion dedication have those as feats, I doubt this sensible fix will come anytime soon.

Similarly, rogue dedication gives light armor, which you throw away at 13th level as a wizard. At least you can have 20 dex at 15th, so it's not much loss.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like a design error that it's expected for you to retrain out of the armor proficiency feat. Hopefully they'll add some way for characters to increase to expert (simply having an expert armor proficiency feat, which requires an armor proficiency feat, but also having such a feat in rogue, and whatever else gives armor prof).

Imagine wearing plate for 10 levels, and suddenly you're an expert in medium (war priest).

Sure, the cleric could just go champion, but then why have the armor prof feat in the first place?

Cyouni wrote:

Is...there another greater barghest fight at level 4 in Paizo material? The one I'm thinking of has ** spoiler omitted **.

Are you thinking of

PF1 Product:
Rise of the Runelords
Cause I know of one in there with that. But the one I'm referring to is in
Newer Product:
Hellknight Hill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Assuming you're talking about the particular example I think you might, you know they can just walk out of the room, right?

Leaving their melee friends to die? Also, he's faster than most characters, and can d-door. Can shapechange to goblin if needed for 5-ft wide corridors.

I see nothing about him not chasing down characters who run, or being stuck in his room. Am I missing something? Remember, they don't know what he is before the fight begins.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Bast L. wrote:
While my biggest issue with wizards (and sorcerers) is the reduction of utility (durations, effects, level bump, uncommon list), as an example of this low-accuracy being unfun, my level 4 party went up against a greater barghest in a game recently (solo boss). It was set up such that there was no real warning as to what it was ahead of time (no spoilers, but I didn't come up with this fight). The wizard used a flaming sphere. With a ref save of +15, the barghest has a 20% chance to fail. Now, it turns out, he's fire resistant 10, but even if it was a different spell, it's very likely to save. The sorcerer used Ray of Enfeeblement, but didn't manage to hit his AC 25, so the barghest never rolled his +17 fort save against it (2 chances to defend against that spell). Or with attack spells, like the shocking grasp the wizard used, it would be a 30% chance to hit.

I heard greater barghest and instantly assumed Will would be the lowest save. Lo and behold, it's the lowest by a good margin at +12.

Trained level 4, 18 Int, is DC 20. That's a 35% chance for him to fail (even though he's 3 levels higher), and even higher if you do things like frighten him. Following up a strong Intimidate check with something like Hideous Laughter is pretty ruinous with a 40% chance to slow 1 and take away his reaction (which in this case is a very strong thing). That'll also help people navigate around him and set up for those strong flanks.
I was also going to say Glitterdust isn't amazing for this, but he apparently has invisibility, so it's a lot better than I thought.

Trying to measure against a fighter's chance to hit is a horrid plan, because they're always going to be the best at it.
As well, unlike before, you can't spike your DCs so high that things are basically guaranteed to fail, so you actually have to figure out weaknesses now, especially against a thing that much stronger than you.

Oh, I should have specified, my players didn't read the bestiary ahead of time.

Edit: Though, to be sure, even if they had, they had no kind of clue as to what the fight was ahead of time, so the wizard, at least, didn't have the opportunity to swap spells.

Edit further: Also, the wizard did use automatic knowledge, and learned of some ability (I think it was weaknesses and resistances, since they already saw the shapeshift), but I didn't consider "lower will save" as one of its "best known attributes" (example is a troll's regeneration being stopped by fire or acid).

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Anecdotal and perhaps a little off topic, but I've found the difference in perception between here on the Paizo forums and the PF2 subreddit. Over there, I've seen numerous threads where people see Sorcerer as the worst caster, with no reason to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard. And obviously the opposite is the case here.

They do seem a bit worse than wizards, divine sorcerers especially. I think the idea here is that they're both much worse than martials (and somewhat worse than the rest of the classes), not that wizards are worse than sorcerers (though maybe you're responding to someone who said that?). As Squiggit offered, I kind of use wizard as a shorthand for both of them, unless contrasting the two specifically.

Clerics are mostly good for the font, and that's pretty boring (no font + reaction heal would maybe be more interesting). War priests should get mastery in their weapon, since they don't get legendary in spells.

Druids can be useful maybe with a good pet (partial martial).

This is just my opinion from running/playing levels 1-5. I don't think it gets better from there, since the accuracy (or spell save DC) gap between wizards and martials increases until 19 (well, I only plotted it out for fighter, but I looked at champion, and at a glance, it seems to increase as well).

Wand/Staff +3 to hit/dc items would bridge the gap, but I think they intentionally left them out to make casters miss (or be saved against) most of the time?

While my biggest issue with wizards (and sorcerers) is the reduction of utility (durations, effects, level bump, uncommon list), as an example of this low-accuracy being unfun, my level 4 party went up against a greater barghest in a game recently (solo boss). It was set up such that there was no real warning as to what it was ahead of time (no spoilers, but I didn't come up with this fight). The wizard used a flaming sphere. With a ref save of +15, the barghest has a 20% chance to fail. Now, it turns out, he's fire resistant 10, but even if it was a different spell, it's very likely to save. The sorcerer used Ray of Enfeeblement, but didn't manage to hit his AC 25, so the barghest never rolled his +17 fort save against it (2 chances to defend against that spell). Or with attack spells, like the shocking grasp the wizard used, it would be a 30% chance to hit.

Meanwhile, a fighter would have a 45% chance to hit, 55% with flanking, and deal (LS and board) 13 dmg on average (as much as shocking grasp, more than flaming sphere without resist, no spell slots). That's just the one swing too.

I could hear the futility in the voices of my caster players. Having 1 action per turn, at low accuracy, is just not fun. Especially when the martials have multiple actions at a higher chance of success, and also have reactions to use, and they don't use a daily resource to take that action.

It kind of reminds me of Shadowrun, where my decker was in a combat, and the combat specialists got 4 actions to his 1. It's pretty boring, and you feel useless. Also, the group/gm never lets you deck really, because then everyone else is bored :) In PF2, the "never lets you deck" is built into the reduction of duration and effects from utility spells.

I'm curious, has there been any clarification on whether you can sustain the same spell multiple times in a round? I don't see it in the errata, and at first I said "I don't think it's intended, so no," but now I'm just allowing it, unless it breaks something (imagining flaming sphere sustained 3 times, still mostly useless against greater barghest, but could be useful against others).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So what is the purpose of a wizard now? Minor debuffs and (relatively, compared to buffed hit points) weakened blasting? People who wanted to blast played sorcerers. People who wanted to solve problems played wizards. Without utility spells, without worthwhile crafting, without anything unique or especially useful about them, why bother?

Serious question for those who've played a bit: would your party be much better with 3 fighters and a cleric, or a fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue?

A wizard just brings less damage, way less hp, less defense, and no utility. What's the point of the class? To AoE level -2 groups?

I guess they could counterspell a boss. Assuming the wizard has the counterspell feat, and the boss is casting a spell of lower level. Or you're level 12, and you use clever counterspell (2 feats now, a lot dedicated to this), and if the boss is a full caster, casting his highest level spell, you have to crit succeed if you're even level, or succeed at odd level (against level +3 full caster DC), possibly taking a -2 penalty (gm arbitrariness to negate), and also using one of your highest level slots. Sounds not great.

I'm really curious, what do you think a wizard brings to the table?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I thought the general gist of that particular can of worms wasn't so much never altering the dice but rather "every enemy ever from the slimes to the pit fiends are played with the precise purpose to kill the pcs" to which yeah, the system generally isn't meant for everything to be supreme tactical hiveminds that go straight for throat cuts the second a pc gets downed.

And that's a form of fudging - it's just that is what everyone expects from the game. In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving - and intelligent animals (Humans) will obviously co-ordinate to best effect.

I even agree that it's a *brutal hardcore* mode of play - but it does expose the truth behind play - that the GM is expected to play a *game* and not a brutal deathmarch - and in *many* cases that also means they are making sub-optimal choices for the NPC enemies to not overwhelm the players.

That's fudging - it's just want everyone accepts as part of the game - if you accept that the GM is going to make calls for the game to keep the 'fun/excitement/fairness' and that it's still a game and not a simulation - then you can't (in good faith) get righteous because they change the outcome of something.

The game even encourages this - with secret rolls. If 'fudging' was such a sin against the game - all rolls would be encouraged to be open and in front of the players (many groups *DO THIS* because they are so against fudging). You can't however - have secret rolls and encouraged adjudication without accepting that the GM can modify the results and you wouldn't know.

I'm aware, but trawl around the forums and you'll see a lot of people get all righteous indignation about altering the sacred d20 but don't care a fig if you suddenly throw an idiot ball straight at the monster because "fudge" just means dice alteration to them.

Really treating the whole thing of "GMs are encouraged to make things fun and...

Because one is cheating, the other isn't. The GM is a player too. Having the monster use sub-optimal tactics is a fair, and by-the-rules way of playing the game. Players do sub-optimal things all the time. But changing the dice is just cheating. From a player's perspective, the gm has everything in the world to control, if he wants to help or hurt the players. But the dice aren't his. The dice are fair.

Just as an example, if a tough monster boss is about to kill my character, and rolls 2 natural 1's behind the screen, I wouldn't believe it. And if I think the GM is cheating, I'll quit. TPK is preferable to an unfair game. If there are no stakes, if the players always survive by the skin of their teeth, then where's the fun? They'll never feel like they earned any victory, because they won't have. In that case, just play diceless. It's the same result, but not dishonest.

I always roll openly (except for knowledge and perception checks, things to keep players uncertain about what happened).

There are certainly inconsistencies in the CRB. I think it's clear enough, though not explicitly stated, that an action with the attack trait is an attack action.

A small piece of evidence for this intention is page 91, under Furious Bully: "You bully foes across the battlefield. While raging, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks for attack actions."

Unless there's some kind of athletic strike, this would indicate that trips and the like are attack actions (or else it would be useless, though that's possible, considering mutagenist :)

Also, on page 446, under Multiple Attack Penalty: "The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."

So attack actions are what increase your map, and it's every check with the attack trait that's counting as those actions.

I did think, as I was typing it, "someone's going to take issue with my saying that actions having the attack trait are attack actions," since you're right that it's not clearly stated anywhere (that I can see). However, I think the armor class thing just needs errata, and I'm guessing that all actions with the attack trait are attack actions.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.
How do we KNOW this? It's the first I've heard of it.

Page 446, under Attack Rolls: "When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

Page 283, under Trip: "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand."

Page 282, under Finesse: "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

Since trip is an attack action (page 243), the check is an attack roll. Since it's a trip weapon you're using to make the trip, you're using the weapon. Since it's finesse, you can use your dex mod instead of strength on attack rolls with the weapon.

You kind of have to go all over the book to put it together, but it seems straightforward once you get all the pieces:

Trip weapon lets you use trip action with the weapon, trip is an attack action, which calls for an attack roll, weapon is also finesse, which lets you use dex on attack rolls with the weapon.

Same applies to disarm.

Syllogistically, for Rysky :) :

Trip weapons allow trip actions with the weapon.
Trip actions call for attack rolls.
Therefore, trip actions using a trip weapon call for attack rolls with the weapon.

Finesse weapons allow for attack rolls with the weapon to use str or dex mod.
From 1, a trip action with a trip weapon calls for an attack roll with the weapon.
Therefore, a trip action with a trip and finesse weapon calls for an attack roll using str or dex mod.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else (and actually, plenty else), they nerfed the fun of wizards. They took the magic out of spellcasting. Maybe, on paper, it works out to be useful to cast a spell and result in a -1 to hit and ac for a round, but a person reading the name "Fear" as a spell probably imagines a more interesting result. Enemies flee in terror before you. Actual game: enemy (singular) suffers a slight debuff for a moment.

Or Paralyze! I can paralyze my foes. This enemy dungeon lord will be frozen, and we can strike when his defenses are lowered. Actual game: he's more likely to crit succeed than to succeed, and success is that he loses 1 action (for your two + spell slot), and even if he fails (can't crit fail, 5-10% chance of failing), he has -2 ac and loses actions for 6 seconds.

Fly! I can fly across the land... for 5 minutes.

Unseen servant! My butler will cook for me... but it takes a lot of concentration on my part, and he only lasts 9 minutes 54 seconds.

Floating disc? A magical mule replacement... but it lasts 8 hours, and holds 2.5 longbows.

Feather fall sounds neat. I can save my.. friend. Singular. No heighten.

See invisible. Still concealed to you though.

Mage armor? Still dex capped :) Also, just put a rune on your clothes.

Darkvision level 2: don't bother casting, cave elf. (why is this self?)

Deafness, weird, but could be useful. Oh, it lasts 10 minutes on a failure.

Blindness sounds neat. Oh, incapacitate.

Augment summoning? I can make my Creature -1 broom slightly better? I guess that's ok. Except, due to sustain, and 3-action summons, this prevents you from casting a useful spell on the second round (assuming your always low CR summon survived the first round). The best damage I've seen from a summon was when it was summoned 30 ft up and dropped onto a creature.

Couple the crumminess of these spells, with the level range limitation caused by hit/ac/save bump per level (a bad decision, hopefully the GMG gives thorough rules on removing it), and you're unlikely to get the actual, interesting result. Instead, you debuff the enemy a little. And with 1 minute durations for most spells, you're reactively spending your first turn or two casting any buffs, if you bother to at all.

The effects and durations of spells seem so much worse, and many of the potentially fun ones have their levels raised, or are on the uncommon list now. I don't know where the idea that wizards were gods came from. I ran a fair bit of pathfinder, and while the wizards were always interesting, it was the martials the broke the game. I'm sure there were combinations of things that lead to trouble, but the answer isn't to turn wizards into knob adjusters, who slightly turn the combat difficulty down (-1 to this, +1 to that, vs some more qualitative effect).

I guess I'm a little sour on it. I'm not even playing, only running games. But wizards just don't seem very fun anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Durations of most spells increased by a factor of 10 (to let casters have actual utility).

But seriously:

Sound burst crit fail has a weird effect: stunned 1 for 1 minute. What's intended here? (stunned x exists, and stunned for 1 minute exists, but stunned x for time does not, as far as I can tell).

How many times per round can you sustain the same spell? Sustain a single flaming sphere three times in one round?

If you cast an attack spell from a staff, which has a potency rune, does the spell get a hit bonus? Weapon Potency: "Attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus". Staves: "You can cast a spell from a staff". Is an attack roll from a staff an attack roll with the staff? (probably not intended anyways, but casters need some hit bonus love :)

Any rules for jumping down safely/less damage?

Is it intended that people who take the armor training feat train out of the feat at level 13 (or whichever level you get expert in your class armor prof)?

Does battle medicine require healers tools? Does it even require a free hand? It's manipulate, but I'm not sure the hand needs to be free for that.

Disarm penalty is intended to last until the start of the target's turn?

I guess some of these are more FAQ than Errata

Wild Empathy: In most cases, animals will give you time to make your case.

I'm imagining a t-rex charging the party, and the druid steps up and says, "Perhaps we could discuss this," which gets the dino to stop, granting the party 1 minute to flee (druid aside).

Anyways, here's how I've been running it: If no one has yet attacked/harmed/aggressed against the animal, and the druid's turn comes up, the combat can pause (unless players choose to interrupt on their turns) while the druid chats with the animal.

I haven't had a mixed animal/other combat yet. Can the druid get one or more animals out of the fight, while the other party members clean up the rest?

Can the druid even try it with multiple animals? My one player used it on 2 swarms, which are themselves each made up of multiple animals.

By the way, can you summon a swarm of spiders with summon animal? It reads, "you summon a creature...", so I've been ruling 'No', since a swarm is not 'a' creature, but it also sort of is 'a' creature, as a single listing of 'Creature 0', and not 'Creatures 0'

Hello. I've been a customer here for a few years, and I just wanted to give some feedback from the perspective of a GM who runs games online using Roll20.

While I appreciate that Paizo sells pdfs, using the maps from them is not always trivial. A couple of things that would make it easier are: maps which end in grid lines, maps with thicker doors, larger images, and maps with a player-version toggle (or just a page with the player version).

Some of these, such as larger images, and player-version toggle, were present in the RotRL pdf, but I'm running Dead Suns now, and not only is there no player toggle, but the maps themselves are only a section of a page, and thus quite blurry when stretched out appropriately.

Larger doors make for easier dynamic lighting (thicker walls, and walls which are centered on the grid would help with this too).

Maps ending at grid lines would make lining things up easier.

Also, token images in the back for NPCs wouldn't be bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pest form is too slow imo. A cat's movement shouldn't be 10 unless it's a 3 legged cat. The durations are also pretty short. Also, I agree that strength mod for uses is just odd, and makes wild order druids MAD.

Hello. I noticed in the FAQ that everything is changed (especially starship DCs), and I was wondering if the PDF is going to be updated to reflect that.

As Paizo doesn't have online rules yet, I'm just using the book for now, and the great thing about PDFs is that they can be patched when fixes go out.

I apologize if this has been asked before, but my search didn't turn anything up.


mplindustries wrote:
Bast L. wrote:
What can I do as GM to prevent the 1-3 round boss fights? Or is Pathfinder simply this way?
Pathfinder is a strange game. The better you know the rules and make characters that function optimally within those rules, the more like "rocket tag" the game becomes. This is basically a problem intrinsic to the game. Short of giving enemies tons of HPs beyond what they should have, there's very little you can do.

This has been my view of things for a while now. I figured I should ask the board to see if there are some other ideas though. I've considered limiting books, or magic item creation/purchasing beyond the normal settlement rules. Just reducing player abilities wouldn't solve the issue though, since enemies are still very lethal.

wraithstrike wrote:
You need to be more specific. AP's are made for normal players with 15 point buy so you should expect to make adjustments. Why can't the NPC's do anything to the players? Is it attack rolls, AC, saves, etc etc?

The enemies can damage them, but it's very hard to hit the gunslinger (buffed AC is something like 30), the paladin swift heals himself each turn if he's damaged, the wizard keeps mirror image up. The oracle can be hit fairly easily (he's in melee with about 25 AC). Actually, the enemies damage them too much sometimes, such as the Kreeg ogre crit-killing the oracle last game (2 hero points saved him). Which is why I'm reluctant to buff the enemies too much; they're still very lethal, but they also die easily.

As for saves, the paladin is immune to fear and charm, and has an aura that protects his allies. He's also a paladin, so he has high saves. The others typically have protection from evil up, so a 2 bonus to saves from that. They also use cloaks. Enemy save DCs seem pretty low in RotRL, with 19 being the highest save DC I'm seeing in chapter 3 (10th level). Edit: also, while I will rarely get a save or suck spell through on a player, it seems that many of the enemies have blindness/deafness and bestow curse, and the paladin has remove curse as one of his mercies, so it doesn't even last typically.

Hello. I'm considering running Iron Gods, and I'm currently running Rise of the Runelords. A problem in my game is that the players are simply over-matching the content. The enemies can sometimes damage them, and even be lethal, but the players destroy everything they come across very quickly.

I'm hoping to see longer fights, where something other than "do the most damage possible, as fast as possible" is a viable strategy. Where buffs and debuffs mid-fight matter. With Iron Gods, I can't imagine disallowing Gunslingers (because of laser pistols and the like), but those touch attacks are too good. And ignoring gunslingers, other classes also have combinations for huge amounts of damage.

What can I do as GM to prevent the 1-3 round boss fights? Or is Pathfinder simply this way?

To provide some context, in RotRL I allowed the players 20 points for point buy (I didn't know it was supposed to be 15 points, and while this would make a difference, I think it wouldn't make a huge difference). I also allowed magic item crafting. I give significant downtime between chapters, but otherwise limit them a fair bit. The players are a gunslinger who ignores AC (touch attacks, a paladin who ignores DR (smite evil), a wizard who ignores surprise and always uses mirror image, and a shapechanging oracle who's new to the campaign.

The average DPR (damage per round) of each player is about 60 when they full attack or cast damage spells.