Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

11,009 posts (11,033 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

This will never get an answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's you.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Acting as though the order of operations for regaining actions is some hard-coded rule that can't be altered causing an infinite stun loop is being overly anal about natural language rules.

Except that it actually is.

Turn wrote:
The last step of starting your turn is always the same: Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction. If you haven't spent your reaction from your last turn, you lose it—you can't “save” actions or reactions from one turn to use during the next turn. Some abilities or conditions (such as quickened, slowed, and stunned) can change how many actions you regain and whether you regain your reaction.

It's quite clear that no matter what happens at any point during the start of your turn, the last part of starting your turn is regaining your actions and reactions, and this never changes except for conditions and abilities which specifically change those values.


thenobledrake wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Stun should feel and be clearly different from slow in my opinion.
Great news, it does and is!

The only difference mechanically is the "can't act" clause. It is otherwise just Slowed with a different name and doesn't stack with Slowed.


Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying

This was never adjusted, the issue becomes that if you are Stunned, you can't act, period.

So if you are Stunned mid-turn, and you have actions left, you cannot do anything with those actions simply because you can't take actions while the condition is present. And those actions you don't take, like you claim, doesn't reduce the Stunned condition value down any because the Stunned condition isn't being affected by the current turn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can't act. When you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don't change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.
there is an implication here and it should be spelled out in errata...

Well, it has had 4 chances (as well as a Remaster print) to fix it, and it hasn't been done. And since they have put errata on it before, it is not like they couldn't have fixed it.

It really just reads like it is functioning as intended. Maybe if we had an Ask a Developer series go through step-by-step how the Stunned condition works mid-turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to invoke both the Too Bad to Be True argument, as well as the Specific Trumps General argument.

Having an activity whose sole purpose is to help allies affect an enemy they otherwise can't see have an outright 50/50 chance of doing nothing when you have already made a check locating that creature (that is probably worse than 50/50) falls under Too Bad to Be True. Nobody would ever use this activity in a combat situation, and it's already niche as it is, since its only real benefit is to know which square(s) to affect. They are otherwise still subject to the Flat check on all non-area attacks even with the Point Out, so it's not like it does anything more than "you know which squares can actually affect a creature."

It is also Specific Trumps General, since if you cannot properly convey the information (such as if an ally has the Deafened or Blinded condition and you try to speak to them or point at the creature's location), they still have to make a Perception V.S. Stealth DC check to know which squares they are, otherwise the Point Out doesn't work, which supersedes any potential flat check (which, if they're still Hidden, is still going to take place anyway).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever I see this thread title, it comes across to me as "Pathfinder 2 options for dummies"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
So, giving teases and hints instead of full information leads to pessimistic predictions, thinking the worst and bad feelings. Who would have thought? What a surprise!

I mean, this is basically the exact thing that happened with the Wizard/Witch when PC1 was getting ready for the presses. And I am not really impressed with either class' final product, despite everyone else rushing to their defense to say 'it's fine,' even though it was already 'fine' before, even by my standards.

At best, the Investigator will be the same weak class it always has been, and it probably won't get much better, feat options be damned, since its core chassis is pretty terrible and its "unique" options don't save it from being a bad class as it is.


Bluemagetim wrote:

What class would end up making the best party across a variety of different combat encounters?

A Cleric party seems like the go to answer.

Clerics have the best survivability, but I think a Bard party would be better, since they can build anything, and you can basically have all songs up at all times. One casts Courageous Anthem, one casts Dirge of Doom, one casts Inspired Defense, and the other can either supplement any of these as they need, or take one of the other unorthodox songs to boost the party even more. Literally, you'll have +2 to defenses at all times, and +2 to attacks and damage effects at all times. It's almost like Fighter level accuracy with Champion-level defenses in the mid-levels, and it evens out to Martial-level defenses and accuracy at the end-game.

They can also cast healing spells, have access to the most powerful buff, debuff, control, and utility spells in the game, and are more effective than most spellcasters in terms of martial capability thanks to their songs, and can handle most any social encounter by themselves as a party. Oh, and their ability to earn income during downtime will be stellar thanks to Performance being level-based and not setting-based.


ElementalofCuteness wrote:
I would advise against turn timers through. All it does is give people anxiety. Which can lead to the game not feeling fun because people will stop trying tactics or trying new classes. One of the bigger issues I had when one of my DMs suggesting it was. "If I only get 2 minutes then I'm playing only Barbarian or Fighter because I understand the quick concept of swing big weapon repeatedly." I was too scared to EVER touch a caster in case I "lost" turns and the DM dropped it because he found the fact I'd only play Strike based characters boring since some of my finest are Casters which take multiple mnutes since i can't keep every spell I know memorized.

One of my groups actually has a player with anxiety issues, and it is in fact this group (and this player) that has implemented what we called the "6 seconds" rule. They are also a player who has gone out of their way to try new things; they have questions, of course, but I make sure to clarify it simply and concisely, and the game doesn't bog down that much as a result. Really, if the GM isn't helping to keep the pace of the game, that is a GM issue, because it is the GM's duty to keep the pace of the game.

Also, the argument of 'spellcasters are hard to play because I don't know my spells' doesn't make sense. Very rarely would a spellcaster simply take a spell that they don't know what it does, mostly because that is a dumb thing to do as a player in general (and is also why spells like Miracle and such were terrible choices anyway). It would be like if a martial took a feat that they didn't know what it did. And it's not like the player can't do some spell research on their own if they had an idea in mind of what they wanted; it might have been harder back in the day, when players didn't always have access to rulebooks, but it's 2024 now, and people can literally pull up rules information or class/spell guides on their phones, tablets, etc.


Omega Metroid wrote:

Darksol, you're looking at it backwards. Warrior Bards don't make Strikes just to proc Martial Performance. They make Strikes because they're Warrior Bards; Martial Performance is a rider, not a reason.

The Warrior Bard isn't casting spells every turn, and only throwing in a token Strike out of obligation every so often because they "have" to use the feat they're stuck with. The Warrior Bard is making Strikes when they have a good opportunity to do so already, with or without Martial Performance. They've already chosen to make both Strikes and spells, and will continue to do so even if you strip them of all their feats.

So, don't look at it as "wasting a turn to use Martial Performance vs. playing correctly to use Lingering Composition", because that's the wrong mindset. It's a question of whether a Bard that's already making Strikes still wants Lingering Composition, or whether the new Martial Performance will be good enough to let them forego it.

The Bard/Fighter I played with mostly made Power Attacks with a D10 Reach weapon. They never utilized Martial Performance because Martial Performance didn't exist back then, and honestly, they really didn't need it. They were strong enough with Lingering Composition, and they took and saved Fortissimo for boss fights, as he should have. But there were plenty of times when, even with those buffs, they would still miss strikes, meaning in those cases, Martial Performance did nothing. Meanwhile, Lingering Composition was up almost every time plausible, and given the average duration of encounters (3-4 rounds), for Martial Performance to have made an impact, it would have needed to be a longer fight.

If martials aren't making strikes, they are useless for the encounter. Same goes for spellcasters who don't, you know, cast spells. Do they have to be spell slots or focus spells all the time? No. But unless there are extreme circumstances, if you aren't slinging spells or making strikes, or even using basic tactics, you're not contributing to the combat's end. A Bard can do both, but they shouldn't always be doing both, nor relying on something that isn't their primary tactic to be their primary form of prolonging a positive effect.

You do realize the whole argument of the thread was debating the exact merits of those stances, right? My stance explanation was simple and to the point: Martial Performance is much harder to get their stars to align, as it requires more successful checks which last half as long, and therefore is the much more unreliable playstyle, meaning newer players can easily get discouraged by the high risk/moderate reward playstyle. This is like saying Swashbucklers are a great newbie class while completely ignoring the Fighter class that has come before it and outclasses it in most every way imaginable.


Ravingdork wrote:

My Foundry players recently discovered that I use an automated timer to remind me to give out a hero point each hour.

Soon after, everything in our games slowed down so that our two hour sessions have more than doubled to five hours!

At first I thought maybe it was just from waning interest or distractions from life events during play. However, one of the players reached out to me, concerned, saying that multiple others are deliberately dragging their feet so that they can get more hero points out of me for the same number of encounters, thereby increasing their odds of success on important rolls. They don't see it as cheating since the rules allow for this, but at least one player regrets losing our quick encounters.

Has anyone else encountered this player phenomenon?

I don't encounter this phenomenon because our groups usually do Hero Points for the entire session (that is, you get a flat amount of Hero Points at the start of the session to use as you want/need). Heck, we've even let the GM have a "Hero Point" as well, just to add spice to the game (and before you patronize, yes, all the players voted for it).

While this makes the game more difficult by comparison due to having less Hero Points (and the GM also having access to the same tool), it also means that players will have to make more tactically sound choices, and that they will need to save their Hero Points for big rolls, or for if the dice really turn on them and cause them to go splat before they can do anything.

There's nothing absurdly wrong with having incremental Hero Points, of course, but with it being time-based, it creates these kinds of issues which can be at odds with other players at the table, where you have some who need to delay the encounter to get Hero Points for their turn(s), versus others who actually want to progress the story.

That being said, there are some things you can incorporate to discourage this behavior:

1. Put a 'turn timer' on every player's turn, ranging anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes to spend actions, depending on what pacing you want. (We jokingly refer to this as the '6 seconds' rule, which we cite if players are being indecisive for too long.) If they don't take any actions, they delay for the next initiative order, and if they only spend a partial turn, their turn ends immediately, moving on to the next line of the initiative board. This forces players to plan their turn order accordingly, and to both keep track of the initiative board, as well as not purposefully bog down the game with appearing indecisive. It's fine to 'pause' the timer to pan out the results of actions being taken, such as if a spellcaster casts a Fireball and you have to roll all the saves and calculate all the damage taken, or if a player has a significant question, but the point is that you don't have players sitting there asking pointless questions or BSing around just to pad the timer out for a Hero Point to use on their turn (or for later in the same encounter).

2. Award Hero Points for completing/starting encounters, or completing story plot points, not for time played. This keeps players on their toes with their Hero Points (as it should), and it also rewards stocking up on Hero Points if they use smart tactical plays that don't require Hero Points to shore up, and it can make harder encounters more forgiving as a result. I'd also consider implementing the rule to have the Hero Points transfer between sessions, since honestly, it's mostly a continuation between the same game.

3. Change the increments at which you award out hero points between sessions. While this is the least amount of change and might accomplish the same as the previous options, this might be helpful for sessions where there aren't many encounters, or for sessions where there are longer encounters, so if you're aware of what the players will be facing, it's not very difficult to adjust accordingly if you know it will be a slower (or even a faster-paced) session.


Captain Morgan wrote:
You don't have the book yet, so stop arguing about it.

I imagine other people who have posted in this thread likewise don't have the book yet, and I am also not the only one to have made the conclusions I have made, so enough with the petty gatekeeping.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but there is nothing in the current ruleset that mentions anything about special rules for Large PCs on the Archives

You are expecting Nethys to update BEFORE the street date?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And if this is intel that hasn't been published yet, then all we are arguing about is conjecture at best until the book is released, as it could be changed from now until they hit the printers, so treating this as if it's been hard fact etched in stone since PF2 was released is absurd.

It's been published and is already in some peoples hands as they got it before the official street date: As such, you don't have to worry about changes before it hits the printers. The street date is in 11 days after all.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The issue becomes that it would be very easy for groups to either forget or completely ignore that this is the case, but I feel like this is a calculated pit fall and groups will obviously do their research and/or solve it for themselves.
Why would it be different from Sprites being Tiny? They have a "Tiny PCs" and a "Riding PCs" on Nethys, so I'd expect a similar section for Large PC's.

The assumption was that it was an existing entry that was made prior to the splatbook, and as such should have been readily available on the website to read. When it's instead a new entry published for the splatbook that not everyone has access to yet, and that distinction wasn't made, it's kind of difficult to rectify the "updated rules" when it is clashing with what is currently listed on the website.

Yes, they do have those sections, but the Flying PCs have what appears to be an "optional rule" for them to replace their existing features with a potentially scaling fly speed, which is mostly ignored anyway, and the Riding PCs as well as the Tiny PCs basically reiterate the Mounted Combat and Tiny Creature rules, respectively. Compared to the Large PC rules that we seem to be getting, which is outright nerfing most Large benefits, and maintaining/boosting most Large drawbacks, they aren't really "similar" if the assumption is that the Large PC rules are replacing existing size rules (which, again, the Tiny PC rules entry doesn't replace/change whatsoever).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Because, just like it's not a ready trigger problem, it's also not a stun condition problem - it's a natural downside to turn-based combat timing.

Yeah, I would like to use this as an example for the Stunned condition in relation to other conditions whose benefits are solely determined by their position in the turn order.

Let's say I go right before an enemy, and I Demoralize them, making them Frightened 1. This only helps my attacks for the rest of the turn, and the rest of the enemy's turn. But, if I go before both the enemy and all of my allies, now my allies all get the benefit of Frightened 1 on their turns, as well as myself, and lastly, the enemy. Or even better, Frightful Presence. This means that if a PC walks into it during their turn, they will have a greatly reduced duration of the Frightened condition (since they will likely have spent at least one action getting into range), but if the enemy walks into the PCs, that will apply for both the rest of the enemy's turn, as well as the entirety of the PCs' turn.

Yet, in any instance, nobody is clamoring for Frightened to be buffed as a condition because it lasts for a very short duration, or that it needs to be nerfed because you're "double-dipping" on its benefits. Instead, what we get is "Don't Demoralize right before an enemy's turn, delay and set up for your allies to benefit as well," and nobody is viewing it as cheesing or breaking the system, but solid tactical gameplay.

So when somebody makes the strategic suggestion of "Try to Stun on the Enemy's turn so they lose their entire turn, plus reactions, plus one action the following turn, instead of just the ability to use reactions plus one action on the following turn," why do people cry outrage when it's basically just an inverted argument of the Frightened condition above? Because actions > modifiers? Because it's somehow not intended to work this way? Because players are purposefully trying to break the game?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Normally, Large creatures get 10 feet of reach. Short of them being quadrupeds or being serpentine-like, they have 10 feet of reach by default.

The book assumes you will read it in order. Before any of the ancestries in the first chapter are written there's a "special rules" section, much like there is in the Ancestry Guide and the Book of the Dead. There's several paragraphs about how large ancestries work.

In that section is the sentence "Large PCs do not automatically gain additional reach" which I am to take as the rule for all Large Ancestries going forward. The Minotaur is the showcase for how they're going to give reach back to an ancestry where NPCs have it automatically- it's a feat with a special requirement (in this case "two handed weapon, specific grip, level 5 feat.") PC minotaurs starting our as less capable than NPC minotaurs of the same level is not new, since we have PC Strix having to wait for level 13 to get unlimited flight whereas NPC Strix can do it at level 1.

Specific (i.e. the rule for large PCs specifically) has always trumped general (i.e. the rules for how size works) in Pathfinder (both editions.) What we don't know yet is how the Giant Instinct Barbarian is going to function for Large ancestries, since Player Core 2 isn't out yet. You're specifically immune to Enlarge, and the previous version of Giant's Stature (which mimics Enlarge) is something you can't take (since it requires "medium or smaller") which also locks you out of Titan's Stature which has Giant's Stature as a prerequisite. So I guess we wait to see how Player Core 2 solves this.

Yes, but there is nothing in the current ruleset that mentions anything about special rules for Large PCs on the Archives or anywhere else publicly, so everyone acting like this has always been a thing, has access to knowledge nobody else does, and is consequently arguing in bad faith by proxy. And if this is intel that hasn't been published yet, then all we are arguing about is conjecture at best until the book is released, as it could be changed from now until they hit the printers, so treating this as if it's been hard fact etched in stone since PF2 was released is absurd.

I don't think they really need to change the Enlarge spell; just add in a caveat that they still benefit from spells like Enlarge, since we are already making exceptions for Large PCs. The issue becomes that it would be very easy for groups to either forget or completely ignore that this is the case, but I feel like this is a calculated pit fall and groups will obviously do their research and/or solve it for themselves.


Gisher wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

...

Normally, Large creatures get 10 feet of reach. Short of them being quadrupeds or being serpentine-like, they have 10 feet of reach by default. Every other effect that adjusts your size will likewise adjust your reach as well, such as Enlarge spells. If Minotaurs were meant to only have 5 feet of reach, I think it would be important to spell that out in the ancestry statblock, and not in some random area in a splatbook.
Referring to it as a splat book is an odd choice of phrase. They put those rules in the same 'splatbook' that the ancestry appears in. That seems like a significant detail to me.

Not particularly. The detail is that it is clashing with existing rules in a main line rulebook. It's different if it is posed as an alternate rule, like Free Archetype, but it isn't being presented as that.


Xenocrat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
15 foot reach on a D12 weapon is pretty broken, since the only other way to accomplish this would be a Deer Animal Instinct Barbarian with an Enlarge spell attached to them.

It's 10'. You normally only get 5' of reach with a large sized ancestry (per special rule in this book) but Minotaurs can get reach on 2-handed weapons with a level 5 feat by adjusting their grip. This is similar to how flying ancestries have to buy back things NPCs of their people automatically get through ancestry feats, but it's not broken.

In fact since the Minotaur being large seems to consist mostly of downsides, the minitaur heritage seems like the min-maxer option, since you can still get reach on a greataxe. We will have to see what Player Core 2 looks like since it seems like the medium sized heritage is the only one that can benefit from Giant's Stature as a Giant instinct barbarian for reach stacking.

Normally, Large creatures get 10 feet of reach. Short of them being quadrupeds or being serpentine-like, they have 10 feet of reach by default. Every other effect that adjusts your size will likewise adjust your reach as well, such as Enlarge spells. If Minotaurs were meant to only have 5 feet of reach, I think it would be important to spell that out in the ancestry statblock, and not in some random area in a splatbook.
Email Paizo your thoughts on book layout when introducing novel new PC options. In this one they chose to list all the special general rules for Large PCs in a special section separate from the Centaur and Minotaur. No reach, bulk, riding, gear cost, effects of 5’ hallways, and effects of squeezing smaller are all in there to avoid repeating it.

Paizo does not read emails from random nobodies on the internet, much less respond to them. They are far more busy with other more important/pressing matters. Suggesting a purposefully fruitless course of action is not helpful and is borderline trolling.

And how is "We're introducing new rules in a new book for Large sized creatures so they aren't disruptive to a party's/player's expectation," a repeat of existing rules, which are significantly different from what's been published prior? This reads more like errata than a repeat of existing rules.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
15 foot reach on a D12 weapon is pretty broken, since the only other way to accomplish this would be a Deer Animal Instinct Barbarian with an Enlarge spell attached to them.

It's 10'. You normally only get 5' of reach with a large sized ancestry (per special rule in this book) but Minotaurs can get reach on 2-handed weapons with a level 5 feat by adjusting their grip. This is similar to how flying ancestries have to buy back things NPCs of their people automatically get through ancestry feats, but it's not broken.

In fact since the Minotaur being large seems to consist mostly of downsides, the minitaur heritage seems like the min-maxer option, since you can still get reach on a greataxe. We will have to see what Player Core 2 looks like since it seems like the medium sized heritage is the only one that can benefit from Giant's Stature as a Giant instinct barbarian for reach stacking.

Normally, Large creatures get 10 feet of reach. Short of them being quadrupeds or being serpentine-like, they have 10 feet of reach by default. Every other effect that adjusts your size will likewise adjust your reach as well, such as Enlarge spells. If Minotaurs were meant to only have 5 feet of reach, I think it would be important to spell that out in the ancestry statblock, and not in some random area in a splatbook.


Grankless wrote:
Oh nooooo, minotaurs can get a slightly higher middle value on some attribute mods and can add reach to weapons that don't have many traits. How scary.

15 foot reach on a D12 weapon is pretty broken, since the only other way to accomplish this would be a Deer Animal Instinct Barbarian with an Enlarge spell attached to them.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).

I agree that stunned shouldn't be the same thing as slowed. But the solution has been named several times already: make people pay off stunned as soon as possible, instead of at the start of turn.

* You can still use it to deny reactions, just stun someone during your turn and then go move/cast spells.
* You largely remove the weird extra power spike of out of turn stunning.

If that is all it is meant to do, then a simple edit to "can't use reactions" would give that desired effect without introducing shenanigans.

Given that it's been 4 reprints and a Remaster, this is either intended by the devs, or it simply isn't an important enough thing to fix.


Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).


Sanityfaerie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.

Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.

...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.

I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.

Didn't turn out like that.

If I remember correctly, there were statistics posted of people attending TTRPG events being hosted at gaming conventions, and D&D absolutely overshadowed most every other system of TTRPGs by a landslide, with Paizo being the second highest, yet still at a fraction of D&D's numbers (or third, depending on the location, there was another system that was up there, but I forget the name). If we used that as a metric, I suppose that Paizo would have been next on the chopping block anyway, but it would be silly to suggest D&D wouldn't mind subsuming more than just Paizo as a company (even though they were spawned from D&D, technically speaking).

The sad thing is, I imagine that even with this "scandal" happening, D&D is still the top dog on the food chain here, with Paizo maybe closing the gap some more, and some other IPs getting more recognition as a result, which is basically why Paizo went out of their way to make the ORC license, since they know that other companies/IPs were willing to back their play instead of D&D's. However, it seems that even with their combined efforts, they likely won't catch up to or even outpace D&D's monopolous edge with their OGL license, especially since some companies prove that they are both still willing to work with it despite all the scandal that has come to fruition, as well as become successful as a result of it *cough*Baldur's Gate 3*cough*.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Gortle wrote:
People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.
From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit.

...which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.

There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.

I imagine that it will, like most other edition changes have before it. It might also attract new players as well, however. The argument works both ways until we get publication confirmation.

IF WoTC was actually (admitting to) releasing a new edition (i.e., D&D 5.5), that might be true. They're trying to claim that it is still D&D 5E.

Right now, I'm not so sure.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.

But WoTC found, to their horror, that the sword had two edges. :)

If D&D 2024 lands with a thud, then a PF2R Strategy Guide like book is more likely then a whole new edition. It would likely be more useful too.

Even if it's not a new edition, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the marketing schemes went along the lines of "Didn't like how 5E played? This fixes all the things you didn't like about 5E!" and it would actually work to either bring people back into the system, or trick new people into thinking it's a newer, better game from the one previously. It's basically like every time Activision would release a new Call of Duty game; it will harken all the diehard grognards without question, but it may also entice old players who got bored/fed up with the system, and new ones alike. Unfortunately, I don't think TTRPGs have the same draw to them that MMOFPS games do in that respect.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Gortle wrote:
People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.
From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit.

...which is another excellent reason for Paizo to be staying the course right now... because if D&D 2024 alienates a large chunk of its playerbase, then PF2, as a mature but still thriving game, starts being really appealing as a place for people to jump to.

There's a reason that WotC tried to murder Paizo via OGL, after all.

I imagine that it will, like most other edition changes have before it. It might also attract new players as well, however. The argument works both ways until we get publication confirmation.

And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
If one of my players rolled against this snare and I said "Success! You lose your turn!", they would make me eat my dice.

Speaking as a GM who has enforced the Stunned rules as-worded, and having a Stunned condition come up during a player's turn, this very thing nearly happened.

The issue becomes that, if Stunned does not have the "can't act" clause, it is just Slowed with a different name, and last I checked, one of PF2's design goals is to eliminate redundancy like this, so I don't understand why Stunned still persists as a condition when the Slowed condition does everything the Stunned condition does, but better and more consistently.


Finoan wrote:

The more likely oversight is that Stunned can only be paid down with actions at the start of a creature's turn, not during their turn if they happen to get Stunned with a value during their turn.

There are plenty of table rulings that can be used for this - including running it by straight-up RAW. The RAW mechanics aren't unplayable.

Same goes with Slowed though; the only real difference is Stunned has the "can't act" clause, which immediately applies, whereas the condition removal is when your turn begins.


Verzen wrote:
The more dedications that exist the more "system mastery" comes into play. For new players it would absolutely be overwhelming to sift through all the bad dedications and try to find the diamond in the rough.

While that is true, a lot of new players will be messing around with the Beginner's Box, which has little or nothing to do with dedications. Even skipping that, keeping it to all of Core Rulebook/PC1, this is still a maximum of 12 or 13 class dedications, all with ability bonus requirements that need to be met. Not much sifting through for that, and there is even a section that gives "recommended" dedication synergies for primary classes to work with, giving newbies an idea of what they can expect each relevant dedication to do for them before they even dive into the specifics.


Verzen wrote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback books and I was VERY excited for new books to come in as I knew they would have new options for my favorite pet class. One of the reasons I loved PF1E so much was that every month there were new options, new ways to be creative, new synergies to think of. Nowadays though, in the past 5 years, there has been 1 new instinct for barbarian. Almost no class archetypes, and the ones that exist are straight garbage and downgrades (when class archetypes were literally my favorite part of PF1E), I rarely see support for older classes, I was excited for kineticist but my favorite element (void) will never be coming to PF2E. I highly doubt we will ever see a synthesis summoner either. From what it seems like to me, once a class is released, that class gets abandoned for the next "biggest thing" rinse and repeat. There's no more support, or at least what appears to be very little support, once a class comes out and this is a bit frustrating especially coming from the PF1E paradigm that we grew to love.

The fix: We need far more support released far more frequently for existing classes and make new classes that come out be rarer. I'd rather support what we do have than for new classes to try to fill niches that are already filled by what's currently available.

The issue I see at the end of the day is that we have classes no one actually plays because they are just subpar compared to what's already been released. I loved the idea of inventor, and I played it a few times, but do I know of anyone who still plays inventor? No. I rarely ever hear it mentioned.

We need classes that fill specific niches and then we need variations on how to support said niches. When we release new class after new class that tries to take up niches that already exist, those classes will just be forgotten about and no one will want to play them. I'd rather have archetypes people forget about than whole classes people forget about.

4) The Issue: Backgrounds and skill feats seem like a decent idea to help flesh out a character and give them more options, but in all honesty, these feel like you're 'restricting' backgrounds and the ability to RP a character rather than assisting. When we put backgrounds behind, say, stat blocks, I tend to look at what backgrounds my character can actually have so I dont fall behind in my party rather than any RP semblance of it.

The fix: Make backgrounds and skill feats actually mean something and have a bigger impact and dont make it so I cant select the background I want because it's behind some arbitrary stat increase. I've also heard people complain in a tongue in cheek way that they can't even "take a shit without taking the feat for it" when I tried to convince them to play PF2E.

5) The Issue: Stats are redundant and outdated at this point. In early D&D, stats made sense to help flesh out characters, but now I've noticed that when I play PF2E or D&D5E, the stats are the exact same all the time. Maximize my class stat, dump my bad stat. If all stats are now the same because i feel like my class can't function without maximizing my class stat, thats an issue.

The fix: Get rid of stats completely. It's an archaic system at this point that has become useless to gauge effectiveness and if you don't build appropriately, it can hurt you more than help you.

6) The Issue: In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game. You're just waiting around for the next combat so you can feel useful. Otherwise the sorcerer is in charge of doing all the RP.

The fix: Get rid of charisma as a stat. There shouldn't be a stat that gatekeeps being able to RP. Stop gate keeping the ability to RP efficiently because you aren't a certain class.

7) The Issue: Choices aren't meaningful enough. A lot of times I select certain choices and I'm just like, "Eh. I guess." rather than get excited for it.

The fix: Make each choice meaningful and impactful to the way the character is designed and works,

1. It depends on the dedication and what you're expecting to accomplish. Are there some dedications that are pretty bad in general and need fixing? Sure. I look at a large amount of dedications and go "Ugh, why would I ever pick this?" But are dedications as a whole bad to take? Absolutely not. Not every dedication has to be good for dedications to be valuable. Free Archetype is the most liked optional rule in the game for a reason. To me, I feel that dedications are in a good spot, in that they can compete for existing class features for a lot of classes, but don't have to if your character concept doesn't need it. And for those classes where you basically feel compelled to take a dedication (such as Druid and Champion), I find that is more because of bad class feat options than it is because of said dedications having good parity with the class.

2. Your math for proficiencies is relatively incorrect, and has a few misnomers to it; you seem to think that proficiencies scale at a rate of +3, when they are +2. So, in your Thaumaturge example, the Falcata is at-most no more than -4 from using a Martial weapon, and that is because Advanced weapons (in theory, anyway,) have a higher stat budget that you are paying for. Also keep in mind that dedications like Sentinel provide auto-scaling for armor proficiencies, and other dedications provide auto-scaling for other proficiencies (Acrobatics for Acrobat dedication, two-handed weapons for Mauler dedication, etc). You were correct with armor/weapon proficiency feats being traps in the Premaster, but the Remaster mostly fixes this to being a more viable option for casters. All they honestly need now is to just allow the proficiency scaling for martials as well (since the wording would already permit this to work and not give casters free Martial proficiency scaling), and it's golden, since Martials should still want to take these feats as well (maybe even moreso, to be honest). I just wish the class dedications also did this if they offered those bonuses (such as the Armor proficiency boost for Champions, Weapon proficiency boost for Fighters, etc), but the idea that there are no options at all seems debunked to me.

3. Just because a few books don't have new options for classes doesn't mean that they aren't trying to make new options for classes, just like how a new class not releasing with an old option doesn't mean that option will never be in the game. The devs have to carefully consider what they release, and make sure it's balanced among existing options (as well as isn't just a reskin of another existing option), otherwise we get releases like the Shifter in the end shelf life of PF1. While I can agree that most class archetypes aren't worthwhile, that is ultimately a design issue as they designed class archetypes more like bad dedications and not how they were originally designed in PF1, which is swapping existing features for other features, and nothing else. Other than this obvious issue that can honestly just be ignored (it's easy to ignore an entire ruleset, not so much a subset of options within said ruleset), there really isn't a problem here.

4. I don't know how you can't have backgrounds mean something more than what they already are; they tell you where your character comes from, what they did prior to adventuring, and functions as a core part of your character build in the form of stat boosts and skill training. Does it suck that you can't auto-scale the Lore without being a Gnome who takes the proper ancestry feat, or taking the Additional Lore feat for it? Sure. But that's largely cosmetic, and unless you are specifically building towards Lore skills, you aren't missing much compared to anyone else, especially if they also aren't investing in it.

5. I don't really see how this solution is going to be helpful, because at this point you are asking to play a completely different game entirely. Which is fine; if PF2 isn't for you, find a different game. But stats are a key part of this game's functionality, asking to just completely remove that with no fair replacement is absurd. It would be like removing most of the alphabet because people use certain letters all the time, and being restricted to weird letters, like Y, X, Z, Q, and J. If we did that, we'd get sentences like this: Jyzx, qyjx yx QZX!! I know what that says (for now; I'll probably forget later). Not many others are going to though, and I would imagine if somebody tried, they would either lose a lot of hair, or realize how dumb and nonsensical it is. It would be the same if we decided to just completely remove stats from the game.

6. You don't always need to have high Charisma to be good at social skills; this is what training in Diplomacy/Intimidation/Deception is meant to accomplish, so the concept of removing Charisma as an attribute is silly. Will you be the absolute best? No. But the argument that you can't participate in social encounters because you don't have high Charisma makes no sense if you at least have the skill training to maybe aid the Charisma person who is probably fully invested in this stuff, giving them a higher chance of success. In my opinion, not investing in those skills (and/)or those stats is basically telling the GM "I don't want to RP." And that's totally fine; just understand the consequences behind those decisions.

7. This depends on the option. For a lot of skill feats, I end up picking things just to pick things, since there are only a few "obvious skill trees" in the game, and the same might also be true for ancestry feats, depending on which ancestry I pick. Very rarely am I going to end up having a "meh" option for things like class feats (since I also have the option for dedications), or general feats (which I honestly think needs the more options for, but are essentially no-brainers depending on my character/build).

It also doesn't help that a fair amount of good skill feats are likewise locked behind dedications, further restricting the parity of the options being largely based on your build/role in the party, but I don't necessarily see a problem with this if the skill feat makes sense to be restricted to the archetype.


Errenor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Gaze effects aren't targeted effects any more than a Fireball is.
Yes, because as I understand mechanically they all are auras. That's the problem for the Pearl. Kind of, which is fixable by waving aside too restrictive wording of the item, which doesn't have much sense to keep.

I don't think the item is restrictive at all. The item is still pretty clear in what works and doesn't work with it based on its written execution; for it to be restrictive, it needs to be niche, and there are plenty of targeted mental effects, like Demoralize, Phantasmal Killer (or whatever the Remaster calls it now), etc. If the idea was that it needs to work against non-targeted effects as well, then it should have used a different word, or different phrasing entirely; that fact that it hasn't after several prints and a remaster would mean that the intent is pretty clear that it must be an effect specifically targeting you.

Just as well, if this item was worded in a way that a different kind of effect would work (such as a damaging effect), then it would still be clear as to what kinds of things would and wouldn't apply. Expanding this example, the item would work with Blazing Bolt, Thunderstrike, or even Force Barrage. But it would not work with a Lightning Bolt or Fireball. In this case, we still have pretty clear examples of what would work versus what would not, since targeting has specific rules, and it's not like the current wording doesn't have a clear response.


Gaze effects aren't targeted effects any more than a Fireball is.


shroudb wrote:

yes, I was obviously joking when I posted it.

...if we want to go strict RAW, it never mentions "cubes" it only mentions "squares", so you shouldn't worry about the 3rd dimension at all.

That's fair. But to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did try to make that argument, even if on the basis that they wrote down a value other than 5' on their character sheet for their height, and it works both ways, whether it's "I'm 8 feet tall, I should be able to reach creatures 10-15 feet in the air," or "I'm 3 feet tall, they can only reach me when they're 5 feet in the air (or hovering on the ground)."

Although this last part is somewhat reducto ad absurdum, the issue becomes that the game does point out that there may be instances where you would need to function in a three dimensional space. Otherwise, the rules wouldn't need to include a parenthetical about measuring in three dimensions if the concept is three dimensions was never meant to come up in the game. (And this isn't the only place where it discusses what to do when such a situation comes up.)


SuperParkourio wrote:

That bit about all-around vision is what I was trying to say. I was using it as a possible explanation for why two Huge creatures would have their size handicap their attempts to flank. Yes, even creatures without all-around vision can see in all directions.

The flanking rules are consistent with the cover rules in their treatment of the center of your space as the center of all the space you mechanically occupy.

I'm saying in the Invisible flanking example that the creature being flanked wouldn't be immune specifically to the flanking by being blissfully unaware that there is another creature adjacent to them. I don't know whether awareness is the in-universe explanation for flanking, though. It just says it's harder to defend yourself when flanked. Then again, the rule about all-around vision says such a creature is harder to distract, so maybe it is about awareness after all.

To me, I don't think the rules intended that to be the case; why should being larger mean you can't threaten a creature properly? It falls under TBTBT. "You are a threat based on your position, but if you grew in size, you would fail to be an opposing threat to the creature even though your position doesn't really change," sounds really, really stupid to me. I could extrapolate this further by arguing that you couldn't flank in a 3D space unless everyone is on the same elevation, which is equally dumb in my opinion, but I can definitely see the RAW supporting this. **EDIT** I also forgot to consider that, since the Huge creatures are 15 feet tall, that means their line would also start at an elevation of 7.5 feet, meaning they could never flank creatures that are more than 1 size smaller than them unless they start at a lower elevation, further enforcing the TBTBT argument.

They are not. Flank rules require that you are on opposite sides of a creature, and that you can draw a line passing through the entire space. (You wouldn't technically need to be directly opposite the creature either, in certain circumstances, as long as the line goes from one edge to the opposite edge.) Cover rules, on the other hand, only require that the attack passes through a given creature's/object's space. Even if only partially, it still counts.

The issue becomes that Flanking requires both conditions; you need to be aware of your attackers, and you need to be threatened by your attackers in melee combat. If there are two invisible creatures that flank me, and I fail to perceive them, they are Unnoticed. Even if I am aware that there are Invisible creatures, but I do not know their spaces, they are Undetected. Because I do not perceive them in either case, I have no reason to protect against them, making me Off-Guard to both. If both entities attack me while flanking, and break their Invisibility, I am now Flanked, because now I perceive the attackers, and they physically threaten me based on their position. Invisibility trumps Flanking by default unless I have an ability/action that lets me see Invisible creatures.


shroudb wrote:
Finoan wrote:

I have been avoiding this thread all day.

I finally got bored enough to open it.

I now regret doing so.

Please try to remember that the game rules are only an approximation of reality that we use to tell stories with. Not source code for a reality simulator.

The purpose of having formal game rules is to prevent the escalating randomness of 'pass the narrator baton' style campfire storytelling games. Not to exhaustively limit the story itself.

Whaaaaaat? You want to tell me my characters are NOT exactly 5x5x5 feet tall, wide, and thick respectively?!

To be fair, mechanically, that would seem to be the case, based on this entry in regards to Size, Space, and Reach.

Size, Space, and Reach wrote:
The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature's space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot by 10-foot space, or 4 squares on the grid. (If you need to measure in three dimensions, their space is also 10 feet high.)

Extrapolating the parenthetical, a Medium creature filling a 5x5 foot space would likewise be 5x5x5 in a three dimensional grid, should the rules require it. As for the argument of "What about 6-8 foot tall creatures?" I would refer to the "What about 3-4 foot tall creatures?" argument, since it's basically the same thing except in reverse. Keeping it both simple and consistent between creatures of all varying sizes and shapes is probably the best way to go about this kind of thing, since sizes in this game aren't really meant to be that finite. (There is also the whole High Jump/Long Jump issue, but that is for another thread.)

As a GM, I would really only enforce the 5x5x5 rule for Reach purposes in combat, since enforcing it for other purposes is either already done in their own special rules (such as squeezing), or is already in GM FIAT territory anyway, in which case I probably would care less what the GM decides to rule in favor of.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.

The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.

The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.
I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or perhaps they could say "You feel...

All-around Vision is basically a strictly mechanical thing, since it's description doesn't add anything special compared to what the mechanics already permit us to do. If you are in an open field of combat, you can see all of the combatants and the actions they are taking; All-around Vision isn't required for this, whereas thematically it should be. An argument could be that you are constantly turning your head/twisting your body, but it likewise falls apart if you are Restrained, Paralyzed, Petrified, etc.

The diagram refers that you are on opposite sides of a large creature and that the line goes through the entire space of the creature; it also doesn't have examples of large creatures flanking with other large creatures, so it's not exactly as conclusive as you make it out to be. I don't have a Core available, and Nethys somehow can't reference Reach/Size rules with a search, so I'll call it a wash at this point.

How is it not? To defend against a threat you have to be aware the threat is there; this is why characters are automatically Off-Guard to Undetected/Unnoticed creatures, and why Invisibility is a common way to constantly have Off-Guard targets, because they don't know where the attacks precisely are coming from.

The only way such a creature could cause flanking or ignore the Off-Guard condition imposed by the Invisible creature is if the Invisible creature is merely Hidden/Concealed by the target, which requires Seek actions or a See the Unseen spell.


Errenor wrote:
Easl wrote:
AIUI, Howl of the Wild is going to introduce many tiny playable ancestries, in the form of awakened animals. Be aware that if you go down this logic road, they're all going to be unflankable by medium opponents.
Flanking of and by tiny creatures is almost completely undetermined anyway. Can you flank tiny creature in your ally's space with that ally? Can 0 reach tiny creatures flank at all? They can't be in opposite spaces to any creature. How can tiny creatures flank each other?

Tiny creatures cannot provide or benefit from flanking unless they are also wielding a Reach weapon.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Grankless wrote:
(Also, in-fiction, it doesn't make much sense.)
Well, the reason flanking is a threat is because you theoretically can't look at both enemies at once. So if they're so big that you actually can, I guess it could make sense that they wouldn't benefit from flanking.

Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.

Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.

Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue with Necromancy as an Arcane school is that Necromancy is mechanically rooted in Divine tradition. To identify Undead (or other similar creatures), you need a Religion skill, not an Arcana skill. Sure, there is Additional Lore (Necromancy), but that's honestly not very helpful, nor is it baseline to the school.

Also, all the other Undead/Necromancy-based options (Sorcerer Bloodline, Summoner Eidolon, etc.) are all Divine. Not Arcane. They have more/stronger spells related to Necromancy on top of it all, meaning Arcane spellcasters are at a serious disadvantage by comparison.

Honestly, the whole "Arcane Necromancy" trope doesn't really fit well with Golarion mechanically (and by consequence, narratively), and is ultimately a holdover of both PF1 as well as classic tropes that seemingly don't function well here anymore. Even with Tar-Baphon and Geb, they are able to do so because the setting/plot lets them, and are ultimately anomalous artifacts of what is typical within the setting/mechanics.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You actually don't need two muses because there is no "combo." You either take Lingering to extend your standard composition, or Martial Performance to extend your Fortissimo; they are mutually exclusive. Yes, Martial Performance can work on Lingering Composition, but most encounters are over for that to matter. The argument would make more sense if you utilized a Harmonize while Hasted to keep two different compositions somewhat extended, but that is a whole different animal compared to what the discussion is about.

If Martial Performance is pointless in the face of Lingering Composition, then Lingering Composition's own critical effect is similarly pointless.

Also, Lingering Composition does, at times, fail. So Martial Performance can be useful as a backup there.

They're not anything like as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be.

Never said pointless, merely that it's not really necessary given the average encounter duration is 3 rounds. It might be helpful for those longer/tougher fights, but not absolutely necessary. If you have a dead feat you want to do something with, it's there. But if you would rather invest in archetypes or pick up a different feat, you probably won't be worse off if you invested in those instead.

Yes, it can fail, but the odds of it failing compared to Martial Performance is significantly less. Comparing your Performance modifier to the (what used to be) Standard Level DC, it is significantly more in your favor compared to a Strike modifier against Enemy ACs. And if it does fail, you didn't waste an action, nor a focus point, for it. You can then still cast a spell that round, and you can try it again next round. Compared to if you fail a Strike, where you both waste the action (which happens after you spend an action casting the composition), as well as lower your MAP, and locks you out of most every spell for that round.

The "mutually exclusive" part is more along the lines of not being able to combine Lingering Composition and Fortissimo. But even if it is based on requirements, it is all just one class feat away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:

I totally disagree that medium armor is a trap option. The difference between medium and heavy armor is literally 1 AC point, and unless you are a champion or take sentinel, the armor specialization bonuses literally don't matter. Not to mention that medium armor specialization bonuses aren't bad either, worse than heavy, but not bad either.

Medium armor also allows you to get your Dex at +1 and forget it exists for the rest of the campaign, while heavy armor if you aren't proficient with it already takes away a feat you could have used for something else. In all honesty, I feel heavy armor for certain classes is more trouble than its worth really.

Bulwark says hi.

You can say that you don't need Dexterity as a stat with Medium armor, up until the point you get absolutely destroyed by a breath weapon or a spell.

Speaking as an ex high level champion, this was precisely how I got destroyed in a lot of combats. Neglecting Reflex Saves is not much different than neglecting HP, since there is usually a correlation between the two.


Powers128 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.

It's more than that.

Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.

But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.

Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.

You just laid out the use cases for both compositions but you still don't have a good point against martial performance. At the end of the day, it's not an action tax, it's saving you actions and focus points. You break-even when you fail to trigger martial performance.

Have some sure strikes. That along with your +2 from fortissimo makes it reliable when you need it to.

The better argument would be that fortissimo is relatively late and you need two muses to make the combo work. Before that,...

It is not saving you as many actions as Lingering Performance would (maybe 2 actions versus 3 or more likely 4, over the course of 5 rounds), and unless you have a regular need for Focus Points for things outside of your class, the idea that they are competing for the same resource is nonsense, as odds are, you use Lingering Composition for easier fights/winding down encounters, and you use Fortissimo for harder/boss fights. Having seen both of these used

You actually don't need two muses because there is no "combo." You either take Lingering to extend your standard composition, or Martial Performance to extend your Fortissimo; they are mutually exclusive. Yes, Martial Performance can work on Lingering Composition, but most encounters are over for that to matter. The argument would make more sense if you utilized a Harmonize while Hasted to keep two different compositions somewhat extended, but that is a whole different animal compared to what the discussion is about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype.
The armour specialization benefits of medium armour armour are often better. It is lighter on the dex requirements. It is a valid alternative.

Who gets armor specialization?

-Champions (and their dedication tree)
-Fighters
-some Sentinels

That is it. Two classes and a couple archetypes which it is feat-locked for. For what, up to 4 less damage on certain types of strikes? Hardly groundbreaking or a significant balance point compared to most other things you get. Justifying the feat expenditure is very hard since it isn't available until higher level anyway, and class feats are usually more important the higher level you get, especially as a martial.

As for the whole "less Dex" argument, you are suggesting it is worthwhile to constantly critically fail Reflex Saves to maintain the same semblance of AC that a light armored character has. Whereas you could just bump Dexterity like everyone else and not be crippled when a Fireball comes your way. And there is no Bulwark trait to handicap that choice with Medium Armor.


Powers128 wrote:
Seems your main issue really is just fortissimo vs lingering. It's already a decent contest between the two, but martial performance definitely is the best use case for it. It's really nice synergy.

It's more than that.

Fortissimo is still good for those one-round boss nukes after setting up with buffs like Haste, True Target, et. al., and debuffs like Synesthesia, Fear, etc. Having seen this in action against boss fights, it's definitely an awesome ability, and obviously the synergy with Martial Performance is there.

But Martial Performance has an inherent action cost to it (Strikes) that aren't guaranteed to work (such as if you miss, either because of bad rolls, high AC, or risking being disrupted/dropped via reactions). It's not like a Spellshape effect or a Spell-Storing weapon cast, where it's automatic, or able to trigger under circumstances of your choosing. With Haste, it's less of a sting, but that's not usually commonplace until the higher levels.

Lingering Performance, while it doesn't have that good burst Fortissimo does, is still solid for constant spellcasting, and since not every fight is a boss fight, it is practical for most combats. Instead of having to cast a spell/cantrip every other round if you're lucky, you're able to cast a spell every round. Bards are a spellcaster first, martial second. Even if they are the most potent "martial" spellcaster, they are, at the end of the day, primarily, a spellcaster.


Captain Morgan wrote:

With Courageous Anthem going, a bard with 16 strength from levels 1-4 has the same to hit bonus as an unbuffed martial. At level 5 the martial pulls ahead, but your first strike is still more accurate than their -5 strike. Lack of durability is a problem but you can get medium and heavy armor through feats, and reach weapons with an attached banner are good mechanically and narratively. The ideal use of your turn will probably remain casting a top level slot + Courageous Anthem, but you shouldn't always plan for your ideal turn.

If you were going to resort to cantrips, your weapon probably hits harder, especially when you factor in flanking and item bonuses. If you need to reposition, demoralize, recall knowledge, or anything else you won't be be able to 2 action cast + 1 action composition, so you can decide if it is better to launch a 2 action spell or strike and keep the buff train rolling.

Melee casters will never be THAT good at melee, and should always remember their spells are their strongest contributions... But they have more options than regular casters or regular martials, and more options can always prove useful when the tactical situation calls for deviation from your standard routine.

I am aware of the math but it's not strictly because of the math that I am advocating against it. Also, medium armor is a trap all in itself, and really only serves as a gateway to heavy armor proficiency via a feat or class archetype. And Reach weapons are only effective against medium-sized foes, which aren't very common in the higher levels. Even unarmored is less of a trap by comparison, which is shenanigans. I don't know what banners do though, are they a specific magic item?

Depends on your weapon. If you're sticking to the safest option, a Shortbow, at around 7th level, a Telekinetic Projectile is doing 5D6, whereas a Shortbow is doing maybe 2D6+2. Yes, there is Deadly, but an average of 5 damage doesn't make up for lacking an additional dice, and it's only triggering (likely) on a 20, meaning its DPR coefficient isn't affecting very much. Even sticking to 5th level (a level where you are assumed to have a Striking weapon), you're still doing 4D6 damage. Just as well, it doesn't even have to be Telekinetic Projectile; using a Spellheart with another save-based Cantrip, you're adding on what is essentially free damage after a Strike (doubly true with Haste rolling around). There is also Phase Bolt, a cantrip that promotes accuracy against shielding foes, albeit slightly less damaging at this point (5D4).

This is less so with, say, a Halberd, but you are paying for that damage in other ways, such as No Dex/Wis/Con (the game assumes you do not compromise those attributes), or risking triggering reactions (which becomes all the more threatening and prevalent in the higher levels), and if you're going that route, you should just be wielding D12 weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

Is anyone suggesting that they intend to take this feat without warrior muse? Nethys seems to be suggesting that warrior muse is a requirement here.

But, really, if you're talking about this feat and then complaining that it means that you have to make strikes, you're looking at it wrong. The point of this feat is that it's for bards who already want to make strikes. If you are not already a bard who wants this thing, then this feat is not for you. If you are already that kind of bard, then it's a nice little action efficiency booster on the martial strikes you were already going to make.

Pointless distinction is pointless to make.

Bards making strikes isn't a problem. Basing your spellcasting/buffing efficiency on making strikes is where the problem is, since you can very easily have several rounds where you do nothing but apply a song, whiff, and move or do nothing with your third action, all because your strike rolls are garbage or you're up against a really high AC foe.


Powers128 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Powers128 wrote:

Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.

Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.

That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.

The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.

When using fortissimo with courageous anthem, you've got a +2 to the strike you need to land on a success and +3 on a crit, so you're more likely to hit something than not unless it's a boss. I don't think the math really screws you over with the combo.

I don't know how much harder or easier it will be with the new DC calculations, but I do know that an optimized Bard will only critically succeed on 20% of those checks at the highest level, with it being only more difficult (on average) as levels get lower.

Just as well, it's less about the math and more about the probabilities of failing. Even if the odds of succeeding any of those checks are equal, the latter combo requires making two checks (meaning two potentially bad rolls), whereas the former requires only one, and isn't tied to action or MAP penalty, and it's not like Bards are spending their focus points on anything else innately.


Sanityfaerie wrote:

So... the things I perceive.

- the option of using a ranged weapon is very much there.
- It's... kind of a freebie? Like, you fire off the composition, you take your shot, and if it hits, great - you've got another round. If it doesn't, then that's a bit sad, but it's not that big a deal.
- This works that much better with martials who are just dipping bard.
- It *stacks* with lingering composition. If you manage to land any strikes at all while the composition is lingering, then you effectively just upgraded that lingering roll to a crit. That's not terrible.
- You know, sometimes you're going to *fail* that lingering composition roll. This feat helps you out there, too.

So the only real downside on it is if you weren't already planning on making strikes... and if you weren't already planning on making strikes, then you really ought to be picking a different muse.

Now, there's an entirely different question of "if I have this already, do I really need lingering composition?". The answer to that is going to depend on a lot of things - among them how much you value the feat you might save by not taking lingering, and/or how much you value the focus point you might save by not casting it.

Never said you couldn't use a range weapon. It is probably the safest and most consistent option for you. All I am saying is that against high resistance enemies it will also be the weapon most likely to not deal any damage as a result.

It is a freebie depending on your perspective. If you start with it, then yes. But if you have to compare it with similar existing options, then it is honestly a matter of what you want to invest in (first), and what it does if you do so.

The issue with missing a Strike is that now I cannot supplement my next turn, or my current turn with a spell, either a buff, debuff, heal, or occasional damaging effect, because that is a wasted action that could have been used with another action to cast a spell. Even a Cantrip would be helpful. Lingering Composition doesn't have the issue of wasting either focus spells (which should be a real concern in my opinion) or actions, meaning from an optimized resources standpoint, it is better. Now, it is less painful if you are Hasted, but you need to buff with that first, and it's not going to always go on you until around 13th level.

It does, but then you are planning more for a late game approach, which this is better for; and given that you can just dip while selecting another Muse, starting out with it seems more terrible than just taking it later.

Sometimes failure does happen, but doing things and taking things to mitigate that failure is helpful (such as Assurance, though with the DC changes, it is probably less reliable now). It is far easier to succeed a Lingering Composition check than a Strike most of the time.


Powers128 wrote:

Seems pretty good with a bow and fortissimo composition. A little weird that the performance check DC would be related to your allies will DCs though. I don't like that your allies having better stats makes your job harder.

Getting a crit and applying +3 to 2 rounds sounds like a lot of fun though.

That is an interesting change, since last I checked, it was based off of a Standard/Hard Class DC for the highest affected character's level. Nor does it make sense since it means that if you somehow don't impress the most powerful person there that you also don't impress the less powerful people. But until it is Errata'd, I can assume it was a deliberate change.

The thing is that you need to both critically succeed a high Will DC with a Performance check, expend a focus point, while also dealing damage with a (presumably) successful Strike. It is great when it works. It is a bummer when it doesn't. The math is more against you here than if you simply used Lingering Composition. Less yields, yes, but also less chances of success.


Finoan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lots of stuff regarding spellcasting-centric Bard builds.
Remember, this is a question about Warrior Muse Bards. The ones that are going to be built for a more martial style of play. Basically, PF2's equivalent to Skald.

Alreary know that, which doesn't change my response; Warrior Muse Bards don't get extra HP or proficiencies or attributes for being Warrior Muse Bards, which are things that are necessary to being a martial-type character. D8/Light Armor isn't going to last very long without ancillary survivability options (of which the Warrior Muse Bard doesn't innately get).

Really, they are like a Magus and a Swashbuckler mixed together, in probably the worst way possible IMO. They have the triggering spellcasting with D8 HP (Magus), mixed with a skill-based action cost effect that is more unreliable than existing options without much gain and being restricted in their weapons and armor (Swashbuckler).

And having ran a couple of these characters in practice (and having seen a successful "Warrior Muse" Bard), I find that I was better off sticking to the Lingering Composition and supplementing my attacks with spellcasting than the other way around, since it was both more reliable and more effective.

1 to 50 of 11,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>