Search Posts
It's literally written in the class description under sanctification... If the deity lists “none,” you can choose only options that don't require the holy or unholy trait.
Can I get Raise Symbol and use it with my Shield without having to get Emblazoned Armament? That's something you have to ask your GM. I don't think there's a RAW way to treat a shield as a religious symbol other than Emblazon Armament. There's a specific magic shield somewhere that counts as Symbol of Torag, but that's about it.
Any update on how this turned out Blave? Curious because I am building a Warpriest currently at level 8 and I will be the only tank. The party has a healer already. Didn't expect to see a 4+ years old thread if mine reappear, so sorry for the late response. As Yuri has mentioned correctly, A LOT has changed since I was last discussing this. I ultimately ended up playing another character altogether but if I were to rebuild a warpriest now it would look very different from what the original idea here. I'd absolutely go Bastion if possible. The ability to raise a shield as a reaction takes a lot of strain from your action economy. Another somewhat unusual thing I'd seriously consider is going Magus archetype. Grabbing Shielding Strike is another amazing action economy enhancer and Spellstrike is a much more versatile option than Channel Smite. Getting both Magus and Bastion in a timely manner requires free archetype and a permissive GM, of course. I usually have both in my group, fortunately. But for regular play, I agree with Yuri that champion is great. Heavy armor and the reaction alone make this a very powerful archetype. The new remaster feat Defensive advance is an action economy enhancer similar to what Bastion or Magus can provide. If you can muster the required charisma, I'd go champion over sentinel without hesitation. Mighty Bulwark is ultimately just a +1 to reflex saves most of the time, and not worth the feat investment. Reflex targeting stuff that doesn't deal damage is too rare as the sole reason for sentinel. And you likely have Raise Symbol, so it's not like your saves are terrible either way.
So it doesn't matter when exactly you spend the action to sustain it as long as it happens before the end of your next turn. I don't see an edge cases here. It's still just as I said: If you cast or sustain a spell with the durqtion "sustained", it lasts until the end of your next turn. None of your examples change anything about it. In no case does sustaining just increase the duration by a round, and neither did I claim it ever does.
A spell with a duration of sustained always lasts until the end of your next turn. Sustaining it extends its duration until the end of your next turn as well. So it doesn't matter when exactly you spend the action to sustain it as long as it happens before the end of your next turn. So sustaining with your third action is fine.
I'd like a clear statement whether or not the Deafenend condition is supposed to have a chance to make you lose your spell when you cast it (assuming it's not a subtle one). This came up multiple times on reddit in the past months with the main arguemnt being that spellcasting requires speech and all speech being auditory by RAW.
If you can actually cast the spell because you are a caster and have it on your spell list, sure. If you're using Trick Magic Item then no, since it takes an action to use TMI so you don't have 3 actions left for the spell.
No mention of the lacking number of thralls at the lowest levels is disappointing. :(
Is there any reason this does not show up on demiplane? Probably because it's not release yet. Unless Demiplane lists books before release. No idea how they usually handle this since I don't really use their website.
Fair enough But if you know its not RAW, maybe say things like "Your GM might allow your familiar to act while you're down." instead of making a rather absolute sounding statement like "When you go down, your Familiar can still do things". Could have saved us both a couple of posts. :)
It's a focus spell you Cast as a free action to Command your familiar. You can't take free actions, Command a minion or Cast a Spell if you're unable to act. Even the flavor text "at your unspoken plea" indicates that you still have to do something to get it to work, even if it is just a fleeting thought. "Your patron simply moves its agent directly" is taken out of context. The full sentence is "Your Command does not have the auditory or concentrate traits; your patron simply moves its agent directly." So it's just a flavor explanation for the removal of the traits for the Command action. I see no room in the RAW here to say you can use this while unconcious. The GM might still allow it, of course, but it simply doesn't work that way by RAW.
Patron's Puppet is super fun. When you go down, your Familiar can still do things (and that's great). You can't use Patron's Puppet if you're unable to act.
Yeah, this has to be for pre-master, right? I don't see how anyone could think the witch is less interesting and unique than the wizard after Player Core. Also don't forget that your familiar doesn't just die at 0 HP. It goes to dying 1, just like any player character.
I agree. It's intentional due to Fire and Cold being the overall very common damage types. My armor inventor specifically covered those two with Charms of Resistance because they give a bigger resistance.
If an action causes you to rolls an attack against a target or makes the target roll a save, it's most certainly a hostile action. The same goes for any action that causes damage (even if it doesn't involve a check, like Force Barrage) or inflicts a negative condition on the target. So yes, I would absolutely consider casting slow a hostile action in this situation. The line blurrs a bit for effects that do neither of those things. An effect that turns the ground beneath an enemy to difficult terrain but doesn't affect the enemy itself may or may not be considered hostile, for example.
Save War of Immortals, which was an October release. I'm guessing that's an outlier because of a combination of getting SF2E's playtest--which did release at GenCon--up and running, and lingering wonkiness from needing to put out the remastered core books.Does anyone knows (based on previous playtests or as some insider info) when we should wait for official release of Necromancer and Runesmith? Playtest has ended 31.01, and after release I believe we'll have new class features, runes for Runesmith, subclasses and so on. What is the usual gap between playtest end and release?Pathfinder publishes classes in the book released at GenCon, and this year that is Commander and Guardian. GenCon 2026 starts July 30th, so July 30th, 2026 is when these classes will come out in their final form. Guns and Gears was also an October release since it came in the same year as SoM (which was that year's GenCon release). That being said, it seems too optimistic to hope for the Impossible book to be released this October. Either they break the usual schedule and give us Impossible as the spring rule book of 2026 or we'll really have to wait until GenCon 2026.
Cool, now where is our Secrets of Magic Remasted/Rework? Paizo has basically remastered everything else. Watch as the new Academy book will have Remastered Magus and Summoner. Last word was that they remaster books sell put their copies. Whoch may or may not happen to books like SoM or DA. I'm still not sure a remastered SoM is ever going to happen since there's quite a lot of lore stuff in there that's obsolete with the remaster. A complete replacement book like divine mysteries seems more likely. And Rival Academies is a Lost Omens book. Those never had classes before. I doubt they would start something like that now.
Wait Treasure Vault is getting Remastered!?
Wait does that mean no Remasterd Automaton Ancestry even? Dang it, I was hoping. I don't have a copy to check in the PDF but thanks. At a glance, at least their Reinforced Chassis feat has been upgraded. It no longer requires armor proficiency and gives you a +3 AC bonus with a +1 Dex cap at level 1. Scales to +4 armor at level 5 and +5 armor at level 1. A high level monk will have amazing AC with that. The remaster stuff is also online on Pathfinder Nexus. You can check the Automatons here.
The PDF is now available for people who have the pre-master pdf. At least it showed up in my downloads. Be aware that it's not marked as "remaster". Look for a Guns and Gears copy that was last updated on December 4th.
Looks like Reverse Engineer still has impossible requirements for its level. Ah well...
I was reading Overdrive and its improvement was minimal. Basically if it fail you get 1 extra damage instead of nothing and if you critically fail you cooldown only 1d4 rounds instead of 1 minute. It's weird that the 1 damage on a failure is fire damage. If you're fighting something with weakness to fire, failing the check might end up more beneficial than succeeding. Unless you're using the weapon innovation of course. It still too meh compared to all other damage improvement abilities that other martials get. 1d4 is way better than 1 minute yet for many encounters if this means that you become half or even the entire combat without Overdrive. Most fights are likely decided before that cooldown is done, so this is a very minor buff. I also disagree that Overdrive is meh, but that's another discussion altogether.
Any idea when the premaster PDFs might be updated? Just checked my downloads and they're still showing 2021 as the last updated day. I would expect that to happen later today. Most likely during paizo's office hours which are still a while off, if I'm not mostaken.
Btw, Pathfinder Nexus has the remastered stuff online already. Be aware that the feats are messed up and show only the old versions. If you type "Remaster" in the search bar above the feats, they will be replaced with the new version. I haven't looked at items or anything else besides classes and archetypes, but I would assume the same need to filter would apply to them.
The PDF is now available. Still waiting for the pre-master pdf to be updated in my Downloads.
Wait, how do you cast fortify summoning at the same time as a summon spell? Those are exclusively 3 actions, are they not? Do you quicken your summons or something? Because without quicken, I don't see how you can use the focus spell on the same turn as the summon spells.
Hand of the Apprentice: Single action weapon strike using spellcasting. Expensive to invest in but it really is worth the damage and potential crit effect. Some people rule that potency rune doesnt apply, Other people do which does make its value vary from table to table. Non-muscle Wizards will very likely use it with their staff. At best, you're looking at 4d8+7 damage for a single action. Not terrible (especially at the huge range), but still a very steep gold cost which might be better invested into other things, like a more powerful staff or more spells. Critical Specialization is unreliable and just a 10 ft knockback that's even defined as forced movement, limiting its usefulness. Applying potency runes to this is very much a house rule and shouldn't be part of such discussions. Fortify summoning: Using creatures with auto-grab abilities, stench, knockdown, engulf/swallow or similar. Auto-Grab is no longer a thing in the remaster. But the worst thing about Fortify Summoning is that it essentially eats your whole turn since you also need to sustain the summon to get any use out of it. Spending two whole turns to get a slightly buffed summon is not a great deal in my book. Scramble body: 2 action evil eye hex. but it instead targets fortitude and comes with slowed 1 + sickened 2 if they crit fail. Does lack the sustain part but i've never seen a witch sustain that hex outside having a spare action with nothing else to do. It's still a two-action spell (i.e. basically eats your whole turn) that does nothing on a successful save. It's the only one that somehow got worse with the remaster since fort is often a strong save on enemies. The old version was a spell attack so it could at least benefit from off-guard and attack buffs. Anyway, that's just my take. I'm not going to argue about this. We ulitmately agree that many of the wizard's focus spells are sub-par, even if we're thinking of different ones.
Meanwhile Hand of the Apprentice, Fortify summoning and Scramble body are absolutely great. That's funny. Those three are the absolutely worst of the wizard's focus spells for me. Always interesting to see how much opinions differ between players.
I don't think the wizard needs a numbers boost. It's not really making the class any more interesting from a mechanical point of view, just more effective. It also risks shoehorning players into relying on certain types of spells more than they should and could be a trap especially for newer players. I'd much rather see the class design fixed than its power. More useful and interesting focus spells and feats would be a great start. Maybe increase the uses of Arcane Bond (with some limitation to not give the class even more top level slots) and maybe the ability to spend those uses on various abilities depending on your thesis and/or school. For Example, the Spellshape thesis could allow you to spend an Arcane Bond "charge" to use a Spellshape as a free action or maybe to aply two Spellshapes to the same spell. Spell Substitution could spend an action and a Bond charge to instantly switch out a spell. Stuff like that. Somehing along those lines would makes the thesis/schools choice more interesting and give Arcane Bond an identity that goes beyond "more spells".
Bone Spear seems extremely awkward to use in practice unless you also get Reach of the Dead. And preferably wait to level 7 so you can use them together immediately. Bone Spear's initial damage is also kind of bad. It's balanced as a potential area attack but the weird range/area combination makes it hard to hit two enemies and very unlikely to ever hit 3. When used against a single enemy, it's barely better than the damage of create thrall, but costs twice the actions, a focus point and a thrall. If you're hitting oy two foes anyway, you might as well just creat thrall twice (live with the MAP penalty on the second cast) and still have an action left - not to mention two thralls left for flanking. Overall, I agree that the initial focus spells are just not good enough early on to carry the class through the earliest levels. You're mostly just limited to create thrall plus cantrip and a singular slot per day.
Hey, there's a classic red-colored dragon on the cover. The very first post here seays the cover isn't final. Chances are there will be no red dragon on the final version.
I play alongside a Flames oracle. When PC2 was released, the oracle was rebuilt using the reamster rules. We were level 15 or 16 at the time, I think. The player chose to get basically no curseboud feat - other than foretell harm which he got for free, of course. His reasoning was that there's simply no need to get more abilities if you have 4 slots per rank and a very solid spell list. I don't feel like his combat performance has changed much compared to pre-master. He barely interacts with his curse anymore since he rarely uses any coursebound abilities and his focus spells (of which he mostly uses whirling flames) don't affect the curse any longer. So other than the spell list, he doesn't feel much different from what a fire elemental sorcerer would feel. He's a bit more sturdy as an oracle, of course, but my gut reaction tells me he would overall be more effective as a blaster sorcerer, even more so if he would add the oracle archetype for Foretell Harm.
Yes, a Strike by definition deals damage on a success unless an ability explicitely says otherwise.
I will probably watch that when I have the opportunity, but I'm not sure a video has much value as feedback for a playtest. You might want to condense your findings in text form and post them here if you're serious about giving feedback.
The problem of add it as a class feature instead of feat is that it will be accounted as class power not as class option. You misread my post. I didn't suggest turning it into a class feature. Just to add a necromancer-exclusive class feature as a prerequisite for the feat. Simulat to how many of the heal/harm-related spellshapes of the cleric require you to have the divine font feature and as such are unavailable from the cleric archetype.
Bind Heroic Spirit: yeah, making a Thrall w/ a successful Strike seems modest enough to gain earlier, especially given the amount of investment to build for actually striking. The +3 could be scaled back say to +1/6 levels. Still iffy offensively, but the save boost helps patch a hole. Trick here is we likely don't want martials to gain access to it.It could be a lvl 12 feat instead of start from lower levels allowing it to be accessible via MC archetype (starting with +2 and heightening to +3 at rank 9). I don't thin level 12 is necessary. They could just add some class feature that's unavailable for the Archetype as a prerequisite. Something like Grim Wards or Inevitable Return. It would hardly be the first class feat with a prerequisite that the class itself will always fulfill.
I agree but partially. A melee martial necromancer still lacks the martial necromancer progression. Oh, I didn't mean the Necromancer is good in melee. I just don't think MADness is the thing holding him back.
I don't see how a melee Necromancer is any more MAD than any of the martials with mental key attributes? I'm playing a Goblin Inventor and started with +3 Str, +1 Dex, +1 Con, +4 Int, +0 Wis and -1 Cha. (She was created before the voluntary flaw rules were changed.) And I'm doing just fine with my 8 HP per level. I'm also playing alongside a Thaumaturge who started with +3 Str and +4 Cha and also works perfectly fine. The necro is even on the high end of caster saving throw progression. Still lower than a martial of course, but that's the price you pay for magic. The one thing I would like to see for the melee Necromancer is medium armor. Preferable as a baseline. If druids and animists can have it, so can the Necromancer. Alternatively, I could live with a subclass that gets Armor Proficiency as their free general feat. Reaper's Weapon Familiarity (which desperately needs a buff mechanically, but its mere existance is amazing!) is all about grabbing the biggest, meanest blade you can find, so it seems quite obvious that melee Necro is supposed to be strength-based. And that's just impossible to pull off in light armor unless you want to dump your intelligence which doesn't seem smart (pun intended). So as it stands right now, any melee Necromancer will either have to be Human or face quite a struggle at the first levels before he can pick up Medium Armor Proficiency in some way.
I'm still not sure how Class DC interacts with muticlass archetypes, as discussed here. If I'm a barbarian with the monk archetype, do I have two separate Class DCs? If yes, which one do I use for an ability that says it uses "Your class DC"?
Misread the question. Ignore me. Kyrand below is correct.
Thank you again for doing some testing and sharing your thoughts and results! And good call on the rollback. I don't think the potential broken-ness of the Calm spell needs any playtesting at this point. :D Though it might have been interesting to see how a sustaining a spell affects your overall action economy. I deliberately left sustained spells out of my spell selection when building a few Necromancers to see how they feel. He casts fear on the fighter who misses his save and is now frightened 2 That should have been frightened 1 thanks to Bravery, no? I cast a thrall next to A2 then use bony barrage, getting all three remaining mobs in it. I sacrifice the thrall next to me to make it party-friendly. Since you aimed it at a thrall next to you, where you in the area of effect yourself? Sacrificing a second thrall only protects your allies, not yourself. Neither of those are likely to have mattered in the end, of course. ------------------ It's an interesting read and doesn't sound too bad for low level. But it seemed to be quite an ideal situation for the necromancer. - It was close quarters so you didn't have to move once.
I might just be a bit too pessimistic, mind you. It just seems like there's multiple factors at work here that made your experience quite smooth and that it could easily have been more clunky if only one or two of those points were different. May I ask what your build looked like exactly? I think you had only Bone Spear and Bone Spray for focus spells so I'm curious what your remaining class feat was.
So, about a year ago, I mused how Trick Magic Item could be really good with the new universal spellcasting proficiency. The original remaster version of the feat was identical to the pre-master version, but the errata changed that. After applying the errata, it now says If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack modifier or spell DC and you don’t have proficiency in the relevant statistic, use your level as your proficiency bonus and the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifiers. If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s tradition, you instead use the trained proficiency bonus; if you’re legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus. No longer is using a better spell proficiency locked behind heavy investment into the correct skill. You can use your own! A Level 20 Wizard can cast Cleanse Affliction from a scroll using his full legendary proficiency! But which attribut does he use to dertermine his spell attack/DC? Can he use Int for all items activated by TMI since that's the attribute linked to his class's spell proficiency?
But paizo need to decide on a class's flavor at some point. I could easily reflavor most of the kineticist to use necrotic instead of elemental stuff. If the Runesmith used magically charged needles to embed in allies and foes instead of inscribed runes, the class would suddenly be a battle acupuncturist. An alchemist throwing shrunken heads instead of Vials would be a witch doctor. And so on and so forth.
Having to kill stiff before you can use your class abilities sounds terrible. It results in near-permanent minions, of which you should never have more than one under the game's design. Or if they are semi-permanent and only last for a few hours or until the next day, you're basically dead weight at the beginning of the day. Good luck on that dragon hunt where the dragon is your only foe all day. What are you going to do? Kill a few peasants along the way? Someone on reddit even argued that since PF2 doesn't support a Necromancer with a dozen undead minions, the class shouldn't be made for PF2 at all, which seems like a ridiculous notion. I really don't understand the whole flavor debate. The PF2 Necromancer is different from the most common depiction of necromancers in media. So what? The PF2 wizard is also vastly different from Gandalf or Harry Potter. Things can share a name and similar theme without being identical in execution. The current thrall system has a few rough edges but for me it's a perfectly valid version if what a Necromancer can be.
The wording of bone spear says the Thrall is destroyed before the attack happens. So when the attack happen, there is no thrall that could flank.Indeed RAW seems to say no to flanking, but I think RAI was yes. I do not see why they would state that it's a melee spell attack otherwise. Technically, a melee spell attack would not trigger reactive strikes as opposed to a ranged spell attack. But that point is moot since the casting of the spell will still trigger RS. There are some reactions that only work against melee or ranged attacks, though. Like Reactive Shield. This being a melee spell attack would at least matter for those.
That won't help much since there's plenty of other abilities that make thralls take actions usually a Stride. The wording change needs to happen in the Thrall trait to something like "can't take actions unless one of your abilities makes them take said actions".
While I don't really care about the name of a class, I don't think we'll ever get another one that's closer to being a "Necromancer". The thing everyone seems to associate with that name are lots of undead minions you can order around to do your bidding. But we all know something like that will probably never happen. Limiting the amount of moving parts during each player's turn seems very much rooted in PF2's design philosophy, systems and balance. So basically, I think it's now or never.
ugh idk, I agree with your thesis that they'd do better with medium armor. I just wish that weren't so true for thematic reasons. As someone who also suggested to give them medium armor: What exactly about their theme doesn't fit medium armor? I don't see how it fits them any better or worse than light armor. Or even heavy, for that matter. They aren't a nimble class and their theme is more or less standing their ground while throwing thralls at their enemies (because their action economy is too tight to move around more than absolutely necessary). I could absolutely see them prefer the heavier armor types. We would need a few more skeletal armors to have a perfect fit, but that seems easy enough to accomplish. Anyone who still prefers light armor could still use it, after all. Since blanket medium armor proficiency seems unlikely to happen, a fourth subclass that get Armor Proficiency as its general feat would be a decent middle ground. At least I could play a necromancer at level 1 without feeling the overwhelming need to be a human for armor proficiency.
Honestly, no, I don't think 6 thralls if one uses all three actions is too much even at level 1 given that they still make the same number of attacks, map is applied, and movement isn't much different between level 1 & 7. Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that two thralls per action don't seem problematic at level 1 (at least no more or less than at level 7). I would prefer Create Thrall to start at two thralls. Drop the improvement at Expert if 5 at Legendary is too much. When I'm suggesting stuff like the temporary thrall or limiting the second thrall to be created close by (adjacent or maybe within 10 ft), I do this under the assumption that paizo thinks two full-value thralls per action at level 1 are too much. Because otherwise they would probably have given us exactly that, if only to meet the flavor expectations right from the get go. But they didn't, so I'm trying to come up with stuff that makes the second thrall less useable to balance things a bit.
Crossbow and Heavy Crossbow have 120 ft.
|
