Another factor Paizo considers when making these classes is simply whether they think it is interesting. With the kineticist they've patched their biggest design hole, and they can kind of just have fun now. Make the classes that excite them, not just the classes people would be happy to have back.
Yeah, I debated the kind of numbered scales, but ultimately its pretty subjective and not that important for newbies. Like, sorcerers can be great healers... But only if they pick a tradition with heal. Also, classes are closely balanced enough to where you don't really have to worry whether a fighter or a barbarian deals slightly more damage. Instead, I tried to highlight how each class plays and their level of complexity, which is a really important metric for newwbies.
Mummy ** spoiler omitted ** I think this thread is less about abilities that were removed or replaced, which are pretty easy to spot, and more about creature bonuses and DCs shifting, which is much more painstaking to systematically compare.
I've personally found any bigger than 5 and it starts becoming less fun for me.
7 players? Why do people do this? Play whatever you want, your party is going to have redundancies. Luckily, Kingmaker seems pretty low on cramped dungeon corridors. My objection to seven players is how much it slows the game down.
Yeah, speaking as someone who really really really enjoyed the Inquisitor, it just did too much stuff to be a single PF2 class. An important part of its identity was its unique spell list, which PF2 did away with. While it had some divine spells, what really set it apart were occult spells.
I think things like boars and bears losing AC but gaining HP is a good decision. They are iconic "take a licking and keep on ticking" animals, not impossible to hit animals.
Something that might be throwing you off about Wayne's art is how visually cluttered it is. Pathfinder iconics can almost look like Rob Liefield characters with all the pouches, amulets, lanterns, and knicknacks. The people in the 5e Player's handbook tend to have their clothing, armor, weapons in hand, a dagger on their belt... And not much else. Maybe a small side satchel or a class specific tool like a holy symbol or spell component pouch. The Dune art you mentioned looks very clean. I don't even see belts on these robed figures. And of course Conan and his various love interests are essentially nude. There's certainly an aesthetic appeal to these images when viewed in a vacuum. But objectively, they don't look like adventurers, or at least Pathfinders. Consider how much stuff goes into the basic adventurer's kit: a backpack, a bedroll, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, 2 weeks' rations, soap, 5 torches, and a waterskin. Then consider for hardcore camping you probably want a tent, additional rations, cook ware... Bags of holding are a thing but they are still one bulk saçks you need to carry. Then consider what you might want access to in a fight. Everyone wants an emergency potion or two on their belt. Martials want a main weapon(s), a back up ranged option with accompanying ammo, something light in case they are swallowed. That's without touching alternative materials or damage types. Casters should have a staff in one hand and a bandolier full of scrolls, and probably a wand or two in their belt. And that's just a basic d20 adventurer. Pathfinder adventurers have significantly more because of its magic item economy. You have 10 investiture slots and by level 10 you've probably filled most of them with magic amulets, rings, boots, belts, headbands... The Christmas Tree effect is alive and well. We might like to picture Conan for our player characters, but they look more like Cable and Deadpool when you visualize their actual inventory. Wayne's art reflects this.
Ok, hear me out. The current benefits of monastic weaponry are absorbed into the base class. All monks are trained in monk weapons and can flurry with them. The monastic weapon stance 1st level feat then bumps up the damage dice of monk weapons one step. That's it. You could also just add this benefit to the existing feat instead of increasing the base monk proficiency, and it probably won't significantly matter. The trade off for monk stances is that they cost you an action to enter but they upgrade your d6 powerful fist, generally by bumping it up a single damage dice. Maybe you get a good trait like backstabber but generally you get things which barely matters on unarmed strikes, like trip or grapple. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they do things like bump to d10 for losing finesse and agile or switch your damage to elemental. So basically give weapons the same choice-- spend an action to make a temple sword d10 or a nunchaku d8. This feels remarkably well balanced and easy to implement. A couple of strong options become even stronger, like the bo staff, but d10 reach weapon with parry is barely an upgrade to regular martial weapons. The gakung looks a little better better than a shortbow, but given monks lack other damage boosters this seems fine. Another fun option you could add would allow the runes from hand wraps to apply to monk weapons. Incentivizing monks to blend weapon strikes and unarmed strikes feels on brand, and given their lower base damage it shouldn't break anything.
What I LOVE about exploration mode is it cuts down on a lot of the unnecessary dice rolling. I'm so sick of four characters rolling perception on every empty hallway, or rolling stealth checks to check on empty rooms. Just establish what people are doing and roll when it actually matters. They just didn't make all of the exploration options actually matter. I don't think running with more narrative focus in mind changes that.
While I agree with you in principle, I don't think exploration mode engages the whole party that well in practice. Searching is the best activity for the group and in a perfect world you want as many people doing it as possible. But proficiency gating means your casters might not even be able to spot hazards, so you generally need to rely on certain martials. And those martials tend to be classes that are rewarded the most by Avoiding Notice instead (rogues, rangers, gunslingers.) You can have one person with crap proficiency use Scout (which really really REALLY should be called Look Out because it is not actual scouting). That provides a tangible benefit, but one that doesn't stack with itself or a litany of feats which provides circumstance bonuses to initiative. (Or cover for Avoid Notice.) Avoid Notice is super strong on martials but less so on casters since their hidden condition breaks when casting a non-subtle spell, so no off guard on their opening shot. Detect Magic while actually exploring is a trap. It is worse at finding magic then Search because most magic hazards have proficiency gating and those that don't, like the Armageddon Orb, are literally impossible to miss. You're not going to find a magic item in a hallway, you will find it in the rooms the hallway connects. (And if it's hidden under the floor boards you can't find it by RAW anyway because of line of effect rules. We lost that whole "one foot of stone, one inch of lead thing from PF1.) Investigate suffers the same problem. If you encounter something worth investigating, you just stop and do that. There's no need to do it as you travel. Adventures just aren't written to make Detect Magic and Investigate useful. That just leaves Defend, Sustain, or Repeat a spell. Any of these might be useful but they are super build specific. Part of the problem is exploration mode isn't actually a single mode of play. It encompasses: -Overland Travel at full speed (or even Hustling)
One mode of play doesn't effectively capture all of these, IMO. And it annoys me that activities like Investigate and Detect Magic got lumped in with the dungeon exploration tactics. Detect Magic should count as Searching, at least as far as magical traps, doors, and hidden objects are concerned. It should probably give a bonus to it, honestly. It shouldn't make you worse at finding magic. Investigate is a harder but to crack, but it should probably be combined with Track or Survey Wildlife. Spotting markings, scat, or tracks that seem innocuous to someone hyper vigilant for danger but might let you Recall Knowledge about creatures in the area.
The real big brain play is to just give one "answer," but conceal an incorrect detail in there. If someone gets a dubious failure on identifying Nhimbalaoth, you say "You recognize this as Nhimbalaoth, an evil goddess related to the plane of shadow." The bold bit is false, but players tend to expect two separate statements so they don't even realized they failed. The other thing to remember is that you don't have to provide tactically relevant false information.
False Information
Providing false information can cause the PCs to make mistakes, but the consequences should typically be immediate rather than continual or far in the future. Avoid dispensing false information that might not be used for hours or entire sessions after the check is forgotten. If you're unsure, the safest form of false information is information that's wrong but not in a way that causes major consequences. Remember that a critical failure says you get incorrect information, not that you get important seeming false information. Erroneously believing Abadar's symbol is a set of scales instead of a key might lead to a miscommunication, but one that's not dangerous, easy to clear up, and only a little embarrassing for the PC. The examples above are out of combat, but you can apply that to in-combat checks too.
Or have options to target all 3 saves and still try and get a pre-debuff. They aren't mutually exclusive. But barring team synergy (which is really the key to optimization in PF2) a solo wizard's best bet is Recall Knowledge to find the weak save and then make sure you have something prepared to target it.
More than just this. I'd go as far as to say you didn't include the most three most widely applicable advantages. 5. Using stealth to initiative, including cover. GM Core explicitly calls out cover bonuses apply to initiative, and if you're literally waiting to ambush someone that is a +4 circumstance bonus. Also, anyone can upgrade their stealth proficiency but your perception proficiency is basically limited by your class. Even in a situation where you have concealment but not cover (which is quite rare) you can get a juicy circumstance bonus from Follow the Expert. 6. You almost always start combat at least hidden, and potentially unobserved or even unnoticed. You compare your stealth initiative roll to the Perception DC of the enemy (not their perception roll for initiative) and even if you failed (but not critically failed) the enemy starts combat only knowing your square. If they go first and try to target you without Seeking or moving so cover isn't in the way, they have a 50% miss chance. If you go before them they will be off guard against your first ranged strike. Very nice for gunslingers in particular. 7. If the enemy rolls higher than everyone else for initiative, but if no one on your side rolls below that enemy's perception DC then the enemy gets a feeling that there's someone watching but doesn't know where. The enemy might use actions to Seek (unreliably since Seek covers a very small area on a big outdoor map), draw weapons, or cast a preparatory spell... But it can't actually attack with its high initiative most of the time, and those prepatory actions are much more likely to benefit PCs than they will an owl bear. One last note: if you are observing a creature before initiative is rolled, this is an excellent time to use concentration based activities like Recall Knowledge, Hunt Prey, or Pursue a Lead. Investigators in particular have this fun interaction where if their entire side rolls high enough for stealth in an ambush scenario (or Deception in a social ambush) you can sit there Devising a Strategem repeatedly until you get nat 20, then open the fight with a crit as your first action. It won't come up often but feels great when it does.
Well, lots of enemies aren't smart enough to think through the best target and will instead lash out at the nearest for or whoever just hurt it the most. That said, shield use mostly shines on the two classes with the best feat support: champions and fighters. Champions don't mind their ally getting attacked instead because itr triggers a more powerful reaction than shield block. Fighters with shields work best when they are the sole front liner, both because the fighter needs the added survivability and because if the enemy runs past the fighter to chase a softer target they trigger Reactive Strike. Like most things in PF2, shields have their place but aren't the best solution for all of the people or all of the time.
A low level wand doesn't just free up a spell slot, it also frees up an option for your repertoire or standard prepared load out. How important that is will probably vary quite a bit. For my battle oracle, I don't love using a precious spell known for tailwind, which I know I'll never use in combat. I'd prefer Revealing Light in that spot even though it makes a great scroll candidate because I use a two handed weapon which renders drawing scrolls a big pain. On a prepared caster, though, I'd be more open to preparing tailwind and experimenting with other slots.
Paizo not touching Outwit at all in PC1 is almost as surprising as them deciding to nerf crossbows. Could you please stop saying that they nerfed crossbows? Because they didn't, unless by crossbows you mean the very specific combination of the simple crossbow and crossbow ace feat. As long as people use the martial crossbow options they got buffed.
I liked dents. They were alor easier to track than HP and BT were. I was sad we lost them.
Yeah, outwit exists as an option for those who really want it, but builds always feel really complicated because of MAD. It would help if Master Monster Hunter didn't kick in so late.
I reaaaaally don't think Saranrae expected you to strike down everyone with evil alignment before the remaster, otherwise you'd just go around mowing down peasants with divine lance. You can't be the god of redemption and also the god of murder everyone evil on sight. There was always a subjective tight rope to walk for her clerics. One suggestion I have for finding "redeemable" bad guys is using the Glimpse of Redemption ability. As a GM, I don't make a tactical choice between whether the enemy hesitates and doesn't harm your ally, vs complete the attack and suffer the consequences. I make the decision based on the creature's nature. A demon or most undead will always go for blood, but so will lots of evil dragons, humans, and other creatures of pure malice. But if the NPC hesitates and stays there hand, that signifies there is something redeemable there, and players know they should offer a chance to surrender.
In my gaming experience, I often ponder on ways to boost a wizard's spell DC to effectively control enemies without them easily succeeding on their saving throws. While reading the Player's Core, I noticed that the fear spell seemed to reduce the chances of enemies successfully saving against it. Are there any other features that can help weaken enemy saves or increase my spell success rate? To answer your thread title: ability boosts and leveling up are the only way to increase your actual DC. To answer your post: the frightened and sickened conditions are the most widely applicable, but drained (fort), clumsy (reflex), and stupified (will) are also options. Lots of spell inflict these conditions. Some non-spell actions can work too, like Demoralize, Bon Mot, and Disturbing Knowledge. But as an intelligence character you're only likely to be great at that last one. I'd hope your allies are using those actions, and instead focus on Recall Knowledge. Ask your GM what the creature's lowest save is, and prepare a variety of spells to target different saves. The difference between targeting a good save and bad save can be 5 points or higher, which is a bigger swing than conditions will give you alone.
4 'hide in the bag' is not really a thing, unless they're in an extradimensional space like with Pet Cache.Familiar Satchel. Though that also leads to the question of how an attended item like a Familiar Satchel ever takes enough AoE damage to break.. I can answer that. They don't. Unless you drop the bag your familiar will be forever safe. Of course, it also won't have line of effect to use its own abilities, making this a poor choice for witches.
By combining them you can have weak Mystery low impact Curse balanced with good Mystery high impact Curse which equates to more freedom in design.I would agree that, that was a strength had Paizo kept giving us more oracle options. But as a seemingly one and done class, what exactly are they designing to which we could attribute such strengths? There have been a few more oracle feats printed and at least one new mystery (time from Dark Archive.)
If you ditch the curse there's no reason for the class to exist. You can just use a divine sorcerer instead. Double edged sword mechanics aren't everyone's jam, but they are very much part of the oracle experience and fun for people like myself. Also, the curse penalties don't simply penalize your character, they change how you play them. I've been playing a battle oracle from level 3 to 12 and having a damn good time with him. My slotted spells are as strong as any other caster, but my at will damage via bastard sword is hilariously than cantrips. With True Strike and Demoralize rounding out my options I always have a zillion interesting things to do with my actions and my turns never feel stagnant. If I'm dropped my fast healing will get me back up. Now that I hit major curse I also have the option to go full barbarian with a +6 status bonus to damage. Has the AC or save penalty occasionally but me in the ass? Sure. But less often than you'd think. My defenses improve more from swinging my sword than casting a shield spell, and my pervasive orc superstition offsets the save penalty. The objective problems facing the class are pretty straightforward: 1. As mentioned, their refocus advantages were nullified by the remaster and their overwhelmed curse state needs to be revisited. 2. They have slim pickings for feats, and what they have tends to be janky. They really need the feat glow up clerics got in player core 1. 3. Curses may not be well balanced against each other, but given how wildly divergent subclass balance remained I wouldn't hold my breath here. (I say may because each oracle curse plays so differently from another that comparing them is much harder than just looking at their penalties.)
As Xenocrat notes, though, Mark's commentary has made the intention of stacking clear even if the rules don't quite gel with that RAW.
I can't open your link (which is a problem with my phone, not your link) but it sounds like you went gunslinger. I cannot over stress how much I advise pumping dexterity to 18. 80% of the gunslinger appeal is big juicy fatal crits. Lowering your chances of critting is just voluntarily blue balling yourself. You can skip spell shot. I forgot how it interacts with free archetype, and you won't have the mental stats to leverage recall knowledge anyway.
Yeah the monster creation rules for demons say to give them smhigh HP to compensate for their multiple weaknesses, but that's a general monster design principle at play. Pre-remaster, the creature buildig specified fiends should get extra evil damage on their strikes. That was notably replaced in the remaster building rules; they now specify fiend strikes have the unholy trait instead. I never bothered to look at how fiend damage compared to the strike damage guidelines with and without the evil damage, but if you assume that let fiends punch above their weight class it would have been limited to only good PCs. With that factor no longer at play an no general rule applying extra damage to holy creatures that lack a weakness, there is no reason to keep that extra damage.
Are there even undead that originate in the Boneyard? There are phantoms which are spirits that escaped the boneyard but they are very specifically not undead. I'd be shocked if undead can grow in Phantasma's personal backyard. Seems like she'd de-weed them with extreme prejudice. As such, I can't imagine allowing boneyard lore ever for undead. I would allow necromancy lore for most if not all undead, but I night not apply a DC adjustment. So the only advantage over religion would be for high intelligence, low wisdom characters... Which to be fair is an important necromancer niche.
And to take it a step further, what it is NOT is at all applicable to NPC and monster mechanics.
Yes, absolutely. You may find this guide helpful: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y1z?Sanctificaton-and-You-A-Guide-by-Captain -Morgan
This is like that time when Darksol insisted Stormwind had anything to do with NPC wizard kings not making sense because player character fighters could beat player character wizards in a cage match.
One other note for bard: their muse concept is so open ended it can probably support whatever narrative elements you wanted from a patron. Get yourself the hyena familiar and you've basically checked every box you had while making a much more functional character. You don't have hexes technically, but mechanicallly most hexes are kinda just worse versions of what compositions can already do. Also, I know people poo poo spell shot, but mechanically it seems fine to me and it has a lot of the same sort of magic bullet tricks Bayonetta uses.
My muse Azata summon was dealing 2d6 spirit damage for a minute, so it definitely isn't just 1d6. But I didn't look that closely at others because Muse Azata is the best summoned celestial. It sucks that she lost her 2d6 damage, but she now hands out +2 instead of +1 every time she inspires, so I'll forgive her.
Aid is pretty good in combat as long as your GM is open to letting it shine.
I really like what Player Core did in turning verbal components into words of power flavored to the class but with a lot of leeway for players to re-flavor. Since it suggests witch words of power might rhyme, I came up with some for my witch's spells. Thought I'd share, hopefully getting others to come up with some sinister rhymes too. I tried to make the length of phrase proportionate to how many actions/minutes the spell takes. Need of Vengeance: "Thou shall feel my Needle's Vengeance, for if thou sin this is thy penance." Patron's Puppet: No rhyme, it is explicitly Silent Electric Arc: "Lightning lashes, full of sparks, all through this connected arc. Telekinetic Projectile: "I bend the world with my sheer will, and any object now can kill." Read Aura: "Now I seek an aura's vessel. Little bauble, are you special? Demonstrate your magic weave so your gifts we may receive. Help me claim my heart's desire, and many legends you'll inspire." Protect Companion: "Feel my comfort, my poor child, let's mother's warmth hold back the wilds." Needle Darts: "Killing is the exquisite art, so fine thy mark, my needle darts" Eat Fire: "That's a spicy meatball." Illuminate: "Light the Night." Tame: "Hey little guy, what is your name? You may be wild, but you could be tame." Void Warp: "I call upon the hungry void, let this life force be destroyed." Figment: Subtle, no words. Haunting Hymn: "Say your prayers little one, don't forget my son, to include everyone." Magic Missile: "Barrage of force and magical missiles, shredding skin like stinging thistle, penetrate your bone and gristle." Charm: Subtle Lose the Path: "From here your steps will be in error, exit path and enter terror." Illusory Object: "Conjured metal, wood, or stone, come to me, protect your own." Mystic Armor: "Let any who try to act untoward be held at bay by mystic ward." Sure Strike: "Fortunes favor, guiding light, sting is savored, deadly strike." Bless: "Feel the pumping in your chest, for your battle shall now be blessed." Fear: "Low your spirits will be laid, flee your doom and be afraid." Illusory Disguise: "Now its time to bring a friend, so your story then can end." Phantom Pain: "In your body, you feel pain. You feel it now, you will a'gain." Soothe: "Worry not about your wounds, and let my voice improve your mood." Dispel Magic: "Your enchantments are but a shell, that with my magic I now dispel." Indivisibility: Subtle Worm's Repast: "Now we reach your death at last, your fate shall end as Worm's Repast." Laughing Fit: Brevity's the soul of wit, short and sweet, this laughing fit." Animus Mine: "Those who trespass in my mind find their death in my design." Cozy Cabin: "Soon we lay us down to sleep, to be embraced in darkness deep. This is a promise I will keep, so close your eyes and count the sheep. For our comfort while we're dozing, I now conjure a Cabin Cozy." Slow: "Watch in awe as time congeals, your precious moments it shall steal." Shadow Projectile: "Double, Double." Summon Undead: "War drums' march pounds in your head. Bring the noise and wake the dead!" (summons Quiet Riot, a flaming skull.) Summon fey: "From the dark of Oberon's Wood, I summon fey to whoop you good." Shroud of Night:"Exit light, enter Night" OR "Feel your eyes begin to cloud, filled to brim with darkness shroud."
I'm pretty sure all spontaneous casting archetypes already make all the granted spells signature.
Or how powerful reactive strike/stand still/disrupt prey are. I'm kind of sick of how meta those are. Feels like everyone lost AoO but most people buy it back because the potential damage increase is so high, especially when enemies can't just assume your PC has it.
My witch is only level 4, but even with some weird house ruled restrictions around where I can learn from I am enjoying adding to my options. It lets me play with different loadouts. I've been using your standard occult debuff/damage hybrid spells, but I'm going to try and swap in Final Sacrifice and some summon spells to see how I can synergize with Elemental Betrayal. There's also an interesting push and pull for the merits of scrolls based on the rank of the spell. Heightening lets some spells stay relevant. At level 5, I don't expect to use a 1st rank scroll of summon undead, but I can spend 1 gp to learn it and prepare it at rank 3, where I will use it. Prepared casters are also really nice for hexploration, low time pressure campaigns where you only do one encounter a day and can often tailor your loadout to it. I don't see taking Cozy Cabin on a spontaneous caster, but I have high hopes for using it prepared in Kingmaker where the night time random encounter chance is way over tuned.
You know what would be cool and maybe balanced for low level play? A reaction strike that triggers when the barbarian gets crit. Soaking that big to risk one of your own, or getting one last swing before you drop, feels very barbarian. Storm druids can do do that with Tempest Surge at level 6, but I think it could work as a level 1 barbarian feature. Doesn't seem likely, though, since ranger and rogue didn't get built in reactions.
You know you can change that for your players, right? If you feel strongly enough about this to trawl the forums and petition Paizo, just house rule it in the meantime. I feel your player's pain-- I realized my empyereal dragon form didn't have the holy trait on its attack or breath weapon and couldn't trigger weakness against a fiend, which cheesed me off. But the restrictions on casting in dragon form never felt immersive because they are prioritizing balance instead. Things like battle forms inheriting appropriate traits seems like a similar balance casuality. Personally, I think they went too far nerfing these spells, but that's why I just let house rule them when I DM.
I don't think there's agreement on whether it is too strong a spell at its current rnak, just that it is exceptionally strong. What I will say is that even among higher level spells I don't see a comparable effect. The higher level debuffs tend to have incapacitation, which significantly limits their application. And honestly, adding the Incapacitation trait would be the easiest way to balance Synesthesia. The critical failure condition is basically incapacitation already. Maybe give a little more of that to the basic failure condition. If you were to raise the rank of the spell, I'd note Quandary (formerly Maze) as an 8th rank point of comparison. You need to work a little harder to abuse it, using Snares and what not. But it is a really powerful effect even on a successful "save" and has no incapacitation.
Apologies for offending. Was not my intention. In these long threads with walls of text it is easy to lose track of what was being said originally. It has happened to me in this thread as well-- multiple people have replied to me saying that there aren't that many feats to pick from when that was the point I was trying (ineffectively) to make in the first place. In regards to Player Core having 70 less spells than the CRB... That's a 12% reduction in spell count. I do not find that concerning for a litany of reasons, and think casters are better than ever now. - Redundant spells were condensed into singular, more powerful versions. - A general trend towards spells being upgraded. Compare flame strike to divine immolation, black tentacles to slither, etc. - Many of those spells we lost were focus spells for champions, monks, and sorcerers, which we get back in player core 2. (Along with oracle focus spells.) - Player Core 2 will contain additional slotted spells to round out Player Core 1. - Refocus changes. For Synesthesia, specially, I think it is a poor symbol of the game as a whole for exactly the same reason it showed up in so many people's favorite spells. It was a balance outlier. A balance outlier which, as I've noted, became all the more pronounced with the Resentment's release. If Paizo wants to reprint it, it is easy to why they'd wait until Player Core 2 to do so. This just isn't representative of other spells. A better example would be your magus character, since several attack spells were moved to save versions that are more effective for most casters but worse for spell strike. And at that point we could quibble about whether horizon thunder sphere's versatility makes up for losing a little damage over spell strike, on the viability of continuing to use renamed and remodeled spells like acid arrow, etc. but Synesthesia just isn't that. On the flip side, Mirror Image, the other spell Yuri cited? I honestly don't care that if it stays or goes. The flavor is really OGL specific and the mechanics of the PF2 version always felt bad to me.
Also worth noting a fair bit of CRB spells aren't in player core 2 because they are focus spells for classes which weren't re-released yet. ... And you know, despite that, I finally looked up how many spells were sourced to Player Core 1 vs the CRB on Nethys. Player Core 1: 472
CRB: 537
Trip, where the heck where you getting these "less than half" numbers from?
Yeah, Pathfinder poisons aren't actually that likely to kill someone because they run off the same math as everything else. Everything has a saving throw or attack attached to it, and it is very hard to one shot a creature past a certain point unless you massively put level them. The poison offered to the OP's PCs is supposed to "give them an edge," not outright kill anyone... Because that's generally what poisons do. They contribute a bit of damage over time and probably inflict a nice debuff like clumsy, but if poisons were as sure fire a death sentence as people are acting then alchemists wouldn't be considered underpowered. The other thing in the OP's example is these do not sound like redeemable people with an ounce of regret. They are fiend worshippers who murdered the good king and are so proud of it they are holding a party. I just don't see why a Sarenrite would have any compunctions about striking down this particular evil through whatever means necessary, nor would I trust the surrender of this level of schemer. Are there situations where a Sarenrite might be reluctant to use lethal poisons? Sure. But in those same situations, they should be reluctant to use their signature attacks and spells as well. A strong solo opponent could have 2 or 3 rounds to surrender, sure. But strong solo opponents are more likely to have agency in the decisions that pitted them against the cleric in the first place. By comparison, consider fighting a large group of enemies. Say, the evil noble's guards. If you launch a fireball into that crowd, there's high odds someone crit fails. If your fireball doesn't outright kill them, it is extremely likely the martials will quickly finish off the wounded target in the same round. And yet, those mooks are following orders. They likely had less agency in the choices which brought them here, and probably more financial need driving those choices than the nobles who hired them. And yet yet Saranrae grants one of the least discriminating mook killing spells in the game. At a certain point, you need to play the game with the tools that are given too you, and I don't see why you should get hung up about poison specifically. If you wanted this operation to provide to present a moral dilemma, here's what I'd do: have the cleric overhear a guard say this whole party is awful, celebrating the death of a good man. Maybe another guard indicates the disgruntled guard better keep those opinions to himself lest he join the good man. Suddenly, the cleric is aware of a repentant creature in the mix. That guard could get killed if all the wine is poisoned or if fireballs start going off, this denying them a chance at redemption. What does the cleric do? Do they try and enlist the aid of the guard in the upcoming coup? Do they convince the guard to leave? Do theh trick the guard into leave the banquet hall, knock him out, and stuff him in a broom closet until this is all over? That example not only adheres to the actual tennets of Saranrae, it creates an obstacle which can be overcome with a variety of skill challenges. That's way more interesting than hemming and hawing over whether your God will arbitrarily be less ok with one weapon of murder over another.
You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say? No, I want them not to publish BAD stuff. I want them to keep publishing stuff worth using. And the point I was making is that spells add more complexity than feats. Trip was saying spells don't add that much complexity, when by comparison they add 10x as many choices as feats. Feats are way easier to pick, partially for the reason you described.
I think I'm losing track of your point here. Why do you care so much about all the spells you want being in player core if you were already using non-core books to round out your list? People who want to use the full list can always do that (barring their GM limiting books.) A single core rulebook will never contain every spell. What are you actually upset about? Is it that Synesthesia wasn't in Player Core 1? Is it a concern that people who only use printed books won't get spells from books they don't own?
AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say? You're missing the point with your first paragraph, and then hit upon it in your second. Wading through bad options is still adding complexity even if they aren't seriously considered. On top of that, your math still illustrates my point about feats vs spells. There are still way more spells to pick from, which means they are a significant contributor to the complexity of a caster.
You keep adding stipulations that aren't actually reflected in the anathema. What the anathema says: Deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption. What it does NOT say: Deny an evil creature opportunity to become repentent. They have to be repentant at the time you'd kill them, not just have the potential to eventually regret their actions. That means they are already feeling or showing remorse and guilt for their evil ways. And since clerics of Saranrae don't have mind reading on their spell list, the creature really needs to be showing that, not just feeling it. Lethal poisons aren't great for taking prisoners so they can find goodness later, but you know what else aren't? Scimitars and fireballs. If Saranrae cared as much about taking prisoners as you seem to think, her weapons of choice would be saps and non-lethal mental damage. Even killing a surrendering creature wouldn't violate anathema in and of itself. If the creature isn't remorseful, you can still execute them. Nor are you expected to create an opportunity to surrender.
Trip, I think the high level problem is you're painting with an extremely broad brush and presenting your own preferences as indisputable fact. They are, in fact, quite disputable. And as Phntm888 points out, while there are people who thrive on wading through a thousand options (even if many of them are bad) there also players who do not. Pathfinder is trying to appeal to both, which means there's always a balancing act.
This feels like a weird take. Like, I wouldn't object to Paizo having more high tech PDFs, cross referencing, and what have you. But at the end of the day they aren't a tech company. They are a book publishing company, and not a big one at that. They don't make money off of free data bases, they make money off selling books. I imagine they hope that those free databases lead to more book sales down the line by making the game accessible, but it is still a remarkably chill use of their IP. I don't see why they are obligated to maintain or improve these free resources themselves, especially when the fan community has proved willing and able to do so. Also doesn't seem like Paizo would do great at it. I had to delay posting this because the forum broke down, and it is clunky at the best of times. If they lack the staff power to update their basic website, I don't love their odds of implementing the stuff you're looking for. Having more options for spell selection really does not add much in the "decision paralysis" department, AoN lists sorcerers as having 63 feats, and the arcane spell list alone has 684 spells to on it. Does not add much, you say? and only full-list casters like Clerics are even affected by it directly. Not true. Every slot caster has to sift through the spell list every time they level up at minimum. Even for Clerics, they are only "option stunlocked" by a need to review a big list when they get access to a new rank of spell. Also not true. You can change your spell loadout every day, so you can get stun locked every day. More to the point, that is what players sign up for when selecting the class. It is no coincidence that Clerics and Druids have Champions and Rangers as "caster lite" variants of similar theme. True, to a point. But complexity for the sake of complexity is still bad. It is absolutely wild to me that PC1 can have so many *less* spells that the original base launch, and players will still find someway to say that "it's better." Player Core 1 is not a complete package without Player Core 2. Despite that, player core 1 is still a pretty solid set of spells. Like, every caster affected is unambiguously nerfed when they have fewer options to pick from. I would hope that at the very least from a mechanics and game balance perspective, it can be agreed that fewer spell options weakens the caster who uses that list. That is true if all the remaining options aren't changed from their original form, which was not the case in Player Core. See Phntm888's point about Entangling Flora. Every caster got a power boost when Dancing Lights was eliminated and folded into the new and improved light cantrip. Then there are spells that got replaced with stronger versions, like Black Tentacles becoming Slither. And then there are existing spells which got added to traditions, like Marvelous Mount becoming a divine spell. Some people enjoyed wading through 300-700 spells. And those folks still have access to the full list. Whether you think Pathfinder's content bloat is a bug or feature is very much a matter of personal opinion. Speaking personally, I don't like wading through content which is so bad it should never be used, nor do I like the inconsistent use of rarity to gate the occasional overpowered option. Instead of 500 spells where only 50 are worth using, I'd prefer a game with 250 spells where 100 are worth using. You're not alone in preferring more options to less, but I just want to be clear it is not a universal truth. There are legit advantages to a more curated spell list, regardless of whether we are talking about a single book (whose other half is yet to be published) or the system as a whole.
Raven, I think you're wandering a bit off topic. Your talking about societal norms, not the individual dilemnas discussed in the OP, which involve evil authority figures who can only be stopped through extra-legal means to stop. That said, your examples don't really bear out either. You can detect poisons with magic, and cure them as well. Meanwhile, there's no particular way a spell caster needs to look, so you really shouldn't be able to tell if some can cast at a glance. A greatsword might be hard conceal, but a dagger isn't, and there are plenty of monks who can rip your throat out with their bare hands. Heck, the greatsword can easily be concealed with magic-- a ring of discretion is only 15 gp, and of course you have all the illusory disguise variants. All poison really does is let you get away with it easier, but that's not very hard either with illusions, Translocate, and such. I'd even go as as to say poisons are far less reliable (and therefore less dangerous) than direct attack because of fortitude saves. Our real world sensibilities of their reliability don't really apply any more than our real world sensibilities over how dangerous a gun is. Violence in all forms is something which society wants to discourage and use only when absolutely necessary. Direct violence and indirect violence aren't really different in that regard.
Agreed.
|
