Bluemagetim's page

QuidEst wrote:

Gotcha. They opted for "more than the minimum" and come up with a more interesting and unique approach to dragons so that we'd have more categories of better-differentiated dragons that are recognizably "Pathfinder". They probably could have done what you described, but it wouldn't really generate additional interest. Folks already have those ten available.

Then again, nothing prevents them from creating their own dragons to further distance themselves from the OGL.

Isn't that what they did with Monster Core dragons?

lemuelmassa Im sold on your take for Aid.
I really liked the off the walls examples you gave and would love to see my players try stuff like that.

I think it was more for the reason they felt confident in how cool their new dragons are.
That would be my guess.

We are missing a puff the magic dragon (needs to live by the sea)

Bluemagetim wrote:

Quick coercion has benefits when time matters.

Which is almost never. It is already out of combat and in encounter mode. It is the difference between fluffy time and a bit less fluffy time. Most people are never going to see the difference.

Thats a matter of scenarios a GM sets up and how often time is a factor for those scenarios.

In a way my players are telling me the kinds of gameplay they are interested in by the skill feats they choose so to some degree I like to accommodate those choices with how I set up scenarios.

Finoan wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Finoan wrote:

That's also very clearly a houserule.

If you give the preparation action the attack trait

Why would you do that?

I could understand giving the Aid Reaction the attack trait because that is when the attack roll is being rolled.

"Preparing to make an attack" wouldn't have the Attack trait. Drawing a weapon doesn't have the Attack trait. Picking a target to swing at doesn't have the attack trait (and isn't even an action). Devise a Strategem doesn't have the Attack trait.

Also, if you give the Aid Preparation the Attack trait, then it would increase MAP stage for the rest of your current turn.

If you save the preparation for last, that shouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't affect your aid reaction either because MAP doesn't apply outside your turn.

Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.

Quick coercion has benefits when time matters.
Like if you have 3-4 rounds before guards arrive and your cover is blown to get information out of an NPC.

There isn't enough time to coerce them normally.
Without the feat I would make this more difficult than normal. A pc with the feat gets to use one round to coerce without the DC being harder than normal.

probably could have also used gladhand to make an impression then make a request to get the information with diplomacy.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Quick coercion is a feat that gives a player a time shortcut for the standard coercion rule. the shortcut is automatic for those with the feat.
Standard coercion just like quick coercion is not applicable in a combat encounter.
Here is what that means for me.
A player cannot end an encounter with a coercion roll just because they want to roll for it, even if they roll a 20, its not standard, what is standard is using demoralize to apply a stat penalty. This does not mean a GM cannot decide a coercion attempt makes sense in the circumstance and does in fact end combat while the enemies flee.
But it isnt standard use of coercion because combat in this game is meant to normally be a balanced battle experience. As GM though that might not be what you want in every combat, and may want narrative situations to take precedence.
I would say clever use of terrain could end a fight, saying something learned in game that triggers an NPC that you meant to just be a social encounter could change it to a combat encounter. Some fluidity is needed to make an engaging game IMO.

Yeah, this is what I am talking about. And now I need ideas, how to change quick coercion so it would connect with roleplay better. Because, again. Player who's narratively setting knife to someone throat is already pretty quick way to coerce someone in social "encounter"

Coercion connects to roleplay just fine. Its what a player uses to convince npcs to act against their own inclinations (through threat of consequence), GM sets the DC and applys any circumstance modifiers and the player rolls for it using the time it takes to do it.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Group impression says you can make an impression on more npcs with no penalty.

I treat group coercion the same even though they didnt write it with that phrase.

My second question to you was about quick coercion, not group coercion. But thanks

For some reason people in my thread don't understand that I'm asking this, because some of mechanics RAW creat big dissonance with narrative, and how It could be fixed. Not that i want to turn my hypotetical situations in 1 wizard vs 6000 soldiers encounter, because mechanically they wouldn't flee or that this feats is essential for people who just want to "I make an impression on x people, because feat allow me to do that, and then roll"

Quick coercion is a feat that gives a player a time shortcut for the standard coercion rule. the shortcut is automatic for those with the feat.

I dont run the skill feats talked about so far as hard locks on in game options. I tried it that way at first and didnt like it.
There are two things that happen when you do that.
First is doing so requires game knowledge of all the skill feats in the game to know whats locked. Kind of a ln absurd barrier for GMs learning the system.
Second it doesnt work out well in play to tell players theres a feat for that and since you dont have it you cant even try.

So I just consider the circumstances with what is being attempted and set an appropriate difficulty like with anything else. If they have the feat the thing comes easier or can be automatic.

No charming liar vs having it?
The feat adds a rider effect to crit success. It happens when your not even attempting to use deception to improve NPC opinions of you. (This would get a dc based on gullibility and how hard to believe the lie is for the npc, it may also be temporary because the lie could be exposed)
If your attempt is to improve their opinion of you then its not something else like convincing the npc the item you are selling them is an antique from old Taldor instead of a pot you found lying around the market. With charming lier a crit success on convincing the npc for selling the pot also increases their opinion of you. They dont just believe the pot is an antique they also think your a great guy for giving them first crack at a deal to buy it.

YuriP wrote:

That's why I'm very generous with hero points and I use a house rule in my games where I allow my players to use their hero points to ask an enemy's re-roll too (adding misfortune trait to that roll or forbidding if the roll already have this trait).

I've found hero points don't help when your on a bad streak, you'll just roll the same number or worse. Rolling a crit fail from a fail is one of the worst feelings. A friend of mine almost quit after 6 sessions of rolling a 5 about 20% of the time, streaks of 3-4 5s in a row and every other number being a 5, it was rough to see, even our GM was like "I feel bad but I don't know how to make this fun." It happens but there isn't much you can do about terrible luck.

In my last group the GM adopted my idea to allow hero points to give +10 instead of a reroll if desired. It gives players the option to know when they use the point it will have an effect, and that feels great. Just need to be prepared for auto crits, you could add in a limiter on damage for them and I think it would be fine.
Caster save rerolls should be a thing, it's rather bad that only martials can better their offensive chances with hero points.

Lol you could have players play I rolled low again bingo.

Theaitetos wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

A summon will cause indirect harm.

If you are reaching to this level of abstraction, the class will begin to have basic functionality issues.

Any aid whatsoever they lend to the party would then count as indirect harm.

That's nonsense.

Just look at it from the perspective that is already established in game:
If an action counts as a hostile action (e.g. to break Invisibility), then it should be considered active involvement. And if it causes injury, then it is doing harm.

Sure, you can summon a Fire Elemental, but once you command (sustain) it to attack someone, then that is definitely using your magic to cause harm with an element.

For at what point would that be different than casting Floating Flame? Both are temporarily summoned forms of elemental fire that require your direct command to harm others.

This feels like we are in arbitrary and capricious territory.

Would casting Conductive Weapons on an allies weapon be Anathema to you?

I know I took the hostile argument to its extreme in the other thread about harm but for this anathema no I wouldn't consider conductive weapons cast on allies the same as casting an elemental. I think Zoken44 is taking a good middle approach. Tell the player this is on the edge, your playing at the fringes of your anathema.

But for summoning it feels more like its just past that edge. its mainly because casting an elemental minion that is going to use elemental damage abilities on enemies feels like cheesing the system to still be able to use elemental attacks as an envy Runelord. There is a spirit of this is a thing my character is giving up that isn't being given up.

To me lighting certainly is elemental magic.

I agree with Nelzy.
Shield block triggers when you would take physical damage, so after the amount is determined and before you take it.

Sounds like the creature just has an on switch for the spell effect to become continuous again.
It doesn’t look like the creature actually casts the spell.

Actually there is more to fighter differences than just weapon group selection.

A bow fighter might be a +3 str +4 Dex fighter with point blank shot at level one and they might rather take a finesse weapon as thier melee option to fully take advantage of their dex.

A twohanded maul fighter is going to have +4 str and maybe 0 dex. Sudden charge or vicious strike and if they have a ranged option its going to be a true last resort.

These two fighters play fairly different from each other.

exequiel759 wrote:

At least you admit it. If you played one you'll hae noticed they are ridiculously strong.

A +2 to attack doesn't seem like a lot, but I remember fighters critting like 5 times in a row or something ridiculous like that. Even if you were to argue this is copium or exaggeration, I substract enemy HP the ol' way of taking notes on my cellphone and the fighters are always dealing the most damage in their respective encounters.

I already have trouble making a Fighter that isn't a braindead meathead that always "kicks in the door" OR that isn't "Wuxia".

Do I really need to take in that all it can do is "dealing more damage"?

BotBrain wrote:

Wait so do you want the fighter to be flexible or not? One minute you're lamenting that fighter doesn't have access to a wider array of options and the next you're asking for feats that would by nature force a fighter down a narrower path.

And again, for what I'm going to make the last time:
The fighter DOES have the ability to specalise in a type of weapon. That's what the feats do. That's why combat flexability exists, to give fighter versatile access to more feats. It's weaker because fighter derives incredible power from its feats, much more so than other classes.

I want to be specialized in one specific weapon group, but to also be flexible with it.

Everyone can wield a sword, but the Fighter should have 5 extra features they only can do with Sword weapons, similar to what a Gunslinger obtain.

Actually thats kind of what I did with this broadspear fighter build.

Broad Spear Fighter 6
N
Medium
Elf
Desert Elf
Humanoid
Perception +11; Low-Light Vision
Languages None selected
Skills Acrobatics +10, Athletics +14, Deception +11, Diplomacy +11, Intimidation +11, Lore: Alcohol +9, Society +9, Stealth +10
Str +4, Dex +2, Con +1, Int +1, Wis +1, Cha +3
Items +1 Scale MailAC 24; Fort +11, Ref +12, Will +11; Bravery
HP 72; Resistances: Fire 3
Shield Block
Reactive Strike Speed 30 feet
Melee +1 Weapon Striking Fearsome Broadspear +17 (Uncommon, Reach, Sweep, Versatile S, Emotion, Fear, Magical, Mental), Damage 2d10+4 P
Vicious Swing
Lunge
Bon Mot
Swipe
Arcane Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Shield
Primal Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Stabilize
Primal Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Vitality Lash, Light, Tangle Vine
Additional Feats Advanced Weapon Training, Bargain Hunter, Desert Elf, Hobnobber, Otherworldly Magic, Titan Wrestler, Wildborn Adept, Wildborn Magic
Additional Specials Fighter Weapon Mastery (Spear), Select Advanced Weapon Group (Spear)

Fighter chassis is also so strong that they make a great class to be when you want to archtype

Sparkling Targe Magus dedication on a sword and shield martial.
you get access to the focus spell for lower level action compression of raise a shield and a strike, Might even take the hybrid study before spellstrike.
Champion with the shields of the spirit focus spell is a nice base to have an more uses of focus spells that raise a shield and do other stuff.
Even on a fighter it will feel like you are doing a lot each round with compressed movement like sudden charge followed by a shielding strike then a reactive strike as things try to move away from you.

Also of course having spellstrike as an offensive option once per fight as a sword and shield martial is nice.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Mangaholic13 wrote:

I just ask this because there is nothing stating it that I could find.

On Archive of Nethys, it treats Spellstrike as an activity, which causes you to Cast A Spell as part of it. There isn't any mention about how Spellstrike is or isn't affected by using a spell with the Manipulate trait.

I just wanted to know what the opinion is on this (until, you know, Magus gets Remastered).

If you look at the sidebar on page 415 Player Core it explains that subordinate actions keep their traits even when they are called for as part of an activity.

So stride as part of sudden charge would still trigger reactive strikes because of the move trait, and casting a spell as part of spellstrike still triggers reactive strike cause of the manipulate trait.

In contrast Channel Smite specifically removes the manipulate trait from the spell cast in the activity.

Considering Channel Smite didn't include that wording in the Premaster... How much you all want to bet that Remastered Spellstrike might also include a "the spell doesn't have the manipulate trait when cast this way" in the text?

It would be a welcome addition.

I just ask this because there is nothing stating it that I could find.

On Archive of Nethys, it treats Spellstrike as an activity, which causes you to Cast A Spell as part of it. There isn't any mention about how Spellstrike is or isn't affected by using a spell with the Manipulate trait.

I just wanted to know what the opinion is on this (until, you know, Magus gets Remastered).

If you look at the sidebar on page 415 Player Core it explains that subordinate actions keep their traits even when they are called for as part of an activity.

In contrast Channel Smite specifically removes the manipulate trait from the spell cast in the activity.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I wonder if class archtypes are really balanced more around a free archtype game than a normal one.

Battle harbinger kinda is a lot better in a free archtype game than in games without free archtype.
And yes everything is better off in free archtype but it does feel like some classes are actually too restrictive without it.
What do you all think?

Classes behave differently when you allow Free Archetype. Some classes don't really benefit from it (Kineticist, Summoner) and others get lots of good things out of it. This is an optional rule and as such classes are not balanced around it.

I figure your take must be the right answer, its like looking at the result of the design along with the popularity of the variant rule I was thinking maybe there is something to it.

I wonder if class archtypes are really balanced more around a free archtype game than a normal one.
Battle harbinger kinda is a lot better in a free archtype game than in games without free archtype.
And yes everything is better off in free archtype but it does feel like some classes are actually too restrictive without it.
What do you all think?

Bluemagetim wrote:

If 1 point is a big deal then man let me tell you about the school of the boundry. there you will learn of a focus spell to increase your summons checks and DCs by +1!

Sign up today and we will even throw in a free tote bag!

I realize this was said in jest, but I still want to see the tote bag. Heh.

Lol I think Paizo has an opportunity for a new product line.

If 1 point is a big deal then man let me tell you about the school of the boundry. there you will learn of a focus spell to increase your summons checks and DCs by +1!
Sign up today and we will even throw in a free tote bag!

Escaping is a contest against another creature. Its harming you, you have to harm back to get out of it.

I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.

Like with the farmer under some kind of spell, restricting the farmers freedom of movement is harmful even if the desired effect of saving his life is intended to be helpful.

I don't think of it in terms of opposites, in a way where trying to be helpful negates the part of the actions taken that are harmful.

GameDesignerDM you just illustrated the reason explaining magic ruins it.

I liked the idea of more interaction with weakest save and weaknesses.

If playing that game is what a wizard is expected to do maybe they should get a bit more of a reward when they get it right?

Great deal. Glad to support a good cause.

It just means Paizo is not a monolith.

I made the argument with references earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear you don't apply rules meant to regulate the power and cost of items and provide rules described in sections for using crafting to add runes (etching) and transfer runes to abilities that grant runes outside that process given as part of the a class power budget. I have no reason to even consider item power budgets and class chassis and feat budgets as limiting each other until one of them references the other specifically in the affirmative that something applies, and that is just not done here.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5u49g?EncounterADay-2025

Check out Ruzza’s encounter a day thread. Its pretty neat.

Just bouncing ideas off of all the comments.
Maybe wizards could have an ability that they can use after crit succeeding at a RK check for weakest save.
When they crit succeed they can use an activity afterward to pull out their spellbook a rewrite one of their prepared slots.

None. When charging a staff "that staff gains a number of charges equal to the rank of your highest spell slot." pg 278 GM core

Bluemagetim wrote:

Tell me its not worth it to know and prepare to counterspell dominate when you know its coming?

Uncommon too so likely you have to do something to get access to a scroll to learn it cause typically a sorcerer or wizard is not going to have access to add it to repertoire or spell book on level up.

Well, of course it's worth it. But the arcane sorcerer can readily add it to his repertoire if need be, just like the wizard - and that's if he doesn't already have it in his selection since it's a great spell despite the incapacitation tag.

Ok good so we agree theres reason to want to set up counterspell.

Now if were saying every arcane sorcerer must have arcane evolution to play then now we have fixed a feat choice in place that not every one is going to pick up. The ones that have it have that flexibility to learn more spells and add it to rep for the day one at a time. and remember it actually has another limitation sorcerers are not as good at as wizards. They have to actually learn it and roll to see if they didnt mess up. Arcana is the relevant check and better hope the sorcerer skilled that up to learn what might be a hard roll. Domination is 28 DC for a 6th rank spell, soonest this can be learned is level 11 and its about a 50/50 shot maybe less and 140 gold for a master arcana sorcerer without magic items dedicated to increasing that chance. A fail means waiting for level up anyway.
A wizard with arcana master is getting the spell learned on a 7 or up before adding in magic items.
Really the effect of this might be a delay in the spells added to a sorcerer's list compared to a same level wizard.

This usually happens when comparing spontaneous vs Prepared.
Spontaneous is treated as though they know the entire tradition's spell list instead of having to make hard choices and forgo the rest.
The rebuttals assume the particular sorcerer chose the spell needed for the rebuttal. But an actual sorcerer made choices and is not going to be able to answer to every situation in the same way.

Prepared gets as much of it as access and GP allows.

Teridax wrote:

Spell preparation lets you heighten the same spell to different ranks without needing it to take up multiple spaces in your repertoire or even your spellbook, much less use up one of your precious signature spells. This lets a prepared spellcaster allocate their spellslots much more precisely. I and the person I quoted were both wrong on the number of spells a Wizard adds to their spellbook, by the way, and the class gets more.

So to be very clear: there have been plenty of examples of the advantages of spell preparation on this very thread, and it is not difficult to come up with them either. To also be very clear: I am not saying spell preparation is better than spontaneous casting or even as good; I am merely pointing out that it has its own merits, and that if any class in the game was going to be a prepared spellcaster, it would be the Wizard. You can certainly criticize Vancian spellcasting for being overly rigid and unfriendly to newer players, because it is, but to pretend that it has literally no benefits whatsoever is wrong, point blank. If you absolutely cannot abide spell preparation in any manner, then the Wizard is probably not the class for you, and that's okay.

FWIW, the brew I linked earlier does offer a compromise by letting you become a flexible spellcaster as an arcane thesis. It wouldn't give you a +2 to all of your spells (another thesis does something like that though), but it would at least let you access the best of both worlds at the cost of your fourth spell slot. I do recommend taking a look in general, because there might be quite a few options you'd like. It would certainly beat complaining about how the Wizard isn't more like the Sorcerer or the Fighter, at the very least..

How do you post this when this has been clearly refuted?

It doesn't take up multiple spells known. If you take dispel magic or a similar spell as a signature spell, you can use it at different levels for every spell level you have.

Whereas a prepared caster must...

To be fair sig spell selection is limited. you do have to make choices, if its dispel magic it wont be others you might have wanted. That is actually the feature of arcane evolution i think is powerful. getting to pick daily a new sig spell.

So the idea of making the wizard easier to use actually is a great space for wizard schools.
They give you a set of schools spells that currently fit a theme but if they were selected based on giving you a working basis for a playstyle that was reinforced by the focus spell given to that school that would accomplish the idea of a guiderail for wizard play.

Do you think they already did this to a degree?

Bluemagetim wrote:

I think I just realized you have the bell on the enemy side of the door not the pc side!

Clever.

Yeah....it wouldn't be "undefeatable"* if it were on the same side as the PCs.

*People disagree about whether or not it should be undefeatable, as at least some people believe this should qualify as a trap and should therefore have a DC.

Another foolproof option would be to have a lookout watching the door. no matter the stealth roll of the pc the door doesnt have stealth, if it opens it will be noticed.

Could have the alarm spell in place instead.

i would love to see a later level class feature that gives a choice to the wizard to gain either another thesis or some advanced property of the thesis they chose.

looking at the mummy stats its slow with only 20 ft movement.
moderate hp at 130 for its level
moderate AC at 26
Saves include 1 high 1 moderate and 1 low
close to maximum fire weakness and cold resistance at 10 each

its kinda middling defensively. its slow, but in a blizzard it will see you before you see it.

Offensively
Low strike to hit at +15. and below low damage on strikes.
The effect DCs at 24 are 1 point above moderate for their level.
The frost breath though is high at 26 DC and damage is exactly in line with aoe damage guidelines for limited use abilities.
Really its the abilities they have that gives them a fighting chance.
The PCs have to be hindered between the aura and frost rot to make this monster challenging. If the party can stay at range and just contend with the frost breath it looks like they might have an easy time fighting it, especially if they can do fire damage.

i appreciate all the perspectives shared here.
I was considering doing PFS to get a chance to be a player rather than just GMing.

Theres also some instances where they coincide like picking Rull for the diety as a warpriest or battle harbinger to get the combination of a falcion as favored weapon and lighting bolt and chain lighting as divine spells and its lightning themed.

Jonobi wrote:

I have seen the cursebound 2 condition of the Tempest mystery mentioned a few times as a large negative but isnt it a relatively minor one? The cursebound 2 gives a "-2 circumstance penalty to ranged attack rolls" but most (if not all?) spells use a spell attack roll which is a different thing. All types attack rolls have pretty explicit definition with very few exceptions... So I dont think the cursebound 2 condition would apply to much unless you were using a crossbow or something.

I havent played an Oracle yet but I am looking into making a Tempest mystery one and could see this point being brought up.

(Responding again because the comment providing pure mechanical clarification got mysteriously deleted.)

You're right that the curse is largely minor, though it's worth noting that spell attack rolls can also be ranged. Ranged or melee attacks describe spell attacks as well as Strikes and other effects with the attack trait, so if you were to pick winter bolt or charged javelin from the mystery's domains, both of which make ranged spell attacks, you'd incur the penalty from being cursebound 2.

I agree with Teridax on this. I don't like that I cant fully theme up on lighting by picking the lighting domain without really losing out on most of its benefits while cursebound. The curse could have been something that doesnt clash with a domain given.

Easl wrote:

Distribution is important.

Not really. Distribution is important if you're supposed to 1 or 2-shot enemies or if you're the only one to deal damage. So it's slightly relevant during the first levels and quickly becomes useless. Average is really the important value.

Your example works only because it's extreme but you won't find actual play example that reproduce it.

Distribution determines standard deviation from the average.

A potentially limitless number of stories for how magic is integrated into culture. I like that approach as it allows for mystery and uncertainty. I like a definition of magic that is incomplete, one that ensures no one, not even the gods, not even Nethys, can truly know all there is to know about magic its many origins and its full capabilities.
The old magic schools proposed a structure to fully define magic, I would be fine with a culture having a set understanding of magic based on the limits of their knowledge but not based on the actual limits of all magic that exists.

One thing I think happens when classes get those kinds of circumstance bonuses to skills is that they begin to break the difficulty curve.

This is very much the case with Furious Bully on barbarian. It gives +2 circumstance bonus to athletics and after looking at reflex saves of every monster on archives of Nethys after level 8 its clear that feat makes tripping a reasonable chance even against the high reflex DCs for +3 solo bosses.

To be clear about what I mean by breaking. It gets you into the 13 and up range before buffs and debuffs against the best reflex saves. most creatures are going to be easier than that.
And it means the same tactic works reasonably well even against foes that are best against that tactic. I feel that options lose balance when you can build to make one option work all the time against anything.

Kalaam I would be surprised if they didn't revamp the class in a remaster version.

Probably in ways none of us expect even.