Red Metal wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I suggest you check out this dude's homebrew:
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.
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.
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.
1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
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).
*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.
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.
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:15ft reach (+5): 3 diagonals
25ft reach (+10): 4 diagonals
30ft reach (+5): 5
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.
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.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.
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.
Lucas Yew wrote:
YES! Prepared spellcasters should have been this from the start. All spells should be spontaneously heightenable, too.
Of course, this would require Sorcerers to get more unique abilities, which I'm all for.
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems from the wording of the DM that you still have to prepare each individual casting of a spell, and that you have to decide at the beginning of the day whether or not you want to prepare a spell at a higher spell level.
I was going to contact directly, but I figured I'm not the only one with this problem, so hopefully starting a thread helps more people.
What is the best way to go about getting the English version of the 2e books in August while living in a non-English speaking country? I live in Japan, so every TRPG book I've seen sold in stores is always in Japanese. Ordering from Canada or the US is possible, but international shipping is often quite pricey. Are we able to order directly from you and not have to pay international shipping? I'd be willing to pre-order now in order for you to group my English books in together with the larger shipment of Japanese books.