Captain Morgan's page

Do you even need a subscription to get errata to digital products?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Has ANY NPC been built with counterspell? Or subtle spell?

liches and some other high level caster monsters have counterspell.

And I want to remember atleast some bard/druid themed casters pre-remaster that used melodious spell and so on.

So we feel like Lich fights need to be harder?

I guess I'm just not sure why a niche 2nd level feat countering a niche 1st level feat is a such a big deal.

Has ANY NPC been built with counterspell? Or subtle spell?

When I run a stationary hazard, I tend to treat its AC as zero. Between the hardness and crit immunity, it still takes a lot to destroy them, but it makes the experience less soul crushing and repetitive. And I don't have to explain with a straight face how your master class martial managed to "miss" a door in front of them. (I realize a failed strike would represent failure to swing hard enough to meaningfully damage the object, but you already have hardness representing that and don't need the double jeopardy.)

I realize that the recharging spell strike is an advantage, but that is not really fair to use that as a comparison to other focus spells, because that is such a unique thing to the magus.

So what? It's a magus focus spell. No one here is suggesting you should multiclass to get it. Force fang doesn't need to be as good for a wizard as force bolt is, it just needs to be good for a magus.

It just seems weak compared to other conflux spells.

As gesalt notes, there will be situations where your hybrid spell will be better, but it's not like you lose that spell to gain force fang. You just have another tool to utilize when the situation arises. And you can use either tool twice now, as opposed to once, because of the extra focus point.

Perhaps I am just not weighing the disregarding of MAP as much as I should.

Remember, spell strike counts as two strikes, so if you use a shield strike or dimensional assault afterwards you're burning your focus point on a -10 strike. If you use such a spell before you spell strike, you've saddled your big damage strike with a -5. Force fang lets you bypass this problem while still adding damage. It's just good to have.

Part of my quest includes creating a new heritage that, to be blunt, feels more like a 1e Dwarf. It'll be a single heritage that has smaller benefits, but a larger variety of them. One of the things this heritage will include is a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against magical effects and poisons.

Have you considered just using the Ancestry Paragon rules? That is the simplest way to add more racial features.

I think it's fine that Ancient-Blooded Dwarf be stronger than Orc Superstition and it's related feats. Thematically having an innate magic resistances based on generations of magic resistance sounds to me like it should be more powerful than learned superstition.

Thematics aren't the only consideration for house rules though. At least, if you care about balance.

Also, I recently read this blog post by Rob Lundeen:

https://www.runamokgames.com/design-diary/the-pathfinder-ancestry-checklist

This was written in 2020 and PF2 design philosophies have changed in many ways since then. I would not take this as gospel.

This provided some good insight on how the PF2e ancestries are put together and how each ancestry is only balanced within itself, not in comparison to other ancestries.

1.Case in point, this was written before Versatile Heritages were a thing, which made ancestries a lot more interchangeable. (Dwarves got shafted here because most VHs provide low light or dark vision, so they are wasted on dwarves. It sucks because dwarves could really use the patch to their feat lists.)

2.That isn't what he said. He said heritages don't need to be balanced against the heritages of other ancestries. He also says ancestries as a hole should be balanced against each other. You can actually make a case to buff dwarf heritages BECAUSE they base ancestry is on the weak side: they get the same vision and hit points as orcs but a slower speed with nothing to make up for it.

Can you elaborate on your opinions about how strong each Dwarf Heritage is? I'm curious to know how you grade them because they seem to be mostly opposed to how others see them.

Sure, why not.

1. Strong-Blooded Dwarf - Probably the best. Poison is common and its resistance is rare, and the ongoing save buff stacks with Juggernaut mechanics.

2. Death Warden - Would be better if it stacked with Juggernaut-- as is it is only good long term on classes with weaker fort saves.

3. Ancient Blooded - Unless you have a competing, every round reaction, or already get this circumstance bonus from elsewhere, this is quite good. Magic saves are going to be the plurality or majority of saves you make.

4. Forge Dwarf - Fire damage will almost certainly come up eventually, so this is fine.

5. Oathkeeper and Anvil - Tied because they are so niche, but they exist for people that want them. You usually want your face to use both Diplomacy and Deception, and Specialty Crafting is usually a wasted feat.

6. Elemental Heart - Thematically awesome, mechanically terrible. Too weak, too infrequent, too hard an AoE to use.

7. Rock Dwarf - I hate bonuses that come up so rarely you'll probably forget you have the bonus when it finally pops up.

JiCi wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

but idk how often I see readied strikes and I don't think I've ever seen the brace trait used in a real game.

Bracing a weapon basically reveals your plans to your GM.

If it was a reaction to brace a weapon, it would be way more appealing.

You make it sound as if a GM didn't already know what the PCs are going to do most of the time. Its not like classes are that diverse.

Or as if the GM is an opponent you need to hide moves from. The NPCs/creatures the GM control don't know your intent even if the GM does. If your GM can't make that distinction you have bigger problems to solve.

I would vote bard over sorcerer, but a single target melee damage bro seems like the best pick.

I like the new effect, as it would help avoid critical failures and would apply to multiple saves. If you want to buff the reaction further, one thing you could do is change the trigger to after you roll the save and get one of the results you could affect: that way, you'd never waste your reaction on an effect that wouldn't change the result of your save, and the reaction would become much more efficient as a result. This could also allow you to change every degree of success with a +1 or a +2, so if the trigger was "you would fail a saving throw and a +2 circumstance bonus would improve your degree of success," getting that +2 circumstance bonus on that reaction would be guaranteed to help you significantly.

That feels really strong for a level 1 at will reaction available to any dwarf. Amped Guidance does this but it costs a focus point and is only available to psychics (and multiclass psychics.) Well, it also applies to more rolls and to your allies, but I think the point remains.

For comparison, call on ancient blood is already better than other comparable cost options like orc superstition because Call applies for the rest of the turn, not just the one save. I wouldn't actually change the basic reaction/heritage. Instead I would create follow up fears like orcs have with Pervasive Superstition.

There are significantly better homebrew buffs than making one of their stronger heritages even better. Buff a bad heritage like rock dwarf, or figure out a way to keep Death Warden relevant when Juggernaut features starts coming online. Give them 25 foot speed like everyone else, or make unburdened iron a basic feature again. Or generally look at their feats to make them something other than worse orcs before level 9.

The eidolon sharing skill proficiencies with the summoner essentially grants advantage on all Recall Knowledge checks, which is neat. We had a running joke every time the beast eidolon succeeded at a knowledge check everyone else in the party failed at.

Hello, I'm the player that the OP mentions, I'm gonna give my two bits with how I'm interpreting things rules wise, and I am aware my reading of these things is dense so hear me out:

The crux of what I feel is the confusion here is the sidebar, maybe I am misinterpreting it here, but this sidebar in question that the feat mentions is addressing two things:
First paragraph is how concealment is meant to be adapted to non-vision special senses, since things like smoke bombs wouldn't work for echolocation, but a noisy chamber would be the equivalent for it, ie. specifically environmental sources of concealment.
And it specifically tries to pin this down, so that other non-stealth action based foils that can be used against the special sense creature (hence something like a silence spell is compared to invisibility), that ofc COULD help later on should you choose to stealth.

The second paragraph (Using Stealth With Other Senses), which I believe is the main course of what it means to foil said senses is also the main point of contention here, because yes it does mention the intended design for stealth is for visual detection, but right after it also states that for many special senses a player can describe how they circumvent it, in that part nothing states vision based special senses cannot be foiled as well (not to be confused with the first paragraphs talk about non-visual senses, which is specifically talking about adapting preexisting factors as the equivalent obstructions that vision has).
The reading here would imply that something like darkvision, which is both visual and a special sense, has to deal with non-darkness based visual foils, along it's dark sight being potentially foiled.

The short of it about sidebars paragraphs are:
-First one guides the GM to adapt environmental concealment (which is typically visual based) for non-visual senses.
-Second denotes optional rules for players to use their Stealth in attempts to avoid special senses.

What I consider important is how special...

PF2 isn't meant to be read like a lawbook. Your GM would be entitled to bop you with a rolled up newspaper for trying this hard to squeeze extra mileage out of an already really good feat. Especially when you know you're stretching things.

You're trying to make a master skill feat also cover a legendary skill feat, at least as long as there isn't light.

Mathmuse wrote:

I recruit a new player or two into my campaigns. In 75% of the cases, my tactical regular players have the new player applying advanced tactics by 3rd level.

Good for you.

I'm not trying to say that your tactics are bad or that moving on to advanced tactics is something that isn't fun in the long run.

But you do notice the difference between even this scenario that you are describing from your table and the scenario described in the OP, right?

OP's table has no one to be the example of expert level tactics. The entire table is struggling to have fun with the game because they don't know what they are doing. As a table, they aren't ready for advanced tactics and off-beat character builds yet.

Generally agreed on everything, but I am wondering if anyone besides the OP is having a bad time. I would think this problem would self correct if the other players were upset about it-- either people get gud or abandon PF2. The refusal to adapt confuses me.

I believe one CAN build a melee bard,* but I think we can all agree this player did not build that it they are using a battle axe with +0 strength.

*I wouldn't want a bard as the only one on the front line, and they still need to utilize their slots and compositions... But weapon damage is generally superior to cantrip damage, and a strike costs less actions. That's handy for turns where you need to Stride + Dirge of Doom and don't have the actions left for a proper spell.

Melee casters have to played very tactically and this player is not interested in that.

It's a shame the ranger went with the longbow-- if they pick up running reload an an arbalest at level 4 they could do the run and shoot thing quite well. But if they already have the strength for composite longbows they might as well stick with it.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I wouldn't allow people to Avoid Notice if there was no cover or concealment to hide behind, and place them at the nearest cover point where they would be able to peak around and see the enemy when initiative is rolled.

This is a sensible fiction-first way to handle it, but I can already think of at least one case where AP text is written as though the party members are allowed to use Avoid Notice while traveling along what look like open roads or similar on the map—and it has the mechanical effect of reducing the flat check for random encounters.

The hexploration rules are janky so I'd be careful about extrapolating regular exploration mode from them. Random encounter rules can also be janky-- Kingmakers are famously borked. If we are talking regular exploration for this AP... Open roads doesn't necessarily mean unlimited visibility, and if the party is moving at half speed they might be traveling off the road anyway. If they are in a truly featureless plain but really wanted to Avoid Notice, the GM could also give them concealment with fog or precipitation. A specific battle mao may also be lacking in cover, but that's an arbitrary point along the journey where the party is more likely to be spotted.

There's a lot of flexibility, is what I'm saying, so sensibility and fiction first can get you pretty far. While Pathfinder certainly has gamified elements that require some mental gymnastics to justify, I don't think they extend as far as "I can't see the person standing in front of me."

Thank you for the responses. I actually have a few more questions about other senses than darkvision, because I'm not sure if I fully understand how Foil Senses interacts with the stealh rules in general yet.

For the stealth actions the character requires concealment or cover, right? Does Foil senses suffice as giving concealment against those senses as well, or does is only allow them to have a valid check against them after they've already met the concealment requirement for hiding? Meaning that if they have this feat, and are behind cover or something then tremorsense for example could still cause them to fail hiding, because cover alone does not conceal them from that sense?

I think reading the sidebar shroudb referenced is helpful here.

Detecting with Other Senses
Most abilities that designate “a creature you can see” or the like function just as well if the user can precisely sense the subject with a different sense. If a monster uses a sense other than vision, the GM can adapt ways of avoiding detection that work with the monster's senses. For example, a creature that has echolocation might use hearing as a primary sense. This could mean its quarry is concealed in a noisy chamber, hidden in a great enough din, or invisible under a silence spell.

Using Stealth With Other Senses
The Stealth skill is designed to use Hide for avoiding visual detection and Avoid Notice and Sneak to avoid being both seen and heard. For many special senses, a player can describe how they're avoiding detection by that special sense and use the most applicable Stealth action. For instance, a creature stepping lightly to avoid being detected via tremorsense would be using Sneak.
In some cases, rolling a Dexterity-based Stealth skill check to Sneak doesn't make the most sense. For example, a PC trying to avoid being detected by a creature that senses heartbeats might meditate to slow their heart rate, using Wisdom instead of Dexterity for their Stealth check. When a creature could detect you using multiple different senses, use your lowest applicable attribute modifier.

There's no one size fits all answer to your question because GMs are meant to handle it on a case by case basis. The default sneaking rules assume hearing and vision to be the relevant senses. Sometimes cover will make sense, like for echolocation. But cover wouldn't be relevant to tremorsense. The cited example suggests the sneaker doesn't need it-- they can just step lightly. You should work with your player to figure out what makes sense in this context.

What I think Foil Senses does is prevent "gotcha" moments. The normal special senses rules imply the PC should be proactively outlining how they are going to avoid that sense, which also requires the player have an awareness that sense might be in play. If they aren't aware of a creature having scent and haven't already rolled around in something to mask their smell, they will get detected.

Foil Senses means the PC is more knowledgeable and cautious of special senses, and are always taking appropriate precautions even if the player doesn't specify it or the character isn't aware what senses are relevant in this moment. So they are always stepping lightly, controlling their heart beat, masking their scent, etc.

I do think there's a bit of an intuitive conflict here, insofar as your ability to use Avoid Notice, to subsequently roll Stealth as initiative, and parse that by following the rules in "Initiative with Hidden Enemies" isn't really dependent on the map... but whether you're in plain sight is pretty clearly dependent on the map.

I'm not sure there's a clear answer to this one, honestly. I think it's just an artifact of transitioning from loose, abstracted exploration rules (where the game just assumes you have a way to hide or stealth regardless of the actual terrain) to tighter grid-based combat system with a fixed map (where that assumption can quickly be broken). The GM is kind of left to decide how to square that difference.

I wouldn't allow people to Avoid Notice if there was no cover or concealment to hide behind, and place them at the nearest cover point where they would be able to peak around and see the enemy when initiative is rolled.

well... to start with, convincing the bard to at least switch to a finesse weapon instead of an axe with +0 Str could help.

But from the get go, with such a composition and such (as you put it) "negative mastery", the best you could do is working with the GM to convince him to target Summons more, and then use more Summons yourself as the sorcerer just to put extra bodies on the battlefield for the enemies to whack. Illusionary creature could work similarily.

but it still needs to gm to have the enemies focus more on siad summons rather than the squishy actual casters that are handling the frontline.

Agreed. That bard is going to get mashed otherwise. If it wasn't for the bard, the rest of the party could do well with kiting and distance tactic.

Barring GM intervention, my suggestion would be you out-coward the martials and try and spend your actions getting even further away from the enemy than they do. You're a ranged combatant too and much squishier. 2nd tank tailwind and other mobility spells will help ensure you are the fastest to get out of dodge.

And then let the bard die? I'm honestly unsure how she survived this long if she's the only healer.

At high levels you will go down less quickly but the enemies have more HP to. I don't think things will get better.

Honestly with the way curriculums were reinvented it is weird to me that wizards can't pilfer spells from other traditions. An infernal school that can summon demons should probably exist, for example.

So for a "Archmage" I am thinking arcane caster, but able to truly break some rules. Like in the series Might Nein, we see the sinister Trent Ikithon doing some minor healing.

In Fantasy High we see the perfect example of an Archmage, Arthur Augefort, resurrect two students (it comes at a cost, but still that is breaking some rules)

I would want an Archmage to be able to do things outside of their tradition's normal wheel house.

Magaambyan attendant and Halcyon Speaker blend arcane and primal casting on top of signifying achievement.

Yeah high level wizard in position of authority feels like the only true answer here. You could potentially broaden the definition to include other spell casters but the title is usually applied to wizards in fiction. There are a few archetypes which signify membership in magical institutions, like Magaambyan attendant. Or at least dedication to a very specific field of study like Runelord.

The definition is too loose to discuss specific builds for, other than maybe just the most OP wizard build.

Well, you can feature drow in your own setting as well, but they would contradict the official Lost Omens Campaign setting. Where as I doubt you'll find a contradiction to using red or gold dragons, hill giants, etc. And you could probably use whichever combination of remastered and pre-remastered versions of the same creatures you prefer.

If you're really into the lore, you should start with Monster Core 1 and 2 which are considered primary canon now. The bestiaries are largely still usable both for lore and mechanics, particularly for creatures which haven't been remastered yet. I think the only creatures which were officially retconned out of existence were the drow. Others may not be featured but they can still exist within your own settings. Ex: Paizo will be focusing on their new dragons, but you can still use the classic chrome and metallic from the bestiaries.

Given the ways paizo's added to bypass having a weapon made of a special material, it isn't really worth having a weapon made out of the stuff. Just grab some silver salve and cold iron transmuting ingots and you're done.

Well, you run into action economy challenges if you aren't scouting and prebuffing. But I generally agree with you, unless you've had a particular enemy type sign posted. My players invested in cold iron weapons before a certain floor of the Abomination Vaults.

I'm going to go a different direction. Mechanics be damned - if the party wants to run from battle, and the GM is good with that as a plot event, then the encounter should switch from combat mode to a skill challenge. Turn it into a chase scene. Set a challenge level and base skill check DC and number of VPs needed to escape. Drop out of initiative order for combat and start rounds of chase scene.

If an ally is unconscious, that is going to be a problem. But not an insurmountable one. The lack of a party member contributing skill checks for the chase challenge is punishment enough to represent the team carrying their unconscious ally. You can also have it only take one round of chase scene to have one character cast a healing spell and the fallen character can start contributing to the chase at that point.

I agree with that concept, though personally I'm more comfortable handwaving things like unconscious PCs if someone in the party has at least 3-6 bulk worth of carrying capacity to spare. That's one of the fun benefits of monks, eidolons, and animal barbarians. They have fast movement and little equipment weighing them down. I saw one party where the monk would often scoop up a gnome or halfling ally and deposit them on the other side of the battle field in the space of a single turn.

Skill challenges are also a good way to abstract out questions like "Will the enemy be able to Track to find us again."

Honestly that's a much better argument for revising precious material costs. They are really expensive for how niche they are.

The old battle oracle worked really well for ramping up because it wasn't about charging up one big shot. You could start advancing your curse as soon as you rolled initiative, and the fast healing mattered more in long fights. The major curse stage in particular was useful for when you'd exhausted all your resources and had to switch to barbarian mode.

It also worked fine as a 3 slot caster because it could fall back on weapon usage instead of needing to constantly burn all spells to contribute. Use a big opener spell, then hit with the bastard sword instead of cantrips.

Earn income and its meagre results is the reason why adventurers go adventuring ;)

This. The focus on Earn Income is irrelevant to the price of items for adventurers because you're not supposed to be able to afford level appropriate items without adventuring. There may he a case to be made that duskwood is overpriced in relation to other magic items or precious materials, though.

Pathfinder isn't an economic simulator, so a better question to ask is "if I reduce the cost of duskwood, what will be the impact of cheap bulk reduction for PCs?" Whether or not that's a balance consideration you're comfortable with is kinda a personal choice, but there are some subtle changes. Obviously being able to carry more, but also being able to technically use 1 bulk weapons to cut your way out of being Swallowed Whole. Stuff like that.

It's worth noting that all rare ancestry have something that either defies common sense for the sake of balance or creates a weird corner case. I think that's part of why they are rare-- so GMs can decline to include those options for tables where these concessions break immersion.

Large sized creatures not being able to use medium weapons is pretty tame compared to, robots and undead needing to breathe or strix and pixies being unable to fly.

tytalan wrote:

Like most people that complain about the Wizard you choose only half the story to support you argument. I’ve been playing Wizards since 1ed D&D and I have absolutely no problem with the remastered Wizard

Hold on, aren't you the originator of this thread? You know, the thread complaining about the remastered Wizard? Dunno about you, but I'm getting mixed messages here.

They aren't complaining about the wizard's design, they are complaining that there aren't more schools.

I feel like a bunch of people saw "wizard complaint thread" and just assumed it was the same old grievances without reading the OP closely enough to realize otherwise.

You're correct, it is mandatory. For narrative justification, a large size hand probably won't even fit on the grip or a medium sized longsword.

If you want a house rule, you could let let large characters treat medium two handed weapons as large one handed weapons. So a medium great sword is treated as a longsword with a d8 damage. Since the weapon wasn't balanced for use this way, it won't retain it's D12 damage.

A medium sized one handed sword probably has too small a grip, but you could probably treat a longsword as a short sword if you really wanted to.

Without free archetype, I don't think a casting archetype is worth considering. Swashbuckler and other skirmisher classes really can't get enough of their own class feats.

With free archetype, you're probably better off going Bard. Fits better thematically, and you're more likely to wind up with one action to spare than two so compositions are really handy. And the bard has skill realted feats a swashbuckler can utilize as well.

There's a level 2 feat to do it now, Person of Interest.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5943

It's all physics and inertia. A tiny creature with a tiny greataxe simply isn't going to be able to hit with the same force as a huge creature with a huge greataxe -- just based on the weapon size, alone, and force of impact.

This feels like a concern about damage modifiers for creature size, not weapon size. And that is generally accounted for with static modifiers, not damage dice. See: Enlarge, giant instinct, or just comparing the damage modifiers of the level 4 pixie (+4) to the level 4 minotaur hunter(+8). This is really easy as long as creatures are using weapons sized appropriately for them.

A huge creature with a tiny greataxe (ignoring size penalty for a moment assuming we're strictly talking about mass) will do far less damage with all their strength as the same creature with a huge greataxe.

The rules account for this too; a tiny creature can't wield a huge greataxe in the first place, nor can a huge creature wield a tiny great axe.

Really, the only time size modifiers to damage are blatantly silly is when you look at PCs outside the regular small/medium range. It IS silly that a pixie PC can technically hit as hard as a minotaur PC, no matter how much you talk about momentum being a factor of velocity. That's because Paizo has made all their player facing options balanced instead of realistic. It is also why those ancestries of unusual size have the rare tag-- players need their GM's permission to use them. That means tables that can't overlook that level of silly can just say "no."

If a witch's familiar gets specifically attacked (instead of caught in an AoE) there's a good chance that is a tactical win for the party. Patron familiars are potent, but not as potent as the spell caster themselves or their barbarian buddy. And unlike the PC the familiar just comes back.

Independent, flight, and lifelink are my favorite tools for familiar survivability. If you can't afford the armor feats, mystic armor is pretty handy since it double dips for both you and your familiar.

As far as I'm concerned all the pre-remaster dragons are still fair game, both for GMs and player options. (Except in some very particular cases where it is apparent that they didn't want PCs getting physical damage resistance from certain dragons anymore.)

magnuskn wrote:

There's the circuitous route to get the pre-remastered dragon bloodline powers with the pre-remaster Dragon Disciple archetype onto another bloodline. You just need to play the right race, i.e. a Kobold with the correct heritage.

Actually the last point is about getting access to the Uncommon archetype. A PC story steeped in draconic theme might be enough to get access too.

Yup, access and prerequisite are different.

Pre-remaster, I always felt Oracles should be able to deal any kind of alignment damage they don't really have a single god like a cleric, but instead channel multiple gods. Being able to tap into any of their alignments would have made a lot of sense.

I don't think it would make sense for sanctification, though, for the same reason. Oracles are contradictions, not dedications to a single purpose.

Hmm. That doesn't seem to address striking runes, or attacks that deal multiple damage dice.

A frost giant disarmed of his axe isn't going to be stuck doing 1d4 damage with his fists.

They don't, they do 2d8+12. Pretty much all giants have fists listed in their stat blocks. (Which is probably intended to be used for all their unarmed strikes like PCs. It is easier to see giant stomping on a human than punching them.)

They seem to be pretty careful about listing unarmed strikes for creatures this matters for. But a regular human knight NPC is essentially subject to the same penalties as a human knight PC. Maybe a little less since they get higher static damage bonuses.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=3013&Redirected=1

graystone wrote:

thejeff wrote:

graystone wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

The rules also tell you that Unique doesn't apply to the DC to recall about the general creature type.

It does say something like that in one of the books [Gamemastery]: it notes it's Unique for "discern specific information about" a Unique NPC but when "encountering" such an NPC, their Ancestry follows the rarity for that Ancestry.

This means that if you're trying to recall if an NPC is an orc, it's a Unique DC, but if you mean them, it's a Common DC.

Let's be honest; if this is something players/DM's are expected to know, it should be spelled out in a Main core book.

I assume that would apply to level as well. A high level unique orc shouldn't just be treated as common to know things about orcs, but you should also be rolling against the base Orc DC, not the one boosted for this individual's level.

I don't agree as ancestries have abilities [feats] that they get from levels. A level 1 DC can't tell you about a high level unique orcs Spell Devourer.

That's fair, I guess, but you should be able to get the basics of the ancestry.

PC style ancestries are weird anyway, since unless you know something about the individual, you wouldn't know which feats they'd taken

There are other examples of this without touching PC ancestries. Dragons are a big one. It shouldn't really be harder to recognize a red dragon based on its age. I always use the lowest level version of species to determine whether PCs know the basics like temperament, fire breath weapons, or a weakness to cold. If an ancient red dragon has abilities the younger versions lack, you'd need to hit the higher level DC to be aware of it.

Remember that if a spell hasn't been reprinted under the same name in the remaster, you're still allowed to use it. That is important because there are less spells with attack rolls in the remaster, so you'll still want to use Shocking Grasp, Ray of Frost, etc. (That hasn't changed yet, right?)

It starts to get tricky when you consider that plants and animals are mostly made up of water. And water is composed of air...

[

Captain Morgan wrote:

AoN is generally great, yes, but it has created this false understanding of how knowledgeable DCs (and even relevant skills) work. As Hammerjack pointed out at the beginning.

I do not understand - in what way?

Because level adjusted by rarity is not the only way to set the DC for monster identification. It is just the simplest way. People see the listed Recall Knowledge DCs and think they are as "canon" as the monster's AC and saves. Case in point, the OP, who not only misunderstood RK DCs but things like Exploit Vulnerability.

Here is what the rules actually say:

Recall Knowledge

Source GM Core pg. 54 2.0
On most topics, you can use simple DCs for checks to Recall Knowledge. For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed). You might adjust the difficulty down, maybe even drastically, if the subject is especially notorious or famed. Knowing simple tales about an infamous dragon’s exploits, for example, might be incredibly easy for the dragon’s level, or even just a simple trained DC.

The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature's trait, as shown on the Creature Identification Skills table, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment and make using Society harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify a specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity.)

The problem is people don't spend as much time reading these rules as they do looking at stat blocks on AoN, so they start to think those DCs on AoN are scripture instead of baseline suggestions.

If you're considering homebrew, giving them Weapon Infusion for free might be worth considering. It's a low level feat that helps in a lot of situations. Especially if they have decent strength. D8 agile one handed is a pretty decent melee weapon. It gives you whatever combination of slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning your blast lacked. And then most of the other value is in extending the effective range of your blast and when you can add strength to damage. It won't make them into a barbarian or anything, but it lets them maintain a certain level of output more consistently. It is kinda like a bomber alchemist. Low white room damage, but good in corner cases.

Whenever I try to build a kineticist, I feel foolish skipping weapon infusikn. Which is a good case for making it a freebie.

I'm not sure Familiars need to be at risk.

Magic items contribute in combat ,but we don't target them with area attacks.

Whether or not that SHOULD be the case from a balance perspective, the rules aren't ambiguous. Attended objects aren't damaged by AoE, and exposed familiars are.

Narratively, I'm also not sure how to justify giving them blanket AoE immunity without changing the definition of familiars from enhanced animals to something closer to eidolons that are the caster's magic shaped into flesh, sharing the casters hit points or something. I would be into that concept but it's a big departure.

Trip.H wrote:

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

What is the Witch losing here?

It looses reasons to main class Witch instead of just Archetyping into the class.

Are you trolling? Or do you seriously believe that:

- being a full spellcaster
- the Patron Familiar Ability
- the Patron Hex
- the additional familiar abilities
are not a core selling point of the Witch as your main class?

They are core selling points, just not very strong ones. Wizards aren't considered a very strong class, but with familiar thesis they get:

- being a full spellcaster with one extra spell slot
- their school focus spell
- Drain bonded item
- the additional familiar abilities
- extra spells added to their book from the curriculum every level.

Drain bonded item + extra slots is a lot of added power. Plus, the wizard doesn't need their familiar on the front lines to activate a core class feature or refocus. Witches do, which means they should be sinking some of their additional familiar abilities into survivability. (Flight and life link being my favorites.) So you wind up with less room for other familiar uses, like spell batteries or scouting.

Or compare the witch to the bard. The same number of slots, an extra feat from their muse, counter performance, and more hit points. Plus better base proficiency in weapons, armor, perception, and skills. The patron hex cantrip combined with that familiar ability are at best equivalent value to inspire courage alone, with the exception of the Resentment. The hex/patron familiar combo might provide a better set of bonuses but they are single target where compositions effect the whole battlefield and often at longer range.

I really like the remastered witch but they just aren't that strong a class, and the hidden advantages of an immortal familiar is basically the top mechanical appeal of the class for me. Otherwise I would just play a reflavored wizard.

AoN is generally great, yes, but it has created this false understanding of how knowledgeable DCs (and even relevant skills) work. As Hammerjack pointed out at the beginning.

Easl wrote:

Wait, did you previously just have familiars & ACs die instantly at 0 HP? You do know there are specific familiar types that had [construct] and [undead] tags, which were mechanically meaningful in large part due to trading immunities, etc, for the risk of insta-dying at 0HP?

Or did yall play where familiars & ACs contributed to battle, but were completely immune to foe aggression, AoE damage, and could not die at all?

Both are kinda incredibly alien to me, tbh. If something contributes to combat, it needs to be a valid target.

One of the main downsides of using even the "safe-er" shoulder jockey familiar is that they still get nuked by AoE.
It's so frequent, that I save & spend hero points to avoid my little shoulder-rider from getting 1-shot.
Including at least one incident where they were sent 100% --> 0 by an AoE death effect (on reg fail!).
Literally, spend a hero point and pray.

By RAW, familiar satchels don't take damage when they are being carried, so they are a solid way to protect a passive familiar. You lose the visual of it riding on your shoulder though.

Flying brooms feel a bit like motorcycles to me. They are providing the propulsion, but you still need to stay balanced on them. Whether that should cost actions, hands, or both, I don't want to weigh in on. But from a flavor perspective both are justifiable.

Well Air Walk is still in the game for now.

Technically true, but it's a weird case where it wasn't remastered AND the divine spell list suddenly got access to fly. It feels different than, say, shocking grasp vs thunder strike. I've stopped using Air Walk myself.

I'm not fully convinced final sacrifice abuse is a problem. The witch class has some challenging flavor considerations to play effectively. The best patron is at best chaotic and at worse just wants to watch the world burn. The class trends towards vaguely sinister if not outright evil. Playing a witch optimally already means coming to terms with your familiar being "recyclable" in a way you and your fellow PCs are not. If you wanted to cut back on that, I would suggest adding some flavor text about how the familiar doesn't experience pain the same way as a normal animal because it is essentially a spiritual extension of the patron.