ClanPsi's page

I commented on the video on YouTube, but just in case you don't read the comments there, I'm adding it here as well due to time constraints. The sooner you read this, the sooner you can fix the book before it goes to print:

Could you please, PLEASE, fix item DC? They should all scale based on the Standard DC table, and all items made with infused reagents should use class/spell DC. It's the main house rule I always use and it's SO MUCH BETTER. It improves quality of life dramatically (you don't need to keep looking up items every single time you want to use them, and they remain useful for more than one level of gameplay) without affecting game balance at all (the effects don't change, so they still aren't particularly great as levels increase). You could even put a small box labelled Item Save DC on the first page of the character sheet for even easier reference. This is the one change I've asked for since the 2e playtest and the one thing you've constantly ignored, even though it's objectively superior to what exists now.
The only thing it affects negatively is the Toxicologist, but let's be honest here, that research field is an absolute pile of hot shyte and should be removed from the game entirely.

Also, why do Celestial Magic and Fiendish Magic have different prerequisites? The former states, "... or another lineage feat associated with celestials," but the latter doesn't have something similar with regards to fiends. The first PF2e books had similar inconsistencies all over the place, so please comb through this release as best you can to try to avoid them for the remaster. I'd honestly suggest just releasing the books on PDFs to the community so we can help. Crowdsourcing is really useful with this kind of thing.

Thank you!

This is a more difficult problem than your group has realized, since scaling DCs with no other changes would mean you can buy an infinite number of still-potent low level items at higher levels, breaking the game.

That's fine to say in theory, but can you actually give an example? Have you tested it? I have and it works wonderfully.

3. Animal Companions are already very good. I do not want to ever see Minions overpowering a PC's power. Not sure I understand the issue. It's just one action to command and they get two actions because the mount in your example is a minion.

I feel like you didn't understand what I wrote in the slightest. I said nothing about adjusting the power of companions, only how many times they can be given actions each turn. The issue is with mounted movement, which as currently written is completed f*cked.

... the stream doesn't feel like the easiest way to absorb this information. But Paizo has been using them since at least the original PF2 playtest so they must have a reason for it.

Exactly this. It's a horrible way to present information. A simple blog post summarising all of the important points would be really nice and very simple for them to do.

@Ascalaphus I disagree with you about Talisman function. They shouldn't be as powerful as scrolls because that's what scrolls are. I also don't mind the affix time, but one time use is just so bad. Even at 1/10 the price, they still wouldn't be worthwhile. 1/day or 1/rest with scaling DC makes them actually worthwhile, which my group has tested and it doesn't affect game balance in the slightest.

Paizo updating the rules is fantastic news. Here are some things my group and I agree desperately need to change. We have experimented with all of them and there have been zero balance issues whatsoever. I've ordered them in order of importance.

1) Item DCs. All items which have a DC need to be changed to scale based on the Standard DC table. It's ridiculous that items are only useful for 1-2 levels. This would make items useful for much longer. This would also lead to poisons being useful for everyone, not just Toxicologists, but of course a Toxicologist's poisons will have higher DCs. I still think the subclass would need more added in order to make it a worthwhile option, though.

2) Talismans. They should be changed to 1/day. As they are, they are *terrible* value.

3) Animal Companions. While we like how they work in general, the maximum 2 actions per round is severely limiting and leads to some really bizarre interactions. The extra feat to give 3 actions for 2 is not a sufficient solution due to it requiring a certain character level, so it should honestly just be removed entirely. Any companion rider should be able to give one action to their companion mount at a 1:1 ratio, regardless of how many actions that companion or mount has used that turn. The 1:2 ability should be a special ability only usable once per round. This solves the movement problem of spending an entire turn moving on a mount. As written currently, you waste an action every round you're mounted on a companion because they're only allowed to move twice.

4) Cackle. A witch's cackle should be a flourish cantrip, not a focus spell.

It may have something to do with the fact that now the Hasbro CEO is former Microsoft, the president of Wizards of the Coast is former Microsoft and Amazon, and the VP now in charge of D&D is former Microsoft 365.

They're probably still with Micro$oft, considering this is pretty much exactly what M$ is trying to do with video games: take over and create a monopoly.

If infused items had an item level equal to your level, you would never be able to use additives.

Technically it wouldn't affect that since the finish product would have it's level adjusted, not each individual ingredient, but yeah. Should have added "with respect to the incapacitation trait."

As far as I've been able to find, there's nothing in the rules that states infused items (those created using infused reagents during daily preparations) have an effective level equal to your level. This is a massive oversight, which severely impacts the effectiveness of things such as poisons with the incapacitation trait. Adding someting similiar to the following into the next errata would clear up a lot:

Infused alchemical items you create during daily preparions have the following benefits: You may change the save DC for alchemical items created using infused reagents to equal to your class DC, and their effective item level is equal to your level.

I'd probably just keep it simple and make it the higher of class or spell DC

IMO, all these Basic Alchemy Benefits classes should be errataed anyways because as is, the dedication feats are dead feats for actual alchemists, who would definately get nice flavor expansion with them, but that's the subject of it's own thread

Yeah, very true point. Paizo definitely dropped the ball with Alchemy in PF2e. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to an Ultimate Alchemy full errata book to fix all of the issues.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Poisoner is honestly just outright bad without scaling DC in general

Can't say I disagree there. Poisons already need all the help they can to land since Fort tends to be a strong save for many monsters, and Poisoner does almost nothing to help them outside of Pinpoint Poisoner.

Really, poisons as a whole are in a terrible spot right now. (Mostly because the designated poison using class is a massive mess.)

So would you say you support my change suggestion?

edit: I just noticed that my suggestion doesn't include a proficiency bonus. Hmm... Maybe it should get an extra +2 or +4.

Errata 2 gets rid of the Powerful Alchemy feat and gives it to Alchemists for free. How does, or should, this affect the Poisoner Archetype? Do they still fuction as written?

Also, why doesn't Poisoner get a way to increase the DC of poisons they create? It seems like a pretty severe oversight. One solution could be the following.

Expert Poisoner:

Your advanced alchemy level for poison increases to your level – 3. You can change the DCs of your infused poisons to [10 + your advanced alchemy level + your Intelligence modifier] if it's higher.

Please let one of them be a Kineticist. Kineticist and Arcanist would be really nice.

And for the love of Aroden, DON'T make a gunslinger. Guns in fantasy games are super lame.

I suspect we'll see Cackle remain as sustaining a single effect as a default, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a feat or ability to alter this as suggested, if only for your hexes. This upgrade is quite potent (getting extra Sustains is currently rated as a 16th level feat), but could be an interesting niche for Witches in general as the sustain caster.

They already got an ability in this niche as the 20th level feat Echoing Cackle, which automatically sustained your hexes for an entire minute with a single Cackle, but that doesn't necessarily preclude them exploring the space earlier. I think that 10th level would be about fair to start getting multi-sustain, albeit just limited to hexes. It would certainly enable them to push hexes a little harder, and explore cantrip hexes as well, since you couldn't really multiclass to abuse this.

What I really want to see, though, is the option to add riders to Cackle. A feat that enables you to Demoralise as a free action following Cackle would be highly thematic and quite potent.

I like both of these ideas! I think 10th level is bit late, I'd probably make it 6th or 8th. I definitely like the idea of adding debuffs to Cackle itself, too.

When I first read the rules for Cackle I thought it sustained all sustainable spells at once, so I thought it was really interesting and unique. Then I read it again and realised that isn't the case. I think my version is better. What do you think? Should Paizo change it for the full release to be like what I originally understood it as?

I just read through the creature creation rules and I must admit, they're pretty useless. It gives a very basic description of each template trait, but doesn't actually tell you what anything is.

Take Demons as an example. It says they have Sin Vulnerabilities and Sin Abilities, but it doesn't actually tell you what they are. The exact quote is: "Sin Ability Demons also have a special ability based on the sin they represent, which either makes them better embody the sin or instills that sin in others."

Are you just supposed to make something up? If so, what is the point of the book in the first place? Why not just bullsh!t everything about a creature and save yourself the money?

I don't get it.

Why only one level? Can we get a full Adventure Path?

So... did Paizo just forget to finish the statblock for Ooze then? Kinda makes you wonder if anyone actually proofread this game.

A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

Flanking is no longer a buff you get, but rather now results in the flat-footed debuff condition that the flanked creature receives. If it's now a condition, why does it only apply to some attackers? It's the only condition that is selective like that and kind of breaks Paizo's own rules. If a creature is flanked and has the flat-footed condition, that condition should apply across the board. Thoughts?

Can we get alternate casting rules for all casters, please? Vancian magic blows.

Here are the changes I've made to my homebrewed campaign, just follow the LINK

Some of these changes are really good. Paizo should have hired you to help with the CRB.

I suggest you check out this dude's homebrew:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/dq86us/the_elementalist_a_ki neticistinspired_class_for/

It's pretty good.

In fact, you should contact him direct and work together to make the best Kineticist you can as a team. That'd be absolutely amazing.

If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

That's why I think Sorcerers and Bards need more unique and interesting abilities. I personally don't think they should ONLY have spontaneous casting to differentiate them. 5e was a step in the right direction for Sorcs, especially the Wild Magic idea. I was really hoping PF2 would expand on that concept and make them even more unique. I was sorely disappointed by Paizo's inconceivable laziness.

Spontaneous Caster ability idea:

Since Spontaneous Heighten is now a useless ability, how about...

After 8 hours rest, choose up to two spells from your spell list whose levels add up to half your level. You can cast those spells as if they were in your repertoire for the day.

That sounds fantastic. I don't really like what you did with prepared casters, but it's small enough change. Could you link to the document, please? <3

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.
How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

Aservan is 100% correct. It isn't really up to DM discretion. All you need is Line of Effect to cast a spell, unless stated specifically by the spell. That means you can blind-cast whatever you want, as long as it doesn't require you to specifically choose targets and the point you want the spell to emiate from isn't behind total cover (or behind a wall or something).

So... am I right, or...?
I'm specifically asking with respect to AoE spells. For example, can you cast a fireball into a darkness spell? If yes, does it originate from the point you choose but can't see?

As the subject implies, what are the rules for casting spells into darkness, magical or otherwise? Most spells require a target, whether it's a creature, object or point in space. The best I can find is to roll a 50% miss chance or lose the spell. Is that correct?

Seriously, just make an errata page on your website and update it every week. There's absolutely no good reason to make us wait so long. It's 2019, not 1989.

*I posted this in another thread, but thought it might deserve its own.*

I was under the impression that the activity you do during Exploration Mode is used to determine your initiative at the start of a battle. Specifically, the roll you make to determine how good you are at that activity is also your initiative roll. That's how my group has been doing it and it works fantastically well - combat starts so organically - but it appears we may be playing it wrong.
Under Avoid Notice it says to make a separate Stealth roll at the beginning of combat to use as your initiative. Why? That character has already rolled a Stealth check. Why are they rolling another one? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something? How do you play it?

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

Except for, you know, the entire prepared casting system. It's straight out of the year 2000.

Another way to think of it, is if you apply the "over other diagonal costs 10ft" rule then 10ft reach should only reach the corner adjacent to your character. 15ft would get the second corner from your character. 20ft gets 3 (5+10+5). 30 gets 4 (5+10+5+10).

But 10ft gets an exception because it has a weird consequence that others don't, which is getting past someones reach without provoking.

So what you're saying is that I'm right and the other two are wrong, since that's exactly what I've been saying.

p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Counting diagonally:
5+10+5+10+...

5 feet
15 feet (exception)
20 feet
30 feet

@ShadowShackleton Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. It's good to hear from an actual developer on the matter. I'm glad you're here to give us a definitive answer. -_-

@SuperBidi Is there a FAQ? The only one I know about was during a live stream a few weeks ago.

it all depends when you start to add 5 or when you start to add 10 ft to the diagonals.

since we have the "10ft reach is 2, 20 ft is 3, 25ft is 4, etc" quote, it's just that:

natural reach: 1 diagonal
10ft reach(+5): 2 diagonals
20ft reach (+10): 3 diagonals
25ft reach (+5): 4 diagonals
35ft reach (+10): 5
40ft reach (+5): 6
etc

so it does follow the expected progression.

Why would you count 10 as +5, though? It says "normally after 10 feet." Normally after 10 feet would imply that 10 is 0, which would be:

Since that's absolutely ridiculous, it's a lot more sensible to presume that Paizo just made a typing error, especially considering the inconceivably large number of other mistakes throughout the CRB.

Grid distance diagonally goes by 5-10-5-10-etc

The part of the sentence you cut:
"Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally"

Sets an exception.

And then continues to explain that AFTER the exception, Reach is measured like Range.

Hence 25 and not 30

If that were true then 15 feet would be 3 squares and 25 feet would be 4 squares, since it would be 5-10-5-10 starting from 10 feet. It specifically calls out 20 feet, though, which seems to point more towards my interpretation being the intended result.

Personally, I'd endeavor to never use a spell as a second attack because I really want it to land, especially if I'm burning a slot. So this doesn't seem like it will come up very much anyway.

Probably not that often. I was thinking of the situation where you take down an enemy adjacent to you with your first action and want to cantrip something at range afterwards.

That's pretty silly.

Can you give a page number, please?

On p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Speaking of which, why is there no thread for posting mistakes for future erratas? Paizo, please add one.

I know that attack spells contribute to MAP, but since they essentially just involve waiving your hands around, are they considered agile? For example, if you attack with a sword with your first action, would your second and third actions being used as a spell attack be at -4? It seems like the most sensible conclusion given that unarmed attacks and light weapons are all agile.

Why would they be worse? I bought these specifically for the pictures to help my students understand what each condition is.

Why would they be worse? I bought these expecting them to be similar.

I just got the condition Cards pack. I was led to believe each card was going to have nice Goblin art on them, but mine show nothing but text. What is going on?

A description of what each special material does is on p.578

That's why I'm wondering if it's a printing error. It seems like the bit about resting should have been added a lot earlier and not at level 19.

The ability lets a Ranger sleep in light or medium armour without being fatigued the next day. That's cool. Why is this ability level 19? The campaign is ending in two sessions by the time you get it. The Ranger should get this ability at level 1.

This article begs the question: How long until Hobgoblins and Bugbears get playable stats?

Gorbacz wrote:

It's been great 10 years Varisia, but you've been done to death.

There'll never be enough Varisia material for me.

The Lost Omens world book was announced a couple of months ago. Did you miss it?

Thank you very much for the heads up!

bookdepository is cheaper for Japan, but I don't know about other countries.