Darksol the Painbringer's page

Perpdepog wrote:

Easl wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

Necromancer is an int-based, prepared, occult caster with 2 slots per rank. At level 1 they get a focus cantrip called Create Thrall that, as 1 action, makes a thrall w/in 30ft that lasts a minute. Thralls are creatures with 1 hit point that are always hit by attacks and always fail saving throws. They have no actions, but can provide flanking (some feats/focus spells let you move thralls or have them attack with your spell attack modifier). You can destroy your thralls to do various things...

Wow that doesn't sound like a minion master at all. It sounds more like a bank-resources-before-the-fight-then-spend-them-during concept. Personally I'm okay with that, but it's probably not the concept that a lot of the folks clamoring for a necromancer wanted.

This is the complaint I'm most expecting to see once the playtest drops, honestly. People are going to hear necromancer, jump to a game like Diablo II in their heads, and then either be frustrated they can't have giant blobs of guys, or have to wait a long time to have a mechanic that simulates them.

Honestly the thrall system seems way more diablo necro than I was expecting they would let it. You can pop out a lot of thralls but they are super squishy and totally disposable. I would bet there will be feats that let you boss a blob of them around so it probably will scratch that itch pretty well.

Well, there is always the Undead Master class archetype to fill that niche.

Interesting design choice for the Necromancer; kind of feels like a class archetype of Psychic but instead of cantrips they get spawnable minions that support or even potentially be used for damage.

Runesmith being Int does open some nice interactions with Inventor and/or Alchemist, maybe even Investigator. I just hope it has some more mechanics that differentiate it from them in a significant way.

Staying optimistic about it, though. I am definitely more excited about these classes than I have for the previous ones, so I will be looking forward to the playtest document (if/when they post it) for a deeper dive on what to expect.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If this was the first time Paizo decided that NPCs should no longer adhere to general rules, I would at least understand the outrage, but this was a rule established since day 1 of the game, and there are things far more egregious than max level rituals that NPCs ignore the rules for (like ability score relevance, modifiers, scaling, etc). Mountain out of an ant hill IMO.

I do believe it could have been handled better, but my games, and the game as a whole, isn't going to fall apart because one ritual that isn't used at 99% of tables got changed into something else. I don't see the value in being that hypercritical about it when there are other things to be more hypercritical about that are more relevant to the topic (i.e. rituals as a whole).

So if you care so little about this change, why are you here telling people who do care that they shouldn't express that opinion? What are you gaining by being in this thread?

When you put it that way, then you know what? That's a fair point. Sometimes having a reminder to just walk away from what is an obvious echo chamber is more helpful than one might think.

The position on this is literally "NPCs follow their own rules so they don't have to be Mythic because reasons."

Which is exactly what people are complaining about, because having such a wild double standard for what PCs and NPCs are capable of doing is extremely bad for verisimilitude compared to what we had before, and doesn't actually accomplish anything practical since those options were already GM gated.

This wasn't a problem that needed fixing in the first place, let alone made worse like this. And it kind of baffles me that a company that literally sells stories for a living (the entire AP line) has such a casual attitude towards verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.

(As for the Darklands changes... I mean, the OGL forced them to do something there. Some folks may not like the "something", but I think people generally understood that it was a forced situation they hadn't planned on. This is not that.)

If this was the first time Paizo decided that NPCs should no longer adhere to general rules, I would at least understand the outrage, but this was a rule established since day 1 of the game, and there are things far more egregious than max level rituals that NPCs ignore the rules for (like ability score relevance, modifiers, scaling, etc). Mountain out of an ant hill IMO.

I do believe it could have been handled better, but my games, and the game as a whole, isn't going to fall apart because one ritual that isn't used at 99% of tables got changed into something else. I don't see the value in being that hypercritical about it when there are other things to be more hypercritical about that are more relevant to the topic (i.e. rituals as a whole).

Dude, this is not a "problems with rituals" thread. It's a "problem with this change" thread. I don't know why you insist that people shouldn't have a problem with this because they should really have a problem with the thing you want them to have a problem with, or that you think people can't have more than one problem at once... but enough.

You're not engaging in anything even remotely resembling good faith. You're arguing with people based entirely on the premise that you want then to think that some other problem is a bigger problem than this one.

Go make a thread for that. Because if you want to talk about ritual problems, I'll happily join that chorus. I already did, several months ago, in fact.

Wait, so a change that just so happens to involve rituals now no longer involves rituals as a mechanic themselves anymore? They are so intertwined you can't talk about one without referencing or discussing the other. Really, the relevance of rituals in the game (not necessarily the setting) is precisely the scale at which this change in particular truly affects the game, which is, once again, "little to no tables are significantly affected by this change." And when the question of "Why is that?" becomes posed, the mostly unanimous answer is "Because 90%+ of tables don't use these rules/options whatsoever, or hate using them, so they houserule it into something else instead."

The thing is, all of these cries of badwrongfun on Paizo's part comes from a position that practically has no benefit from reverting these particular changes because the tables never used them (meaning they get no benefit), or houseruled them anyway (meaning Paizo's reversion does nothing for those tables). Nobody loses or wins by any change here, so the reaction being posed is practically nonsensical.

And really, if we are trying to fix things, it's far more important to fix rituals as a whole than just one specific ritual in particular that Paizo just changed because they felt it better reflects the setting's expectations of both PCs and NPCs. It's missing the forest for the trees.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

As I said before, unless Paizo comes out and speaks on the matter, it's all speculation, but acting like changes don't get done just to get done (such as nerfs to an existing option, nuking options into oblivion, etc.) is absurd. It's all a part of game balance. Sometimes you have to make the harsh decision nobody likes.

So what balance issue was a high-level rarity gated ritual causing? You're suggesting that this was a harsh decision that needed to be made for the sake of balance, so what exactly was the old version of this ritual breaking?

The change wasn't done because it was broken; the option still functioned (poorly as it did). It just functions differently now because Paizo feels it better reflects its power scaling. That's it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

As I said before, unless Paizo comes out and speaks on the matter, it's all speculation, but acting like changes don't get done just to get done (such as nerfs to an existing option, nuking options into oblivion, etc.) is absurd. It's all a part of game balance. Sometimes you have to make the harsh decision nobody likes.

Again, it's a slippery slope. Suggesting changes to rituals that most nobody used means they are gunning to make Fighters a rare class in a reprinted book or that spells are going to be affected next (just for examples) is a serious stretch of the imagination.

They did, back on page 1:

James Jacobs wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

The problem I have with something like Create Demiplane being mythic only is that its effects are effectively 100% a flavor thing. The idea of a wizard having their own pocket dimension were they go to study or whatever is really cool, but doesn't make the characters stronger for having access to it. I do get why it would be mythic because you are literally shaping a mini-reality, but I feel casters can already do stuff that's comparable with their spells already.

For me, personally, this is why I think create demiplane, imprisonment, and freedom make sense as mythic rituals. They might not be THAT much more powerful, but the effects in the world should be significant things that not just anyone can do. In particular for imprisonment... making it mythic really helps to create narratives about ancient evils being locked away that not just anyone can let out.

For homebrew games, of course, it's always easy enough to house rule, but for Golarion, having these particular effects be more rarefied than the norm is good for narrative reasons.

Some folks have expressed concerns about us making most new rituals mythic too... that won't happen. There'll be some, yes, but as with the vast majority of what we'll continue to publish, it will expand on the core game experience, not on a specific rulebook.

Okay, so if the idea is that Paizo now feels demiplanes are Mythic-specific powers, then it's at-worst a retcon of power capabilites, meaning Karzoug would have actually been a Mythic entity (or used a Macguffin like you said). It's not any worse than the retcon of the Darklands, which was met with a lot more backlash by comparison.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Because changes always have to have an upside to them? It doesn't always come from a position of positivity. Sometimes changes happen just to happen. Maybe Paizo feels being able to make demiplanes should be relegated to Mythic beings instead of just something some high level lucky person can do. At best any upside change to this comes from a position of speculation, which is no less speculation than the slippery slope counter argument of "Paizo changing rituals means our entire game is going to fall apart" that the other side keeps constantly flailing around at the wall hoping for it to stick.

Where is this "other side" you speak of that apparently think the entire game is falling appart because of the ritual change? All I've seen in this threads is people criticising this change, people expressing disapointment about it, and people hoping that this kind of change won't be a reoccuring thing, but no one claiming that it's "the end of Pathfinder" or anything. Criticism isn't a death sentence, it doesn't mean you consider the entire thing to be worthless, it just mean pointing out what you think are flaws so that they can be improved upon.

Truthfully, I find this whole counterargument to be bizarre. I'd understand if people disagreed with the criticism because they found the new rule to be a positive for whatever reason, I can understand a difference of opinion or priorities, but you don't even seems to like the new rule, at best you're neutral about it. It seems that you disagree with the criticism merely because it's criticism and criticism is intrinsically bad somehow.

You kind of already explained how it's a slippery slope. People are expositing that changes to these rituals means there will be changes to other existing options that will negatively impact the game. The same thing happened during the Remaster, everyone is still here playing the game. Not only does their actions undermine their premise, but it also undermines that something that is far more relevant to gameplay was negatively changed, and guess what? Game still functions, and the players haven't abandoned the system. It's a position of disingenuity to make the criticism because it is essentially hypocrisy.

It is literally criticism for criticism's sake, not because they seek actual/genuine change for something better. If it came from an experienced and/or informed/relevant position, then the criticism becomes (more) legitimate, and I probably would be more inclined to agree with it. But I don't agree with it because it is criticizing the wrong thing (or now at the very least, something else that needs to be criticized along with it). Even when these options weren't gatekept by Mythic, their criticisms failed to hold up for practically identical reasons that their complaints wouldn't hold up even back then.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Because changes always have to have an upside to them?

Any change that doesn't have an upside risks alienating people for no gain.

Quote:

Maybe Paizo feels being able to make demiplanes should be relegated to Mythic beings instead of just something some high level lucky person can do.

That's sure a change when for approximately two decades it hasn't had such requirements. As such, you'd think there would be a better explanation justifying such a change.

Quote:

At best any upside change to this comes from a position of speculation, which is no less speculation than the slippery slope counter argument of "Paizo changing rituals means our entire game is going to fall apart" that the other side keeps constantly flailing around at the wall hoping for it to stick.

They've locked rules, at least by RAW, behind a supplement. This is a thing that has factually happened and thus suspecting that it might happen again is a reasonable thing to suppose.

As I said before, unless Paizo comes out and speaks on the matter, it's all speculation, but acting like changes don't get done just to get done (such as nerfs to an existing option, nuking options into oblivion, etc.) is absurd. It's all a part of game balance. Sometimes you have to make the harsh decision nobody likes.

Again, it's a slippery slope. Suggesting changes to rituals that most nobody used means they are gunning to make Fighters a rare class in a reprinted book or that spells are going to be affected next (just for examples) is a serious stretch of the imagination.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Because changes always have to have an upside to them? It doesn't always come from a position of positivity. Sometimes changes happen just to happen. Maybe Paizo feels being able to make demiplanes should be relegated to Mythic beings instead of just something some high level lucky person can do. At best any upside change to this comes from a position of speculation, which is no less speculation than the slippery slope counter argument of "Paizo changing rituals means our entire game is going to fall apart" that the other side keeps constantly flailing around at the wall hoping for...

There is a very good reason the phrase 'don't fix it if it isn't broken' exists. Also, you can't argue taste with people; if they think something is bad, then they think it's bad. Even if you don't agree with them, that doesn't make their criticism any less valid.

This implies that the rituals in question weren't broken until they were made Mythic. To me, all rituals are broken unless you grossly outlevel the mechanics to essentially "handwave" it. I agree that making them Mythic doesn't fix the inherent problem behind them, but this assumes Paizo was going to fix the inherent problem behind them.

I don't disagree that things are bad, but I disagree with what makes it bad. Rituals suck because their mechanics and incentive for them are terrible, not because they are Mythic locked. It would make more sense if the rituals were commonly used/sought after and it was a part of countless tables' gameplay. But it's not. So relegating something of uselessness to another something of uselessness should have elicited the same disinterested/disappointed reaction as before. It's just interesting to me that making things Mythic is more rage bait than it simply being useless and undesired.

I'm basically being relied on to be the party face and the party knowledge bot.

Combat optimally, I'd start with 10 str/14 dex/14 con/10 int/12 wis/18 cha I believe.

But in this case I'm planning on starting with 10 str/10 dex/12 con/14 int/14 wis/18 cha.

Boosts are another problem. Normally at level 10 I'd have something like 10 str/18 dex/18 con/10 wis/16 wis/20 cha. But in this case it'd be 10 str/10 dex/16 con/18 int/18 wis/20 cha.

So now I'm 4 AC behind optimal and still a con modifier as well.

And obviously if I bump up dex instead I'm left with lower HP.

The campaign will end in the early teens I believe so there's no "catching up" later on by leaving int and wis at 18 and bumping dex and con more at that point.

Obviously you have things like staying back and general basic caster tactics, but any other thoughts on trying to survive in this scenario?

I would consider making your Con a 10, your Dex a 14, and your Int a 12. You can always boost your Intelligence as needed, and if you are able to play an ancestry with a Strength flaw so you can get more Con/Int/Dex, definitely consider it. Strength is legit a dump stat for you. Your best asset should be to avoid attacks, not soak up attacks; that is the Barbarian/Kineticists schtick. You will have more raw survivability with higher AC than a few more HP. Saving just one hit/crit alone is far more likely to keep you up than the one or two HP you get from the added Constitution. Fortitude saves are going to hurt, but it's not the end of the world; certain options can be taken to help with this sort of thing.

Spells like Mystic Armor can be helpful starting out, but unless you pick up Armor Proficiency (from Rogue or Sentinel, or the general feat), you will most almost always be behind except for maybe at max level.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And to which I state again, what games are going to be impacted from this rules change? How many tables actually come across interactions with these kinds of rules?

It's not just about how many tables (or lack theteof) that will be negatively impacted by the change to these rituals. It sets a terrible precedent of culling existing gane options, and so should be vehemently opposed on that basis alone.

Selling new books that take away existing options is a VERY BAD THING.

It really doesn't. Using isolated incidents (if we can even call it an incident, I am quite sure this was a deliberate change) is not grounds for saying the sky is falling from Paizo's development square.

And again, it's taking away something people practically never used. Tell me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic without telling me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic. It's not like you planned on actually using the rule in the first place. Being upset that something you were never going to do is gone now is just being upset for the sake of being upset. It's a disingenuous reaction.

You can admonish people for being disappointed in this removal of options, but the fact is not one person in this thread has been able to give an upside for this change.

Because changes always have to have an upside to them? It doesn't always come from a position of positivity. Sometimes changes happen just to happen. Maybe Paizo feels being able to make demiplanes should be relegated to Mythic beings instead of just something some high level lucky person can do. At best any upside change to this comes from a position of speculation, which is no less speculation than the slippery slope counter argument of "Paizo changing rituals means our entire game is going to fall apart" that the other side keeps constantly flailing around at the wall hoping for it to stick.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Tell me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic without telling me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic.

You really need someone to tell you why it's bad that someone is stealing stuff from your home???

Is Paizo breaking into your house and changing your ritual rules in your books? No? Then it's not even an apt comparison to begin with. The point is that something you've never used and valued being changed into something else you've never used and valued doesn't change the fact that you aren't using or valuing the thing being changed, before or after the fact, so getting upset about it happening makes no sense.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's brought up because it's really the only solution to "unmodified rules that nobody uses because they are garbage." And it's also used as the justification for why the setting has what elements it has; if X NPC in-lore has a demiplane, the GM doesn't need to care that he is Mythic or anything like that if it's not relevant to the story. At best it would be a neat Easter egg or a nice indication as to the gravity of NPC they are to the PCs, but the setting does not give two craps about it. All the setting cares about is X NPC has established a demiplane. The details behind it are irrelevant to the mechanics or the story/GM.

Right up until the players ask "hey that's cool, how did he do that and can we do it?" And then it matters quite a lot unless your answer is "I don't know and no you can't because arbitrary game mechanics."

This was actually pretty easy before: Karzoug had a Demiplane because he was a PF1 Wizard. He could have bigger/cooler demiplane stuff because he was an extremely strong ancient PF1 Wizard, but the basic building blocks for a PC that wanted to work towards it were already there and something they could work towards, even if they couldn't really match what he's done over so much time (and with the knowledge of Thassilon).

More importantly: a character with the skill to know how this stuff works could understand what it was and the theory behind how to do it. Likewise, a GM could readily convey that information without needing to go ask for advice or make something up, because the basic foundational game mechanics supported it.

In premaster PF2, the answer was something like "Karzoug has a demiplane because he's done a lot with very high level create demiplane rituals and some other magic." Okay, that's still something players can theoretically work towards given enough time and resources, even if they can never match what he's got in practical terms. But again, the GM has a clear way to convey what game mechanics are in use and how a...

The player can ask. The GM can give whatever answer he wants, because the option was originally gated by rarity beforehand, and changing it to Mythic at most changes the reason the GM gives for why the player can't do it. Either way, the GM has full control and can tell the players to stuff it if he wants, or how he wants to run it. Plenty of other rules in the game are arbitrary like this, I don't see this as an appropriate hill to die on, and I've chosen some pretty silly hills before.

Given that PFS play capped at 12th, APs capped at 17th, and most players never got past 15th level or so due to game balance or IRL, the idea that players would always regularly know these things is not the commonality you think it is, nor do I think of it as a common aspiration for players/PCs. It's not impossible, but again, the average player wouldn't think of these things.

Even so, you kind of already hinted at the problems of the mechanic it's involved in. If a player wanted to recreate these things mechanically, he is at a severe disadvantage and will probably be more upset at the mechanics than the actual concept, in which case gating it behind one thing over another doesn't matter when the mechanics are trash.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And to which I state again, what games are going to be impacted from this rules change? How many tables actually come across interactions with these kinds of rules?

It's not just about how many tables (or lack theteof) that will be negatively impacted by the change to these rituals. It sets a terrible precedent of culling existing gane options, and so should be vehemently opposed on that basis alone.

Selling new books that take away existing options is a VERY BAD THING.

It really doesn't. Using isolated incidents (if we can even call it an incident, I am quite sure this was a deliberate change) is not grounds for saying the sky is falling from Paizo's development square.

And again, it's taking away something people practically never used. Tell me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic without telling me you're mad about losing that toy you left in the attic. It's not like you planned on actually using the rule in the first place. Being upset that something you were never going to do is gone now is just being upset for the sake of being upset. It's a disingenuous reaction.

Scarablob wrote:

Honestly, runesmith could be CHA given that CHA is the characteristic you need if you want to invest the most magic item, and a runesmith is somewhat a "magic-item-smith". However, being a "special martial" with focus on CHA might be walking on the thaumaturge's toes a bit too much.

And yeah, unless they want the class to be a massive departure from the common idea of a necromancer, them having int for their core score would make the most sense. I could sorta kinda see WIS too, just to give occult caster a WIS class, and because WIS could sort of fit for "nicer" view of necromancer, but I think that INT is more likely, and CHA pretty unlikely.

I think it depends on who's power is coming from the runes. If it's the rune, it'll be wis. If it's the caver imparting power into the rune, its cha.

Can agree with the ramifications here, but I wouldn't mind having it be Int-based if it's meant to follow fundamental rules of magic similar to wizards and the arcane. Wis-based wouldn't be bad though.

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

You know what's not a difficult-to-balance, difficult-to-remember house rule? Deciding not to use content from a specific book, or a specific section of a book. That's how multi-book RPGs work. There are going to be people who don't own a copy of this rulebook who continue to play in this specific way for years, and it's not a houserule. It's just playing with the rules they have.

It's a very specific kind of gamer who doesn't play with a ruleset, but allows that ruleset to overwrite content from their existing game that they then have to throw out. That kind of gamer doesn't make for a great GM, however vigorously you white knight for them. You still own the official books that have the previous version in them. You can still play with those rules. Paizo publishing additional rules didn't take that right away from you by force. Just play with the rules you prefer, like you decided to do when you agreed not to use Mythic in your game.

Once again, I have to point that "this rule is fine because you can ignore it" isn't an argument in favor of the rule. If the only quality of a rule is that it's easy to ignore, then it's not a good rule. Everybody know they can ignore any rule they want in their game, that's not the point here. The point is wether including this rule, tied to these rituals, in the first place was a good idea, from both a gameplay and a lore standpoint.

And to which I state again, what games are going to be impacted from this rules change? How many tables actually come across interactions with these kinds of rules? Don't worry Guntermench, I have you down as a tentative response when you get the results, no rush. How many APs genuinely use these rules and don't include ways for the players to handwave it being done (either by having NPCs do it for you or getting macguffins that fulfill the same effect entirely)?

As far as I'm concerned, we're complaining about something that nobody even uses, or doesn't already ignore to some degree (either by simply not using the rules for it, or handwaving some/all of the mechanics into something else entirely), that it's more telling of how bad/unimportant the rule is, more than it is telling of how awful/annoying the change to said rule is.

Really, unless the complaint is framed as "These rules should have been budgeted better/used for some other rules instead of what we have now," I'm not seeing the point here. It's complaining just for complaining's sake, which, if that's what you want to do with your time, have at it. Just don't expect something meaningful to come of it, IMO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The only real difference is that one is part of the base game and the other is tied to an optional rule that may or may not be used. Both are still essentially a "GM may I," and both can feel pretty bad for the players if they aren't given that expectation upfront(ish); the flavor is mostly irrelevant to these clear factors.

Do you really think that "mythic" is the same as offering someone a rare option? I'm also having a hard time understanding the point you’re trying to make, especially since I’m against both of those concepts, what’s the need for making it mythic?

I don't think I can make it any clearer. Rarity is part of the base game. Mythic is an optional rule in another book, not part of the base game. Both are things that the GM 'enables' or has control over. He can deny players being able to make demiplanes even though the NPC in the AP or the setting already has one. He can deny it by rarity (in the Premaster), or by Mythic (in the Remaster). But the point remains that he still denies it on whatever whim he wants.

Now, that's not to say that they aren't different forms of GM gatekeeping; some GMs are more permissive of rarity over other GMs, but the important thing is that they are both forms of GM gatekeeping. One's just baked in to the game, the other is not. In either case, it's a "GM may I," and it's not something that is default-assumed to be possible in-game.

As for why Paizo felt the need to make demiplanes a Mythic-only option, that's a question that nobody except Paizo can truly answer. At best, we can speculate, and if I were to hazard a guess, it's because Paizo feels that being able to make demiplanes is beyond the scope of 'standard' adventurers. Which, in the setting, makes a lot of sense to me. As I said in a previous post, you don't see the book advertising Joe the Average NPC having a demiplane, as they are usually done by beyond-PC-capacity NPCs, or by special macguffins which have little to do with PCs being able to replicate said effects.

It was also possible that they simply reprinted Mythic versions of the old rituals, which would have been helpful with a sidebar detailing as such, but given that we don't have existing versions of them in either of the Player Cores, and said sidebar does not exist, that concept is invalid.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The funny thing is that rarity is also, at its core, something the "GM handed over to you." Otherwise you just wouldn't have it. And demiplanes are locked behind rarity as well. So it's a double whammy, which really isn't much different from a single whammy if the intent is "I did this all on my own, the GM didn't have to allow it to happen." Doesn't really track when the GM still has to give you a bone. It's just a different bone the GM has to give you now. Still need the GM's approval either way.

And again, the idea that the GM had anything to do with it doesn't track if the adventure/setting wrote it that way for a given NPC. At best it tells the...

Rarity does negatively affect the feeling of earning something, but the difference between a rare tag and a mythic tag is significant. A rare tag indicates that you have found or rediscovered ancient or lost secrets, while a mythic tag suggests that you gained divine power out of nowhere. I don't think I need to explain why the latter is much worse for the feeling of accomplishment.

The only real difference is that one is part of the base game and the other is tied to an optional rule that may or may not be used. Both are still essentially a "GM may I," and both can feel pretty bad for the players if they aren't given that expectation upfront(ish); the flavor is mostly irrelevant to these clear factors.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I mean, PCs won't assume they will become gods one day, or become Mythic, or be able to go beyond 20th level like other creatures do, and a lot of the arguments stem from people assuming that PCs will eventually get some or all of these things. Adventures can get cut short (either from TPKs or IRL interfering), or not cover certain scopes of things, thereby not allowing players to reach these kinds of things.

Speak for yourself; every single one of my wizards has the ambition of becoming the next Nethys.

But jokes aside, you don’t need to acquire something for it to affect your gameplay. The mere presence of these elements is enough to make me appreciate the class, even if I won’t get to use them 99% of the time. This potential represents the class's capabilities within the universe, and losing that means that even if you accomplish those feats, they won’t truly be your accomplishments—they will just be things the GM handed over to you. That completely destroys the experience.

For instance, I didn’t earn demiplane by surviving as a wizard to a high level or by being legendary in arcane; I got it because the roulette of fate, known as the GM, decided I was randomly blessed with mythic power. If I wanted to play someone who gains power by luck, not merit, I would play a sorcerer.

The funny thing is that rarity is also, at its core, something the "GM handed over to you." Otherwise you just wouldn't have it. And demiplanes are locked behind rarity as well. So it's a double whammy, which really isn't much different from a single whammy if the intent is "I did this all on my own, the GM didn't have to allow it to happen." Doesn't really track when the GM still has to give you a bone. It's just a different bone the GM has to give you now. Still need the GM's approval either way.

And again, the idea that the GM had anything to do with it doesn't track if the adventure/setting wrote it that way for a given NPC. At best it tells the players that the NPC might have Mythic capabilities, but Mythic is an abstraction, like proficiencies and HP and such, that the adventure could be written that they actually aren't Mythic, mechanically speaking.

I think if they go the route of burning spell slots to generate thralls or otherwise power their abilities, Occult makes a lot of sense. You're leaning into the Mind and Spirit essences to enforce your mental control over spiritual objects including ghosts, but also the parts of souls bound to bodies to animate them. Life would be more pure vital and void energy that can be used to affect the living or dead, but that's kind of a secondary concern. The Occult spell list itself isn't super helpful for a Necromancer, but that only matters if they don't shake up how you spend slots.

I could certainly see it going Divine, but if you're mostly using your slots to pop out new sacrificial undead, being able to use Harm on them isn't part of your strategy.

If they want the Necromancer to cast Necromancy spells as normal, with some secondary class features that work on their own, then yeah I'd think there's going to be a lot of narrative dead weight on the class in the Occult list.

To be fair, classes like cleric have extra features/feats as well as spells to work with undead in particular, lending to the credence that mechanically, the divine tradition as well as the cleric class works the best for raw undead interactions. (There are some dedications as well, but these aren't specific to any one type of character.)

Having the spell slots be "placeholders," or giving them access to certain divine-exclusive spells, as well as available relevant features, might be possible in making the class fantasy work. I just know that in-lore, arcane was stated to be the most effective/preferable, and mechanically that just isn't the case, same can be said for occult, so unless the class has these kinds of features, I fear it will fall short of the potential fantasy niche I am expecting it to fill.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

In short, there are numerous setting devices that merely work because the plot requires them to work, and can do so without any rules behind them, like gods, demiplanes, etc. Mechanics are there for the players and (some) NPC interactions. That is it. The rest can be handled with GM handwaving and setting requirements establishing them for us, mechanics be damned.

I really don't get why "the GM can handwave the requirement away / make up new rules" bring to this conversation. This can be said for every single rule of the game, yes, if the GM want, the GM can change it, everybody knows that, but threads like this are talking about the unmodified rules of the game.

Mythic rituals works on specific rules that prevent anyone nonmythic from casting them, and as long as other nonmythic option to achieve these effect aren't printed, the rule completely forbid nonmythic characters to ever create a demiplane or do anything like the other mythic rituals. Yes, GMs can handwave that rule away, or homebrew some exception or some other way to reach the same effects, but all of these options are outside the current rules of the game. So it's normal that people complain about that rule if they find that it negatively impact the game.

It's brought up because it's really the only solution to "unmodified rules that nobody uses because they are garbage." And it's also used as the justification for why the setting has what elements it has; if X NPC in-lore has a demiplane, the GM doesn't need to care that he is Mythic or anything like that if it's not relevant to the story. At best it would be a neat Easter egg or a nice indication as to the gravity of NPC they are to the PCs, but the setting does not give two craps about it. All the setting cares about is X NPC has established a demiplane. The details behind it are irrelevant to the mechanics or the story/GM.

And again, why complain about a rule change that most all tables never used, and even if they were used, it was most definitely affected by GM handwavium? You might as well complain about an old dusty toy you bought years ago going missing even though you never played with it and it rotted away up in the attic somewhere. (Probably eaten by rats, birds, and other insects.) It didn't matter to you when you got it and in the time you had it laying around in your attic, so why does it all of a sudden matter now? If anything, it did you a favor by saving you storage space for other, more important things.

I'm still waiting for people to share me their tables that used rituals by RAW on a regular basis. So far nobody has mentioned this happening whatsoever, which means that either the rule has never been used (meaning complaints regarding unused rules are invalid), or it has been handwaved far too differently from the RAW in an effort to make it work/more fun (meaning the relevance of the GM is more mandatory than usual).

As I start to watch the actual stream instead of a summary video, the devs specifically calls out the Necromancer as having a "dirge inside of their body and soul", which does feel more in ties with the Occult. They specifically mention ties to Spirits and the soul as well.

That sounds more like an animist than a necromancer to me, since animists channel spirits into their bodies, several of which aren't the most cheerful.

But given that necromancer seems to have multiple definitions now, I am inclined to believe that necromancer is now just a generic term for "person with a positive relationship with undeath," and not "arcane spellcaster with a focus on life/death manipulation." So everyone and their grandma can identify as a necromancer now.

Perpdepog wrote:

Do we know what tradition the necromancer will be? I'm guessing either arcane, divine, or being able to choose between the two.

Prepared Occult.

Divine handles the necromancy aspect the best mechanically, even though in-lore, Arcane is the best. Geb and Tar-Baphon are both solid Arcane spellcasters known to be powerful with Necromancy-based magic. For Divine, I wouldn't know for sure of anyone based in Necromancy besides maybe a high priest of Urgathoa or something.

Occult is for "alien" magic more than anything, so unless we're controlling a bunch of aliens from the Alien franchise, I don't see the relevance.

I'll wait for the announcement page and look at the playtest writeups, but so far it's not starting out how I'd hope. If it was anything other than Necromancy, I'd be more positive about it; we don't have a true "minion-mancy" class.

I think it's less that players like simulationist design, and more that players like it when there's a consistent design language, or some kind of consistent internal logic that governs both PCs and the rest of world. That makes it so players feel like how their characters work will let them infer stuff about how the world works—and likewise, that what they learn about how the world works can teach them how their characters might work and interact with the world in turn. Simulationist design is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way.

I mean, PCs won't assume they will become gods one day, or become Mythic, or be able to go beyond 20th level like other creatures do, and a lot of the arguments stem from people assuming that PCs will eventually get some or all of these things. Adventures can get cut short (either from TPKs or IRL interfering), or not cover certain scopes of things, thereby not allowing players to reach these kinds of things.

In short, there are numerous setting devices that merely work because the plot requires them to work, and can do so without any rules behind them, like gods, demiplanes, etc. Mechanics are there for the players and (some) NPC interactions. That is it. The rest can be handled with GM handwaving and setting requirements establishing them for us, mechanics be damned.

I would like to know how many tables have actually used these rituals as RAW and the relevance they served for their games, because it feels more like people are mad that Paizo changed/removed toys that nobody used than it is that Paizo did a meaningful paradigm change that impacts numerous tables in a negative way.

Even with the argument of "It's not about the rule itself, it's about the principle," I'm not convinced that there is a serious amount of tables using these rules to warrant people being mad about it.

Bluemagetim wrote:

WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.

DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.

Man I want to gripe about how incredibly dumb staggered proficiency is as a design decision.

The DH is better at hitting things!!! But only 40% of the time (which may actually be 0% of the time or 100% of the time depending on the level range of your campaign).

Is there some high level mathematical equation I can't fathom that explains why the DH should be more accurate than the Warpriest at level 6 but definitely not at level 7?

It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?

Wouldn't it make so much more sense though for DH to either always be more accurate or never be more accurate? Like how the Fighter scales a tier higher than other martials but at the same rate so they always have that advantage.

Same can be said for Champion AC scaling.

And I bet the scaling would be (more) balanced if it was Wave Casting like the Magus.

I am afraid SuperBidi is right. If they wanted to include things beyond actions with the Attack trait, they could have easily mentioned "hostile actions" instead.

It further reduces the value of Sanctuary, which is already low based on how the definition of hostile actions can vary tremendously between GMs.

Come to think of it, I wish they had written hostile actions rather than attacks.

It would be pretty powerful if it worked on all hostile actions, and would go against the idea that a 3rd level spell is easily stopped by a 1st level spell. It might have been fine if the spell worked as a counteract against area effects, similar to Dispelling Globe, but a blanket action waster is too powerful.

This was also an issue with Mirror Image, where it specifies the word 'attack', but doesn't include targeted effects, especially ones that were save-based.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Hidden Paragon's trigger would be something you would have to glean from the secret check's descriptive result. If an enemy still looks at your direction after you perform an activity, then it's clear you didn't succeed, and doubly so if they react to your activity. But as far as it being a clear objective result, no, as the enemy might not look or react to you for different reasons.

If the enemy really did give such helpful and instantaneous feedback when you Hide or Sneak, the secret trait on those actions would be meaningless.

Which reminds me of the Investigator. They have many feats revolving around Recall Knowledge, and some of them actually remove the secret trait from Recall Knowledge to make other feats work.

They do when it illicits knowledge to the enemies (such as them noticing you making a noise or something during your Sneak). But of course, the secret check can also simply not reveal that they have a means of tracking your movement, meaning their ability to Sneak doesn't matter, and the player doesn't know why.

Yes, characters must first Hide to become hidden/undetected, then can Sneak to move and remain hidden/undetected based on their check. The only thing Legendary Sneak does is essentially give you the ability to Hide in plain sight (as well as always use Stealth on initiative rolls unless you don't want to).

The sidebar strangely only refers to fortune and misfortune effects, so Sense the Unseen doesn't apply.

Which is a questionable design choice. Why do only fortune and misfortune trained abilities/effects get to override the relevance of secrecy in a secret check?

Tectorman wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Just reading this thread now, and I'm disheartened to see that it was an intentional move to remove access in non-mythic games.

I had been hoping it was just a convenient re-print location for some flavourful rituals, which had the tag added by mistake.

Create Demiplane was one of those things which I thought was neat to have as an option, though have yet to personally find a reason to do it. It doesn't feel good however to know the option has been removed for the sole purpose of enhancing the value of a particular new rule set.

"Enjoy our video streaming service where it's ad-free even in the basic subscription package."

Later...

"Oh, you sweet summer child. You thought not having ads was going to be a permanent thing? That's precious! But if you really want no ads, we'll let you pay extra to go back to what you already had."

Except, we still have the old rituals. They did not burn your old books. This seemed to be an artistic choice instead of monetary one, like a streaming platform originally having foreign movies be dubbed, but then later adding subs and making that the default because they think its better, but leaving the dubs as an option. It may be slightly annoying to go though the menu, but its not the end of the world.

I would be more inclined to agree with this premise if the rituals were reprinted in either of the Player Core books.

The fact that isn't the case suggests that, like printings and PDFs of the OG Core Rulebook, the "old rituals" will be eventually phased out of the game.

SuperParkourio wrote:

I kinda like Darksol's approach since it preserves the secret nature of the trigger/requirements without invalidating the feat. Alas, I don't believe the text of Sense the Unseen supports it. The trigger is you failing a check to Seek, not failing to locate anything with Seek (which IMO would be a better trigger).

On second thought, potentially wasting reactions due to being mistaken about the trigger would lead to some feel bad moments.

Hidden Paragon is another reaction with a secret trigger: you successfully Hide/Sneak against all current foes. Its frequency is once per hour. So you'd have to guess whether you succeeded against all current foes or else your level 20 reaction is wasted and you can't try again for an hour.

In the case of Sense the Unseen, it would still reveal positive information (such as the enemy not being in the selected area whatsoever) so it's not all feelsbad.

Hidden Paragon's trigger would be something you would have to glean from the secret check's descriptive result. If an enemy still looks at your direction after you perform an activity, then it's clear you didn't succeed, and doubly so if they react to your activity. But as far as it being a clear objective result, no, as the enemy might not look or react to you for different reasons.

That expectation is actually more likely to come from someone who played previous editions, since previous editions had the precedent of NPCs having to use the same math structure of PCs, but merely had differing ways to reach the desired numbers.

This edition doesn't adhere to that whatsoever. The closest it does is say "Here's a table of projected values at these levels, pick one and use it, other attributes be damned."

Ravingdork wrote:

Just another example of Paizo making existing options worse in order to sell the new options in their new products.

It's a trend I hope to see them move away from.

I honestly have enormous difficulties trying to fathom how making 3 high-level rituals Mythic will make or break War of Immortals' sales.

If anything, judging by opinionated posts on this thread, it should actually push people to not buy the new book.

While I don't disagree that the rituals aren't really important aspects of the game, the inclusion of new classes, archetypes, abilities, spells, and alternate rules, all with varying levels of (im)balance, is significantly more important (and takes up a lot more of the book), and we have had a few threads regarding a couple of these things already.

The GM saying "you don't see anyone" is not the same as the player knowing they failed a Seek roll; you cannot fail the roll if there were no foes inside your Seek to roll against. This is the same reason the Undetected Strike guess hides the rolls, so the player doesn't get extra info from a miss.

It is, because the game operates under binary (or more accurately, pseudo/conditional-binary) results. If you detect a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a success. If you do not detect a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a failure. Just like how if you strike a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a success, and if you don't strike a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a failure. It's that simple. This whole "You are getting extra information from simply being able to use the feat" also makes no sense, because it's not the access to the action itself providing the extra information, but the reaction which you are using in response to the outcome of your Seek action. A reaction, by the way, only available at certain character levels of certain classes. It's not just some generic activity available to everyone that would absolutely break the game in an unintended fashion (which I will reiterate was a reason you gave that you wanted to disallow this interaction).

A trigger of "you failing a check to Seek" requires a foe to be inside the Seek to be rolled against.

This adds a parameter to the trigger that's simply not there. Just like how you can make a Strike at a square a foe may not be in, automatically missing/failing, you can Seek a square/area that a foe may not be in, automatically failing. If the reaction required a creature to be in the area, then the trigger would be written as such. Because it doesn't, that means it doesn't matter if there is a foe in the area or not. It's also even easily justified in the example I originally gave, where using the reaction has a cost as well as a variable reward. It's just framed differently from the typical Seek action.

That roll is secret precisely so the player doesn't know if they failed the roll, or if they used Seek upon the wrong squares, or if there is no foe to even find.

The GM telling the player that they have the option to spend their Reaction on Sense the Unseen also tells the player they guessed the correct squares, but failed the roll. Because the trigger condition uses secret info, the player knows for certain the squares contain a foe. This breaks the secret mechanic, and gives the player information without actually using the Reaction. If they Seek, they will always know if foes are or are not inside the Seek with certainty based on the ability to use the Reaction.

No, the roll is secret so the player doesn't know why or how they failed, but the end result is that they will know they failed, especially when they are aware that an objective successful result is possible with their action. This is why the argument of "finding hidden traps/loot" isn't comparable, because the players aren't aware of an objective successful result.

And you're wrong on the mechanical benefits of Sense the Unseen again. No, the ability does not tell them any additional information prior to using the reaction because they only get the additional information once the reaction is taken after its conditions are met. Prior to a player asking for the reaction, the player still is unaware of how they failed, whether they targeted the wrong area or rolled too low on their Perception check. It isn't until after they take the reaction (which has an opportunity and character budget cost) that they essentially get to know the answer to this predicament (which is one hidden benefit of this feat).

Even though you failed at the triggering check, you automatically sense any undetected creatures in the area where you’re Seeking, making them merely hidden to you.

So, if we have two outcomes, one where the player rolled too low on their Perception, and one where the player simply targeted the wrong area, this reaction will either reveal the enemy for them automatically (thereby telling the player their Perception check was too low), or it won't reveal any enemy (thereby telling the player they targeted the wrong area), depending on which outcome the GM has objectively portrayed in the game world. But again, to be clear, this information does not get shown/granted until the player uses their reaction; simply fulfilling the trigger does not provide this information for them like you seem to think it does.

"Do you want to use your Reaction to sense them?"

"No need. I cast Fireball."

Hence, the design of this trigger is clearly broken/erroneous in design.

This is a non-sequitur, because simply being able to use the reaction does not translate to them knowing the creature is in that area. You are giving more power to the feat that isn't present. They must possess the feat and spend the reaction to know for sure, determined by whether the creature is or isn't revealed to them, thereby discounting the other very obvious conclusion that can take place, which is the character wasting a spell slot on a creature not in the area they place their Fireball.

Like dude, wtf is going on with this being impossible to understand.

Says the guy who thinks simply having a feat that is a reaction, which only does something once you take a reaction, counts as modifying your existing actions.

And really, if we're just going to ignore basic premises of feat/ability write-ups, then I think I'll follow in Finoan's footsteps and move on, simply because there is no congruency to be had here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." ...

What? Have you just ignored everything I wrote? Or have not read? Or failed to understand?

I could say the same about your post. Pot meet kettle and all that jazz. I already pointed out the pitfalls and player expectations in the post you decided to quote. But instead, you decided to quote half of it, act like I didn't read anything you said, and assume I don't understand the scope of your question just because I either didn't agree with you or cave in like a spineless toad or a complacent yesman.

You said "The Counterspell feat by itself is fine, you don't need anything else." I disagreed with that premise, and stated numerous reasons why that is, citing projected math and game expectations, and what it feels like from an outside/uninformed perspective.

I quote only what I want to talk about. I don't want to discuss whether Counterspell is good or bad, projected math or expectations (I also mostly agree here). But I do want to talk about 'trap', needing anything for it and it basically working. Because it absolutely works, rules are fine, you don't need either Recognize Spell or Quick Recognition for it to work at all.

"I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is" is absolutely wrong. It can't happen if GM knows rules and plays by them. If you can counter it, you automatically know what it is, beforehand even. Actually you automatically know what it is if in the same situation you don't even have Counterspell (and that is the only difference). That's what I'm talking about (and only that):
" If you notice a spell being cast, and you have that spell in your...

But how are those things not part of what you want to talk about? The projected math, game expectations, and overall fantasy fulfillment of the ability, are all part of what categorizes it to be a trap option or not. Taking the feat to mostly or always be unable to counter a spell that you either can't access yet or have a significant uphill battle to stop, both of which are very common circumstances that leave bad tastes in inexperienced players' mouths, are defining traits of what makes a trap option. It being broken or not is mostly irrelevant, since it being broken doesn't determine that it's terrible, merely that it just doesn't work. Of course, it not working in most situations (don't know the higher level spells, failure rate of over 75% on average) simply means it's highly unsuccessful, not that it can't work. Again, broken doesn't mean trap. Broken means broken. Trap means trap.

Well yes, if you don't need to spend a reaction to identify it, there's no problems with it in a vacuum, but honestly, it's still severely underwhelming as a feat by itself, and I've actually met several players who fall into the trap of picking up both Counterspell and Recognize Spell, hoping to be able to use both in tandem, but can't due to conflicting triggers/unavailable reactions, and didn't want to spend more than a couple feats on it. It's basically creating a sink-or-swim paradigm, where players have to either invest fully into it (and have to wait a long time for the "proper" pay-off, suffering with the mostly dead investments in the meantime), or completely avoid it entirely, and invest in something more worthwhile by comparison.

Once again, no.

The "check result," such as "you failed a check" directly means that a die roll resulted in the fail option. That is a much more specific bit of info.

The GM telling you the "outcome" leaves the roll number, as well as possibly other details, hidden from the player. This is what happens in-story that is visible to all.

But the details as to how/why you failed is irrelevant to the trigger condition simply being "you failed." If a character knows they failed, but doesn't know why they failed, that is not grounds to deny a reaction that simply says "you failed." It's not a subset requirement of "You failed at a Perception roll," or "You failed to correctly target a creature." It's merely, "You failed." The rules do not add these extra conditions to being able to use the reaction, you are.

So, you bringing up all this stuff about how it matters in the way that you failed, when the rules do not really care about this distinction (and the GM 'shorthanding' the outcome of your actions to you still counts as a translation to the results of your actions), and have actual written examples contradicting that premise, doesn't track whatsoever.

The GM telling you the "outcome" leaves the roll number, as well as possibly other details, hidden from the player. This is what happens in-story that is visible to all.

Those are *not* synonyms

Are you sure?

Numerous sources will disagree with that claim.

If your Search was an open rolled nat 1, you might want to hero point that when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps."

If your Search was an open nat 20, when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps" you will not be tempted to spend a hero point.

This is not a comparable example, because in the example I've provided previously, the characters know there is an invisible/undetected creature in the area, so the players/characters know there is a successful outcome to be had, which is successfully locating the creature. Meaning, if they perform an activity, and the GM says "You do not locate the creature," that means they did not succeed. And given this is a binary system, if it's not success, it's failure. And as I said before, the only trigger for Sense the Unseen is "you failed."

Conversely, in this particular example you provided, there is no clear outcome, because it's entirely possible, regardless of result, that there are no loot or traps. The only way this example holds up to mine is if we were talking about an unnoticed creature, but that is significantly different to an undetected creature, especially one that the characters are aware of. Also, there are specifics in the Senses/Undetected rules that outright override your examples (such as automatically applying specific results depending on circumstances), so the idea that these are comparable doesn't work when you have a case of Specific Trumps General in play here.

That temptation to break player | PC knowledge is why secret rolls are a mechanic in the first place.

To some extent, the system does not trust players to act in-character when they always have the option to hero point a roll.

The irony here is that the book outright says that it's a default guideline that the GM can choose to work with as much or as little as possible. And honestly, while I'm not opposed to whatever level the GM has for these, as well as their expectations behind them, if there is somehow table dysfunction over these, that's a table problem, not a rules problem.

This rule is the default for actions with the secret trait, but the GM can choose not to use secret checks if they would rather some or all rolls be public.

As for the whole "Hero Point" thing, you forget that it's a Fortune effect, and so follows the rules regarding Fortune and Misfortune effects for secret checks, so the idea that you can't ever use a Hero Point on a secret check is absurd. Going back to my example, the player could indeed use a Hero Point on their Seek action to either succeed (if the creature is actually in the area), or still fail (either for different reasons, or even the same reasons, as again, the player doesn't know why they failed, merely that they failed as the outcome of their results).

Note that you still can roll a ???, get told by the GM that "you don't find any loot or traps," and then choose to hero point re-roll that Search.

That is widely considered valid/fair because you don't know **the result** of your prior Search [roll!], and could potentially be wasting the re-roll on a nat 20

You can, but depending on circumstances, players (who ultimately dictate the character's actions) won't find it valuable to do so. For example, players are far less likely to spend Hero Points on any old hallway, but if they know it leads to a boss room or a treasure vault or something of that nature, and with it being the end of the session (where they will get Hero Points back at the start of the next one), they are more inclined to spend it to ensure they get their rewards. And once they spend it, they are stuck with whatever results they get, whether it's relevant/successful or not. Players/characters can still certainly use intuition or circumstances to determine whether it's worthwhile to expend their resources, as it should be, so the idea that it's "metagaming" to conclude an expected result and use abilities that are tied to that result, again, feels like you're just trying to punish players for using abilities specifically designed against such tactics.

I honestly do not know how this bit of understanding has failed to reach you by now.

It hasn't. The understanding simply doesn't matter, because it's overcomplicating things more than it needs to be. "You failed a Seek check" doesn't specifically or only mean you didn't roll high enough, it just means the check resulted in a failure, for whatever reason that might be, which is all that matters for the trigger to take place.

As a fun little thought experiment, if Sense the Unseen had been written to possess the Fortune trait, would you still not allow it to work, even though the rules expressly state you can use Fortune and Misfortune effects on secret checks you know are being made, with Seek being one of those examples? If so, why haven't you simply proposed that Sense the Unseen needs the Fortune trait instead of stating that it simply having a trigger makes no sense?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." ...

What? Have you just ignored everything I wrote? Or have not read? Or failed to understand?

I could say the same about your post. Pot meet kettle and all that jazz. I already pointed out the pitfalls and player expectations in the post you decided to quote. But instead, you decided to quote half of it, act like I didn't read anything you said, and assume I don't understand the scope of your question just because I either didn't agree with you or cave in like a spineless toad or a complacent yesman.

You said "The Counterspell feat by itself is fine, you don't need anything else." I disagreed with that premise, and stated numerous reasons why that is, citing projected math and game expectations, and what it feels like from an outside/uninformed perspective.

You are literally contradicting yourself in your own post.

...The player is told the outcome of the secret check...

...You [the player] don't know that you failed...

A failure of a check is the same as knowing the outcome of the check. If you are told the outcome of the secret check, then you know that you failed. These things (outcome and result) are one and the same. Synonymous, even. Meaning, saying "you are told the outcome, but you don't know the result" is indeed a contradiction. Either you know the outcome, or you don't know the outcome, only one of which is done by being told what the outcome is.

And Sense the Unseen only cares about the outcome itself, not about the reason why the outcome is what it is, so you being hung up on that particular detail is baffling as an excuse to deny Sense the Unseen to work in any basic circumstance.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

3-7. I can agree with these somewhat, but there is always the Quick Recognition feat. I would say this is more of a failure of Counterspell not listing Quick Recognition as a requirement (it is listed for Clever Counterspell, though), since the issue becomes "You don't have two reactions, and you can't use either reaction on the same spell," and not "How do you know when to use your reaction," especially when you already listed the way to fulfill the trigger (identify the spell with an ability/activity that lets you do so).

This misconception again :( No, base Counterspell rules (including its feat chain) are all ok. Counterspell doesn't need any Quick Recognition because it only works on spells which you identify automatically anyway, without even reaction of free action costs. Meaning spells prepared or in repertoire. GM just tells you if those spells are being cast in your character's view.

It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." That's a literal trap, because the player has invested two character resources into something that doesn't work with itself, but on its surface, should work in tandem, because the rules essentially require it to do so for them to function.

Counterspell by itself is pretty trash, and needing 4+ feats just to do a baseline effect, all the while requiring significant resource investments, and having the math completely against you in 95% of the situations that you really need/want this stuff to work, is just absolutely terrible design, even if I understand the rules are the way they are because having high level spells beat by low level spells just plain sucks on the player end of things.

Nothing in the Undetected rules conflict with what I stated. The GM letting you know if your blind swing hit something is completely unrelated to the mechanic of making sure players & PCs both have to deal with the same uncertainty that would be otherwise disrupted by knowing your roll.

If you attack an undetected creature, yes, the GM tells you if you hit something. They do because that is something the PC would know. But, if you miss, the GM keeps the reason why you missed a secret.

Precisely so that the player can't see they passed the flat check and nat 20, but still missed. That extra info about the rolls could tell them if they targeted the correct square. These undetected mechanics reinforce what I'm talking about here by giving examples as to why secrecy can matter.

It does, because you are literally saying "The player doesn't know that they failed, because the GM doesn't tell you that they failed, therefore you can't use Sense the Unseen because you don't know you failed," meanwhile I cited an in-book example where that is absolutely not the case. So now we're moving goalposts to say that the GM telling you that you failed is somehow not enough, even though that is completely irrelevant.

We aren't disagreeing on this point except for one thing: How does that invalidate that the rules state the GM has to tell the player that they failed in their Seek action, which coincides with the very same trigger that Sense the Unseen possesses? The only way that would make sense is if the triggers don't match (such as if Sense the Unseen only works on certain kinds of failures), but they do match. Sense the Unseen only cares that you failed, not how you failed, just like how secret checks don't have to tell you how you failed, and then it applies its effects based on the situation (i.e. if they simply failed the Perception check, the creature is revealed to be Hidden to them, if the creature isn't there at all, then the ability tells them that they see no Hidden creatures in the area they picked).

As for any complaints about power level, this is a 14th level class feat only available to 3 classes, and at 15th level, Disappearance becomes available as a spell, which this would be a decent counter towards. The idea that it's "too powerful" or that it doesn't reflect other similar options in power is an unreasonable conclusion.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?

I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.

Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.

If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.

You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.

The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.

.

If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.

Your arguments are counter to the rules and examples expressed here.

The book literally tells you in an example that the GM will say if you missed, failed, etc., even on secret checks, the only thing they won't tell you is how/why you failed or missed, so the idea that players can't know they failed, resulting in being unable to use reactions, goes against the rules examples demonstrated in the book.

This question formed when my inner dice goblin urged me to buy more of those mega sized dice in bulk, and I wondered whether using a 4d4 in an actual game is practical or not.

So back to the topic, would something like a major striking whip serve my hypothetical martial well against the average BBEG?

Honestly, D4 as a dice isn't used very often in this game (it's probably now on par with or slightly more frequently than D12s nowadays, and even then it's mostly for casters), and D4 weapons as a martial-type character is very hard to justify without sticking to pure flavor, or needing to utilize specific weapon traits/loadouts for it. But depending on which martial-type character you use, it might not be the worst thing, as certain martials can still deal decent damage despite using D4s.

Rogues with Sneak Attack add D6s per attack to Off-Guard enemies. Investigators work similarly with Devise a Stratagem, which IMO is just a worse version of the Rogue. Rangers with Precision add D8s to hunted enemies, and Flurry lets you make reduced penalties with consecutive attacks (pretty solid with an Agile-type weapon), as well as Gravity Weapon for added flat damage on the first attack each round. Thaumaturge can deal solid raw damage with their Exploit Vulnerability (making the D4 dice mostly irrelevant), as well as their Implement's Empowerment adding more flat damage to compensate for lacking two-handed options. Magus can utilize Spellstrike regardless of weapon type, and still deal solid damage (and with the reach of the Whip, can do so from a relatively safe distance as well). Swashbucklers can utilize Finishers with the Whip for added damage, and have other ancillary benefits. Inventors can add even more traits to their weapons, as well as flat damage boosters to their attacks. Warpriests with Deadly Simplicity and Channel Smite boosts your D4s to D6s, and has solid burst potential as well.

So, you have numerous options to work with. None of these options are optimal, but they can certainly be viable in a more casual party, and I might actually find some of these options personally fun to play/try out. But as others state, you definitely lock yourself out of certain character classes based on your weapon(s) of choice.

Maybe it is just my autism showing, but your hints mean nothing to me. Is there a reason that you can't just announce that I failed the roll and ask if I want to use my character's reaction?

Similarly, if an enemy attacks my swashbuckler character, don't try to do some fancy description as a way to hint that I can use Opportune Riposte. The narrative description is great and makes the game better for being there. But seriously, just straight-up tell me that the enemy crit-failed the attack roll.

As a GM, I usually do just state results (and not numbers).

But other people in the thread are trying to say that secret checks don't (always) have to express actual results to the players, merely relevant descriptions, and for them to draw their own conclusions based on said descriptions.

And to clarify for you since you seem to be confused on my stance, I disagree with the above premise, and even use their own argument against them. (i.e. "How is not locating an undetected creature with a Seek action not a clear indication to a player that they failed to Seek out a creature, thereby fulfilling the requisite trigger for Sense the Unseen?")

I think there's a categorical difference between things the PC would not know, like spell level or how many #s a roll was from a success, versus thing like the results of secret GM checks.

.

Sense the Unseen, that can't really function as a player ability as it's written.

Assuming your GM allows the players to make the secret roll and just hides the result, the player would still need to be told if the check failed in order to trigger the ability. But the rules do not tell the player the result of the secret check. Hence, not a valid trigger, hence, "it's a real error"

More compressed: any use of the trigger reveals info about the secret result, which violates the rules.

I think the designer simply forgot about the case in which the PC tries to Seek a genuinely empty room. Normally, you are never supposed to have certainty that the room really is empty. But with Sense the Unseen, you Seek, get told there's nothing there, then try to invoke Sense the Unseen, but the GM tells you that the ability cannot be triggered.
Which tells the player info that the ability was never designed to, all while not actually being used. Just because of the poorly-made trigger condition.

That kind of thing is IMO an outright error.

GMs usually aren't supposed to tell exact numbers, which is almost why it would be nice if there was a "GM Sheet" that lets you keep track of important attributes for the characters, like HP, AC, Saves, Skills (top 3 skills anyway, or 6 for Investigators/Rogues), and maybe a small section for special abilities/effects, so you can just roll dice and compare values for yourself without the players knowing why/how, but one step at a time. That being said, not being able to state simple results from actions being taken ("You failed," "The check is a success," "A critical hit!") renders the game unplayable, since we have to convey those results between GMs and Players to progress the story through encounters, as well as exploration and downtime; we don't have some specialty software that automates it for us, or purposefully can omit just the right amount of information for players to draw their own conclusions (no, PF2 doesn't come built with VTT software or its own AI program, so stating these as options/excuses is invalid). If we want that kind of thing, there are games that already exist for that.

I disagree with Sense the Unseen; I already provided an example where it can easily work out without revealing any information without added cost (in this case, a feat slot and a reaction), regardless of what outcome there is, and you can exposit that to even the example you give (seeking an empty room), especially if the players/PCs have reason to suspect an undetected foe lurks somewhere in the room.

"You do not locate the creature," is just a translation of "You failed to locate the creature," which can be for a number of different reasons, and it's not like the GM can't exposit even basic information with a secret check, since the rules outright tell them to describe information or effects based on the result of the check. And really, the GM can only hide results in certain situations. At worst, the secret trait would imply that they can't tell them why they failed, not that they can't tell them they failed. So what, the GM just rolls, says nothing, and moves on? I don't think that kind of logic works when a player is actively trying to do something, and isn't based off of a more passive check (like Stonecunning for dwarves, or Trap Finder for rogues/investigators/rangers), where it's far more sensible to simply state nothing of importance.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

As a reasonably casual GM who hasn't memorized all the Lore I'd make a pretty strong argument that the Lore and Setting HAVE just changed at my table.

This is a strawman,

You're totally missing my point.

A month ago if I was creating a base for a powerful magic using enemy part of my process would be to glance at high level spells and rituals in order to see if something sparked my imagination, seemed like a cool thing.

So I'd look up rituals on Archives of Nethys, quickly glance down the list (its pretty short) and maybe see Create Demiplane. Click through. Maybe go "Cool, lets do that".

Today (or, at least, when Archives gets updated) I'd do the same thing. Click through. See that Create Demiplane was Mythic. And very likely just go "Nah, don't want something Mythic".

So the setting HAS changed for my players. A month ago they'd possibly have gotten to adventure in a demi plane, perhaps had a whole bunch of adventures where they try to figure out where the base is, how to access it, etc. As players they'd get to interact with the demiplane rules, with the create demiplane ritual or the brand new "Enter Demiplane" ritual that I decide to create. Now they get a different set of adventures where they eventually find the base in a swamp, or behind a teleport circle, or whatever.

In MY version of Golarions demiplanes have just become much, much, much rarer.

While I know that I can change things if I want to my default position is to use the setting presented to me unless I have a good reason to change things. My default position is that rules for PCs DO apply to NPCs unless I have a good reason to change things.

So, a month ago Create Demiplane was a spell my NPCs could use and my PCs could encounter. Now, its not (I have no intention of using Mythic, it is just totally not to my tastes) unless I do something that I CAN do but very, very likely will NOT do.

Really, spells are probably the only thing that NPCs use closest to PCs, and even then a lot of them have special/exclusive versions of spells that PCs can't hope to acquire (like 1-action versions of spells, or unique/specific spells), so the idea that NPCs have to adhere to PC rules is still a little silly to me. I seriously don't know why you need to look up rituals for anything unless your plan is to serve it as loot to the party, and even then I can think of numerous other things that are better rewards, since rituals are a trash mechanic with an even trashier purpose.

The only thing that's changed is for your players is the rules that they can use/have access to, not the setting. The entities that have had Demiplanes before Mythic rules came out will be the same entities that have Demiplanes once the Mythic rules hit the streets. At best, the perceptions of the setting have changed, since we can now mechanically (as well as narratively) say that Demiplanes are a Mythic ability, but as far as what the setting actually is? Nah, still the same old stuff. Even with the complaint of "My table never wants to use the Mythic ruleset," given that the character is already likely 20th level, retired, and made an absolute name for themselves, it's quite likely that the character, narratively speaking, has already become the stuff of legends and Myths, and the impact on that between games is likely slim to none anyway.

The things that I can say that the setting genuinely changed were the timelapse between the two editions, as well as the results of PF1 APs being converted into canon "endings" throughout the timelapse (if they were even made canon at all), as well as whatever content was forced to change as a result of the Remaster, between the restrictions placed on Dragons, the changes in the Underdark, the new names/lore for the planes, etc. And some of those things may be mechanical, other things not, but in the end, Demiplanes are at-best a mechanical change, and not a narrative/setting one (or at the very least, absolutely not an impactful one).

LOL. Players can barely remember all of their own abilities, particularly at high levels. The odds that the GM will remember a player character's ability over the thousand other details they need to be juggling with the NPCs seems rather unlikely to me.

It would inevitably be an annoyance as the player will need to ask EVERY TIME.

I'm sure it's bound to get old.

I've really only had this issue with a couple players, and that's because said players have physical/mental issues that can't really be "fixed." I'd rather not blame player/GM incompetence as the reason for things to not work as written, because that's sounding more like a personal problem than an objective problem with interactions in the system, which is complete nonsense when you decide to purposefully omit important details from gameplay, which goes against the intended spirit of secret checks.

The secret trait appears on anything that uses secret checks. This type of check uses the same formulas you normally would use for that check, but is rolled by the GM, who doesn’t reveal the result. Instead, the GM simply describes the information or effects determined by the check’s result.

So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The lore and the setting says they can do it regardless of whether they can do so mechanically or not.

As a reasonably casual GM who hasn't memorized all the Lore I'd make a pretty strong argument that the Lore and Setting HAVE just changed at my table.

If I ever cared whether some powerful NPC could do something I'd at least glance at the rules first to see if there was something that was close enough for my needs. Pre War of the Immortals I'd have found a ritual Create Demiplane and gone "Yeah, BigBadMagicUsingBob would have access to that ritual, I'll build him a Demiplane".

Post War of the Immortals (well, when Create Demiplane makes it to Archives anyway :-) :-)) I'd find that the ritual was Mythic and so go "Oh, this is off limits for BigBadMagicUsingBob. Not something he is supposed to be able to do. No reason to override the setting, he's not THAT special. Guess I'll have to make his sanctuary some castle in the Swamp.".

So, my setting has just changed.

This is a strawman, because that statement does not refer to PCs, it refers to NPCs, like Nex/Geb and Tar-Baphon, if you read the sentence prior. NPCs of the setting do not follow PC rules, meaning they can have as many Demiplanes as the setting says they have. PCs are still grounded by game mechanics, meaning they cannot do the things NPCs can do, like automatically succeed at skill checks for crafting items regardless of bonuses or level requirements (i.e. hiring experts, transferring runes, etc.), have ridiculous bonuses/DCs despite being low level entities, not be adhered to the proficiency/scaling rules of the game, so on and so forth. Legit, NPCs and monsters have as many or as little rules as you want them to have, especially when they are all-powerful like deities, or significant setting NPCs like I've mentioned before, where they can just do things, and they happen. PCs can't do that, which is why you need abilities and modifiers to support their activities.

At best, we can argue that it's changed for the players, which really, the only change is that it's now behind an optional rule versus a rarity rule, but fundamentally NPCs and other setting-based entities have not changed. They will still have the same amount of Demiplanes, minions, etc. because the setting still says they do. Mechanical changes to player options are irrelevant to lore changes to the setting.

Over the years I've seen a handful of reactions that have triggers that aren't known to players. How is one expected to use such abilities?

A recent example I came across is the rogue's Sense the Unseen feat. It's trigger is simply failing a check to Seek.

Except the Seek action has the Secret trait, so how is the player going to know when to spend their reaction?

That is just one of several similar examples, not all of which hinge on Aecret checks (but many do).

To look at it from this perspective, the only reason the Seek action has the Secret trait is because the activity can fail in one of two ways (either by not rolling high enough, or by not targeting the correct area). That being said, in either case, the result is a failure, and it doesn't make sense that the player doesn't get to know that their action did not succeed, they just don't get to know why it didn't succeed, and in any case, it can still be helpful.

And in the case of Sense the Unseen, regardless of the reason behind the failure, it doesn't change the trigger being fulfilled, which is all that matters in using the ability. Here's an example:

GM: The gremlin says some words of incantation, becomes invisible to you, and you lose sight of him, marking the end of its turn. It's your turn now, what do you do?

Player: I perform a Seek action to try and locate the gremlin. *Picks an area*

Outcome #1

GM: *Knowing the player picked the wrong area, rolls the dice anyway as it's a Secret check, completely disregarding the result* You failed to pin-point the gremlin. What would you like to do next?

Player: I have the feat "Sense the Unseen," which lets me spend a reaction to make any creatures in the area hidden instead of undetected to me.

GM: Okay, as you spend your reaction to try to narrow down the gremlin in the specified area, you realize that it is not in the area you picked, as you still do not detect the gremlin in the area you performed the Seek action.

Player: So the gremlin is not in this area that I picked, so I will spend another action to Seek. *Picks a different area*

GM: *Knows the player picked the correct area, rolls the dice for the player, and concludes that the player's Perception beats the gremlin's Stealth DC* You look in another part of the room, and you manage to find a space that has an unusual distortion to it, and you realize that the gremlin is in the nearby area. *places the gremlin on the grid board*

Player: I spend my last action to Point Out, so the rest of my party members know where the gremlin is.

Other Players: *proceeds to gang up on the poor little gremlin*

Outcome #2

GM: *knows the player picked the correct area, rolls the dice for the player, and the result of their Perception check is a failure compared to the gremlin's Stealth DC* You failed to pin-point the gremlin. What would you like to do next?

Player: I have the feat "Sense the Unseen," which lets me spend a reaction to make any creatures in the area hidden instead of undetected to me.

GM: Okay, as you spend your reaction to try to narrow down the gremlin in the specified area, you realize that it was just stealthy enough to avoid your initial attempt to Seek it out, but with your training at finding undetectable foes, you managed to locate the gremlin. *places it on the grid board*

Player: I spend an action to Point Out, so the rest of my party members know where the gremlin is, and I spend my last action to Stride to the gremlin.

Other Players: *still proceeds to gang up on the poor little gremlin*

In either case, the reaction is still used, and still provides relevant information for the player. Saying they don't get to know if they failed or not doesn't make sense when you can conclude that they failed based on the lack of positive results.