Claxon's page

I don't disagree with you at all, played appropriately the idea of a cave worm spitting "food" up into the air just doesn't seem likely.

But the GM running the creature actually has to agree. And this goes back to the whole, is your GM a dick issue?

A good GM wouldn't do it, not only because it's not appropriate for the RP of a cave worm, but also because it's generally a jerk move.

A jerk GM wouldn't let either of those things stop them.

FAFO!

In my campaign I have a gradual early warning system that something is going wrong if they try to game the system with years doing one repetitive thing with the intention of breaking something else. I haven't mentioned it, and I have no idea if it'd come up.

I have a similar thing. I like to call, "Oh, so that's what you think you're doing? Would you like to reconsider that activity?"

Said in a tone that implies their character will soon die if they do not.

Anyways, to your real point, I think an important thing to let players know in such a game is that the world will progress without them taking action. But it will take place relatively slowly, and generally with the players aware of the general timelines it's going to happen on so they can choose how to approach things. Although I will tell them there may occasionally be two things happening at the same time that will force them to choose between to courses of action. But I would also let them know that I will provide a way to "undo" whatever activity they can't do, but that it will be harder to do than if done now and may still have other consequences that make the results less desirable.

Continuing my thoughts from Fallout New Vegas. Let's say the players have the Battle for Hoover Dam coming up, but also want to travel into the wasteland bunker to get the army of Securitrons. And lets suppose that for whatever reason the timeline ends up that the battle will happen when they're away if they choose to get the Securitron army.

The outcome may be the the Legion wins the battle for Hover dam, the players come back and decimate a weakened legion with the robot army. But the players were friendly with the NCR, and they let the NCR take control. However they're very weakened from the lost battle and likely to need additional help to maintain control over their territory in the Mojave. And even more help if they actually want to route the Legion and force them out of the Mojave territory more permanently.

There might even be a situation where the players don't get the Securitron army and miss the Battle for Hover Dam. And then decide they want to help the NCR anyways. So they infiltrate the Dam and blow it up. Because the NCR can't hold it, and they decide that it's better to not have the Dam at all, than to let the Legion have it.

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

Only valid if the GM cares to run it that way right?

Claxon wrote:

Honestly, Snapleafs are a commonly available cheap item that can be used as a reaction. In games I play, almost everyone has a few of them by the time you might encounter a cave worm. It would save you from this kind of thing. And so it might be interesting to run it, pop the snapleaf and prevent fatal damage.

But doing it to an unprepared group is definitely not something a good GM should do.

Player may have already spent their reaction on something else or commonly runs a different talisman. You could call that poor play but I don’t see how a grounded player otherwise playing around their lack of fall damage mitigation could reasonably expect a worm to shoot them up hundreds of feet in the air in one turn. This isn’t like a roc or something where you could reasonably expect it to carry someone off and take countermeasures, this is genuinely just unpredictable. B~$+**@# ability. Hell even if you have cat fall, typically considered sufficient fall damage protection, it won’t do anything for you because haha cave worm spit 360 feet up 50ft of fall reduction don’t matter.

I mean, yes-ish. It's also just called "don't be a dick" as a GM.

If you have a GM that abuses circumstances to kill a character and pretending it's "fair" that's simply a bad GM.

Its more that a creature which recovers from confusion needs to move out of the cloud on their turn or risk becoming confused again.

Since you don't make any new saves while already confused by it there won't be any refreshing of confusion durations, so you will get an opportunity to leave the area provided it wasnt a crit failure.

Yes, that is effectively how it will work out, except on a crit failure.

There's also a possibility that due to circumstances you may not be able to get out of the 20ft burst area of the cloud. What if you a dwarf laying prone on the ground, which also happens to be difficult terrain (when the confusion wears off)? You might realize you should try to get out, but won't be able to.

I disagree. The creature with resistance is still likely to bulldoze through, because taking steps through will mean that you're going to waste a lot of turns doing nothing.

I'm not really open to the idea that doing it per square is the "better way" or results in a better overall outcome. It mostly just means creatures with weakness aren't going to kill themselves trying to walk through the area.

I don't have any useful information on this, but I am curious to know as well.

I'm biased, but I have doubts that Paizo is actually responsible for the delays.

Honestly, Snapleafs are a commonly available cheap item that can be used as a reaction. In games I play, almost everyone has a few of them by the time you might encounter a cave worm. It would save you from this kind of thing. And so it might be interesting to run it, pop the snapleaf and prevent fatal damage.

But doing it to an unprepared group is definitely not something a good GM should do.

Tell the players they've all been magically cursed with weakness to fire 5 and then ask them how this kind of damage should be run.

I jest, but the issue is that this typically dipropionately affects monsters. PC characters tend not to have weaknesses (not never, but it's not common). So if you were to ask players they would likely say "let's run it per square."

But if they all had some sort of weakness, they'd likely prefer it to be based on each move action. For me as a GM, I think it's more balanced around a per move action application of weakness and resistance.

Claxon wrote:

I think this is a cool idea, but it only works when everyone in the party has things they're interested in besides the main plot/combat.

...
I feel like this kind of thing could work in a low stakes sandbox campaign, but probably not outside of it.

Making sure everyone has something outside of combat that they're interested in is definitely a requirement! I had to spend a lot of time developing content that's both mechanically and narratively interesting enough to make sure people who voted to play a Stardew Valley game *actually* followed through with engaging with noncombat stuff.

I *think* there are ways to make such things viable in more traditional adventure games, as long as it's a sandbox. But once you have a main plot line I do suspect that will suck the air out of the room for the rest of the optional content.

Exactly! I think your idea is very viable in a kind of sandbox game with only a loose overarching narrative to.

A kind of kingmaker style game, but with even less time pressure.

A thought I had was kind of how I felt the very first time I played Fallout New Vegas. My character had just be shot in the head and lived, and presumably didn't remember much about what I was doing. Aside from a Robot Cowboy reminding me I had a chip to obtain/deliver, I didn't know what I was really doing. So I took a lot of time simply exploring the wasteland around, strengthening my character, and looting. Yes, I had a goal to recover/deliver the chip, but it honestly didn't seem time dependent (or personally important) at all. All the other couriers were shot, so if I didn't show up...well it wouldn't be that surprising.

What you're proposing (a game where the side quests are more important) works well in this kind of scenario. A game where the campaign is simply exploring and becoming familiar with the world and letting the players build their own narrative.

Actually, I think I'd quite like such a game.

In a game like this, there's no overall plot to miss, derail, or fail.

But, to continue to lean on New Vegas, there are other factions at work (biggest of which being NCR and Caesar's Legion). They're primarily after the Hoover Dam, but the Legion is also occupying "neutral" settlements to gear up to fight the NCR. In this kind of game, the players could choose to team up with either, or become their own major faction vying for control, or avoid/ignore the whole thing letting it unfold as "fate" would dictate. As a GM, I would likely implement some sort of faction "point" system and have timelines battles would occur on to acquire settlements, that the players could influence if they chose.

But the game doesn't start being specifically about the NCR or Legion winning or losing. It's not a "game over" if either or neither wins. And the players could potentially undo the actions of either faction, though at greater effort to accomplish.

Honestly, now I kind of want to run a campaign based loosely on Fallout New Vegas game.

It's just a corner case of issues where being able to target an empty square by itself isn't problematic. But combined with the falling rules, and an ability for a monster to spit someone out, potentially hundreds of feet into the air forcing fall damage unless someone is prepared to counter it....that's a problem.

The simple, if not realistic solution, was to say that the worms spit attack causes a maximum of 25 falling damage (if falling from 50ft or greater) and set some rails.

Of course, I assume Paizo didn't think about malicious GMs trying to kill their PCs by using the regurgitate ability to spit someone straight up into the air.

Creatures who linger in the area after recovering from the confusion also rolls new saves since they are no longer affected. No immunity here.

But yeah, If dazzled would count as being "affected by the cloud" then you would never roll another save beyond the initial cast.

Well, they'd have to get out of the cloud itself and stay within 20ft to maintain the dazzled affect, while the confusion runs out. And since confusion has you attack the closest thing, it could be hard to get yourself out.

It's definitely worth point out specific issues as you find them.

Make threads/posts and be specific about things that don't work or missing content.

There are absolutely things that slip through editing, including in PF2, that have gone unresolved.

But the way your post comes across isn't actually helpful in trying to resolve the issue, merely being negative and judgey towards a situation you don't have the full picture/view of.

I would agree with NorrKnekten on that's how it should be played, but from a purely "how the rules read" being dazzled is an effect, that's caused by the cloud, and thus affecting those within 20ft. It's poorly worded. Because you could end up interpreting it as those within that 20ft band outside the cloud's burst area are somehow immune to making any more saves against the spell, as long as they stay within the area affected because they're "affected".

But I agree that the intention when they say "creatures currently affected by the cloud" means creatures who have rolled saves against the stun/confusion affect and rolled a failure or worse. Those who rolled a success would be unaffected, and need to get out of the cloud to avoid further saves.

I think this is a cool idea, but it only works when everyone in the party has things they're interested in besides the main plot/combat.

If no one is interested in doing stuff outside the main plot, then there are no "side quests" so to speak. There are no crops to plant. There's no visiting friends. And you can have the issue that the main plot feels too important and urgent to bother with these side quests. You can plant crops and visit friends when the world isn't in danger. And in my experience with group dynamics, basically if not everyone has something they want to do, they're going to push for the plot to move forward or sit there on their phone waiting for that to happen.

I feel like this kind of thing could work in a low stakes sandbox campaign, but probably not outside of it.

...what happens if the worm spits/ the creature escapes, only for the GM to say "you are inside solid stone" due to how the worm doesn't need to leave tunnels?

That whole creature needed some more time in the oven. Legacy inclusion's not really an excuse for a rather simple oversight of
"you succeed your Escape" --> "your PC doesn't have a stone burrow ability, they are dead"

Well, they're probably not instantly dead, but likely are now trapped in the earth unable to move and unable to breath in more air. So death is very imminent unless you have a party with the right tools to save you pretty darn quickly.

AlanDG2 wrote:

What happened to the Mechanic class in 2e?

It's in the Tech Class Playtest and...is meh at best and drone at least is absolutely unusable at a certain point because referenced types, feats, features, etc don't exist. Like a lot of SF2e (and even PF2e) I'm finding, it seems like it was written by multiple people that weren't allowed to talk to one another.

Or it's simply still in playtest and has obvious kinks and issues that need to be worked out.

There was a SF1 campaign set around saving the burning archipelago from an invasion from the plane of fire.

I suspect that the Burning Archipelago is largely status quo since then and just hasn't been mentioned because there's not much interesting happening.

Ignoring larger than medium size creature issue (and the FAQ clarification that basically says ignore the fact that large and larger creatures take up more than 1 square, they only take damage once per 5ft of movement) it is still relevant to determine when you should apply weakness and ressitance.

Instinctively I want answer that the damage happens per 5ft of movement/per square. Meaning resistance against that type of damage is likely to negate it entirely.

For example the 3 damage of coral eruption is low, and likely to be negated by any resistances that applies.

Conversely though, if you apply it equally for weakness now the creature will be destroyed by this hazardous terrain. Which I think shouldn't happen. I would likely rule that the damage is applied when the creature stops moving, and that the damage per square accumulates and then you apply weakness/resistance once against that group of damage.

Not as great for resistance, but also not as awful for weakness.

Zoken has a bit of a point in that we've reached an impasse where there isn't really useful discussion happening and people are passing judgement for not finding the function of environmental protections implausible or illogically.

Maybe we should all take a step back.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

To provide advantage for being focused on one handed weapons. Striking runes make the weapon die king for damage. Even with this bypass resistances if both attacks hit, one-handed weapons are generally inferior to a big two-handed weapon.

Love the Gleaming Blade Transcendence that lets you do the trick with a 2-handed sword (or knife).

That is neat, you can basically double slice with a 2 handed weapon.

You could have/make up some reasons to justify it, but it definitely strains logic for me.

I've always understood it as the Weapon Training class feature (which can be used to pick up Advanced Weapon Training option) is a separate thing from the feat that is also named Advanced Weapon Training.

I can't agree or justify thinking that the feat restriction about taking the feat once per five levels cares what you did with your class feature choices because it says:
"This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 5 fighter levels."

The way that is written, it only cares about how many times you've taken the feat.

And the feat is definitely not the same thing as choosing the AWT option instead of adding a weapon group via Weapon Training.

But it's not only a vacuum. It also specifically mentions working in water "submerged area of non-damaging liquid".

And there's nothing saying that you can't just manually turn it on, no need for it to "react".

And sure, yes it has a battery. That battery last days per armor level.

If I'm exploring and don't expect to be out for days, I'm keeping that thing on the whole time.

Yes, this one of a few clown show and amateur aspects to SF2 that has made it seem like a bit of a joke of a game.

I mean, it's annoying but also easily house ruled to fix it. In terms of annoyances...it's kind of tiny (to me) because it's so easy to fix.

Unicore wrote:

Players casting fireball in a room full of people with no one having a chance of figuring out who cast the spell is not something I would ever allow as a GM and would strongly caution any GM from considering. Pathfinder 2e is not “mass murderer the role playing game.”

I beg to differ! Adventurers aren't commonly called murder hobos for nothing!

I think Unicore's point is more that there will be consequences for the actions and somebody will catch up to the PCs, even if it doesn't make sense.

The feat says you can only take it every 5 fighter levels, am i correct that the 9th level class feature isn't counted toward this?

Correct. At 5th level you take your first weapon group via initial weapon training. At 9th level you could get another weapon group via training, or in your case your taking an Advanced Training. None of that is relevant to the feat, which says you can only take the feat once per 5 fighter levels.

So, at 10th level you could have the feat twice. And that means you could have 3 instances of Advanced Weapon Training options, by using your 9th level choice to select it also.

If the goal of a piece of equipment is to make sure you can breath, including in a vacuum, then it has to supply breathable air to you. And keep that air in, and keep the "not air" out (vacuum). In this case, it's simply impossible for me to imagine a scenario in which inhaled poisons or smoke aren't also protected against.

i have to beg to disagree with you on that one. The feat specifically says as if the creature has increased in size, focused weapon, and more importantly, sacred weapon from warpriest has a separate chart for creatures of different sizes, and the DM has already allowed them to work together to get me the desired effect.

"The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category"

Ultimately if your DM is allowing it then what I say doesn't matter, but the "as if it had increased in size by one category" explains the mechanics but doesn't give an actual size increase. Anyways, no point to argue about it if your DM has approved it.

Improved Natural Attack doesn't stack with Focused Weapon (Sacred Weapon). Focused Weapon (Sacred Weapon) replaces the damage die of the weapon, meaning improved natural attack won't work to increase the Sacred Weapon Damage.

Tarluk wrote:

That does make sense. Though with that in mind, how come Double Slice prevents double dipping on precision damage but *not* Strength, when many Dex-focused classes rely on precision damage to offset lower Strength values?

Because rogues.

A rogue using double slice, even only able to apply the precision damage once, does more damage than a rogue striking twice.

If you could apply it twice, Double Slice would be so good literally every rogue would be stupid not to take it.

Yeah, if Double Slice also allowed for precision damage twice it would probably be too good for Rogues.

Currently, Double Slice is 2 actions for 2 attacks (but the second attack doesn't suffer MAP, though does suffer -2 if not agile). It combines for overcoming resistance, and limits precision damage to once for the combo.

Twin Takedown is a 1 action for two attacks, but requires you to have a hunted prey that you're targeting, combines the damage to overcome resistance. It does allow you to add precision damage twice, but is less accurate than Double Slice and has an action tax of hunting prey as well.

Flurry of Blows is pretty similar to Twin Takedown, but loses the hunted prey requirement in exchange for being limited to unarmed strikes (which can be expanded with monastic weaponry).

Honestly, if you're a rogue looking to get extra attacks in with precision damage, taking the monk dedication might sound attractive. But the restriction on gaining flurry of blows from the dedication make it not very attractive.

It's kind of like Paizo put a lot of thought into keeping rogues from getting too out of hand with sneak attack.

It doesn't make sense that a thing that can protect you from a bullet can't protect you from a sword, some might say, but yeah, a bullet proof (resistant) vest won't save you if someone swings a sword at you.

Yes, but also no. Kevlar, they typical "bullet proof" vest that people might be familiar with is no good against edge weapons. Absolutely.

But military grade anti-ballistic technology (a plate carrier, which literally have metal or ceramic plates) would work against a knife, at least in the areas covered.

And of course there's a lot of the body that isn't covered.

And there's also blunt objects, which while the damage would be reduced by plates, the kinetic energy of a hammer is still going to get transported (albeit reduced) into the body.

While it's possible that there is some sort of system that can protect from the void of space such that breathing isn't a problem, but other things are isn't impossible. But without some thought into how the system functions, does strain believability for myself and a lot of people, since with our current level of technology space suits can protect against the vacuum of space, provide air, and protect from smoke and inhaled poisons.

That actually leads me to think that any sizeable community would probably do something to control or kill off worms in the area. Suddenly losing your water source would be a big problem. And it would likely be something that enemy communities would try to weaponize.

I imagine communities would have developed some technique of generally keeping cave worms away. But mind controlling one to go rip holes in your enemy's reservoir lake could be a big concern.

Pretty much yes (technically as previous poster points out, you have to take the Advanced Weapon Training feat which gives you another Advanced Weapon Training option) though I doubt the efficacy of doing so.

You need to have Weapon Focus feat, in order to be able to select Focused Weapon (Advanced Weapon Training). You also have to have chosen the weapon family for both weapons (which may only be one family) to have it qualify to benefit from Advanced Weapon Training.

So, I have a hard time seeing what benefit you would be gaining.

Because the weapons have to be from the same family (because you've only reached high enough level to choose one family, since you're spending what would have been the second choice at level 9 on an Advanced Weapon training) I have a hard time seeing what you'd end up gaining.

It's also worth noting that unless you're just trying to optimize bad weapons in the first place, that damage boost you would get isn't all that great from Focused Weapon. Going from a d4 to a d8 or d10 isn't nearly as good as some of the other options you can get from Advanced Weapon Training.

Perhaps you should let us know what you're trying to do, and we might have suggestions.

Well if you’re taking good spells then you’re also taking spells that are good to counterspell…

Sure you can’t do anything if the enemy caster is throwing out hypnotic pattern or whatever but why do you care if that goes through, that’s not what you’re worried about. You have the tools to stop serious threats like slow or binding muzzle or wall of stone.

I guess my perspective is that I, as a GM, am not generally writing spell casters in a custom campaign. I'm more likely to give them a few innate spells that are thematic.

Otherwise, it's spell casting characters written by Paizo. And I'm not sure that the logic of "if you're taking good spell then you're also taking the spells that are good to counterspell". Like yes, but if you enemy doesn't cast those spells you're investment into counterspelling does nothing. And arguing that's okay because you're not worried about those spells doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

One thing I find quite interesting is that in PF2e Remastered, spontaneous casters can't Counterspell without picking up Witch or Wizard dedication. When they reprinted Sorcerer, they removed Counterspell as a Feat.

(Yes, yes, I know all about the compatibility. However, I do find it interesting that anyone new to the game will not see Counterspell as a built-in option for Sorcerers.)

I was thinking about this during the discussion yesterday but didn't bring it up.

I was thinking about how if you wanted to be an arcane sorcerer, and have counterspell and counter thought that you would need to pick up two different dedications. And while it's not unreasonable to want to pick up an additional spell casting dedication to get more spells, and also pickup counterspell or counter thought while you're there....I think picking up both it too expensive.

Claxon wrote:

I vaguely recall a glove item that let you see through walls and door for a limited distance, but I can't recall the name of it. Pretty nifty item though.

I thought it was an eyepiece? Either way goes hard with ghost ammo.

Maybe it is. At this point its only a vague recollection for me.

I believe I was thinking of the gloves of reconnaissance, but they're from PF1.

I'm torn between how environmental protections in SF1 made it impossible to run a "threatened by the environment" scenario without it being very extreme heat/cold/corrosion and "something that would protect from the vacuum of space would also protect against these things". Like our current spacesuits would protect against any kind of smoke, inhaled things, and vacuum of space.

And regardless of what exact magic or tech is used, it still doesn't make sense that somethign that protects against vacuum doesn't protect against smoke or inhaled things.

How much have you watched? I don't want to accidentally ruin anything.

I will say that I think the "upside down" is like a transitive plane. It's probably closest to the Shadow Plane (now named as the Netherworld).

The Abyss...well the enemies in Stranger things originated from the place they call the Abyss. But it honestly seems like it could simply be a distant alien world, or it could be another plane. Though it is called the abyss in the show, it doesn't resemble the abyss of Pathfinder or DnD.

Before the finale, the idea was introduced that the upside down was a bridge via wormhole, so I'm actually of the mind that the "Abyss" was a distant alien world with an unknowable alien creatures. Though it doesn't make much difference whether it's another plane or an distant world.

I vaguely recall a glove item that let you see through walls and door for a limited distance, but I can't recall the name of it. Pretty nifty item though.

I guess what I'm saying is that spontaneous caster with signature spell dispel magic can get rid of most non-instantaneous spells via counteracting.

It takes basically no investment. A prepared caster can even play at the game, although it's a question of how many and what level of dispel magics do you want to prepare.

As for your position that there are only certain spells worth counterspelling, I feel that only enhances the idea that investing into counterspelling is a waste of feats. I also simply don't believe your premise that the spells you're likely to encounter are the ones you're going to have prepared.

Unless you amend that statement to be something more like "well, if you remove the spells that aren't "impactful"*, and that are worth counterspelling, and couldn't just be dispelled afterwards"....Alright sure. I guess I agree with that kind of vague statement. But I don't think it speaks to counterspelling being valuable.

*very subjective

On the other hand, spontaneous casters can make important spells (to counter) their signature spells, giving them the edge in spell-slot use for countering: Choose whether to play it safe by using a spell-slot 1 rank higher than enemy spell, or conserve your resources by using a spell-slot 1 rank lower; there's no reason to use an equal-rank spell-slot at all, for if you succeed at the counteract check then 1 rank lower would have been sufficient, and if you fail the counteract check you would have needed to use a slot 1 rank higher.

I mean....kind of, but no.

Sure, you can have signature spells that are more convenient to use with counterspelling, but what are the chances that the spell you have as a signature is the spell that the enemy is casting? It's not impossible, but it's not a common occurrence. Not enough to try building a character around it.

Spontaneous casters (if they have the spell being cast as a signature spell) are the best case scenario for counterspelling. But you're not guaranteed to have the spell.

Honestly, if people wanted counterspelling to be more of a thing, you should just let dispel magic be used to counterspell, at some sort of penalty.

Edit: I will also add I don't personally see high value in doing things like countering "pure" damage spells. Yes damage is bad, but we have lots of sources of healing that take low investment. Generally speaking, I'm much more worried about non-damaging things that magic does.

The Counter Thought thing is good though. And does address part of a big concern (the non-damaging things magic can do). I'm not sure I would take it on every caster character. But spontaneous casters with a mental tag signature spell certainly have a benefit here.

Still, I'm worried about enemies casting Haste or Slow or or doing other things with magic that aren't as easily supported within the counterspell system.

I would have much preferred that counterspelling be viable dispel magic with some kind of penalty, and not needed so many feats to kind of half way enable you to counterspell some of the things an enemy caster might do.

Yeah, it's worth mentioning that it's good to have at least one person that will take medicine to legendary proficiency and will pick up the skill feats Continual Recovery and Ward Medic. And they might as well also pick up Battle Medicine.

And depending on how your GM handles giving players knowledge about enemies, having skills for Arcana/Occult/Nature/Religion can be incredibly essential and helpful, to just so-so. It depends on how stingy your GM is with the information. But if you have a spell caster, you're going to have a least on the bases covered.

I will also add that, if there's a human in the party it's worth it (IMO) to grab the Clever Improviser feat to give okay coverage across all feats. If you have a small party of only 4, you're not going to have all skills covered deep. And depending on character concepts there may be certain skills that are missing. Clever Improviser won't let a character go up against on level challenges and succeed. But depending on the GM style, it can be valuable. Oh, there's a lock? Well it's just a poor quality lock and you're level 10 so you have a 10+dex modifier to pick that lock. It's value depends on if the GM ever bothers to add in below level challenges into the game (I think it's good to do so).

Magical items (outside fundamental runes) definitely feel like they matter less in PF2, but there are several that are impactful. Unfortunately there are so many, that finding the ones that are good is difficult, and becomes more challenging as more material is released.

Easy items to identify are obviously fundamental runes. Then property runes. I have trouble finding armor property runes I like. When it comes to weapon property runes, there are a lot, but it's also hard to go wrong with just 3 elemental damage runes as a default.

Beyond that, look at items that increase the skills you've invested in. Beyond doing just a number bonus, some have some cool benefits to how you use the skill.

Honestly, beyond that you're probably most broke for most of your career. But there are some items that are probably worth seeking out for specific circumstances/characters.

Some items I like (not necessarily for combat power):
Decanter of Endless Water
Deteriorating Dust
Fear Gem
Fury Cocktail
Hat of Disguise
Healer's Gloves
Horn of Fog
Jar of Shifting Sands
Predictable Silver Piece
Private Workshop
Sleeves of Storage
Snapleaf

and I'm sure there's much more

I think because it hides the manifestations of the spell, it can't be counterspelled. But very few NPCs would bother with counterspelling in the first place.

In an NPC did have counterspelling as part of its loadout/tricks I would probably just say they had an ability that allowed them to react to the spells casting anyways.

Also it's incredibly rare for an NPC to be built using subtle spell (or something similar) or for players I've played with to tak the counterspell line. Counterspelling is incredibly challenging to do. Even after you get Clever Counterspell feat, you're likely to find you don't have the right spell prepared to be able to counter your enemy. And spontaneous casters are really SOL if they want to counter.

What I have seen more commonly is spontaneous casters with dispel magic counteracting the spell.

As other have mentioned, this is a really bad idea.

The math in PF2 is very unlike the math of PF1.

Honestly, being experienced players of PF1 is probably a detriment to understanding PF2 rules and playing the game as intended because there are many things that were deliberately changed. Even the best built fighters (most accurate martial characters in PF2) have a significant chance to miss their first attacks against an on level enemy. It's probably in the 20% to 30% range. And that's intended game design. Attacks are never guaranteed to succeed. And that's why earlier in the thread you have someone mentioning that you should never make 3 attacks in a round, because at a -10 penalty to attack you will not hit. There is one exception to that, which is the high level flurry ranger who only suffers a -4 to their 3rd (and additional attacks if applicable).

My recommendation is forget everything you know about PF1. It WILL screw you up in PF2. And no, don't let proficiency from multiple sources stack. Seriously. Please play the game with the rules are written first. Learn and understand the game as is. It's not perfect, there are things that I think should be changed. But asking this kind of question (should I let proficiency stack to high levels) underscores a lack of understanding of the game as a whole. And I don't say that to be rude, but to emphasize my point that you need to experience the game rules as written, and then think about how you want to tweak them to get the game experience you desire.

Letting skill proficiency increase I do not think will give you the result you like.

Also bear in mind that normally, most characters can only achieve Legendary status in 3 skills. With what you're suggesting someone could easily achieve a 4th, and maybe a 5th. Normally only Investigators and Rogues get that many legendary skills, due to how skill proficiency increases work.

Can you imagine if there were monsters immune to a Barbarian's Rage damage [...]?

It sounds pretty lame.

That in fact, is already an issue for certain barbarians.

For example:

While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4 and change its damage type to match that of your instinct’s dragon breath instead of the damage type for your weapon or unarmed attack. If you do this, your Rage action gains the trait matching your dragon instinct’s tradition, as well as the trait matching the damage type where applicable

Although, with choices in damage like Force, it's pretty easy to avoid. But then you run into the issue that like the best choice of dragon is a meta choice on how to avoid damage resistance/immunity.

Elemental Instinct can also run into this issue. Decay instinct (poison) too.

Edit: Although, I guess in fairness they can choose not to increase the additional damage from rage and not have your attacks gain the elements that your enemy is immune to. So you do get a consolation prize, so to speak.

To the next posters point, maybe that is what swashbucklers and rogues need. Something that would let them convert from precision damage to something else, with a penalty.

If there were more feats that let precision heavy classes deal with precision immune foes (not level 18 feats, mind you) or something like a fire kineticist to deal with fire immunity, I think that would be the best option. Players should have the choice to have feats that expand on their versatility, or double down on what they already do well. And no I don't think someone who wants to play a fire kineticist having to expand to a different element to deal with fire immune foes is a good option, as the player likely wants the fire mage fantasy.

I like this idea. My idea (that is mathematically "complicated" to implement) would be to have like a level 7 feat that treat precision immunity as a 75% reduction. The percentage is the complicated part, but I don't know how to better do it to let you keep some, but not all. And maybe even a higher level version of the feat to change the reduction to 50%.

I agree that generic "darkvision" actually produces a less robust world, but going through and adding appropriate types of sense to replace that is not trivial. Although a lot of could probably just be "infrared vision".

Of course, if you have infrared vision, realistically you wouldn't see the cave in detail around you. You would have trouble navigating, although you could see creatures well enough to target them.

Of course that could open a new type of interesting gameplay where you have "imprecise" visual senses.

If I were to pursue such a thing, I would probably get rid of the foil senses feat though, and make more robust (and challenging rules) for remaining hidden from special senses.

Maybe you end up with a "foil senses" feat that say you're always taking precautions, but spell out that against X sense you're rolling Y skill (or maybe no skill) with Z attribute and not a standard stealth check. I'm pretty sure most GMs just run it that a character with foil senses just makes a standard stealth check to keep it simple. In some cases, foil senses might not work at all. Or you might have to cover yourself in mud, for example, to defeat infrared vision.

I dunno if exploring the whole thing is worth it. I'm certainly not going to attempt to try.

Edit: RavingDork, I don't think any of us who have said "darkvision" is magical are actually asserting that it's a magical spell like thing. But rather, as a human being, and lacking more more descriptive/specific things it functions kind of magically, with no specific method to be defeat it. What's worse is that in some cases they do describe things as heatvision (infrared), there's even a spell for it. And as such, it creates a problem that darkvision can't be that.